| Liste des Groupes | Revenir à t origins |
On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 09:33:33 -0700, Mark IsaakI know most or all of those animals play, and playfulness doesn't seem all that distant from awe. I do not know what an elephant is thinking about when just standing in one spot, but then, I don't think you know either. (I am told that camels, in their free time, cogitate on higher mathematics.[*])
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/21/26 7:06 AM, Martin Harran wrote:"I vaguely recall" is rather … well .. vague. I'm sure you wouldOn Mon, 20 Apr 2026 15:32:24 -0700, Mark Isaak>
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
>On 4/20/26 2:57 AM, Martin Harran wrote:>On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 09:14:21 -0700, Mark Isaak>
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
>The latest Science shows findings that suggest that a flood helped to>
shape the Grand Canyon. No, not a global flood. The Colorado River
originally drained into a lake. When that lake overflowed, it carved a
path over the Kaibab Plateau and gave the river its current course.
>
https://www.science.org/content/article/grand-canyon-s-origin-resolved-ancient-lake-s-flood-may-have-etched-famed-gorge?utm_source=sfmc
I think this is a good example of where science runs out of steam. It
does a fantastic job of figuring out and explaining how natural forces
created and carved the Grand Canyon but it can't really offer anything
to explain the feeling of awe and grandeur that people experience when
they see a it.
>
Where do those feelings come from; why do people go to so much trouble
and expense just to go view it?
Just about everything I have ever known has become more beautiful and
more awesome the more I learned about it. If your interest in the Grand
Canyon is limited to looking at it, you are missing most of the grandeur.
Never suggested that my interest is limited in that way; I experience
awe and grandeur in many things, not least the actual ability of
science to reveal so much about nature.
>>>
Besides, there are other sciences that investigate feelings. Why would
you expect a geology paper to address cognitive psychology?
I wouldn't expect it but my question was not directed at that paper or
its authors, it was directed at people here, especially those who
insist there is a materialistic explanation for everything. I'm
interested in hearing what they have to offer as explanation for the
sense of awe and wonder that seems unique to humans as a species but
apparently there is not much on offer.
First, I doubt the sense of awe is limited to humans. I vaguely recall
some indications that it is possessed also by elephants. And until
researchers get busy actively looking for it in whales, apes, and
corvids, I don't think "seems unique to humans" can be justified.
clearly recall if you had ever seen an elephant gazing at a
spectacular sunset; ora whale entranced by the complexities of an
orchestra playing a bit of Tchaikovsky; or an ape pondering the
mysteries of a rainbow; or a covid entranced by the reflection of some
trees and hills in a still lake.
What particularly fascinates me about all this is that we humans fullyYou're the one claiming to know how animals think.
understand how these things are simply the result of natural forces,
yet we get still a feeling of awe whereas other species who don't
understand the physics behind them don't even notice them. Funny old
world ain't it.
>Well, materialism certainly makes at least as many unevidenced claims
Second, I get the impression many people have the sense that
"materialism" implies mechanisms no more complicated than a 19th-century
pocket watch. Materialism is every bit as all-encompassing as the God
hypothesis, with the single exception of omitting the god, which is
unobserved anyway.
as the God hypothesis does.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.