Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Primitive
The evolution of god war rages on.....but I think I figured it out....the reason so many Americans refuse to believe in evolution.
They can't, they are intellectually incapable.
Check out this comment from blaze.....
If one reads the Spanda Karikas or Pratyabhinyahrdyam of Kashmir Shaivism, it is easy to see how “intelligent design” is a functional description. Since all is prana at the essence and prana itself is “intelligent” (or, at least (most) conscious) there is enough room for all that is in or out of our philosophy or religion.
The problem occurs when we assume a Creator God who built this organic mechanism like a computer sim and then left us to our stumbling ways.
Many quantum physicists tell us that the more they learn, the more is does seem like there is an intelligent force behind it. Then they tell us that force seems equivalent to the dance of Shiva.
Hinduism, Buddhism and Sufism all incorporate this concept.... wahdat al wujud, the unity of existance, prana, universalism.
So Wright is correct, the christian god has evolved...he just hasn't evolved enough. The christian god is basically mechanistic and ......primitive.
That is why teh fierce opposition to science in general and ToE in particular in this country.
My response.....blaze, imho the problem is that the xian concept of god is immature…umm…. underdeveloped.
sufism, hinduism and buddhism all incorporate universalism. The concept of universalism is antipathic to evangelical xianity, and antipathic to the concept of man as the center of the universe and the pinnacle of creation.
In sufism the universe surrounds and incorporates us; wahdat al-wujud, the unity of existance and maarifa, the Invisible World.
Stu Hamerhoff and Sir Roger Penrose are quantum physicists that postulate a “platonic substrate” existing on the border of the quantum and classical worlds.
Roger Penrose’s Road to Reality may be THE preeminant text on QM in the world.
The new domain of Social Brain Research is exploring concepts inherent in buddhism and sufism and hinduism……there is no peer-to-peer mapping for these concepts in xianity that I am aware of.— matoko_chan · Sep 15, 02:34 PM · #
The mechanistic god of the christians....a biological tweaker/planner that simply HAS to be mucking around with cell biology tweaking evolution....it is the limit of what christians can understand.
// posted by Matoko Kusanagi @ 4:14 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
I think its good that the different cults argue about which of their non-existent gods is the right one.
A non-believer like me has a deep need to know which god not to believe in.
Stu Hamerhoff and Sir Roger Penrose are quantum physicists that postulate a “platonic substrate” existing on the border of the quantum and classical worlds.
Roger Penrose’s Road to Reality may be THE preeminant text on QM in the world.
You should check this kind of research that may be about to settle for once and for all the viability of Penrose's model:
Behold Schrodinger's Tardigrade
.
A non-believer like me has a deep need to know which god not to believe in.
Stu Hamerhoff and Sir Roger Penrose are quantum physicists that postulate a “platonic substrate” existing on the border of the quantum and classical worlds.
Roger Penrose’s Road to Reality may be THE preeminant text on QM in the world.
You should check this kind of research that may be about to settle for once and for all the viability of Penrose's model:
Behold Schrodinger's Tardigrade
.
But you should be aware that wave particle duality has already been demonstrated in large biomolecules, and flourofullerines.
Check also the articles on Thermal Decoherence and Collisional Decoherence indexed in the left border of that link.
At the moment the Standard Model is still looking good.
Check also the articles on Thermal Decoherence and Collisional Decoherence indexed in the left border of that link.
At the moment the Standard Model is still looking good.
"the concept of man as the center of the universe and the pinnacle of creation"
This was always an error on the part of the Christians. The correct pagan interpretation is that 'man is the measure of all things' and that human suffering in-the-world (as agon) is the ground of excellence (or arete). These are the values which the 'One-God' attacked and pirated. In them is the germ of the West and of American Exceptionalism. Americans resist dogmatic reductionism because it is presented as fact and not as a valuable heuristic under certain ideal conditions. Keid may be right that there is a IQ barrier: two-digits who 'believe' in evolution are worse than Christians. From a Christian psyche it may be possible to recover the original Truth. For a nihilist without scientific training and courage there is no real hope- just functional sociopathology.
Penrose make a defensible case, but remember the only platonic truths on his account are tautologies lacking any information content. It is the germ-line, called Zoe by the ancients, which is the stuff of the Goddess-child.
My point being that universalism can be immanent as opposed to transcendent.
This was always an error on the part of the Christians. The correct pagan interpretation is that 'man is the measure of all things' and that human suffering in-the-world (as agon) is the ground of excellence (or arete). These are the values which the 'One-God' attacked and pirated. In them is the germ of the West and of American Exceptionalism. Americans resist dogmatic reductionism because it is presented as fact and not as a valuable heuristic under certain ideal conditions. Keid may be right that there is a IQ barrier: two-digits who 'believe' in evolution are worse than Christians. From a Christian psyche it may be possible to recover the original Truth. For a nihilist without scientific training and courage there is no real hope- just functional sociopathology.
Penrose make a defensible case, but remember the only platonic truths on his account are tautologies lacking any information content. It is the germ-line, called Zoe by the ancients, which is the stuff of the Goddess-child.
My point being that universalism can be immanent as opposed to transcendent.
'man is the measure of all things'
Yes. The empirical observer.
Dionysos, you may have met a person around the Web, calls himself "Caledonian". He is a philosopher.
He taught me an empirical interpretation of mathematics. I'll try to paraphrase it in my own words. I may not be able to do it justice. Any error is mine:
Mathematics is an experimental science.
Every mathematical theorem is a computational experiment run on a human brain-computer.
When I verify a theorem, I am actually running the proof as a computation experiment on my brain. The proof itself is the algorithm.
If I conclude that the proof goes through to completion, then the computation experiment has completed successfully.
Hence mathematical knowledge is really an empirical exploration of the logic space of the human brain.
The sum of mathematical truths is the sum of all mathematical proof algorithms that run to completion on a human brain.
We have no a-priori reason to believe that the mathematical theorems that we discover using brain experiments also apply in the wider world. Verifying which ones do, is a seperate empirical process, Natural Science (physics).
My point being that universalism can be immanent as opposed to transcendent.
One implication of scientism might be that the immanent evolves into the transcendent through discovering and following Nature's Tao.
That's why scientism is an optimistic philosophy/religion. Not nihilistic.
Yes. The empirical observer.
Dionysos, you may have met a person around the Web, calls himself "Caledonian". He is a philosopher.
He taught me an empirical interpretation of mathematics. I'll try to paraphrase it in my own words. I may not be able to do it justice. Any error is mine:
Mathematics is an experimental science.
Every mathematical theorem is a computational experiment run on a human brain-computer.
When I verify a theorem, I am actually running the proof as a computation experiment on my brain. The proof itself is the algorithm.
If I conclude that the proof goes through to completion, then the computation experiment has completed successfully.
Hence mathematical knowledge is really an empirical exploration of the logic space of the human brain.
The sum of mathematical truths is the sum of all mathematical proof algorithms that run to completion on a human brain.
We have no a-priori reason to believe that the mathematical theorems that we discover using brain experiments also apply in the wider world. Verifying which ones do, is a seperate empirical process, Natural Science (physics).
My point being that universalism can be immanent as opposed to transcendent.
One implication of scientism might be that the immanent evolves into the transcendent through discovering and following Nature's Tao.
That's why scientism is an optimistic philosophy/religion. Not nihilistic.
Pfft..I am simply explainin' the riddickulous high proportion of americans that deny ToE....it is because the xian god is underdeveloped and primitive and has no prana or wahdat al wujud.....xians only have the capacity to understand god as a mechanistic tweaker tinkering with DNA.
There are creationist movements in all of the Abrahamic traditions.
E.g. Harun Yahya with all his creationist books.
E.g. Harun Yahya with all his creationist books.
M: and I'm trying to point out that you are full of it. You are beating on a straw-man, and bragging about it. The ToE is a parsimonious set of assumptions which explains a great deal of variation. That's all. It cannot tell me who I am or how I ought to behave and it's a shallow friggin' fallacy to assume that those questions are meaningless (even for two-digits), and then to claim victory. Yes, mechanism is a silly world-view taken to extremes, but its not as if the Christians started it.
Funny Keid, I am backwards w.r.t. to you and the Caledonian (btw, I don't get out much). I view proof as a social activity that for many centuries confirmed the rough outline of Newtonian physics in our brain as germ-line inheritance and the consequence of locally homogeneous conditions during development (call it epigenesis). So for me, 'a priori' just means hardwired. The 'logic space of the brain' is meaningless to me without the context in which it functions. Hence, while I cannot rule out the possibility of transcendence, it exerts less fascination for me as I learn to love the body (something the monotheists have tried to take from us; call it corporeal egoism). Also my suspicions about transhumanism- not that you are necessarily pathological, but plenty of others are.
For the record, I admit to drunk-posting.
Funny Keid, I am backwards w.r.t. to you and the Caledonian (btw, I don't get out much). I view proof as a social activity that for many centuries confirmed the rough outline of Newtonian physics in our brain as germ-line inheritance and the consequence of locally homogeneous conditions during development (call it epigenesis). So for me, 'a priori' just means hardwired. The 'logic space of the brain' is meaningless to me without the context in which it functions. Hence, while I cannot rule out the possibility of transcendence, it exerts less fascination for me as I learn to love the body (something the monotheists have tried to take from us; call it corporeal egoism). Also my suspicions about transhumanism- not that you are necessarily pathological, but plenty of others are.
For the record, I admit to drunk-posting.
The metalogic of mathematics is a set of rules for symbol manipulation - So called Formal Logic.
Viewed as an abstract system, the calculus of Formal Logic forms an axiomatic system known as a Boolean lattice.
The lattice of propositions of a physical system (all possible yes/no experiments) is Boolean only for Classical Newtonian Mechanics.
Quantum Mechanics is different, because it admits both compatible and incompatible observables.
So Quantum sysems obey a Non-Boolean propositional lattice.
[A possible alternative is known as "Weak Modularity".
See JM Jauch: Foundations of Quantum Mechanics].
A possible reason we seem to have an innate Boolean logic, is because we evolved in a universe that is approximately Newtonian at our scale.
This may also be the reason why Quantum Mechanics is literally "unimaginable" for most of us.
Viewed as an abstract system, the calculus of Formal Logic forms an axiomatic system known as a Boolean lattice.
The lattice of propositions of a physical system (all possible yes/no experiments) is Boolean only for Classical Newtonian Mechanics.
Quantum Mechanics is different, because it admits both compatible and incompatible observables.
So Quantum sysems obey a Non-Boolean propositional lattice.
[A possible alternative is known as "Weak Modularity".
See JM Jauch: Foundations of Quantum Mechanics].
A possible reason we seem to have an innate Boolean logic, is because we evolved in a universe that is approximately Newtonian at our scale.
This may also be the reason why Quantum Mechanics is literally "unimaginable" for most of us.
Exactly, up to a point. Have you read much Wittgenstein Keid? His Tractatus-Logico-Philosophicus covers some very similar themes with an interpretation that has largely been either overlooked or misunderstood. Even though W is worshiped as one of the preeminent philosophers of the 20th cent.. Susan Sterret actually figured out what he was up to: it has to do with the theory of generalized functions and invariants from statistical thermodynamics. Published as "Wittgenstein Flies a Kite". Of course, W spent the remainder of his philosophical career demolishing that same world-view. Funny, eh?
It has also occurred to me (with the help of Robert Graves) that True Poetry functions via a psycho-linguistic equivalent of the superposition principle. Which is why I hold out the possibility (against my better judgment) that Penrose may not only be correct, but is only scratching the surface.
It has also occurred to me (with the help of Robert Graves) that True Poetry functions via a psycho-linguistic equivalent of the superposition principle. Which is why I hold out the possibility (against my better judgment) that Penrose may not only be correct, but is only scratching the surface.
No I have never read Wittgenstein. My background is more physics than philosophy.
The reason I am so cautious at this point about drawing terribly deep conclusions, is that the whole question about the boundary between observers, QM, and CM is still a wide open question to me.
There are deep unresolved problems there. Not exactly Woo-Woo stuff, but deep all the same.
So right now, what I seek most is more and more clever experiments. We need to probe this boundary. And we need guidance from nature to figure this out.
The reason I am so cautious at this point about drawing terribly deep conclusions, is that the whole question about the boundary between observers, QM, and CM is still a wide open question to me.
There are deep unresolved problems there. Not exactly Woo-Woo stuff, but deep all the same.
So right now, what I seek most is more and more clever experiments. We need to probe this boundary. And we need guidance from nature to figure this out.
Quit scolding meh....I just think the primitive anthropomorphic mechanistic xian god is the cause of a lot of the leftside of the bellcurves grief.
And a colossal waste of time.
We can just admit it and move on to more interesting things.
Prana, wu-ji, wahdat al wujud, anatta, sunyata, w/e.
Those are the evolutions of god we should be debating....the xian god is dead....ToE killed him.
And a colossal waste of time.
We can just admit it and move on to more interesting things.
Prana, wu-ji, wahdat al wujud, anatta, sunyata, w/e.
Those are the evolutions of god we should be debating....the xian god is dead....ToE killed him.
And Dio, the premise that Man is the pinnacle result of a directed MES is my target....free will is very debatable still.
Thus ToE is the stake in the heart of the xian god, that primitive mechanistic biology tweaker.
;)
Thus ToE is the stake in the heart of the xian god, that primitive mechanistic biology tweaker.
;)
There is nothing to debate. Nature is All.
There is nothing outside nature because nature doesn't have an outside.
There is nothing outside nature because nature doesn't have an outside.
lol, we can't debate free will or quantum decoherence or alien lifeforms or theory of consciousness?
/sadface
/sadface
Consciousness is natural. Nature is more subtle than you think.
I believe freewill is an illusion. At some level the brain computes everything it knows thinks or does.
We are not conscious of most of it. So to our subjective reflection, our decisions seem "free" - cause unknown.
I believe freewill is an illusion. At some level the brain computes everything it knows thinks or does.
We are not conscious of most of it. So to our subjective reflection, our decisions seem "free" - cause unknown.
How to get reliable knowledge of the universe?
Read the arguments found here reg. the existence of an Intelligent Creator: bloganders.blogspot.com (left menu)
Formal logic and science are a good foundation to base one's worldview
Read the arguments found here reg. the existence of an Intelligent Creator: bloganders.blogspot.com (left menu)
Formal logic and science are a good foundation to base one's worldview
Anders, we get reliable knowledge of the world by experiment on it and by observation of it.
We know it is reliable because the technologies we create based on our knowledge work.
e.g. When I turn on the light switch the light goes on.
We know it is reliable because the technologies we create based on our knowledge work.
e.g. When I turn on the light switch the light goes on.
I looked briefly at the article you referenced Anders.
I suggest that it would be helpful to you if you studied physics and cosmology in greater depth.
Briefly: Our universe had a beginning. In many models, the wider cosmos (multiverse) did not.
You should also be aware that it is not true that everything in nature has a cause.
Many quantum phenomena, like radioactive decay, are causeless. They occur spontaneously, randomly, without any external cause.
I suggest that it would be helpful to you if you studied physics and cosmology in greater depth.
Briefly: Our universe had a beginning. In many models, the wider cosmos (multiverse) did not.
You should also be aware that it is not true that everything in nature has a cause.
Many quantum phenomena, like radioactive decay, are causeless. They occur spontaneously, randomly, without any external cause.
Sorry this is late, I've had reason to drink lately.
Agreed Major. What I am trying to point out is that the marriage of the Christian God and mechanism is of recent vintage, based on poor scholarship, and derives (in part, at least) form Newton's 'System of the World'. Leibnitz took the other side- materialistic without being mechanistic. L's ideas simply weren't vindicated until the mathematics for field theories could be developed and Einstein applied them. Likewise, the popular conception of ToE is generally mechanistic; and nobody today posits cells as primitive substance the way L did.
The other half of my point is that anthropomorphism had a radically different function in religion before the Christianization of Europe; from the Anon. Iamblichi:
"Further, I think even now that the exhortation through suggestions (tên dia tôn hypothêkôn protropên), which somehow approximate the guide for how it is necessary to lead a life, would not be out of place here, and that this especially indicates that the parts of discourse in accordance with philosophy are not disconnected, but are all continuous with one another. Thus according to this very method, we first begin from the most valuable [of the suggestions], that it is necessary to practice piety. But this would not come about, unless the one who worships becomes similar to the one who is worshiped, and there is nothing other than philosophy than can obtain this similarity."
Hidden beneath Christianity lies our true heritage, if we can but claim it. The rejection of a mechanistic ToE is a symptom of larger problems that need not necessarily develop into full blown anti-scientism.
Agreed Major. What I am trying to point out is that the marriage of the Christian God and mechanism is of recent vintage, based on poor scholarship, and derives (in part, at least) form Newton's 'System of the World'. Leibnitz took the other side- materialistic without being mechanistic. L's ideas simply weren't vindicated until the mathematics for field theories could be developed and Einstein applied them. Likewise, the popular conception of ToE is generally mechanistic; and nobody today posits cells as primitive substance the way L did.
The other half of my point is that anthropomorphism had a radically different function in religion before the Christianization of Europe; from the Anon. Iamblichi:
"Further, I think even now that the exhortation through suggestions (tên dia tôn hypothêkôn protropên), which somehow approximate the guide for how it is necessary to lead a life, would not be out of place here, and that this especially indicates that the parts of discourse in accordance with philosophy are not disconnected, but are all continuous with one another. Thus according to this very method, we first begin from the most valuable [of the suggestions], that it is necessary to practice piety. But this would not come about, unless the one who worships becomes similar to the one who is worshiped, and there is nothing other than philosophy than can obtain this similarity."
Hidden beneath Christianity lies our true heritage, if we can but claim it. The rejection of a mechanistic ToE is a symptom of larger problems that need not necessarily develop into full blown anti-scientism.
No Dio.
xianity is an evolutionary dead end.
ToE killed the xian DNA tweaker god.
prana and attana and miraafa and wu-ji are the fabric the new god is made of.
the xian god is as dead as Enki.
xianity is an evolutionary dead end.
ToE killed the xian DNA tweaker god.
prana and attana and miraafa and wu-ji are the fabric the new god is made of.
the xian god is as dead as Enki.
It goes further than that Shams.
Traditional Christology is manifestly falsified by evolution. Death and suffering did not enter the world through the sin of Man.
The fossils prove that death was here before Man. EVERY FOSSIL IS A DEAD ORGANISM. So death and suffering preceded the "Fall". If there was no Fall then why do we need a Saviour?
Truth of the matter is....We Waz Framed. Death and suffering was not our fault. We did not cause it. We inherited it from our prehuman ancestors.
God's "perfect creation" contained Death and Suffering from the start. If he created it, then it was part of his original Plan.
"Whither goest-thou Gilgamesh?
The life thou seekest, thou shalt NOT find.
When the gods made the world,
Death for Man they did decree;
Keeping Life in their own hands.
Do the things we build last forever?"
- The Epic
And indeed, that is what the GeneGods did. The mortal soma is built to die. Only the germline is immortal.
Traditional Christology is manifestly falsified by evolution. Death and suffering did not enter the world through the sin of Man.
The fossils prove that death was here before Man. EVERY FOSSIL IS A DEAD ORGANISM. So death and suffering preceded the "Fall". If there was no Fall then why do we need a Saviour?
Truth of the matter is....We Waz Framed. Death and suffering was not our fault. We did not cause it. We inherited it from our prehuman ancestors.
God's "perfect creation" contained Death and Suffering from the start. If he created it, then it was part of his original Plan.
"Whither goest-thou Gilgamesh?
The life thou seekest, thou shalt NOT find.
When the gods made the world,
Death for Man they did decree;
Keeping Life in their own hands.
Do the things we build last forever?"
- The Epic
And indeed, that is what the GeneGods did. The mortal soma is built to die. Only the germline is immortal.
prana and attana and miraafa and wu-ji are the fabric the new god is made of.
Terrific! That means I can ignore it.
Terrific! That means I can ignore it.
Maybe there was a time when I found that kind of thing intriguing. Late teens - early twenties.
I explored it for a while, but in the end I came to believe that it was a sterile path, and only reason and natural science could take me where I really wanted to go.
I don't believe I will ever go back. I have found my Tao.
I explored it for a while, but in the end I came to believe that it was a sterile path, and only reason and natural science could take me where I really wanted to go.
I don't believe I will ever go back. I have found my Tao.
Unless, of course, science itself leads us there one day. Then I will believe in it.
So you can't say never.
So you can't say never.
The christian god is basically mechanistic and ......primitive.
Not to defend Christianity Shams, but I think you are missing the point. Sophistication in the absence of hard evidence is not a virtue. For all you know its the most primitive religion that is true.
How do you know the Gods don't want us to cut out human hearts on top of a pyramid in Mexico?
I just don't find the theologians' sophistications any more compelling than the simplest cults.
i.e. It's all bullshit really, and the theologians' sophistries are just bullshit squared.
Personally, given the choice, I prefer the more gentle naive pagan religions. At least they have a rustic charm - They are natural spontaneous systems.
Poetically there's no contest. IMHO. Any natural pagan religion leaves the theologians' complex metaphysical schemes for dead.
One of the biggest reasons I loathe the Abrahamic religions is their carefully structured artificiality. To me they are ALL theologians' religions.
Not to defend Christianity Shams, but I think you are missing the point. Sophistication in the absence of hard evidence is not a virtue. For all you know its the most primitive religion that is true.
How do you know the Gods don't want us to cut out human hearts on top of a pyramid in Mexico?
I just don't find the theologians' sophistications any more compelling than the simplest cults.
i.e. It's all bullshit really, and the theologians' sophistries are just bullshit squared.
Personally, given the choice, I prefer the more gentle naive pagan religions. At least they have a rustic charm - They are natural spontaneous systems.
Poetically there's no contest. IMHO. Any natural pagan religion leaves the theologians' complex metaphysical schemes for dead.
One of the biggest reasons I loathe the Abrahamic religions is their carefully structured artificiality. To me they are ALL theologians' religions.
So for me religion has its strongest appeal, when it is innocent, naive, gentle, close to nature and humanity, and deeply poetic.
What I detest is the pretentious sophistry and pseudo-intellectualism of the theologians and the priests.
If they were REAL intellectuals, they'd be scientists.
What I detest is the pretentious sophistry and pseudo-intellectualism of the theologians and the priests.
If they were REAL intellectuals, they'd be scientists.
Hope this one links to the right image.
So Sydney awoke this morning to a blood-red sky.
(Clue: Freakish dust storm + sunrise = blood red).
So Sydney awoke this morning to a blood-red sky.
(Clue: Freakish dust storm + sunrise = blood red).
No, it looks like they keep changing the gallery around.
This is the actual image I wanted to link:
http://images.smh.com.au/2009/
09/23/747568/kate2-600x400.jpg
This is the actual image I wanted to link:
http://images.smh.com.au/2009/
09/23/747568/kate2-600x400.jpg
Shams,
UC Santa Barbara Physicists have demonstrated Bell's violations in superconducting qubit circuits.
This is very important for expanding the limits on quantum entanglement into the macroscopic realm. This result supports standard Q.Theory.
Post a Comment
UC Santa Barbara Physicists have demonstrated Bell's violations in superconducting qubit circuits.
This is very important for expanding the limits on quantum entanglement into the macroscopic realm. This result supports standard Q.Theory.
<< Home
