Intelligent Design: Evolution 2.0

[Crazy Horse]

13 hours ago, Harte said:

Can you think of any way to differentiate these two things with any certainty?

Harte

Well an imagination is free to roam whence it please..

A programme can only perform tasks that it has been told to perform...

13 hours ago, Harte said:

Sure, but this program was not given any instruction like that.

If you paint a landscape from your imagination, you would use typical landscape forms you had seen before. This program does nothing different from that.

Harte

What instructions was it given? 

I would say that imagination is limitless because it is an action of mind, a mind connected to all that is, was, and will be, connected to the Mind of God, who in my cosmology is infinite and eternal.. So in my opinion, mind/imagination has the potential to be limitless.

But its an interesting idea, but like AI in general, without life, it is only a representation of the real deal! 

[eight bits]

Guyver

Quote

if God made us through evolution, then I have no problem with.  I believe in accepting what is, not fighting against it.  It’s the getting to what is that is tricky.

OK, I'm not completely clear yet, but that's better, and thanks.

One way of looking at the topic is to ask whether, even if it were true that supernatural force(s) directed evolution, what difference would it make?

If that question had an answer, then why would "science" be unable to study that difference, establish that the difference was really there, and perhaps find out all sorts of interesting things about the supernatural directing forces? And please, not the "scientists are too dogmatic" routine - this is Nobel Prize plus Medal of Freedom with a Legion of Honor on the side stuff; there is zero difficulty finding all the scientists you could ever want who'd give the one-finger salute to dogma while they're booking their flight to Stockholm.

If the question doesn't have an answer (evolution "through" natural selection works just the same as evoultion by natural selection), then what has that word lawyering bought you, except that "Science can't prove that there isn't or wasn't one or more gods of some sort, somewhere, at some time"? The last part isn't in serious dispute, so all the trouble of writing a book about it is a waste of time ("not even wrong" as Pauli used to say).

Quote

My understanding is that scientific models of the early universe show that very nearly exact precision was required in order for matter to form as it did.

But that's not the issue. If pi were any different than it is, one off in the millionth digit, or the billionth digit, or any other digit you care to name, then the universe would fall apart before it formed. There could be no circles, spheres, etc.

But pi cannot be different than what it is. That, by the way, binds God. There is no "alternate universe" where pi is anything else. Pi is what it is because pi being exactly that is what "circle, "diameter," "circumference" and "ratio" mean. Conclude: literally infinite precision is insufficient to infer design reliably; what does that say about any finite precision?

-

 

Edited February 25, 2018 by eight bits

[Crazy Horse]

8 hours ago, joc said:

kind of....belief is just belief...truth just is

Belief is not just belief.

Our beliefs can be tested on a personal level, not in a test tube, our laboratory is the body/heart/mind/spirit, our consciousness and imagination direct and observe the outcome. 

So beliefs lead us to action, actions have consequences and experiences too, sometimes they feel good, other times we feel terrible. So we adjust the parameters, we adjust the thinking and via cause and effect we see/feel the outcome of this new experiment.

Spirituality is actually a science.

Science and religion used to be the same thing back in the day, but some folk see profit in division, I see profit in Wholeness.

[Illyrius]

56 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

Hay man..

Did you ever catch one of your cats trying to sneak-up and kill a bird?

They sure look guilty to me! 

And dogs too.. Some of them dogs look guilty has all heck!

Nope. I havent catched any.

I guess some animals do feel guilt then. Interesting thing to discuss.

I have cats for a long time but none of them ever looked like it feels guilt... just personal experience.

Guess youtube has videos of stuff like that.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201403/do-dogs-really-feel-guilt-or-shame-we-really-dont-know

 

Edited February 25, 2018 by Illyrius

[XenoFish]

5 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

That's concrete enough to me:

No. Not at all. That's a big book of speculation.

[Crazy Horse]

42 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

Nope. I havent catched any.

I guess some animals do feel guilt then. Interesting thing to discuss.

I have cats for a long time but none of them ever looked like it feels guilt... just personal experience.

Guess youtube has videos of stuff like that.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201403/do-dogs-really-feel-guilt-or-shame-we-really-dont-know

 

Its an interesting idea, alongside dogs that dream, and this idea that dogs can sense when their owners are coming home.. It raises a lot of questions that strict, material science wouldn't even look into...

And its us folk who get labeled narrow-minded!

[Illyrius]

Just now, Crazy Horse said:

Its an interesting idea, alongside dogs that dream, and this idea that dogs can sense when their owners are coming home.. It raises a lot of questions that strict, material science wouldn't even look into...

And its us folk who get labeled narrow-minded!

"Them folks" are i guess "free to roam" just like computers.

hahahahaha!!!

[Crazy Horse]

5 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

"Them folks" are i guess "free to roam" just like computers.

hahahahaha!!!

Nice one!

Yeah, until someone pulls the plug lolz...

[Illyrius]

1 minute ago, Crazy Horse said:

Nice one!

Yeah, until someone pulls the plug lolz...

[Crazy Horse]

9 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

"Them folks" are i guess "free to roam" just like computers.

hahahahaha!!!

On a slightly more serious note..

I idea that these programmes will limit what a computer is capable of doing, is I think a valid one, but us humans should take a lesson too, in that we are limited by the "programmes" that we run..

[Illyrius]

1 minute ago, Crazy Horse said:

On a slightly more serious note..

I idea that these programmes will limit what a computer is capable of doing, is I think a valid one, but us humans should take a lesson too, in that we are limited by the "programmes" that we run..

Excellent!

[I'mConvinced]

3 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

How about you take a shot at answering the other main point, about how two apparent contradictory truths can apparently occupy the same space? 

First explain how a particle can be spinning in two directions simultaneously. That's a contradiction that is nevertheless a truth we will use (have used) to design quantum computing.

It turns out contradictions are just a part of life and the only problem with that is a lack of our understanding how that can be.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

8 hours ago, Guyver said:

"The premise of the fine-tuned Universe assertion is that a small change in several of the dimensionless physical constants would make the Universe radically different. As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."[4]

If, for example, the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (for example, if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), while the other constants were left unchanged, diprotons would be stable; according to physicist Paul Davies, hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium.[9]This would drastically alter the physics of stars, and presumably preclude the existence of life similar to what we observe on Earth. The existence of the diproton would short-circuit the slow fusion of hydrogen into deuterium. Hydrogen would fuse so easily that it is likely that all of the Universe's hydrogen would be consumed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang.[9] This "diproton argument" is disputed by other physicists, who calculate that as long as the increase in strength is less than 50%, stellar fusion could occur despite the existence of stable diprotons.[10]"

 

link

Since life originated in this universe, why is it so surprising that life is fine tuned to the conditions of this universe ? Life adapts to the conditions around it. Do you go around being amazed at how finely tuned fish are to living in water ?

A proof of god would be if we found life that didn't follow the laws of physics. Have we found something like that ? 

[Crazy Horse]

Just now, I'mConvinced said:

First explain how a particle can be spinning in two directions simultaneously. That's a contradiction that is nevertheless a truth we will use (have used) to design quantum computing.

It turns out contradictions are just a part of life and the only problem with that is a lack of our understanding how that can be.

I said how some apparently contradictory truths can occupy the same space. I know very little about QC, but I do have some very simply examples like this idea that humans are both unique and the same, or the example of me loosing some money, its bad for me, but good for someone else - one action, two truths..

And the reason why we lack an understanding of such things? Because we live in a divisive world of "either, or".

Religion is a great example - either you are with us, or you're not!

If humanity is ever going to find some common ground, if we are going to achieve a real peace, then humanity needs to start running a different programme other than this antiquated, harmful idea of either, or..

Just to add, there might well be some situations and examples where this "either, or" thing is congruent, but not always.

[Harte]

5 hours ago, Illyrius said:

Yes, but it paints... maybe it is not imaginative but if it paints then it is intelligent, no? I mean it paints very realistically, must be very intelligent. Mr. Nikon, a wonder or realism, can paint dogs in movement in a milisecond - what an intelligent beast... which painter can do that, huh?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-fallacy-of-thinking-of-intelligence-as-software_us_59aacb14e4b0d0c16bb52543

"If it paints then it is intelligent."

Is that your claim?

Because it's certainly not mine.

If you knock a can of paint over, it will "paint" too.

Harte

[Crazy Horse]

24 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Since life originated in this universe, why is it so surprising that life is fine tuned to the conditions of this universe ? Life adapts to the conditions around it. Do you go around being amazed at how finely tuned fish are to living in water ?

A proof of god would be if we found life that didn't follow the laws of physics. Have we found something like that ? 

Thats assuming we know all the laws of physics..

Magic is just the unknown laws in my opinion!

And mind is where it all starts, imo.

We may know the grosser laws of mechanical physics, but unless we actually look for the subtler energies of thought, feelings and intention, then who can say for sure?

 

[Harte]

3 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

The soul doesnt dwell with the body after death, it is reabsorbed back into the meta-physical/mental/spiritual plane.

Does the programme still survise inside the computer once it has been broken-up? No, but that programme was thought up in someones mind, so it survives there.

There is as much evidence for a program surviving the catastrophic failure of a computer as there is for a soul surviving death.

More, actually, since there is no evidence for a soul in the first place.

But that's not really my point anyway. I brought it up because of the debate going on about the physical (material) vs. the non-physical.

A program is not physical, but it can be analyzed and measured anyway.

Harte

[Harte]

3 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

How about you take a shot at answering the other main point, about how two apparent contradictory truths can apparently occupy the same space? 

Didn't know it was a question.

Harte

[Crazy Horse]

Just now, Harte said:

There is as much evidence for a program surviving the catastrophic failure of a computer as there is for a soul surviving death.

More, actually, since there is no evidence for a soul in the first place.

But that's not really my point anyway. I brought it up because of the debate going on about the physical (material) vs. the non-physical.

A program is not physical, but it can be analyzed and measured anyway.

Harte

Look at a picture taken of a persons aura, and say hello to "your" soul.

And mind can be measured and analysed too..

Example - this post.

[Crazy Horse]

2 minutes ago, Harte said:

Didn't know it was a question.

Harte

Well you do know.

[Harte]

2 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

Well an imagination is free to roam whence it please..

A programme can only perform tasks that it has been told to perform...

Yes, at present, coding isn't interchangeable with humanity.

However, the point doesn't rest on this fact. It still stands that the program paints from what could be termed as "imagination."

2 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

What instructions was it given? 

I would say that imagination is limitless because it is an action of mind, a mind connected to all that is, was, and will be, connected to the Mind of God, who in my cosmology is infinite and eternal.. So in my opinion, mind/imagination has the potential to be limitless.

But its an interesting idea, but like AI in general, without life, it is only a representation of the real deal! 

I don't know what instructions it was given. If you read the article, it says it wasn't given instructions about the landscapes it paints.

Of course, every line of coding is an "instruction."

But so is the coding in our DNA.

Harte

[Harte]

3 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

Look at a picture taken of a persons aura, and say hello to "your" soul.

And mind can be measured and analysed too..

Example - this post.

Pictures of a person's aura?

You buy into some real hooie, don't you?

Yes, mind is as material as a computer program. That was my point.

Harte

[Crazy Horse]

Just now, Harte said:

Yes, at present, coding isn't interchangeable with humanity.

However, the point doesn't rest on this fact. It still stands that the program paints from what could be termed as "imagination."

I don't know what instructions it was given. If you read the article, it says it wasn't given instructions about the landscapes it paints.

Of course, every line of coding is an "instruction."

But so is the coding in our DNA.

Harte

Yes, but what is termed imagination, isn't imagination but a poor representation only..

Like strict, material science is only a poor representation of life.

And who coded our DNA, who's the programmer?

[Crazy Horse]

1 minute ago, Harte said:

Pictures of a person's aura?

You buy into some real hooie, don't you?

Yes, mind is as material as a computer program. That was my point.

Harte

Have you seen these pictures?

And if you have, perhaps you got a better explanation of what they are?

No, mind isnt as material as a computer programme, a programme, like words are just a symbolic representation of mind, not mind itself.. Yes we can measure and analyse to an extent, but that doesn't mean that these words are actually my mind.

[I'mConvinced]

30 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

I said how some apparently contradictory truths can occupy the same space. I know very little about QC, but I do have some very simply examples like this idea that humans are both unique and the same, or the example of me loosing some money, its bad for me, but good for someone else - one action, two truths..

You can't just selectively apply this and understanding quantum superposition is not required to understand the argument. 

It is provable that contradiction exists at a fundamental physical level, why then should we be surprised to see contradiction at the 'gross' level?

Contradictions are a part of the laws of nature but their existence alone is proof of nothing. Your contradiction is in the same boat.