"It's turtles, all the way down!"
Mike Burtner
accept as truth only that which is quantifiable and observable.
Speculation and postulation about spirits, ghosts or some spectral
intelligence which, no matter what the argument, sits at a meta-level
unknowable to humans is, to me, simply a waste of time. If it will
not change the temperature of the room or cause a chemical or physical
reaction in matter, it does not concern me.
The stock in trade of those who deal in matters spiritual seems to be
faith in things unseen and a world of possibilities. Maybe there is a
God. Maybe God is inside us. Maybe we are all God. Maybe God is
just another intelligent being like us, who created us as an
experiment.
If we humans ever create a digital machine or network with even the
most rudimentary ability to question, to think laterally in a cloud of
fuzzy logic like we humans do, surely it will encounter the same
fundamental metaphysical quandaries. Who created me? Why am I here?
What makes me "me"? Do I have free will?
Imagine a programmer or computer scientist trying to convince an
artificial intelligence that it doesn't actually exist, that it is a
collection of circuits and wires and algorithms that, when powered
down, amount to nothing but a hill of sand, plastic and metal bits.
What if the artificial intelligence accepts this, but still queries
the existence of a "God" who created it, with powers of omniscience
and omnipresence? We would then have to explain that we too are just
cellular constructs, who went on to create a digital construct in our
own image. But still, no Gods, we.
In the context of my argument, we all agree that the machine is just a
machine, that there is no God in its creation, only more machines.
And, yet, the machine will never believe that. And trying to convince
it of what is "real" would be as pointless, just as its own digression
into the spiritual is pointless, as concerns a machine.
My point, if I indeed have one, is that, in the final analysis, there
is nothing but the world of matter and energy. No greater
intelligence, no plan, no spirits or deities. But even if "God" him
or herself appeared and told us that he was not God, that there is no
point, and we should all just go have a drink and find a warm
companion, who would believe it?
It was man who wrote these words, not God:
"And though I have the gift of prophesy and understand all mysteries
and all knowledge, and though I have all faith so that I could remove
mountains, and have not charity [love], I am nothing." KJV Bible, I
Cor. 13:2
I can read the Bible and appreciate it as a work of men, the same as
the Quran or Bhagavad Gita. And what this wise man was saying, to me,
is this: knowledge and faith are merely pastimes of the mind. The
only component of our "soul" is our love for each other. Spend your
time learning the heart of man, not the mind of God.
donnadonne
On Apr 28, 5:34 pm, Mike Burtner <mikeburt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My point, if I indeed have one, is that, in the final analysis, there
> is nothing but the world of matter and energy. No greater
> intelligence, no plan, no spirits or deities. But even if "God" him
> or herself appeared and told us that he was not God, that there is no
> point, and we should all just go have a drink and find a warm
> companion, who would believe it?
All these ifs and buts!
Check out what these 3 researchers have done so far (
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6600965.stm ). Translate your
questions into mice language and you'll get your answers there. I'm
sure they all have a plan there, only the artificial mouse brain has
to stay and cannot run away.
Mike Burtner
"Using this machine the researchers created half a virtual mouse brain
that had 8,000 neurons that had up to 6,300 synapses."
But they didn't say ~which~ half of the brain they created. Do they
have an electronic mouse brain that likes to water paint, or is he
sort of a stoic, sensible simulated mouse? I'd guess if it is the
right brain, it is already coming up with bad rodent poetry, which can
only lead to postulating about God like a grad student with a bottle
of wine.
On Apr 28, 5:21 pm, donnadonne <donnado...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 28, 5:34 pm, Mike Burtner <mikeburt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My point, if I indeed have one, is that, in the final analysis, there
> > is nothing but the world of matter and energy. No greater
> > intelligence, no plan, no spirits or deities. But even if "God" him
> > or herself appeared and told us that he was not God, that there is no
> > point, and we should all just go have a drink and find a warm
> > companion, who would believe it?
>
> All these ifs and buts!
> Check out what these 3 researchers have done so far (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6600965.stm). Translate your
Lee
Now let me see, you say:
'I do not accept non-nature based belief systems. In other words, I
accept as truth only that which is quantifiable and observable.'
And:
'My point, if I indeed have one, is that, in the final analysis, there
is nothing but the world of matter and energy.'
It is well and good that people accept only what they can verify for
them selves, and belive only that which our sense data provide us.
But (and you knew there was gonna be one) knowing that we can change
our brainchemistry, and thus our perceptions, knowing that we can
indeed fool ourselves into seeing things other then the normal way we
see them. Then how do you distinguish what is real against that which
is hullcinatory??
What other methoeds of validation do you use?
Your second statement sounds pretty strong. Have you managed to show
that it is true? Or do you base this statement of fact on the fact
that you have not quantified that we we may well call spirit?
If for example you were to come face to face with lets call it a
ghost, would you then belive in such a thing? Or would you use some
as yet unknown methoed of validation and call it hulluciantion? Or is
are there other options?
Cheers,
Lee.
Pat
On 28 Apr, 16:34, Mike Burtner <mikeburt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I do not accept non-nature based belief systems. In other words, I
> accept as truth only that which is quantifiable and observable.
> Speculation and postulation about spirits, ghosts or some spectral
> intelligence which, no matter what the argument, sits at a meta-level
> unknowable to humans is, to me, simply a waste of time. If it will
> not change the temperature of the room or cause a chemical or physical
> reaction in matter, it does not concern me.
>
But those of a mediumistic bent claim that spirits do, indeed, change
the temperature of the room, scaring people and causing physical
things (people) to react in a material way by running away. Plus, the
concept of a spirit, that is, an individual field of disembodied
consciousness, actually drawing ambient thermal energy from the
surrounding area is not inconsistent with how an energy field might
act in order to maintain coherence when there is no neural network
through which to work.
> The stock in trade of those who deal in matters spiritual seems to be
> faith in things unseen and a world of possibilities. Maybe there is a
> God. Maybe God is inside us. Maybe we are all God. Maybe God is
> just another intelligent being like us, who created us as an
> experiment.
>
Most of those could be true, read my post on String Theory to see just
how.
> If we humans ever create a digital machine or network with even the
> most rudimentary ability to question, to think laterally in a cloud of
> fuzzy logic like we humans do, surely it will encounter the same
> fundamental metaphysical quandaries. Who created me? Why am I here?
> What makes me "me"? Do I have free will?
>
> Imagine a programmer or computer scientist trying to convince an
> artificial intelligence that it doesn't actually exist, that it is a
> collection of circuits and wires and algorithms that, when powered
> down, amount to nothing but a hill of sand, plastic and metal bits.
> What if the artificial intelligence accepts this, but still queries
> the existence of a "God" who created it, with powers of omniscience
> and omnipresence? We would then have to explain that we too are just
> cellular constructs, who went on to create a digital construct in our
> own image. But still, no Gods, we.
>
Being a computer programmer, I can appreciate that. I would inform
the AI construct that it has an awareness that is purely electrical
whereas plants' awareness is purely chemical and an animal's awareness
is a combination of both (neural circuits and hormones). And then I'd
have it read my String Theory post! ;-)
> In the context of my argument, we all agree that the machine is just a
> machine, that there is no God in its creation, only more machines.
> And, yet, the machine will never believe that. And trying to convince
> it of what is "real" would be as pointless, just as its own digression
> into the spiritual is pointless, as concerns a machine.
>
> My point, if I indeed have one, is that, in the final analysis, there
> is nothing but the world of matter and energy. No greater
> intelligence, no plan, no spirits or deities. But even if "God" him
> or herself appeared and told us that he was not God, that there is no
> point, and we should all just go have a drink and find a warm
> companion, who would believe it?
>
I postulate that that energy itself is the mechanism of God.
> It was man who wrote these words, not God:
>
> "And though I have the gift of prophesy and understand all mysteries
> and all knowledge, and though I have all faith so that I could remove
> mountains, and have not charity [love], I am nothing." KJV Bible, I
> Cor. 13:2
>
Well, it was a very guilt-ridden man and very deceptive man who wrote
that. Paul was never shown to be able to move a mountain through his
faith he was able to peddle Mithraism in the form of Christianity like
the best used-car salesman ever.
> I can read the Bible and appreciate it as a work of men, the same as
> the Quran or Bhagavad Gita. And what this wise man was saying, to me,
> is this: knowledge and faith are merely pastimes of the mind. The
> only component of our "soul" is our love for each other. Spend your
> time learning the heart of man, not the mind of God.
I would say that's a fair statement and very kind to the author. I
would also say that when you study the heart of man, and, indeed and
creature, you are studying God, as there is nothing else.
Mike Burtner
responding to my little mental exercise.
You may have missed one of the main rhetorical points of my analogy.
You see, in the analogy, we are the intelligent machines. Or, more
precisely, you are, as you apparently have a need to believe in
something other than facts and science.
There is no possible way I can convince you that science alone rules
the universe. Once you have adopted a non-naturalistic worldview,
there is a meta-level of existence in your mind that is almost
impossible to destroy.
It's a bit like kids on the playground talking about comic
superheros. No matter what anyone else says, you can always say "But
Superman is better", and you will always win. Superman trumps any non-
Superman. If the Justice League comes on a bad guy the can't conquer,
the comic writer will introduce "Zargon radiation", which the earth
will use against the arch-villain. So what if they just made up
"Zargon rays"? It explains how Superman, et al, have conquered evil
once again.
It never occurs to anyone in the discussion to bring up the point that
Superman and friends don't really exist. It would simply invalidate
not only Superman as a character (or 'person', to a child), but the
whole concept of comics and superheros. How would you argue to a
child that they are not looking at Superman, but at ink-covered
pressed wood pulp? The child would think you were crazy. Obviously
Superman exists. "There he is, right there!", a child would say.
"Now you prove to me that he *doesn't* exist. The kid wins the
argument every time.
To a child, belief in Superman is approximately equivalent to the
"belief" in gravity. They are both observable occurrences, and both
have quantifiable phenomena. Falling happens at a continuous rate,
although a child won't be able to calculate that rate until at least
high school Physics class. Superman is "faster than a speeding
bullet". Superman has as much copy written about him as Jesus, and
perhaps as many illustrated images. And yet none of the 'facts' about
Superman make him any more real.
I am not trying to convince anyone that the characters that populate
their particular mythos are not "real". Of course they are, to you.
History itself is not made of facts, but mythical stories. "Everyone"
knows that Davy Crockett died in a spectacular battle at the Alamo
because they say John Wayne recreate the scene in a movie. And yet
historians have some evidence that he died with a great number of
people who were taken prisoner and executed later. Who argues that
this can't be true? Historians from Texas, mostly. They have a
compelling emotional need to believe that their hero died in battle,
not in ignominious defeat by a bullet to the head. Does it matter?
The facts suggest a likely version of history, but the books and
movies will never change. Davy Crockett will always be a glorious
martyr, despite what really happened on that day. For me to go to the
courthouse in Austin and start crowing about the "truth" would be
quite insensitive, not to mention suicidal.
My tone may sound somewhat cynical or without empathy for those with
spiritual beliefs. While I do feel compelled sometimes to state my
naturalistic worldviews, I still respect your supernatural beliefs as
reality for you. If prayer and obedience to spirits make you feel
good, then you are truly blessed. If your explanations for a bump in
the night encompasses ghosts looking for release from haunting your
kitchen, then I'm sure you read a rich inner life. All I would ask is
that you take a little pity on those of us you find to be empty and
lacking enrichment by not accepting ghosts, fairies and elves as truly
real.
Pat
On 30 Apr, 15:00, Mike Burtner <mikeburt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you, Pat, for spending what appears to be considerable time
> responding to my little mental exercise.
>
> You may have missed one of the main rhetorical points of my analogy.
> You see, in the analogy, we are the intelligent machines. Or, more
> precisely, you are, as you apparently have a need to believe in
> something other than facts and science.
>
Nope, not really. I just don't get bogged down by the trees, leaving
me free to see the forest as well. ;-)
> There is no possible way I can convince you that science alone rules
> the universe.
True, as I hold that belief anyway.
>Once you have adopted a non-naturalistic worldview,
> there is a meta-level of existence in your mind that is almost
> impossible to destroy.
>
I don't believe in a deity that moves outside the laws of nature.
> It's a bit like kids on the playground talking about comic
> superheros. No matter what anyone else says, you can always say "But
> Superman is better", and you will always win. Superman trumps any non-
> Superman. If the Justice League comes on a bad guy the can't conquer,
> the comic writer will introduce "Zargon radiation", which the earth
> will use against the arch-villain. So what if they just made up
> "Zargon rays"? It explains how Superman, et al, have conquered evil
> once again.
>
What? Who told you about Zargon rays???? ;-)
> It never occurs to anyone in the discussion to bring up the point that
> Superman and friends don't really exist. It would simply invalidate
> not only Superman as a character (or 'person', to a child), but the
> whole concept of comics and superheros. How would you argue to a
> child that they are not looking at Superman, but at ink-covered
> pressed wood pulp? The child would think you were crazy. Obviously
> Superman exists. "There he is, right there!", a child would say.
> "Now you prove to me that he *doesn't* exist. The kid wins the
> argument every time.
>
All I see is energy in different forms transferring between them.
What do you see?
I would say that, if such things exist, then there is a rational
explanation for them. That doesn't mean that we (you and I) will ever
know them. Basically, I was agreeing with you in that, although I DO
interpret nature as being indicative of a greater existence, I fully
accept that there is no requirement to do so and that incredibly
positive influences can (have and will continue to do so) come from
reasoned ethics borne from atheism.
You see, although I believe that there is nothing but God, I accept
that that God is somewhat schizophrenic in that some parts of him
reject the whole. Atheism is proof that God suffers from a kind of
auto-immune disorder that is intensely useful for interpersonal debate
between conscious entities. ;-)
> > creature, you are studying God, as there is nothing else.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mike Burtner
I believe there is an historical analogy to your application of
quantum theory to the "God" idea.
In the 17th century, a man by the name of Johann Becher decided that,
in addition the four classical elements, the building blocks for all
matter, there was left one other element to explain physical and
chemical changes. He called that element "phlogiston". The theory
held that all matter contains phlogiston, a substance without color,
odor, taste, or weight that is transmuted or lost during a reaction
such as burning. Once burned, the de-phlogisticated substance was held
to be in its true form, the "calx".
For a hundred years after, as elemental science progressed, as when
oxygen and nitrogen were both discovered, scientists continued to say
that the presence of those gases caused the material undergoing the
change to have been more highly phlogisticated because those gases
attract phlogiston.
Since the phlogiston was supposed to be lost during the de-
phlogistication of matter, the observation should have been that all
matter loses mass when burned. When it was found that elements
combusting within a controlled closed environment did not lose mass,
and that some actually gained mass, it was then postulated that
phlogiston was not just weightless, but actually having a "negative
weight". By freeing the phlogiston during burning, you actually add
mass to matter.
You can see how complicated life was becoming for phlogiston
scientists. Yet they bravely pushed on, making their theory fit the
facts. And, in the end, the existence of phlogiston is purely
superfluous. We cannot observe it or quantify it, and belief or non-
belief have no effect on the chemical reaction. If one chooses to
believe that phlogiston is responsible for the interaction of matter
and energy, then it is so.
I have Brain Greene's book, "The Elegant Universe", and it appears you
do too. I (tried to) read it a few times. Nowhere in the book did I
read that Mr. Greene thought String Theory could hold explanations for
sociological or experiential phenomena. Suggesting that God is tied
up in superstrings is like saying that you added extra phlogiston to
your coffee, empowering you to make it to the office. Whether anyone
believes it or not, I'm absolutely positive you will experience a
positive energy from drinking your coffee.
But, again, in the spirit of polite debate, and despite my obtuse
attempts at humor, I truly respect your conscientious effort at
resolving your beliefs through science. I appreciate that we are not
having the same conversation that, say, Richard Dawkins might have
with the Pope.
Pat
Of course not. It would have not been taken seriously. But I'm not
constrained by physics-degreed colleagues that would shun me for
thinking outside the box.
>Suggesting that God is tied
> up in superstrings is like saying that you added extra phlogiston to
> your coffee, empowering you to make it to the office.
I'm not exactly saying God is tied up in it, but, rather, the system,
as presented, qualifies as a deity due to its omnipotence,
omnipresence and omniscience.
>Whether anyone
> believes it or not, I'm absolutely positive you will experience a
> positive energy from drinking your coffee.
>
Yes, caffeine helps keep your adenosine monophosphate in a cyclic
mode, thus able to build back up to adenosine triphosphate, which is
the primary source of intracellular energy (discounting any variety of
ions that have lost any electrons).
> But, again, in the spirit of polite debate, and despite my obtuse
> attempts at humor,
and mine!
>I truly respect your conscientious effort at
> resolving your beliefs through science. I appreciate that we are not
> having the same conversation that, say, Richard Dawkins might have
> with the Pope.
>
It's one of those 'wouldn't you love to see it' discussions, isn't
it. I can just imagine Benedict saying, "Ja, und bumst dich!" and
walking out. (I'm going to leave that untranslated, as I'm sure you
can get the gist) I think that might have made a good skit for "The
Smothers Brothers: Uncut", with Tommy as the Pope, of course, and it
all ends with the Pope saying, "Vell, Herr Dawkins, God always liked
you best!"
> ...
>
> read more ยป- Hide quoted text -