Curious About An Internet Ad

[Chesterton]

The clouds in the sky are the result of water flowing uphill. Here in the Pacific North West Atmospheric rives that have traveled for thousands of miles in the atmosphere are not at all uncommon. Water does not always flow downhill.

Gotta admit I did not see this nitpick out of left field coming. 1) I mentioned water, and you're talking about vapor. 2) Atmospheric rivers do not flow up any hill. I can boil water on my kitchen stove and observe steam rising vertically, but it would be pretty silly of me to describe that as water flowing uphill, wouldn't it?

 

[partinobodycular]

All I've said is that all code we know of is created with conscious intent.

And my point is that that's simply wrong, there's lots of recognizable code in the world for which we have no evidence of conscious intent... so how can you possibly say that "all code we know of" was created with conscious intent?

Let's take hybrid plants for example. If you create it in a lab, it was to some degree intentional, but if the same hybrid occurs out in nature what evidence is there that it was intentional?

It seems to me that at best you're imbuing nature with intent. Which is something that I might consider, but then you have to convince me why intent has to be conscious, and isn't just an anthropomorphic way of saying deterministic, or some other naturally occurring process.

 

[Chesterton]

And my point is that that's simply wrong, there's lots of recognizable code in the world for which we have no evidence of conscious intent... so how can you possibly say that "all code we know of" was created with conscious intent?

Let's take hybrid plants for example. If you create it in a lab, it was to some degree intentional, but if the same hybrid occurs out in nature what evidence is there that it was intentional?

It seems to me that at best you're imbuing nature with intent. Which is something that I might consider, but then you have to convince me why intent has to be conscious, and isn't just an anthropomorphic way of saying deterministic, or some other naturally occurring process.

A hybrid plant is not the result of new code, anymore than the offspring of a Chinese man and an African woman procreating would be.

 

[durangodawood]

Remember that in materialistic science there is no law. The word "law" merely iterates the fact that we observe things doing the same things consistently, universally and uniformly. So based on that, yes I would say, although it doesn't yet have a name, there is a law that code requires conscious intent.

We dont yet know if code formation is regular and uniform in the way you say it is. Once we've explored the formation of DNA a lot more, then we'll know. The research into the natural origin and natural assembly of DNA precursor chemicals is pretty interesting. But Im not drawing conclusions yet.

Think of SETI, those scientists who constantly monitor electromagnetic radiation from outer space. There's plenty of radiation, but what they're looking for is coded radiation. Why look for coded radiation? Because it would be proof of conscious intent.

Proof? No. Its just the best thing to look for that:
A. we know has been produced by conscious intent before (us)
B. Could reach us here in a detectable way across interstellar space.

For all we know, alien pre intelligent life could communicate via IR spectrum code that developed naturally just like whale speech apparently did here. But it would likely be very low power.

I've heard of God-of-the-gaps. Sounds like you're proposing a Science-of-the-gaps.

The gaps are where we direct scientific inquiry, to look for knowledge where we currently dont have it. And we have a terrific record at that endeavor. I might not be getting your point here....?

 

[Chesterton]

We dont yet know if code formation is regular and uniform in the way you say it is. Once we've explored the formation of DNA a lot more, then we'll know. The research into the natural origin and natural assembly of DNA precursor chemicals is pretty interesting. But Im not drawing conclusions yet.

I'm not drawing conclusions yet either. I'm just being a rational science-minded person, and dealing with what we know now, as of 2023. I'm reluctant to base any beliefs on what may be discovered in the future. For now, I maintain that meaningful code can only be generated by entities which understand meaning, which does not include atoms and molecules and chemicals. Seems axiomatic to me.

Proof? No. Its just the best thing to look for that:
A. we know has been produced by conscious intent before (us)
B. Could reach us here in a detectable way across interstellar space.

For all we know, alien pre intelligent life could communicate via IR spectrum code that developed naturally just like whale speech apparently did here. But it would likely be very low power.

Thank you for saying "apparently". Whales are conscious entities. Do you have evidence that whale speech developed "naturally", or is that just a belief?

The gaps are where we direct scientific inquiry, to look for knowledge where we currently dont have it. And we have a terrific record at that endeavor. I might not be getting your point here....?

You're asking me to just trust you, that we'll figure it out later, that science will discover ultimate truth in the future. I might as well ask you to trust me that divine revelation has revealed truth in the past.

 

[durangodawood]

I'm not drawing conclusions yet either. I'm just being a rational science-minded person, and dealing with what we know now, as of 2023. I'm reluctant to base any beliefs on what may be discovered in the future. For now, I maintain that meaningful code can only be generated by entities which understand meaning, which does not include atoms and molecules and chemicals. Seems axiomatic to me.

We dont yet know how DNA developed. What our "science mind" knows as of 2023 includes lots of natural stuff, and no supernatural stuff. So it really isnt very science minded to propose conjectures that require an entirely different non-demonstrable type of reality when the natural investigations are in such an infancy. Its the explanatory nuclear option.

 

[sjastro]

For now, I maintain that meaningful code can only be generated by entities which understand meaning, which does not include atoms and molecules and chemicals. Seems axiomatic to me.

Here is a thought experiment, suppose an individual needs to drive from their house to place of work in the shortest amount of time.
The problem is their house is located on a dry stretch of surface where they can drive fast but the place of work is located on a muddy slushy stretch of surface where driving fast is not possible.
Driving in a straight line means half of the journey is on the dry surface.

The question is what trajectory or route should be selected in order to minimize the travelling time.
The intuitive answer of driving in a straight line the shortest distance does not work as the other half of the journey in on the muddy surface which requires driving at a slower speed.
The answer is to select a trajectory that looks like this.

Now let’s look at the refraction of light and note the similarities with the driver.

The speed of light in air is greater than in glass and refraction occurs as light “selects” the trajectory where the travel time in the air and glass mediums is minimized.
I’m pretty sure you don’t understand the science behind this in which case by your logic since the driver who is an entity “which understand meaning” could be equally applied to a beam of light which has an infinite number of possible trajectories but selects only one where the travel time is minimized.

The understanding of why light behaves this way has its origins in a bitter argument between a couple of alpha males, Isaac Newton and a member of the dreaded Bernoulli family, the full understanding of which became apparent in late 18th century.

Bernoulli and Leibniz test Newton

 

[Chesterton]

We dont yet know how DNA developed. What our "science mind" knows as of 2023 includes lots of natural stuff, and no supernatural stuff. So it really isnt very science minded to propose conjectures that require an entirely different non-demonstrable type of reality when the natural investigations are in such an infancy.

I think it's the opposite. I'm the one sticking with the demonstrable type of reality, that is that meaningful code requires conscious intent. You're the one going with...I don't know...some kind of illogical, never-before-seen magic or something.

Its the explanatory nuclear option.

Nuclear option? Does that mean something's going to get destroyed? What, the worldview you got from your culture while growing up? The post-Enlightenment zeitgeist? If something is an error it needs to be gotten rid of.

 

[Chesterton]

Here is a thought experiment, suppose an individual needs to drive from their house to place of work in the shortest amount of time.
The problem is their house is located on a dry stretch of surface where they can drive fast but the place of work is located on a muddy slushy stretch of surface where driving fast is not possible.
Driving in a straight line means half of the journey is on the dry surface.

The question is what trajectory or route should be selected in order to minimize the travelling time.
The intuitive answer of driving in a straight line the shortest distance does not work as the other half of the journey in on the muddy surface which requires driving at a slower speed.
The answer is to select a trajectory that looks like this.

View attachment 339218​

Now let’s look at the refraction of light and note the similarities with the driver.

The speed of light in air is greater than in glass and refraction occurs as light “selects” the trajectory where the travel time in the air and glass mediums is minimized.
I’m pretty sure you don’t understand the science behind this in which case by your logic since the driver who is an entity “which understand meaning” could be equally applied to a beam of light which has an infinite number of possible trajectories but selects only one where the travel time is minimized.

The understanding of why light behaves this way has its origins in a bitter argument between a couple of alpha males, Isaac Newton and a member of the dreaded Bernoulli family, the full understanding of which became apparent in late 18th century.

Bernoulli and Leibniz test Newton

So, photons make "selections" the same way conscious minds make selections? And I'm the one accused of believing in the "supernatural"? Anyway, this is about the 5th or 6th post you've made to me since I asked you to stop talking to me. I don't mind at all if a thread goes off-topic, but I do mind when someone is quoted, and due to a lack of understanding the reply has nothing to do with what was quoted. That's a nuisance. Please stop.

 

[durangodawood]

I think it's the opposite. I'm the one sticking with the demonstrable type of reality, that is that meaningful code requires conscious intent. You're the one going with...I don't know...some kind of illogical, never-before-seen magic or something.

Youre justifying a vast non demonstrable proposal of an entirely other realm of beings and meaning on the basis of precious little investigation into this one particular phenomenon.

Meanwhile, every type of scientific investigation, all of it, has failed to expose evidence for this realm. So its not right to say your leap is the "scientific" one at this point- even if it turns out to be right.

 

[partinobodycular]

So, photons make "selections" the same way conscious minds make selections?

To be precise, it means that photons make exactly the same choice that a rational conscious mind would make, without any guiding principals beyond good old physics. Show us an example of something that mindless physics can't do and then you might have an argument. As it is the only time that you need conscious intent is when the result conflicts with physics... not when it agrees with it. Which means that when it comes to coherent patterns, conscious intent is the exception... not the rule.

Therefore mindless physics is responsible for 99.9999999% of all the phenomenon we have ever encountered. Which means that conscious intent might just as well take a hike.

 

[sjastro]

So, photons make "selections" the same way conscious minds make selections? And I'm the one accused of believing in the "supernatural"? Anyway, this is about the 5th or 6th post you've made to me since I asked you to stop talking to me. I don't mind at all if a thread goes off-topic, but I do mind when someone is quoted, and due to a lack of understanding the reply has nothing to do with what was quoted. That's a nuisance. Please stop.

Your posts follow the all too familiar pattern of resorting to strawman attacks and a need of making ignorant opinion based comments to fill the vacuum for your own lack of understanding.

Since my post went over your head let me simplify it in a way you will hopefully understand.
This is what I responded to in your post.
“For now, I maintain that meaningful code can only be generated by entities which understand meaning, which does not include atoms and molecules and chemicals. Seems axiomatic to me.”
This is a sweeping generalization which is a recurring theme in many of your posts and can therefore be responded to without taking the rest of your post into account. Are you still with me?

I used the example of the driver selecting a pathway which minimizes the travel time which falls into your category of an entity which understands meaning in order to make the correct selection.
If we substitute the driver with a beam of light and the dry and muddy surfaces for air and glass respectively the beam of light would follow a similar path.
If you understood the science and mathematics behind this it wouldn’t be “supernatural” at all.
The common denominator between the driver and the beam of light doesn’t involve the supernatural but the principle of least action at work which is physics model developed from the mathematics of optimization and has nothing to do with conscious minds or intelligent design.

Instead of being willfully ignorant and summarily dismissing everything you don’t understand with the simplistic binary argument of it’s either conscious or it isn’t, go learn why both types are subject to the same principle.
Here is a starting point.

 

[Neogaia777]

Question: Explain the Trinity please?

Answer: One who started everything and all and who always knew all from that time, and two who always did not always, but who were meant to show us that One, but might know all now, etc.

Jesus was the first to figure this out, and he built a whole new theology around it.

It was a question of omniscience, etc.

Jesus claimed that the Heavenly Father was greater than he was (John 14:28) but also that he was also very much equal to the great "I AM" in the Old Testament (John 8:58) and beyond that did not exceed in calling himself or only referring to himself as "God's Son" or the Son of God (John 10:36).

These might seem like contradictions, but they are not.

Because they actually fully explain the whole Trinity arrangement, and how it is supposed to be, if you have to courage to believe in both him and this, etc.

I believe Jesus realized a few truths about God in the Old Testament, and gave that One a new place and new name in his new Holy Trinity, etc.

That God in the OT was now God the Holy Spirit, or God the Spirit, etc, and that there was a much higher "Heavenly Father" above them both, etc, and that Jesus developed a whole new teaching and theology around this, etc.

I don't propose to know exactly how he got all of this information way back then, etc.

Because it's a whole heck of a lot easier to get now, etc.

And this is a lot in part because of him, etc.

Visions? Special connection with this new higher or highest "Heavenly Father" maybe? or maybe God in the Old Testament maybe? or maybe "both" maybe? Special connection with maybe all spirits in general maybe? I really don't know. But Jesus was very special, and unique, and was also the very first to realize any of this, etc. I believe he was all of who and what he said he was, and claimed to be, etc.

Was there in the very beginning with God, and all of that, etc, is our Savior and Messiah, perfect sacrifice and only way to this "Father", etc.

There are other gods of other religions, but none of them ever had a full grasp on this Heavenly Father God Jesus speaks of/spoke of like Jesus did. Their gods are more like people or men, whereas this God is not like people, or a man, etc. If there is any truth to these other gods or any other religions at all, beyond just being just only made-up stories or human wisdom only, etc, then it would have to be or involve angels or demons, if there is any kind of truth to them at all, because they are not at all like this Heavenly Father God Jesus speaks of, who is not at all like any of these other gods, who are much, much more just like people, or men/man, etc.

This God that Jesus was trying to tell us about had to have two others who would have to start out lesser than Him just to show us Himself, because that is just how "different" this One is in comparison to us, etc.

God Bless.

Well, all "Trinity" means is three parts of one whole, basically, etc.

But in Christian theological terms, it means, either, the three parts of God that are one whole, or three God's that are one whole, making up one complete God, etc.

My problem is with how it has been classically taught, or with the way people have tried to explain it over the years. They present it as some kind of "oh so mysterious divine mystical mystery that cannot be possibly understood", etc, and their way of explaining it has always been that they are the exact same, have always been equal in every single way, and are interchangeable, and I disagree with that now, because of new information/revelation, etc.

Full omniscience always and from the beginning is the first point/issue, etc. And the biggest evidence of God not always being fully omniscient, is with God in the OT, or God from the beginning starting with Adam and Eve on onward throughout the OT, etc. Not only does He not act or behave like a God who always knew/knows everything, but there are also some things also (certain decisions, actions, inactions/choices, etc) that He just couldn't see past, or didn't fully know fully, etc, which is inconsistent with a God who knows everything, etc. He (God in the OT) knew, or could know, or could see a lot, but just not all, etc, and I also think that Jesus at some point realized this also, or maybe even perhaps always knew this maybe also, etc.

Either way, Jesus knew or found out about this somehow, and created almost a whole new religion or theology around it, etc. Reasoning, or maybe perhaps knowing, that there was also a God (besides God in the OT) who did always fully know all, etc. How He knew this or came to know this I guess no one can know for 100% absolutely sure, etc, for there are many theories, etc, but either way, he knew this, or came to know this, etc, and it changed everything for him (as it would also change everything for us, etc) because he knew this, etc. So much so that he built almost a whole entirely new religion or theology around it, etc. Consisting now of God the Heavenly Father, (who was the Highest/Higher of all at the beginning), and God in the OT, (who would now be called God the Holy Spirit) (who was slightly less than that One from the beginning), and also himself, who would be/now is the God who was man, or was the God-man, or was God in fleshly form, not being either God the Father, or God the (Holy) Spirit, but still God just the same, claiming to be equal to, or having just as much equal abilities (ability to do miracles, just as much, if not more, knowledge and wisdom, etc) as God the God in the OT had, whom Jesus would now re-call or re-name or re-label, God the (Holy) Spirit now, etc.

This God the Heavenly Father that Jesus claimed to have new information about, knows all, and is the only One who always knew absolutely everything from the very beginning, etc. (but the others might come to it later, etc) (but that's another story/discussion for another time, etc) but anyway, this God the Heavenly Father who was the only One who started out knowing everything, etc, is so different than any of us others, including the other Two, that He could not just show Himself to us without the other Two doing so for Him, etc, because He would have to become more limited than He both always is/has been quote/unquote "now", etc. Think of the other Two as being God in time with us, whereas this other One, or this other Higher God, could not ever be in time with us, etc, which makes Him very, very different than all of the rest of us, etc.

I guess you could say that knowing all and being outside of time always limits, or will limit Him in that way always, etc.

Limits Him in being able to express Himself in certain way that are required for us to be able to know Him, and that is why He has the other Two, etc. So that there is a beginning to God, and let's say a middle (to God), and then also let's maybe say a much more fully mature version, or an ending (to God), etc, whereas these things were just not ever possible for the One who always, always, knew or knows all, etc.

God Bless.

This that I am saying right now is considered a very, very great blasphemy, or very great heresy, by almost all other Christians, and the so-called Christain Church, etc, so I'm taking a very great risk here, etc. It could get deleted, or pulled down, etc. So I'd hear it or take note of it now, etc.

God Bless.

When Jesus was on the cross, why did he say or cry out "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

Well, I believe there are multiple or several reasons, etc, but could one of those reasons be, maybe for the "very, very great heresy or blasphemy?"

But was it really "very, very great heresy or blasphemy?"

Or was he maybe 100% "right", and 100% absolutely correct maybe?

Well, I hope it wasn't, and I hope he was right, because I have come to the very, very same conclusions, or the very same thing, etc, so I hope he was 100% right and 100% correct hopefully, etc.

And I hope the proof is in the resurrection hopefully, etc.

If not that he was 100% right, at least that he was 100% forgiven for this hopefully.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

When Jesus was on the cross, why did he say or cry out "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

Well, I believe there are multiple or several reasons, etc, but could one of those reasons be, maybe for the "very, very great heresy or blasphemy?"

But was it really "very, very great heresy or blasphemy?"

Or was he maybe 100% "right", and 100% absolutely correct maybe?

Well, I hope it wasn't, and I hope he was right, because I have come to the very, very same conclusions, or the very same thing, etc, so I hope he was 100% right and 100% correct hopefully, etc.

And I hope the proof is in the resurrection hopefully, etc.

If not that he was 100% right, at least that he was 100% forgiven for this hopefully.

God Bless.

Why didn't he tell us this immediately or outright right away openly?

Or why did it seem like he had to kind of hide it or bury it instead of just telling it like I am right now to you openly?

I think he had a lot of other things he needed to do, or had to do, or that he had to lay a foundation for first, before telling us this openly. It also had to survive or live on beyond him also, etc. So it also needed to spread also, etc.

And you have to admit that if he did do this, or did try to do this immediately or right away, it probably would have also put an immediate end to everything else he needed to do before telling us this straight away and right away openly.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

When Jesus was on the cross, why did he say or cry out "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

Well, I believe there are multiple or several reasons, etc, but could one of those reasons be, maybe for the "very, very great heresy or blasphemy?"

But was it really "very, very great heresy or blasphemy?"

Or was he maybe 100% "right", and 100% absolutely correct maybe?

Well, I hope it wasn't, and I hope he was right, because I have come to the very, very same conclusions, or the very same thing, etc, so I hope he was 100% right and 100% correct hopefully, etc.

And I hope the proof is in the resurrection hopefully, etc.

If not that he was 100% right, at least that he was 100% forgiven for this hopefully.

God Bless.

I believe Jesus was forsaken while he was on the cross by God in the OT or God the (Holy) Spirit (Jesus new name for Him) for what was probably the number one ultimate affront to Him, so that no one after Jesus would ever have to be forsaken by God the (Holy) Spirit ever again, etc.

In fact, that is one of the promises of the New Covenant, that we are the temples for God the Holy Spirit now, and that He will never ever leave us or forsake us, or ever be separate or separated from us ever, ever again, etc. And it was Jesus who made this possible for us after him, etc.

And these that I am right now telling you is only part of it, but I'll try to let you digest this much of it for now, because a lot of things changed after Jesus and because of Jesus, but I'll save those for another time.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

And the Bible tells us what we Christians are if there was no resurrection, or if Jesus wasn't ever resurrected, etc, so the resurrection is key to our hope, etc.

And maybe now you can see why, etc.

It at least means forgiveness at the very least, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Chesterton]

Youre justifying a vast non demonstrable proposal of an entirely other realm of beings and meaning on the basis of precious little investigation into this one particular phenomenon.

Well there's more to it than that.

Meanwhile, every type of scientific investigation, all of it, has failed to expose evidence for this realm. So its not right to say your leap is the "scientific" one at this point- even if it turns out to be right.

Neither has scientific investigation disproved that realm. Just because we've figured out how Zeus throws lightning bolts, doesn't mean Zeus isn't throwing them.

 

[Chesterton]

To be precise, it means that photons make exactly the same choice that a rational conscious mind would make, without any guiding principals beyond good old physics.

So photons have free will. Learn something new every day.

Show us an example of something that mindless physics can't do and then you might have an argument. As it is the only time that you need conscious intent is when the result conflicts with physics... not when it agrees with it. Which means that when it comes to coherent patterns, conscious intent is the exception... not the rule.

Therefore mindless physics is responsible for 99.9999999% of all the phenomenon we have ever encountered. Which means that conscious intent might just as well take a hike.

Physics are the rules of the game, the recipe for the cake. Whether they are ultimately responsible for anything is something you can believe or disbelieve. But physics making physics is problematic.

 

[partinobodycular]

So photons have free will. Learn something new every day.

Actually, there's a good chance that they have just as much free will as you have. Meaning probably none. But let's set the photon aside for the moment, and proceed under the assumption that you do in fact have free will, and consequently the ability to act with conscious intent.

Physics are the rules of the game, the recipe for the cake. Whether they are ultimately responsible for anything is something you can believe or disbelieve. But physics making physics is problematic.

I don't think that the laws of physics cause anything. They're descriptive, not prescriptive. It's what's driving those laws that matters. The question that we're concerned with here is whether or not that driving force has conscious intent. All indications are that it doesn't. Why would I say that? Because all examples of conscious intent that we know of reveal themselves as such by doing that which the laws of physics wouldn't have done on their own.

So setting aside the actions of us 'lesser conscious beings', what phenomena can you point to that demonstrates reality doing something that the laws of physics says it shouldn't. If you can point me to one of these phenomenon then I'll consider it as potential evidence of conscious intent. Until then I'll have to proceed under the assumption that no such conscious intent exists.

If it does, it's done a very good job of concealing itself.

 

[Chesterton]

Actually, there's a good chance that they have just as much free will as you have. Meaning probably none. But let's set the photon aside for the moment, and proceed under the assumption that you do in fact have free will, and consequently the ability to act with conscious intent.



I don't think that the laws of physics cause anything. They're descriptive, not prescriptive. It's what's driving those laws that matters. The question that we're concerned with here is whether or not that driving force has conscious intent. All indications are that it doesn't. Why would I say that? Because all examples of conscious intent that we know of reveal themselves as such by doing that which the laws of physics wouldn't have done on their own.

So setting aside the actions of us 'lesser conscious beings', what phenomena can you point to that demonstrates reality doing something that the laws of physics says it shouldn't. If you can point me to one of these phenomenon then I'll consider it as potential evidence of conscious intent. Until then I'll have to proceed under the assumption that no such conscious intent exists.

If it does, it's done a very good job of concealing itself.

I never said the driving force needs conscious intent (although it might). We can build machines that drive themselves (for a while anyway; we don't have perpetual motion). I've been talking about what originated the code of DNA.