My Irreducible Complexity Challenge

AV1611VET said:

For those of you who like to argue against Irreducible Complexity, please post an emoticon of your expression if you are on a 747 and saw a part fall off while the plane is flying down the runway.

Click to expand...

This was the topic in case some of us forgot

Not my style of writing

[

AV1611VET said:

Well, after over 200 posts and not a single emoticon from them, I kinda consider this thread a done deal.

Click to expand...

By the way. Have you gone over to your Abraham thread?

miknik5 said:

I'm sorry that your eyes see it that way.

Now back to the topic?

Some might think that this personal interjection and comment about my style of writing as unnecessary and immature

As if you were upset, had nothing left to add to the discussion and in frustration began a different type of debate

Click to expand...

Hey man, I'm just trying to be helpfull... sowwy....

And I don't have anything to add to this "discussion", because the discussion is entirely one-sided. Every point that is raised to you, is responded to with a bunch of preaching that has nothing to do with the points being raised.

I know best what I am doing and do not need help" from you to suggest anything outside of what I have already said
Thank you

Click to expand...

Whatever man.

TagliatelliMonster said:

Hey man, I'm just trying to be helpfull... sowwy....

And I don't have anything to add to this "discussion", because the discussion is entirely one-sided. Every point that is raised to you, is responded to with a bunch of preaching that has nothing to do with the points being raised.



Whatever man.

Click to expand...

Man??

ChristianFromKazakhstan said:

In no way. Not the purpose. Those valid religious concepts help us see the world as a whole, unified phenomenon, not divided into many individual small pieces.

Click to expand...

I just showed you that world, and you can't explain it.

Loudmouth said:

I just showed you that world, and you can't explain it.

Click to expand...

I can't!!! It's true.

And sorry - I didn't respond to all your responses to me, just mostly generic blanket answers. Not because your responses were not worth it or I was running away. I guess I write a lot on one thing, can't be brief about many things - brevity is the soul of wit? About you having a fragmented worldview and approach - I didn't address personally to you. Not that you do it. I was addressing a certain approach, as I see it, in understanding the world. Perhaps you do just the opposite. So, sorry to word it "don't do this don't do that" - I really was talking generically, should have said "some people do it, I think" etc.

I agree with you on a lot of things - I love such intellectually sober approaches. Just maybe (maybe!!!) too sober and skeptical, sometimes. My opinion, don't have to agree or accept. Truth comes out of different opinions combined, not pushing just one side. Would you agree?

I think, a holistic approach is valid, isn't it? Don't you think??? We use it in materialistic science, too. I think, for example, medical doctors with a scientifically holistic approach are usually much better at correctly diagnosing and treating diseases and conditions, than narrow specialists who only see all sources of problems in their area of specialization? Or a GP who routinely calls any illness of any etiology, a viral infections. Again, not talking about you!!!!!!!

You say, you didn't show me the world. Of course I didn't, and I can't. How can I? If it's all around you and inside your consciousness??? If you are part of it??? Like a fish in the ocean of water - famous analogy.

You need to have a different kind of eye to see it, so to speak, from the one you and I have been given from the cradle by our education, broadly speaking. We are preconditioned to see the world in a certain way. Like cold/hot temperature, the usual instrument you and I have in our body, is the nervous receptor cells in the skin. And the method used, is comparison. Higher temperature = hot . Lower temperature = cold. Same temperature more or less = warm. (Values near equal to body t are the hardest to measure, as they fall withing the sensitivity of the instrument, or +/- couple degrees C perhaps). Dividing, comparison - only method available to our windows into the world (senses) and our way to interpret that input data (our intellect). This instrument is good, good for survival, serves it's purpose well. But it's not best for adequately understanding the nature of energy, which, as we know, is a totally holistic thing. We understand degrees of effects of a phenomenon, but not the phenomenon itself, or its core nature. It's our way, it's our approach. Like Jesus compared to wind - we see the effects of wind, we don't see the wind (movement of air) itself.

I don't know if I explain well. Maybe, if you don't see what I"m talking about, it all is sensless and foolish babbling... I don't know. Please tell me?????????

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

You'll have to explain how they can do that - understanding requires knowledge; what knowledge or understanding of the world do the religious concepts you mentioned (Father, Son, Spirit) provide?

Click to expand...

We talk about reality. For you, as you explained, it's pure imagination, superstition, false positive. I know, our brain can play tricks on us like that easy-easy. Some people see animals in the sky looking at clouds. Doesn't mean, elephants can fly. I understand, I understand. You don't want to add whatever isn't detectable with our sensory/intellectual faculties, when we "divide" the world into individual components, as science based on our logic does. And accepting the existence of the outward, physical manifestation of the world only. To me, it's all very understandable, and also much much better than blindly or cunningly subscribing to all kinds of wild fantasies (former hard-core atheist talking).

However, what little I would like to explain to you, is that, there can be validity to a perception beyond this approach. And it's not always faulty. And not always self-deception for wishful thinkig. That allegory, it's totally random, as I said, I do not say it's how it is and it is valid. Maybe I shouldn't have said it to mislead or confuse further. Just purpose was, to say, they convey certain abstract ideas, in some concrete and pulpable way for simple masses to understand, that can have some deep profound truth about existence. Like how to explain radio wave propagation and transceivers to a toddler? You can introduce a known analogy, say, comparing it to sound and a mouth and ears. Level of understanding. Who knows and understands deeper and better, more mature, can see more than what's just on the surface. It's a concept very well known to you, too, from rational thinking, not just about religiousity.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

The prevalence and persistence of religions and religious ideas through history suggests it's a successful set of memes - does that give it validity? perhaps, in terms of group advantage through cohesion, control, and commitment, but is that the kind of validity you're after? Because one could make the same 'validity' assessment of some nasty cults...

Click to expand...

Again, I suggest a most generic view, and of deep big philosophical ideas, if we filter with the smallest filter to leave out all the mythology and dangerous practices etc. And if we look at the core meaning, not some narrow-minded erroneous application in this or that dogma or this or that ritual. If we only take out the beautiful, the pure truth. Say, Jesus cermon on the mount, for example. It's been universally considered the hallmark of human morality. Along with prophet Muhammad's revolutionary preaching on unity and equality at the time of divisions and barbarism, or teaching of Gautama Buddha on human suffering and ways to make sense of it and overcome it in this life.

Group advantage - this is the opposite of what real truth is about. Again, erroneous application. In this case, often malicious manipulation, and using some religious ideas but as grounds for exerting fear or false guilt. Jesus Christ was vehemently against this! He hated it. Remember him driving out merchants from Jerusalem temple. Or talking about separating government taxes and things of God. Or critisizing the religious leaders for imposing all the outwardly laws and regulations they themselves don't even bother to follow - and ignoring the spiritual, the most important aspect etc.

ChristianFromKazakhstan said:

... there can be validity to a perception beyond this approach. And it's not always faulty.

Click to expand...

How can you know whether or not it's valid or faulty, if it isn't detectable?

Again, I suggest a most generic view, and of deep big philosophical ideas, if we filter with the smallest filter to leave out all the mythology and dangerous practices etc.

Click to expand...

This is a straw man of your own construction. Nobody suggested using the 'smallest filter' to leave out all mythology, etc. The point is to discriminate between what is clearly mythology and what is demonstrably real, and not to jump to conclusions if we have insufficient evidence either way; i.e. to learn to be comfortable with uncertainty and not knowing.

And if we look at the core meaning, not some narrow-minded erroneous application in this or that dogma or this or that ritual.

Click to expand...

So what is the 'core meaning'? how do you determine it?

If we only take out the beautiful, the pure truth. Say, Jesus cermon on the mount, for example. It's been universally considered the hallmark of human morality. Along with prophet Muhammad's revolutionary preaching on unity and equality at the time of divisions and barbarism, or teaching of Gautama Buddha on human suffering and ways to make sense of it and overcome it in this life.

Click to expand...

What makes these declarations 'pure truth' ? What do you mean by 'truth' in this context, if not factual correspondence with reality ?

Do you have an example of truth that isn't 'pure'?

Group advantage - ... Jesus Christ was vehemently against this! He hated it.

Click to expand...

How is that relevant ? One person's opinion clearly has little to do with the global persistence of religions and religious ideas over thousands of years.

AV1611VET said:

Well, after over 200 posts and not a single emoticon from them, I kinda consider this thread a done deal.

Click to expand...

I self-righteously scolded you for "mockery", sorry, but then I completely hi-jacked your thread with complete off topic. Good for me! Brother, I do get your irony, and you have a most valid point there. So, sorry again for that.

I'll give you an emoticon that I will post if I see a piece of airplane falling off - though I'm not an atheist, but an evolutionist nevertheless:

:O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O

Too bad the emoticons are silent, I would add some very loud sound effect to be more realistic!!!

And - that emoticon will be posted right on my analogue face, not in the digital world.

ChristianFromKazakhstan said:

I think, a holistic approach is valid, isn't it? Don't you think??? We use it in materialistic science, too. I think, for example, medical doctors with a scientifically holistic approach are usually much better at correctly diagnosing and treating diseases and conditions, than narrow specialists who only see all sources of problems in their area of specialization? Or a GP who routinely calls any illness of any etiology, a viral infections. Again, not talking about you!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

When a holistic approach means adopting a completely made up fantasy realm, not it isn't valid. A holistic approach is made up of all the little pieces, and you need to understand the little pieces.

You say, you didn't show me the world. Of course I didn't, and I can't. How can I? If it's all around you and inside your consciousness??? If you are part of it??? Like a fish in the ocean of water - famous analogy.

Click to expand...

Particles and bacteria are part of that world.

You need to have a different kind of eye to see it, so to speak, from the one you and I have been given from the cradle by our education, broadly speaking.

Click to expand...

No, I don't need a different kind of eye. The funny thing about facts is that they can be demonstrated to be true for everyone.

What you are really saying is that I should just believe as you do for no rational reason.

We are preconditioned to see the world in a certain way. Like cold/hot temperature, the usual instrument you and I have in our body, is the nervous receptor cells in the skin. And the method used, is comparison. Higher temperature = hot . Lower temperature = cold. Same temperature more or less = warm. (Values near equal to body t are the hardest to measure, as they fall withing the sensitivity of the instrument, or +/- couple degrees C perhaps). Dividing, comparison - only method available to our windows into the world (senses) and our way to interpret that input data (our intellect). This instrument is good, good for survival, serves it's purpose well. But it's not best for adequately understanding the nature of energy, which, as we know, is a totally holistic thing. We understand degrees of effects of a phenomenon, but not the phenomenon itself, or its core nature. It's our way, it's our approach. Like Jesus compared to wind - we see the effects of wind, we don't see the wind (movement of air) itself.

Click to expand...

No matter how one is raised, they still measure 1 mL of water as weighing 1 gram. That's how facts work.

AV1611VET said:

Don't be angry, she was just kidding!

Click to expand...

LOL!

Loudmouth said:

When a holistic approach means adopting a completely made up fantasy realm, not it isn't valid. A holistic approach is made up of all the little pieces, and you need to understand the little pieces.



Particles and bacteria are part of that world.



No, I don't need a different kind of eye. The funny thing about facts is that they can be demonstrated to be true for everyone.

What you are really saying is that I should just believe as you do for no rational reason.



No matter how one is raised, they still measure 1 mL of water weighing 1 gram. That's how facts work.

Click to expand...

I try to look at the world along the same lines - not that I do it well. Maybe still learning and not doing as good of a job as some. Sober, and truthful. Yes, much of religious/supersticious/narrow/ignorant idiocity in my mind, I totally admit. Most people in this boat, more or less..... Not that it's a good excuse.

BUT. Sorry. Yes, I can only repeat repeat the same "fairy tale" to you. "There is more to this world than meets the eye". Not that our eye doesn't see it. It sees it, and is part of it, just we conditioned our mind to refuse to accept it. Consciousely filtering out. We don't see the elephant in the room! I know, just crazy idea to you anyways. No elephant! Just four bumpy hairy pillars. Look up?

In our mind, yes, V=1(mL), m=1(g). In the real world, 1 mL of H20 in liquid form will not always have a mass of 1 gram... It will ever change, depending on the environment. Temperature, pressure. Also presence of dissolved impurities (contents of the water):



Besides, we can never measure 1mL or 1 gram, so, in reality, we cannot show this fact exactly. The best instruments to measure volume or weight we use, will have a degree of inaccuracy. 1 mL +/- 0.001mL or 1 gram +/-0.001 grams. Another practical difficulty, is that we don't measure the mass, especially for liquids. The easiest way of measuring mass, is measuring the weight, which is in itself, with some instruments is a function of distance from the center of mass of the planet - so we have to throw it into the equation.

So, many-many-many variables, and many-many-many errors. We have to add up inaccuracies of every measurement (measure size of vessel during production, measure volume, weigh the vessel, weigh the vessel with water - or whatever) to arrive to the true error of our resulting measurement of mass.

If we use the most accurate instruments with the smallest error, we will never measure the exact data anyway.

And then, I don't even mention the velocity of motion relative to our reference system, and how that effects mass.......

And, I don't even mention that a "liter" or a "gram" are totally our mental constructs, and have no direct relation to facts of reality whatsoever.......

What is the practical result of all of these challenges???????

We have to generalize the known facts to some abstract laws, with many presumptions, which describe the behaviour of matter in a predictable way, within goals of solving particular tasks at a satisfactory level of accuracy.

At some point, we come to realization, that our generalizations do not work under certain conditions, or we do not take all laws and dependancies into account. Say, in the micro or macro-world (relative to size of human organism). Then, we are pushed to discard those laws, and to determine new, better laws, that describe that newly discovered behavior in a more general, or more correct or more precise way. Computers have helped us in this evolution tremendousely - with their calculatory and modelling power. Constant, never-ending quest. We think, we got the facts, then, next moment, they run away from us and we are back to square one.

The truth seems to run away from us all the time - it's the inevitable result of our instruments (sensory/intellectual + their technical extensions) imperfection.

SO. Our laws we figure out are not reality, are not true representation of reality, but just our way of abstract approximation to our practical advantage....... We cannot use them in order to truly understand reality....... Limit!!! Glass wall.

SO. Often a "fact" is but an illusion, depending on many conditions and point of view. Absolute relativity of all things.........

If everything is but an illusion, why do you say, I'm a master of fairy tales???

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

How can you know whether or not it's valid or faulty, if it isn't detectable?

Click to expand...

I can't. True. Not with my intellect.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

This is a straw man of your own construction. Nobody suggested using the 'smallest filter' to leave out all mythology, etc. The point is to discriminate between what is clearly mythology and what is demonstrably real, and not to jump to conclusions if we have insufficient evidence either way; i.e. to learn to be comfortable with uncertainty and not knowing.

Click to expand...

Yes, definitely so. Unfortuntately, this creates such a mess in minds, I think... Biggest biggest problem... Admitting, accepting not knowing - yes. Honesty.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

So what is the 'core meaning'? how do you determine it?

Click to expand...

Jesus talks about it, so I learn from him. He gave general vectors. Love, not hate. Inclusivity, not exclusivity. Giving, not taking. Internal, not external. Sense and purpose, not impartiality and randomness. No ready answers, like 1,2,3. Like all those doctrines cooked up for simplification or group dynamics - without real understanding.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

What makes these declarations 'pure truth' ? What do you mean by 'truth' in this context, if not factual correspondence with reality ?

Do you have an example of truth that isn't 'pure'?

Click to expand...

We enter the area of epistemology. I'm not a philosopher, so I'm not good at explaining this. To me, objective reality exists, and it's not ever understandable to us if we choose the path of approaching it with our intellect, our mind. I know, to you - it's a crazy idea, because you think, it's all we have. BUT not. You have intelligence from God, that is part of reality more than your intellect. This intelligence is built into you, you have it and you are part of it. So, you are capable of knowing reality - not believing after processing external manifestations of with with your mind. You are capable of seeing things as they are. Not in a round-about way. You can see beauty as beauty, directly, not as a description of it in a newspaper as processed second-hand with a journalist, and then, somehow reconstructed by your brain's ability to visualize... And, please, don't say beauty is relative and abstract - I use this just an illustration.

You know, I have no better way of putting this idea into words. I can use all the religious terminology so habitual for me, and, probably, so unacceptable for you as it indeed brings up all the unnecessary baggage...

To say in short. You can see truth with your inner self. Not with the outwardly sensory+intellectual apparatus.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

How is that relevant ? One person's opinion clearly has little to do with the global persistence of religions and religious ideas over thousands of years.

Click to expand...

Yes, all those religions-religions. Sour taste in mouth just from mentioning - so much hurt because they caused... Like materialistic science, used to rid people of terrible sicknesses, or to create weapons of destruction. Religions = a body of ideas, pushing people this or other way. Into true happiness, or to increase suffering. Into giving profound answers, or to mislead even more...

Like everything everything in this world - can be blessing or curse, depending on understanding and application.

ChristianFromKazakhstan said:

BUT. Sorry. Yes, I can only repeat repeat the same "fairy tale" to you. "There is more to this world than meets the eye". Not that our eye doesn't see it. It sees it, and is part of it, just we conditioned our mind to refuse to accept it.

Click to expand...

Being conditioned to not believe in irrational and illogical claims backed by zero evidence is a bad thing?

We don't see the elephant in the room!

Click to expand...

Since when? If there was really an elephant in a room with me I guarantee I would have no problem accepting its existence.

The problem is that you expect people to believe in things that can't be seen and can't be evidenced in any manner.

In our mind, yes, V=1(mL), m=1(g). In the real world, 1 mL of H20 in liquid form will not always have a mass of 1 gram... It will ever change, depending on the environment. Temperature, pressure. Also presence of dissolved impurities (contents of the water):

Click to expand...

And the changes in the density of water will be the same for all people no matter how they were raised, where they were from, or what they believe in.

All of your arguments come down to believing something without any evidence to back it. Not the same thing.