Purpose and Common Sense (testimony, creation, experience, verse, science)

[Jayhawker Soule]

Is it not naive and anthropocentric to insist that the universe and its processes make sense, i.e., demonstrates purpose, and is this insistance not particularly suspect given that much of what we hear from the world of quantum physics is counterintuitive?



There is a wonderful psych experiment that I read about quite some time ago. Unfortunately, I've lost track of the source, but neither the experiment nor its outcome should prove particularly debatable. (And please forgive me if I've raised this in some other thread.)

The subject is placed in front of a large screen on which is flashed randomized playing cards which she is asked to identify. The presentation rate is fast enough to inhibit analytic thought but slow enough to permit a comfortable reflexive response.


As the answes start flowing, invalid images are 'merged' into the deck. The participant may be confronted with a black jack of diamonds, a seven of spades, or, perhaps, the picture of a red queen with a number occupying the upper left and lower right corners. Invariably the subject would 'promote' the card into something that 'made sense'. A black jack of diamonds would become a jack of spades, while the invalid numeric queen would simply be reported as a queen.

We are wired to see patterns where none exist - to promote random/anomalous observations into something that is compatible with past experience, i.e., "common sense". This is an outstanding survival trait (even though is seriously depricates the value of eye-witness testimony). It's far better to see the sabertooth that's not there than to get lost in some abductive process while your feline friend prepares for luncg.


So, we know from psychology that we in a sense are wired to see what we want to see. And we know from the field of quantum physics that what we deem common sense is often little more than allegory. Why then should we see "Purpose" as some independent organizing principle rathe than psychological projection, and common sense as a useful heuristic which is, nevertheless, highly flawed when dealing with anything other than the most immediate and superficial layers of evaluation?

[Mr Spinkles]

Deut--

Great post! I completely agree. I've never been able to express myself on this subject as well as you have here.

As for the card experiment...in my 8th grade science class, we watched a video by renowned skeptic "The Amazing" Randi. In that video, the audience is shown flashing images of invalid cards. I marveled at my own capacity to see what isn't there when the video slowed down the images so we could see the cards as they really were.

If the system would let me, I would give you frubals for this post (unfortunately, I have to "spread some more karma around" first).

[Jayhawker Soule]

You are very kind. Actually, I think it might have been Azimov who pronounced his amazement that the Universe made any sense at all.

(I've never really understood the frubal/karma thing. I just say stuff and try to weather the occasional warning.)

[Mr Spinkles]

Deut-- On all your posts near the upper right corner is a box called "Frubals". You have 401 frubals. You can give a person frubals for writing a post that you enjoyed. To do this, you click on the "Frubals" link near the upper right corner of their post. You can type a little message if you want also and type your name so they know who gave them frubals.

Whenever you are on religiousforums, you can check who has given you frubals and for which posts by going to your "User CP". It's the link near the top of your window, just to the right of the "Forums" link.

Anyway I think you summed it up beautifully here: "Why then should we see "Purpose" as some independent organizing principle rathe than psychological projection, and common sense as a useful heuristic which is, nevertheless, highly flawed when dealing with anything other than the most immediate and superficial layers of evaluation?" I'm going to save that quote to my desktop for future reference.

[Ceridwen018]

I completely agree as well, Deut. We define reality and common sense as we can interpret them using our incredibly flawed perception.

In my opinion, it very closely follows the average thinking of the uniform creation 'scientist'. We use what we already know to explain what we perceive, rather than letting what we perceive influence what we know.

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by Ceridwen

We use what we already know to explain what we perceive

Or rather (as I'm sure you intended) "We use what we think we already know".

[Ceridwen018]

Lol-- actually had it that way originally, but thought it made for too many "we's" in one sentence.