Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[godnotgod]

“The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”

― Freeman Dyson, physicist

 

[Sapiens]

First off, there was no need for you to explain “quote mining” to me. But thanks.

I did not think you needed it explained, you're clearly an only hand at lying. It was important for other people to understand why quote mining is the same as lying and for posterity to be able to look back at the offense you committed here. But t... you're welcome.

Quote mining, when used in a deceptive way, is misrepresenting the words in the quote --- which by truncating the text suggests something far different than what was intended by the author. Yes, that happens everywhere, especially in politics. But I did not quote mine because I did not misrepresent.

Is lying a congenital condition with you, look back at where I posted your quote and what was really said. You quoted minded and now you lie about your lies. Better you should man up concerning your errors, 'cause your mortal soul ain't goona fit into the heaven of your belief system.

You refuted nothing, imo, as far as the primary gist of what I was referencing in those quotes. No one, not I, not anyone, is doubting that Gould, Dawkins and Stanley are firm believers in evolution. That was never the point so there was no need for you to provide all the detail proving they do believe in evolution. We got that.p

We know they are staunch evolutionists, that goes to the core of your quote mining.

[your comments: Well, here is what my old professor Dr. Richard Dawkins actually wrote: “Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design.”

I submit that the sentence that thau left off completely reverses what thau would have you believe and exposes thau as a lying, quote mining, charlatan.]​

Believe whatever you want, it’s valueless here to the argument. But OF COURSE Dawkins book is out to prove just because it looks like life was designed it was not. That should shock us? He is a zealot for godless evolution, his whole mission is to disprove intelligent design. All I was saying was this --- Dawkins in a weak, humble moment at least had to admit to his audience (paraphrase) “well, I guess we could say it surely looks like all these biological systems in life look like they had great design behind them.”

Another lie.

Well, thank you Richard. At least we did not take you for someone so blinded as to pretend it’s all a giant random coincidence from the looks of it, too!

and another.

But Richard surely will follow with his admission it looks like design to quickly say (paraphrase) --- “hey folks, even though it looks like a duck, smells, walks, tastes and sounds like a duck, take our word on it, it’s no duck. Why? Because we know it’s not a duck so it cannot be a duck."

Just can't stop yourself?

Some kind of circular reasoning about all that, to put it mildly.

Now with Gould and Stanley, despite all the added text you introduced, it is still clear to me they remained seriously in doubt of any fossil evidence for gradual evolution.

But you are willfully misunderstanding the issue, that's another lie. The question is not "did evolution happen? the question is did it happen in a million tiny steps or in "a few thousand steps that were a thousand times with little happening in between?"

In other words, they do not accede to any concrete evidence gradual evolution ever occurred. That is our contention as well.

Your contention, as I understand it, (who the hell is "our"? ) is that macro evolution, e.g., the evolution of one "kind' or specie, or genus, or family, (etc.) from another never occurred. We (yes, me, Dawkins, Gould, Stanley the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society, and just about every damned bio-sciencetist on earth) all recognize that that this did happen. But we have some rather minor disagreements over the details that would best fit the fossil record.

The fossil record should show in abundance of gradual transitional evidence from one significant vertebrate species into one far different, for example.

That is another lie. What the fossil record should and should not show is open to question, that is part of the difference of opinion mentioned earlier.

But it does not,so Gould and company, convinced evolution occurred, had to come up with a whole new theory, i.e. punctuated equilibrium (a.k.a. the monster theory or leaps of change). Question: Why would they have to invent a new theory if they thought there was evidence for the former? They wouldn’t .

Another lie, punctuated equilibrium is a hypothesis suggested to explain a pattern of change in the fossil record and how closely related species appear in nature. The hypothesis states that inandividual species tend to show little or no change over a long period of geological time, and then enter a period of rapid change which gives rise to new species.

The quotes I used of theirs very clearly cast doubt on gradual evolution, that was all I was contending. And longer quotes you added does nothing to dispel they remained unconvinced of gradual evolution. Big problem when the "experts" are in serious disagreement on critical and necessary proof.

You are not contending natural selection? You are not contending human decent from an common ancestor with the other apes? You are not contending that macroevolution occurred? Of course you are, but you tactic, rather than argue the facts, is to pick at a rather minor point, trying to make it into a disagreement of some immense size that knocks all of Darwinian evolution into a cocked hat. Sorry, but that is not the case, sorry that tactic will not work.

So I contend without the necessary fossil evidence you have a serious whole in your theory. Enough for me to say, no transitional fossil evidence for evolution, no evolution period.

You can say what you want, but on again, you have a lie for a premise that leads to a lie for a conclusion. But I'll be happy to nominate you to the Backpedaling Hall of Fame for a valiant attempt at saving face.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I did not think you needed it explained, you're clearly an only hand at lying. It was important for other people to understand why quote mining is the same as lying and for posterity to be able to look back at the offense you committed here. But t... you're welcome.
Is lying a congenital condition with you, look back at where I posted your quote and what was really said. You quoted minded and now you lie about your lies. Better you should man up concerning your errors, 'cause your mortal soul ain't goona fit into the heaven of your belief system.
We know they are staunch evolutionists, that goes to the core of your quote mining.
Another lie.
and another.
Just can't stop yourself?
But you are willfully misunderstanding the issue, that's another lie. The question is not "did evolution happen? the question is did it happen in a million tiny steps or in "a few thousand steps that were a thousand times with little happening in between?"
Your contention, as I understand it, (who the hell is "our"? ) is that macro evolution, e.g., the evolution of one "kind' or specie, or genus, or family, (etc.) from another never occurred. We (yes, me, Dawkins, Gould, Stanley the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society, and just about every damned bio-sciencetist on earth) all recognize that that this did happen. But we have some rather minor disagreements over the details that would best fit the fossil record.
That is another lie. What the fossil record should and should not show is open to question, that is part of the difference of opinion mentioned earlier.
Another lie, punctuated equilibrium is a hypothesis suggested to explain a pattern of change in the fossil record and how closely related species appear in nature. The hypothesis states that inandividual species tend to show little or no change over a long period of geological time, and then enter a period of rapid change which gives rise to new species.
You are not contending natural selection? You are not contending human decent from an common ancestor with the other apes? You are not contending that macroevolution occurred? Of course you are, but you tactic, rather than argue the facts, is to pick at a rather minor point, trying to make it into a disagreement of some immense size that knocks all of Darwinian evolution into a cocked hat. Sorry, but that is not the case, sorry that tactic will not work.
You can say what you want, but on again, you have a lie for a premise that leads to a lie for a conclusion. But I'll be happy to nominate you to the Backpedaling Hall of Fame for a valiant attempt at saving face.

You really need to stop calling people liars you know. You would have to be able to prove that they meant to lie in order to say that. Someone having a different understanding to you does not make them a liar, otherwise I would have to say the same about you!

 

[YmirGF]

There is neither separation, nor not-separation. Some just see it that way, which is a false, dualistic view of Reality.

A bizarrely dualistic notion you have going there, godnotgod.

“The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”

― Freeman Dyson, physicist

Holy anthropomorphic projection, Batman.

Patterns always exist for those who are intent on seeing them.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Patterns always exist for those who are intent on seeing them.

So what? We are not supposed to notice things now or something??

 

[thau]

I did not think you needed it explained, you're clearly an only hand at lying. It was important for other people to understand why quote mining is the same as lying and for posterity to be able to look back at the offense you committed here. But t... you're welcome.
Is lying a congenital condition with you, look back at where I posted your quote and what was really said. You quoted minded and now you lie about your lies. Better you should man up concerning your errors, 'cause your mortal soul ain't goona fit into the heaven of your belief system.
We know they are staunch evolutionists, that goes to the core of your quote mining.
Another lie.
and another.
Just can't stop yourself?
But you are willfully misunderstanding the issue, that's another lie. The question is not "did evolution happen? the question is did it happen in a million tiny steps or in "a few thousand steps that were a thousand times with little happening in between?"
Your contention, as I understand it, (who the hell is "our"? ) is that macro evolution, e.g., the evolution of one "kind' or specie, or genus, or family, (etc.) from another never occurred. We (yes, me, Dawkins, Gould, Stanley the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society, and just about every damned bio-sciencetist on earth) all recognize that that this did happen. But we have some rather minor disagreements over the details that would best fit the fossil record.
That is another lie. What the fossil record should and should not show is open to question, that is part of the difference of opinion mentioned earlier.
Another lie, punctuated equilibrium is a hypothesis suggested to explain a pattern of change in the fossil record and how closely related species appear in nature. The hypothesis states that inandividual species tend to show little or no change over a long period of geological time, and then enter a period of rapid change which gives rise to new species.
You are not contending natural selection? You are not contending human decent from an common ancestor with the other apes? You are not contending that macroevolution occurred? Of course you are, but you tactic, rather than argue the facts, is to pick at a rather minor point, trying to make it into a disagreement of some immense size that knocks all of Darwinian evolution into a cocked hat. Sorry, but that is not the case, sorry that tactic will not work.
You can say what you want, but on again, you have a lie for a premise that leads to a lie for a conclusion. But I'll be happy to nominate you to the Backpedaling Hall of Fame for a valiant attempt at saving face.

Kind of underwhelming. I was expecting something a bit more interesting than that to be honest.

Oh, well.

I am curious though, what exactly are you trying to accomplish with all this anyway? Is one of your life’s missions to convince a less than enthusiastic world that there is no God?.. by saying “hey look everybody! We can tell you how an eyeball was made without any need for any sign of an intelligent force or designer. All you have to do is take this pile of sand with a couple of spores in it, add water, then put in the oven for 500 million years, and `poof` an eyeball!”

I must be honest though… I still cannot conceive how “old man natural selection” decided one day… “today would be a good day to start working on a spleen, none of my creations have had a spleen hitherto, today I begin with this new idea of mine, and I think I will have these rogue molecules over here start a raucous and create some spleen cells. Then they will somehow find themselves inside an earthworm by chance and we can watch it grow.”

 

[Robert.Evans]

Kind of underwhelming. I was expecting something a bit more interesting than that to be honest.

Oh, well.

I am curious though, what exactly are you trying to accomplish with all this anyway? Is one of your life’s missions to convince a less than enthusiastic world that there is no God?.. ....

That's about it! haha.
As with all atheists, they think that explaining mechanisms and processes explains all things, largely due to the fact that they think if there was a God, they would certainly know about it... haha.
Ah well!

 

[YmirGF]

So what? We are not supposed to notice things now or something??

Making connections is what our brains do, however that does not mean that we are beyond making mistaken connections. People do it all the time.

 

[Sapiens]

You really need to stop calling people liars you know. You would have to be able to prove that they meant to lie in order to say that. Someone having a different understanding to you does not make them a liar, otherwise I would have to say the same about you!

Thau is a quote miner, that is demonstrated, Quote mining is a form of lying, thus thau is a liar, proven. It is not a matter of a difference of opinion. His denial of quote mining with the clear and unimpeachable evidence on the table in front of him, just adds yet another lie to the list.

 

[savagewind]

Resort to insults when you've got nothing good to say. We can see you do it.

 

[godnotgod]

A bizarrely dualistic notion you have going there, godnotgod.

Correction: the fact that I am pointing out a dual view does not mean that I am proposing a dual view myself.

Holy anthropomorphic projection, Batman.

Correction: that the universe is conscious and intelligent does not mean it is anthropomorphic.

There. See how logic works? I'll now leave the rest of the job of clock cleaning to you.

Making connections is what our brains do, however that does not mean that we are beyond making mistaken connections. People do it all the time.

As you have just done above, and have similarly done in the past. We call it 'reading things into the content that aren't there', and in your case, probably due to the influence of your personal view.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Thau is a quote miner, that is demonstrated, Quote mining is a form of lying, thus thau is a liar, proven. It is not a matter of a difference of opinion. His denial of quote mining with the clear and unimpeachable evidence on the table in front of him, just adds yet another lie to the list.

You will have to explain your thinking more than that! I do not see any problem with quoting someone who you think is relevant in what you are saying, to take the discussion past ''my opinion'' level. What is wrong with quoting people? I like it. It backs up something that someone says. Don't you do it?

 

[Sapiens]

You will have to explain your thinking more than that! I do not see any problem with quoting someone who you think is relevant in what you are saying, to take the discussion past ''my opinion'' level. What is wrong with quoting people? I like it. It backs up something that someone says. Don't you do it?

You think quote mining is perfectly alright?

 

[Robert.Evans]

You think quote mining is perfectly alright?

Okay... you did not answer, so I looked myself. According to an 'urban dictionary' it means taking a quote out of context. Clearly that would be wrong. I don't recall him doing that however. But that is the same for anything is it not? What I am saying is, what is wrong with taking quotes of people to back up what you say? If someone is DELIBERATELY taking them out of context, then that would be wrong. But statements can be ambiguous.

I recall Dawkins saying in The Magic of Reality... that ''atoms always existed'',.... which they didn't. They had to form after the universe cooled sufficiently. Now, one has to read into that, because it is not apparent what he means at first, in his haste to make his point.... that being indoctrinating children.

Is that you in the picture? What happened to your eye?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Making connections is what our brains do, however that does not mean that we are beyond making mistaken connections. People do it all the time.

Particularly when wishful thinking is involved.

 

[McBell]

Okay... you did not answer, so I looked myself. According to an 'urban dictionary' it means taking a quote out of context. Clearly that would be wrong. I don't recall him doing that however.

Post #802 shows that they quotes presented were taken out of context.
Now the question is, did Thau merely copy paste them without knowing they are out of context?

But that is the same for anything is it not? What I am saying is, what is wrong with taking quotes of people to back up what you say? If someone is DELIBERATELY taking them out of context, then that would be wrong. But statements can be ambiguous.

Post #802 clearly shows the quotes used were out of context and presented to mean something different from what the author meant.

They had to form after the universe cooled sufficiently.

source please.

 

[godnotgod]

“It is remarkable that mind enters into our awareness of nature on two separate levels. At the highest level, the level of human consciousness, our minds are somehow directly aware of the complicated flow of electrical and chemical patterns in our brains. At the lowest level, the level of single atoms and electrons, the mind of an observer is again involved in the description of events. Between lies the level of molecular biology, where mechanical models are adequate and mind appears to be irrelevant. But I, as a physicist, cannot help suspecting that there is a logical connection between the two ways in which mind appears in my universe. I cannot help thinking that our awareness of our own brains has something to do with the process which we call "observation" in atomic physics. That is to say, I think our consciousness is not just a passive epiphenomenon carried along by the chemical events in our brains, but is an active agent forcing the molecular complexes to make choices between one quantum state and another. In other words, mind is already inherent in every electron, and the processes of human consciousness differ only in degree but not in kind from the processes of choice between quantum states which
we call "chance" when they are made by electrons.”

― Freeman Dyson, physicist

 

[savagewind]

As I read the wonderful post of Mr. Dyson I neglected to see the quote mark at the beginning and I think to myself "wow, a physicist on RF" "WHY"? Haha Then I see it is an add on. It is interesting. Thanks for sharing.

I have something to add. People say brain first then thought. I say why not think of the brain as a home for thought? People can leave their house. Why not thought?

 

[metis]

Original question: where does consciousness end and the world begin?

(This assumes a view that we are conscious, but the universe is not.)

What I meant was: does non-material consciousness extend beyond the material cranium, (assuming it originates in the brain, ie; local), and if not, how is it that the material can contain the non-material?

Conversely, non-locality would mean that the brain resides in a sea of universal consciousness, which eliminates the problem of containment.

There simply is not one shred of objective evidence that suggests consciousness can be the domain of anything other than an organism, so I simply cannot buy into any consciousness outside of it. If such a consciousness were to exist, it would seem to me that there would be objective support, but there's simply none.

 

[savagewind]

There simply is not one shred of objective evidence that suggests consciousness can be the domain of anything other than an organism, so I simply cannot buy into any consciousness outside of it. If such a consciousness were to exist, it would seem to me that there would be objective support, but there's simply none.

Facts must be seen but spirit can't be seen. It seems to me there can't exist facts about spirit. Thought apart from a physical domain is spirit. Thought is words. Words can exist outside of structure. Can't they?