(December 7, 2018 at 7:51 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(December 7, 2018 at 7:05 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: I still like your thinking. I agree with basically everything you said.

(December 7, 2018 at 7:05 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: I think the issue though is with the 50/50 split.  It's hard to assign values to either, and with the assumption that some harmony may exist between the two, I think it would be even more difficult without further knowledge on the potential relationship.  But that's why I suggested a qualitative approach.  Just like that interaction I used as an example with the monkeys.  If I establish a relationship, then it should become easier to gain quantitative information later on, because I can more clearly define that relationship.  I like numbers as answers to problem, but sometimes they're not the best option, because even though they are necessary part of our lives, sometimes a 1 or 2 can't be descriptive or precise enough about human experience. If I say something was a "10" or that I was "blown away" by it, I would think in many cases the latter would better for explaining how I view an event or experience.

Human experience... many religious folk posit too much weight on this.
Human experience has many problems when one tries to ascertain how the world around us operates. It relies too much on our intuitions, which have come about through millennia of evolution at our scale. We are not equipped to deal with the quantum world, nor with the vastness of the Cosmos.
Certainly, it was a good starting point, but I think humanity now has the tools to confidently move beyond.

If you want to describe your feelings towards some event, "blown away" conveys the message quite well. But if you want to convey the event itself, so that others may appreciate it for themselves, then I think you need to be as quantitative as possible. For the quantitative scales (weight, luminosity, electrical charge, etc...) are the same for everyone, while "being blown away" isn't so.

A divine entity that is seemingly only a shared concept among believers isn't really something one can develop a relationship with, I think. Unless you're into one-way relationships. I'm sure many have gone that route for Indiana Jones or Wilma Flintstone, or even for real people like (and I'm about to show my age) Claudia Schiffer... but are those real relationships that can convey accurate information about the other entity?

What brings forth the question, "What does it mean to be human?"

Qualitative data can be a prerequisite to quantitative data.  In regard to science. I have a dual science degree, yet sometimes I don't want to be the scientist. Sometimes I want to go outside and play with my dogs. Sometimes I want to play a video game. Sometimes I want to spend time with family.  They can all apply to each other, but sometimes the science gets put on the back burner.  I can visit my mom and talk about cultural trends or quantum mechanics, but it adds little to that relationship and she's not likely to understand anyway.  I would say the relational aspect supersedes it.  I remember in the movie the Matrix, there was a scene when one guy sells out the "good guys" and his payment was bliss.  He could've continued to understand the Matrix, but he preferred the product of such instead.  So which is wrong?  What are the values?  Is a quantifiable conscious better than a content conscious.  Neither, because it is the choice of the individual.  I can't say your decision is optimal for me, and vice versa, and the determining factor of those choices is ourselves.

(December 7, 2018 at 8:54 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 7, 2018 at 7:51 am)pocaracas Wrote:


Human experience... many religious folk posit too much weight on this.
Human experience has many problems when one tries to ascertain how the world around us operates. It relies too much on our intuitions, which have come about through millennia of evolution at our scale. We are not equipped to deal with the quantum world, nor with the vastness of the Cosmos.
Certainly, it was a good starting point, but I think humanity now has the tools to confidently move beyond.

If you want to describe your feelings towards some event, "blown away" conveys the message quite well. But if you want to convey the event itself, so that others may appreciate it for themselves, then I think you need to be as quantitative as possible. For the quantitative scales (weight, luminosity, electrical charge, etc...) are the same for everyone, while "being blown away" isn't so.

A divine entity that is seemingly only a shared concept among believers isn't really something one can develop a relationship with, I think. Unless you're into one-way relationships. I'm sure many have gone that route for Indiana Jones or Wilma Flintstone, or even for real people like (and I'm about to show my age) Claudia Schiffer... but are those real relationships that can convey accurate information about the other entity?

What brings forth the question, "What does it mean to be human?"

I'd go with.... is reality still there in the absence of all human/conscious minds?

(December 7, 2018 at 8:54 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Qualitative data can be a prerequisite to quantitative data.  In regard to science. I have a dual science degree, yet sometimes I don't want to be the scientist. Sometimes I want to go outside and play with my dogs. Sometimes I want to play a video game. Sometimes I want to spend time with family.  They can all apply to each other, but sometimes the science gets put on the back burner.  I can visit my mom and talk about cultural trends or quantum mechanics, but it adds little to that relationship and she's not likely to understand anyway.  I would say the relational aspect supersedes it.  I remember in the movie the Matrix, there was a scene when one guy sells out the "good guys" and his payment was bliss.  He could've continued to understand the Matrix, but he preferred the product of such instead.  So which is wrong?  What are the values?  Is a quantifiable conscious better than a content conscious.  Neither, because it is the choice of the individual.  I can't say your decision is optimal for me, and vice versa, and the determining factor of those choices is ourselves.

I'd say it depends on the purpose.
If your purpose is to claim something about reality, then you'll have to apply all the science you can, for that is what science is all about: figuring out what reality is like and how it works.
If your purpose is to enjoy life, then you can live in your world, with your dogs, your mom, your video games and never need to care much about the intricacies of reality. Just go with intuition, for that works well enough.

The trouble arises when people intermingle these and claim something about reality based on their intuitions. Intuitions which are well known to produce faulty results in certain extreme conditions... such as those that we see here on this thread "DNA proves the Existence of a designer" - It looks like a super complex machine, so it must be designed, so, knowing that no human conscience was around at the time DNA came into being, there must have been an external designer, so let's call that god and move on. Right? This is what CDF has been saying all along, right? All the while, others have been pointing out that the evolutionary mechanism can, without any guidance or forethought, without intentionality or design, it can produce the very complexity we observe in the DNA machinery. It's difficult to conceive of all the steps that go from abiogenesis to DNA, and there is still much work left to be done in this field to show how it can be done, so this option is felt as impossible by many, given that their intuition is not sufficient to deal with the concepts involved. If evolution is impossible, then design is the only possibility, or so CDF claims.

(December 7, 2018 at 2:35 am)CDF47 Wrote:

(December 7, 2018 at 2:16 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: Disputed only by idiots so stupid they still prefer to believe salvation through a layabout no good meglomanical mad carpenter who died a mean and deserved death.   Such dispute is worthless even to mention.

---

You did.  To the monkey’s eternal regret.

No disputed by serious scientists.  I did not evolve from a monkey.  I descended from the first man and woman.

"however they are often afraid to speak out because of the criticism they would get from ... the atheist lobby"

Any similarity between creationists and monkeys is an insult to the monkeys.

Facepalm

(December 7, 2018 at 9:13 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(December 7, 2018 at 8:54 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: What brings forth the question, "What does it mean to be human?"

I'd go with.... is reality still there in the absence of all human/conscious minds?

(December 7, 2018 at 8:54 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Qualitative data can be a prerequisite to quantitative data.  In regard to science. I have a dual science degree, yet sometimes I don't want to be the scientist. Sometimes I want to go outside and play with my dogs. Sometimes I want to play a video game. Sometimes I want to spend time with family.  They can all apply to each other, but sometimes the science gets put on the back burner.  I can visit my mom and talk about cultural trends or quantum mechanics, but it adds little to that relationship and she's not likely to understand anyway.  I would say the relational aspect supersedes it.  I remember in the movie the Matrix, there was a scene when one guy sells out the "good guys" and his payment was bliss.  He could've continued to understand the Matrix, but he preferred the product of such instead.  So which is wrong?  What are the values?  Is a quantifiable conscious better than a content conscious.  Neither, because it is the choice of the individual.  I can't say your decision is optimal for me, and vice versa, and the determining factor of those choices is ourselves.

I'd say it depends on the purpose.
If your purpose is to claim something about reality, then you'll have to apply all the science you can, for that is what science is all about: figuring out what reality is like and how it works.
If your purpose is to enjoy life, then you can live in your world, with your dogs, your mom, your video games and never need to care much about the intricacies of reality. Just go with intuition, for that works well enough.

The trouble arises when people intermingle these and claim something about reality based on their intuitions. Intuitions which are well known to produce faulty results in certain extreme conditions... such as those that we see here on this thread "DNA proves the Existence of a designer" - It looks like a super complex machine, so it must be designed, so, knowing that no human conscience was around at the time DNA came into being, there must have been an external designer, so let's call that god and move on. Right? This is what CDF has been saying all along, right? All the while, others have been pointing out that the evolutionary mechanism can, without any guidance or forethought, without intentionality or design, it can produce the very complexity we observe in the DNA machinery. It's difficult to conceive of all the steps that go from abiogenesis to DNA, and there is still much work left to be done in this field to show how it can be done, so this option is felt as impossible by many, given that their intuition is not sufficient to deal with the concepts involved. If evolution is impossible, then design is the only possibility, or so CDF claims.

I agree that intermingling things can be problematic, but you can't rationally prevent it universally.  Even if it's simply someone telling a lie or trying to manipulate data.  That's why in my little box where I post what I believe I said "truth", because that's what I shoot for. It doesn't mean I don't get things wrong, or that I've never lied before, but at the end of the day, that's what I care about.  I like balance, and when I'm truthful with myself and try to be truthful with others, I can feel validated even when times arise that I am wrong.  But there are people who deliberately manipulate facts/information that are still going to be out there, and sometimes we are uncontrollably subject to them because we simply "don't know", and don't have the means to independently measure their claims.

And as you said, making threads with titles like this can be problematic, but it happens all across the board.  It's not a "theistic" problem.  It's a world problem. Sometimes it may be something like greed.  "I want funding so I come up with a solution to keep the money coming in, so I fabricate that I know will pass scrutiny based on my education."  It's a lie, but a temporal solution.  By time someone can disprove it, you're already funded and can come up with a new argument.   It's not a rule though.  So rather than sort it all out in my head, which is probably impossible, I just do my best. Sometimes that means "logic" and sometimes that means going with my "gut."  One thing I've learned is that more times than not your gut is spot on  When I use both "logic" and "gut" without discrimination or bias, I think I am living optimally.

(December 7, 2018 at 11:07 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: I agree that intermingling things can be problematic, but you can't rationally prevent it universally.  Even if it's simply someone telling a lie or trying to manipulate data.  That's why in my little box where I post what I believe I said "truth", because that's what I shoot for. It doesn't mean I don't get things wrong, or that I've never lied before, but at the end of the day, that's what I care about.  I like balance, and when I'm truthful with myself and try to be truthful with others, I can feel validated even when times arise that I am wrong.  But there are people who deliberately manipulate facts/information that are still going to be out there, and sometimes we are uncontrollably subject to them because we simply "don't know", and don't have the means to independently measure their claims.

And as you said, making threads with titles like this can be problematic, but it happens all across the board.  It's not a "theistic" problem.  It's a world problem. Sometimes it may be something like greed.  "I want funding so I come up with a solution to keep the money coming in, so I fabricate that I know will pass scrutiny based on my education."  It's a lie, but a temporal solution.  By time someone can disprove it, you're already funded and can come up with a new argument.   It's not a rule though.  So rather than sort it all out in my head, which is probably impossible, I just do my best. Sometimes that means "logic" and sometimes that means going with my "gut."  One thing I've learned is that more times than not your gut is spot on  When I use both "logic" and "gut" without discrimination or bias, I think I am living optimally.

Instead of "truth", I would have used "reality".
For, again, there are many "truths" out there, but only one reality.

In general, truth is assumed to be an accurate description of reality. And this accuracy is a function of the individual that is describing reality... there are as accurate as technologically possible descriptions, there are rough approximations, there are educated guesses, wild guesses, and blatant lies. (arbitrary categories that I just made up, feel free to add yours)
I think we can live optimally if we manage to accept as many of the first kind as possible, while avoiding all the others as much as possible.
I know it's not feasible to live only through the most accurate descriptions of reality, for time is ever-moving forward and ever changing circumstances require us to keep up and use approximations wherever possible. And there are many cases where guesses is all we can hope to have - the fictionality of the divine, for example.
Let's assume that the existence of the god of the philosophers is in the realm of "educated guesses", while the average religious deity is, at best, a "wild guess", at worst, a "lie".
Many have tried and succeeded to pass this wild guess (or lie) as beyond our knowledge, as a more accurate description of reality than what can ever be hoped to achieve with technology/science. I think this is a disingenuous practice, but one that can easily sway someone who, like you, relies on gut in a few key situations... and you are an educated person. Imagine how vulnerable is someone not aware of how they can be exploited.
This means that we must not only aim to keep ourselves from accepting dubious truths, but it is also our duty(?) to warn and try to prevent others from accepting them.
How? Mostly through awareness, I suppose... and that's where these forums come to be useful.

(December 7, 2018 at 1:36 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 7, 2018 at 12:10 am)Rahn127 Wrote: Oh do most definitely believe that you believe it's disputed.
Kinda like how some people believe the earth is flat. Those people dispute the science as well.
You are the biological equivalent of a flat earther.

What are you talking about? Do you even know what science is?  Because what you're doing is exactly what we don't do in scientific study.  How do you equivocate what he said with "flat earther?"

Because creatardism has the exact same basis as flat earth idiocy. Both are assertions made without evidence in a very wrong 2,000 year old religious screed, which have been conclusively and finally disproven by the evidence.

Quote:No disputed by serious scientists.  I did not evolve from a monkey

 
That's actually a blatant falsehood.
Among virtually ALL scientists in the fields which would deal with this, agree we and monkeys had a common ancestor.
This dude is ignorant and incompetent to say anything on the subject.

(December 7, 2018 at 12:13 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

Quote:No disputed by serious scientists.  I did not evolve from a monkey

 
That's actually a blatant falsehood.
Among virtually ALL scientists in the fields which would deal with this, agree we and monkeys had a common ancestor.
This dude is ignorant and incompetent to say anything on the subject.