I love the community!

[Burnt State]

Certainly Newton's Theory of Gravity doesn't explain everything there is to know about gravity, but this doesn't mean that suddenly we're going to use numerology or recipes from some Paracelsus tome to divine somehow the trajectory needed to launch the shuttle into low earth orbit. Neither are we going to consult the bones or scry with some crystal ball as a method for determining burn times in order to do orbital (hoffman) transfers.

I don't know; gravity seems to be mostly about magic as far as our small minds can figure out.

I also really like the idea of Armstrong rolling some bones, or maybe better, completing a tarot reading, to figure out what to do next about the aliens watching them on the moon.

 

[Michael Allen]

[EXHIBIT A]

[EXHIBIT B]

First movie is just (very Fahrenheit 9/11 like) a propaganda film describing a conspiracy that doesn't exist.

"3) Scientists in the film thought they were being interviewed for a different movie.
As Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott, Michael Shermer and other proponents of evolution appearing in Expelled have publicly remarked, the producers first arranged to interview them for a film that was to be called Crossroads, which was allegedly a documentary on "the intersection of science and religion." They were subsequently surprised to learn that they were appearing in Expelled, which "exposes the widespread persecution of scientists and educators who are pursuing legitimate, opposing scientific views to the reigning orthodoxy," to quote from the film's press kit."

Check point 4 in the same:

Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know...: Scientific American

(Since you have graciously set the rules on this debate-by-video-proxy, I reserve the right to answer in similar manner--with one minor improvement--not forcing people to watch hours of video)

From the article

4) The ID-sympathetic researcher whom the film paints as having lost his job at the Smithsonian Institution was never an employee there.
One section of Expelled relates the case of Richard Sternberg, who was a researcher at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History and editor of the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. According to the film, after Sternberg approved the publication of a pro-ID paper by Stephen C. Meyer of the Discovery Institute, he lost his editorship, was demoted at the Smithsonian, was moved to a more remote office, and suffered other professional setbacks. The film mentions a 2006 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report prepared for Rep. Mark Souder (R–Ind.), "Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian," that denounced Sternberg's mistreatment.
This selective retelling of the Sternberg affair omits details that are awkward for the movie's case, however. Sternberg was never an employee of the Smithsonian: his term as a research associate always had a limited duration, and when it ended he was offered a new position as a research collaborator. As editor, Sternberg's decision to "peer-review" and approve Meyer's paper by himself was highly questionable on several grounds, which was why the scientific society that published the journal later repudiated it. Sternberg had always been planning to step down as the journal's editor—the issue in which he published the paper was already scheduled to be his last.
The report prepared by Rep. Souder, who had previously expressed pro-ID views, was never officially accepted into the Congressional Record. Notwithstanding the report's conclusions, its appendix contains copies of e-mails and other documents in which Sternberg's superiors and others specifically argued against penalizing him for his ID views. (More detailed descriptions of the Sternberg case can be found on Ed Brayton's blog Dispatches from the Culture Wars and on Wikipedia.)

From Wikipedia:

Reception

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed was not screened in advance for film critics,[110] and when the film was released it received negative reviews. As of April 26, 2008, the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reported that 90% of its top film critics reviewed it negatively.[111] Metacritic reported the film had an average score of 20 out of 100, based on 13 reviews.[112]
Response to the movie from conservative Christian groups was generally positive, praising the movie for its humor and for focusing on what they perceive as a serious issue.[113] American Spectator said that the "only complaint about Expelled, scheduled for April release, is that its ending came all too soon."[114] Screen Rant gave Expelled 4.5 out of 5 stars, saying that "your opinion of the film will with almost complete certainty be predicted by your opinions on Darwinism vs Intelligent Design."[115]
Response from other critics was negative, particularly from those in the science media. The film's extensive use of Michael Moore-style devices was commented upon,[116] but the film was variously characterized as boring, exaggerated, and unconvincing.[117] Others found it insulting and offensive to the religious.[118] The Globe & Mail's film review gave the film a score of 0 and called it "an appallingly unscrupulous example of hack propaganda".[119] Vue Weekly called it an "anti-science propaganda masquerading as a Michael Moore-ish fool's journey, full of disingenuous ploys, cheap tricks, and outright mendacity."[120] While noting that the film is technically well made (with good photography and editing), Roger Ebert lambasted the content of the film:

This film is cheerfully ignorant, manipulative, slanted, cherry-picks quotations, draws unwarranted conclusions, makes outrageous juxtapositions (Soviet marching troops representing opponents of ID), pussy-foots around religion (not a single identified believer among the ID people), segues between quotes that are not about the same thing, tells bald-faced lies, and makes a completely baseless association between freedom of speech and freedom to teach religion in a university class that is not about religion.[121]​

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) issued a statement to say it was "especially disappointed to learn that the producers of an intelligent design propaganda movie called Expelled are inappropriately pitting science against religion."[17] It went on to say the organization "further decries the profound dishonesty and lack of civility demonstrated by this effort", and said the movie "seeks to force religious viewpoints into science class – despite court decisions that have struck down efforts to bring creationism and intelligent design into schools."[122]
Stein received the Freedom of Expression Award for his work in Expelled from the Home Entertainment Awards at Entertainment Merchants Association's Home Media Expo 2008.[123][124]

<---------SNIP!--------->

Not finding anything of use in the first film, I turned on the second one and listened to someone drone on endlessly about how the creators of Stonehenge was evidence that beings "thousands and thousands of years ago" had intelligence.

Well no duh! The main argument of the film is that human beings have lived on the Earth for "tens of millions of years"--even if true, this is not an argument for Intelligent Design (or against origin by natural selection).

Like I said before, even if Aliens designed us that still leaves open the question of WHO DESIGNED THE ALIENS? The main crux of ID is to replace a valid scientific question WITH ANOTHER QUESTION, not to actually provide any mechanism or real explanation of life origins.

This reminds me of an old story my grandmother told about how one woman would answer the question "where do eggs, milk and bread come from?" with "well of course they come from the grocery store!" When she replied, "well then how to grocery stores come from?" the answer was "from another store."

The question is "where does life come from?" cannot be answered by "well of course some super-duper life thingy"

Also the man who drones on tries to say that the reason why America was covered with ice was because it was somehow hit by some cataclysm that move the entire continent up to the north pole--nevermind the fact that the climactic mechanisms are sufficient



Regarding the "flash frozen mammoth":

MOM and Atlantis, Mammoths, and Crustal Shift

Almost immediately, MOM [Mysterious Origins of Man] either omits or provides false information concerning this mammoth. The details provided by Mr. Heston and the pictures accompanying his narration clearly identify this find as a baby mammoth, called either Dima or the Kirgilyakh Mammoth (Lister and Bahn 1994, p. 48-49, Uraintseva 1993, p. 44-66). First, MOM fails to mention that Dima was dated at 41,000+/-900 B.P. (Uraintseva 1993). Furthermore, its claim that this mammoth was found in a block of dirty ice is incorrect and misleading. Dima was found partially mired in gravelly loams and buried by a gravelly debris flow. Later, two intersecting ice veins formed within these fluvial (riverine) sediments of Terrace III. Finally, Dima was greatly malnourished at the time of her death and heavily infested by intestinal parasites which explains why she became mired in the sediments (Shilo et al. 1983, Uraintseva 1993). Therefore, Dima is much too old to be any sort of evidence for a cataclysm around 12,000 B.P. In fact, as documented by Shilo et al. (1983) and Uraintseva (1993), the sediments containing Dima are of noncatastrophic fluvial (riverine) origin and contain, as does her gut, pollen from a variety of tundra types and localized larch forests. There is absolutely no evidence of temperate or tropical plants associated with this mammoth.
Referring to the time of an alleged cataclysm, 12,000 B.P., Mr. Hancock in MOM continues:

A kind of zone of death all over the northern hemisphere, northern Siberia, and northern Canada. We find the frozen carcasses of hundreds of thousands of large mammal species.​

The "zone of death" mentioned above is a melodramatic exaggeration that has no basis in fact. First, their claim that hundreds of thousands of frozen carcasses have been found is simply incorrect. At most, only a few tens of frozen carcasses have been documented in all of Siberia and Alaska. In Canada, the frozen mammal material found consists of scraps of hide and muscle found attached to bones. All of these "frozen carcasses" that have been carefully examined show evidence of decomposition, scavenging, or both prior to be buried, e.g. Gutherie (1990). Also, the sediments in which these carcasses occur are clearly of noncatastrophic origin (Gutherie 1990, Lister and Bahn 1994, Pewe 1975, Uraintseva 1993). Additional information can be found at:
Woolly Mammoths: Evidence of Catastrophe? by Sue Bishop and P. R. Burns at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mammoths.html
Radiocarbon dates for such carcasses of mammoths, horses, and bison compiled in the above talk.origins FAQ, Pewe (1975), and Uraintseva (1993) clearly show that the majority of these frozen remains greatly predate 12,000 B.P., the date of the catastrophe alleged by MOM, by a few to tens of thousands of years. Thus, these "frozen carcasses" fail to be credible evidence of any catastrophe around 12,000 B.P.

....


In the final segment of MOM, Mr. Hancock concludes:

If Hapgood's theory is possible and land masses can suddenly shift 2,000 miles, it might explain how an entire continent and its people could have been lost to history.​

The problem is that the Earth crustal displacement theory is falsified by what has been currently documented concerning the Quaternary geology of North America and Antarctica and the structure of the crust and mantle that it can be considered scientifically bankrupt and incapable of explaining anything. In addition, there is a lack of any credible evidence for Antarctica having been ice-free enough to support a civilization for the last 3 to 15 million years.

That being said, I am sympathetic with the notion that human (or any sentient) for that matter might extend much further back into the history than our current understanding and science indicates, however I would not forward the above film (Exhibit B, MoM) as even a valid starting point for questioning.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Not finding anything of use in the first film...



Funny how that happens when a person cannot manage to refute a single fact from either film. However I am grateful for your cut n paste empirical hear say fest here. As stated, Darwinism requires just as much faith as does religion. What you call a "lack of imagination" I call an over abundance of establishment/entitlement based faith. Sorry, but what you have done here is to merely reinforce my original stance which is to state that Darwinism is merely an accepted Theory and by no means should be considered as a factual understanding in explanation for the origin of life on Earth. Utter Hogwash.

 

[Michael Allen]

Not finding anything of use in the first film...



Funny how that happens when a person cannot manage to refute a single fact from either film. However I am grateful for your cut n paste empirical hear say fest here. As stated, Darwinism requires just as much faith as does religion. What you call a "lack of imagination" I call an over abundance of establishment/entitlement based faith. Sorry, but what you have done here is to merely reinforce my original stance which is to state that Darwinism is merely an accepted Theory and by no means should be considered as a factual understanding in explanation for the origin of life on Earth. Utter Hogwash.

There were no facts in either film to refute--and my "cut-n-paste empirical hearsay" (read: sources) is (are) an efficient replay to your cut-n-paste research by fringy youtube videos of failed documentaries that force readers to wade through a huge muck of propaganda in order to get to real valid points (i.e. there are NONE....dear reader: don't bother...its a waste of time and the first one is BOOOOORING!).

And if the truth sends you back to your confortable echo-chamber of nonsense, so be it. Let the readers of the forum decide. I (read: others) have adequately answered the stupidity of your (read: videos) points. Now if you want to have a real discussion, come up with some ideas of your own and defend them, and I promise I won't cut-n-paste my next response.

 

[Jeff Davis]

There were no facts in either film to refute--and my "cut-n-paste empirical hearsay" (read: sources) is (are) an efficient replay to your cut-n-paste research by fringy youtube videos of failed documentaries that force readers to wade through a huge muck of propaganda in order to get to real valid points (i.e. there are NONE....dear reader: don't bother...its a waste of time and the first one is BOOOOORING!).

And if the truth sends you back to your confortable echo-chamber of nonsense, so be it. Let the readers of the forum decide. I (read: others) have adequately answered the stupidity of your (read: videos) points. Now if you want to have a real discussion, come up with some ideas of your own and defend them, and I promise I won't cut-n-paste my next response.

So, since you cannot refute the MANY facts contained in both these videos, you have resorted to a grandiose game of trolling via ad hominem. Droll and witless ad hominem at that.

With respect to my awaiting echo chamber of nonsensical horrors, precisely what truths, apart from your staunch alignment with the blowhard empirical hierarchy, have you offered up here precisely?

BTW, that I might enrich myself intellectually and shed this garb of ignorance, what exactly are my "stupidity points"? (are those like the dunce hat equivalent of pasties or what?)

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Michael, understand that you're not arguing evolution. For better or for worse, like pretty much every argument you'll have on the skeptical side of the fence, the argument ends up being about whether or not science is:

A) The only means by which academic truth can be attained

B) Logically viable -- which is always fun

C) A conspiracy factory run by closeminded academics who will lose money if the REAL truth gets out

Once you enter into that argument, there is no real way out.

That's no slight against Jeff or anyone else who brings the exchange 'round that way. It is, however, inevitable.

You'll see me eventually say "I don't care as much as I thought," occasionally, here. This is a big part of why. I generally realize the argument I think I'm having isn't the one I'm actually having. Then, beyond that, I realize it makes no difference to me if people disagree. The programmed, innate response humans have to engage in outlook defense was crafted to help us issue and defend good ideas that have to do with the survival of a group. None of that comes into play here. It's easy to get sucked in. I do at least once a week.

 

[Michael Allen]

Michael, understand that you're not arguing evolution. For better or for worse, like pretty much every argument you'll have on the skeptical side of the fence, the argument ends up being about whether or not science is:

A) The only means by which academic truth can be attained

B) Logically viable -- which is always fun

C) A conspiracy factory run by closeminded academics who will lose money if the REAL truth gets out

Once you enter into that argument, there is no real way out.

That's no slight against Jeff or anyone else who brings the exchange 'round that way. It is, however, inevitable.

You'll see me eventually say "I don't care as much as I thought," occasionally, here. This is a big part of why. I generally realize the argument I think I'm having isn't the one I'm actually having. Then, beyond that, I realize it makes no difference to me if people disagree. The programmed, innate response humans have to engage in outlook defense was crafted to help us issue and defend good ideas that have to do with the survival of a group. None of that comes into play here. It's easy to get sucked in. I do at least once a week.

Well I am not on any "side" here--just stating facts. Of those two videos, the first is shameless propaganda with no basis (and the core claim that the protagonist was employed and therefore lost a job has been completely shown as false by multiple sources cited above). As for the second, its junk science that doesn't even scratch the main point against ID:

Some examples:

Intelligent Design Argument A (Incredulity): We cannot imagine how life got started on its own without a designer, therefore such a designer must exist.

Intelligent Design Argument B (Continuum Fallacy married to a False Dichotomy): The current scientific theory regarding the origins of life doesn't answer everything, therefore Intelligent Design must me true.

Intelligent Design Argument C (School-yard Bully Argument): You can't get intelligence from non-intelligence, therefore a super-intelligent being must exist that created intelligence.

Recursion on Design Argument C (School-yard Bigger-Bully Response): You can't get super-intelligent beings out of nothing, therefore a super-duper intelligent being must exist....

...Ad nauseam...

Counter-Argument: We can simply turn the incredulity into a question about the designer(s) and ask the same question, "Well then how do you image the designer came to existence?"

Why does the failure of imagination work for debunking natural selection (which if actually studied is a convincing answer to the question of design!) but that very same failure is used to support the alternative?

The question of course will elicit a "well its outside our understanding--its a mystery we'll never solve" which of course is not an answer or even a convincing argument against Evolution. That aliens came and changed our DNA assumes of course they exist (obviously) and therefore are in the same bucket--i.e. requiring an explanation for their existence.

 

[stonehart]

I don't have much of substance to add here, but I think it's funny how ads work in forums.

The banners are asking me if I need a Christian realtor.

Derik, I think it's interesting to get a spin on all this stuff from someone outside of the general demographic, here. Out of curiosity, are there any elements of the paranormal that you have the inkling to believe in? I consider a lot of things from religion to be paranormal, but that's mostly due to the fact that I'm nonreligious. I guess what I'm asking is if there are areas of the paranormal you put stock in that aren't directly related to religion?

I know that many traditionalist Christians have taken interest in lake monsters and bigfoot as examples of creatures that would allegedly upset the model of evolution presented by science. I'd count that as not directly related to religion.

Firefox with add blocker and Ghostery with a few other tweaks and those adds never pop up again

 

[boomerang]

FAs stated, Darwinism requires just as much faith as does religion.

I would disagree. Nor is classic Darwinism the sum total of a scientific inquiry into origins of life. Theories based on evolution of species by DNA mutation and natural selection can be weighed, modeled, and its underlying mechanisms potentially tested in numerous ways. Whereas creationism is merely an a priori statement, ie "God did it" that fails to address process and mechanism weighed against what we know and are coming to know about the way life operates.

 

[stonehart]

Not finding anything of use in the first film...



Funny how that happens when a person cannot manage to refute a single fact from either film. However I am grateful for your cut n paste empirical hear say fest here. As stated, Darwinism requires just as much faith as does religion. What you call a "lack of imagination" I call an over abundance of establishment/entitlement based faith. Sorry, but what you have done here is to merely reinforce my original stance which is to state that Darwinism is merely an accepted Theory and by no means should be considered as a factual understanding in explanation for the origin of life on Earth. Utter Hogwash.

Good luck guys I am not even remotely interested in yet again another thread on this subject.

lol

Peace all and have fun.

 

[Muadib]

Good luck guys I am not even remotely interested in yet again another thread on this subject.

lol

Peace all and have fun.

I'll second that, I find it hilarious that all of the new members have started up all of the same arguments/debates that we've had on this site time and time again. I guess it's to be expected, but I'm sitting this one out. It's so pointless, this argument will end with everyone retaining their original position and nothing will have changed, the people who actually have bothered to study evolution and all of the related fields will still maintain that evolution is a fact (it is) and the creationists will just pull the same crap they always pull, trying to debunk science while adding nothing of any consequence to our general knowledge of any subject whatsoever. No thanks.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I would disagree. Nor is classic Darwinism the sum total of a scientific inquiry into origins of life. Theories based on evolution of species by DNA mutation and natural selection can be weighed, modeled, and its underlying mechanisms potentially tested in numerous ways. Whereas creationism is merely an a priori statement, ie "God did it" that fails to address process and mechanism weighed against what we know and are coming to know about the way life operates.

This is a total false premise. What you are contending is that there are only two schools of thought related to the origins of life on Earth. That *is* the utter hogwash that empirical science maintains and uses as it's fund maintaining straw man. That much is utter RUBBISH and that is precisely the point minus the incomprehensibly shallow overview that Michael attempts to lend per his blanket dismissal of the first video as being "BOOOOORING". I cannot believe, within the deepest and most honest capacity for my convictions possible, that all people can do is provide a ridiculously FLAWED reductionist view point concerning the specific order, and origins of developmental life on this planet that:

"It all comes down to Evolution vs. Creationism."

I am NOT a creationist.

Do we call those within the cutting edge of practiced science that manipulate genetics and study progressive DNA mutation and interaction, "Creationists"?


We are NOT even talking "evolution" here which I have clearly maintained as being undeniable. That much I made clear via my second post in this thread. We are referring to the incredibly unintelligent shotty scatter gun and circumspect notion of what is "Darwinism". It has NEVER been demonstrated. It has NEVER be proved. It has NEVER been paralleled via any manner of real time observation. We can make up cartoon like comparisons (this is where Micheal's lack of "Imagination" comes into play) where in effect we MODEL comparisons, or we can provide hypothetically anecdotal examples that the empirical schools of funded buffoonery continuity accept and proclaim as "verifiable". But not a damn thing on paper where in effect 2+2=4 end of story. NOTHING controlled or contained WHATSOEVER.

Empirical Science leans on the imagination clause just like the Religious lean on the faith pretense. So PLEASE, stop PRETENDING that Darwinism is exempt from flaw, because just as BOTH those videos clearly elucidate numerous times each, minus the fact that they are not comprised of Watchmen paralleled entertainment for those more discriminating viewers like Michael, there are simply TOO MANY cases where in effect questions CANNOT be answered that the Darwinism THEORY proclaims to be whole "start to finish" truth. It is NOT truth. It is supposition at best and empirically scientific ACCEPTED embellishments more so realistically.

 

[Michael Allen]

This is a total false premise. What you are contending is that there are only two schools of thought related to the origins of life on Earth. That *is* the utter hogwash that empirical science maintains and uses as it's fund maintaining straw man. That much is utter RUBBISH and that is precisely the point minus the incomprehensibly shallow overview that Michael attempts to lend per his blanket dismissal of the first video as being "BOOOOORING". I cannot believe, within the deepest and most honest capacity for my convictions possible, that all people can do is provide a ridiculously FLAWED reductionist view point concerning the specific order, and origins of developmental life on this planet that:

"It all comes down to Evolution vs. Creationism."

I am NOT a creationist.

Do we call those within the cutting edge of practiced science that manipulate genetics and study progressive DNA mutation and interaction, "Creationists"?


We are NOT even talking "evolution" here which I have clearly maintained as being undeniable. That much I made clear via my second post in this thread. We are referring to the incredibly unintelligent shotty scatter gun and circumspect notion of what is "Darwinism". It has NEVER been demonstrated. It has NEVER be proved. It has NEVER been paralleled via any manner of real time observation. We can make up cartoon like comparisons (this is where Micheal's lack of "Imagination" comes into play) where in effect we MODEL comparisons, or we can provide hypothetically anecdotal examples that the empirical schools of funded buffoonery continuity accept and proclaim as "verifiable". But not a damn thing on paper where in effect 2+2=4 end of story. NOTHING controlled or contained WHATSOEVER.

Empirical Science leans on the imagination clause just like the Religious lean on the faith pretense. So PLEASE, stop PRETENDING that Darwinism is exempt from flaw, because just as BOTH those videos clearly elucidate numerous times each, minus the fact that they are not comprised of Watchmen paralleled entertainment for those more discriminating viewers like Michael, there are simply TOO MANY cases where in effect questions CANNOT be answered that the Darwinism THEORY proclaims to be whole "start to finish" truth. It is NOT truth. It is supposition at best and empirically scientific ACCEPTED embellishments more so realistically.

Jeff, what are you really trying to say? I won't answer another post of yours unless you clearly state in your own words (no videos, no articles...) your position on how life evolved.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Ultimately the position that I have adopted is that matter did not proceed consciousness, but rather the other way around. This is what the science if Quantum Mechanics teaches and I tend to find favor with as much. I do not understand consciousness originating from matter. I have never found real evidence supportive of the notion that matter can in and of itself trans communicate, let alone originate, information such as that which is contained in DNA. Spontaneous generation alone is NOT a "stand alone" concept and it is in fact the very premise for Darwinism. How therefore can we attribute consciousness to the same?

I liken Darwinism to the many time rich environmental variables that in attribution create an erosive pathway cut into the side of a mountain where a stream flows. There is no question that it exists, but it is not the stream, nor is it the origin for the life within that stream. Albeit certainly a undeniable designer if each. Life cannot, and does not, assemble or create itself. After all, ultimately we are all energy in one form or both. ;-)

 

[Michael Allen]

Ultimately the position that I have adopted is that matter did not proceed consciousness, but rather the other way around. This is what the science if Quantum Mechanics teaches and I tend to find favor with as much. I do not understand consciousness originating from matter. I have never found real evidence supportive of the notion that matter can in and of itself trans communicate, let alone originate, information such as that which is contained in DNA. Spontaneous generation alone is NOT a "stand alone" concept and it is in fact the very premise for Darwinism. How therefore can we attribute consciousness to the same?

I liken Darwinism to the many time rich environmental variables that in attribution create an erosive pathway cut into the side of a mountain where a stream flows. There is no question that it exists, but it is not the stream, nor is it the origin for the life within that stream. Albeit certainly a undeniable designer if each. Life cannot, and does not, assemble or create itself. After all, ultimately we are all energy in one form or both. ;-)

On the first point. What if consciousness and matter are not fundamentally different? Then the question of one creating the other becomes moot. What if what we call "consciousness" is simply yet another way we understand "matter" (which by itself is very little understood!)? So the question of consciousness originating from matter is simple to answer -- "consciousness" and "matter" are concepts we've formed to help our own understanding (i.e. they are abstract categories), but reality itself has no such components. Strong AI follows (which AI itself is a misnomer) from the rapid dismissal of the circus-tent of Cartesian categorical abstraction(s). Now we can finally say with certainly that Life assembled itself without stepping on the substance ontology of "mind" since we've included it within the entire reality framework (replace the bifurcated reality with a monism). And in this case Darwinism appears on the scene and shows us how algorithmic processes (i.e. not the same as "algorithms" that are proven to work in the field of computer science--but algorithmic type processes) does this. We don't have to deny the existence of consciousness in this new framework--nor do we have to assert one failed abstraction as a cause for another failed abstraction (i.e. the "mental" creating the "material" or vice versa)...we throw away the old medieval and enlightment categories for a system that encompasses both.

Thanks for your response, I much rather like having this discussion than having a war of links.

 

[boomerang]

Ultimately the position that I have adopted is that matter did not proceed consciousness, but rather the other way around.

Is this another way of saying the universe itself is conscious? At any rate an interesting premise, especially since underlying both matter and energy may be nothing more or less than pure information. I have no problem with this idea as a philosophical frame of reference or even as a possible avenue of physical investigation. However, without a proposed and testable model based on current understanding of natural law, we are unable to proceed. It's interesting to note that both classic Darwinism and String Theory seem to rely more on evidence and deduction than testable hypothesis.

As a thought experiment: What if best evidence should suggest life arises as a combination of self-organizing properties woven into the fabric of nature (a growing field of science) combined with mutation and natural selection? Would this constitute matter arising from consciousness or the opposite? I'm not sure consciousness preceding matter vs the other way around is a "yes" or "no" issue any more than Darwinism vs Creationism.

 

[Jeff Davis]

On the first point. What if consciousness and matter are not fundamentally different? Then the question of one creating the other becomes moot. What if what we call "consciousness" is simply yet another way we understand "matter" (which by itself is very little understood!)? So the question of consciousness originating from matter is simple to answer -- "consciousness" and "matter" are concepts we've formed to help our own understanding (i.e. they are abstract categories), but reality itself has no such components. Strong AI follows (which AI itself is a misnomer) from the rapid dismissal of the circus-tent of Cartesian categorical abstraction(s). Now we can finally say with certainly that Life assembled itself without stepping on the substance ontology of "mind" since we've included it within the entire reality framework (replace the bifurcated reality with a monism). And in this case Darwinism appears on the scene and shows us how algorithmic processes (i.e. not the same as "algorithms" that are proven to work in the field of computer science--but algorithmic type processes) does this. We don't have to deny the existence of consciousness in this new framework--nor do we have to assert one failed abstraction as a cause for another failed abstraction (i.e. the "mental" creating the "material" or vice versa)...we throw away the old medieval and enlightment categories for a system that encompasses both.

Thanks for your response, I much rather like having this discussion than having a war of links.

We have demonstrated that the two, consciousness and matter, are interactively, thereby definitively independent, from one another based on repeatable controlled experimentation. So in essence they are fundamentally different from one another, however they are assuredly interactive composites within the "big picture" that is reality as we understand it. In and of itself AI is a construct that requires initiation. Ultimately we are it's origin. AI is a product of consciousness.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Is this another way of saying the universe itself is conscious? At any rate an interesting premise, especially since underlying both matter and energy may be nothing more or less than pure information. I have no problem with this idea as a philosophical frame of reference or even as a possible avenue of physical investigation. However, without a proposed and testable model based on current understanding of natural law, we are unable to proceed. It's interesting to note that both classic Darwinism and String Theory seem to rely more on evidence and deduction than testable hypothesis.

As a thought experiment: What if best evidence should suggest life arises as a combination of self-organizing properties woven into the fabric of nature (a growing field of science) combined with mutation and natural selection? Would this constitute matter arising from consciousness or the opposite? I'm not sure consciousness preceding matter vs the other way around is a "yes" or "no" issue any more than Darwinism vs Creationism.

We have repeatably controlled and proved that consciousness organizes the most fundamental elements of matter. Demonstrable.

 

[Michael Allen]

We have repeatably controlled and proved that consciousness organizes the most fundamental elements of matter. Demonstrable.

Well we've also seen self-organization in matter, so by what criterion do we separate self-organization in matter from organization by consciousness? It would appear that (unfortunately for consciousness--loosely speaking) we either use a criteria based on our own conscious grasp of the situation regarding the imprint of "matter" (or the idea of matter which we are unable to sometimes distinguish) or we throw it out and talk about material things as if the very idea of their existence had some meaning in the scheme of things. Both positions are untenable due to the very (probably false) assumption that they are independent. So when you say "demonstrable" what I hear is "demonstrable within a consciousness-matter dichotomy system" Consciousness applies some kind of intended force to matter and then adjusts its understanding by the response, however is unable to see it own self-organizing roots. This limitation cannot be explicated in the consciouness-matter dualism, as the consciousness (read: spirit) strives to make everything material (which is an idea or concept) for consciousness. How else do we see "self-organizing" behavior other than some mysterious "hidden hand" or "intelligence" that seems to pervade the self-organized system? We instantly apply intentionality to it because we ourselves do not have the cognitive framework to think otherwise. What we have is some kind of "intentionality" prejudice that prevents us from making clear the criterion above (self-organized matter vs consciousness organized matter) -- in fact the harder we try to make that criterion explicit, the further and further consciousness itself blends into the very landscape of its background: matter.

My solution is to dispense with the dualism from the start and let the questions evaporate.

 

[Michael Allen]

We have demonstrated that the two, consciousness and matter, are interactively, thereby definitively independent, from one another based on repeatable controlled experimentation. So in essence they are fundamentally different from one another, however they are assuredly interactive composites within the "big picture" that is reality as we understand it. In and of itself AI is a construct that requires initiation. Ultimately we are it's origin. AI is a product of consciousness.

The problem of course with this point is that we ourselves are a product of self-organizing matter (DNA replicators--i.e. molecular AI) and we were not even aware of this prior to the 20th century. What kind of "initiation" occurs for DNA? Well, perhaps it was put in place by some being--who arguably must be made of some self-organizing material. Strange that you say "initiate" -- which implies of course that something must have intentionally set off the process and the process continued without help from the origins. Again...by what criterion do you distinguish the initiation of a process by consciousness or by accident--if you say by probability, then the answer is, given enough time and constant processes, what appears to be a mountain of improbability can be turned into certainty. An intelligence can initiate a process just as "stupidly or intelligently" as any other random process under fixed laws. Without a criterion to distinguish one from another (and you wouldn't expect such a criterion to even be meaningful in a metaphysical monism), you might as well be throwing dice.

Einstein failed to see the beauty of Quantum Mechanics because he didn't think God played Dice--what horror if he were to realize that dice plays itself.