(September 16, 2014 at 7:53 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: So again, I posed a question to you all (particularly those who accused me of strawmanning) asking about your level of confidence (0-100%) that there is no intriguing evidence pointing to intelligent design and influence. Only a few have responded, both reporting 100% confidence.

Honestly, I am not convinced that any of you were justified in saying I was strawmanning. I don't think I was misjudging at all what it is that you think. In fact, the assumption I was making (and the comparison I made to my atheist friends) seems to be quite accurate at this point. I have not had a single one of those that shamed me respond that something they have experienced, read, heard, etc has made them question the possibility of ID.

I feel lied to at this point. Like I said, I'm 80% confident in ID based on my observations and the opinions I've formed of them. I don't care if what I shared does not sway your opinion. I wasn't trying to. They're my thoughts and ideas and I was hoping to discuss them with people who do not fit the definition of that "strawman". If I was right, thanks a lot for convincing me that it was possible to get the discussion I was looking for. Sucks to be shamed and lied to at the same time.

A bit of advice for the future, drop the "strawman", "strawman" shaming game at times when what's being said is true. It's misleading.

On the subject of ID, (Creationism by psuedoscientific BS) the principal line of 'evidence' put forward was 'irreducible complexity'.
This was a mildly distracting concept but found to have no real world application as amply demonstrated at the Dover Trial. As such ID has been effectively dead as a concept since Dec. 2005, no one seriously considers it anymore beyond the occasional random who tries to necro it back into unlife...
So yeah, ID holds no water.
On Dark Matter affecting changes to the genome;
In order to affect a change a threshold level of energy has to be supplied to the bonds within the DNA molecule. A prime example would be UV radiation mutating skin cells leading to skin cancer. Note that bright lights do not cause cancer as they do not supply the energy at the resonance frequency of the bonds within DNA.
Dark Matter is hypothesised to have little or no interaction with conventional matter, thus dark matter detectors are built at the bottom of mines to have any hope of detecting a reaction.
It seems extremely unlikely then that Dark Matter would have any discernible effect on DNA, much less act as an intelligent agent.

(September 18, 2014 at 9:09 am)Mr Greene Wrote: It seems extremely unlikely then that Dark Matter would have any discernible effect on DNA, much less act as an intelligent agent.

Every woo-party needs a woo-party-pooper.

I read that as "woo party popper".

Now I wantz one.

(September 17, 2014 at 7:02 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(September 17, 2014 at 1:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: You quote yourself for truth? Really?

Eh?

No I quoted Jacob

Ah. I'd put the QFT first then, if it was me, but that's just formatting. My sincere apologies.

Ok, so I'm going to try to respond to much of your posts at once...

First, I never claimed to have expert knowledge of any of these fields of inquiry, only that I've done my share of reading. In fact, if you read the article I posted "The Truth", you will see I admitted that I'm not omniscient, wherefore I'm humbly ignorant regarding "the truth".

I do believe that many of you probably have more expertise in these fields than I do, which is helpful, but does not convince me that any of you are any less ignorant of "the truth" than I am.

The way I see it, we have learned a bit about the stuff that makes our reality. We have learned through experiments in classical physics, chemistry and biology that things are correlated and we have made predictions based on this that have been reliably accurate when looking at those things in that context. But, the way I see it, this is metaphorically like knowing what's written in the first section of a book. I may have only memorized what's written on the first few pages while you may have memorized the first chapter. Neither of us can claim we know the whole of the book. We also don't know if what we've concluded based on the first section is going to be an accurate conclusion once we've read chapter 3 or 4.

That's the way I feel about the topic we're referring to. Claims that I don't understand physics are silly, because really, if we're generalizing all of physics, neither do you. Quantum physics, astrophysics, all those unknowns... Simply skimming the beginning of the metaphorical 'chapter 2' is leading me to assume there is a lot more, a lot, lot more that we have yet to experience and learn. And yes, I do think that "consciousness" is going to be a big part of this.

The focus of my studies has always been "consciousness" and the role it plays in our existence. When I refer to the concept of ID, that is all I'm referring to is the role consciousness plays and yes, I do believe we have, and will find more evidence of it's role through experiments using the scientific method.

If anyone still believes I'm trying to argue in favor of a "god" concept that cannot possibly be proven using science, please rest assured I am not. Further, if "consciousness" is related to alien life, or advanced humans, or some manifestation of a universal consciousness, I'm not claiming to know. Nor do I feel that eventually explaining the nature of consciousness in our observed reality (4% of the "all") will ultimately explain the nature of consciousness with regard to all that is (for example, getting evidence that all we see or know is just a projection of an alien mind, does nothing to explain the origins of the alien mind). I guess, in that sense, we can only continue taking it revelation by revelation, advancing our understanding as we go.

So again, I came to atheist forums because I don't want to hear the answer "godditit". I came to atheist forums because I thought there would be people who are interested in science that would want to engage in conversations (speculate) regarding how science may be able to explain the role consciousness/"intelligence" plays in our reality. I'm interested in speculating about the implications of what the beginning of 'chapter 2' is saying and what it could mean for 'chapter 3' and 'chapter 4'.

So, saying that you have found no convincing evidence that consciousness/"intelligence" plays an important role in the functioning of our existence implies to me that you've explored all of what science has revealed to date and have formed your opinions as such.

So, what do you know about consciousness? What have you concluded regarding it's origins, it's influence, the role it plays? What about those 'chapter 2' revelations confirms what you previously assumed?

So, in summary. "We" don't know everything, but if we ever explained something like consciousness (in our observed reality......ffs) fully it wouldn't matter, because your position has a built in escape hatch, in that you would simply insist that there was "more", a "chapter 2". That about right?

People -have- been discussing the role that consciousness or intelligence plays "in our reality". Doesn't appear to play the role you think it does. It doesn't matter, really, whether you call it god or a donut - the name for your proposed agent isn't what's been contested. If there's a chapter 2, it doesn't look like it would have anything further to say on the subject.

(September 18, 2014 at 11:32 am)sswhateverlove Wrote: The way I see it, we have learned a bit about the stuff that makes our reality. We have learned through experiments in classical physics, chemistry and biology that things are correlated and we have made predictions based on this that have been reliably accurate when looking at those things in that context. But, the way I see it, this is metaphorically like knowing what's written in the first section of a book. I may have only memorized what's written on the first few pages while you may have memorized the first chapter. Neither of us can claim we know the whole of the book. We also don't know if what we've concluded based on the first section is going to be an accurate conclusion once we've read chapter 3 or 4.

Taking your analogy, you were introduced to characters Bob and Jane in the first few pages. Then you claim that Bob and Jame might hook up later. The rest of us that read the first chapter know that Bob was killed which started a man hunt. So we're pointing out that you are wrong. And your retort is that he magically comes back in the 3rd of 4th chapter. Hence, we call .

Quote:That's the way I feel about the topic we're referring to. Claims that I don't understand physics are silly, because really, if we're generalizing all of physics, neither do you. Quantum physics, astrophysics, all those unknowns... Simply skimming the beginning of the metaphorical 'chapter 2' is leading me to assume there is a lot more, a lot, lot more that we have yet to experience and learn. And yes, I do think that "consciousness" is going to be a big part of this.

You are correct we don't know everything about physics, but we can still know certain things will not occur. Lets take gravity for example, Newton's gravity model worked great for centuries, and got us to the moon and back. However, Einstein proved it completely wrong. So did apples started to fall up, no. Newton's theory was ~99% accurate, Einstein's general relativity is ~99.99% accurate. The next theory to replace Einstein's will have to be ~99.9999% accurate. Some of your physics claims are analogous to apples fall up.

So, from my research, I think future revelations in genetics and in quantum physics will increase our understanding of the nature of consciousness and the role it plays in our reality. Call me optimistic. You can stick with 'no way Jose' and assume we (or you Rhythm) already know everything there is to know about it, but I think that's a bit presumptuous.

(September 18, 2014 at 12:33 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: So, from my research, I think future revelations in genetics and in quantum physics will increase our understanding of the nature of consciousness and the role it plays in our reality. Call me optimistic. You can stick with 'no way Jose' and assume we (or you Rhythm) already know everything there is to know about it, but I think that's a bit presumptuous.

What a fantastically dishonest and arrogant statement. Nobody here says "we know everything" about anything. I won't call you optimistic, I'll call you a smug douchebag. I'm still irritated about you coming in here and telling us what we believe, and you're still freaking doing it. Nobody believes we know everything about consciousness, not even close. You and your strawmen can fuck right off.

And, although it may not change anything about what we know to be fundamental with regard to the navigation of our environment (say apple falls down), it doesn't mean looking beyond that and trying to understand how those laws fit into the larger scope of all existence isn't a valuable pursuit. Historically it seems, that type of pursuit has actually been what has resulted in expansion of those ideas, allowing the creation of technology that results in the "impossible" becoming "possible".

---

"What a fantastically dishonest and arrogant statement. Nobody here says "we know everything" about anything. I won't call you optimistic, I'll call you a smug douchebag. I'm still irritated about you coming in here and telling us what we believe, and you're still freaking doing it. Nobody believes we know everything aout consciousness, not even close. You and your strawmen can fuck right off."

I was responding to Rhythm (hence I directed the statement that way) because he said,

"If there's a chapter 2, it doesn't look like it would have anything further to say on the subject."

Was I supposed to interpret that as he think someday we will possibly learn more about consciousness than we currently do?