Jump to content

In Triplicate, Please!


RainmanTime
 Share

Recommended Posts

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

 

Okay, I'm glad you at least partially agree with me now.

 

Let me review your comments here.

 

Mind you, English is not my native tongue. However, I think I've told you before that my language skills are pretty good compared to my math and science skills :)

 

What can I say? I am technical in my nature!

Although this may sound a bit awkward coming from my mouth, but understanding the sole meaning of the word "divine" requires more than just your technical insight. You need to interpret the word as it was meant. This might seem to contradict my claim that the word "divine" is not open to interpretation, but it doesn't. The word really has only one meaning and there is only one way to interpret it. Every word that is derived from "divine" is inextricably linked to the original meaning of "divine".

 

The one that is the MOST different is the intransitive verb divine given as "2. To have or feel a presage or foreboding."

Although this definition might seem different from the rest, it can easily be reduced to the original meaning of "divine". Lets take a look at the full description of the intransitive verb, which you conveniently left out of your quote :)

 

divine

 

\Di*vine"\, v. i.

 

1. To use or practice divination; to foretell by divination; to utter prognostications.

 

The prophets thereof divine for money. --Micah iii. 11.

 

2. To have or feel a presage or foreboding.

 

Suggest but truth to my divining thoughts. --Shak.

 

3. To conjecture or guess; as, to divine rightly.

The first description has a reference to a passage in the bible, so the v.i. is clearly linked to the original meaning of "divine".

 

We have "3.a. Supremely good or beautiful; magnificent and 3.b. Extremely pleasant; delightful. and even 4. Heavenly; perfect." Now, those don't explicity refer to "God, godlike, supreme being, or deity", now do they?

Well... actually they do refer to "God, godlike, supreme being, or deity". Pretty obviously AND in more than one way, I might add. I don't see how they don't, please enlighten me.

 

So your 100% certainty is maybe a little less than 100...and that's OK.

In danger of sounding cocky, but alas... I'm still 100% certain :) Lets see if you can agree with this phrase:

 

The word "divine", regardless of its conjugation or context, is inextricably linked to "God, godlike, supreme being, or deity" in one way or the other.

 

Which is not strange, when you take into account that the word is originally derived from the Latin word for "God".

 

OK, so I hope you agree now that it does not always imply this.

Nope... *taking a sip of my Duvel* no can do, sir ;) I'm sorry you had to go through great pains to layout this explanation, but I can't.

 

OK, so I guess I could just boil it down to one additional word: Creation, of the concept of Creative Power.

I've always had a love-hate relationship with your theories. Not to the extent that I really hate your theories of course, but I usually only agree with them partially.

 

I support the "systems of systems" theory. Excuse my oversimplified summary, but just like you I think the universe acts like a fractal. This is, however, no evidence for what you call Creation. I personally think there was no act of creation, at least, not by an entity. I agree that there could very well be a "higher level system", but to me it's not capable of creation.

 

After writing the last paragraph I realized that I might just understand what you're getting at. You're refering to the ability of (for instance) a cell, to replicate itself. You could consider that an act of creation and I admit that it would be logical to assume that a higher level system, which we cannot perceive, has the same ability. Am I correct?

 

That still doesn't mean there's evidence for that theory. It remains a theory, that seems logical, but can't be proven. The only thing you can do is make assumptions. Now I know that a lot of assumptions have been made in the history of science, some of which are still current. But let us agree that "the evidence that is the universe" doesn't cover the full load.

 

Divine and Creation have really put me on a wrong track. I hate the idea of having to worship something or someone, especially since there's no reason to it. I also want to add that I think it's safe to asume that if there really is a "creative power", it does not have a conscience or self awareness.

 

Geesh, sorry Ray, I'm going to quit now... I finished my Duvel and I have to work tomorrow. Looking forward to your reply. :)

 

Roel

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 239
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Re: Mayhaps the question is..

 

Friends

 

I have read all of your points about the divinity however, maybe we are not discussing the right thing. Maybe we should not pay as much attention to the existence of G-d but to our place in existence. I do understand Roel's point of view, yes maybe there are no tangible proof of a Living Breathing Power Above, but maybe there is. This debate could go on and on until....later becomes now. However, since that seems to be the stalwart barrier that keeps us from moving on, let us say that somehow, somewhen that question was answered and that it is no longer of conscequence, what would we do. Would we become ultimately evil, would we become ultimately good, would we start to behave selfishly or philantropically? What would we do?

 

I do believe that it is not up to us to question the unquestionable, we must simply decide whether to accept our place in "the system of subsystems" and do our part or not to do it and try to find our own way. Either way The Great Unknown will not mind, it would simply understand our decision as an act of learning.

 

So, I think we should start pondering where am I standing in relation to my beliefs and not if my beliefs are true or false. Once you find your bearings and follow your north regarding your belief system you will never have to discuss G-d's veracity again for you shall know first hand if S/he is out there or not.

 

Happy Thoughts fellow campers, summer is near.

 

Until later becomes now.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

 

Okay, I'm glad you at least partially agree with me now.

I always did, as I am not the absolutist here. I was not the one claiming there was ONLY one definition of divine, and as such I was always in partial agreement with you! :)

Although this may sound a bit awkward coming from my mouth, but understanding the sole meaning of the word "divine" requires more than just your technical insight. You need to interpret the word as it was meant. This might seem to contradict my claim that the word "divine" is not open to interpretation, but it doesn't.

Well, again I am afraid I must inform you that you are technically incorrect....they DO contradict each other. You can't say " you need to interpret the word as it was meant" and then turn around and say "it is not open to interpretation"! I guess I am going to have to agree to disagree and abandon this, because I cannot hold a debate with someone who clearly contradicts themselves, and then claims he is not contradicting himself! I'm no Kurt Godel....it makes my brain hurt! ;)

Although this definition might seem different from the rest, it can easily be reduced to the original meaning of "divine".

HEY! Where did that absolutist go???? :) All of a sudden, now that you need relativism to defend your "one definition", you employ it! You seem to do the same thing with technical science and logical contradiction....use them when you need to, throw them away when they don't give you what you want. You might not realize it, but in this attempt to broaden the v.i. version of divine to meet your needs of connecting it to the adj. divine, you are doing the EXACT same thing that I was doing in trying to expand/connect the adj. version of divine to creation!

The first description has a reference to a passage in the bible, so the v.i. is clearly linked to the original meaning of "divine".

That is called an EXAMPLE of the word's usage, and it is not accepted as part of the definition. I have a college degree, Roel, and even though I am an engineer, it required me to pass advanced English classes. I understand the difference between definition and operational example of a word's use. You are REALLY stretching here....

I realized that I might just understand what you're getting at. You're refering to the ability of (for instance) a cell, to replicate itself. You could consider that an act of creation and I admit that it would be logical to assume that a higher level system, which we cannot perceive, has the same ability. Am I correct?

Yes, you are getting there. That is not "the whole enchilada" but you are approaching an understanding of what I am getting at.

That still doesn't mean there's evidence for that theory. It remains a theory, that seems logical, but can't be proven.

I must now ask if you understand the concept of "standard of evidence". There are many, and yes, they are very far from being absolutist statements of truth. If "evidence" was a clear, non-grey-area concept, then we wouldn't need a jury of our peers, and there would be no false convictions, etc. All you are really saying here is that you choose to adopt the STRICTEST standard of evidence, because it appears you really do not want to believe there might be a God. Unfortunately, if one adopts the strictest standard of evidence, there is no way to prove anything. For the strictest standards of evidence, when coupled to the concept of mathematical proof, would require that ALL basic assumptions that go into a proof must also be shown to be true by evidence. This leads to an endless loop where you are always having to provide evidence all the way back in the chain of proofs. So define for me, precisely, your standard of evidence required. And be careful! Because you may demand a standard of evidence so high that you would not be able to prove some things you believe about yourself! ;)

I hate the idea of having to worship something or someone, especially since there's no reason to it.

Continued discussions always reveal subliminal thoughts...and in this we see it. This statement shows the level of which you are "reverse-brainwashed" by the tired religions of our world that demand allegiance to their mores and to their God. Now THIS is evidence of what is going on in your mind, Roel! Who EVER said you HAD to WORSHIP someone or something that may be God? I have to agree with your statement, Roel, as I think this is one of the silliest things that religions try to force on people. Do you really think (if there does happen to be a God) that he/she/it REALLY gives a flying flip whether we worship him/her/it? In fact, if my logical inference is correct with regard to humans and DNA...it is quite obvious that we DO NOT give a flying flip if our DNA is worshipping us! :D As long as our DNA is "serving" us in its operational capacity, we don't care if it goes into little DNA churches and celebrates the Last DNA Supper! :) Sorry, Roel, but this quote seals it for me. Your mind appears SOOOOO locked into the "absolutist" view of what world religions TELL us we must believe, and how we must behave, with respect to God, that it seems to have affected your ability to consider that there JUST MAY BE an alternate "version" of God... one which is FAR less akin to what man-made religions say God is, and one that is FAR closer to what science would infer about how a higher-level creative system would be. I find this amusingly ironic, because you have resisted the controlling message of the world religions SO MUCH, and so WELL, that they have driven you into an absolutist view that what THEY say God "is" must be what EVERYONE is talking about when they talk of a higher-level state of being. My own personal analysis tells me there is a middle-ground belief where the integration of science and spirituality yields a balanced solution to Mind/Body, and Time.

 

I agree that there could very well be a "higher level system", but to me it's not capable of creation.

Interesting.... and yet you, at your systemic level, ARE capable of creation. Now *I* am the one who wants to see *you* provide proof and evidence of this higher level system not being capable of creation! :)

I also want to add that I think it's safe to asume that if there really is a "creative power", it does not have a conscience or self awareness.

Gosh, now why are you being so damned hard on yourself, Roel? :) Not only do I not think it is safe to assume, I think it is downright dangerous to assume...given the obvious fact that YOU possess "creative power"!!! Sorry, but you need a little bit more technical logic here, Roel: You consider yourself conscious, correct? You consider yourself self-aware, correct? You possess a power to create another human. You ARE a higher-level, conscious, self-aware supersystem to your DNA. Argue in a non-technical manner if you wish, but this is still true. And thus, your assumption that a higher-level system context to ourselves is definitely NOT conscious or self-aware is tenuous, at best. If WE are all these things at our level of the "system of systems", then why would we assume the next higher level is NOT?Well, Roel... while I do really enjoy debating things with you, I do have a problem with your loose application of technical science, logic, and semantics. If we both do not adhere to the same level of technical rigor, there is little possibility of us reaching agreement on many issues. Kind of like having different standards of evidence. ;) Do you want to keep both of us haranging around "divine" or do you want to debate any of the other topics I suggested in my last post?

 

Kind Regards,

 

RainmanTime

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

 

Right, I did have a reply all nearly finished, and then my stupid browser deleted it all for me (pressing "delete" twice in quick succession is the same as hitting the "back" button, and you don't seem to be able to stop it). It's now 2 in the morning and I've been tired and hungover all day. forgive me if this post isn't my best effort so far.

 

OK, I'll continue if you insist.

I don't insist on anything. I'd like for you to continue with this conversation, as I find it interesting. If you don't find it interesting, productive or worth the effort, you are more than free to leave it. I just request that if you do leave it that you articulate this, rather than just leaving me hanging.

 

But can we agree that this conversation appears to be centered on "systems of systems" comparisons, especially human-to-DNA, with regard to establishing basis of scientific evidence for a higher-level, intelligent system?

That's what I thought.

 

And I have, and I do, and I will below.

Actually, you gave this as the reason for why you've abandoned 3 conversations with me mid-flow in the short period of time that I've been here. So, you haven't always, you don't always and we'll see.

 

If you've taken it personally, then I do apologize (polite enough, Mr. Manners?).

It's not so much that I've taken it personally, it's just that it's counter-productive and childish. You have accused me of having "reverence" for physics and physicists to such a degree as it affecting my reasoning in such a manner that I find it impossible to question either. You have also, when I've attacked your application of a mathematical theory, you've accused me of attacking the theory, rather than your application of it. What effect, other than possibly annoying me, did you think that these contradictory, inflamatory and dismissive statements could possibly have? What constructive purpose did you think they would serve?

 

But I guess this is my "flowery words" way to get you to come out of your shell and share some of your beliefs of what constitutes our higher-level system, in terms of what sorts of power and influence it may have over us.

A much more eloquent and constructive way of doing that would be to type "what are your beliefs of what constitutes our higher-level system, in terms of what sorts of power and influence it may have over us?" I don't need to come out of my shell. I'm not exactly shy and retiring when it comes to sharing my point of view. However, it is hard to answer a question that you haven't been asked.

 

To answer that question, other than the ordinary societal pressuers put upon us by our societies, I do not believe that any higher-level system has any power or influence over us.

 

I would assume that you consider yourself to be intelligent, and that we consider the human species to be intelligent. And in your abilities of intellect (which establish your intelligence) I suppose you would agree that you exercise certain standards of intelligence over your DNA subsystem, right? In short, you use your intelligence to make calculated decisions of who you choose to procreate with. In fact, if you choose to NEVER procreate then this shows you, an intelligent being, have a supreme measure of power over your DNA, and whether your particular "brew" of DNA will get to "live on" in a new creation.

I would say that, yes, we have a very, very limited and minimal control over our DNA in that manner, yes. If I had a "supreme measure" of power over my DNA, I'd rest assured that I'd never die from cancer. I'd never get Alzheimer's. I could choose the sex, eye colour, lack of deformity or genetic disease of my offspring...

 

. Do DNA and compacted fecal matter have the same subsystem functionality? I can tell you right off the bat that they do not, as DNA can perform the function of organized, self-replication, thanks to its fractal structure. DNA is recombinant, is it not? I don't think fecal matter is recombinant.

And "being recombitant" is the criteria we're using, is it? I can think of a functional aspect that fecal matter and humans have in common - we're both host to billions of lifeforms.

 

If you get to choose the criteria as to what is and what is not "valid", then you can make "valid" comparisons between anything.

 

And, yes, while I agree that there are similarities in some ways between DNA and humans - more so than humans and fecal matter - I don't think that they are profound or significant enough to prove what you seem to be claiming that they prove.

 

And CREATION and CREATIVE POWER is the name of this path I am walking you down.

While I agree that we have extremely limited creative power with regards to our DNA (in as much as we can (usually) choose who we have sex with and what, if any, contraception is used), we don't have the power of creation over it. You cannot create your own DNA (well, you could make an argument for the generation of sperm being exactly that, but I see that as more of an automatic subsystem, as it's not a consious act. Plus, it'd be leaving out the women, who are born with their lifetime's supply of eggs in situ). What you can do is to attempt to fuse a random half of your DNA with a random half of the DNA of someone else (usually) of your choice. But that's not the same thing as being able to replicate your own DNA at all.

 

Instead of being flippant and trying to make me look silly, you could just say "OK, I guess you are right, there are some valid comparisions. They are not, as I stated, COMPLETELY unrelated."

Or, I could instead type "you've just spent 4 or 5 paragraphs dissecting the minutae of the precise semantics that I've employed, utilising gratuitous CAPITALISATION, instead of addressing the points I've made"

 

Such admissions would prevent me from having to explain all my reasonings for my arguments (and maybe save a few keystrokes) in the future.

And yet, now that you've actually fleshed out your ideas, rather than talking purely in "could be"s and vague generalities, I'm actually a lot more on board than I was previously. Explaining yourself is a good thing, not a bad one.

 

OK, now I am unclear on what you are admitting to.

I was unaware that I was "admitting to" anything.

 

Since humans and DNA *do* share common functional architectures, and since dogs and tables *do NOT*, then by ignoring the functional aspects you introduce an argument that is an invalid comparison.

Dogs and tables certainly can share common functional aspects. They can both be decorative. They can both be practical. They can both be vocational. Again, if you get to choose the criteria, and how you define what fills the criteria (and what you can discard), then you can compare anything.

 

And, while we're on functional aspects, how about the largest, most over-riding functional aspect of DNA which hasn't been mentioned up until now? Pretty much everything about me is defined and controlled by my DNA. From the way my body is built, to the way my brain is built, from the skills I have to the defects I have...aside from a little nurture (and the odd accident, plus wear and tear), everything about me is the way it is because of my DNA. This is not only the primary function of the DNA, it is it's entire raison d'etre. Humans have no equivalent function.

 

It's those criteria again.

 

Did you ever hear the words "in the image and likeness of their creator?" Comes from a popular book called the Bible.

I think that the Bible is useful as an anthropological document. It's not as useful as a historical document, but it does have use as one. Then, and only then, do I think it has value as a theological one, and not all that much value at that.

 

We are self-similar (a fractal term) with our DNA in this regard.

I'll agree that we share some similarities, but to be self-similar, we'd have to be identical. And that we're a long way from being.

 

I hope you can see the "tapestry" I am weaving or, to use the other analogy, the path I am leading you down.

I see the path. It's just that, unlike you, I think that it's built on some flawed foundations.

 

It's not really a scary path, unless you have an aversion to helping humanity get a better grip on a definition of what may constitute "divinity".

This is exactly the kind of counter-productive statement I could do without. Other than to patronise me, what was the point of this?

 

No, I don't find it remotely scary. I just think that it's wrong, on a fundamental level. Think of it like this; I don't not believe in Santa Claus because I'm scared of what the world would be like if there was one, I simply don't think that the reasoning behind the existence of Santa holds up to scrutiny.

 

As for the ad hominem about anyone who is not agreeing with your thinking being "adverse to helping humanity get a better grip on a definition of what may constitute 'divinity'", I think it's an admirable goal, and one that I do try to help people to achieve. One that I think it's possible that I'm contributing to right now, in fact. I just do not agree with your definition of what that understanding is. That doesn't make me someone that you can legitimately look down upon, it just makes me someone that disagrees with your reasoning. We can discuss it like adults, or you can score points off me. It's up to you.

 

If all these things are basically "right" from a macrocosm/microcosm point of view in this comparision, then it does not seem exeedingly unlikely that these same forms of relationships could appear between us and the next-higher level supersystem of which we are part (and I think you said you DO agree that there probably is a next-higher system context).

Well, if we say that I agree that these things are "right" for the sake of argument, then, yes, it is possible that what you say is true. However, there is still no evidence that it is. It's equally likely - more, even - that there is no "divine intelligence".

 

If I conceed that it's not "exceedingly unlikely" (given the veracity of the above) that there is a higher intelligence, then will you conceed that it is also not "exceedingly unlikely" that there is no higher intelligence?

 

Examine the spatial/size relationships of the elements we are discussing in this "systems of systems" view. I'd say the ratios are pretty comparable: DNA strand is to the entire human body, as the human body is to the entire known universe. Without actually performing a calculation for an exact number, I'd say the scalings in these ratios are fairly close.

This is confirmational bias at it's worse. You freely admit that you don't actually know the sizes (and it's even impossible to) and therefore this is not based on any kind of factual grounding, but you offer up your theory about it as if it confirms your point of view. It doesn't at all. It's simply another theroy which doesn't seem to have much basis in fact.

 

Would it weaken your conviction if I could disprove it?

 

Anyway, this post was much better 1st time round. Bloody machine.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

 

Hey fellow Travelers,

 

I've really enjoyed readiing all the sides in the current debate/discussion about whether "divinity" has any validity at all in the "systems of systems" concept. In a very real sense, you have yourselves created a system within a system; and we can, to some degree, examine this system and determine a concensus of view that is observable by all the individual elements. In order to do so, each element would have to cede "sovereignty" to "something" in the center of all that would define the "truth" of the matter. Whether we like to believe it or not, this is how science works. Interestingly enough, this is also how "religion" is supposed to work as well. Unfortunately, in both cases, one element gravitates to the center and corrupts and, consequently, disrupts the concentual view. I've found this to be true working with adolescents, with groups of teachers as well as groups of religious "experts". When "all" can lay aside preconceived ideas and beliefs and see ourselves as "elements" in the system and not the only "true" element, then there is a possibility for true growth away from our "linear" lines of thinking toward dimensional understanding. This goes for all elements of the system. Unfortunately, there is always a strong period of "dissonance". When opposing waves interract, this is a natural occurrence and eventually it balances out.

 

I've noticed a lot of dissonance in this thread, but I've also noticed a great deal of patience and willingness to go the extra mile--simply because you all CARE. You care about lots of things, but mostly you care about the TRUTH. Just as we all may not have the ability to tune a guitar, we can all tell when it is NOT in tune. There is no doubt in my mind that if the "proof" could be shown, not only would the concept of divinity be wholeheartedly accepted--or rejected--you would all put your whole being into "preaching" it from that point on. Some may have already reached that point but I always hold hope that "place" in the middle can be reached. I think the Bible teaches this concept throughout its pages. When you view it in this way, the contradictions turn into points of view--sometimes contrary to my own point of view. Science is also very indicative of this. There are several points of view. The totality is "something" beyond all of us. We are all limited to our understanding of that last infinitesmal moment following First Cause. None of us can penetrate that veil. I suspect that if the moment ever comes that we CAN penetrate the veil, science and divinity will be holding hands when it happens.

 

On the basis of evidence alone, our universe is mechanistic and deterministic. Yet in the words of a famous physicist, John Wheeler, (and I paraphrase)--despite the fact that we have discovered the "differential equations", we still don't know why it "flies". Simply because of the discovery of "non-local events", he changed his whole focus of study from the "what" to the "why". At 90-something years of age, he began to look beyond his own self-imposed paradigm. Few other scientists who are "in the know" are willing to even discuss, let alone study, "future science". In this, they are no different than those in the past who have refused to accept "advances". Of course this does not imply that "divinity" will hold the keys to the answers. However, there are few other directions to go in. Like it or not, some scientists are considering "god" or, at least, something "godlike". Hats off to all of you. Your observations really make me think.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: EVIDENCE of the crime

 

Dude. Whoa.

 

OK, it must be that I just offend you at every turn. Sorry! Really. I'm from California, man. You know...the place everyone always makes fun of for us being "out there"? Hell, we elected The Terminator to be our governor...you wanna talk evidence? :) Yes, I am a "nut". Yes, I am "out there". We like to have lots of fun here in the sun, and not take things, especially philosophical debates all serious and [fecal matter]. I often use sarcasm (no, really?). I can OvErCaPiTaLiZe with the best of them. I have taken the name of the Lord in vain, I thought dirty thoughts about Ginger on Gilligans Island, and touched myself impurely during one of those thoughts! :D Yep...I definitely am a "sinner" and I am sorry if I offend you in my zeal to have a fun and lively debate.

 

And on the flipside, I realize you are British (right?), so a bit more formalism is your way. I understand that, and that my style offends you. So I will do my very best to be more stoic and to-the-point. Less Hollywood...? :)

 

I just request that if you do leave it that you articulate this, rather than just leaving me hanging.

Roger that. Elvis has not yet left the building.

What constructive purpose did you think they would serve?

Sarcastic entertainment value. Flowery words. Sorry. Poke all the fun at me you want. Accuse me of having "reverence" for math and geometry, or beach babes in bikinis....whatever. Happy-Happy-Joy-Joy? :devil:

To answer that question, other than the ordinary societal pressuers put upon us by our societies, I do not believe that any higher-level system has any power or influence over us.

OK, just as long as you realize that this view is in direct contrast to accepted systems theory of how systems integrate with one another across and within systemic boundaries. In fact, power and influence is what systems integration is all about. Interfaces between systems (either at the same level or across levels of their nesting) are one of the two primary constructs that the systems engineer works with in development (the others are the Components). Interfaces are the conduits for allowing systems to exert power and influence on other systems to achieve operational results.

I would say that, yes, we have a very, very limited and minimal control over our DNA in that manner, yes. If I had a "supreme measure" of power over my DNA, I'd rest assured that I'd never die from cancer. I'd never get Alzheimer's. I could choose the sex, eye colour, lack of deformity or genetic disease of my offspring...

And mapping the human genome, recently, has set the stage for a quantum leap in control over our DNA... correct?

And "being recombinant" is the criteria we're using, is it?

I'd say it's one of the several highly important relationships for the case we are looking at, yes. Being that this is the process at the heart of cellular reproduction...creation...the creative process. Germaine to discussing the possibility of a "higher level" creator, I'd say.

I can think of a functional aspect that fecal matter and humans have in common - we're both host to billions of lifeforms. If you get to choose the criteria as to what is and what is not "valid", then you can make "valid" comparisons between anything.

I again refer you to the standard systems engineering information schema: Operational-Functional-Physical. The analysis that defines relevance of some systemic relationships over others is not arbitrary, and it always begins in the Operational domain. It defines the process by which the infinite "tree" of relationships of systems are pruned down to those that are most relevant to operational intent.

While I agree that we have extremely limited creative power with regards to our DNA ...snip... But that's not the same thing as being able to replicate your own DNA at all.

Creative power is not static. It evolves. Up to 20 years ago we did have extremely limited creative power over our DNA. Today we have quite a bit more. Hang on several years and see what we are going to be capable of at that time. Then we'll come back and read these posts when we are replicating our DNA.

Again, if you get to choose the criteria, and how you define what fills the criteria (and what you can discard), then you can compare anything.

Please study the details of the systems engineering analysis process, and how information schemas are developed for quantifying systemic relationships. It guides you in establishing "necessary and sufficient" relationships based on the operational domain. You seem to be selecting arbitrary criteria. I am selecting them based on operational rankings.

everything about me is the way it is because of my DNA. This is not only the primary function of the DNA, it is it's entire raison d'etre. Humans have no equivalent function.

Correction: You cannot observe or identify a human equivalent function. Do you think our DNA is capable of observing/identifying the impact of their prime function on our bodies? Again, this is not a riddle. It has also been explained by systems theory in terms of how system embedding "hides" entire layers of information context. I think the premise is based on one of Boehm's theorems. You cannot definitively say the human species does not have a coherent function to a higher-level system.

I think that the Bible is useful as an anthropological document.

Agreed, but I think its value here is grossly different across the different books.

It's not as useful as a historical document, but it does have use as one.

Agreed.

Then, and only then, do I think it has value as a theological one, and not all that much value at that.

Have you ever studied Genesis 1 in a translation more accurate to its original Hebrew? Forgetting theological, how about potential for cosmological value? There have been correlations described between the structure of Genesis 1 and the theorized "symmetry breaks" that denoted cosmological evolutionary milestones. Interesting stuff.

but to be self-similar, we'd have to be identical. And that we're a long way from being.

No. You are clearly not understanding the fractal definition of self-similar. I wish you'd do a little more research on these things you don't have a full grasp on, rather than relying on me to correct your understanding of them. The words "self-similar" were chosen in fractal geometry for the precise reason that things do NOT have to be identical across systemic levels....and in point of fact, the scientists who developed these math noticed that embedded natural systems actually are NOT self-identical. Are you aware of the geometric concept of similarity? Similar triangles are similar, but not identical. This same concept is extended when it comes to fractal dimension and scaleability. Wavelets is another good technology area for you to read up on to understand this concept. A single mother wavelet transform can generate self-similar (but not identical) wavelet tranforms at higher or lower levels of systemtic resolution. These mathematical tools, which grew out of fractals, have been shown to be MUCH more robust than the older techniques of Fourier transforms.

This is exactly the kind of counter-productive statement I could do without. Other than to patronise me, what was the point of this?

Christ... you really DO take these things personally. Lighten-up a little, huh? I've already told you I will try to tone down the California style wit. Do you ever have fun, and cut loose in life, or are you always so serious?

If I conceed that it's not "exceedingly unlikely" (given the veracity of the above) that there is a higher intelligence, then will you conceed that it is also not "exceedingly unlikely" that there is no higher intelligence?

I'd consider it reasomable that, at worst, it is a 50/50 proposition. The fact that there is no agreeable evidence, at the current time, does not totally annihilate the possibility that such an intelligence exists. It only says we are not aware, or capable of perceiving such.

This is confirmational bias at it's worse. You freely admit that you don't actually know the sizes (and it's even impossible to) and therefore this is not based on any kind of factual grounding, but you offer up your theory about it as if it confirms your point of view.

I'm making an observation, pal. I did not "offer it up" as any kind of proof. Do you really think I would have worded it as uncertainly as I did if I *DID* mean it to be offered as proof? The point was scaling, and resolution with respect to how a system and subsystem are related....especially from the point of observational horizons. Scale and resolution variance are a central pillar of fractal geometry in terms of how boundaries are defined between one scale and another.How about you treat me with a little respect, and do some homework on the things I have been discussing? Maybe learn about the mathematics of fractals and chaos a little more deeply so you don't make simple errors such as the one on self-similarity. You're a lot less convincing to me when you try to debunk me on something you show little knowledge of.

 

RainmanTime

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: EVIDENCE of the crime

 

OK, it must be that I just offend you at every turn.

Believe me when i say that I don't get offended by these things, but I do find them an unwelcome distraction. Bear in mind that I was very very tired and hungover yesterday, too, as well has having to type out the whole post twice, losing half of what I had said the first time (there was a great bit about prooftexting that I only rememebred this morning). I was grumpy yesterday. I'm not quite awake yet today.

 

And on the flipside, I realize you are British (right?), so a bit more formalism is your way. I understand that, and that my style offends you.

Actually, I would put it down to my net upbringing, if you like. The first message board I was ever a memeber of (and still am) was the snopes Urban Legends Reference Pages MB. I don't know if you've ever heard of or even been there, but the level of debate is very high. It's slacked off and gotten looser over the last two or three years, but it's still exceedingly bad form to attack the person behind the argument, rather than the argument itself. There's a big difference between saying "you aren't convinced by what I've said here about divinity, I think you've got a), b) and c) wrong in your reasoning" and saying "you aren't convinced by what I've said about divinity, it must be because you're too closed-minded and scared of thinking outside the box". Surely you can see the difference, and how one is constructive and the other is destructive, with regards to intelligent and rational debate?

 

OK, just as long as you realize that this view is in direct contrast to accepted systems theory of how systems integrate with one another across and within systemic boundaries.

In which case, I would say that other than the societies in which we live (and by that I mean the many different interrelated sets, such as the global society, and out family units, and our country's societies, and every set and subset besides), no there is no higher-level system. If it has to have some level of control over us for it to be defined as such then, no, I don't believe it can be defined as such.

 

And mapping the human genome, recently, has set the stage for a quantum leap in control over our DNA... correct?

I'm not sure I'd go that far, no. It's very early days as of yet, and I believe that DNA is very, very complicated stuff. We've mapped the human brain but, in real terms, we're not all that much closer to understaning it than we were 100 years ago.

 

Besides, are we not discussing natural functions? Because if we are counting scientific advances, wouldn't that mean that in some ways the evidence that you see of the parallells is true now, but wasn't 100 years ago. So doesn't that actually mean that the existence of a divine entity is more likely now than it was back then?

 

Being that this is the process at the heart of cellular reproduction...creation...the creative process.

So, then, would you say that the fact that DNA is self-replicating is an important operational function? Because we sure as anything don't do that.

 

The analysis that defines relevance of some systemic relationships over others is not arbitrary, and it always begins in the Operational domain. It defines the process by which the infinite "tree" of relationships of systems are pruned down to those that are most relevant to operational intent.

But it is still you that chooses those criteria. At the risk of coming accross as sarky, I'm going to go back to the "systems analysis is not based off the comparison between DNA and humans" line. The point is that unless there's a systems analysis manual out there that says "humans and DNA can be compared with regards to their ability of creation, but their differences with regards to self-replication and purpose of existence can safely be ignored" then it is you who has chosen the criteria that need to be fulfilled before the comparison is seen as valid. Ergo, in my opinion, your reasoning can be wrong and your comparisons invalid to my mind, without the entire study of systems analysis being wrong.

 

Creative power is not static. It evolves. Up to 20 years ago we did have extremely limited creative power over our DNA. Today we have quite a bit more. Hang on several years and see what we are going to be capable of at that time. Then we'll come back and read these posts when we are replicating our DNA.

But, as above, does this not mean that your theory becomes more likely as cloning technology develops? How can that work? Presumably there either is a higher level of intelligence or there isn't. What we know or don't know shouldn't affect that.

 

Besides, wouldn't it have to be people going around creating clones of themselves for that comparison to be valid? I don't see that happening.

 

You seem to be selecting arbitrary criteria. I am selecting them based on operational rankings.

But you've had to either disregard or diminish what I would consider two out of three of the highest-ranked aspects. First there's the genetic info telling us how to grow, then there's the self-replication and finally, there's the recombinance. And I wouldn't really say that you can say that the last one is a similarity that we have anyway. It does seem kind of arbitrary.

 

Correction: You cannot observe or identify a human equivalent function. Do you think our DNA is capable of observing/identifying the impact of their prime function on our bodies? Again, this is not a riddle. It has also been explained by systems theory in terms of how system embedding "hides" entire layers of information context. I think the premise is based on one of Boehm's theorems. You cannot definitively say the human species does not have a coherent function to a higher-level system.

Well, okay. But, once more, I see absolutely no evidence for it. I mean, this can seem like a persuasive argument, but it's not really. True, I cannot disprove this theory of yours. But I also cannot disprove the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, or the Roman Gods, or Santa Clause, or Hubert The Invisible Purple Dancing Beaver Deity, or my mad scientist from a 50s B-movie poking electrodes into my brain to create all of this.

 

That I cannot disprove this doesn't make it being true more likely. All it means is that I have to use more qualifiers when talking about it, as I cannot say with 100% certainty that it's not true. Not if I want to be scrupulously accurate, in any case.

 

Have you ever studied Genesis 1 in a translation more accurate to its original Hebrew?

Well, it depends on what you mean by "more accurate". More accurate than what?

 

I've done a fair bit of study of religion over the years, particularly Christianity. I wouldn't pretend to be an expert in the slightest, but I've dabbled around more than the average bunny. If you have any interesting links, I'll definately take a look.

 

You are clearly not understanding the fractal definition of self-similar.

You're right, sorry. 2 in the morning, a couple of hours' sleep and about a bottle of wine the night before...

 

That said, I'm still not convinced that you can accurately say that we are self-similar.

 

Lighten-up a little, huh? I've already told you I will try to tone down the California style wit. Do you ever have fun, and cut loose in life, or are you always so serious?

Yes, I have fun. I'm a young-looking 29, but I can see where my wrinkles will be, and they're all laugh-lines.

 

But "I was only joking" is the worst defence against insulting someone. See Chronohistorian's defence of calling me "gay" as an insult for further reference.

 

Do you really think I would have worded it as uncertainly as I did if I *DID* mean it to be offered as proof?

Okay, "proof" was a little too hard a term. But what the example you offered doesn't do is stregnthen your case in the slightest. Yes, maybe we have roughly or even exactly the same difference in size. I can't rule it out as a possibility. But, without being able to measure the universe, I can't think of it as anythign other than a remote possibility. And, again, it's you choosing the criteria. If the scale weren't exactly the same, how close would it have to be to be considered valid? An order of 2? 10? 100? 1000? What margin of error is there in measuring? What average size of human do we take? And so on. That's all up to you.

 

Unless it were exactly the same, it wouldn't prove anything. And even if it were exactly the same, then that still leaves the possibility of coincidence.

 

How about you treat me with a little respect, and do some homework on the things I have been discussing? Maybe learn about the mathematics of fractals and chaos a little more deeply so you don't make simple errors such as the one on self-similarity. You're a lot less convincing to me when you try to debunk me on something you show little knowledge of.

Well, with all due respect, if there's a concept that you're relying on to be part of your reasoning, then shouldn't you explain it? You can't very well use the technical aspects of your vocation to explain things and then act offended when I'm not as much of an expert in the subject as you are. When I had a point to make using semiology, I explained the relevent aspects in detail. If there's something that you think I ought to know that you think I don't before I can fully understand what you're saying, then why not explain it, or link to a page that does?

 

Because, as it is, you're saying that I shouldn't converse with you until I know certain as-yet unspecified things about subjects that you pluck out of the air with gay abandon. That's hardly fair, is it?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

 

Well, again I am afraid I must inform you that you are technically incorrect....

I did not contradict myself, but I was afraid you were going to say that. What I was trying to say is that there is only one way to interpret "divine", which makes it "not open to interpretation".

 

Also, I'm not an absolutist. Like I said, I usually start any discussion with "My personal opinion is..." or something similar. But this time I'm sure of my case.

 

All of a sudden, now that you need relativism to defend your "one definition", you employ it! You seem to do the same thing with technical science and logical contradiction....use them when you need to, throw them away when they don't give you what you want.

That's not true. You tried to take the edge off my statement by throwing in the verb. All I did was show you the existing relationship between the verb, the adjective and the noun. They're all linked to god, godlike, supreme being, etc. No doubt about that!

 

Furthermore, I'm not very good at technical science. So please feel free to educate me in that field :)

 

That is called an EXAMPLE of the word's usage, and it is not accepted as part of the definition.

I'm not challenging your languageskills, but I do feel that I'm right in this case. I was just providing the full definition of the v.i. (unlike you) and I tried to point out that the first example of the word's usage was in a religious context. Of course I know that this is only an example, but please don't tell me that it's a total coincidence that they're using this specific example. I'm not stretching anything :)

 

...because it appears you really do not want to believe there might be a God.

I can't say I'm completely unbiased, but if there's a good reason to believe that there might be a god I'm willing to hear it.

 

So define for me, precisely, your standard of evidence required. And be careful! Because you may demand a standard of evidence so high that you would not be able to prove some things you believe about yourself!

I can only tell you that I think the evidence provided to date is far from sufficient. I find it difficult to define the standard of evidence I require, since the theory of a (conscious) creator does not appeal to me at all. The "evidence that is the universe" as you beautifully stated, is definitely not evidence of the existence of a (conscious) creator. I can probably come up with a million other theories and claim "the universe around us" as my evidence.

 

Roel! Who EVER said you HAD to WORSHIP someone or something that may be God?

No one did. But you're taking that phrase out of its context. I'm not "reversed brainwashed". You also still seem to be thinking that my view on your theory is biased by my aversion of classic religions. This is entirely based on a misunderstanding.

 

I find this amusingly ironic, because you have resisted the controlling message of the world religions SO MUCH, and so WELL, that they have driven you into an absolutist view that what THEY say God "is" must be what EVERYONE is talking about when they talk of a higher-level state of being.

Also not true. In fact I was hoping you could provide me with new insights and theories of what you think this higher-level state of being actually is, but instead you're clinging to "the divine" and a creator. This is certainly not the revolutionary thinking I was hoping for. To me it seems as if you can't let go entirely of the classic views of the religion you were raised up with.

 

Now *I* am the one who wants to see *you* provide proof and evidence of this higher level system not being capable of creation!

Before I go on I want to add that I think there's a substantial difference between our ability to create and the "creation" that takes place on a systemic level. We create things using our minds. It requires creativity. I don't see the same creativity when it comes to this "higher level system". For one thing, you claim that it has creative powers, yet it doesn't create anymore. And if it does, what does it create? It's hard to disprove something for which there is no evidence or proof in the first place.

 

You ARE a higher-level, conscious, self-aware supersystem to your DNA.

AH YES... I can create another human, but I cannot create a single strand of DNA! Consequently, a higher level system would only be able to create another higher level system. Using your logic, that is!

 

And thus, your assumption that a higher-level system context to ourselves is definitely NOT conscious or self-aware is tenuous, at best.

You compare our relation to the higher-level system with the relationship of DNA to us. This would imply that our DNA is also self-aware or conscious. Would you care to explain how you see that. I think we have the ability to be self-aware because we have the ability to think. Does DNA have this ability? I don't think so.

 

Well, Roel... while I do really enjoy debating things with you, I do have a problem with your loose application of technical science, logic, and semantics.

I enjoy debating with you as well. I do think my logic is just as good as yours. You obviously have an advantage when it comes to science. But... as long as you keep denying that the word "divine" is inextricably linked to God I think your application of semantics is worse than mine :) Sometimes it feels a bit as if you look down on me with disdain. I do think you're more knowledegeable, especially in the field of science, but sometimes you can be quite stubborn. I'm eager to learn, but I don't want to partake in a oneway discussion :)

 

Do you want to keep both of us haranging around "divine" or do you want to debate any of the other topics I suggested in my last post!

The latter!

 

I think I'll just agree to disagree. Perhaps if we get over this, we can come to an understanding about the other topics :)

 

Roel

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: EVIDENCE of the crime

 

In which case, I would say that other than the societies in which we live (and by that I mean the many different interrelated sets, such as the global society, and out family units, and our country's societies, and every set and subset besides), no there is no higher-level system. If it has to have some level of control over us for it to be defined as such then, no, I don't believe it can be defined as such.

Please clarify what you are saying here, because it is not clear. I am telling you an empirical fact of how systems relate to each other and influence each other via relationships. This is another example of where I provide evidence from a body of accepted knowledge (not just my opinion), and you give a vague answer. What do you mean by "I don't believe it can be defined as such"? Who was talking about a definition, and what is "it"? You see, the fact that you are otherwise a clear communicator leads me to believe you are avoiding, or otherwise ignoring, the accepted evidence I have provided. Very similar to your skirting the issues of fractal dimension. Your level of clarity observably declines when I present evidence that you do not wish to admit supports my position. That is a tactic most often used by people not interested in a true debate, where we learn, but in simply getting a kick out of trying to debunk anything someone says. This is the impression you give by changing your level of clarity like this.In a relativistic universe (and I hope you are not going to debunk Einstein), all systems are related to, and influence, all others through interfaces and influences that take on various forms of energy. Example: The higher level system of our sun and the other planets in our solar system have influence (and therefore an element of control) over our earth subsystem. So in reading your vague reply, and putting it into the context of the accepted facts of systems engineering I provided you, about all I can infer from your answer is that you think there is no system outside the boundaries of our universe (whatever they would be). Because you see, if there IS a higher-level context system outside the boundaries of our universe, then that system, by its very existence, has influence and interaction with our universe. So please clarify exactly what you mean by the above.

 

We've mapped the human brain but, in real terms, we're not all that much closer to understaning it than we were 100 years ago.

More vagueness....so, just what IS "in real terms"? And how about "all that much closer"? Because I would cite that 100 years ago, we did not even know which regions of the brain were responsible for what functions. And in order to assess what you mean by "understanding" the brain, we would need to know a precise definition for what constitutes understanding. No, you are much too vague here for this to be acceptable. I think most neuroscientists would say we have come quite far in the last 100 years with regard to understanding the brain. But this doesn't mean we still don't have far to go.

Because if we are counting scientific advances, wouldn't that mean that in some ways the evidence that you see of the parallells is true now, but wasn't 100 years ago. So doesn't that actually mean that the existence of a divine entity is more likely now than it was back then?

Scientific advances are part-and-parcel of our nature, are they not? And I was not aware that "evidence" required observation or discovery by humans for it to BE evidence. The evidence for a meteor strike being the potential reason for dinosaur extinction was there in the geological record all along. Are you telling me that this evidence was not "true" until we actually found that evidence?So yes, I am talking about natural functions, which includes anything in the universe AND the functions it performs. Our human drive to understand and discover is natural, and therefore any evidence that we discover does not make the existence of a divine entity any more or less likely. What it DOES do is inrease the liklihood that we can prove this entity's existence, at some arbitrary standard of evidence.

 

So, then, would you say that the fact that DNA is self-replicating is an important operational function? Because we sure as anything don't do that.

And why, pray tell, do you claim this? I've got a good idea what a couple of your arguments are likely to be, so let me address those: (1) Please don't use the claim that DNA creates identical replicas of itself. First because there are mutations, but more importantly, I have already addressed embedding with respect to fractal self-similarity, which does not require self-identicality. Human beings self-replicate, and they do create self-similar infants. (2) Now you just may point out the difference between asexual replication of DNA and sexual replication of humans. To this I would ask: Have you ever considered that the double helix of DNA is "self-similar" to a human male/female couple? In fact, they are also self-similar in the fact that Purines will only bond with Pyrimadines, just as a man can only create a life with a woman. So yes, both humans and DNA create self-similar replicas.

But, as above, does this not mean that your theory becomes more likely as cloning technology develops?

No, it does not. You are again getting confused between the existence of a higher being stated by the theory, and the revelation of evidence that supports the veracity of the theory. Another example: Einstein's theory of relativity has undergone many tests and, so far, each one has provided more evidence of its truth. We have recently launched Gravity Probe B to verify Einstein's conclusions about "frame drag". If the results come back and support Einstein's theory, this does not change the fact that the theory is correct... it only provides more evidence of its correctness. Similar with evidence resulting in "reasonable doubt" to throw out a court conviction. More evidence does not change the fact that the crime was committed. It only provides a greater level of certainty that the accused was the one who committed the crime.

Besides, wouldn't it have to be people going around creating clones of themselves for that comparison to be valid?

No. Please get a grip on self-similarity. Go study advances in fractals, as I have asked you to do before. If you are truly interested in learning from this debate, and not just getting jollies out of attempted debunking, then you should want to investigate bodies of knowledge that I use to support my statements...all by yourself. I get paid for teaching things in detail, so I don't feel like giving you free lessons.

and finally, there's the recombinance. And I wouldn't really say that you can say that the last one is a similarity that we have anyway.

Well, I can say it, and it is supportable. For I think you already know that the reproductive gametes of the male and female are haploid cells, and that this is the mechanism of human recombination. Self-similar indeed to the unzipping of the double helix during meiosis.

But, once more, I see absolutely no evidence for it.

And here again I see you have ignored points I have made before...so I shall repeat them: (1) I am following a process of induction, which does not require direct evidence for the general truth at hand. It only requires direct evidence of the particular cases in the inductive argument. (2) Until you define a standard of acceptable evidence, you can always claim you don't see evidence for it, by simply raising the unstated bar of what constitutes acceptable evidence. And now to add to these points, let's look at another example: Do you SEE any evidence whatsoever that there may be other intelligent species in our galaxy or universe? I assume you will say no. So then I'd ask if you are familiar with the Drake Equation? This is a bit of inductive reasoning based on fairly well estbalished individual probabilities. And it is also accepted by those in the SETI and other astronomical communities. And in fact, Drake's quantification of this equation has essentially showed us just how ridiculous (unlikely) it would be to assume we are the only intelligent species in this universe.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "more accurate". More accurate than what?

More accurate than the Christian standard bibles (e.g. King James Version, etc.) There is a translation of Genesis 1 in the book Sepher Yetzirah that is much more true to the original Hebrew text. But then again, if you want REALLY accurate, study Hebrew and read it in its native language.

If you have any interesting links, I'll definately take a look.

While this book is primarily on Qabalah and its roots, The Work Of The Chariot does have a very interesting appendix which aligns Genesis 1 with the six symmetry breaks described by quantum physics. Here is a link with a description of the theory. But you'd have to buy the book to get the whole expansion. (i.e. I am not about to type it all in here)

That said, I'm still not convinced that you can accurately say that we are self-similar.

Oh well, no skin off my nose. I know I can accurately say it because I have studied both fractals and non-linear chaos theory. If you are truly interested, you can do the same.

See Chronohistorian's defence of calling me "gay" as an insult for further reference.

So now it is my turn to expect an apology from you in the next post. Comparing me to that idiot is about as insulting as you can get. I don't believe I ever insulted you in such a direct manner as calling you gay. Rather, in this particular case, I made a sarcastic statement wondering if you were really interested in exploring the possibilities of a higher-level intelligence. You simply inferred the insult that was never intended. That is so far from the kind of crap that Chrono spews that now *I* choose to infer an insult. I thought that you would at least give me more credit than that idiot because I can speak in coherent, complete, correct English sentences.

And, again, it's you choosing the criteria. If the scale weren't exactly the same, how close would it have to be to be considered valid? An order of 2? 10? 100? 1000? What margin of error is there in measuring? What average size of human do we take? And so on. That's all up to you.

 

Unless it were exactly the same, it wouldn't prove anything.

No, it doesn't have to be exactly the same because, once again, my point is related to multiple resolution analysis (MRA), which is a subset discipline of fractal mathematics related to wavelets. You know, it is really beginning to annoy me that you so freely make statements attempting to force me to be wrong, without taking the time to even investigate the basic concepts of fractals and chaos that I am pointing you towards.

Well, with all due respect, if there's a concept that you're relying on to be part of your reasoning, then shouldn't you explain it?

I already spend quite enough time clarifying what I mean. I am not about to go dig up all my notes and break into an online course here. I know that you are smart enough to take the basic concepts I have described, and either google to get more, or head to the library. I'm not your science or math teacher, and as I said, I get paid to teach engineering, so if you are willing to fund a private lesson, I might consider it...yes, there goes to mercenary American again! :) But to show you I am not just going to let you drift around all on your own, I will at least give you a web page to get you started. You should also note on this page that it gives an inkling about what the multiple resolution criteria is for your question above about "how close would it have to be to be considered valid". It is NOT an arbitrary choice as you imply. But rather dependent upon another concept I have brought up in past discussions which, apparantly, you chose to ignore: the Golden Mean Ratio and Fibonacci sequence. If my off-the-cuff observation of DNA/human and human/universe were computed, and both of these reflected (approximately) the Golden Mean Ratio, this *would* be a strong bit of evidence for statistical significance of their being highly self-similar.

Because, as it is, you're saying that I shouldn't converse with you until I know certain as-yet unspecified things

Now you are the one guilty of projecting my intent. No, I am NOT saying you should not converse with me. I am saying that it would be a bit more intelligent of you to avoid some of your bold statements intended to prove me wrong....at least until you've had some time to investigate what I am referring to.

That's hardly fair, is it?

And I am sure your parents taught you that life is rarely fair. I know you would not like me as a teacher, because I am one of those who expect students to take the initiative if they are really interested in learning something. But then again, I have other students who properly see my style as a challenge to invigorate their knowledgebase. As such, I am really interested in knowing if your motivation is to learn something new, or simply to debunk me. Because if it is the latter, then you are simply wasting my good-natured time in this debate.RainmanTime

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: EVIDENCE of the rhyme

 

Oh yes... here is a good summary quote from this site which also discusses relationships between self-similarity and GMS/Fibonacci:

 

"Selfsimilar growth, ubiquitous to nature (living and nonliving), is therefore governed by universal dynamical laws which are independent of the exact details (chemical, physical, physiological, electrical etc.) of the dynamical system, i.e., a system which evolves with time."

 

This (hopefully) further clarifies the point that DNA mechanisms do not have to be identical in any manner for them to be self-similar. The distinguishing critera is a scaling relationship to the golden mean ratio.

 

RainmanTime

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

 

Hello Zerub!

 

Nice, balanced post. I agree with what you say.

 

In a very real sense, you have yourselves created a system within a system

A very good point. Creation is a process that never ceases. All systems are dynamic, even if we humans perceive certain systems (e.g. mountains) as if they appear static. Reference timeframes and frequency bands are highly dependent upon the physical structure of the system, and any other systems observing it.

I think the Bible teaches this concept throughout its pages. When you view it in this way, the contradictions turn into points of view--sometimes contrary to my own point of view. Science is also very indicative of this. There are several points of view.

Another excellent point (of view?). :) What you are pointing out here is the very basis of Einstein's relativity! ALL points of view are equally valid, and can be compared, provided one invokes the appropriate transformations from one coordinate system (POV) to the other. In fact, this scientific fact is part of my motivation to help some folks understand "alternate" views of God and/or a diety. Specifically, if we put aside any biases we have from hearing "dictatorial" religious zealots and organizations tell us how we should think of God, we can explore alternate points of view with respect to what we might mean by "God". This is where I am going with the examining the links between the universal concept of continusous creation, and a potential higher-level intelligence....call it what you may! ;)

At 90-something years of age, he began to look beyond his own self-imposed paradigm. Few other scientists who are "in the know" are willing to even discuss, let alone study, "future science".

Yes, I really admire Wheeler for this very reason. He has the true, open mind of a real pioneer. It just seems to be a simple cop-out to rely on "coincidence" or "that's just the way it is" as a means to avoid investigating the answer to WHY something is the way it is.OK....I'm trying to work on my dissonance. Keep me honest! :)

 

RainmanTime

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: EVIDENCE of the crime

 

You see, the fact that you are otherwise a clear communicator leads me to believe you are avoiding, or otherwise ignoring, the accepted evidence I have provided.

Not at all. Any instances of me not communicating effectively are, I can assure you, entirely unintentional.

 

Your level of clarity observably declines when I present evidence that you do not wish to admit supports my position. That is a tactic most often used by people not interested in a true debate, where we learn, but in simply getting a kick out of trying to debunk anything someone says. This is the impression you give by changing your level of clarity like this.

Benifit of the doubt? You really don't have a very high opinion of me, do you?

 

So in reading your vague reply, and putting it into the context of the accepted facts of systems engineering I provided you, about all I can infer from your answer is that you think there is no system outside the boundaries of our universe (whatever they would be).

That's exactly what I'm saying, yes. [Edited to add]In fact, I'd say that in terms of intelligence that affects us, there is nothing outside our planet.[/Edit]

 

Because you see, if there IS a higher-level context system outside the boundaries of our universe, then that system, by its very existence, has influence and interaction with our universe.

Yes. Believe it or not, I can actually understand and take in things that people say to me. I disagree with you about a few things, but that doesn't make me stupid.

 

But this doesn't mean we still don't have far to go.

That's what I mean. Yes, we know more about the brain than we did 100 years ago. We know which areas of the brain tend to be used during various mental activities. And that's pretty much it. You were talking about having mapped the human genome meaning that we'll be able to control it soon. I don't believe it's that simple, in just the same way as knoowing what the frontal lobes are for hasn't helped us much in tersm of controlling people's brainwaves. We can see what people's brains look like when they're watching TV, but we cannot make people think that they are watching TV when they're not. Similarly, we may know what gene controls eye colour (and I think it would be a gross oversimplification to say that there was just the one), but that's not the same thing as being able to make a baby with a specific shade and pattern in their eyes.

 

So, no, I don't think that we have, or will have soon, substansive control over our own DNA.

 

Scientific advances are part-and-parcel of our nature, are they not? And I was not aware that "evidence" required observation or discovery by humans for it to BE evidence. The evidence for a meteor strike being the potential reason for dinosaur extinction was there in the geological record all along. Are you telling me that this evidence was not "true" until we actually found that evidence?

I think you're taking this out of context somewhat. You were giving, as part of your evidence for the existence of a higher level of intelligence than ourselves, the example of the fact that we have mapped the human genome and that that gave us control over our DNA. You were saying that the fact that we could control our DNA in this fashion was another example of how we have things in common. So, does it not follow that before we could do this, that we didn't have this thing in common? Or are you saying that even when we didn't have this control over our DNA, that we still had this ability in common?

 

Please don't use the claim that DNA creates identical replicas of itself.

But it does.

 

Human beings self-replicate, and they do create self-similar infants.

We do not self-replicate. You can argue about the definition of "similar", but "self-replicate" has a specific meaning, and we do not create exact copies of ourselves by ourselves. As for our offspring being self-similar exactly how many characteristics would you say you have to share to qualify as being self-similar? Our children only have 50% of the same DNA as we do.

 

Have you ever considered that the double helix of DNA is "self-similar" to a human male/female couple?

No. And I think that's one hell of a stretch.

 

No, it does not. You are again getting confused between the existence of a higher being stated by the theory, and the revelation of evidence that supports the veracity of the theory.

Again, you were saying that we had the ability to self-replicate in common with DNA. So, before we had the ability to do that, then we didn't have that in common. Again, unless we had it in common, but we simply couldn't do what we had in common with DNA. Which, frankly, is nonsense.

 

No. Please get a grip on self-similarity.

Um, we were talking about making exact replicas of our DNA. Now we're not? Okay. But if you're going to change what we're talking about halfway through, it'd be better to let me know, rather than getting huffily on your high horse when I don't psychically intuit it.

 

For I think you already know that the reproductive gametes of the male and female are haploid cells, and that this is the mechanism of human recombination. Self-similar indeed to the unzipping of the double helix during meiosis.

Well, I wouldn't call them "self-similar" so much as "exactly the same thing". The only thime that meiosis occurs in the human body is for the production of sperm and egg cells. It's not a similar process, it's part of the same process.

 

We don't have it in common any more than I have "having a right hand" in common with my right hand.

 

I am following a process of induction, which does not require direct evidence for the general truth at hand.

Well, I need evidence.

 

It only requires direct evidence of the particular cases in the inductive argument.

No, not really. For you, maybe, proving that there is a relationship between humans and DNA in terms of intelligence is enough evidence for you to believe that there is a higher intelligence, but it doesn't indicate that to me at all. If we assume that I am agreeing with absolutely everything that you are saying and have said about humans and DNA...that still isn't indicative to me of there being a higher intelligence.

 

As I've said before, if it were, then the existence of that higher intelligence would necessarily be indicative of an even higher intelligence beyond that. And that intelligence would be indicative of another beyond that. And so on for eternity. And exactly the same logic would indicate that there's a system lower than DNA. And one lower than that. And aother lower than that. Again, off to infinity.

 

This seems, to me, to be counter-intuitive, rather than something that follows on logically.

 

Until you define a standard of acceptable evidence, you can always claim you don't see evidence for it, by simply raising the unstated bar of what constitutes acceptable evidence.

How do you expect me to define a standard of evidence that I would find acceptable? About 73% reliability would do it.

 

All I can do is to assess the evidence that I am confronted with on it's individual merits as I see them. If you really feel that I'm playing some childish game where all I intend to do is automatically gainsay whatever you put in front of me, then there's not much that I can do to change that rather unkind opinion of me. All I can say is that that's not what I'm doing, and if you show me some evidence that I find convincing, then I'll happily say "yes, I find that convincing". Just because I'm not convinced by the evidence you've presented so far doesn't mean that I am incapable of being convinved by evidence, it just means that you've not managed to do that yet. If you don't believe me, then what can I do?

 

What standard of evidence that I'm not some juvenile numpty who's got it in for you will it take for you to believe?

 

Do you SEE any evidence whatsoever that there may be other intelligent species in our galaxy or universe? I assume you will say no.

You assume correctly.

 

So then I'd ask if you are familiar with the Drake Equation?

Yes I am.

 

And it is also accepted by those in the SETI and other astronomical communities.

I wouldn't say that it's universally accepted (no pun intended), but I will agree that most people in the community believe it to be sound.

 

And in fact, Drake's quantification of this equation has essentially showed us just how ridiculous (unlikely) it would be to assume we are the only intelligent species in this universe.

The equation itself shows us nothing of the kind. The numbers that people plug into it would be what is indicative of how likely contact with alien life is. As for what those numbers are, well that's a hotly debated issuse, as there's a lot of conjecture involved with every single one of them.

 

Did Drake do his own quantification of the equation? The quote of his to be found http://staff.imsa.edu/science/astrophys/studentwork/mooboy/drake.html" target="_blank">here says differently:

 

The importance of the Drake Equation is not in the

 

solving, but rather in the contemplation. It was written

 

not for purposes of quantification at all, but rather as

 

the agenda for the world's first SETI meeting, in Green

 

Bank WV in 1961. It was quite useful for its intended

 

application, which was to summarize all the various

 

factors which scientists must contemplate when

 

considering the question of other life. It is interesting

 

that when the Equation was first written, the only factor

 

which we had any basis to estimate with reasonable

 

accuracy was the first, the rate of stellar formation. In

 

the four decades since, we have learned something

 

about extra-solar planets, so we can now estimate the

 

second factor. We also have direct evidence as to the

 

existence of two planets in their star's habitable zones,

 

so (though the sample size is small) we can roughly

 

estimate the third factor. At this rate, we should have

 

three more factors nailed down by the middle of the

 

next century! A value for the seventh will probably

 

always elude us.

For the record, I would be surprised if this planet were the only one in the universe that has life-forms on it. But in no way is the Drake equation evidence that life exists on other planets.

 

Here is a link with a description of the theory.

Thanks. I'll have a peruse later.

 

Oh well, no skin off my nose. I know I can accurately say it because I have studied both fractals and non-linear chaos theory. If you are truly interested, you can do the same.

Maybe I should save this next sentence off to my notepad so I can cut it and paste it when I need it in conversation with you. When I say that I don't agree with your application of a theory and the reasoning that you're applying I am not attacking the theory itself. Okay?

 

So now it is my turn to expect an apology from you in the next post. Comparing me to that idiot is about as insulting as you can get. I don't believe I ever insulted you in such a direct manner as calling you gay. Rather, in this particular case, I made a sarcastic statement wondering if you were really interested in exploring the possibilities of a higher-level intelligence. You simply inferred the insult that was never intended. That is so far from the kind of crap that Chrono spews that now *I* choose to infer an insult. I thought that you would at least give me more credit than that idiot because I can speak in coherent, complete, correct English sentences.

I give you more credit than Chrono, sure. A lot more. However, the fact remains that you acted in the same way as he did when I said that I found something that you had said to not be polite. You turned round and said "well, it was just a joke. Sorry that you don't have a sense of humour". Not only is that the most back-handed apology possible, but it is a method to deflect blame from yourself back onto the person that you acted insultingly towards in the first place.

 

I'll happily apologise for any hurt feelings on your part, but I am not going to apologise for saying that you behaved in the same manner as Chronohistorian in that one, specific instance. Because it is true.

 

I'll reiterate; saying "I was only joking" is absolutely no defence against someone saying that they found something that you have said insulting. It is the worst possible excuse.

 

No, it doesn't have to be exactly the same because, once again, my point is related to multiple resolution analysis (MRA), which is a subset discipline of fractal mathematics related to wavelets.

*Paste*

 

You know, it is really beginning to annoy me that you so freely make statements attempting to force me to be wrong, without taking the time to even investigate the basic concepts of fractals and chaos that I am pointing you towards.

And it's really beginning to annoy me that, according to you, if you can't understand something that I'm saying then I must be being deliberately obtuse to try to make you look stupid and to avoid coming to the inescapable conclusion that you're right and I'm wrong, whereas if you think that I don't understand something that you're saying, then it's because I'm just too ignorant, lazy and stupid to have a clue or I'm trying to get a free lesson off you (uh...yeah). Is your opinion of yourself really that high? Is your opinion of me really that low? Should I be prostrating myself at your feet in supplication to give thenks to you for deining to speak to me at all?

 

Or could we just drop this "holier than thou" crap, please?

 

Especially considering that you, here, have very nicely managed to avoid the question that I asked you (isn't that what you have accused me of?). I didn't say that it would have to be exactly the same at all. I asked you how close it would have to be for you to consider it valid.

 

You should also note on this page that it gives an inkling about what the multiple resolution criteria is for your question above about "how close would it have to be to be considered valid". It is NOT an arbitrary choice as you imply. But rather dependent upon another concept I have brought up in past discussions which, apparantly, you chose to ignore: the Golden Mean Ratio and Fibonacci sequence.

I can only fully answer this by referenceing a small part of the next sentence that you type, too. I'll do that after I quote it. But, let me say that you have not answered the question I asked you above, and you have not indicated an answer even now.

 

[...](approximately)[...]

The question, if you need me to rephrase it to avoid me having to paste that self-same bit of text for the 3rd time in this post, is exactly how "approximately" close to the GMR would they have to be for you to consider them valid? Here I am asking you what standard of evidence you would accept.

 

Now to address the whole sentence.

 

If my off-the-cuff observation of DNA/human and human/universe were computed, and both of these reflected (approximately) the Golden Mean Ratio, this *would* be a strong bit of evidence for statistical significance of their being highly self-similar.

"Self-similar" does not equal "necessarily related", though.

 

The ratio of the distance of the Sun from the Earth and it's size is the same as the same ratio for the moon. But they're not related. There is no causal relationship between them.

 

Or, a different example I've always liked - in Norway (I think it was) one year there was a 20% increase in the stork population one summer. That summer there was also a 20% increase in the birth rate. The two do not have a causal relationship, though. They are not related to each other.

 

And I am sure your parents taught you that life is rarely fair.

And this is an excuse for not behaving in a balanced and fair manner in a supposedly rational debate, is it? Is this really how you justify holding yourself to different standards than you hold those you're debating with to?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: EVIDENCE of the crime

 

Trollface,

 

You took the words right out of my mouth:

 

How do you expect me to define a standard of evidence that I would find acceptable? About 73% reliability would do it.

 

All I can do is to assess the evidence that I am confronted with on it's individual merits as I see them. If you really feel that I'm playing some childish game where all I intend to do is automatically gainsay whatever you put in front of me, then there's not much that I can do to change that rather unkind opinion of me. All I can say is that that's not what I'm doing, and if you show me some evidence that I find convincing, then I'll happily say "yes, I find that convincing". Just because I'm not convinced by the evidence you've presented so far doesn't mean that I am incapable of being convinved by evidence, it just means that you've not managed to do that yet. If you don't believe me, then what can I do?

 

What standard of evidence that I'm not some juvenile numpty who's got it in for you will it take for you to believe?

All I've seen so far is weak analogical evidence.

 

Roel

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

 

I don't know if you were referring to me as the absolutist or not, but this looks like a good place to jump in on this thread.

 

I always find it somewhat selfish of those that claim that God doesn't exist. You exist, so why should'nt God also exist?

 

As far as doubting one's own existence, stepping in front of a speeding truck will resolve any of those doubts. As far as what God does or doesn't do, God is God and can do as He/She wishes without any body saying otherwise. If He/She so decided that man was tiresome and stupid, we all could be eliminated in a blink of the celestial eye.

 

I was in a chat room the other day and when I saw the pictures of the atheist's I could see why they didnt believe in a God, since they seemed to be absent when good looks were being issued. Most that dont believe actually have some sort of grudge against God, an inner anger/dissatisfaction that causes a separation in any possible relationship with a supreme being.

 

For those that also deny His/Her existence, I do see how it is possible for such a being to come to pass. Somehwere else in this vast Universe there is life, not just here on Earth. If that other species had a more complete or perfected DNA system and became capable of expanding their mental awareness to the point of actually being able to manipulate energy fields, they may have been successful of becoming independent of the need of physical sustinence, just drawing energy from other sources. (raw energy)

 

If anyone was successful at this and became capable of re-newing themselves at will, they essentially would become eternal in thier existence. After a few million years I imagine their skills at manipulation of particules would be immense, and creation of physical bodies would not be beyond the scope of their abilities.

 

If one was knowledgeable on the basics of life, and could start the process, evolution would take over after the first seeds were planted. The creator only would need to "tend the garden" as required to make sure it survived. Since this lifeform is adept at manipulating energy and after eons of practice, could perform the feats as written in many religious texts.

 

It may also be the intention of said creator to remain hidden, for absolute proof would cause many to committ suicide to escape thier life on Earth. At least if there is doubt as to a supreme being's existence, then as a species we continue to stay involved in the game, uncertain if we will survive death or not.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

 

I always find it somewhat selfish of those that claim that God doesn't exist. You exist, so why should'nt God also exist?

Do you use the same reasoning with Hubert The Invisible Purple Dancing Beaver Deity? Do you believe in his existence because it'd be "selfish" to believe otherwise?

 

I was in a chat room the other day and when I saw the pictures of the atheist's I could see why they didnt believe in a God, since they seemed to be absent when good looks were being issued.

Well, I've been told I'm a handsome man on more than one occasion. Certainly, I think I'm attractive enough to not make me resentful of anyone or anything because of the way I look.

 

Funnily enough, the stereotype of the Christian (apart from the 16 year-old female type so beloved of a certain kind of pervert) is that they are ugly. But, of course, generalisations and stereotypes are just that.

 

Most that dont believe actually have some sort of grudge against God, an inner anger/dissatisfaction that causes a separation in any possible relationship with a supreme being.

Again, this is only speaking in a very generalised way, but I think that, in this case, you're broadly right. Rest assured, however, when I tell you that certainly as far as I'm concerened, I have no ill-will towards any potential creator or much in the way of internalised anger directed at anything at all, in fact.

 

I mean, that said, I think that if I were convinced of the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, I'd want to sit him down and there are things I'd be looking for him to explain himself on (particularly if everything in the Bible is true). However, I really, really don't believe in Him (or any variation of Him) any more than I do Hubert. I direct no anger towards Him for the same reason that I don't direct anger towards Batman.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

 

I always find it somewhat selfish of those that claim that God doesn't exist. You exist, so why should'nt God also exist?

With all due respect OvrLrdLegion, but that is one of the worst examples of reasoning I've ever witnessed in my entire life. How is it selfish? People who believe in god claim that he exists all the time. In fact, people here in Holland try to force their believes upon me on a regular basis. When I'm at home, when I'm traveling to work, when I'm coming out of the cinema. I find that very impolite and annoying. So please think twice before calling me selfish.

 

As for your reasoning:

 

I exist, so why shouldn't Santa Claus exist?

 

I exist, so why shouldn't the Tooth Fairy exist?

 

Most that dont believe actually have some sort of grudge against God, an inner anger/dissatisfaction that causes a separation in any possible relationship with a supreme being.

That's nonsense. I don't believe in God, so I can't possibly have a grudge against him. In the hypothetical scenario where god does exist, I would only be very dissapointed in him. I'm perfectly happy without god or any other supreme being in my life.

 

Roel

 

Roel

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

 

Yes, you are both right. I didnt follow the selfish idea through...it was rather selfish of me to say it..And I apologize for the appearance statement also, since both remarks have absolutlely no basis in fact.

 

However, when involved lengthy discussion with most Atheists, I usually discover a reason that is based on some type of let-down or dissappointment resulting in the non-belief of a creator, this statement is based on past discussions and may not be valid in all situations with all people.

 

As humans we do have the ability to bury anger and pain deep within ourselves, hidden from our awareness, causing reactions to situations or ideals automatically.

 

I.E....my daughter used to have this boyfriend that I despised, hated, and I loathed every fiber of his being. He is long gone, however, my current supervisor has many attributes similar to this scum bag. I react with intense rage to this supervisor at times, unwarranted I admit, this rage is my automatic reaction because I have images and emotions evolving around the boyfriend. My mind is making some kind of connection and calling the two, one.

 

Aside from my comments regarding the Atheists appearrance, the meat of the post was regarding the possibilites of the existence of a supreme being. An advanced being that has existed for eons that has developed skills during his/her time would become such a being.

 

We also reflect the same ability, not as advanced, for creation. I plant seeds in my garden and tend to it as a father to children. ( Excepting the cactus plants, I can even forget to water em for a long time and they survive ) I can imagine a supreme being locating this world and planting the seeds for life. How He/She tends the garden..well..maybe we are the cactus plants.

 

Most people that try to find God in textual form will be dissappointed. God is an experience, interpretation a result of the life lived and what has been learned so far by the individual.

 

God has no limitations or boundaries, so can fit into any definition by man, but God as a whole is

 

beyond Man's comprehension.

 

He is not the collection of other beings, nor the abstraction of existence, nor a philosophically definable being. He is in all, distint from all, and greater than all. His very name is ineffable; and yet this name only expresses the human ideal of His Divintiy. What God is in Himself is not given to man to know. God is the absolute of faith; existence is the absolute of reason, existence exists by itself, and because it exists. The reason of the existence of existence is existence itself. We may ask, "Why does any particular thing exist?"

 

To say"I will believe when the truth of the dogma shall be scientifically proved to me" is the same as to say, "I will believe when when I have nothing more to believe, and when the dogma shall be destroyed as dogma by becoming scientific theorem."

 

That is to say, in other words: " I will only admit the Infinite when it shall have been explained, determined, circumscribed, and defined for my benefit; in one word, when it has become "finite." I will then believe in the Infinite when I am sure that the Infinite does not exist. I will believe in the vastness of the ocean when I shall have seen it put into bottles." But when a thing has been clearly proven and made comprehensible to you, you will longer "believe" it, you will "know" it.

 

By the way, the original texts never used the word believe, only the word faith. God didnt ask for you to "believe" He exists...only to have faith..

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

 

But when a thing has been clearly proven and made comprehensible to you, you will longer "believe" it, you will "know" it.

So... prove it and make it comprehensible. You, god, anyone, make it comprehensible. Please :)

 

Here's the chance to evangalise me, go ahead. But you can't, because you don't have any facts to convince me. God can't because he doesn't exist.

 

Roel

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

 

I can't proove that such a being doesn't exist just as good as you can't proof it does. You choose to believe in something, for which there is no physical evidence. I choose not to believe. It's an endless discussion, which I can continue for days, weeks, months or even years... it never bores me, but usually nothing good comes out of it. For once I'd like to hear some new arguments why I should believe there's a creator.

 

Roel

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...