Darwin and Dawkins are both Wrong and Evil

Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers
Hey Badmedia I am going to try and catch that show on Brink that you are talking about. It sounds like something I will really like. Thanks.

To MatrixProphet I have to completely disagree with the quote that you posted saying "Not every question has an answer that can be answered experimentally with a measurement or a test."

I believe that EVERY question has an answer that can be found through the use testing.

To say that something cannot be explained is to say that Science has not found a way...YET.

Yet.

You can believe what you want. But it is just that, a belief. What you say is true when it comes to things of logic, but there are things which are beyond science(logic).

reply to post by badmedia


I beg to differ there is nothing science cant explain.We may not understand the science involved yet.But that doesn't mean there isn't science to explain it.Just the act of understanding creates the science.

Heres the first definition in Websters dictionary:

1:The state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.

So in that regard anything that we will learn becomes science.To deny science is to propagate ignorance and misunderstandings.

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by badmedia

 

I beg to differ there is nothing science cant explain.We may not understand the science involved yet.But that doesn't mean there isn't science to explain it.Just the act of understanding creates the science.

Heres the first definition in Websters dictionary:

1:The state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.

So in that regard anything that we will learn becomes science.To deny science is to propagate ignorance and misunderstandings.

I'm not against Science, I have said before there are 2 realms here and science is best suited for understanding the universe itself.

But there are things which are beyond science and logic, and science is never going to touch that, and in fact is the one that ignores it and propagates ignorance when a scientist would try to make what you claim.

In my experience, the majority of scientists I hear actually don't make the above claim themselves and understand that there could be no science without the scientist(observer, that which can reason and understand).

Logic/Science is the realm of action and reaction.

Philosophy is the realm of reason and understanding.

If what you say is true, then riddle me this. How can science even include "choice" at all in what it does, when the very action of choice means it is not repeatable in a lab and such.

reply to post by badmedia


Badmedia when you refer to "Free Will" and "Choice" I take it you mean for humans?

There IS an explanation for what you think of as "Free Will".

It is simple One's and Zero's. Everything gets broken down to a one or zero. Every single choice is one of yes or no. Maybe is just a postponement or a yes or a no.

Every choice that you consider Free Will is just a Yes or No question.

A One or a Zero.

Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers
reply to post by badmedia

 

Badmedia when you refer to "Free Will" and "Choice" I take it you mean for humans?

There IS an explanation for what you think of as "Free Will".

It is simple One's and Zero's. Everything gets broken down to a one or zero. Every single choice is one of yes or no. Maybe is just a postponement or a yes or a no.

Every choice that you consider Free Will is just a Yes or No question.

A One or a Zero.

If it is just a yes or no question, or 1 and 0, how do you logically take 1 over the other? How can it actually choose a 1 or 0, without you telling it which one to choose.

Defining a choice and actually making the choice are 2 different things.

I have said multiple times, I have no problem with providing the illusion of choice. But in the end I will know it didn't actually choose, it did what I programmed it to do.

"We now return you to your daily programming".

Do the tracks free the train, or do the tracks enslave the train? Might have heard this before, but the true answer is neither. The tracks merely provide the illusion of choice and the train will figure that out as soon as he decides to go in another direction and leave those tracks.

"Do the tracks free the train, or do the tracks enslave the train? Might have heard this before, but the true answer is neither. The tracks merely provide the illusion of choice and the train will figure that out as soon as he decides to go in another direction and leave those tracks." -Badmedia

Do these tracks help me or hinder me? Yes/No

Is there something outside these tracks? Yes/No

Will I be able to move if I leave the tracks or be stuck without a form of locomotive locomotion (pun shoots SCORES!) Yes/No

EVERYTHING is a Yes/No 1/0 question.





[edit on 14-7-2009 by TurkeyBurgers]

reply to post by badmedia


We are all programed at a very young age. What to eat... how to talk.... what to wear. We see and mimic everything our parents do. Soon Computers will be able to computate as many If/then statements as the human mind.

"Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner. For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and greater works than these will He show Him, that you may marvel. For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. For not even the Father judges any one, but He has given all judgment to the Son, in order that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into Judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear shall live. For Just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; those who did the good deeds, to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment."

The causal structure that creates life, the life it creates, and the pure desire for understanding that allows us to see it.




[edit on 14-7-2009 by Wertdagf]

reply to post by Wertdagf


I do not doubt that one day computers will mimic humans. But they will always be slave to the logic which is given to it from the programmer.

The problem is not getting the illusion of a choice being made. I do that every single day, and my programs make smart choices in what they do. Because it is following the logic that I gave it.

A good part of my job is the collection and selling of data and being the middle man as much as possible. I have a program that does all this work and the system is 100% automated. It will connect with other networks, get information, bids and so forth, and then it will use that information and decide which one actually gets the information. I also buy information from other companies when I know I am able to resell that information to another buyer, and the program/system does that as well. If it knows it can not resell the information for a profit, then it does not buy at all.

It handles millions of dollars in transactions a year, and I don't have to do anything, unless I want to get it to do more. Otherwise, I just sit back and watch(honestly work on other stuff too etc).

It does all those things, faster and cheaper than is humanly possible for every a group of 20 people. It does intelligent things, and is a form of artificial intelligence.

I also work on poker AI as a hobby. It memorizes hands and the peoples hands and generates statistics in order to do what it plays, as well as some "random" generations which determine a style and % range in which it plays. Gives the illusion of making a choice. But I know it is not actually doing it, it's only following the logic that I have given it directly.

Both do many great things, and many more things are possible. The ability to put the logic we come up with into something that will carry out that logic is a huge advancement in things that are possible. If you can come up with the logic to do it, then you can put that in a machine that will carry out and follow that logic 100% and without argument. They will end up doing many wonderful things, and it is the "future".

But it is incapable of coming up with it's own logic. Even if you have a it repeat every possible pattern using pseudo random numbers you would hit on logical things. But without something to realize it is logical, the program itself has no clue that what it has generated is anymore logical than the ones that weren't.

Maybe you are just a program as such. I honestly have no way of knowing because it is possible to create that illusion. You could have no real idea what I mean by being that which observes, and you could simply by AI yourself. Any logic you speak may very well have been programmed into you. And I'll be honest, it would probably explain alot of things in the world about why people look towards authority and credibility rather than what they understand, as they do not actually understand anything.

So maybe you are that. But I know I am not. I don't really think you are either, but it is surely possible that you are.

As for your bible quote, you have turned that into father as meaning like you biological dad that you copy as a child. The father is within, and is the father within that makes those things possible.

My flesh is of this world, it is incapable of all these things on it's own. It is only because of the father within that "I" am able to exist, and only because of the father that is within that I have free will, choice, and the ability to create and come up with logic. 2 realms, what is flesh is flesh and what is spirit is spirit.

Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers

"Do the tracks free the train, or do the tracks enslave the train? Might have heard this before, but the true answer is neither. The tracks merely provide the illusion of choice and the train will figure that out as soon as he decides to go in another direction and leave those tracks." -Badmedia

Do these tracks help me or hinder me? Yes/No

Is there something outside these tracks? Yes/No

Will I be able to move if I leave the tracks or be stuck without a form of locomotive locomotion (pun shoots SCORES!) Yes/No

EVERYTHING is a Yes/No 1/0 question.

Honestly not sure what part of "illusion" you didn't understand in regards to the train.

Logic is yes/no. Action and reaction(if/then). Reason and understanding are not the same thing.

Really not sure what else I can say. You seem to think I don't understand logic or something, and you keep trying to prove logic. You simply do not at all understand what I am talking about, and there is really nothing I can do about that.

Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers

"Do the tracks free the train, or do the tracks enslave the train? Might have heard this before, but the true answer is neither. The tracks merely provide the illusion of choice and the train will figure that out as soon as he decides to go in another direction and leave those tracks." -Badmedia

Do these tracks help me or hinder me? Yes/No

Is there something outside these tracks? Yes/No

Will I be able to move if I leave the tracks or be stuck without a form of locomotive locomotion (pun shoots SCORES!) Yes/No

EVERYTHING is a Yes/No 1/0 question.





[edit on 14-7-2009 by TurkeyBurgers]

Again you are seeing things black and white.in actuality there is always at least 3 choices. you can turn left turn right and the 3rd is always to not choose, computers are not a good analogy of human behavior because we can always add different options to the equation.

This is way even big blue still managed to loose in chess because computers May be able to compute millions of moves evaluate the likely moves but a human may take a totally different tactic. Big blue lost because it thought it was winning not realizing the pieces were being sacrificed to win the game. Life is just not that simple.

I am actually confused of even what you believe. Just spell it out for me so I do not get the wrong idea here.

Are you saying that there exists inside of you a
Soul? Spirit? Indescribable Entity? Magical Force?

Explain to me what is the "Observer". This is the wording I am getting really confused on.

I would think that Humans are slaves to logic in that our processors (our brains) programming have rules that they follow.

reply to post by dragonridr


Chess is not Infinite. There is a certain number of pieces. There is a certain number of squares. There are a certain number of possible moves. The goal is to have every single move plotted out and to be able to be analyzed faster and faster.

Kind of like "War Games" with Mathew Broderick. The computer was playing itself in Tic-Tac-Toe.

It did not take long to plot out every single move in the game. That is the true goal of Chess Computing. To be able to instantly compare every single possible move to every other move at the same time.

The number is FRIGGIN HIGH but I tell you it is not infinite!

I agree with you in that there is three choices. Left Right and NOT to choose.

BUT each choice is in itself a choice. Left is a Yes/No Right is a Yes/No Not Deciding is a Yes/No

reply to post by TurkeyBurgers


I'm saying there is a difference between what observes and what is being observed. A different between a thought and the thinker. A difference between following logic, and understanding logic.

As for the observer part, are you familiar with quantum physics at all? If not, I'll hunt some links up for you. That would probably be helpful for you.

And I am telling you god is within you. You look out there for him, or "proof" of him, when all along it was inside you and is you.

reply to post by badmedia


So you are saying that you are observing things. I fail to see how observation does not follow a set of rules or laws.

Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers
reply to post by badmedia

 

So you are saying that you are observing things. I fail to see how observation does not follow a set of rules or laws.

Perception does, that which is perceiving does not.

reply to post by badmedia


Perceiving has a definition and Perception has a definition. A set of rules or variables that can be accomplished through logic or programming.

Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers
reply to post by badmedia

 

Perceiving has a definition and Perception has a definition. A set of rules or variables that can be accomplished through logic or programming.

Well God has a definition, so I guess you just proved god.

Perceiving is not that which perceives.

I'm really kind of tired of running around in circles with you. You either get what I'm saying, or you don't. As you don't understand me, then you are unable to perceive what I am talking about.

None of the things you say can be done, nor have they been done or proven/shown in any way. I don't have much patience for people who live on blind faith/beliefs and refuse understanding.







[edit on 7/14/2009 by badmedia]

reply to post by badmedia


And with that friend I will leave the thread. I believe we have hit an impasse where neither one of us is going to be able to properly convey what they mean.

Before any more miscommunication ruins our awesome conversation I will bid you a fond farewell.