"Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
"No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us. By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him.
"Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love. We love Him because He first loved us.
"If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also."
1 John 4:7-21
How difficult it is to love! How easy it is to know we have to do it, to say it. But it is next to impossible to do it. John gives a good reminder that inspires and defines for us what life we should be living. If we chase after anything, it should be love. For God is love. This is the contemplation on the eve of 2009.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Showing posts with label Intelligent Design. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Intelligent Design. Show all posts
Friday, January 01, 2010
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Agnostic Brain, Biased Mind - what does the FFA do?
Many neuroimaging studies have repeatedly found an area in the human brain that seems to be involved in processing visual faces. This area located in the fusiform gyri in humans, has been affectionately named the fusiform face area or FFA. The FFA is most active when we are looking at pictures of faces, and almost non-responsive to other types of visual items such as objects, houses, scenes, random textures, or a blank screen. Prosopagnosics, who are not able to recognize faces, but are still able to detect the presence of a face and also show no difficulty in processing other types of visual stimuli, have been shown to involve less FFA activity. Even more compelling, patients with lateral occipital lobes lesioned lose some form of object-processing, but show intact face processing. And yet other patients with lesions that have affected the FFA, have problems with face processing (acquired prosopagnosia) but intact processing for other stimuli. The evidence strongly suggests that there is something special about faces, and something about the FFA that deals with this specialization.The debate regarding the FFA pertain to whether it is the only region or even a critical region that does face processing. Some labs have shown that face processing information can be found in other regions of the brain that are not the FFA. Yet some labs have shown that the FFA is recruited to process fine levels of category distinctions. For example, bird and car experts have been shown to engage some level of FFA activity when processing these stimuli compared to novices. These findings suggest that the FFA is not processing faces per se, but visual representations that have come to require high-levels of fine discrimination through experience, of which faces are the best example of this currently.
I suggest that a more flexible definition is called for when thinking about the FFA and its role in processing visual information. Certainly, it does seem that faces occupy a special place in human experiences. On the other hand, it is difficult to explain why there would be a brain region that codes for faces and faces along based simply based on genetic or biologically determined causes.
In terms of a neural network, if indeed the brain consists of many different sub-types of neural networks that conglomerate to form one large complex network, the FFA is a sub-network specialized to perform a specific operation that is maximized and specialized (trained) for a specific information domain - faces. This or these specific operation(s) could involve identification, discrimination, recognition, or all of these, or even a yet unknown operation. Certainly neural network non-linearities can surprise us! Moreover, these operations have been tuned for a specialized class of stimuli that consists of eyes, nose, mouths, and other visual characteristics of faces when occurring together as a whole (whether from external input, or through internal imagination or retrieval).
What this means is that if you were able to "remove" the FFA, and plug it into a computer so that you can feed this FFA network with inputs and measure its outputs, you could theoretically feed it anything, but the information would be most meaningful or organized when the inputs correspond to information about a face. Of course, this would require us to know what is the language of the input to perform such an experiment.
Other types of inputs may elicit some level of meaningful output of the FFA. Neural network do that. Yet other types may elicit nothing at all. This does not necessarily mean that the FFA outputs from such inputs is useless, nor does necessarily mean that it is used! It is just output. What higher-level brain mechanisms do with the output depends on the task, and how the brain is wired to treat outputs from its sub-networks. It may be ignored, or it may actually incorporate relevant information. That is, the FFA is agnostic to the incoming information. It does not care. It will process it anyway. But other regions decide whether what is it saying needs to be incorporated or not, or if it should be further modified even.
Such a view would reconcile why the FFA is special for faces, yet seems to be carrying some information about other stimuli. It would also be consistent with the idea that information about faces is certainly also available to a certain extent in non-FFA regions, the same principles being applied to these other sub-networks. It would also be consistent with how self-organizing behavior in neural network (see von der Malsburg article [link]) can lead to a consistent topology across every person that processes a particular stimulus in a particular way in a particular spatial location.
This is probably not a new idea, but needs to be clarified in the literature I think.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Monday, October 15, 2007
Models that Account for the Same Data: The God Account
In reference to my post about models that account for the same data, one possible explanation for why there are so many religions is because of the principal component function in our minds (refer to the post). Here, we have the same data. But we refer to different dimensions to explain the data. Sometimes even omitting certain dimensions. Such omissions would lead to certain biases in explaining the data. And to the extent that the bias is critical (that is, to the extent that these biases are necessary for accounting for the truth), our explanation of the data will be off from reality. To the extent that the biases are not critical, we will not be off from reality.
The most accurate model therefore, is the one that most closely matches reality. Yet how are we to know reality? This is the problem of knowledge. Can we truly ever know anything since we are limited to our senses, five in all, and perhaps a little more. We have 5 dimensional information, and perhaps a little more. What if the data were more multi-dimensioned than our senses can experience? Even if we had secondary ways of measuring data from dimensions beyond our perception, our experience is still bounded by our perceptions. Thus, it appears that to ascertain reality, we need to transcend our 5 senses. But even then, how many senses or dimensions should we transcend? In theory, infinite. Which is of course, flatly impossible.
Therefore, the question is not about empirical proof anymore. We realize empiricism, limited to 5 senses, cannot ascertain reality. Really, all empiricism does is to come up with models to account for data within the 5 senses. Which has no consequence on reality itself.
We are back to the question: How can we know what reality is?
The most accurate model therefore, is the one that most closely matches reality. Yet how are we to know reality? This is the problem of knowledge. Can we truly ever know anything since we are limited to our senses, five in all, and perhaps a little more. We have 5 dimensional information, and perhaps a little more. What if the data were more multi-dimensioned than our senses can experience? Even if we had secondary ways of measuring data from dimensions beyond our perception, our experience is still bounded by our perceptions. Thus, it appears that to ascertain reality, we need to transcend our 5 senses. But even then, how many senses or dimensions should we transcend? In theory, infinite. Which is of course, flatly impossible.
Therefore, the question is not about empirical proof anymore. We realize empiricism, limited to 5 senses, cannot ascertain reality. Really, all empiricism does is to come up with models to account for data within the 5 senses. Which has no consequence on reality itself.
We are back to the question: How can we know what reality is?
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Feedback about recent heated Intelligent Design debate
Here are some recent articles in CNN about the science and intelligent design debate. The first article [download] considers a scientists reasons for why he believes in God as a scientist. The second article [download] talks about the possibility that religion is simply a matter of evolutionary necessity.
Recently, this author has heard about some incidences which reflected a bias of non-religious scientists who think that religious people do not consider what the evidence is suggesting. This comment arose out of a scientific discussion on how our personal beliefs do affect the way we interpret objective data.
I think I will have to comment on this as I feel that the discussion has a very crucial point, and the remark made by non-religious scientists may not be a fair one. Firstly, I do not think that the discussion point was wrong. In fact, I agree with it. Beliefs most certainly bias our interpretation of the world, and of reality. In fact, that is fundamentally what belief is. It is attributing meaning and cause to what we see around us. In this sense, the idea that belief is a psychological state innate in human beings (since we do not seem to see animals that have beliefs) out of evolutionary necessity. One theory is that if we do not have something to believe in, human beings would not function, we would in fact go crazy. Thus, to resolve this state, we developed religion.
This might be true, it might not. Scientifically, we cannot prove that it does not exist. No science can prove that anything does not exist. I think scientists have to conceed to this. This author is a scientist too, and I think there is no reasonable argument to suggest that science can ever get past this problem of proving non-existence, at least with current empirical methods. Similarly, science cannot prove the non-existence of God.
But back to religion as an evolutionary outcome. If in fact this is true, it says nothing about whether God is real. Just because we think our ideas of God are a result of our neurons firing, which are a result of our DNA "directing" our neurons to wire in a certain way, that results in this "feeling" or state of thinking there is a God, these do not have bearing on whether God exists or not. If God exists, he exists whether I think he does or not, he exists whether my thoughts about his existence arise out of a reflection of truth or if they arise due to pure chance.
That being said, religious people, specifically Christians, do not necessarily disagree with the existence of evolution. In theory, God could implement evolution as his way things should work? Is it not also a theory that he did not? What I mean is, these are theories, not facts. And science has yet to show that it can prove that evolution = no God.
So, in sum, we all belief something. For the non-religious scientist, it is simply that they believe that all they can observe has no intelligent cause. For the religious scientist, we also need to look at the objective evidence that there is intelligent cause for everything we see. No one is spared this burden. And surely, which side we are on, will bias the way we see thing. The point is not to say the other side believes what they do because they are not objective. The point is to recognize how we ourselves are biased, and how others might have different biases, and consider the data together.
If God exists, then the data will show it, if indeed this method can show it. If he does not, then the data will show it too, if this method permits, however, we know that this method cannot show that something does not exist. So perhaps we should be thinking if there is ever any way to show that something does not exist?
Recently, this author has heard about some incidences which reflected a bias of non-religious scientists who think that religious people do not consider what the evidence is suggesting. This comment arose out of a scientific discussion on how our personal beliefs do affect the way we interpret objective data.
I think I will have to comment on this as I feel that the discussion has a very crucial point, and the remark made by non-religious scientists may not be a fair one. Firstly, I do not think that the discussion point was wrong. In fact, I agree with it. Beliefs most certainly bias our interpretation of the world, and of reality. In fact, that is fundamentally what belief is. It is attributing meaning and cause to what we see around us. In this sense, the idea that belief is a psychological state innate in human beings (since we do not seem to see animals that have beliefs) out of evolutionary necessity. One theory is that if we do not have something to believe in, human beings would not function, we would in fact go crazy. Thus, to resolve this state, we developed religion.
This might be true, it might not. Scientifically, we cannot prove that it does not exist. No science can prove that anything does not exist. I think scientists have to conceed to this. This author is a scientist too, and I think there is no reasonable argument to suggest that science can ever get past this problem of proving non-existence, at least with current empirical methods. Similarly, science cannot prove the non-existence of God.
But back to religion as an evolutionary outcome. If in fact this is true, it says nothing about whether God is real. Just because we think our ideas of God are a result of our neurons firing, which are a result of our DNA "directing" our neurons to wire in a certain way, that results in this "feeling" or state of thinking there is a God, these do not have bearing on whether God exists or not. If God exists, he exists whether I think he does or not, he exists whether my thoughts about his existence arise out of a reflection of truth or if they arise due to pure chance.
That being said, religious people, specifically Christians, do not necessarily disagree with the existence of evolution. In theory, God could implement evolution as his way things should work? Is it not also a theory that he did not? What I mean is, these are theories, not facts. And science has yet to show that it can prove that evolution = no God.
So, in sum, we all belief something. For the non-religious scientist, it is simply that they believe that all they can observe has no intelligent cause. For the religious scientist, we also need to look at the objective evidence that there is intelligent cause for everything we see. No one is spared this burden. And surely, which side we are on, will bias the way we see thing. The point is not to say the other side believes what they do because they are not objective. The point is to recognize how we ourselves are biased, and how others might have different biases, and consider the data together.
If God exists, then the data will show it, if indeed this method can show it. If he does not, then the data will show it too, if this method permits, however, we know that this method cannot show that something does not exist. So perhaps we should be thinking if there is ever any way to show that something does not exist?
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Science and Intelligent Design I
One debate that is current is that of the existence of Intelligent Design. There are two basic camps. On one side, people believe in a God who started it all. On the other, people claim that there is no such thing, and things are simply the expression of physical laws that govern space and time. People from both camps can get quite heated and emotional argueing for each case. But I don't see why they should. When dealing with this matter, it is of utmost importance that one keep personal emotions and preferences and predispositions out of the arguments. One MUST sit down and cooly think through with reason the merits and pitfalls of either accounts of life as we know it.
I prefer to think of this matter in this way. First, how can we think about things or argue about the matter at hand? Here, we have to assume one thing. That anything which considers anything, and anything which communicates anything, must do so within the boundaries of logic. That is, if my opponent were to form conclusions from what I say that did not follow from prior premises, then there is no way to proceed, because the arguments would be arbitrary. Anything goes, and therefore there is no argument, no final goal for a truth. So, we must debate this within the confines of logic, or insofar as it is necessary, inference.
Second, are things real? Or is everything we experience part of a dream, or non-substantial, and thus inconsequential? Descarte had a brilliant answer. Cogito ergo sum. I think therefore I am. He approached the problem by doubting everything. But in the end, he realized that no matter how hard he tried, there was one inescapable truth (yes, there is apparently such a thing), that he could not doubt that he was doubting. It was impossible to think of such a state since to doubt that one was doubting, one would in fact be doubting, and end up concluding that if anything ever existed, it would be doubt. And to doubt, is to think, and to think, requires a thinker. Hence, cogito ergo sum. So, the thinker exists. And if a thinker exists, something exists.
More to come...
I prefer to think of this matter in this way. First, how can we think about things or argue about the matter at hand? Here, we have to assume one thing. That anything which considers anything, and anything which communicates anything, must do so within the boundaries of logic. That is, if my opponent were to form conclusions from what I say that did not follow from prior premises, then there is no way to proceed, because the arguments would be arbitrary. Anything goes, and therefore there is no argument, no final goal for a truth. So, we must debate this within the confines of logic, or insofar as it is necessary, inference.
Second, are things real? Or is everything we experience part of a dream, or non-substantial, and thus inconsequential? Descarte had a brilliant answer. Cogito ergo sum. I think therefore I am. He approached the problem by doubting everything. But in the end, he realized that no matter how hard he tried, there was one inescapable truth (yes, there is apparently such a thing), that he could not doubt that he was doubting. It was impossible to think of such a state since to doubt that one was doubting, one would in fact be doubting, and end up concluding that if anything ever existed, it would be doubt. And to doubt, is to think, and to think, requires a thinker. Hence, cogito ergo sum. So, the thinker exists. And if a thinker exists, something exists.
More to come...
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Defending science or religion with passion?
Here is a rather interesting article in the New York Times today about some debates about the influence of science and religion in society [download pdf]. As there are already many opinions, I do not wish to add "just" another one. Instead, I would like to plead with the scientific community as well as the religious community, if you are reading this. Please be mindful to consider the nature of your arguments, whether they stem from the self, or truly from a consideration of what can be known about the truth. Because what is at stake is not merely just who is right or wrong. What is at stake here, is your life, and the lives of others.
Consider this. If those who reject the idea of God are correct, then there is no God. If there is no God, there is no need to live according to what God says. If so, for some of us, we may find value in other things as our meaning in life (if that were possible without appealing to God). Some of us may feel that we no longer suffer under the guilt of possible judgment under God. Some of us may feel that there is no difference. IF there is no God.
If there is a God, however, then the question becomes, who is this God? And what does that mean for us? Let us assume there is a God, and this God is the Judeo-Christian God (we could pick other examples, but let us just assume this one for argument's sake). If the Judeo-Christian God exists, then, those who reject His existence have much to fear indeed! For He says that those who do not believe, there will be a cost. Some of us may not be willing to pay that cost.
Therefore, I say, consider carefully the nature of your arguments. Lay aside anything that might cloud your thinking and respect your fields of study, do not be a disgrace to it, do not disgrace yourself by failure to consider the possibility of your own lack of knowledge and understanding. Because your opinion, and the facts, are not the only things at stake.
Consider this. If those who reject the idea of God are correct, then there is no God. If there is no God, there is no need to live according to what God says. If so, for some of us, we may find value in other things as our meaning in life (if that were possible without appealing to God). Some of us may feel that we no longer suffer under the guilt of possible judgment under God. Some of us may feel that there is no difference. IF there is no God.
If there is a God, however, then the question becomes, who is this God? And what does that mean for us? Let us assume there is a God, and this God is the Judeo-Christian God (we could pick other examples, but let us just assume this one for argument's sake). If the Judeo-Christian God exists, then, those who reject His existence have much to fear indeed! For He says that those who do not believe, there will be a cost. Some of us may not be willing to pay that cost.
Therefore, I say, consider carefully the nature of your arguments. Lay aside anything that might cloud your thinking and respect your fields of study, do not be a disgrace to it, do not disgrace yourself by failure to consider the possibility of your own lack of knowledge and understanding. Because your opinion, and the facts, are not the only things at stake.
Monday, May 08, 2006
Science and Intelligent Design II
If the thinker exists, then something exists. Which leads to the question of how something, how anything, got here in the first place. We can assume that either things came about from nothing, or that things have always been, or that things came about from something else. Lets look at these three possibilities.
The idea that things come about from nothing is at once contradictory. Because nothing, by definition, leads to more nothingness, and it cannot have something nor can it ever lead to something. A vacuum is the most physical example of nothingness we can perceive, yet that is not really true nothingness....a vacuum still exists in a space. However, it will suffice for an illustration. A vacuum has nothing in it. And no matter if you leave that vacuum for trillions of years, it will never produce anything. The same extends to true nothingness where even space does not exist. Here, we face the well known problem of ex nihilo, something from nothing. Which leads us to the next possibility.
Something has always been. There has never been a time when there was nothing. If we are willing to let go of the idea that there was a point when there was absolutely and totally nothing, then this is a plausible state of affairs. The next question is has the something we know now always been the same. Did it change? Or has it remained substantially the same throughout all time?
From our senses, we perceive that there are things that change and there are things that do not. The position of the planets relative to each other changes. The pattern of activity and behavior in people and animals changes every minute. Even a seemingly stable piece of metal consists of atoms and electrons that are constantly in a state of flux and motion. However, the forces that hold the planets together act in a predictable manner. The objective fact that people performed certained behaviors in the past remains unchanged, and is changed insofar as our subjective understanding is concerned. The fact that if you cool the metal to the point of 0 kelvins, all atomic motion stops, remains unchanged.
We see now that the issue becomes complex. We have both changing and unchanging situations. Let us first consider the easier case, which is ironically the case with change. This leads to the question, if something has been changing, then it must have had an initial state. In fact, everything that is changing now, must have had an initial state. And if there was an initial state, what made it change to the next state? Why did it not remain in the initial state?
More to come...
The idea that things come about from nothing is at once contradictory. Because nothing, by definition, leads to more nothingness, and it cannot have something nor can it ever lead to something. A vacuum is the most physical example of nothingness we can perceive, yet that is not really true nothingness....a vacuum still exists in a space. However, it will suffice for an illustration. A vacuum has nothing in it. And no matter if you leave that vacuum for trillions of years, it will never produce anything. The same extends to true nothingness where even space does not exist. Here, we face the well known problem of ex nihilo, something from nothing. Which leads us to the next possibility.
Something has always been. There has never been a time when there was nothing. If we are willing to let go of the idea that there was a point when there was absolutely and totally nothing, then this is a plausible state of affairs. The next question is has the something we know now always been the same. Did it change? Or has it remained substantially the same throughout all time?
From our senses, we perceive that there are things that change and there are things that do not. The position of the planets relative to each other changes. The pattern of activity and behavior in people and animals changes every minute. Even a seemingly stable piece of metal consists of atoms and electrons that are constantly in a state of flux and motion. However, the forces that hold the planets together act in a predictable manner. The objective fact that people performed certained behaviors in the past remains unchanged, and is changed insofar as our subjective understanding is concerned. The fact that if you cool the metal to the point of 0 kelvins, all atomic motion stops, remains unchanged.
We see now that the issue becomes complex. We have both changing and unchanging situations. Let us first consider the easier case, which is ironically the case with change. This leads to the question, if something has been changing, then it must have had an initial state. In fact, everything that is changing now, must have had an initial state. And if there was an initial state, what made it change to the next state? Why did it not remain in the initial state?
More to come...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)