Prometheus

Isn't it more a case of biological evolution being outpaced by memetic evolution?

There were quite a few alternatives, some of them predating Christianity. Anaximander proposed that all life began in the sea and that man was an adaptation of animals. The view of eternal creation and collapse is found in certain Hindu and Buddhist cosmologies - which is why the big bang/big crunch idea appeals to them. Even the primordial ideas that creation somehow emanated from chaos could indicate that people were comfortable saying 'don't know'.The idea that 'God did it' is the default view of humanity is only true of a limited time and location in our history. It's an unfortunately stubborn meme though.

I would speculate that developments like the theory of evolution and the big bang model made credible the claim Laplace's statement on god(s): I have no need for that hypothesis. It takes time for scientific ideas to percolate through society, hence the time lag. The rest is just letting people think about for themselves with these ideas in mind.

Just to emphasise this point: the probability of exactly half is close to zero, even though the expectation is 500000000 (which is half heads). With so many possible outcomes the probability of even the most likely outcome has only a tiny chance of occuring, as you can see from the PMF of 90000 flips below. Which is what you're seeing, Conjurer, as you perform more trials, the probability of getting exactly half heads is always decreasing, though it always remains the most likely of all possible outcomes. That should be clear on the other graph which is just zoomed in around the expected value.

I don't understand the question. You want to be able to stop breathing before death so as to ease some anxieties when dying?

This is correct. Not entirely sure what you mean. I generated a fewf binomial probability mass functions, with odd or even numbers of trials. With an even number of trials the most likely outcome is an odd number, while for an odd number of trials the most likely outcome is equal between an odd and an even number. We will expect an even number of heads or tails every time we have an odd number of flips. This is a consequence of the combinatorics of the binomial PMF (the n choose k bit). Does this answer your question?

I used to ask this question when i was a nurse and got all kinds of answers. Viruses prefer the colder temperatures in noses during winter; immune systems weaken during winter months as part of annual biorhythms; people seal themselves off from the outside world more to stay warm (similar to the huddle together one). Some mix of all the above. I never did find a definitive answer.

The 9/11 terrorists were motivated by Wahhabism, sponsored by a Saudi Royal family simply wanting to maintain rule. Had the population not been amenable to religious manipulation the ruling class would have leveraged some other aspect of the human condition to their end. Simply blaming religion is not useful. We can't quantify whether religion has provided a net harm or benefit. How are you going to quantify those feelings of security or wellness some religious people experience? How do you count 'religious' war deaths that would have probably happened without religion anyway, as one culture sought to subjugate another culture? How do you count the silent suffering from paedo priests? I think it much more helpful to look at religion as a meme. It is easy to see why aggression could help some religious memeplexes spread, in the same way it is easy to see why aggression could help a species spread (i'm picturing honey badgers right now). The question should be how do we select for traits that are less aggressive.

That's exactly what i was looking for, thanks.

I don't think this one is a necessary property: through meditation, certain psychedelics, certain dream states or engaging in certain activities (some say dancing or sports), it is possible to exist without a sense of self and still be conscious. Certainly a different kind of consciousness, but still consciousness. However, i can imagine a sense of self being an important evolved trait that allowed sufficiently complex beings to exist to facilitate human consciousness.

Maybe they should have called it Dark DNA. Seems to work in physics.

Told you it was a musical thing...

To dance and sing.

The influx of gold into Spain from the New World provides some idea of what might happen.

More like this (though it still misses several thousand entries):

The academic study of religion has proven useless as a tool for modelling the universe. It is also useless as a spiritual practice. The only value i see it having, as i discussed with Strange, is as a humanity, alongside literature and such. I'm just being honest in stating these are opinions. I don't understand why you pour such scorn upon honesty. Now you're confusing ought for is. Religions have made many empirical claims through the years, and still do so. I agree that religion shouldn't be a study of empirical matters, but the unfortunate truth is that for many people it is, like the numerous creationists in the USA (between 20-50%, depending on how the question is posed). But if the validity of scripture is not part of the OP, why don't you tell me what you think the topic of this off-topic split is, so i don't tread off the path again. There are various forms of meditation. Vipassana meditation in Buddhism, in particular, is a study of consciousness but not in the academic sense. Not sure that's meant as a compliment, but i'll definitely take it as one. I'd say reading your posts is like bouncing a ball off a wall, but instead of going anywhere sensible the ball just tries to whack you in the face.

Hm. It's hard to keep track when one occupies such lofty planes of existence. Hang on, here comes level 100...

Apparently you do: i'm British so i spell it pretence. I mention science because loads of religious people try to hijack the apparatus of science to validate existing beliefs. I'm sure you have heard of Creationists, for instance. Except i'm not trying to masquerade an ought for an is. That's why i explicitly said should, so that everyone (except you apparently), would realise that i'm expressing an opinion. I'm not alone in this view, as counting the number of angels on the head of a pin has become a metaphor for precisely this kind of pretence. Honestly, i'm not trying to to wail on you, but if you can't even distinguish when someone is expressing an opinion rather than stating a fact when they have used the word should, then how can anyone take anything you say seriously? And in those thousands of years religion has been wrong on the age of the universe, orbital mechanics, the origin of man and species - the list is pretty long. Religion has so clearly failed on empirical matters that only religious extremists consult scripture instead of the evidence for things like the shape of the Earth, or whether vaccines work. As a practicing Buddhist, i would agree - sort of. Meditation gives great experiential insight into consciousness - but certainly not as an academic study. You can read every book ever written by meditation and know nothing about the experience of your own mind. Whatever floats your boat.

Nice way of putting it.

That's very true. But there is a difference in the study of Christian mythology say (which i thoroughly enjoy, at the moment studying the mixed Pagan and Christian themes in the Arthurian cycle), and the daily practice of Christianity. I think that's a big distinction.

No ulterior motive: i considered googling it, but since you have literally written a book about it, i thought i'd ask you instead. My mistake. I only chimed in on this thread because i thought you might be interested in that lecture, which i had recently seen. I'm interested in dreams from an experiential perspective as i frequently have lucid dreams, OBE and various other hypnagogias, but i haven't studied any of the science so i'm afraid i don't have any more i can contribute.

It is based on the perspective that religion should be experiential rather than cerebral. I value the academic study of the humanities - the idea that academia belongs solely to science was assumed by you. But i would not include religion in the humanities. The difference being that science is backed up with mathematical models tested against nature. Religion is not: when tested against observation, it has consistently failed . It's value, if any, lies elsewhere. The Pope doesn't necessarily know more about the practice of Christianity than some pauper who found value in the forgiveness offered by Christ and learned to spread that kindness - unless all you care about are appearances, then yes, i'm sure the Pope could name all the saints and prayers of compassion, even while staying silent during the holocaust. I raised compassion as i thought the idea that its study and its practice are different things, with value mainly in the latter, would be intuitive. This was to give an intuitive idea that the study of religion is useless without the practice. The split off topic, as far as i can discern, is what Biblical scripture has to say about the Soul. I thought you might value another perspective - obviously i was mistaken. No one is forcing you to discuss anything with me - just stop replying to me if you're getting nothing out of it.

Though thou shouldest be going to live three thousand years, and as many times ten thousand years, still remember that no man loses any other life than this which he now lives, nor lives any other than this which he now loses. The longest and shortest are thus brought to the same. Marcus Aurelius.

What is the simplest organism that is known to sleep? And the simplest known to dream?