Lionizing Lyin Eyes.

[John D. Brey]

I think the secular version of that is that how we are is a result of having evolved in an environment where survival (it's more complicated than that) shaped what we became. We jerk our hand away from a flame quickly and automatically because that's the most efficient way to avoid injury. We have a strong sexual urge because (for us) that worked to produce more of us. There's really nothing "evil" about these things, it's just how we are. Of course, there's a layer on top of it that comes from having "discovered" that living in co-operative groups worked better for us than living individually, and that entailed constraints on some of our natural behaviors.

You really have drank the Kool-Aid haven't you.

“Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”
― H.L. Mencken.

David warns us in the Psalm not to indulge in excessive joys. It is not given to the righteous to experience so much joy in this life. . . In this world only the wicked experience true joy.​

​

Shney Luchot Habrit, vol. 2, p. 723.​

Dog Bible: Many are called, but few come when called.

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.​

​

2 Peter 3:9.​

John

 

[Alien826]

You really have drank the Kool-Aid haven't you.

Now is that nice? Really, is it?

David warns us in the Psalm not to indulge in excessive joys. It is not given to the righteous to experience so much joy in this life. . . In this world only the wicked experience true joy.​

​

Shney Luchot Habrit, vol. 2, p. 723.​

But what if this is the only life? What a shame to waste it over something that might not be true.

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.​

​

2 Peter 3:9.​

John

It was a joke about dogs, who don't always come when called.

 

[1213]

Fwiw, the findings merely authenticate what's very simple logic. The speed of light traveling from the finger to the eye, and traversing the optic nerve, is clearly not going to be identical to the rate at which the nerves from the finger transmit the sense of touch to the brain. There's no way what we see and what we feel would be identical. And yet we experience them as identical.

Because essentially they are identical. I don't think it is lying, there is just two ways to tell the message. (And I am not convinced there is even any delay).

...
As Popper explains, in ancient religious mythology, the sun was fancied the center of the cosmos even though the empiricists and outhouse scientists of the day poo pooed the religious mythology (i.e., heliocentrism), as childish myth....

Funny thing is, I don't think you can really show any proof that the sun is the center and not earth.

 

[Alien826]

Funny thing is, I don't think you can really show any proof that the sun is the center and not earth.

Where Is the Center of the Universe?

The universe has no center, at least according to the leading explanations for how it expanded in the moments after the Big Bang.

www.livescience.com

Looking up at a clear night sky, you see stars in every direction. It almost feels as if you're at the center of the cosmos. But are you? And if not, where is the center of the universe?

The universe, in fact, has no center. Ever since the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, the universe has been expanding. But despite its name, the Big Bang wasn't an explosion that burst outward from a central point of detonation. The universe started out extremely compact and tiny. Then every point in the universe expanded equally, and that continues today. And so, without any point of origin, the universe has no center.

Interesting, right? It does seem to be obvious that the Earth revolves around the Sun though, regardless of the fact that there is no identifiable center of the entire universe.

 

[Heyo]

Interesting, right? It does seem to be obvious that the Earth revolves around the Sun though, regardless of the fact that there is no identifiable center of the entire universe.

The universe has a centre, but I can't point to it because the centre is in the past.

 

[1213]

Where Is the Center of the Universe?

The universe has no center, at least according to the leading explanations for how it expanded in the moments after the Big Bang.

www.livescience.com

Interesting, right? It does seem to be obvious that the Earth revolves around the Sun though, regardless of the fact that there is no identifiable center of the entire universe.

And you believe that?

I think person who claims:
"The universe started out extremely compact and tiny. Then every point in the universe expanded equally, and that continues today. And so, without any point of origin, the universe has no center."
Has serious problems with logic and reasoning and doesn't seem to comprehend dimensions. Perhaps it would be best to not call it a big bang, if it was not an explosion, nor any bang.

 

[John D. Brey]

And you believe that?

I think person who claims:
"The universe started out extremely compact and tiny. Then every point in the universe expanded equally, and that continues today. And so, without any point of origin, the universe has no center."
Has serious problems with logic and reasoning and doesn't seem to comprehend dimensions. Perhaps it would be best to not call it a big bang, if it was not an explosion, nor any bang.

Pretty strange thought experiment. The semantics seem to break down since if the universe started out compact and tiny and expanded from there, the "there" would seem to be the point of origin.



John

 

[shunyadragon]

The implication is that some part of your brain—a module or network if you will—determines that your finger should move before you are even aware that you have made that decision. The results of these experiments indicate that even when we think we control the choice to act—a behavior as simple as moving a finger—the brain is deciding for us when to make the move. After making the decision, without our being aware of the internal impetus, the brain then convinces us that we were in control of that decision.”​

​

— Gray Matters: A Biography of Brain Surgery by Theodore H. Schwartz​

​

Neurosurgeon Theodore H. Schwartz, is only the most recent scientifically minded metaphysical-materialists trying his darnedest to convince his readers that they don't have freewill, and that all they are or ever will be is circumscribed by their brain. Unfortunately, he, like past metaphysical-materialists, makes quite a mess, logically and rationally, by the way he speaks about things. Case in point. Read the quotation above and ask yourself who is the "we" the brain is trying to convince is in control?

We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism – something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world. We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.​

​

Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, p. 200-201.​

These two brilliant scientists appear to think putting their we-we's in our faces will distract from the "we" in their sentences. Dawkins establishes a duality between genes (biological life) and memes (thought-life replicating by means of concepts or ideas in the brain), and then suggest there's a third entity he labels "we." He implies this "we" transcends both the bodily biology, and the thought-life of the body (the tyranny of the brain trying, ala Schwartz, to trick us), such that "we" can, as he implies, transcend the very nature of our natural, biological, cognitive, self. Schwartz, on the other hand, establishes a duality between the brain, and the mind, arguing mostly that the mind is a phenomenon of the brain, but then falling into the Neo-Darwinian "we we" speak, spoke by Dawkins, which posits something far more theological sounding than the mere mind (i.e., a "we," that transcends body, brain, mind).



John

First comment is that there are reflex survival mechanisms in humans and and animals that have survival value we do not necessarily have control over that have evolved over the millennia,

These survival mechanisms do limit our Free Will decision making processes, but do not necessarily preclude the potential of limited Free Will within a limited range of outcomes,

Be careful second or third sources heavily weighted by opinion,.

 

[shunyadragon]

And you believe that?

I think person who claims:
"The universe started out extremely compact and tiny. Then every point in the universe expanded equally, and that continues today. And so, without any point of origin, the universe has no center."
Has serious problems with logic and reasoning and doesn't seem to comprehend dimensions. Perhaps it would be best to not call it a big bang, if it was not an explosion, nor any bang.

Yes there is a problem with this and it is not accurate as far as the current theories and hypothesis concerning the possible origins of our universe, I believe the scientific objections are different from yours. Though not really relevant to subject of the thread,

 

[Alien826]

And you believe that?

I think person who claims:
"The universe started out extremely compact and tiny. Then every point in the universe expanded equally, and that continues today. And so, without any point of origin, the universe has no center."
Has serious problems with logic and reasoning and doesn't seem to comprehend dimensions. Perhaps it would be best to not call it a big bang, if it was not an explosion, nor any bang.

I don't "believe" it. It's my understanding of what real experts (not you or me) say about it.

I'll try to explain a bit and then leave it to anyone with a better understanding to step in.

The original singularity did not expand into anywhere, like an exploding object expanding into a surrounding area. It was at that time everything that existed. So I suppose you could say that the center was the singularity itself, but it would also be every point of it. It then started to expand as a whole, so in a way you could say that the original point became everywhere and any point (or none) could be considered to the center. Evidence is that when we look into space in any direction, what we see seems to be moving away from us.

I think you need to be careful when you accuse people with much greater knowledge and intelligence than you (or I!) of having serious problems with logic and reasoning. Frankly, it just makes you look stupid. I do agree that the term "bid bang" is misleading.

 

[John D. Brey]

First comment is that there are reflex survival mechanisms in humans and and animals that have survival value we do not necessarily have control over that have evolved over the millennia,

These survival mechanisms do limit our Free Will decision making processes, but do not necessarily preclude the potential of limited Free Will within a limited range of outcomes,

Many of the activities of the unconscious brain/mind affect what's presented and able to thereafter be decided on by the conscious subject. So in that respect freewill, like freedom itself, isn't free.




John

 

[shunyadragon]

Many of the activities of the unconscious brain/mind affect what's presented

I agree with what was presented, but disagree with your conclusions in the absolute sense. Yes many if not most activities of the unconscious brain/mind are indeed naturally deterministic.

and able to thereafter be decided on by the conscious subject. So in that respect freewill, like freedom itself, isn't free.

I go with very limited potential free will based on a limited range of possible choices. The actual degree of potential free will is unknown. I do not believe in Compatibilism, because it sort of advocate a view that we have the illusion of of free will that is ultimately deterministic.

Some refer to moral responsibility to justify a degree of free will. Moral responsibility is an evolved cultural attribute o the social and tribal evolution of humans, and does not effect whether we have free will or not. In fact Moral Responsibility may be a degree or in fact deterministic.

I start with the nature of our physical existence where all cause and effect events are naturally determined within a range of possible outcomes determined by Chaos Theory dependent on the number of variables. Science uses this principle to make predictive models of complex natural processes as in weather prediction. In this way our natural existence is naturally deterministic not rigidly deterministic.

For the human natural decision making process of making choices. All human choices are limited within a possible range of choices. Many acts are predetermined as in the examples given for reflex survival mechanisms that limit the choice to one outcome. Not all decisions humans make are limited to one outcome dependent on the number of variables involved in the outcome, There are many simple examples of this such as you have a limited selection of 10 shirts of different colors in your closet to choose from you choose one. The choice of any one shirt is not predetermined.

​

 

[shunyadragon]

Because essentially they are identical. I don't think it is lying, there is just two ways to tell the message. (And I am not convinced there is even any delay).

Funny thing is, I don't think you can really show any proof that the sun is the center and not earth.

Not a funny thing when your worldview is based on an ancient tribal mythical believe over 2000 years old.

Yes, the fact that all the planets and asteroids revolve around the sun is obvious and proved many times over.

 

[1213]

....Evidence is that when we look into space in any direction, what we see seems to be moving away from us.

And by what I know, everything is moving equally from us. That is possible only if earth is the center.

Only way that there could be no center would be, if universe would be a loop, meaning, if you go to any direction long enough, you would come back to the same spot. This would mean also that universe has no edges. Do you think universe is limitless and if you go straight line long enough, you come back to the place where you started your journey?

 

[shunyadragon]

And by what I know, everything is moving equally from us. That is possible only if earth is the center.

This is an illusion. If the universe is expanding everything would be moving away from us regardless of whether there is a center or not, The space in the universe is expanding as all celestial bodies are moving away.

The concept of the whether there is one or not is a bit hypothetical concerning the nature and origins of the universe. and again not the subject of the thread.

I believe the intent of the thread centers around the concept of determinism and Free Will.

 

[Alien826]

And by what I know, everything is moving equally from us. That is possible only if earth is the center.

Pick any place in the universe and it would appear the same. It's like the surface of a balloon that is being inflated.

Only way that there could be no center would be, if universe would be a loop, meaning, if you go to any direction long enough, you would come back to the same spot. This would mean also that universe has no edges. Do you think universe is limitless and if you go straight line long enough, you come back to the place where you started your journey?

You're starting to get outside my level of expertise (which isn't very great anyway). My understanding is that there are no edges, as the universe isn't expanding into anything. As far as getting back to your point of origin is concerned. there's a question as to whether the universe if curved, negatively or positively or flat. It relates to whether it will continue to expand or eventually start to contract. You could try looking for some of the the simpler explanations on the 'net as I can't take you any further.

Incidentally, what I've written is only my understanding and also may not represent the latest scientific opinions.

 

[John D. Brey]

Pick any place in the universe and it would appear the same. It's like the surface of a balloon that is being inflated.

You're starting to get outside my level of expertise (which isn't very great anyway). My understanding is that there are no edges, as the universe isn't expanding into anything. As far as getting back to your point of origin is concerned. there's a question as to whether the universe if curved, negatively or positively or flat. It relates to whether it will continue to expand or eventually start to contract. You could try looking for some of the the simpler explanations on the 'net as I can't take you any further.

Incidentally, what I've written is only my understanding and also may not represent the latest scientific opinions.

In my opinion, we have to be careful to distinguish between cases where the truth is extremely complex and counterintuitive versus the case where elites are attempting to foster a particular ideological prejudice by eliminating the possibility of making determinations based on binary logic. This thread is set against the latter, which is being called lionizing lyin eyes in the sense of canonizing what can't really be without doing away with the transcendental "we."

We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism – something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world. We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.​

​

Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, p. 200-201.​

The "we" in Dawkins' statement is similar to the center of the universe in the recent discussion. Dawkins' ideological prejudice is contrary to an immaterial soul that's the true entity piggy-backing genes and memes but with the ability to exercise a modicum of freewill not based on genes or memes (memes being interpreted as brain-based thoughts in general). For Dawkins the immaterial soul doesn't exist. And yet if you read the statement above, and he says the same thing in a more recent quip, he's using the immaterial "we" because without it his thoughts are incoherent. Ditto for neurosurgeon Theodore Schwartz:

The results of these experiments indicate that even when we think we control the choice to act—a behavior as simple as moving a finger—the brain is deciding for us when to make the move. After making the decision, without our being aware of the internal impetus, the brain then convinces us that we were in control of that decision.”​

​

— Gray Matters: A Biography of Brain Surgery by Theodore H. Schwartz.​

Throughout his arguments, Schwartz claims the brain circumscribes all we are and can think. So who, or what, is the "we" the brain is trying to convince is in control? You can't have it both ways. You can't claim life is but a dream and still want the authority to argue it's a dream using logic, reason, and sound volition.

The transcendental significance of the invisible soul is that without it life is but a dream. What would it mean if we took Schwartz at his word and admitted that the brain is in full control such that we should just quietly bow out? When we come upon a difficult and meaningful moral decision we can just bow out knowing the brain is in full control of the situation. . . "My brain killed her officer. I had bowed out since my neurosurgeon said I don't exist." "Your honor, I would like to call my first witness, my client's brain.""Your car was found in the center of the intersection where the deceased was hit." "Technically your honor there is no center."



John

 

[Heyo]

Pick any place in the universe and it would appear the same. It's like the surface of a balloon that is being inflated.


You're starting to get outside my level of expertise (which isn't very great anyway). My understanding is that there are no edges, as the universe isn't expanding into anything. As far as getting back to your point of origin is concerned. there's a question as to whether the universe if curved, negatively or positively or flat. It relates to whether it will continue to expand or eventually start to contract. You could try looking for some of the the simpler explanations on the 'net as I can't take you any further.

Incidentally, what I've written is only my understanding and also may not represent the latest scientific opinions.

I'm also no expert, but your understanding matches mine. The current measurements hint at a flat universe, but that goes against my intuition. I think the universe must be positively curved - or something like negative gravity must exist.

 

[Alien826]

The transcendental significance of the invisible soul is that without it life is but a dream. What would it mean if we took Schwartz at his word and admitted that the brain is in full control such that we should just quietly bow out? When we come upon a difficult and meaningful moral decision we can just bow out knowing the brain is in full control of the situation. . . "My brain killed her officer. I had bowed out since my neurosurgeon said I don't exist." "Your honor, I would like to call my first witness, my client's brain.""Your car was found in the center of the intersection where the deceased was hit." "Technically your honor there is no center."

I'm not sure what to make of what Schwartz said about the brain, except to conclude as I often do that the human brain is a remarkably complicated thing. As far as your last sentence goes though, an intersection really does have a center, while the universe, at least as described in the "big bang" theory, really doesn't.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

We sin, you see, not because we're bad, but because we're born-sinners.

This has always struck me as a bizarre idea. As Christopher Hitchens like to say, according to Christians, "we are created sick and commanded to be well." Daft, if you ask me.