DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Amarok]

As we both know, definitions are important.  I have no doubt that you know that already, even in terms of study, and based on the conversation so far.

As far as reality, I believe it can be both objective and subjective.  One of the emerging (I think) trends is virtual reality.  If you experience something with a VR headset, is it reality?  Is it factual as an experience if I stated this phenomenon in terms of "truth" and "reality."

Your experience is real, the sensory input is real.
But the origin of the experience is virtual.

The same can be said of dreams. Some dreams are too vivid. Some dreams get stored in memory as real events and experiences. But they pertain to events that never happened in reality.
I don't think that our experiences should hold too much weight in ascertaining reality, as they can easily relate to non real events.

But does the conception of the stimuli, the feelings, the visualization, and everything else involved make it real?  If you took a blind poll, I can imagine many would say "yes" and likewise many would say "no" based on how they perceive the world and attribute value to things. 

Is the reality inside the Matrix real?
(using the word "reality" here on purpose )

I don't think "truth" allows for that same option. Did I have an experience with a shark as defined by a dictionary?  (A: No, I had an experience with a computer simulation that attempted to replicate a shark.) If I claimed it was a "real" shark, people would probably tell me I was off my rocker.   Regardless, both concepts are important and I believe they can both be used to validate one another.  Additionally I'm sure I missed some variables in explaining this because there's so much that can go into discussing such a thing.

It's interesting that you would say that you'd be "off your rocker" when you claimed that the shark was real.
Nonetheless, you experienced a shark. It felt real to you. You would speak the truth when you say the shark felt real (had you not been aware that you were in a VR setup), but the shark would never be real.

I think this is the sort of thing that happens with many so-called divine experiences.
Something happens that is erroneously attributed to a paranormal event and, mostly due to society, that paranormality is connected with the divine as its only possible source.

Anyway, regardless of what you find favorable, I don't think my view is necessarily better than your view.  It's how I view life. If I was raised differently with and in regard to different variables, my conclusions may very well be different and match more closely to your views.  We are all subject to something.  Some say it's "God" and others say it's "Randomness" or even something else.  But regardless, I think humanity is optimal when we attempt to become "solution-based" rather than "problem-based."  That way we're looking for answers to things rather than just looking to make more problems.

Yes, I too think that our upbringing is the greatest drive towards a particular view. That alone informs us that our biases stem mostly from that upbringing, from the society around us.
Whether we attribute a divine cause or a physical one to a particular event, comes from the way each of us has experienced the world... makes you wonder at how many events that we have received from the ancient world have been tainted by societal biases... how many are trustworthy...

You realize your simply in circles with him

[LastPoet]

You are all products of my mnd? I greatly underestimate my mind if that was true

[pocaracas]

Good explanation about the VR.  I would have to say I agree there.  

Thank you

Dreams are tricky because they exist as a real experience.  Some say they can be predictors, and sometimes they are an extension of something else.  I actually had two weird dreams Thursday night.  They were similar but still different.  I had to take one of the critters to the vet in the morning, and both dreams involved going to the vet.  In the latter dream, somehow I managed to get to the vet, but I didn't have the cat with me (I have two hounds and two Siamese cats).  Anyway, I think the dream might have been an extension of reality. When I have to wake up in the morning at a certain time, I can be fanatical about making sure it happens, so maybe the dream was an extension of that concern (just something to ponder).

I think the general consensus is that dreams are mostly our brains sorting out the things that we experienced recently. Of course, your concerns about potential futures are also experiences that your brain needs to sort through, so those count.

With the Matrix. I would say it's probably real to the people within it, but those on the outside have a greater understanding of that reality.  

So the reality within the Matrix is real to the people in it, but not real in the more absolute sense, huh?
Are we in a Matrix? Or are we on the top level with free access to the whole cosmos and the basic reality? Who knows?... who can know?

But then is raises a lot of questions about things like what is preferable for society or even when regulating drugs.  If the drug hides the pain, is the pain still there?  Conditionally yes, but  conceptually no.   But each holds weight in its own context.

Conditionally and conceptually...

If the pain is not felt, it is not there.
However, the underlying cause for the pain is still there, as the painkillers only serve to block the pain signals, either at the origin, or during transmission, or at the brain.

And should society base itself on what feels good or on what is the best description available of reality?

I agree about the shark. It wasn't real, but my reactions at times was real.  From there you could even make an argument for the importance of randomness.  If the experience is the same 100 percent of the time, the impact will diminish.  If I know when the shark is about to jump at me, then it can't serve its intended purpose.

Hmmm.... I wouldn't say that has to do with randomness... more with learning.

Now picture this, if you were to have the very same experience, but without any knowledge of a prior equal experience... actually, without any other experience, were you presented the same VR world, the same events, given each and every time the very same past experiences, would you ever react differently? (I know this is an impossible scenario, it's a thought exercise)

Your closing statement was spot on.  We are all products of our upbringing.  We can always break from certain aspects, but we still carry it with us.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Good explanation about the VR.  I would have to say I agree there.  

Thank you

Dreams are tricky because they exist as a real experience.  Some say they can be predictors, and sometimes they are an extension of something else.  I actually had two weird dreams Thursday night.  They were similar but still different.  I had to take one of the critters to the vet in the morning, and both dreams involved going to the vet.  In the latter dream, somehow I managed to get to the vet, but I didn't have the cat with me (I have two hounds and two Siamese cats).  Anyway, I think the dream might have been an extension of reality. When I have to wake up in the morning at a certain time, I can be fanatical about making sure it happens, so maybe the dream was an extension of that concern (just something to ponder).

I think the general consensus is that dreams are mostly our brains sorting out the things that we experienced recently. Of course, your concerns about potential futures are also experiences that your brain needs to sort through, so those count.

With the Matrix. I would say it's probably real to the people within it, but those on the outside have a greater understanding of that reality.  

So the reality within the Matrix is real to the people in it, but not real in the more absolute sense, huh?
Are we in a Matrix? Or are we on the top level with free access to the whole cosmos and the basic reality? Who knows?... who can know?

But then is raises a lot of questions about things like what is preferable for society or even when regulating drugs.  If the drug hides the pain, is the pain still there?  Conditionally yes, but  conceptually no.   But each holds weight in its own context.

Conditionally and conceptually...

If the pain is not felt, it is not there.
However, the underlying cause for the pain is still there, as the painkillers only serve to block the pain signals, either at the origin, or during transmission, or at the brain.

And should society base itself on what feels good or on what is the best description available of reality?

I agree about the shark. It wasn't real, but my reactions at times was real.  From there you could even make an argument for the importance of randomness.  If the experience is the same 100 percent of the time, the impact will diminish.  If I know when the shark is about to jump at me, then it can't serve its intended purpose.

Hmmm.... I wouldn't say that has to do with randomness... more with learning.

Now picture this, if you were to have the very same experience, but without any knowledge of a prior equal experience... actually, without any other experience, were you presented the same VR world, the same events, given each and every time the very same past experiences, would you ever react differently? (I know this is an impossible scenario, it's a thought exercise)

Your closing statement was spot on.  We are all products of our upbringing.  We can always break from certain aspects, but we still carry it with us.

I think that was kinda the point of the Matrix. Mesh a lot of things together to give a different perception of reality. Some of it is also similar to the Infinity Wars movie. You have one being's view on reality becoming the determining factor for everybody else.  In his mind, maybe he's doing a good thing. Eliminate half the population and once again the resources in the universe become sufficient.  It's random, so he determines it to be fair. Of course maybe the will to live with limited resources supersedes his view, so there has to be an opposition. Both movies have a moral dilemma that has to be dealt with, with the heroes in both choosing the reality that is natural rather than the one determined (Live in the real world outside the Matrix + Allow the world to exist as-is, even though the conditions could be made better by reducing the population).

[CDF47]

He holds a PhD from Cambridge.  He is no fool.

Yes he is a fool credentials don't change that

---

I have heard him speak for many hours.

Which is as worthless as nothing

Wrong, I learned a great deal from listening to him speak.

---

I have heard him speak for many hours.

Waitaminute.  Are you saying you haven't read Signature In The Cell?

I have heard it summarized.  I never read the book.

---

He holds a PhD from Cambridge.  He is no fool.

Of course he isn't. He is highly skilled at extracting money from gullible rubes.

---

He studied the philosophy of science to earn a PhD from Cambridge university.  He has a lot of knowledge about genetics and biology.

In that case you must perforce also believe that the moon landings were faked, right?

After all, that is the claim of Prof. James H. Fetzer who also holds a PhD in the philosophy of science.

No, actually I believe we landed on the moon. I believe in real conspiracies like CIA MK Ultra, FBI Cointelpro,...

---

Stevie Weavie Meyer is a debunked fool.

"Stephen C. Meyer is an American advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design. He helped found the Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute, which is the main organization behind the intelligent design movement. Before joining the DI, Meyer was a professor at Whitworth College". Wikipedia

He holds a PhD from Cambridge.  He is no fool.

So let me get this straight ... if a PhD from Cambridge says there is no god, (Steven Hawking) then you accept what he says. 
LOL

Too bad Meyer's credentials are in the wrong fields. 

"Meyer has absolutely no qualifications in biology. he does hold a Bachelor of Science in geology and physics, but his Ph.D is in the philosophy of science[2] which has no relevance to Evolutionary Biology"

He has biologists and geneticists on his team.

---

So let me get this straight ... if a PhD from Cambridge says there is no god, (Steven Hawking) then you accept what he says. 
LOL

Too bad Meyer's credentials are in the wrong fields. 

"Meyer has absolutely no qualifications in biology. he does hold a Bachelor of Science in geology and physics, but his Ph.D is in the philosophy of science[2] which has no relevance to Evolutionary Biology"

Interesting. Do you have a degree in evolutionary biology?  How about a PhD?

---

I am having a hard time undertanding your diatribe. Were you adressing someone else?


You do not sound like you have one. Is it a philisophy degree?

I was addressing you.  We're applying mathematics.  If you don't like the math, math don't care.  Got it?

Your statement, "You don't sound like you have one."  Please qualify. At what point is my statement did you determine that the opposite is likely true?  Can't wait to hear this.

Nope, not philosophy.  Although I did study philosophy, but not as to pursue a degree specifically in that field.  Also for leisure.  If I tried to get a degree from every branch of science that interests me, I would spend a dozen lifetimes in school.

No, I have a Bachelors of Science in Mechanical Engineering.  I would go back to get a Masters but I am on disability now after 15 years in the field and 5 years at the university.

---

They just simply don't.

Ohhh, they just simply don’t.  I see; it all makes sense now!  Thank you so much for elucidating that particular biological mechanism of action for me.  I think I’m one step closer to becoming a Christian!  You’re good at this! 😐

LOL

[Bucky Ball]

Interesting. Do you have a degree in evolutionary biology?  How about a PhD?

[/quote]
Do you ? LMAO
Am I writing shit, totally out of the scientific consensus ?

You are a fucking fraud, gramps.
You wouldn't know an actual argument if it bit you on your fat ass.

[CDF47]

Interesting. Do you have a degree in evolutionary biology?  How about a PhD?

Do you ? LMAO
Am I writing shit, totally out of the scientific consensus ?

You are a fucking fraud, gramps.
You wouldn't know an actual argument if it bit you on your fat ass.

I was asked this question as well though.  I wonder how many actual geneticists are in this thread.  Probably few to none.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Interesting. Do you have a degree in evolutionary biology?  How about a PhD?

Do you ? LMAO
Am I writing shit, totally out of the scientific consensus ?

You are a fucking fraud, gramps.
You wouldn't know an actual argument if it bit you on your fat ass.
[/quote]

I'm sure everyone is a "fraud" to you when they ask you a direct question and you don't want to answer.   But it's cool.  When people are uptight, it comes back around.  Seen it happen enough times.  Someone is a "warrior" in their mind, but life still beats them down.  The lucky ones eventually realize it's not everybody else who's the problem.  The unlucky ones, well...they call names and wield other insults hoping it will somehow validate them.  Anyway, good luck with it.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

WHY IS THIS EVEN A TOPIC????


Boru

[Amarok]

Wrong, I learned a great deal from listening to him speak

You clearly learned nothing

---

Do you ? LMAO
Am I writing shit, totally out of the scientific consensus ? 

You are a fucking fraud, gramps.
You wouldn't know an actual argument if it bit you on your fat ass.

I'm sure everyone is a "fraud" to you when they ask you a direct question and you don't want to answer.   But it's cool.  When people are uptight, it comes back around.  Seen it happen enough times.  Someone is a "warrior" in their mind, but life still beats them down.  The lucky ones eventually realize it's not everybody else who's the problem.  The unlucky ones, well...they call names and wield other insults hoping it will somehow validate them.  Anyway, good luck with it.[/quote]
Or they see through the questioner