Question For Religious People

[crowTrobot 2]

To me... saying matter has always existed is just as silly as saying God created everything to you.

but you have no problem with god always existing.

[HollywoodAFD 0]

don't most of those neurons seem to be the same complex pattern repeated?a current scientific hypothesis might be that it started in proteins that increased complexity, evolved into DNA, and eventually into bacteria. from there it was off to the races.

Let's say I buy into that.... you still didn't answer where "it" came from.Let's go backwards:Man .. neanderthal... ape.. monkey thing.... (fast forward) bacteria.... DNA.... protein.... IT <---- Where did that come from?

[HollywoodAFD 0]

but you have no problem with god always existing.

Good one.... see... that's why I like you.Perfect move on your part and I have no come back because I realized my answer also answers your side of this.

[navybuttons 15]

so far i've seen you talk about artificial intelligence in terms of evidence and god in terms of wishful thinking.

this.

it would be easier for you to just say people should believe whatever makes them happy.

people should believe whatever makes them happy.

you're original question was pretty vague.

wouldn't it seem silly to start a debate looking for the answer to 2+2?

i've never heard any scientist say our understanding of evolution is complete so there's nothing to prove.

i'm not quite sure where this is coming from. either way i feel it's too far a digression and i'm okay letting it drop.

IT <---- Where did that come from?

we don't know. that's what's so fun about it all. we get to figure it out. "game" is the dessert that makes me melt but "puzzle" is my comfort food.

[HollywoodAFD 0]

"Life is a journey to be lived.... not a problem to be solved."

[CindyLou 11]

"Life is a journey to be lived.... not a problem to be solved."

Except that "solving" this "problem" is a journey.

[HollywoodAFD 0]

Except that "solving" this "problem" is a journey.

But it says you aren't supposed to do that!Get back in the box !

[Randy Reed 0]

i believe it's irresponsible. if i start talking too much about reversing the aging process it's liable to freak people out. our future will be shaped by our perception and if i give a brief view into too broad of a picture i will make it seem scarier than it will actually be and make the future a worse place.i am using what i feel is objective evidence. i feel it's better for interested parties to discover that evidence on their own so that they are capable of realizing it to a peaceful fruition as opposed to just providing what seems like the "bad" half of the good/bad future equation.the purpose of all species seems to be procreation. in a way i suppose sexual intercourse (the ultimate human experience) could be our god. our lives an attempt to procreate as best we can.maybe i'm just stretching now. i don't know. i've been up for a long time. i liked it better when i was debating with questions instead of statements.the age of the earth is math. today's understanding of evolution will be proven incomplete in a year. i leap to say we are wrong in believing that we understand evolution.

I've just finished reading the thread and kudos to you all for alot of enjoyment.navy, I'm not as literate or educated or probably express myself with anything near the intelligence of the Spades, Crow and crew., but I would like to offer up an observation from up in the back of the bleachers. You have spent this thread skirting around many issues without necessarily addressing anything. I would like to think that given your obvious intelligence that you could comprehend certain basic theories that have been explained numerous times to you, yet you choose to avoid simple things like definitions. It's kind of left the odd observer to think that you are just somewhat trying to impress someone with your intellect when in fact you haven't postulated anything except vague rambling innuendo. Furthermore it's absolutely presumptious of you to querry that a simple concept like reversing the aging process would somehow be earth shattering. There is alot of scientific exploration and work being done on it. Though I don't think it would happen in my lifetime, I could certainly envision my grandchildren living long enough to play ball in the yard with thier great, great grandchildren while living to be 160. It's not FREAKY at all and certainly not as FREAKY as believing that some invisible, beard wearing hate-filled ghost that only is going to save HAFD while damning crow and spades to eternal damnation is something relevant in the same breath. Seriously, how many times can the they define "evolution" for you? Geez, let's just take this statement of yours, the purpose of all species seems to be procreation. in a way i suppose sexual intercourse (the ultimate human experience) could be our god. our lives an attempt to procreate as best we can.Now i'm sure crow or spades will point out the obvious to you and it's getting past the point of you just baiting for responses. Either you are baiting, really don't have an knowledge on the subject of evolution or you're stupid. The only postive thing that could come out of that statement would be HAFD having a revelation, praying to trannys on the porn thread, deluding himself into thinking specbrad is the lord savior god of human intercourse and getting committed to an asylum with no internet access.

[CindyLou 11]

Either you are baiting, really don't have an knowledge on the subject of evolution or you're stupid.

None of the above.

[timwakefield 68]

Simulating a complete human intelligence is a nearly intractable problem. The human brain by several metrics is the most complex object in the known universe. Not that we won't get there, just that the time required is probably longer than many people imagine.

The thing is, technological advancements have been increasing with exponential speed for hundreds, even thousands of years, and it certainly isn't slowing down. Something that seems like it would take say 50 years to create or perfect today will actually be created in more like 8 or 10 years. And also, "cybernetic organism" is more specific than I really mean to be here, and also implies something hokey (but also super-cool!) like Data or the hot robot chick in Bladerunner. I'm just talking about a computer which will have more computing power than the human brain has, and many scientists and futurologists predict that that will be realized by around 2050.

[navybuttons 15]

You have spent this thread skirting around many issues without necessarily addressing anything. I would like to think that given your obvious intelligence that you could comprehend certain basic theories that have been explained numerous times to you, yet you choose to avoid simple things like definitions.

i'm a major believer in language deconstruction.i think i've done a good job explaining how i believe that without shared consciousness two beings will never have the exact same definition of a single word.

Furthermore it's absolutely presumptious of you to querry that a simple concept like reversing the aging process would somehow be earth shattering. There is alot of scientific exploration and work being done on it.

i'm somewhat cognizant of maybe 10% of the work being done in this regard. but my overall understanding of the theory, especially as it relates to technological development within my lifetime is pretty strong i would say.my qualm with bringing up technologies and thoughts people aren't aware of is that they will get scared of the future. just as someone living 120 years ago would be terrified of every american owning her own car, wearing sunglasses, and driving with a phone stuck to their ear, if i were to propose a narrow (non encompassing) view of the future it might give people the wrong idea about what the future will bring.

Though I don't think it would happen in my lifetime,

this is the source from which i draw in the belief that it will happen within the next 30 years.

Seriously, how many times can the they define "evolution" for you?

as many times as they would like. i have no problem trying to offer them a wider view of evolution beyond biological evolution. are you able to perceive just that there's a difference in the amount of letters that make up "evolution" and "biological evolution"?i understand their thinking that evolution is only biological, and i believe i have a rough idea of where they are coming from, but i can't shrink my brain's understanding of it so that it fits their narrow definition.

Either you are baiting, really don't have an knowledge on the subject of evolution or you're stupid.

wow. you believe that someone who has a different understanding of something than the masses is stupid?you just discredited every great scientist in human history.

you are baiting

i'm trying to engage in debate by postulating ideas and proposing them.

[HollywoodAFD 0]

None of the above.

You knucklehead

[CindyLou 11]

“Are you saying that God blew himself to bits and we’re what’s left?” I asked.“Not exactly,” he replied.“Then what?”“The debris consists of two things. First, there are the smallest elements of matter, many levels below the smallest things scientists have identified.” “Smaller than quarks? I don’t know what a quark is, but I think it’s small.”“Everything is made of some other thing. And those things in turn are made of other things. Over the next hundred years, scientists will uncover layer after layer of building blocks, each smaller than the last. At each layer the differences between types of matter will be fewer. At the lowest layer everything is exactly the same. Matter is uniform. Those are the bits of God.” “What’s the second part of the debris?” I asked.“Probability.”“So you’re saying that God—an all-powerful being with a consciousness that extends to all things, across all time—consists of nothing but dust and probability?”“Don’t underestimate it. Probability is an infinitely powerful force. Remember my first question to you, about the coin toss?”“Yes. You asked why a coin comes up heads half the time.”“Probability is omnipotent and omnipresent. It influences every coin at any time in any place, instantly. It cannot be shielded or altered. We might see randomness in the outcome of an individual coin toss, but as the number of tosses increases, probability has firm control of the outcome. And probability is not limited to coins and dice and slot machines. Probability is the guiding force of everything in the universe, living or nonliving, near or far, big or small, now or anytime.”“It’s God’s debris,” I mumbled, rolling the idea around in both my mouth and mind to see if that helped. It was a fascinating concept, but too strange to embrace on first impression. “You said before that you didn’t believe in God. Now you say you do. Which is it?”“I’m rejecting your overly complicated definition of God—the one that imagines him to have desires and needs and emotions like a human being while possessing infinite power. And I’m rejecting your complicated notion of a fixed reality that the human mind can—by an amazing stroke of luck—grasp.”“You’re not rejecting the idea of a fixed reality,” I argued. “You’re saying the universe is made of God’s debris. That’s a fixed reality.”“Our language and our minds are too limited to deal with anything but a fixed reality, regardless of whether such a thing exists. The best we can do is to update our delusions to fit the times. We live in an increasingly rational, science-based society. The religious metaphors of the past are no longer comforting. Science is whittling at them from every side. Humanity needs a metaphor that allows God and science to coexist, at least in our minds, for the next thousand years.”“If your God is just a metaphor, why should I care about him? He would be irrelevant,” I said.“Because everything you perceive is a metaphor for something your brain is not equipped to fully understand. God is as real as the clothes you are wearing and the chair you are sitting in. They are all metaphors for something you will never understand.”“That’s ridiculous. If everything we perceive is fake, just a metaphor, how do we get anything done?” “Imagine that you had been raised to believe carrots were potatoes and potatoes were carrots. And imagine you live in a world where everyone knows the truth about these foods except you. When you thought you were eating a potato you were eating a carrot, and vice versa. Assuming you had a balanced diet overall, your delusion about carrots would have no real impact on your life except for your continuous bickering with others about the true nature of carrots and potatoes. Now suppose everyone was wrong and both the carrots and potatoes were entirely different foods. Let’s say they were really apples and beets. Would it matter?”“You lost me. So God is a potato?” I joked.“Whether you understand the true nature of your food or not, you still have to eat. And in my example it makes little difference if you don’t know a carrot from a potato. We can only act on our perceptions, no matter how faulty. The best we can do is to periodically adjust our perceptions—our delusions, if you will—to make them more consistent with our logic and common sense.”

[checkymcfold 0]

Two problems with this:, First, most god believers do not make him inhuman at all, they humanize the hell out of him by claiming he has a personality and feelings such as love, wrath and jealousy.

i wouldn't want you to take my statement as somehow validating "most god believers." i think most fundamentalists are quite stupid and terrible for the world. not all of them, but a healthy majority, for sure.if you want to apply my words to a specific branch of religious thought, go with the mystical strains of most of the major religions.

Second, I don't even understand what "impose human understandings of logic onto something that we are lablieng as [in]human" means. Computers are inhuman and their very "soul" is logic-based. If your meaning is "imposing human understandings of logic" on to things that are "outside" of human logic, I'd ask you exactly what these things are? How could one even conceive of something outside of human thought, which logic is a means of examining and structuring to avoid contradiction. What other instrument is there for a human to know, examine or evaluate other than thought and the a priori rules that give it continuity and validity? If you claim there is another instrument, how do you have any knowledge of this instrument when it is outside of thought? If you are simply saying that there "may" be some other instrument outside of thought, why should we care? Wouldn't that be the prime example of an instance where one should be an apathist? I'm rambling, it'd probably be better for you to just clarify what you meant for me, rather than me take wild stabs in the dark. =P

allow me to ramble a bit as well.... :)first, i think i need you to make a concession (which i don't really think is a concession, or that you'd have a problem conceding it, or whatever): that the naming of a thing--be it semantically, semiotically, or whatever terminology you want to use--is a fundamentally logical process as it pertains to human understanding and knowledge. put slightly differently (and more strictly within the context of semiotics), i would like you to agree that the very structure of language itself is a logical process in which we adhere meaning to words which, of their own nature, have no essential referent whatsoever and may as well be slightly more sensually pleasurable than, but not fundamentally different from, farting and burping sounds.given the above, the linguistic structure by which most mystics approach the divine (and, coincidentally, this is kinda the basic approach that it seems NB is using) is more negative than positive--that is, "god" is "he who cannot be named" in various jewish and christian circles, etc.--and i'd suggest that this serves as an attempt to distance a mystical understanding (though again, "understanding" is a bad word that falls into similar traps) of the divine from the influence of human logical and linguistic structures. now, i'm not suggesting that mystics are so philosophically robust as to understand that ascribing "existence" to the divine really kind of undoes the whole thing their trying to do, but i would grant that their fundamental approach is entirely valid. despite what your logic 101 class taught you, A and not-A may both derive their logical validity from the same structural framework, but that doesn't render the two statements logically equivalent. not-A, "he who cannot be named," or a negative form of naming, generally, can be used in an alogical way--and just to be clear, this is what i'm saying mystics generally attempt--that suggests some sort of existence outside of the humanly logical realm.the question then becomes something like "what does it mean to talk about something that is essentially other than the structure of language itself?" (you kind of asked this above), and i think that there isn't really a good answer to that. however, it's more than a little illuminating, at least to my view, that mystics in history generally didn't talk a lot. hadijiwich (i'm probably spelling that terribly) comes to mind, specifically, and she took a vow of silence that lasted years. silent contemplation plays a very distinct role in many of the world's religions, and while they may not justify it in terms of contemporary semiotics and linguistic philosophy, it doesn't mean that they don't have a pretty good idea of why it's in there.as to computers, of course they're logical. otherwise they wouldn't be able to do what we built them for. i mean, we can't even create a truly random random-number-generating algorithm. but i don't know that a computer has really yet tried to contemplate its own existence, at least not outside of a lot of shitty sci fi movies.

[checkymcfold 0]

oh dear.

fwiw, i only mentioned cayce as another guy to look at if dustin's concerned with looking at what people who were really insightful (i mean, cayce did cure cancers with household ingredients, after all, and i don't know that clairvoyance is altogether different from off the charts IQ) might have to say about the nature of the universe.

[checkymcfold 0]

it also really bothers me that "deconstruction" has a wikipedia entry. derrida is rolling over in his grave. (but i guess he's pleased that it's not listed under "deconstructionism")

[checkymcfold 0]

as to evolution, i think that what NB is getting at, at least tangentially, is that technological evolution is working so maddeningly fast these days that it's having a profound effect on the environment in which darwinian evolution occurs. hence, it's quite noteworthy that we're living at a time in history where a species is capable of having a huge and direct effect on its own environment (much less its own internal chemistry), and that makes it at least difficult to talk about evolution in the rigidly biological sense as it pertains to our future as a species.

[Randy Reed 0]

i'm a major believer in language deconstruction.i think i've done a good job explaining how i believe that without shared consciousness two beings will never have the exact same definition of a single word.I don't think he took decontruction to mean that you can twist any word in the language to have no meaning or at least as far as normal discourse it concerned. If you want to espouse technological evolution as opposed to biological then do so, by all means. Discussing biological evolution with people that have defined it in the context they are talking about it, then hint that they don't understand it, is well, totally deconstructive, lol. I guess I'm just saying you could clarify your ideas better. i'm somewhat cognizant of maybe 10% of the work being done in this regard. but my overall understanding of the theory, especially as it relates to technological development within my lifetime is pretty strong i would say.my qualm with bringing up technologies and thoughts people aren't aware of is that they will get scared of the future. just as someone living 120 years ago would be terrified of every american owning her own car, wearing sunglasses, and driving with a phone stuck to their ear, if i were to propose a narrow (non encompassing) view of the future it might give people the wrong idea about what the future will bring.Sorry, but it's no where near as radical or scary a thought as the God of the old testament or the Halloween movies.this is the source from which i draw in the belief that it will happen within the next 30 years.Ha, see, I'm alot older than you, thus the "my lifetime" comment. as many times as they would like. i have no problem trying to offer them a wider view of evolution beyond biological evolution. are you able to perceive just that there's a difference in the amount of letters that make up "evolution" and "biological evolution"?i understand their thinking that evolution is only biological, and i believe i have a rough idea of where they are coming from, but i can't shrink my brain's understanding of it so that it fits their narrow definition.Well, if you can't understand their narrow, simple defination of biological evolution, how is anyone to understand your concept in which you can't even wrap your own brain around? Wouldn't it be easier to just state that you might think their is a bigger combined confusing evolutionary theory that you really don't understand but find somewhat fascinating and thusly not come off as so aloof?wow. you believe that someone who has a different understanding of something than the masses is stupid?you just discredited every great scientist in human history.C'mon now. Let's try this again. My car is silver. You can decontruct my language, develope your own and name silver blue. When I say that it might be simpler to call it silver you accuse me of discrediting science? i'm trying to engage in debate by postulating ideas and proposing them.My original point is that the whole conversation would have been alot simpler if you had said this in the first place. Or that you weren't trying to have a conversation regarding evolution as much as practicing using decontrutionist arguments.

[vbnautilus 48]

I disagree.... for anything to "evolve" ... it had to exist. The idea is that life evolved and changed in an effort to survive..... it adapted. Where did "it" start?

Thats a very interesting question but its not the one the theory of evolution is answering. Evolution is about how matter is arranged into biological forms.

don't most of those neurons seem to be the same complex pattern repeated?wouldn't that mean we need only figure out a few different patterns?

Nope. The arrangement of the various neurons into a dynamic interacting network is the complex part. Its like the difference between understanding a person and understanding a society of people; the society is more than the sum of its parts. Take a look at these images of the white matter tracts in the brain, from a new technology called diffusion spectrum imaging. Allows us to visualize the connections between neurons.

very very minutely relative to a chicken from the larger sense. if we could reverse engineer a perfect chicken brain how far away do you think a human brain would be?

Quite far. Most of the interesting things that a chicken does are not all that hard to accomplish with a robot. That extra stuff we have over chickens turns out to be much more difficult.

[vbnautilus 48]

i'm a major believer in language deconstruction.

Did you ever see the documentary made on Derrida before he died? http://www.derridathemovie.com/I was interested in the guy for a while, but I couldn't decide if he didn't make sense because he didn't want to or because he was French.

[checkymcfold 0]

Did you ever see the documentary made on Derrida before he died? http://www.derridathemovie.com/I was interested in the guy for a while, but I couldn't decide if he didn't make sense because he didn't want to or because he was French.

that movie was a huge disappointment, imo .i think that derrida gets a worse rap than he deserves, but a lot of that is due to the way that a lot of his fans write about him. his stuff on heidegger is fking brilliant, and if you stop trying to make deconstruction into an "-ism" with some sort of stoic formulation, it's probably one of the (if not, the) most valuable philosophical tools of the last 100 years.

[navybuttons 15]

i'm going to find a new dance partner.thank you for saving me the waltz.

[Spademan 94]

i wouldn't want you to take my statement as somehow validating "most god believers." i think most fundamentalists are quite stupid and terrible for the world. not all of them, but a healthy majority, for sure.if you want to apply my words to a specific branch of religious thought, go with the mystical strains of most of the major religions.

Oh no, I knew you weren't attempting to validate in that particular way, I was just explaining that in the context of this conversation, I was talking about a personal "humanized" god, and was addressing the issue as such.If I were in discussion with a Buddhist or something, I'd by using statements like U.G. Krishnamurti's hack ass and "logic" wouldn't even enter the conversation. =P

allow me to ramble a bit as well.... :)first, i think i need you to make a concession (which i don't really think is a concession, or that you'd have a problem conceding it, or whatever): that the naming of a thing--be it semantically, semiotically, or whatever terminology you want to use--is a fundamentally logical process as it pertains to human understanding and knowledge. put slightly differently (and more strictly within the context of semiotics), i would like you to agree that the very structure of language itself is a logical process in which we adhere meaning to words which, of their own nature, have no essential referent whatsoever and may as well be slightly more sensually pleasurable than, but not fundamentally different from, farting and burping sounds.given the above, the linguistic structure by which most mystics approach the divine (and, coincidentally, this is kinda the basic approach that it seems NB is using) is more negative than positive--that is, "god" is "he who cannot be named" in various jewish and christian circles, etc.--and i'd suggest that this serves as an attempt to distance a mystical understanding (though again, "understanding" is a bad word that falls into similar traps) of the divine from the influence of human logical and linguistic structures. now, i'm not suggesting that mystics are so philosophically robust as to understand that ascribing "existence" to the divine really kind of undoes the whole thing their trying to do, but i would grant that their fundamental approach is entirely valid. despite what your logic 101 class taught you, A and not-A may both derive their logical validity from the same structural framework, but that doesn't render the two statements logically equivalent. not-A, "he who cannot be named," or a negative form of naming, generally, can be used in an alogical way--and just to be clear, this is what i'm saying mystics generally attempt--that suggests some sort of existence outside of the humanly logical realm.the question then becomes something like "what does it mean to talk about something that is essentially other than the structure of language itself?" (you kind of asked this above), and i think that there isn't really a good answer to that. however, it's more than a little illuminating, at least to my view, that mystics in history generally didn't talk a lot. hadijiwich (i'm probably spelling that terribly) comes to mind, specifically, and she took a vow of silence that lasted years. silent contemplation plays a very distinct role in many of the world's religions, and while they may not justify it in terms of contemporary semiotics and linguistic philosophy, it doesn't mean that they don't have a pretty good idea of why it's in there.

I concede the first point without resistance, and follow you through the rest. Again, the "thunderous silence of the buddha" is an utterly different matter, and my response style would change accordingly. On a side note, it's funny how this thread has turned from a mishmash of strangely utilized Socratic method, inane cult ramblings and vitriolic intellectual attacks (mostly me), to a tract about technology and people talking about The Singularity.At least I'm assuming some of you are intimating something similar to the idea of The Singularity.

[checkymcfold 0]

Oh no, I knew you weren't attempting to validate in that particular way, I was just explaining that in the context of this conversation, I was talking about a personal "humanized" god, and was addressing the issue as such.If I were in discussion with a Buddhist or something, I'd by using statements like U.G. Krishnamurti's hack ass and "logic" wouldn't even enter the conversation. =PI concede the first point without resistance, and follow you through the rest. Again, the "thunderous silence of the buddha" is an utterly different matter, and my response style would change accordingly. On a side note, it's funny how this thread has turned from a mishmash of strangely utilized Socratic method, inane cult ramblings and vitriolic intellectual attacks (mostly me), to a tract about technology and people talking about The Singularity.At least I'm assuming some of you are intimating something similar to the idea of The Singularity.

i'm actually curious about your relationship to buddhism, as you seem to have as soft a spot for it as you're capable of having for anything .what's the singularity? i've never heard of that term used with respect to evolution/technology.

[Spademan 94]

i'm actually curious about your relationship to buddhism

Couldn't say.

what's the singularity? i've never heard of that term used with respect to evolution/technology.

Technological singularityNothing to do with evolution. Just about the AI talk and the like.