DNA- gods amazing programming

[Mime454]

Meanwhile we see indications of intention behind specific evolutionary trends, such as metamorphosis, aerodynamics/flight, and camouflage incorporating direct mimicry of local predators. To a balanced mind science does not explain how this can be. Evolution is used as a catch-all and any who question how chaos leads to complex order are shunned and belittled.

I am a masculine thinker according to your post (I'm still not sure who decides which qualities are feminine and which are masculine). I'll trust what you say about physics, it's one of the many areas of science I have unfortunately neglected, I take issue with the above statement relating to Biology.

The way I see it, there is no way to know anything that we haven't observed to be absolutely true. Thus logically we must assess probabilities when we ponder two solution. Evidence helps us set those probabilities.

I see "intention" and the ability to intend as the most complex thing that we have yet observed. Sure, stars and planets are interesting and big, but they are, on the face of it, simple. If given enough time, by the laws of physics we can say that stars and planets will form many billions of times. They are impressive, but they are still simple.

Beings that have intention such as ourselves are immensely complex. Even if we gave the Universe a trillion years, it is unlikely that it would ever randomly assemble a conscious agent, human or otherwise. In my mind, any explanation for complexity that presupposes without explanation something this improbable and complex has raised a bigger question than it tried to answer.

The existence of common themes in Evolution is amazing, and it definitely invokes my sense of wonder in a way that few other things do. Even if conscious (divine?) intent were the only plausible explanation were had, I wouldn't accept it because it implies that the only way to explain complexity(in this case the seemingly non-random, converging patterns in Evolution) is just to assume further complexities in their place. This results in an exponential increase in complexity and thus improbability every time you ask "why?"

I think that the better explanation for convergent evolution is that certain features and certain ways of existing just work. There are many different ways to make a living in nature, but not infinitely many. In fact, common sense and observation says that there are many more ways to be dead than to be alive. Flight and camouflage are good ways to make a living, so it is rather unsurprising that many organisms converge on these niches in the same way that humans independently converged on written language and agricultural lifestyles.

Since Evolution is focused on finding effective channels to increase the chance of reproduction it only makes since that when Evolution is given similar raw materials under similar circumstances, a similar conclusion might ensue. Take for example the case of gliding frogs and colugos. When an organism takes up life in the trees, falling becomes a serious risk. A risk that gliding can subdue. Thus those organisms grew skin flaps that they use to glide. Evolution uses what is already there and uses it to suit the needs of new environments.

I could go on, but I risk writing a book, and "ain't nobody got time for that."

 

[Precarious]

I am a masculine thinker according to your post (I'm still not sure who decides which qualities are feminine and which are masculine).

The attributes associated with masculine and feminine are traditional to most cultures and expressly stated within esoteric traditions. Easter traditions, specifically, discuss the differences between these currents in the guise of yin and yang. :yinyang:

The way I see it, there is no way to know anything that we haven't observed to be absolutely true. Thus logically we must assess probabilities when we ponder two solution. Evidence helps us set those probabilities.

Have you ever seen an idea? Have you ever seen a thought? No? How do you know they are real? Just because you experienced them? Is that proof of anything within the literalist/rationalist/reductionist paradigm? Does experience account for anything unless it can be documented and repeated? You and I have danced around this circle before. You will suggest that we can document electrical impulses in the brain which is by no standard documenting thoughts or even proof of thoughts. So how do I convey to you what I know through direct experience alone?

Conversely anything you see is not actually seeing anything but your brain's attempt to decode the input of photons which have bounced off of objects made of empty space inhabited by tiny fluctuations of energy which are both point-like particles AND waves depending on how the observer attempts to interpret them. Look into the double slit experiment.

So the majority of what you see as empirically real or true is actually quite abstract when seen holistically. If you, by faith or the dictates of consensus reality, accept that an object is solid you are believing a lie from the start, and if you only believe what may be directly observed you are forced to believe that lie. Unless, of course, you take the word of someone else who says they can see it for what it really is. This is the fallacy built into authoritarianism and science is not immune. So although you regard science as antithetical to articles of faith it is built upon them. You are required to invest faith in authorities of various specialized disciplines or continue to be limited by your own abilities to observe.

It could be said there is very little difference between science and spirituality on this point. Both involve faith in authority figures. We could argue why we prefer one over the other and that would likely come down to what influences most effected our perceptions of the world. To my eyes, both paths are polluted by bias so personal discernment must come into play.

To me, personal discernment trumps all else. I don't care what any expert says if it doesn't make sense within my world view. That doesn't mean I flagrantly disregard evidence. That would be just as ignorant as accepting anothers view without question. But within my world view personal experience is king. And much that I have experienced is beyond rational explanation or direct documentation. Because of that I realize that the literalist/rationalist/reductionist paradigm cannot help but be incomplete.

I see "intention" and the ability to intend as the most complex thing that we have yet observed....

Beings that have intention such as ourselves are immensely complex. Even if we gave the Universe a trillion years, it is unlikely that it would ever randomly assemble a conscious agent, human or otherwise. In my mind, any explanation for complexity that presupposes without explanation something this improbable and complex has raised a bigger question than it tried to answer.

I'm not sure why you see intention as complex. Even the most primitive life forms express intention in all actions. Do they not intend to move, or eat, or reproduce? Don't plants reach toward the sun? I suspect you will say they are behaving as little machines programmed to behave in such ways. What then separates their intentions from ours?

Is it intention which draws bodies with mass together or is it gravity? What is the difference between the two? Science still doesn't know what gravity is even though we can observe it's effects all around us. They create fairy tales they believe may explain gravity as an exchange of particles called gravitons. Yet there is no direct evidence so they may as well state that angels push particle together.

We find ourselves within a vast self-organizing universe. The evidence of the tendency toward order is everywhere. Is that the result of dead, mindless physical "laws" or are those "laws" the effect of intention? No one can answer that question but you are free to put your faith in the literalist/rationalist/reductionist authorities - which presupposes without explanation the existence of "laws"! :huh:

The existence of common themes in Evolution is amazing...

...Flight and camouflage are good ways to make a living, so it is rather unsurprising that many organisms converge on these niches in the same way that humans independently converged on written language and agricultural lifestyles.

...Take for example the case of gliding frogs and colugos. When an organism takes up life in the trees, falling becomes a serious risk. A risk that gliding can subdue. Thus those organisms grew skin flaps that they use to glide. Evolution uses what is already there and uses it to suit the needs of new environments.

Are you suggesting here that the frogs, knowing that falls are dangerous, decided to grow skin flaps they could use to glide? Or that by chance random mutation one frog grew them and that survival advantage was so great it allowed him to survive and reproduce so well that his DNA became the standard? Do we put our faith in the rational intention the frogs would have to acquire the advantage of the ability to glide, or do we put our faith in random chance? Hmmm...

Of course, I'm not suggesting the frogs, with their little frog minds, worked out the rules of aerodynamics and calculated how to glide. But something did. The ability for insects to fly cannot be explained with such a blanket statement about "common themes in Evolution". Yes, we see wings on many species, but each species had different body shapes, energy limitations and lag issues to overcome. Not even to mention the appearance of wings to start with. If you would rather give all that credit to chance mutation you are very much a man of faith.

I will make no suggestions as to how or why species developed incredible abilities involving very specific complex problems to overcome, but I recognize that chance does not fit the bill. We have animals that literally transform within their lifetime, that go from breathing through gills to developing lungs, that transform from a worm-like body to a flying insect. Even looking at a mantis you can see the intention of those wings growing. They must form over multiple steps but there is an end goal built into their DNA. I do not see chance spawning such a multi-staged process. And I don't see the survival advantage to the vulnerable state they enter to bring about these changes. What I do see is intention.

As you said, I don't have the time (or intention) to write a book so we'll leave it at that. :clown:

 

[gripen]

Precarious you are am master twister of words. Seriously hats off to you. That still does not make a lick of what you say true.

 

[Precarious]

Precarious you are am master twister of words. Seriously hats off to you. That still does not make a lick of what you say true.

Haha! The only thing that's true is that everything is false. So goes a life in illusion.

 

[gripen]

Haha! The only thing that's true is that everything is false. So goes a life in illusion.

I thought you would say that

 

[Precarious]

I thought you would say that

Then I should hire you as a ghost writer. Oh, wait... I don't believe in ghosts.

 

[Mime454]

The attributes associated with masculine and feminine are traditional to most cultures and expressly stated within esoteric traditions. Easter traditions, specifically, discuss the differences between these currents in the guise of yin and yang. :yinyang:

The way I see it, there is no way to know anything that we haven't observed to be absolutely true. Thus logically we must assess probabilities when we ponder two solution. Evidence helps us set those probabilities.

Have you ever seen an idea? Have you ever seen a thought? No? How do you know they are real? Just because you experienced them? Is that proof of anything within the literalist/rationalist/reductionist paradigm? Does experience account for anything unless it can be documented and repeated? You and I have danced around this circle before. You will suggest that we can document electrical impulses in the brain which is by no standard documenting thoughts or even proof of thoughts. So how do I convey to you what I know through direct experience alone?

We know where thoughts come from. We have an explanation for the brain. We don't know where this universal intention that you ascribe to Evolution comes from. We don't have an explanation for it. He/she/it just is.

Conversely anything you see is not actually seeing anything but your brain's attempt to decode the input of photons which have bounced off of objects made of empty space inhabited by tiny fluctuations of energy which are both point-like particles AND waves depending on how the observer attempts to interpret them. Look into the double slit experiment.

This is true, but what on earth does it have to do with intention of Evolution?

I feel like there should be a new fallacy. Maybe call it the "quantum fallacy" where people use something about quantum physics, which is almost always explained in metaphor, to justify a claim about their version of reality.

So the majority of what you see as empirically real or true is actually quite abstract when seen holistically. If you, by faith or the dictates of consensus reality, accept that an object is solid you are believing a lie from the start, and if you only believe what may be directly observed you are forced to believe that lie. Unless, of course, you take the word of someone else who says they can see it for what it really is. This is the fallacy built into authoritarianism and science is not immune. So although you regard science as antithetical to articles of faith it is built upon them. You are required to invest faith in authorities of various specialized disciplines or continue to be limited by your own abilities to observe.

I think that trusting those who devote their lives to studying a field is more sensible than coming to my own conclusion on points of which I am ignorant.

It could be said there is very little difference between science and spirituality on this point. Both involve faith in authority figures. We could argue why we prefer one over the other and that would likely come down to what influences most effected our perceptions of the world. To my eyes, both paths are polluted by bias so personal discernment must come into play.

Fair enough, but see above.

To me, personal discernment trumps all else. I don't care what any expert says if it doesn't make sense within my world view. That doesn't mean I flagrantly disregard evidence. That would be just as ignorant as accepting anothers view without question. But within my world view personal experience is king. And much that I have experienced is beyond rational explanation or direct documentation. Because of that I realize that the literalist/rationalist/reductionist paradigm cannot help but be incomplete.

Literalist/rationalist/reductionist are all just different ways of saying someone who looks for facts and logical explanations. Of course our picture is incomplete right now. We've only been doing proper science for less than a millenia, maybe a lot less depending on where you draw the line. We have a lot left to figure out, but science doesn't leave the things we can't understand forever in the realm of the untestable realm of faith-based explanations.

I think it's arrogant to not accept what someone has spent their entire life studying and others have devoted time to consistently reproducing. They're called experts for a reason.

I see "intention" and the ability to intend as the most complex thing that we have yet observed....

Beings that have intention such as ourselves are immensely complex. Even if we gave the Universe a trillion years, it is unlikely that it would ever randomly assemble a conscious agent, human or otherwise. In my mind, any explanation for complexity that presupposes without explanation something this improbable and complex has raised a bigger question than it tried to answer.

I'm not sure why you see intention as complex. Even the most primitive life forms express intention in all actions. Do they not intend to move, or eat, or reproduce? Don't plants reach toward the sun? I suspect you will say they are behaving as little machines programmed to behave in such ways. What then separates their intentions from ours?

The most primitive life forms are complex in that they wouldn't randomly be thrown together by the laws of physics alone. I do not think that the things that you mention are the same sort of intention that would intend for Evolution to work in a certain way. To influence Evolution would require the ability to have a perfect perception of what would happen in the future. And that intending being would have to more or less decide when every organism on earth will die and reproduce and converge it with his/her/its main overarching plan.

Is it intention which draws bodies with mass together or is it gravity? What is the difference between the two? Science still doesn't know what gravity is even though we can observe it's effects all around us. They create fairy tales they believe may explain gravity as an exchange of particles called gravitons. Yet there is no direct evidence so they may as well state that angels push particle together.

The laws of physics are not conscious intentions. They are unchanging, at least from what we have observed. That's what makes them laws. Like I said before, science's picture of the universe isn't complete. If it's actually true that we don't know what gravity is, the answer will come along when we do more science. It won't come about just because someone says that something is true or because you feel in your heart that it's true, which is all that you can say for faith-based explanations.

We find ourselves within a vast self-organizing universe. The evidence of the tendency toward order is everywhere. Is that the result of dead, mindless physical "laws" or are those "laws" the effect of intention? No one can answer that question but you are free to put your faith in the literalist/rationalist/reductionist authorities - which presupposes without explanation the existence of "laws"! :huh:

I don't know if science can determine the cause of laws and why they are the way they are. But we don't just presuppose that laws exist. From everything we have observed, the laws of physics are sound and exist everywhere.

The existence of common themes in Evolution is amazing...

...Flight and camouflage are good ways to make a living, so it is rather unsurprising that many organisms converge on these niches in the same way that humans independently converged on written language and agricultural lifestyles.

...Take for example the case of gliding frogs and colugos. When an organism takes up life in the trees, falling becomes a serious risk. A risk that gliding can subdue. Thus those organisms grew skin flaps that they use to glide. Evolution uses what is already there and uses it to suit the needs of new environments.

Are you suggesting here that the frogs, knowing that falls are dangerous, decided to grow skin flaps they could use to glide? Or that by chance random mutation one frog grew them and that survival advantage was so great it allowed him to survive and reproduce so well that his DNA became the standard? Do we put our faith in the rational intention the frogs would have to acquire the advantage of the ability to glide, or do we put our faith in random chance? Hmmm...

I'm suggesting that a lineage of frogs starting growing limbs suitable for flying in tiny steps that each increased survival slightly. If a proto-flying frog had 1% more webbing on each of his limbs, it would help him survive a fall from distance x that a frog without the extra webbing would not. Even if x is a matter of millimeters, an advantage is an advantage. This effect continued until we see the "flying frogs" that we see today. And for the record, I didn't even know that flying frogs existed. I just knew that some frogs live in trees, so it would be a good way to make a living. I didn't have internet when I was typing that reply(on a bus with my wifi iPad). Evolution in this regard is predictable.

Of course, I'm not suggesting the frogs, with their little frog minds, worked out the rules of aerodynamics and calculated how to glide. But something did. The ability for insects to fly cannot be explained with such a blanket statement about "common themes in Evolution". Yes, we see wings on many species, but each species had different body shapes, energy limitations and lag issues to overcome. Not even to mention the appearance of wings to start with. If you would rather give all that credit to chance mutation you are very much a man of faith.

Yes, wings are improbable to evolve in one organism from a parent that didn't have anything like wings. Just like rolling 1000 dice and them all coming up 6 is improbable. But if you roll all the dice and leave the 6's in place and then roll the rest, you will get 1000 dice that display 6's on them a lot quicker than you would if you just rolled them randomly. This is analogous to the frog example because frogs with longer flaps would survive an even higher percentage of the time than their parents, but frogs with shorter flaps would survive less falls. There is no reason to believe that this effect isn't cumulative.

I will make no suggestions as to how or why species developed incredible abilities involving very specific complex problems to overcome, but I recognize that chance does not fit the bill. We have animals that literally transform within their lifetime, that go from breathing through gills to developing lungs, that transform from a worm-like body to a flying insect. Even looking at a mantis you can see the intention of those wings growing. They must form over multiple steps but there is an end goal built into their DNA. I do not see chance spawning such a multi-staged process. And I don't see the survival advantage to the vulnerable state they enter to bring about these changes. What I do see is intention.

It's just like the dice analogy. It is chance that does it, but not an all or nothing chance. Evolution is powerful because it is cumulative. I am woefully ignorant of the Evolution of amphibians at the moment, but I did just yesterday start reading "The Rise of Amphibians: 365 Million Years of Evolution." So maybe I'll know something more in a few weeks. I'm extremely fascinated by it.

Responses in red. I don't mean any personal animosity. You're one of my favorite posters on the forum. I like to argue ideas without keeping personal grudges. If this argument offends or upsets you, just say so and I'll stop. Seriously, not sarcasm.

 

[Precarious]

Responses in red. I don't mean any personal animosity. You're one of my favorite posters on the forum. I like to argue ideas without keeping personal grudges. If this argument offends or upsets you, just say so and I'll stop. Seriously, not sarcasm.

We know where thoughts come from. We have an explanation for the brain.

Wow, no offense but you're talking out your butt on that one. Science knows next to nothing about consciousness

This is true, but what on earth does it have to do with intention of Evolution?

I feel like there should be a new fallacy. Maybe call it the "quantum fallacy" where people use something about quantum physics, which is almost always explained in metaphor, to justify a claim about their version of reality.

What's not to get? The world is not what you see. I didn't use any quantum metaphors to justify my version of reality. Just pointing out the limits of human perception.

I think that trusting those who devote their lives to studying a field is more sensible than coming to my own conclusion on points of which I am ignorant.

Then revel in your ignorance and follow the leader. That's the most pathetic thing I've heard in a long time. And the same argument a creationist would use! The Pope has studied God his whole life so if he says God created the world in 7 days it must be so. :stuart:

Literalist/rationalist/reductionist are all just different ways of saying someone who looks for facts and logical explanations.

Incorrect. It is someone that limits their perception of reality only to what can be documented by the scientific method. By your definition philosophers would be literalist/rationalist/reductionist and there are many esoteric and spiritual branches of philosophy, as well as lines of logic that can never be empirically proven.

The most primitive life forms are complex in that they wouldn't randomly be thrown together by the laws of physics alone.

So now you're saying not even primitive life forms can spring from randomness, that "the laws of physics alone" could not be responsible. I think you are confusing yourself. :blink:

I do not think that the things that you mention are the same sort of intention that would intend for Evolution to work in a certain way. To influence Evolution would require the ability to have a perfect perception of what would happen in the future. And that intending being would have to more or less decide when every organism on earth will die and reproduce and converge it with his/her/its main overarching plan.

I didn't imply the intention to feed or breed had anything to do with evolution. I was pointing out that intention, which you believe to be so complex, is present even in simple lifeforms. Nor did I suggest a being responsible for the intention of evolution. Also, intention does not require knowledge of the future. Intention can be as vague or as specific as you want. Like "live long and prosper" or "have a great day!"

The laws of physics are not conscious intentions. They are unchanging, at least from what we have observed. That's what makes them laws. Like I said before, science's picture of the universe isn't complete. If it's actually true that we don't know what gravity is, the answer will come along when we do more science.

You sure like to jump to conclusions about things you can't prove. Laws cannot be intentions because they are unchanging? I don't see the logic in that statement. How do you know an intention cannot be unchanging?

"If it is true that we don't know what gravity is..."??? Seriously??? You don't even know that much about physics? I'm very sorry but I am completely wasting my time.

...the answer will come along when we do more science.

Have faith my son. Science will prevail.

It won't come about just because someone says that something is true or because you feel in your heart that it's true, which is all that you can say for faith-based explanations.

I have made no "faith-based" explanations. I don't follow any faith. I haven't repeated anything I read elsewhere.

So anyway, I'm really not interested in nit picking back and forth. I get nothing from this. I'm not going to learn anything here. And, honestly, you have show with your statements regarding gravity and the brain that you are not speaking from a point of knowledge, making this even less appealing to me.

You have made it abundantly clear that you worship the god Chance, creator of ALL through His power of random probability.

Chance be praised!

Einstein would disagree...

"Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice."

Letter to Max Born (4 December 1926); The Born-Einstein Letters (translated by Irene Born) (Walker and Company, New York, 1971) ISBN 0-8027-0326-7.

"As I have said so many times, God doesn't play dice with the world."

1943 conversation with William Hermanns recorded in Hermanns' book Einstein and the Poet

But hey, maybe you know better than Einstein. :smarty:

"Have a great day!"

 

[gripen]

I love your logic precarious! You rail mime for his reasonable explanations of what science can prove, then deliver your same speech. I guess I am to logical to understand what you are saying. Please do inform me why I am wrong.

 

[Precarious]

I love your logic precarious! You rail mime for his reasonable explanations of what science can prove, then deliver your same speech. I guess I am to logical to understand what you are saying. Please do inform me why I am wrong.

No time... I just converted...

OH MIGHTY DICE WE PRAISE THEE!!!​

​

http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/images/story/andrew-dice-clays-surprising-comeback-and-why-he-wont-stop-saying-***-20121228/1000x306/20121221-andrew-dice-clay-306x-1356117022.jpg​

 

[Mime454]

Wow, no offense but you're talking out your butt on that one. Science knows next to nothing about consciousness.

Science knows, at least I hope that we agree on this, that consciousness comes from the brain. The brain is an organ subject to Evolution like any other.

What's not to get? The world is not what you see. I didn't use any quantum metaphors to justify my version of reality. Just pointing out the limits of human perception.

I guess I misunderstood what you were saying. I agree that the world isn't what we see. I don't think that that takes away from the utility of observation and science though. It's the best tool that we have to understand the world, and it's results are undeniable.

Then revel in your ignorance and follow the leader. That's the most pathetic thing I've heard in a long time. And the same argument a creationist would use! The Pope has studied God his whole life so if he says God created the world in 7 days it must be so. :stuart:

That isn't even close to the same thing. If all of human knowledge were obliterated today, we would eventually get back to Evolution, the Big Bang Theory, the Germ Theory of Disease. We almost certainly wouldn't have an exact copy of genesis or any other article of faith, and if we did, that would be something interesting for psychology to study. No one has the time to test every thing that we have discovered in the last few centuries of science. The fact that the ideas and experiments have gone through peer review and stood up to more severe scrutiny than I could give is good enough for me. You can say that's faith, but when it comes down to it, you certainly trust in established ideas that you haven't personally tested or vetted, otherwise you'd have no time for anything else!

So now you're saying not even primitive life forms can spring from randomness, that "the laws of physics alone" could not be responsible. I think you are confusing yourself. :blink:

The issue's unsettled from what I've read, but I don't think that life came from non-life in a discontinuous way. I think that "life" slowly acquired its tributes like growth and cells. Reproduction with heredity would have to be the first big leap.

I didn't imply the intention to feed or breed had anything to do with evolution. I was pointing out that intention, which you believe to be so complex, is present even in simple lifeforms. Nor did I suggest a being responsible for the intention of evolution. Also, intention does not require knowledge of the future. Intention can be as vague or as specific as you want. Like "live long and prosper" or "have a great day!"

Can you define what intention with regards to convergent Evolution means to you? If something conscious wanted to control or direct Evolution in a certain way, the only conceivable way to do it would be to affect what lives and what dies. This interaction would necessarily supplant Natural Selection as an explanation.

You sure like to jump to conclusions about things you can't prove. Laws cannot be intentions because they are unchanging? I don't see the logic in that statement. How do you know an intention cannot be unchanging?

When I see something that doesn't and will never change, it isn't conscious. Or if by some anomaly it were, it wouldn't matter any way, since it's unchanging. Shouldn't a conscious being be mostly unpredictable?

"If it is true that we don't know what gravity is..."??? Seriously??? You don't even know that much about physics? I'm very sorry but I am completely wasting my time.

I'm sorry that I don't know as much about physics as you when I'm barely out of high school? I am trying to learn as much stuff about the world as I can, but there is a limit to how much I can consume in my as of yet lifetime.

Have faith my son. Science will prevail.

If there's an answer to a question about how the world works, Science is the best tool we have. I don't think that there is any reason to assume that we won't find out what gravity is too, but I don't know a lot about physics like I've been candid about throughout the thread.

I have made no "faith-based" explanations. I don't follow any faith. I haven't repeated anything I read elsewhere.
It doesn't have to be from someone else to be faith.

["Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice."
Letter to Max Born (4 December 1926); The Born-Einstein Letters (translated by Irene Born) (Walker and Company, New York, 1971) ISBN 0-8027-0326-7.

"As I have said so many times, God doesn't play dice with the world."
1943 conversation with William Hermanns recorded in Hermanns' book Einstein and the Poet

But hey, maybe you know better than Einstein. :smarty:

"Have a great day!"

I have read about the meanings of these quotes, they are famous, after all. Einstein didn't that the randomness associated with Quantum Mechanics could be true because it interfered with his deterministic views. Einstein was wrong here, so everyone who accepts these parts of quantum mechanics is indeed smarter than Einstein in this singular topic.

 

[Precarious]

I guess I misunderstood what you were saying. I agree that the world isn't what we see. I don't think that that takes away from the utility of observation and science though. It's the best tool that we have to understand the world, and it's results are undeniable.

As I said, I'm done with the back and forth. I stand to gain or learn nothing from this exchange and I've got better uses for my time. It really doesn't matter to me that you or anyone else understand what I'm saying or agrees. I don't care to engage in debate. Like I said, I get absolutely nothing from that.

But, no, I do not agree that consciousness is a product of the brain. And the Einstein quotes were used satirically in reference to your dice allegories. I know full well what he really meant by them.

And I guess I should point out that I don't believe intention is the same as gravity, or that laws are intention. I was making unprovable satirical statements equivalent to those made by science in such theories as dark matter and gravitons. Seriously, look at those two and figure out the difference between them and belief in fairies. I was playing devil's advocate to show you how those theories look to me. But the idea of a self-organizing universe does make one wonder if there is intention behind it or the specifics of the laws which allow for, and even encourage, creation of life from dead matter.

You guys feel content to attribute everything to chance, which is as big a cop out as just saying "God did it". That's my point. You have given up, which is sad for someone your age. Accepting limits is a death sentence. Look at current technology judged against perceived limits of the past. And look at all the scientific fallacies which have been overturned as well. Mankind knows very little but pretends to know much more. Don't be fooled by that superior attitude professed by the current paradigm. Do not buy into the religion of scientism.

 

[agent A]

This is hurting my head

All i have to say is kudoos to anyone who believes god communicates with all species

Most modern religions are very species selfish and only express god as having created humans in his image and as humans being the only ones in touch with god, including christianity and this coupled with the cultish setup of the catholic church is why i dont want to be confirmed (aka trapped) into any faith though im kinda being forced to

There cant possibly be a god that went through all the trouble of creating biodiversity only to care abt 1 species as most religions and frankly MOST (not all) people seem to claim

 

[fleurdejoo]

I'm not sure I would say Michael has given up. He surely hasn't. He works his butt off studying and it's important to him. So I don't think I would say that. He is always questioning things which is certainly not giving up.

And Pre isn't manipulating/twisting words but he's coming from such a different place then you guys with regard to this subject matter that I don't think it's easily understandable?

Can't we all just get along?

Alls I really wanna know is if Axo thinks humans rode dinosaurs back in the day?? Okay?!?!?

 

[Precarious]

I'm not sure I would say Michael has given up. He surely hasn't. He works his butt off studying and it's important to him. So I don't think I would say that. He is always questioning things which is certainly not giving up.

And Pre isn't manipulating/twisting words but he's coming from such a different place then you guys with regard to this subject matter that I don't think it's easily understandable?

Can't we all just get along?

Alls I really wanna know is if Axo thinks humans rode dinosaurs back in the day?? Okay?!?!?

Look, I don't want to confuse things further but to imply humans rode dinosaurs is pretty ridiculous. I am, however, fairly certain that dinosaurs built the pyramids. I know it sounds far fetched but hear me out. Even though tyrannosaurus rex had short arms they were brilliant thinkers. Just get a load of the size of that head! Ankylosaurus obviously worked in the quarry. Pterodactyl were master stone carvers. And we all know brontosaurus and diplodocus were well capable of lifting those stones. If you overlay a brontosaurus head and neck with a diagram of the inner chambers you will quickly understand why they are shaped as they are. It's a way more logical explanation than ancient aliens.

The aliens came much later which explains what happened to the dinosaurs...

 

[agent A]

Look, I don't want to confuse things further but to imply humans rode dinosaurs is pretty ridiculous. I am, however, fairly certain that dinosaurs built the pyramids. I know it sounds far fetched but hear me out. Even though tyrannosaurus rex had short arms they were brilliant thinkers. Just get a load of the size of that head! Ankylosaurus obviously worked in the quarry. Pterodactyl were master stone carvers. And we all know brontosaurus and diplodocus were well capable of lifting those stones. If you overlay a brontosaurus head and neck with a diagram of the inner chambers you will quickly understand why they are shaped as they are. It's a way more logical explanation than ancient aliens.

The aliens came much later which explains what happened to the dinosaurs...

what abt our good friends parasaurolophus and ornithimimus? were they handy snacks for the tyrannousaurs and the pterysaurs? :tt2:

 

[Montana]

Look, I don't want to confuse things further but to imply humans rode dinosaurs is pretty ridiculous. I am, however, fairly certain that dinosaurs built the pyramids. I know it sounds far fetched but hear me out. Even though tyrannosaurus rex had short arms they were brilliant thinkers. Just get a load of the size of that head! Ankylosaurus obviously worked in the quarry. Pterodactyl were master stone carvers. And we all know brontosaurus and diplodocus were well capable of lifting those stones. If you overlay a brontosaurus head and neck with a diagram of the inner chambers you will quickly understand why they are shaped as they are. It's a way more logical explanation than ancient aliens.

The aliens came much later which explains what happened to the dinosaurs...

I'm definitely a fan of your posts - your satire is fantastic! I've enjoyed it a lot (although I can't help but cringe initially at some things! ). Something about this and your manner of discourse here reminds me of Stephen Colbert - one of my favorite sources for truthiness.

To me, personal discernment trumps all else. I don't care what any expert says if it doesn't make sense within my world view. That doesn't mean I flagrantly disregard evidence. That would be just as ignorant as accepting anothers view without question. But within my world view personal experience is king. And much that I have experienced is beyond rational explanation or direct documentation. Because of that I realize that the literalist/rationalist/reductionist paradigm cannot help but be incomplete.

That's the ultimate kicker, isn't it? I have to agree completely here - not only from personal experience, but also based on what I've observed and learned from others' experiences, too. I'll admit that I'm very much like a rationalist/reductionist (but I wouldn't claim to be a literalist), though not for a lack of exploring other viewpoints. And, to a point, intuition does play a role in my perspective, although I'd be a fool to not try to seek evidence that may either prove or refute my initial reflections.

I'm not sure if most mathematicians fit into the rationalist/reductionist perspective by default, but personally, learning and doing the math behind various natural systems seems to yield some of the best empirical "truth" for natural phenomena. Understanding the proven and provable mathematical relationships and hard math for electromagnetic and particle physics, thermodynamics, chemistry, biological systems, etc... it helps to see where the premises for theories fit in the natural world. Probability and chance becomes something seemingly with more "intent" when it favors certain energy gradients over others; properties of particles and electromagnetic fields can be measured in classrooms and beyond to reaffirm mathematical models and predictions; some theories sound crazy and unbelievable until the mathematically-predicted (or unpredicted!) evidence presents itself. And working with these various mathematical tools that work so thoroughly and universally - derivatives, integrals, different coordinate systems, transforms, differential equations, partial differential equations, vector fields, trigonometric identities, distributions, open/closed/isolated systems, e's and natural logs and pi and tensors and multi-dimensional optimization and analyses and various other mathematical techniques - they do not rely on dogma to be true or popular, and anyone who is not content with answers from others can learn and do the math and find truths about the natural universe (or approximate truths, and improve upon them over time with more accurate models, as in the case of Keplerian vs. Newtonian vs. Einsteinian laws of gravitation and motion).

So personally, I'd say that understanding the math (as a fundamental pillar of science) helps one understand a great deal about... everything. Like how organizing structures (galaxies, planets, living organisms, artifacts) result in a greater (more favorable) release of thermal energy, increase in entropy, and progression to lower environmental energy states in a system. And how "chance" occurs at predictable rates, but thermodynamic modeling favors/perpetuates some energetic processes more than others.

As I said, I'm done with the back and forth. I stand to gain or learn nothing from this exchange and I've got better uses for my time. It really doesn't matter to me that you or anyone else understand what I'm saying or agrees. I don't care to engage in debate. Like I said, I get absolutely nothing from that.

But, no, I do not agree that consciousness is a product of the brain. And the Einstein quotes were used satirically in reference to your dice allegories. I know full well what he really meant by them.

And I guess I should point out that I don't believe intention is the same as gravity, or that laws are intention. I was making unprovable satirical statements equivalent to those made by science in such theories as dark matter and gravitons. Seriously, look at those two and figure out the difference between them and belief in fairies. I was playing devil's advocate to show you how those theories look to me. But the idea of a self-organizing universe does make one wonder if there is intention behind it or the specifics of the laws which allow for, and even encourage, creation of life from dead matter.

You guys feel content to attribute everything to chance, which is as big a cop out as just saying "God did it". That's my point. You have given up, which is sad for someone your age. Accepting limits is a death sentence. Look at current technology judged against perceived limits of the past. And look at all the scientific fallacies which have been overturned as well. Mankind knows very little but pretends to know much more. Don't be fooled by that superior attitude professed by the current paradigm. Do not buy into the religion of scientism.

You have a good point about gravitons and dark matter (and, I might add, dark energy). Those are also temporary covers for holes in theories of the known universe that I'm sure will someday become better-known as we develop better models and mode of observation. Those aren't meant to be full-blown theories on which we can give up; those are ways of saying "that's interesting, let's look into it... but what do we call it or postulate in the meantime?" I wouldn't call that giving up or a cop out at all! Who knows? Perhaps dark matter is an unaccounted-for illusion caused by a macroscopic manifestation of matter and energy warping space-time at a greater scale than Einsteinian relativity accounts for locally. Or maybe it's a new particle or two that we haven't discovered and can't observe yet? Or maybe it's the noodle appendages of a flying spaghetti monster. Or something entirely different. Whichever hypothesis ends up having the most mathematically sound model will usually prevail. Math is a sort of universal standard - it doesn't change depending on what beliefs one holds, the data and processes always point to the same relationships.

I guess I just wanted to clarify that it's more than just "chance" or a concept like "scientific dogma" that we try to use to make judgments on truth; it's personal involvement that creates comprehension and influences perception. And that perception should be open to valid evidence - like you said, with no accepted limits or dependence upon authority unless you can validate it/make comprehensive sense of it for oneself as well. Math and objective observation (using instruments calibrated with intransigent properties of matter) are some of those ways we can get (and have gotten) personally involved and convinced and intuitively aware of these strange theories that may seem out of place and beyond human perception.

 

[fleurdejoo]

Axo!! Are you reading this?

I need answers!

 

[Precarious]

what abt our good friends parasaurolophus and ornithimimus? were they handy snacks for the tyrannousaurs and the pterysaurs? :tt2:

Parasaurolophus worked the lunch truck and ornithimimus took coffee orders.

 

[AxolotlsAreCoolToo]

I'm not sure I would say Michael has given up. He surely hasn't. He works his butt off studying and it's important to him. So I don't think I would say that. He is always questioning things which is certainly not giving up.

And Pre isn't manipulating/twisting words but he's coming from such a different place then you guys with regard to this subject matter that I don't think it's easily understandable?

Can't we all just get along?

Alls I really wanna know is if Axo thinks humans rode dinosaurs back in the day?? Okay?!?!?

lol of course I dont

the Earth is defiantly an old fart with long periods of time before progressing to a new break through of complexity and change. Although it would be one of my dreams to live beside people and dinosaurs! :detective: