I will try to make myself unpopular know.

IF the Universe is an intelligent design, then i would submit that we as a race has absolutly no chance of knowing it since the size and complexity of the universe and life is such that we have absolutly no chance AT ALL to comprehend the entity doing all this. fks just our little middle of the road galaxy has enough star systems that each and every human being on the planet could be given 10 star systems as a birthday gift, and there would still be a lot to spare.'
at the same time it seems theres more galaxies than we have star systems. Just try to imagine that for a minute.
Tough to imagine right.

So that we as a race trys to say we now something about what god is all about must be the hight off hubris, not to mention beleiving that we KNOW what his whishes and commands are.
That has to be in the tinfoil hat theory.

Okay, I want Coma Berenices, Centaurus, Antlia, Cassiopeia, Sagittarius, Ursa Major at least one earth-like star system with planets and all and any red giants you've got floating around.

I pointed out the definitions of words, you attacked me and said they do not matter, You have since posted everytime I do, threatening to call guides, telling me I can't post in your place, then you come here? What level are you on, Im looking down, your way to low.You should accept that your hard concept is misguided and incorrect.Yoiu don't like definitions of reality, because you are out of it, SURE BILL you really said something, so therefore its reality you say it, but that does not lend truth or make real your statements content. Your a condescending little twit. Who cannot concede a minor point and made it into a big deal by refusing to fix your small mistake and trying to bully me around with your million dollar IQ and 2 cent IQ!!

Million dollar vocabulary and 2 cent IQ small typo there, SEE Bill even I correct my mistakes...why don't you learn from a better man?

Saying there is no reality without human perception is a very human-centric viewpoint, IMHO. Light waves do exist apart from human perception. We can't see ultraviolet lights because they're outside the perceptual abilities of our retina. But this light wavelength is not outside of the perceptual abilities of the thymidine residues on our DNA which form thymidine dimers when exposed to ultraviolet light waves, thus leading to cancer. Thymidine residuse in tandem absorb the energy of ultraviolet light waves and yield thymidine dimers - a mutated form of DNA.

And the "color" we perceive is not really "color" at all. It is merely the stimulation of certain photoreceptor cells by certain wavelengths of light reflected off of objects (ie the light not absorbed by the object itself) with resultant release of neurotransmitters stimlating cells in the visual association cortex. You are correct to say that "color" (which is a perception) doesn't exist without being perceived. Because "color" is a phenemenon that occurs in the brain due to the stimulation of photoreceptor cells which in turn stimulate cortical association cells. In fact, colorblind people lack certain types of cells which makes it impossible for them to see some colors. If the man sitting next to you cannot discern green and you can, is green real or not?

But to say that light waves (capable of stimulating our photoreceptor cells) do not exist outside of human perception is not accurate.

Reality exists beyond our photoreceptors, ie blind people get skin cancer.

Well ThomPaine, it looks like the thread has been destroyed by characters assasins. I was the target and the thread was in the crossfire. They've successfully made it about a false interpretation of what I said, in other unrelated threads, rather than intelligent design.

If you really want to debate Intelligent Design, I suggest you start a new thread with an active attempt to keep debators on topic.

I don't suggest that reality doesn't exist beyond our perception. I say that reality is meaningless beyond perception. It's foolish to debate reality beyond ability to perceive.

I don't limit perception to the 5 senses either. Any tool that is used to experience reality is what I consider part of our ability to perceive. I consider the ability to perceive our own death, as part of our perception. When someone comes back from the dead to tell me otherwise, I will concede.

The reality of which you are speaking, Bill, is entirely different than what I was saying about lightwaves (ie chemical/physical reality). You are speaking of a holistic reality, a group consensus of meaning that we assign to various symbols, our mutual history, interpretations of natural phenomena, etc. That reality is totally dependent on our ability to perceive it/communicate it. In that sense we, the group, not only perceive the reality, we actually create it! This is an incredibly liberating philosophy because that which we create we can change!

I think this "reality" argument is an argument about apples and oranges (sorry Thom ). One is a chemical/physical reality and one is a social science reality.

P.S. I learned of the difference on another thread.

The study of media is where the apples and the oranges overlap.

Hi Bill- yeah, certainly something lacking here amongst the know-it-alls... Maybe we can have an actual discussion & just ignore the hockey players.

So, here's something I'm wondering about. Ancient Israel learned the philosophies of both Egypt and Babylon; in fact the Med basically became cosmopolitan while the OT was 'coming of age'. Philosophically, the 'little' local gods everywhere stopped making sense to people, and the conception of a single God over all peoples everywhere was realized. This is one reason, later, that Rome could become Christianized.

I'm thinking that something similar is/must happen now, but what is it? I wasn't being rhetorical saying that about the 'little' planet in the corner of the obscure galaxy. The conception of Intelligent Design needs to be explored more fully in civil discourse.

I think the next stage of evolution is the truce between religion and science. The both religion and science have been played against eachother by profiteers, causing religion and science to blame eachother for moral decay, which really comes more from the instigators.

We are all questioning the source of morals, which has us all questioning the meaning of a god. It may turn out that a better definition of God allows religion and science to mutually agree on the importance of the belife aside from the mysticism. Better interpretation of scripture in conjuction with social studies may tone down the controvercy and seemingly contradictions.

Intelligent design theory, without hidden agendas, may further bridge the gap and even open up new fields of scientific study. I think science is missing critial component in defining the software part intelligence. We know the software exists. It may have something to do with self-assignment of purpose. How does this software program itself? Can the software exist without the hardware?

I do think that we can never know how it began even if we learned everthing else there is to know about the hardware or the software. But I think you are correct that civilization is at a turning point similar to the concept of one god. Maybe the new god is a cross-platform god with non-mystical importance that can be discribed in scientific or atheistic terms as well.

Lonely in NY- do us a real favor and go post on your own threads.

Bill- I don't think there is a war between Science and Religion.

Science comes up with things we haven't fit yet into our ethics. That's not the same thing as commercialization. Take birth control- in the course of 'pure science' investigation, the mechanics of reproduction became understood.

It wasn't the scientists who saw the profits in cheap contraceptives, it was the pharmacorps, the stockmarket investors, & the government.

I remember that there was a lot of discussion from the science community at the time that contraception would fundamentally change society- it was ignored.

It is hard to believe that the majority of women in the US who say they are against abortion aren't using the pill, because we aren't having any perceptible baby boom. And that's the result of the advertising campiagns for highly profitable pills.

I think the same type of thing is going on in all the 'ills of Science' issues; from rfID chips to WMD.

I'd agree that because we know how to do something isn't a reason to do it. In our 'free market' tho, it seems that if it can be profitable, that's all it takes for it to happen- from making designer drugs to overusing earth's resources- the fallguy is always Science, not the profiteers.

I agree that science (the goal to study and discover), aside from the scientific community (the scientists), is not at war with Religion (assigned meaning and purpose).

Science by nature is neutral. target='_blank'>Religion, as a tool for inspiring and motivating, is also neutral, aside from the assignment. "Religion is like a battery that can be used to power either a flashlight or a vibrator" as poetically put by my friend Mark (VMA2 on CGCS).

I do think that the fragile target='_blank'>neutrality of science is easily violated every time a scientists has to defend the integrity of science against other biased agendas. Science is constantly attacked by those who stand to lose the most from revelation of perceived truth discovered by science.

You are correct in saying that science is not at war with religion. I would add that scientists are at war with priests, when both priests and scientists should be allies at target='_blank'>war with irresponsible profiteering.

Thom and Bill - I'm very much enjoying the discussion you two are having. Thanks for letting us observe.

And for any who may be prepared to be distracted by the suggestions made about Thom and PITA - not much research required. It took me all of 2 minutes to compare several pages of posts by each of them - and find a number of instances where they were posting under their respective names at the same time.
So yes, it is "just a coincidence."

Thanks Sapphire! It's nice to be mentioned & not roasted...

For the record, I was ThomPaine on the KE forum, and a part-time Mod there. I am not a Mod here.

I am not that other guy... :D

I don't post a lot, and actually wish they'd take the post numbers off here; we all know that quantity is not quality, and many with large post numbers are... well, there's no prize for most posts.

My avatar is meant to suggest 'I'm dancing as fast as I can'... I have a tin cans & string rural ISP that may make the guiness book of records for slowest bit rate. That makes it hard to respond fast- so I see it more like sending letters than a chat room.

............

I don't go for Creationism, but there is an opportunity in Intelligent Design to make religion larger. There are concepts and attitudes in many of the world religions that could benefit Christians without violating their faith. That is why I brought up the early cultural influences on the Jews- for ecxample, they got their concern for the afterlife from the Egyptians, also the idea of a universal God - & that replaced all the pantheons of local cult & village gods. However, they were tied to a race concept; when Christianity came along it was for everybody. That's what gave it the historical power to take over the entire Roman Empire, and Byzantium.

We have hundreds of Christian sects, and 131 versions of 'the' Bible just in English; and there are probably as many Mormon, Moslem, Hindu, etc versions of those faiths, not to mention several flavors of Judaism, and accretive/philosophical believers like Bahai, Buddhists, Shintoists.

I think they can't all be right, but not everything they believe is wrong. What nobody is talking about is that ecumenicalism is dead- religions are at war with each other.

The unique thing about Intelligent Design is that, at least in theory, it accepts the methods of Science.

The Universe is a much larger, and much stranger, place than we thought a generation ago. The first Big Blue Marble was only seen in the 1960s. Our conceptions of WHAT ITS ALL ABOUT are still like those little tinpot village idols. The Intelligent Design people are the only ones so far to look that in the face. I don't agree with them that much so far, but I respect them for engaging with Science in a way totally new to religion in all human history.

whew- another too long post; guess this was for Bill too now that I look back!

I agree.

Religions are not at war with each other. The differences, religions have, are not life-threatening differences. If religions do have a bloody confrontation, it is usually instigated by a non-religious hidden material agenda. A real wholly war would be memes vs memes, which would be bloodless.

As for intelligent design, I'm not sure any conclusions have been drawn to disagree with. Once someone makes the connection between intelligent design and historical events according to any particular religious doctrine, they are not talking science, but rather history and religion. The fact that no real scientific conclusions of intelligent design have been drawn is the reason why most scientists are reluctant to accept intelligent design as scientific theory. This is where science limits itself.

The gap between social science and natural science is like hardware versus software. Natural science only talks about hardware, whereas social is talking about software. If science can reverse engineer software, they can analyze intelligent design and possibly even (where software meets hardware) creation.

We can't dismiss consciousness and intelligence because we know they exist. We might as well analyze them for the purpose of unity. We can start with a clear and complete definition of both, that everyone can agree with.

I agree that a good what it is and what it does definition of consciousness and intelligence would be most helpful.

Consciousness is along a spectrum IMO! There are arguements that Minerals exhibit some traits associated with consciousness, (and LIFE) ie response to stimuli, growth of crystaline structures, Geode formation, etc!

Viruses seem to inhabit a strange twilight region between mineral "life" and organic life!

Bacteria are more clearly organic, and defined as alive!

Plants exhibit more traits, incuding undenialable "Life"!

On up the chain of life and consciousness to ourselves! the self-proclaimed, self-aware "crown of creation"!

"Human beings are the only animals that can be embarrased, or ought to be"!

-Mark Twain

Intelligence is often defined as the ability to process information!

Websters defines intelligence as variously;

(1)The capacity to apprehend facts and propositions, and their relations and to reason about them!

(2) Chistian Science- The basic eternal quality of Divine Mind!

(3) The act of understanding : Comprehension

So it seems that LIFE exhibits CONSCIOUSNESS (OR VISA VERSA)!

Consciousness then exhibits intelligence!

Thats' as far as I can get!

I don't know if we can ever discover consciousness from the outside looking in. We can observe behavior which appears to be conscious-driven, but artificial intelligence can theoretically mimic all conscious behavior.

To keep from limiting the definition, defining consciousness will be a matter of declaration beyond what can be externally observed, by whoever is most qualified to declare.

As for defining Intelligence, here we have limits as wellThis would make all machines, that respond to energy, intelligent.

This is the best one so far. But I would add that facts are relative to perception. This is a limitation on intelligence itself more than a limitation on the definition.

This assumes that word divinity has meaning. In science, the word is meaningless, although there must be a scientific equivalent.

This is where fuzzy logic is needed. To what level of comprehension? The simplest form of artificial intelligence can comprehend.

The word "life" has a dual meaning. One is Biochemical and the other is Memetic

...or does Consciousness equal Intelligence?

This is all very interesting but I'm going to need to think about these
two concepts awhile before responding.

Man, Oh Man, where do I start?

Artificial intelligence - MIMIC is the operative phrase here! Theorectically is the further qualifier!

A self aware LIVING being is the only one qualified to declare; "I think, therefore I am"! Other self-aware beings can offer their opinion about that ones declaration, and can agree or disagree! Of course if they are wise they will agree, because if they disagree; THEY may be subject to the same diminishing judgement!

Brian to Crowd; "YOU ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS"!

Crowd to Brian; "WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS"!

One fellow in back of Crowd; " NOT ME"!

Using OUR level (human consciousness) as a bar, Scientists, and perhaps Philosophers, then can examine Mineral, Plant, and Animal and make their educated guesses, and arrive at agreed upon definitions!

Machines would come under the definition of "Intelligent Design", and only mimic intelligence!

I'm not gonna TOUCH "facts are relative to perception"!

Don't ask me, ask Websters, or "Christian Science"!

Comprehension = Understanding IMO! I don't believe ANY form of Artificial Intelligence can Comprehend anything! My apologies to Data! :D

I mean Biological or otherwise naturally occuring "LIFE"!

Another fellow in back of Crowd; " I AM BOTH INDIVIDUAL AND PART OF THE WHOLE"!

Of course, YOU (that fellow), would be quickly killed by the Crowd!

Cells in the body die every day, but the body lives on, sometimes thanks to the sacrifice.

No good deed goes unpunished! :D

This seems to be the historical pattern.

How foolish we are as a species. Prisoners of our own individual and collective ego.

Mark Twain said it best! I requote;

"Human Beings are the only Animal that can be embarassed, or ought to be"!

If a person completly understood a single cell they would completly understand the total organism. If a person completely understood a single organism they
would completely understand the universe. This statement assumes a dynamic(a natural state of motion) and unitary (all parts systematically related to all other parts) of nature. All systems manifest structure and process through time where slower processes appear as structures being transformed into larger systems of organization (i.e., chrystal formations). The natural universe is in a process of development creating progressively more complex forms of organization. The
more intelligent forms of organization are those which make finer and finer
distinctions and organize those into larger and larger wholes. Wholes that integrate
more functioning parts are more intelligent and comtribute more to adaptation
within nature. In this sense nature is intelligent if it is a dynamic unitary
process. Organisms developed through the natural organizational processes of
intelligent nature. One phase of the evolution of the human organism was the development of consciousness called self-awareness. This process can be seen
replicating itself with the maturational growth of self-awareness in each person
(See the work of Piaget and Kholberg) The natural process of organism-in-the-
environment adaptation proceeds and is to varying degrees guided by Self awareness. Full existential awareness includes awareness of ones self as an
object and as a subject. Both consciousness (self-awareness) and intelligence
have part-whole relations with the fully functioning Person and the fully
functioning person has a part-whole relation with nature.

I welcome your feedback.

Are you saying that intelligence is scalable?

If so, might self-awareness be scalable also?

Bill,
I'm not sure how you are using the term scalable? An operational
definition of intelligence is scalable as in an IQ test. I developed a self awareness questionaire that has been used in research but not fully developed. I could get you a reference if you're interested.

A scalable concept or rule applies to individual parts or subsets as well at the whole.

The wikipedia has another defintion, but I'm not sure I fully agree with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalable

It's sound like it is saying bigger equals better. I don't think that is the always the case.

Sure, self-awareness is scalable ... and probably more than that, it's of complex design with many aspects that can used or not used.

How much of yourself do you think you're really aware of? Psychological experiements have shown people don't really know themselves as well as they think. Are you always aware of everything you could be about yourself all the time?

Tell it to the Marines!

The Marines would say so, if you join them! :D

I'm limited in computer literacy and am having trouble getting a handle on the concept of scalability. The term is used differently as a statistical term in the
field of tests and measurements. Self-awareness certainly varies for the individual both in scope and intensity. Self-awareness is not the same as self knowledge.
Self knowledge generally refers to things I think I know about my self as an
object which may or may not be true. Self-awareness generally refers to my experience of myself as the one who knows which can be partially infered by
external observers--depending upon the quality and intensity of the experience--
but the study of self awareness is mostly dependent upon self report.

At this juncture I really don't know why Bill raised the question of scalable.Maybe one of you can help me?

Honest to God, if there really was some Intelligent Design in the universe, do you think he/she would allow the most powerful Nation on the planet to be run by a moron?

case closed!

The moron isn't running the nation.

Then who was that moron The Chief Justice swore in as president?

The president doesn't run the nation, only guides it. GWB is doing less. HE is misguiding the nation. But it's not even his agenda.

True, and a good point. But there is a relationship and it has a context in talking about religion.

To have any self-knowledge you have to start with some self-awareness. When you become "aware" that there's more going on inside you than you "knew" your knowledge of yourself changes. Thus the two are linked.

The context for religion is that some people think they're getting "information and insight from God" or "have a relationship with" God or Jesus. This is part of their subjective evidence for God's existance, or at least part of their claims for evidence. However, it can't count as scientific evidence because science knows that subjectivity can not really say whether that information or relation they have is with an outside entity or just part of their own brain they fooled themselves (helped by others) into thinking is God or Jesus.

Considering the vagueness and quality of information people claim to get from God it looks more like such experiences are illusions -- or even delusions.

Illusions are virtual realities. Both illusions and delusions can become reality by the strength of the will. Many prophecies are self-fulfilling.

I don' disagree with any thing you said.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, please explain.

It sounds like you're saying something patently impossible and dangerously unrealistic. It sounds like you're saying that wishes can come true if you just wish hard enough, or believe hard enough.

If you think you can make a dream into a reality by willing a wish or making yourself believe something you don't know to be true into reality -- then you already are delusional.



But not all. If I prophecy that Bill Gates will send me a check for a million dollars it won't come true unless I either black mail him or write some really great software. It's not the wishing and beliving that will make it true -- it's understanding reality enough so I can get to the point I write million dollar software.

Now, some prophecy, say George Bush beliving the Apocalypse is at hand, well, he might just make something that resembles an apocalypse. But if Joe Shmoe believes it -- ain't nothing gonna happen unless there's some reality to those absurdly interpreted absurd biblical claims. And I doubt there is.

Rabbi Gerald L. Zelizer wrote

"Intelligent design...cannot be proved or disproved by natural evidence because its design is supernatural. That categorizes it as religion."

"Intelligent design belongs in history or social science class. Evolution belongs in science class."

Gerald L. Zelizer, rabbi of Neve Shalom, a Conservative congregation in New Jersey, is a member of USA TODAY'S board of contributors.

(I read this in USA TODAY*MONDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2005 (today) page 15A)

That is a half truth. Certain specific claims of the Intelligent Design community can be disproved. For example when they make false claims about information theory, a theory developed by Cluade Shannon and not in anyone in the ID group. One simply explains what Shannon really meant. Or, when they make claims about specific features of a living organism and say it must have been designed and could not have evolved. Those can be disproved by either evolving them on a computer or tracing their evolutionary path in the natural world. Both types of proof are expensive.

I'm not talking about anything mystical or supernatural. Will power drives action. Action fulfills prophecy in many cases. Jesus commanded his apostles to get a donkey for him to ride into town on, just so he could fulfill the prophecy of the Messiah that was written.

When Joe Namath guaranteed victory in Super Bowl III, he made a prophecy and then fulfilled it.

Claude Shannon huh? Well I don't know who rabbi Gerald L. Zeilzer is either. But I know one thing! Theories can always be disproved but we will never see religions die.

I have now consumed a half bottle of Merlot and I'm headed for the H2O. Once again I will leave you with this.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

God is Alive, Magic is Afoot (Lyrics: Cohen, recorded by Buffy Sainte-Marie)




God is alive, magic is afoot
God is alive, magic is afoot
God is alive, magic is afoot
God is afoot, magic is alive
Alive is afoot, magic never died
God never sickened
Many poor men lied
Many sick men lied
Magic never weakened
Magic never hid
Magic always ruled
God is afoot, God never died
God was ruler
Though his funeral lengthened
Though his mourners thickened
Magic never fled
Though his shrouds were hoisted
The naked God did live
Though his words were twisted
The naked magic thrived
Though his death was published
Round and round the world
The heart did not believe

Many hurt men wondered
Many struck men bled
Magic never faltered
Magic always lead
Many stones were rolled
But God would not lie down
Many wild men lied
Many fat men listened
Though they offered stones
Magic still was fed
Though they locked their coffers
God was always served
Magic is afoot, God is alive
Alive is afoot

Alive is in command
Many weak men hungered
Many strong men thrived
Though they boast of solitude
God was at their side
Nor the dreamer in his cell
Nor the captain on the hill
Magic is alive
Though his death was pardoned
Round and round the world
The heart would not believe

Though laws were carved in marble
They could not shelter men
Though altars built in parliaments
They could not order men
Police arrested magic and magic went with them
Mmmmm.... for magic loves the hungry
But magic would not tarry
It moves from arm to arm
It would not stay with them
Magic is afoot
It cannot come to harm
It rests in an empty palm
It spawns in an empty mind
But magic is no instrument
Magic is the end
Many men drove magic
But magic stayed behind
Many strong men lied
They only passed through magic
And out the other side
Many weak men lied
They came to God in secret
And though they left Him nourished
They would not tell who healed
Though mountains danced before them
They said that God was dead
Though his shrouds were hoisted
The naked God did live
This I mean to whisper to my mind
This I mean to laugh within my mind
This I mean my mind to serve
Til' service is but magic
Moving through the world
And mind itself is magic
Coursing through the flesh
And flesh itself is magic
Dancing on a clock
And time itself
The magic length of God

God is alive, magic is afoot . . .

Does it really?
Are you sure about that?

What exactly is "will power" ??

If one person can quit smoking and another can't -- is it necessarily because the one who quit had more "will power"?

Actually, we've seen quite a few religions die -- know anyone who worships Zeus, Odin or Set these days?


"I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a
doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and
subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable
to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for
supposing it true." -- Bertrand Russell

"The more slavishly and dogmatically a person falls for a ready-made
ideological system or world-view, the more certainly he will bury all chances
of thinking, of freedom, of being clear about what he knows; the more
certainly he will deaden the adventure of the mind; and the more certainly -
in practice - he will begin to serve the "order of death."

In any case, the moment when any system of thought culminates and
declares itself complete, when it is brought to perfection and universality,
has more than once been described as that deceptive moment when the system
ceases to live, collapses in upon itself (like the material collapse of a
white dwarf star) and reality eludes its grasp once and for all."
- Vaclav Havel, "Letters to Olga."

"Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do." -- Sir Humphrey Appleby

"That theory is worthless. It isn't even wrong!" ---Wolfgang Pauli

"Irrationality is the Great Baby Blankie of Humankind."
-- Olga Bourlin


"Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather
than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always
astounded me. We long for a caring Universe which will save us from
our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the
contrary we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts. God has
not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist."
-- Academician Prokhor Zakharov "For I Have Tasted The Fruit"


"In the Second Scroll of Wen the Eternally Surprised a story is written
concerning one day when the apprentice Clodpool, in a rebellious mood,
approached Wen and spake thusly: 'Master, what is the difference
between a humanistic, monastic system of belief in which wisdom is
sought by means of an apparently nonsensical system of questions and
answers, and a lot of mystic gibberish made up on the spur of the
moment?' Wen considered this for some time, and at last said: 'A
fish!' And Clodpool went away, satisfied."
-- Terry pratchett, Thief of Time

To those who seek truth -- faith is a sin and skepticism a tool.

Yes. Will power is how bad you want it.

The person who wants it bad enough, is more likely to get what they want. People who think they want things bad, often don't want it as much as they think they do.

Fear of success is more common than fear of failure. Fear of success is fear of what we will become in order to be successful or how we will change once we are successful. This hinders will power more than anything.