With a nod to Wonka's reference to semantics, and the fact that you can go on a roundabout tour of the dictionary in that way, having everything eventually define everything else, as well as itself, without ever imparting any wisdom, the catch-phrase here just about has to be "personal experience." Bad analogy: I can describe combat, a mother can describe childbirth, but if one has never "been there," they will never get the essence of what happens, only a gist. It's one of the reasons even I will argue for the supernatural (or at least the natural that hasn't yet been defined), simply that I won't attempt to pigeonhole what I haven't experienced. Necessarily, then, we all have our own "definitions" of, well, pretty much everything. Like Wonka said, it's all individual, even the memories change from moment to moment; "chaotic order," "pattern in a state of permanent flux," if you will. I agree, semantics is how it tends to boil down, in the effort to find a common ground between widely differing minds (sometimes I think love develops when the patterns, through continued exposure, come to correspond or complement one another between two different people - another bad analogy, I'm sure, but it seems to suffice). As for refining faith, I don't think it can necessarily be done "scientifically," so much as "allegorically" using scientific observations. Remember, faith requires no proof, and, to some, "proof" actually lessens faith.




Oh, no. I'm not saying laughter has no biological basis. There are plenty of instances of babies laughing before they are known to have observed anyone else doing it. They also do it while alone, suggesting it's not necessarily a social thing. The point I was making regarding feral (heheh) children and those neglected orphans in Yugoslavia (I rechecked my sources) is that there is a definite social component, but also a definite biological one. Evolutionarily speaking, we are still social animals, and this is reflected in the need for human contact, or at least contact with other social mammals. With a name like mine (and yes, I go by it, it's who I am - I prefer to "de-civilise" myself when I can), I do plenty of research on the concept. An excellent book on the subject is "Savage Girls and Wild Boys" by Michael Newton. At any rate, some studies, including of those Yugoslavian children, have shown that physical contact between babies and others induces release of growth and other development hormones that directly affect the brain (estrogen, testosterone, serotonin, progesterone, and others). Coupled with social interactions like humor and love, these help lead to healthy children, and their lack (as seen in an unfortunate number of studies - see what you can find on "Jeannie"[sp?], she's in that book and many others) actually stunts physical, emotional, and mental growth. Anyway, what I was wondering with my comment was along the lines of what factors might have made the development of humor, art, and similar abstract appreciations come about in the course of evolutionary development?




I don't know about that one, QuietJohn. Dances a little too close to determinism for me. May not be relevant to a thread on Evolution/Creationism, but where's the room for freewill? I suspect that might be another sticking point with some religious folks.




I know a lot of folks, myself included, that would argue that the subconscious knows our reactions before we are consciously aware of them. Might this not have some bearing?




No worries, John. I sometimes don't know how to react to myself, either, lol!




Sorry to do just that, Tsur, but I'd gotten similar information in biology classes, although it was worded more like, "it is believed/suspected that..." It does make some sense regarding the regional distinctions among humans and the relative eye coloring between predators and prey (at least among mammals and birds).