Author Topic: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted  (Read 12554 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #87 on: May 28, 2010, 02:46:45 PM »
If it were truly random it would never produce anything and its sum would inescapably be zero in all situations.  That's why it is so absurd and dishonest to describe 'evolution' as random or even the processes that allow life to develop at all.  Life itself is nothing more then matter made animate, having nothing compelling to its own existence from other matter.
O M F G
I actually completely agree...with my uber nemesis!

No, you don't.  Since most of what you claim is totally dependent on make believe and defended by nothing more then your own endless pleading.

Quote
The only thing I would suggest that you consider is this:

There is nothing to consider.  Matter is simply a subjective label in a context of understanding an observation, there is no opposite statement to be made or to be understood.  It is meaningless and it also doesn't follow to any other absurd claim you've made.

Plus, if you agree with me then you agree with the fact that the universe could exist today and the total sum of everything in the universe could be 0, therefore the universe is nothing and comes from nothing.  Meaning, no logos, no god, no smurfs, nothing.

Plus, there is no more reason to signify our existence as we understand it to be anymore special then the possibility it could exist in another state.  In fact, there probably are other states that exist slightly different from this one if we are going to consider existence as truly extending as 'wave function'.

Which again.. no gods.. no logos.. no smurfs.

Quote
If you can accept that second part, then you should apply that understanding to the other areas where you accuse me of lying or making things up or whatever other skullduggery I'm supposed to engage in.

Your dishonest, you obfuscate, and you purposefully excuse yourself from responsibility from your own assertions.  There is nothing you said that is relevant to being accepted or understood, as it is nothing.  There isn't even a relevant explanation to follow from it in the conclusion you just made in this second paragraph.

Again, pleading.  No substance.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #88 on: May 28, 2010, 02:50:55 PM »
"Life" possesses nothing that separates it from other matter and you're not even trying to explain how beyond trying to plead your claim incessantly.

So, what now?

Life is just another kind of order. So is matter.

:buzzer:

Wrong.

Life isn't anything.

Matter is matter.

If you're going to claim otherwise, you need to provide a qualifier for making that assertion. This is a logical requirement.

Quote
The cosmos is made of order.

:buzzer:

Wrong.

There is no logical need to presume order, we can't say the cosmos is made of order because we can't begin at the cosmos being made of order.  Your logic doesn't follow and you make no effort to qualify the claim being made.

There is also contradiction in that if you accept that random=0 and the universe=0, then there is nothing to call 'order'.

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 678
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #89 on: May 28, 2010, 02:52:23 PM »
You obfuscated and dodged the question.
That's your hobgoblin, not mine.

Quote
What physical ordering?
the physical universe is ordered according to laws. laws of physics. principles of material mechanics. These aren't human laws, and it could be argued that they are just the appearance we give our observations, but it doesn't matter, they are functionally identical to literal, if idealized laws.

Quote
Limit physical ordering in comparison to what?
In comparison to ordering of all observable phenomena - subjective contents, meaning, coherence.

Quote
You are also not using 'logos' as laws of physics, you are instead using it interchangeably with the nonsensical and it is little more then a use of confusing rhetoric.
No, I'm just hypothesizing that internal coherence is related to external coherence.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 678
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #90 on: May 28, 2010, 03:00:43 PM »
Life isn't anything.

Matter is matter.
Once again, you demonstrate the pathology of OMM.

Quote
If you're going to claim otherwise, you need to provide a qualifier for making that assertion. This is a logical requirement.
Pseudoskeptical. I don't need to 'claim' that life is something. Your logic is invalid and highly prejudiced.

Quote
Quote
The cosmos is made of order.

:buzzer:

Wrong.

There is no logical need to presume order, we can't say the cosmos is made of order because we can't begin at the cosmos being made of order.  Your logic doesn't follow and you make no effort to qualify the claim being made.
:buzzer:

You're wrong. The word cosmos means order. If you want to give your imaginary universe of patternless, orderless matter a name, you're welcome to make one up, but cosmos is taken. But beyond the definition, the Greeks were astute to observer that in fact, the Universe is a multiplicity of ordered relations. This isn't a wacky way of looking at things, it's a literal fact. The Cosmos is order. Ordered matter, ordered thought, ordered disorder. Not the other way around. Order doesn't come from 0.

Quote
There is also contradiction in that if you accept that random=0 and the universe=0, then there is nothing to call 'order'.
Not sure what you're saying here. Sounds like mystical woo.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #91 on: May 28, 2010, 03:08:09 PM »
You obfuscated and dodged the question.
That's your hobgoblin, not mine.

No, its yours, one not looked upon favorably on the forum.  A member asked you direct question, which you responded by redefining your term and adding more unsubstantiated pleading to the mix.  Hence, you didn't answer the question.

Quote
Quote
What physical ordering?
the physical

What? The 'physical'? That's a qualification that doesn't follow.  What else is there? Not physical? Where is it? What is it? How do you know?

OH!  You're creating a qualification that doesn't follow.

Quote
universe


Ok, minus 'physical', I can accept 'universe'.

Quote
is ordered

Wait what!?

Ordered? According to what? who? how? When?

Again, another qualification that doesn't follow.

Quote
according to laws. laws of physics. principles of material mechanics.

I can accept that.

Quote
These aren't human laws,

Irrelevant, they arn't 'laws' at all, but no one is arguing this.

Quote
and it could be argued that they are just the appearance we give our observations,

The first honest thing you've said.

Quote
but it doesn't matter, they are functionally identical to literal, if idealized laws.

It matters, because it tells us nothing of any precondition relevant to the existence of what is observed.  Just like you don't have a basis for which to demand or decry it as 'ordered'.  It simply is what it is.

Quote
Quote
Limit physical ordering in comparison to what?
In comparison to ordering of all observable

That doesn't even logically follow.  I'm asking you beyond existence, what else are you comparing your claim to as if the person you responded to was 'limiting' anything.  So you answer me, by claiming its in comparison to everything observed to exist.

Great, we were already there.

The observation of the laws of physics IS comparison to everything we observe.

Yet you claimed we were limiting something, i asked in comparison to what?

So what is it!?  What is being limited to what? Compared to what?

Quote
Quote
You are also not using 'logos' as laws of physics, you are instead using it interchangeably with the nonsensical and it is little more then a use of confusing rhetoric.
No, I'm just hypothesizing that internal coherence is related to external coherence.

.. Mindless rhetoric.

Are you talking about coherence as it relates to waves?

See Imm, you move randomly from concepts that are actual valid in terms of being scientific.. then you fall back on absurd woo.  You make assertions that range from the subjectively nonsensical to the being purely ludicrous ( we might as well be talking about smurfs ).   Your language has to be broken down and when we do that we find nothing but the use of rhetoric.

So are you going to have a discussion that offers to explain anything or are you going to move randomly around pleading your way deeper into incoherence?
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 678
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #92 on: May 28, 2010, 03:08:53 PM »
No, you don't.  
nothing more
There is nothing to consider.  
there is no opposite statement to be made or to be understood.  
It is meaningless and
the universe is nothing and comes from nothing.  Meaning, no logos, no god, no smurfs, nothing.
there is no more reason
no gods.. no logos.. no smurfs.
There is nothing you said
There isn't even
No substance.
Wow. I must be really double, extra wrong. I must be nobody in your awesome non-universe of nothingness.
OMMM

Seriously, I'm afraid you are going to have a seizure. Gotta go for an Omen time out now. Have a nice day.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 11990
  • Darwins +618/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #93 on: May 28, 2010, 03:12:06 PM »
Immediacracy, I have a couple questions for you.

1. How old are you?
2. Are you high?
3. What the fuck does "irreducable phenomenon" even mean?
4. Can you please be more clear in what you are saying?  Right now I have no idea whether you are a creationist, theist, or what.  You seem to throw a lot of mumbo-jumbo together and try to pass it off as deep thought.  Reading your posts is like reading Ekhart Tolle. 


Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #94 on: May 28, 2010, 03:18:37 PM »
Life isn't anything.

Matter is matter.
Once again, you demonstrate the pathology of OMM.

Special pleading dismissal without explanation, which doesn't answer the problem of the 'rhetoric' being used in your language.

If you want to claim 'life' is something, then you have to actually make a logical argument to demonstrate your point.  How hard is that?

Apparently hard enough that you need to dismiss anyone that doesn't first agree to every baseless assertion you make.  Hell, I don't even need to say I am OMM ( I'm not since all of your OMM shit is a giant ridiculous strawman ), since all I need to is elaborate upon the use of mindless appeals and abusive use of language.

Quote
Quote
If you're going to claim otherwise, you need to provide a qualifier for making that assertion. This is a logical requirement.
Pseudoskeptical.

Special pleading, dismissal without explanation.

Quote
I don't need to 'claim' that life is something. Your logic is invalid and highly prejudiced.

You've already claimed 'life' to be something special, your implication has already been made.  You've already made the defacto assertion.  Are you now going to deny ever made any claim?  Is this really the kind of thing you want to do again Imm?

Quote
Quote
The cosmos is made of order.

:buzzer:

Wrong.

There is no logical need to presume order, we can't say the cosmos is made of order because we can't begin at the cosmos being made of order.  Your logic doesn't follow and you make no effort to qualify the claim being made.
:buzzer:

You're wrong. The word cosmos means order.[/quote]

Its a word, it doesn't logically follow to be anything.

Quote
If you want to give your imaginary universe of patternless, orderless matter a name, you're welcome to make one up, but cosmos is taken.

How does a label have anything to do with what something is or is not?

Quote
But beyond the definition, the Greeks were astute to observer that in fact, the Universe is a multiplicity of ordered relations.

An evaporating puddle that constantly shrinks in size is 'ordered', but it doesn't mean the puddle is 'ordered' for the hole it exists in.

The relationship of order in a thing doesn't entail it was first ordered, just like the puddle wasn't ordered into the dimensions of the puddle.

Quote
This isn't a wacky way of looking at things, it's a literal fact.

No it is not, its an absurd use of fuzzy language, trying to avoid the fact that you're making a circular assumption about 'order' before their was an existence to exist.  The universe was not 'ordered' before and falling into place is not the same thing as being 'ordered'.

Quote
The Cosmos is order. Ordered matter, ordered thought, ordered disorder. Not the other way around. Order doesn't come from 0.

Actually, order can come from 0 as long as the total sum of order and disorder is 0.  That's the point of saying that the total sum of random is 0 and that if the total sum of 'everything' in the universe is 0 then the universe isn't anything but 0.

Quote
Quote
There is also contradiction in that if you accept that random=0 and the universe=0, then there is nothing to call 'order'.
Not sure what you're saying here. Sounds like mystical woo.

See above.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #95 on: May 28, 2010, 03:21:34 PM »
No, you don't.  
nothing more
There is nothing to consider.  
there is no opposite statement to be made or to be understood.  
It is meaningless and
the universe is nothing and comes from nothing.  Meaning, no logos, no god, no smurfs, nothing.
there is no more reason
no gods.. no logos.. no smurfs.
There is nothing you said
There isn't even
No substance.
Wow. I must be really double, extra wrong. I must be nobody in your awesome non-universe of nothingness.
OMMM

Ad hom and strawman.

Quote
Seriously, I'm afraid you are going to have a seizure. Gotta go for an Omen time out now. Have a nice day.

Gotta go beat off to Deepak Chopra?
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 678
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #96 on: May 28, 2010, 03:24:54 PM »
Immediacracy, I have a couple questions for you.

1. How old are you?
2. Are you high?
3. What the f**k does "irreducable phenomenon" even mean?
4. Can you please be more clear in what you are saying?  Right now I have no idea whether you are a creationist, theist, or what.  You seem to throw a lot of mumbo-jumbo together and try to pass it off as deep thought.  Reading your posts is like reading Ekhart Tolle. 
1. 42

2. Nope

3. Irreducible phenomenon is something that can't be meaningfully broken down to subordinate parts. An element. A fundamental law or characteristic. A primary color is irreducible. I'm just saying that life is like that - it's contains various precursors and requires certain materials, but it's not the same thing as those materials. It's a different level of organization which reduces only to cells and cellular processes and not any further.

4. I'm trying. It seems like mainly people don't want to accept what I'm saying because some of it is obviously true and some of it sounds crazy. I'm not a creationist at all. In fact, I'm more skeptical than most of you here. Conventional wisdom is as dogmatic as religion. I like Ekhart Tolle but am not generally into guru figures.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 678
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #97 on: May 28, 2010, 03:27:42 PM »
Gotta go beat off to Deepak Chopra?
Mm. Classay.
Reported, again.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #98 on: May 28, 2010, 03:28:37 PM »
Gotta go beat off to Deepak Chopra?
Mm. Classay.
Reported, again.

You do know that you can be reported for stonewalling and avoiding questions, right?
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #99 on: May 28, 2010, 03:34:05 PM »
Irreducible phenomenon is something that can't be meaningfully broken down to subordinate parts. An element. A fundamental law or characteristic. A primary color is irreducible. I'm just saying that life is like that - it's contains various precursors and requires certain materials,

As exampled by?

Like?

<blank> is a precursor of 'life'.

Life requires materials that can't be irreducible such as <blank>

Notice that.. you don't tell us, you don't even offer to explain, and your entire answer is a mindless pleading of NEW qualifications that beg the same questions!

Do you NOT know what special pleading is?

Do you NOT know how special pleading pertains to being a fallacy?

Quote
but it's not the same thing as those materials.

And it is..... ?

Quote
It's a different level of organization which reduces only to cells and cellular processes and not any further.

And its different how......?

:whispers: If you answered.. we wouldn't have to ask.

Try this, try to answer a question without using another question or another qualifier that is as unexplained as the previous qualifier.

Quote
4. I'm trying. It seems like mainly people don't want to accept what I'm saying because some of it is obviously true and some of it sounds crazy.

No, it is primarily because you use rhetoric, do not offer to explain anything in satisfactory detail, and dismiss having it pointed out.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline RaymondKHessel

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1914
  • Darwins +73/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Born with insight, and a raised fist.
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #100 on: May 28, 2010, 03:36:00 PM »
Immediacracy, I have a couple questions for you.

1. How old are you?
2. Are you high?
3. What the f**k does "irreducable phenomenon" even mean?
4. Can you please be more clear in what you are saying?  Right now I have no idea whether you are a creationist, theist, or what.  You seem to throw a lot of mumbo-jumbo together and try to pass it off as deep thought.  Reading your posts is like reading Ekhart Tolle. 




Oh thank Odin! <hugs Screwtape in gratitude> And here I was thinking maybe I had just gone stupid. I haven't understood half of what this guy has tried to say since he signed up. I know the words, I know what they mean, but it's often like reading

The Squareroot of 5+K = Sailboats! Doesn't that not seem to be the way things aren't before they never think were undone right!?

Which leaves me pretty much going  :-\  :'( :shrug And then leaves me feeling bad about myself that I can't make sense of things.

At first I thought maybe it was just that their Avatar was brainwashing me or something, making things out to be more complex than they really were.

I'm sooooo glad I'm not alone!

Born with insight, and a raised fist.

Offline Operator_A25

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1893
  • Darwins +7/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #101 on: May 28, 2010, 03:42:00 PM »
Immediacracy,

Just skimming over the posts, it looks to me like you are just as guilty of making provocative comments and snide remarks, so I don't see how the staff can honestly act on Omen's remark and ignore your replies.

If the thread has reached a point where it is serving no purpose beyond you guys trading insults then I'm likely to just lock it up and not worry about it. Especially as this seems to be turning into a grudge match.

-A25
Former Global Moderator Account

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 678
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #102 on: May 28, 2010, 05:07:48 PM »
Irreducible phenomenon is something that can't be meaningfully broken down to subordinate parts. An element. A fundamental law or characteristic. A primary color is irreducible. I'm just saying that life is like that - it's contains various precursors and requires certain materials,

As exampled by?
Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Nitrogen
molecular arrangements of same which have emergent properties of self replication and phenomic (as opposed to genomic) expression.
Water.
Sunlight, or indirect forms of solar energy.
A biologist might mention several more.

Quote
Life requires materials that can't be irreducible such as <blank>
Life is a quality of matter which is irreducible. Like a corpse is materially similar to a living body, but once it's dead, it's not a living body anymore by any meaningful description. It may have functioning tissues for a while, but as a living organism, it has ceased to host any conscious needs or wants, feelings or thoughts associated with that organism.

I don't know what requiring materials that can't be irreducible means.

Quote
Do you NOT know what special pleading is?

Do you NOT know how special pleading pertains to being a fallacy?
You can tell me all about it if you like, but I'm not interested in philosophy.

Quote
Quote
but it's not the same thing as those materials.

And it is..... ?

The potential for growth, reproduction, metabolism, consumption, excretion, sensation, perception, agency/sentience/subjective orientation, healing, taking action, dying...lots of things are associated with a living organism which is not associated with it's component materials (a dead organism contains all the components of a live one, but it's not alive, hence not performing the functions and having the characteristics of a living organism).

Quote
And its different how......?
See above - it has the signature functions we associate with living organisms.

Quote
:whispers: If you answered.. we wouldn't have to ask.
What's wrong with asking? How am I supposed to anticipate all of everyone's questions?

Quote
No, it is primarily because you use rhetoric, do not offer to explain anything in satisfactory detail, and dismiss having it pointed out.
I'm very happy to provide details whenever they are asked of me in a civil, patient manner. I'm offering now. One or two questions at a time, preferably.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 678
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #103 on: May 28, 2010, 05:22:21 PM »
And then leaves me feeling bad about myself that I can't make sense of things.
Sorry. That's not my intention. All I can do is try to describe what sense I'm able to make out of the world. I'm mainly trying to reconcile the existence of mind and matter in a way which puts them in the same universe without having to depend on the cop-out that one is 'simply not real'...and I think that it's actually not that hard to do once you orient yourself to the fact of it first, and then to the explanation second instead of the other way around.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline relativetruth

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
  • Darwins +7/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #104 on: May 28, 2010, 05:28:24 PM »
Immediacracy

Do you believe that abiogenesis is impossible and if so why do you think that way?
God(s) exist and are imaginary

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 678
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #105 on: May 28, 2010, 06:16:26 PM »
Do you believe that abiogenesis is impossible and if so why do you think that way?
No, I think that abiogenesis is a fact. Life does come from 'inanimate' matter, I just think that matter is very different on the 'inside' than it appears on the outside.

Consider a photon. That's energy. If you have enough photons emitted into your eye, your brain will show you the colors corresponding to that electromagnetic energy stream. Your eye samples the stream, your optic nerve transduces that into various neurological analogs, which your brain samples and sums up for you as the qualia of color.

The photon must have an inherent 'knowledge' of how the electromagnetic spectrum works. They are, in fact one and the same thing. Photons are electromagnetic phenomena, electromagnetic phenomena have a photo-logical dimension.

This is just an example of how the behavior of energy precipitates an inherent order. A visible spectrum to us. A mathematical continuum of measurement to our instruments.

Keep in mind that this just demonstrates orderliness in energy which supercedes or inheres to an exterior form. It's still technically exterior. We can't be inside an electron so we don't know what it's interior is like at all, so the visible spectrum is just a hint, a clue at what the interior of energy might be like or what it expresses.

All we can comment on the interior of is the interior of the part of our brain that we experience - the limbic system, the cortex, etc, and what we do know is that this experience is very different from the exterior appearance of the brain. We are the interior of the functioning of our brain in the same way that this sentence is the interior of your computer's functioning.

I'm sure that sounds crazy to everyone, but I don't know how else to explain it. The brain is neurochemical activity on the outside, images, thoughts, desires, experiences, memories on the inside. Take it down a level and you can imagine that brain cells, like photons, transmit meaning much like the visible spectrum is transmitted - as part of an order of possible human neurological states/human experiences.

Life enables a whole new level of vocabulary for the cosmos. If you're familiar with the OSI networking model, Layer 1 is physical, Layer 2 is data link (switches, frames), 3 is network (routing, IP), 4 transport (TCP), 5 session, 6 presentation (GUI), 7 application. We are an application. The psyche is a presentation layer phenomenon precipitated on but different from the layer 5 (physiology), 4 (biochemistry), 3 (chemistry), 2 (astrophysics), 1 (existence). That's on the exterior.

A hypothetical model of the corresponding subjective continuum might go 1-essence, 2-archetypes, 3-meanings, 4-words/communication, 5-icons/symbols 6-images 7-perceptions. Our subjective stack is defined by our objective stack, since they are really two sides of the same thing. If you get down to the level of an amoeba, it may have not much more subjectivity than a bunch of photons, but since it moves and eats and divides and dies as a coherent organism, that organism has a larger vocabulary of sentience to work with.

It's a theory anyways. I'm not 'claiming' anything. Jeez.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2010, 08:23:19 PM by Immediacracy »
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 11990
  • Darwins +618/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #106 on: May 28, 2010, 09:24:26 PM »
4. I'm trying. It seems like mainly people don't want to accept what I'm saying because ...

stop right there.  For sure you are saying some weird things.  But I do not think it is about acceptance.  I think the problem is you are not being understood.  At least, I sure don't understand you.  I think part of that is you sound like you could be full of woo.  I cannot tell whether you are or you are not.  I think another part of that is other have to make assumptions.  They are filling in the blanks as best they can, but that might not be to your benefit. 

My recommendation is you spend a little more time communicating clearly without using such opaque language.  Like "Irreducable phenomenon".  I would like to see you stick around.  I've read some posts that showed promise.  However, at the rate things are going, I think you are not going to want to.


And I fucking hate Tolle.  I think he should be kicked in the junk three times every hour of every day.



Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1732
  • Darwins +72/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #107 on: May 28, 2010, 09:57:23 PM »
screwtape:
Quote
For sure you are saying some weird things.  But I do not think it is about acceptance.  I think the problem is you are not being understood.  At least, I sure don't understand you.  I think part of that is you sound  like you could be full of woo.  I cannot tell whether you are or you are not.  I think another part of that is other have to make assumptions.  They are filling in the blanks as best they can, but that might not be to your benefit.

My recommendation is you spend a little more time communicating clearly without using such opaque language.  Like "Irreducible phenomenon".  I would like to see you stick around.  I've read some posts that showed promise.  However, at the rate things are going, I think you are not going to want to.

That pretty much sums up my view too, Imm. You're polite and have a pretty thick skin, which is more than could be said for most of the theist posters and some of the atheists. I follow your posts with interest, but sometimes your phrasing is difficult to understand.
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 678
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #108 on: May 28, 2010, 09:58:59 PM »
4. I'm trying. It seems like mainly people don't want to accept what I'm saying because ...

stop right there.  For sure you are saying some weird things.  But I do not think it is about acceptance.  I think the problem is you are not being understood.  At least, I sure don't understand you.  I think part of that is you sound like you could be full of woo.  I cannot tell whether you are or you are not.  I think another part of that is other have to make assumptions.  They are filling in the blanks as best they can, but that might not be to your benefit. 

My recommendation is you spend a little more time communicating clearly without using such opaque language.  Like "Irreducable phenomenon".  I would like to see you stick around.  I've read some posts that showed promise.  However, at the rate things are going, I think you are not going to want to.


And I fucking hate Tolle.  I think he should be kicked in the junk three times every hour of every day.
Sounds like decent advice. I didn't realize that there was that much of a language barrier or that people would react so emotionally to it.

Filling in the blanks strikes me as particularly important because I would say that one of the keys to understanding where I'm coming from is to start from a more thoroughly blank starting point. A cosmos where nothing is taken for granted - as if you had to write a computer program for it. There's not going to be consciousness, thought, feeling, and emotion if you only write code for electrical brain behaviors. There's not going to be any colors to look at unless you write code that invents colors. Not to say there's a code writer, just that the metaphor helps explain why the materialist perspective is so lacking, and why that lack is an obstacle to moving beyond archaic theistic models.

That you hate Tolle so much suggests to me that your worldview is diametrically opposed to his, or his personality reminds you of someone you don't like or something. Which is fine. Like Depak and all those guys, I appreciate their effort to create an opportunity for people to change their awareness, but I have to ignore the 'release the giant within' type of life coaching positivity (not because it's b.s., worse, it's potentially psychotic - in a literal, not figurative way).
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 678
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #109 on: May 28, 2010, 10:01:03 PM »
That pretty much sums up my view too, Imm. You're polite and have a pretty thick skin, which is more than could be said for most of the theist posters and some of the atheists. I follow your posts with interest, but sometimes your phrasing is difficult to understand.
Fair enough. I'll at least try to do a concise summary when I can. It's just not as much fun to limit myself to that only.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Operator_A25

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1893
  • Darwins +7/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #110 on: May 28, 2010, 11:17:21 PM »
Well, it's your call. I don't mind snide remarks about the topics being discussed, but I don't think that personal attacks are appropriate. There is a difference.

I don't think this is appropriate:

Wow. I must be really double, extra wrong. I must be nobody in your awesome non-universe of nothingness.
OMMM

Seriously, I'm afraid you are going to have a seizure. Gotta go for an Omen time out now. Have a nice day.

So I guess that makes you even.
Former Global Moderator Account

Offline Operator_A25

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1893
  • Darwins +7/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #111 on: May 28, 2010, 11:51:01 PM »
If it's your judgment that my retort of his Tourette's-like torrents of insult and negation grievances aimed at me, then I have to take your word for it. Seems unfair to me, but I can't claim to be impartial. I feel like I've been pretty restrained, to be honest.

If you think I'm being unfair, then I suggest you PM an admin about it.

Forum rules state:

Quote
In-thread discussion of staff instructions is not allowed.
Former Global Moderator Account

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1250
  • Darwins +369/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #112 on: May 29, 2010, 04:42:51 AM »
Immediacracy, could you please specify what, exactly, you would like to add to our understanding that does not exist according to the "materialist" paradigm as you understand it?  So far you have been using terms that are very open to misunderstanding.  Example: "Logos."  Within the context of Pythagorean/Hermetic/Platonic and neo-Platonic thought, "Logos" has a specific and detailed meaning: a harmonizing proportion that integrates the material world with the World of Forms/the higher realm that exists outside of Plato's Cave.  The Logos is the principle of "divine intelligence" or "universal order" responsible for making the Cosmos an ordered, "lawful" (as in natural "law") realm rather than a formless chaos.

I'm guessing that most of the atheist posters here would likely reject the existence of a World of Forms or the idea that our experience of "reality" is nothing but shadows on the wall of Plato's Cave, a collection of imperfect projections of the perfect Forms in the higher realm.  So, people who are familiar with this concept of the Logos would see your use of the term as advocating this sort of world view and reply that you're asserting all sorts of woo.  You may or may not be using "Logos" in this fashion.  If you're not, then the term is basically undefined and we have no way of knowing what you're actually talking about.

Now, I'm going to try to offer my best "translation" of what I think you might be saying.  Please correct me where I'm wrong:

>ahem<

The materialist-reductionist paradigm operates on the principle that a complete understanding of reality can be gained by breaking things down to their smallest component parts.  With a complete understanding of the component parts ("matter") we can in principle gain a complete understanding of all material entities (such as life forms, people, and symphonies) without needing to apply any terms or principles that do not refer directly to the fundamental particles of matter, such as "meaning" "consciousness" "purpose" "experience" "thought," and so on.  Given a Grand Unified Theory that explains the nature of the very most fundamental component/s of matter/energy/spacetime--the sought-after "equation that fits on a T-shirt," we could basically understand "Life, the Universe, and Everything" without making reference to any non-material terms or principles.  We will have succeeded in reducing everything to matter-in-motion, and the language of consciousness is rendered irrelevant.

This paradigm is incorrect.  There are principles and properties that can be demonstrated to exist, but which cannot be reduced to the behavior of fundamental particles--or alternatively, these properties and principles must, in some sense, be inherent within the fundamental particles.  An analogy demonstrated by Buckminster Fuller:

Take a cotton rope, and braid one end into a nylon rope, which is in turn braided into a hemp rope, which is in turn braided into a PVC rope, so that you have one rope composed of several different materials.  Tie a slip knot in one end.  Then, move the knot down through the various materials--through the cotton, nylon, hemp, and PVC until it has passed through the whole combined rope.  What is the knot made of?  It should be apparent that the knot is not reducible to any of the materials of the combined rope.  The knot could be embodied in a wide range of materials, as a 3-D computer graphic, or even a set of topographical equations on a blackboard.  Each material embodiment of the knot is a special-case manifestation of the knot which, regardless of the material being used, possesses certain properties such as shape and the ability to "slip" along the material (with some variation in ease depending on a material's flexibility and friction coefficient). 

The knot itself is a pattern integrity, a generalized operating principle that transcends but includes all special-case manifestations of it in matter.  It is non-material, yet it "governs" the behavior of matter whenever it appears physically in a special-case manifestation.  The behavior of the knot cannot be predicted by observation of fundamental particles in reduced isolation.  There are many examples of such generalized operating principles which apply to all special-case manifestations but cannot be reduced to any particular special-case manifestation or to fundamental particles.  "Triangles are self-bracing" applies to all special-case manifestations of "triangle" whether they're made of wood, metal, or toothpicks and gumdrops.  This principle cannot be deduced from observation of a single piece of metal, wood, a lonely gumdrop, or a hydrogen atom.

Instead, the principle emerges from the synergetic[1] integration of multiple material components, and it is irreducible.  "Life" is a self-perpetuating pattern integrity that maintains itself in a non-equilibrium state by tapping into an entropic gradient (such as that between the Sun and empty space, mediated by the atmosphere, water, and land of the Earth) to create a localized, special-case anti-entropic region of higher order.  While it is not in any sense supernatural, life also cannot be understood completely by the reductionist methodology of breaking it down to, and isolating, its material sub-components.  If we knew nothing about life, we would not be able to deduce its existence by observing the behavior of a hydrogen atom, or superstrings, or whatever ultimate fundamental entities the hydrogen atom is composed of.

Therefore, higher-order synergetic pattern integrities such as conscious life forms cannot be fully understood within the limits of materialist reductionism, but must be approached on their own terms.  The language of consciousness--"meaning" "purpose" "qualia" "experience" "love" and so on--is genuinely meaningful and refers to real properties of higher-order pattern integrities.  They are not mere illusions fostered by a Cosmos that is really only of fundamental matter-particles in motion.  The fact that these things cannot be dissected with reductionist methodology does not make them any less real.  Rather, the inability of reductionism to make sense of them demonstrates the limits of the reductionist approach.

Furthermore, these generalized operating principles of Universe (known and unknown), and the synergetic integration of all of them, are, as far as we can tell, metaphysically "necessary" or in some sense "built in" to Universe.  Taken in total, they form an inventory of real "things" that are embodied in, but not made of, matter, yet also not "supernatural" or "magical."  They are demonstrably real, yet they do not fit within the OMM paradigm.  Therefore, the OMM paradigm is limited/flawed, and a different paradigm must be applied if we are to have an accurate understanding of Universe, especially of non-material, emergent, synergetic realities such as consciousness.

----

So: is that pretty much what you're getting at?

Everyone else: Does the above attempted interpretation/explanation make any more sense to you than what Immediacracy has been saying? 
 1. This is a neologism invented by Buckminster Fuller which integrates "synergistic" with "energetic"
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 678
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #113 on: May 29, 2010, 09:10:16 AM »
So: is that pretty much what you're getting at?
Yes, outstanding! Thank you. I especially like "the fact that these things cannot be dissected with reductionist methodology does not make them any less real.  Rather, the inability of reductionism to make sense of them demonstrates the limits of the reductionist approach."

That covers at least the portion that this audience seems more likely to be interested in, as opposed to my speculations on the relation of ACME to OMM, symmetries, etc. There's some finer points I would mention: It's not that subjective phenomena can't be correlated with or caused by material, (ie brain activity causes consciousness, and 'is' consciousness in one sense) but that the brain activity is the least subjective aspect about consciousness. To reduce subjective consciousness to objective brain activity would be analogous to considering hydrogen sulfide, 'simply rotten egg smell' and leaving it at that. No chemistry, no biological interaction, just 'a smell'. Consciousness isn't just what the brain 'smells like' when it's switched on.

My occasional use of 'logos' differs from the Platonic in that I'm not positing that there is a world of perfect forms, but that there are forms at all. Perfection, divine order, harmony, beauty; those are, as you might say, higher order categories or qualities of synergetic pattern integrities which I don't have a solid opinion on but I have a hunch they have to do with bootstrap/self-extracting/isomorphic modalities of the existence-essence integration.

Translation: We know that things aren't necessarily good just because they might look good to us. We can assume that this, (along with all of our material science that demonstrates the behavior of matter as counter-intuitive, asymmetrical, ugly, etc) tells us that the idea of perfect forms which govern existence is simplistic when applied to the Cosmos in general - the exterior, material, physical part of the cosmos in particular. Intestinal flora isn't winning any beauty contests but it gets the job done.

Still, it seems that the manifest orderliness of physical phenomenon and subjective human experience is enough to consider a logos-like concept as useful when describing pattern integrities, particularly as we find them hierarchically nested in things like communication, understanding, and imagination. To me, logos is just a casual way of making concrete the notion that disorder, chaos, or randomness is a category of order and not the other way around.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2010, 09:16:16 AM by Immediacracy »
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline shnozzola

Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #114 on: May 29, 2010, 09:55:09 AM »
To simplify it further (I have to be careful here to not wade in over my head, but it looks to me you guys are both saying):

Quote
life also cannot be understood completely by the reductionist methodology of breaking it down to, and isolating, its material sub-components.

Is this an example:
- because the element hydrogen exists and can be understood to fit into a non intelligently created universe, it still seems a stretch to expect the order (life) that we see in the universe possibly based on hydrogen as one of the building blocks. (understanding hydrogen itself has to have an order)

If this is correct, Immed, how do YOU think the order is achieved?  
Quote
Keep in mind that this just demonstrates orderliness in energy which supercedes or inheres to an exterior form. It's still technically exterior. We can't be inside an electron so we don't know what it's interior is like at all, so the visible spectrum is just a hint, a clue at what the interior of energy might be like or what it expresses.

If you are saying something like a god is necessary to explain the energy inside an electron, or to explain “Perfection, divine order, harmony, beauty,” just say it.  Let’s say an organizer exists, what is your own view of the details of this organizer’s involvement?

edir:  insert  (understanding hydrogen itself has to have an order) 
« Last Edit: May 29, 2010, 10:04:24 AM by shnozzola »
“I wanna go ice fishing on Europa, and see if something swims up to the camera lens and licks it.”- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 678
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #115 on: May 29, 2010, 12:37:35 PM »
Is this an example:
- because the element hydrogen exists and can be understood to fit into a non intelligently created universe, it still seems a stretch to expect the order (life) that we see in the universe possibly based on hydrogen as one of the building blocks. (understanding hydrogen itself has to have an order)
I'm not sure if I'm getting your drift here, but let me see. To me an intelligently created universe is totally out of the question, however not because it wouldn't explain cosmic order, but because it doesn't explain the creator. Intelligence is too narrow and anthropomorphic a category of pattern recognition to describe the totality of the cosmos. The universe supports intelligence, defines intelligence, operates intelligence, etc, but it isn't defined purely by intelligence.

The stretch, as far as life emerging from mathematical odds against an inanimate cosmos is that either the possibility is in the cards from the beginning or it wouldn't be able to happen no matter what the odds. If it was in the cards from the beginning, then the mathematical odds can't be said to have given rise to life - that possibility was already in the deck - all we can say is that the odds direct the where and the when and how of it's initial instance of physical existence.

Quote
If this is correct, Immed, how do YOU think the order is achieved?  
Quote
Keep in mind that this just demonstrates orderliness in energy which supercedes or inheres to an exterior form. It's still technically exterior. We can't be inside an electron so we don't know what it's interior is like at all, so the visible spectrum is just a hint, a clue at what the interior of energy might be like or what it expresses.

If you are saying something like a god is necessary to explain the energy inside an electron, or to explain “Perfection, divine order, harmony, beauty,” just say it.  Let’s say an organizer exists, what is your own view of the details of this organizer’s involvement?
The god idea is not only unnecessary, it's 1) a misdirection, because it just moves the problem of the origin of order to the origin of the creator of order and 2) obviously an interior archetype rather than a physical agent. God doesn't exist, but the idea of teleological potency being personified as a mighty patriarchal archetype is a universal or near universal anthropological theme. As an archetype, the god idea does actually influence consciousness and the shaping of human civilization, families, and individual personalities whether people know it or not. God is just a reflection of one aspect of human agency projected (mistakenly as it turns out) outward.

To get at a legitimate theory of the origin of order, that's when it gets more crazy sounding (I expect because we ourselves and our world are made of order, so it's like a fish trying to grasp water). I think that what it comes down to is that order doesn't need an origin because it informs time, space, matter and energy rather than the other way around.

I would model the Cosmos as sort of a polymorphously perverse pattern integrity generating machine/organism/field. That it is composed of order doesn't mean that it's composed of one order - it's composed of countless orders, all rolling and wrestling, revealing and concealing each other in countless nested hierarchies of layered schemas. Who knows, maybe sentient beings eventually develop the technology to become godlike and then create the universe in the distant past - a kind of mobius loop of sentience, teleology, and timespace?

Imagination and intelligence is amazing but the universe is even more mind-bogglingly amazing. It contains imagination and intelligence within it - as a side dish. More creative than simply generating all possibilities forever, it generates certain possibilities in certain ways and other possibilities in other ways or not at all. It's better than any God - God is  an invisible cartoon robot that knows everything and does only the Right thing. The universe invents things it only half understands and then invents a new understanding to patch up the leak...or not. It does anything, everything, not everything, not anything, all at once, in order, in no order, in random order...it's the Universe, there will never be anything else but what it is.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler