Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Pogo]

For instance try to address my oft repeated assertion that "all observed change in life is sudden" without saying "no, it isn't". Give me one exception supported by experiment and not based on a belief system. You can't do it which is why I keep repeating it.

It is still in my stack so here it is again.

I could believe as you do that there is some sort of instantaneous/sudden change in all things, but this experiment would cause me to question my belief, not insist as you do that it didn't really happen.

You are more than welcome to demonstrate to us that our concept of gradual change based on observations such as this is false, but simply stating that it is so because it is your belief system won't cut it.

 

[cladking]

Yes that is the generally accepted version of formal logic (not science), the problem here is that you do all of this in your head without external reference. secondarily, you seem to have no mechanism to deal with conditions where your conclusions do not comport with observations.

Thank you. I can see how it seems this way.

But it seems this way only because I am so far away from doctrine and got to this place from a totally different direction. It's hard enough to describe where I am without also describing the routes I took and the many dead ends I encountered. I'm at right angles to doctrine who arrived at the left hand of proper conclusions. I didn't interpret or weight experiment the same way they did. I cite experiment and always try to define how my interpretations and extrapolation differ. I also rely heavily on anecdotal evidence but use this only for road signs to try to keep on the straight and narrow not to gain new ground or prove existing hypotheses. I employ thousands of informal experiments but rarely mention these because they do not have the rigor of proper experiment. Many of strengths are difficult to even define for others because they begin with intuition created from short cuts of thought and an innate ability to ponder things such that most variables cancel one another. It's a few stupid human tricks that I retained and honed from my youth. Things like just knowing what day of the week that April 13th, 1907 fell on isn't intelligence or rocket science, it's a stupid human trick. An ancient Roman making a device to show when eclipses will occur isn't genius or science, it was a stupid human trick. How many people would understand his explanation for how he knew and how he counted gear teeth to make it work?

I have left a trail of bread crumbs just in case I had to get back someday or someone was foolish enough to follow.

Many of my assumptions are simply very different. One of the first things I learned was that formal "logic" is utter nonsense. Whether it rings true or not every word in modern languages can be parsed and have a different meaning. Whether it's apparent or not no two humans have the same models and the same definitions for any word at at.

How can I describe the route from doctrine when that road is far enough away that I need glasses to see it? All I can do is show how doctrine emerged and exactly where it went wrong. I can show every wrong turn for centuries.

 

[Pogo]

Thank you. I can see how it seems this way.

But it seems this way only because I am so far away from doctrine and got to this place from a totally different direction. It's hard enough to describe where I am without also describing the routes I took and the many dead ends I encountered. I'm at right angles to doctrine who arrived at the left hand of proper conclusions. I didn't interpret or weight experiment the same way they did. I cite experiment and always try to define how my interpretations and extrapolation differ. I also rely heavily on anecdotal evidence but use this only for road signs to try to keep on the straight and narrow not to gain new ground or prove existing hypotheses. I employ thousands of informal experiments but rarely mention these because they do not have the rigor of proper experiment. Many of strengths are difficult to even define for others because they begin with intuition created from short cuts of thought and an innate ability to ponder things such that most variables cancel one another. It's a few stupid human tricks that I retained and honed from my youth. Things like just knowing what day of the week that April 13th, 1907 fell on isn't intelligence or rocket science, it's a stupid human trick. An ancient Roman making a device to show when eclipses will occur isn't genius or science, it was a stupid human trick. How many people would understand his explanation for how he knew and how he counted gear teeth to make it work?

I have left a trail of bread crumbs just in case I had to get back someday or someone was foolish enough to follow.

Many of my assumptions are simply very different. One of the first things I learned was that formal "logic" is utter nonsense. Whether it rings true or not every word in modern languages can be parsed and have a different meaning. Whether it's apparent or not no two humans have the same models and the same definitions for any word at at.

How can I describe the route from doctrine when that road is far enough away that I need glasses to see it? All I can do is show how doctrine emerged and exactly where it went wrong. I can show every wrong turn for centuries.

So in other words, which won't mean the same to you as they do to the other 8 billion -1, you are somehow granted an ability that no-one else has and furthermore we will never be able to understand it because we cannot do the appropriate experiments in our heads and thus rely on what we see which is only a result of our belief while your belief is true. We also seem incapable of grasping the meaning/definition of the terms of your erudition.

I guess that leaves us at an impass, you can't communicate with us and we can't communicate with you since we do not already share beliefs.
I should also note that while my collection of symbols may indicate similar things to many of the 8 billion, I have no reason to assume that any of these symbol collections have any meaning to your enlightened state.

Maybe as I have asked you before, you can provide us with a translational dictionary?

 

[cladking]

You have a large set of assumptions/axioms,

I have far fewer assumptions than anyone else.

Essentially all my assumptions boil down to "all people make sense all the time". All science has dozens of assumptions and evolutionary science hundreds of them.

 

[cladking]

Maybe beacause metaphysics has been discarded as a source of useful knowledge, your disagreement not withstanding.

I am defining "metaphysics" as the "basis of science". This means all the assumptions and experiments.

 

[cladking]

But I would be curious as to how and why you dismiss this fairly simple experiment in contradiction to your assertion.
Sequencing has also been done to show the individual changes as well as other follow ups.

You are misinterpreting results.

 

[cladking]

Maybe as I have asked you before, you can provide us with a translational dictionary?

History shows it's not worth the effort.

I define terms until I'm blue in the face and they are still parsed otherwise.

 

[Pogo]

I have far fewer assumptions than anyone else.

Essentially all my assumptions boil down to "all people make sense all the time". All science has dozens of assumptions and evolutionary science hundreds of them.

And what does that mean to the rest of us 8 billion. Is this a personal variation on nihilism where nothing means anything or anything means everything?

Of what use is this assumption and how does one use it in regards to others?

 

[Pogo]

I am defining "metaphysics" as the "basis of science". This means all the assumptions and experiments.

Yes we have heard that, but what does all the assumptions and experiments mean if to you it means people make sense? How does that relate to the rest of us.

 

[cladking]

Yes we have heard that, but what does all the assumptions and experiments mean if to you it means people make sense? How does that relate to the rest of us.

Everybody makes sense all the time in terms of their premises. Once you accept this simple truism (axiomatically) then you realize that you always need to understand their premises to understand their words. People are wrong a lot because we are easily misled either through happenstance or intent. Our eyes and minds play tricks on us but we are each always striving to see clearly because this is part of making sense. Since they make sense reality is that of which they strive to make sense. It is a reality seen through the prism of what it means to be homo omnisciencis. New knowledge often seems to make no sense but then we reorganize the way we think and it does. It doesn't seem as though a butterfly in China can cause a hurricane until we get used to it and then we realize that this is the nature of reality itself. It is chaotic and unpredictable. Every event has an infinite number of possible outcomes and every event lays the foundation of every future event. There is no mechanical universe and all things affect all other things all the time in real time. Reality is infinitely complex and no matter how many time you flip a coin every outcome has exactly the same chance of occurring including a million heads in a row.

In a world where we see what we expect it's only natural for everybody to reason in circles. Logic can't stop it because without even understanding consciousness it's impossible to understand logic and there's no such thing as inductive logic. Only experiment can ever stop us from spinning our wheels or putting the horse strapped in front of the cart from going into the ditch. We believe we see reality because we see what we expect but we rarely can even see the most obvious anomalies. We dismiss all the evidence to the contrary and never notice that communication rarely exceeds "Very Poor". We never realize that if we were even one millionth as smart as we think we are we could make predictions.

 

[cladking]

By itself the assumption means little but you'll soon make many corollaries like experiment helps people see reality and then you can incorporate experiment into your new science.

I got in such a habit of seeking premises that I foolishly thought I could deduce the premises of the pyramid builders by scientifically analyzing their writing known as the Pyramid Texts. I didn't know better but if Egyptology had been right about this being a book of incantation I'd have most probably failed. But in looking for premises I stumbled on the meaning. Had I been less ignorant I would never have tried it. It was the perfect storm of search engines, near total ignorance, and a belief that all people make sense that led to my discovery that they were a different species and we are stinky footed bumpkins who believe they know everything.

Just like me the pyramid builders used no taxonomies and were leery of abstractions. My science was based on peoples beliefs and theirs on peoples experiences as it affected language. Their science was natural mine was naturally lazy. Theirs was based on logic as was mine. Our sciences were eerily similar so solving a metaphysical language through deduction while reverse engineering the pyramids came naturally to me. I'm pretty good at reverse engineering all sorts of machines, events, and processes. It's my best stupid human trick. Well, that, and knowing what people believe based on what they say.

Again, it is not a good idea for anyone to follow in my footsteps, but I believe it is critically important to the survival of our species that we train some individuals to look for the big picture; nexialism. I believe the species will become extinct through consumption if we don't. We waste everything we don't consume and and only a tiny percentage of human effort and wealth go to progress. The vast majority of everything produced simply is of no value at all to the human species. Everything homo sapiens did promoted life or progress. We destroy. We waste. We usually aren't even trying. Economies depend on waste and people get wealthy on inventing new waste.

If you assume people make sense it becomes apparent that our premises are quite often quite flawed. Darwin's premises are such. Our species is not the crown of creation and there's no such thing as "intelligence". There's clever, there's quick witted, and there are all manner of stupid human tricks and, no, I am not the stupidest human even if it often seems I'm in the running.

 

[cladking]

Of what use is this assumption and how does one use it in regards to others?

Please disregard; copy of another post;


By itself the assumption means little but you'll soon make many corollaries like experiment helps people see reality and then you can incorporate experiment into your new science.

I got in such a habit of seeking premises that I foolishly thought I could deduce the premises of the pyramid builders by scientifically analyzing their writing known as the Pyramid Texts. I didn't know better but if Egyptology had been right about this being a book of incantation I'd have most probably failed. But in looking for premises I stumbled on the meaning. Had I been less ignorant I would never have tried it. It was the perfect storm of search engines, near total ignorance, and a belief that all people make sense that led to my discovery that they were a different species and we are stinky footed bumpkins who believe they know everything.

Just like me the pyramid builders used no taxonomies and were leery of abstractions. My science was based on peoples beliefs and theirs on peoples experiences as it affected language. Their science was natural mine was naturally lazy. Theirs was based on logic as was mine. Our sciences were eerily similar so solving a metaphysical language through deduction while reverse engineering the pyramids came naturally to me. I'm pretty good at reverse engineering all sorts of machines, events, and processes. It's my best stupid human trick.




This post was damaged by the software. I recopied it and deleted it in the original position. Things have been acting up all day.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

When you use reason and experiment to arrive at an answer it will be correct if your assumptions are also correct.

You said that all of your reasoning was circular, which means that it is never correct.

Imhotep was smarter and knew more about everything than the abstraction we call "the calculus". Imhotep could never learn modern math because he'd be stopped from even counting past the number 1.

So then he was too great a mathematician to count past one? Maybe he was stuck in an infinite series with a limit of 1: 1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+....?

And what is that counterexample.

You don't remember the counterexample I provided wherein a certain ancient Greek did science just by observing without setting up experiments? This is from 11/11 and 11/12:

You: "Have I ever mentioned that without experiment there is no science. Not only did Thales have no experiment he hadn't even thought of it. No science."

Me: "Yet Thales did science. He observed and collated celestial data then generated correct inductions confirmed by other observations. Yes science."

That's an example of science based only in observation with no active experiments. I expect you to ignore that again. Why should it be different this time?

All I hear is believers saying they've proved points while never addressing a single word uttered by non believers. You have nothing again.

You're not paying attention to their responses. You missed mine above twice now already.

This is the same discussion I have with Leroy.

But you can't cite one single experiment that supports gradual change through fitness.

Like astronomy, evolution is largely an observational science - not an experimental science.

Or maybe you're parsing the Bible wrong. Maybe you want to pick and choose what's literal and what's metaphoric. Maybe you pick wrong.

I gave you Christian Satan theology as it was taught to me when I was a believer.

For instance try to address my oft repeated assertion that "all observed change in life is sudden" without saying "no, it isn't". Give me one exception supported by experiment and not based on a belief system. You can't do it which is why I keep repeating it.

There you go again with experiment. The collision of two galaxies is not sudden. The evolution of the tree of life from a single ancestral population of unicellular creatures was not sudden. And regarding experiment, here we are again with these same two largely observational sciences - astronomy and evolution.

If we don't need experiment then why is it part of modern metaphysics?

Experiment is not a part of metaphysics.

And it's not about needing or not needing experiment. What we need are observations. Sometimes, those observations are of the results of experiments, and sometimes they come from observing nature absent any active manipulation of it (absent experiment).

Maybe believers in science need to reconsider what they are believing. And now this too will ignored.

I wasn't planning on ignoring it, but I'd like at least one of your predictions to be correct, so I will.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Oh!

Then how do you parse this sentence;

"Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science reveal."

That your perception (your senses) is subjective and is well known for playing tricks on you and being wrong. Much like your "common sense" and intuition.
Objective measurements, using tools not dependent on your subjective perception, give you more accurate results.

Etc

 

[cladking]

Me: "Yet Thales did science. He observed and collated celestial data then generated correct inductions confirmed by other observations. Yes science."

And you just quit listening as soon as I said it's a stupid human trick. Your mind is made up so at this point facts are just confusing. People can do all sorts of scientiffy things without experiment. It doesn't make it science. I used to be able to tell you what day of the week any date fell on and whether it was a leap year or not. You'd be surprised how few rules you need to remember to do this. And I can assure you many of the pyramid builders could do it as well. It's not science.

You're not paying attention to their responses. You missed mine above twice now already.

It's the believers missing things. You imagine your arguments and beliefs are airtight so you don't see other arguments.

There is no such thing as settled science and all the splitters prove there's no settled religion either.

Everything changes; suddenly.

I gave you Christian Satan theology as it was taught to me when I was a believer.

I don't believe in religion. I have deduced the meaning of "evil" through the confusion of ancient science and through Ancient Language. Perhaps My definition is unique but I don't care. It works for me.

Like astronomy, evolution is largely an observational science - not an experimental science.

Astronomy has numerous experiment equivalent observations. If you measure the speed of light on earth you can pretty much know what it is in space. If you see light bend around a star then you can be sure of several things. There are no experiments and precious few experiment like observations in Evolution. It is not really science but this doesn't mean biology isn't science and genetics isn't science. Darwin isn't science.

The collision of two galaxies is not sudden.

From the perspective of the lifespan of a galaxy is is nearly as sudden as a car crash involving a Galaxy.

Experiment is not a part of metaphysics.

It is by definition. My ignore list is almost empty.

 

[cladking]

Objective measurements, using tools not dependent on your subjective perception, give you more accurate results.

So you define "more accurate results" as "reality".

That might be fine for you but I'm trying to determine the nature of reality, not to attain more accurate results.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you define "more accurate results" as "reality".

Why do you always insist on putting words in people's mouths?

No. I would say that more accurate results will do a better job at reflecting objective reality then subjective senses.
And the more accurate the tool, the more accurate the measurement.

That might be fine for you but I'm trying to determine the nature of reality, not to attain more accurate results.

How do you propose to determine what reality is without accurate methods to discern what reality is?

 

[cladking]

Why do you always insist on putting words in people's mouths?

I didn't say, "Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science reveal." You did!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

you just quit listening as soon as I said it's a stupid human trick.

Referring to Thales achievement in predicting an eclipse as a stupid human trick was pretty much the only thing you said in response to my offering it as a falsifying counterexample to your claim that it's not science if there aren't experiments.

Your mind is made up so at this point facts are just confusing ... You imagine your arguments and beliefs are airtight so you don't see other arguments.

You don't offer facts, arguments, or counterarguments, just fantastical speculations in vague language. You aren't going to change my mind without sound, evidenced argument.

I used to be able to tell you what day of the week any date fell on and whether it was a leap year or not. You'd be surprised how few rules you need to remember to do this.

I learned that as well. This is the method I learned: What is the day of the week? Thursday is the doomsday this year.

Actually, there were quite a few rules if you wanted to be able to do it for any year in any century including pre-Gregorian dates, but if one is only interested in days and dates in the recent past or future of this year, a handful of rules work.

That's hardly a stupid human trick, and it's not science, so why bring it up?

There are no experiments and precious few experiment like observations in Evolution. It is not really science but this doesn't mean biology isn't science and genetics isn't science. Darwin isn't science.

The scientific community and the enlightened lay community disagree, but for what it's worth, you've got the support of the creationists.

It is by definition.

That was a response to, "Experiment is not a part of metaphysics." The word experiment doesn't appear in any definition of metaphysis except possibly yours, and metaphysics does not appear in any definition of experiment. The two ideas aren't entirely unrelated, but neither word appears in the definition of the other. Here are two such definitions:

"Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that deals with the fundamental nature of reality, including concepts such as being, existence, and the universe."

"Experiment refers to a systematic method of investigation where hypotheses are tested through controlled conditions to observe outcomes."

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I didn't say, "Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science reveal." You did!

Yeah, those weren't the words I was talking about. And you know it, off course.