empiracle evidence

[Disciple of Christ]

You are using concepts of order and disorder for some reason, and i do not comprehend why. As there is a natural propensity for death, there is a natural propensity for life.

Well, I am trying to show a correlation between that which is living or surviving and that which is not. Would you not say, according to the "laws of empirical evidence", that life or survival is a struggle against death or disorder? Life from the smallest cellular structure to the largest organism seeks to survive against a force determined to undo it. Does it not? At least I see it this way. Have we not set forth parameters in forming the laws of empirical evidence as well and use them to determine life and non-life, survival and non-survival?

 

[Disciple of Christ]

No, there wouldn't. Survival is the natural result of the existence of life.

Is not survival the resistance to non-existance?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If nature determines the outcome then does that statement within itself say that "nature" has will and volition in order to make determinations?

I refer you back to the sieve analogy. Nature doesn't "determine" in an active manner, but the result of natural selection are determined by the influence of natural environment, in the same way that the result of sieving flower is determined by the model of sieve. The sieve does not actively "choose" each individual grain of flour that passes through it, but the flour that passes through it is determined by the physical makeup of the sieve.

Where does life eminate from?

We don't know yet.

Is not survival the resistance to non-existance?

If you want to put it like that. It makes no difference how you choose to express it semantically, it is what it is.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

We don't know yet.


If you want to put it like that. It makes no difference how you choose to express it semantically, it is what it is.

I believe, as some scientist have noted to say, that life eminates from life. I know it may sound obvious, but wonder what you think about that?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I believe, as some scientist have noted to say, that life eminates from life. I know it may sound obvious, but wonder what you think about that?

Currently, life does come from life, but we have no means with which to say that this was always the case, and we have no means with which to say conclusively how the first life form came into existence.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

I refer you back to the sieve analogy. Nature doesn't "determine" in an active manner, but the result of natural selection are determined by the influence of natural environment, in the same way that the result of sieving flower is determined by the model of sieve. The sieve does not actively "choose" each individual grain of flour that passes through it, but the flour that passes through it is determined by the physical makeup of the sieve.


We don't know yet.


If you want to put it like that. It makes no difference how you choose to express it semantically, it is what it is.

In your analogy, Who runs the seive?

 

[Koldo]

Well, I am trying to show a correlation between that which is living or surviving and thiat which is not. Would you not say, according to the laws of empirical evidence", that life or survival is a struggle against death or disorder? Life from the smallest cellular structure to the largest organism seeks to survive against a force determined to undo it.

Do you mean 'seek' as in possessing a desire to survive?
Cells, for example, 'seek' to survive as much as a machine seeks to do something.
Other than that, what is this force determined to undo it?

At least I see it this way. Have we not set forth parameters in forming the laws of empirical evidence as well and use them to determine life and non-life, survival and non-survival?

What are the 'laws of empirical evidence'?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In your analogy, Who runs the seive?

It doesn't matter. It's irrelevant to the analogy.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

It doesn't matter. It's irrelevant to the analogy.

Ok. What set the seive in motion and what constucted the seive? My point is that something set everything into motion and brought somekind of order out of disorder even if it were random natural selction. Something set it "natural selection" into motion. Yes or no?

 

[Disciple of Christ]

Do you mean 'seek' as in possessing a desire to survive?
Cells, for example, 'seek' to survive as much as a machine seeks to do something.
Other than that, what is this force determined to undo it?



What are the 'laws of empirical evidence'?

need to correct myself. Not the laws of empirical evidence , but empirical evidence.
Empirical research - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which we, in general, use a basis for scientific research.
A machine is run by an operator is it not?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Ok. What set the seive in motion and what constucted the seive?

Again, this is irrelevant to the analogy. The analogy was used to explain how a non-conscious entity can still influence a process, and that natural selection does not require intelligence. How the sieve is made is irrelevant to that point.

My point is that something set everything into motion and brought somekind of order out of disorder even if it were random natural selction.

Natural selection isn't random. It's selective.

Something set it "natural selection" into motion. Yes or no?

There is no evidence of any kind to suggest that anything did, nor that natural selection is anything other than the natural result of life and environments existing, no.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

Again, this is irrelevant to the analogy. The analogy was used to explain how a non-conscious entity can still influence a process, and that natural selection does not require intelligence. How the sieve is made is irrelevant to that point.


Natural selection isn't random. It's selective.


There is no evidence of any kind to suggest that anything did, nor that natural selection is anything other than the natural result of life and environments existing, no.

How is selection determined if natural selection is not random? Does not determination involve choices made or not made?

 

[apophenia]

How do you determine what is accidental?

I don't.

I was clarifying the theory of evolution, which is often misrepresented.

Sometimes just resented. In fact 'misrepresented' is an anagram of 'premise resented'. Without an e. An e can make a lot of difference. LOL

How do you determine what is deliberate ? God isn't deliberate, because god has no beginning. So everything about god is an accident. God had no say in what god is or does, because god never began, right ? He had no say in it. Stuck with himself, for better or worse.

I don't think I want to be de-liberated. If god is an accident, then evolution is fine by me.

You really haven't thought this through have you ? Everything is ridiculous.

Is that funny or serious ? Don't ask god, he was always like this. No choice in the matter.

Theology is waaaay stupid. You have to desperately crave validation to even consider it.

BTW ... I don't care if evolution is true or not. Reality is not dependent on our explanations, nor will they change it one iota. The whole god business is fear of the dark. Get over it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How is selection determined if natural selection is not random? Does not determination involve choices made or not made?

Don't equate "non-random" with deterministic. Again, look to the sieve analogy. There is no consciousness or "decision" being made by a sieve when it "selects" the smaller grains of flour from the larger grains, just as there is no consciousness or "decision" being made when natural selection occurs.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

I don't.

I was clarifying the theory of evolution, which is often misrepresented.

Sometimes just resented. In fact 'misrepresented' is an anagram of 'premise resented'. Without an e. An e can make a lot of difference. LOL

How do you determine what is deliberate ? God isn't deliberate, because god has no beginning. So everything about god is an accident. God had no say in what god is or does, because god never began, right ? He had no say in it. Stuck with himself, for better or worse.

I don't think I want to be de-liberated. If god is an accident, then evolution is fine by me.

You really haven't thought this through have you ? Everything is ridiculous.

Is that funny or serious ? Don't ask god, he was always like this. No choice in the matter.

Theology is waaaay stupid. You have to desperately crave validation to even consider it.

BTW ... I don't care if evolution is true or not. Reality is not dependent on our explanations, nor will they change it one iota. The whole god business is fear of the dark. Get over it.

Am I to assume that you would not concede to the possibility that God is eternal outside of time and space? The idea that he created time and space and we are presently in them? He is also, being God, able to enter time and space. This is how I see it. If we cannot determine that which is accidental then we cannot determine the opposite? Can we then determine anything?

 

[Disciple of Christ]

Don't equate "non-random" with deterministic. Again, look to the sieve analogy. There is no consciousness or "decision" being made by a sieve when it "selects" the smaller grains of flour from the larger grains, just as there is no consciousness or "decision" being made when natural selection occurs.

What determines what is placed into the seive? Please ellaborate on the distinction between deterministic and non-random.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What determines what is placed into the seive?

That's irrelevant to the analogy. It doesn't matter how the flour finds it's way into the sieve, what matters is that the sieve is not consciously determining what comes through it. Regardless of life's origin, natural selection is not a conscious process.

Please ellaborate on the distinction between deterministic and non-random.

Determinism implies that there is intention or an intended end result of a process. Non-random means that the outcome of a process is not determined randomly, but is the end result of processes working on each other.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

That's irrelevant to the analogy. It doesn't matter how the flour finds it's way into the sieve, what matters is that the sieve is not consciously determining what comes through it. Regardless of life's origin, natural selection is not a conscious process.


Determinism implies that there is intention or an intended end result of a process. Non-random means that the outcome of a process is not determined randomly, but is the end result of processes working on each other.

So, is it safe to assume that you are saying life came about by unitentionality? Can anything therefore be determined and if so by whom? Would there then be no purpose and would not everything be meaningless? Why seek to survive?
Are we puppets of natural selection and evolution? Also,what would be the point of empirical evidence?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So, is it safe to assume that you are saying life came about by unitentionality?

No. We're not talking about the origin of life - we're talking about the cause of evolution. I've not said anything about how life came about except that we don't know how it did.

Can anything therefore be determined and if so by whom?

Once again, not everything has to be determined consciously. If you pour oil into a glass of water, nobody "decides" that the oil floats to the top while the water stays on the bottom - the interaction is determined merely by the physical and chemical properties of those two substances acting together in that particular environment. Regardless of whether or not there is "intent", that is just the way they interact.

Would there then be no purpose and would not everything be meaningless?

That's irrelevant. We're talking science, not philosophy.

Why seek to survive?

Because it's our natural instinct.

Are we puppets of natural selection and evolution?

No.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

No. We're not talking about the origin of life - we're talking about the cause of evolution. I've not said anything about how life came about except that we don't know how it did.


Once again, not everything has to be determined consciously. If you pour oil into a glass of water, nobody "decides" that the oil floats to the top while the water stays on the bottom - the interaction is determined merely by the physical and chemical properties of those two substances acting together in that particular environment. Regardless of whether or not there is "intent", that is just the way they interact.



That's irrelevant. We're talking science, not philosophy.



Because it's our natural instinct.



No.

Could they not be one in the same?

Still, within your analogy there are determing factors that come to gether to cause this incident. are there not?

Where does one end and the other begin. From what I understand of the root word "science" it means "knowledge". Where is the line drawn between science and philosophy. Are they not both seeking out knowledge?

Does nature program this instinct?