Help with debunking a creationist claim

[Kharakov]

(which, as a parent, you probably are more closely connected to than I am as an arguably developmentally challenged adult).

Who would argue that?
You just seem to accept really really shallow things as evidence. Plenty of fully developed adults do that.

Yeah. Seriously, all the stuff in my life could be organized by beings who simply want a complacent slave, someone who is downtrodden enough that they will do the menial jobs that those who control the lower classes do not wish to do. I enjoy the order and hope for the best, constantly surrounded by people talking about how to make money, how they stand up for themselves in order to do so, while sometimes I feel that I get very little. I see some necessity in doing good things for people, events happen so I feel like events are being organized for me (or at least to keep me feeling connected), but I cannot tell if I will be able to do the things I would like to do, which include lots of drugs, comfortable places to stay, food, shelter, good company, etc. I'm not even sure about various fundamental aspects of my existence, but I'm used to that.

I suppose that I need to feel good about what I do, as well as being made to feel good by others. Otherwise, I will not feel complete.

 

[Kharakov]

So why do you assume that reaction has anything to do with conciousness?

That was hilarious, your response is so botlike. Which reaction specifically?

So reactions supported by conscious beings can be non-conscious, ehh, such as the addition of 2+2? That reaction is created by following a specific set of non-conscious rules, but it is carried out by a consciousness.

What difference does consciousness make in terms of what neural networks are doing in response to something?

Do you mean the consciousness generated by the neural networks or the consciousness of the neural networks?

Sorry, it's very late, and my neural network is slowly getting ready for bed. I'm wondering exactly what you're asking (it might make sense tomorrow morning after a cup or 2 of coffee).

 

[Juma]

That's the beings within you (or perhaps outside of you) performing the computations without your awareness.

Doesnt your definition of conciousness include awareness????

 

[DBT]

Do you mean the consciousness generated by the neural networks or the consciousness of the neural networks?

Either way of putting it seems reasonable. What I meant was:what difference does consciousness itself make in terms of response that you would say ''this is not a 'bot' like response''

Sorry, it's very late, and my neural network is slowly getting ready for bed. I'm wondering exactly what you're asking (it might make sense tomorrow morning after a cup or 2 of coffee).

That's all right. I don't know where this is going, and its off topic. It may be better to start a new thread.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I have awesome times sometimes, and sometimes I worry a bit about things, but over all my life is moving in the right direction, I am comfortable, although I don't have all the options I would like to eventually have. I lost love, but.

Would this evidence of design be equally available to this girl?
Do you think she'd appreciate the fact that you find a general satisfaction with the direction of your life and the design of the universe?

Of course. There are problems to be worked out, and many who want to drag others down, or at the very least don't want to help out.

But why would that matter?
Your evidence is that your life works out on a generally positive note. So the consciousness behind 'everything' has taken steps to ensure you live a happy.
Why didn't the same consciousness make her life work out.
Why does the consciousness behind 'everything' allow some of the lesser consciousnesses be self-centered, or even be unaware of the big one's agenda?

 

[Kharakov]

That's the beings within you (or perhaps outside of you) performing the computations without your awareness.

Doesnt your definition of conciousness include awareness????

Yeah. The point is that there are consciousnesses that you are not aware of- you are not aware of many of the consciousnesses involved in the preparation of your food (sticking to humans at this time- the farmers, transporters, point of sale, management, etc.).

 

[Juma]

That's the beings within you (or perhaps outside of you) performing the computations without your awareness.

Doesnt your definition of conciousness include awareness????

Yeah. The point is that there are consciousnesses that you are not aware of- you are not aware of many of the consciousnesses involved in the preparation of your food (sticking to humans at this time- the farmers, transporters, point of sale, management, etc.).

I am talking about a specific conciousness: if an entity is said to have conciousness, is it then required to be aware or not.

 

[Kharakov]

Either way of putting it seems reasonable. What I meant was:what difference does consciousness itself make in terms of response that you would say ''this is not a 'bot' like response''

Between your clarification, the coffee, and sleep, I finally get what you were asking. I think it's easier for me to define a "bot like response" than to define "not bot like response".

A bot like response is supported by consciousness, but it is generated through the consciousness following a rule set. Adding 1 to 1 to get to two is done by a consciousness, however the response generated is defined by the rules followed (axioms). Say that there are multiple consciousnesses working together to support something (such as the N. Korean "big screen TV" made of people with various color poster sized cards they hold up at specific times in order to create images, movement, etc.). This is somewhat of a "bot like response". So are parade drills, the behavior of electrons, etc. Of course, it's easier to see a person step out of line in a parade drill (or a person who is about to be beaten for holding up the wrong color card on the NK TV), than it is to perceive an electron among billions doing something out of line.


Say a consciousness if following a very specific set of rules, which in turn have rules governing their (the rules) interplay, which in turn have other rules governing the rules that govern the rules interplay, etc. etc. etc. At some point, the interplay of rules and consciousnesses become so complex, that no response can be completely bot-like. It's not like I offer someone a cold beer because I am a bot- but understanding that they will like one while we relax on the porch, smoke a cigarette, and bullshit about life is just... right.

I suppose at some point the complexity of rule sets followed (we are responding to one another with language at this time, describing our own unique perspectives on life, etc.) makes it seem less bot like to me. In fact, maybe what I call bot like responses are simply very concise responses that only follow very limited sets of rules (such as the axioms of mathematics) which are not interrelated with the many other rule sets of life.

Sorry, it's very late, and my neural network is slowly getting ready for bed. I'm wondering exactly what you're asking (it might make sense tomorrow morning after a cup or 2 of coffee).

That's all right. I don't know where this is going, and its off topic. It may be better to start a new thread.

Yeah, I jumped in to comment on an idea that was a blatant assumption, which one would ultimately have to defend (the assumption) in order to refute creationist claims (while obviously the many worlds interpretation of QM and various interpretations of the statement "with God all things are possible", can be used by both sides of the aisle to defend whatever wolkenkuckucksheim they are living in).


Then I mentioned the mirror image of evolution... because one can arrive at many correct conclusions about reality by looking at the mirror image of something- they can see how things fit together in a mirror way, see all these actual connections between mirrored objects, but never ever see actual reality (and of course, the mirror reality proponents will argue that I am the one looking at things in a mirror view- ultimately their viewpoint, while it works and lets them interact with reality, does not let them appreciate reality as it is, or have a complete grasp on the whole picture due to the ugly nature of some of the "mirror reality" connections).

 

[Kharakov]

Why didn't the same consciousness make her life work out.

You mean the love I've lost? Her life worked out fine. I was prompted to say that by another, and in some sense it has some truth, but in others it is not accurate.

Why does the consciousness behind 'everything' allow some of the lesser consciousnesses be self-centered, or even be unaware of the big one's agenda?

A parent asks me this?

 

[Keith&Co.]

You mean the love I've lost?

No, i meant the girl in the picture, posed with a vulture.

Why does the consciousness behind 'everything' allow some of the lesser consciousnesses be self-centered, or even be unaware of the big one's agenda?

A parent asks me this?

if it was in my power to protect my children from every imaginable form of harm, i would.
If i had control of every aspect of their environment, they would never suffer.
This would apply to every human being on the planet, had i the power.
Lacking that sort of power, i try to equip them to manage life in the world we're actually living in. If part of the plan is for them not to be self-centered, i point out when they're being self-centered, and what they should have done, and what they should be doing to meet my goals of developing a person who can navigate the universe, to include selecting and achieving their own goals.

I do not set up an environment in which i simply hope they will detect me, hope they will notice the pattern, and hope they figure out for themselves what they're supposed to believe about me, others, helping, charity and so on.
I do not set up some of my children to suffer in the hopes that others will realize that i exist and that i want them to want to help their sibling, and hope they will do so.
I also don't care JUST enough to make sure some children's lives are on a generally upwards slope while ensuring others starve to the point where the body starts to digest itself.
Which makes it difficult for me to see this pattern you're preaching to me.

 

[Kharakov]

No, i meant the girl in the picture, posed with a vulture.

Ok. I don't know the specifics of her life or why it is as it is. Probably due to people ignoring what they should do and mindlessly pursuing pleasure when they could instead be mindfully pursuing the good of all.

I do not set up an environment in which i simply hope they will detect me, hope they will notice the pattern, and hope they figure out for themselves what they're supposed to believe about me, others, helping, charity and so on.
I do not set up some of my children to suffer in the hopes that others will realize that i exist and that i want them to want to help their sibling, and hope they will do so.

I'm of the view that God is somewhat limited in what God can do, that it isn't a cakewalk being the creator of the universe, that some sympathy for the complexity of God's position will go a long way, and that ultimately we will work it out. That's all.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Ok. I don't know the specifics of her life or why it is as it is. Probably due to people ignoring what they should do and mindlessly pursuing pleasure when they could instead be mindfully pursuing the good of all.

I was asking if your evidence for a supreme consciousness was available to her.
Would she see that your life, not hers, was, in general, on an upward trend, and showing all the signs of a conscious universe making sure you were taken care of?
Do you think she would have accepted the Supreme C based on what you're offering as evidence?

I'm of the view that God is somewhat limited in what God can do, that it isn't a cakewalk being the creator of the universe, that some sympathy for the complexity of God's position will go a long way, and that ultimately we will work it out. That's all.

So, wait. God has so much power you think there are no events in the universe beyond his conscious control. Yet, your mind is able to conceive of limits to such a being's ability to achieve his goals. And like the ancient Greek gods, he is simply a human writ very, very large. We should sympathize with him and shoulder much of his infinite burden.

Where the fuck do you get this shit from? Tailgating a fortune cookie delivery truck in high winds?

You've got your life working out much as you would wish it, so that's positive evidence for an SC, but if other things dont' work out, if others' lives are for shit, that's not negative evidence reducing the credibility of the SC. Rather, it's positive evidence there's a god AND that we've got a responsibility to take up his slack.

Just like any other Tom, Dick or Apologist.

 

[Kharakov]

I was asking if your evidence for a supreme consciousness was available to her.
Would she see that your life, not hers, was, in general, on an upward trend, and showing all the signs of a conscious universe making sure you were taken care of?
Do you think she would have accepted the Supreme C based on what you're offering as evidence?

I don't know the whys and whats of her life.

So, wait. God has so much power you think there are no events in the universe beyond his conscious control. Yet, your mind is able to conceive of limits to such a being's ability to achieve his goals. And like the ancient Greek gods, he is simply a human writ very, very large. We should sympathize with him and shoulder much of his infinite burden.

Where the fuck do you get this shit from? Tailgating a fortune cookie delivery truck in high winds?

Well, to elucidate the patterns that unfold and assure me that there is a God (or at least a higher power) looking out for me, today, at dinner, we had Chinese food. During dinner, Eli, my friends son, walked up behind me and said "Benesi, here's your fortune" because the kids were getting into the fortune cookies. The fortune said something along the lines of "Your luck will make others covet what you have." And then he read the numbers on it, of which the first few digits were my birthday, then another number which is meaningful to me. And a lot of my experiences have revolved around these 3 specific numbers, so I was happy, and felt very lucky that these types of events happen in my life (often).

And then you throw out the following statement- "Where the fuck do you get this shit from? Tailgating a fortune cookie delivery truck in high winds?"

So that is another specific connection to the events in my life today which had meaning to me. I can't remember the last time fortune cookies came up in conversation, I think I ate one at my friends house a couple months ago. The funniest thing is that I told my friend, Eli's grandfather, about the fortune cookie thing right before you wrote your response.

You've got your life working out much as you would wish it, so that's positive evidence for an SC, but if other things dont' work out, if others' lives are for shit, that's not negative evidence reducing the credibility of the SC. Rather, it's positive evidence there's a god AND that we've got a responsibility to take up his slack.

If I get a fortune cookie that says "others will covet your luck" and then someone says what you've said above after commenting that I got this shit from tailgating a fortune delivery truck, what is that evidence for?

And I do feel like I should help- I don't know that I have to, but I can see things the wrong way, have a bad attitude about things, etc. and I want to do what is right and just be nice to God. I don't want to feel like I'm being an asshole to God. That's it- I don't like feeling mean spirited.

 

[Jokodo]

This used to be a thread about a creationist blog misinterpreting a Nature paper on modelling the ways genotype-phenotype mappings can constrain adaptation.

Whatever happened?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Water doesn't need conscious, purposive guidance to find its way downhill.

You don't know that gravity isn't an example of conscious purposeful guidance. You don't know that EM interactions are not caused by conscious intent. You don't know that strong/weak interactions are not caused by conscious intent.

In fact, you can see that when a human acts, the amount of intelligence and skill that goes into the action determine the precision of the action's coordination with the humans intent. How precise is spacetime curvature? How precise are EM interactions (according to QED)? How precise are strong interactions (according to QCD)?

So basically you have a bunch of very precise actions, and a bunch of clumsy goofballs saying "there is no intent behind these actions" because they (the goofballs) are way too big of clutzes to ever imagine being able to act with such precision consciously. "Ooohohh, because Thad and Grunk no move rock like waterfall, there no higher being moving water, must be mechanical, because Grunk too clumsy and stupid to flow like water, and Grunk smertest cavebeing on ball of dirt.."

That's Al-Ghazali's proof of the existence of God. Nothing can happen by itself. If you strike a match and throw on the fire, it'll start burning because that is the will of Allah. His logic is actually water tight. But a bit... well... not very satisfying. He's an interesting guy. Even though this argument is..it's retarded... there I said it... he's still a very intelligent guy. His ideas eventually ended up in Europe and had an enormous influence on European thought and what later became Enlightenment thought. I recommend looking him up. Cool guy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali

 

[Kharakov]

This used to be a thread about a creationist blog misinterpreting a Nature paper on modelling the ways genotype-phenotype mappings can constrain adaptation.

Whatever happened?

People said unjustified comments that relate to what they believe, I commented on it, and the conversation progressed.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I found it absolutely shocking that someone found erroneous comments in a blog.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You've got your life working out much as you would wish it, so that's positive evidence for an SC, but if other things dont' work out, if others' lives are for shit, that's not negative evidence reducing the credibility of the SC. Rather, it's positive evidence there's a god AND that we've got a responsibility to take up his slack.

If I get a fortune cookie that says "others will covet your luck" and then someone says what you've said above after commenting that I got this shit from tailgating a fortune delivery truck, what is that evidence for?

So, now 'luck' means the pattern you've observed that tells you the universe is conscious and chose to make your life work out for you.
And 'covet' means 'i noted that you bragged.'
See, this is what i really love about the theist mind.
Anything can be warped into evidence for anything they want, as long as they're willing to prostitute their intelligence to support their beliefs, rather than investigate them.

 

[Keith&Co.]

People said unjustified comments

No, i think the comments are quite justified. You offer nothing more than 'maybe/what if' objections with no support beyond your feelings.
No reason to hold back on coming to a working conclusion on how the universe works.
Certainly no justification for calling anyone else's position unjustified.

 

[Kharakov]

You've got your life working out much as you would wish it, so that's positive evidence for an SC, but if other things dont' work out, if others' lives are for shit, that's not negative evidence reducing the credibility of the SC. Rather, it's positive evidence there's a god AND that we've got a responsibility to take up his slack.

If I get a fortune cookie that says "others will covet your luck" and then someone says what you've said above after commenting that I got this shit from tailgating a fortune delivery truck, what is that evidence for?

So, now 'luck' means the pattern you've observed that tells you the universe is conscious and chose to make your life work out for you.

That reminded me of an Archer quote for some reason. And no, that isn't what luck means.

And 'covet' means 'i noted that you bragged.'

Ok. If someone helps me out and I mention they do, is it boasting? I need the help. <-- Is that boasting?

See, this is what i really love about the theist mind.
Anything can be warped into evidence for anything they want, as long as they're willing to prostitute their intelligence to support their beliefs, rather than investigate them.

Ok, what do you think is going on in my life? Did you know exactly what happened in my life and plan out that comment to make me feel connected? You have to consider that I know this pattern exists- connections between various beings and events in my life. Things ARE planned out- but if it is not God, but instead other beings, and you know about it, I'd like to know about it too.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If I get a fortune cookie that says "others will covet your luck" and then someone says what you've said above after commenting that I got this shit from tailgating a fortune delivery truck, what is that evidence for?

So, now 'luck' means the pattern you've observed that tells you the universe is conscious and chose to make your life work out for you.

... And no, that isn't what luck means.

Then why draw the connection? You presented the fortune cookie message as if it was more than a coincidence.
But we weren't talking about luck, so the 'good luck' in the fortune isn't significant.
Or it shouldn't be. Unless you want it to be.
And the simplest explanation for your life AND for the life of the starving girl is that there is no greater plan, you're just projecting this 'pattern' onto life around you.

Which i have seen before. Rode across town with a girl and noticed we hit a lot of red lights, which was fine because i wanted into her skirt.
She told me afterwards that she'd been 'positive visualizing' green lights, which was why we had been hitting red lights all the way across town.
Same history, two diametrically opposed impressions of what was going on.

Ok, what do you think is going on in my life?

Doesn't matter. I have no reason to think that you've picked up any pattern that's external to yourself. Rather, i've been with lots of people experimenting with New Age stuff for the last forty years, and they tend to claim things that aren't true for observers.

The fact that you really, really, really KNOW you see the pattern still isn't evidence for the pattern, and hardly a refutation of my thinking you're projecting it.

And your rationalization for why your life gets help, while other lives don't, isn't really a good reason for the universe to play favorites.

You have to consider that I know this pattern exists-

I do. But i've seen you draw the connection between this thread and your fortune cookie, and i'm not impressed at your threshold for connections.