Social Question

DipanshiK's avatar

How do you define god?

Asked by DipanshiK (811 points ) May 31st, 2014 from iPhone

Honestly, I am an atheist and I do not believe that there is any such figure as god.
But I do believe that there is some power that lives within us. A powerful figure or a distinct entity that holds the universe.
Do you believe in god ? If so, what is it for you?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

144 Answers

Seek's avatar

I’m interested in how you define god, because it certainly doesn’t sound like you’re an atheist.

ragingloli's avatar

Whatever any culture that has invented gods defined them.
I do not have ‘a’ definition of ‘god’, but as many definitions of ‘gods’ as there were religions in history, both terrestrial and extraterrestrial. Needless to say, they all of them share one attribute: They are fictitious.

Symbeline's avatar

The closest thing, to me, that comes to a god is nature itself. It is alive everywhere, works in weird ways that we don’t fully understand, and the way that it comes to ’‘being a god’’ is that we need it to survive.
We’re a part of it of course, even if we distance ourselves from it, but we need air, water, the Sun and food, and all that comes from nature, which I see as a giant, single life form. Mostly because it’s something alive, but that we can’t directly communicate with.
Plus there’s probably a whole bunch of scientific shit about nature that applies to our evolution and adaptation. It has a bigger say in our fate than people know, or would admit.

Blondesjon's avatar

Generic
Old
Diety

jaytkay's avatar

God is an imaginary being for people who can’t grasp the idea that some things aren’t controlled or created by a sentient person.

That sounds dismissive, sorry, believers. But it’s the best I can word it on the fly. I’m not trying to be offensive.

In other words, “hate the belief, not the believer.”

Darth_Algar's avatar

@DipanshiK

Sounds like you’re a Deist, not an Atheist.

livelaughlove21's avatar

I think the dictionary definition of god works fine:

“a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.”

I’m agnostic. I don’t believe any of us really know whether any god exists or doesn’t exist. I’m not entirely convinced either way. Simply put, I don’t know.

BeenThereSaidThat's avatar

personally I define God with a capital “G”.

ucme's avatar

Dog spelt backwards

wildpotato's avatar

I don’t think there’s any sort of magical overseer in the sky that judges us, secretly guides the world and gives us an afterlife. I interpret “God” as a choice to maintain irrational hope, and faith as having absolutely no reason to be hopeful and yet continuing to be so. God is enacted love, and nothing more.

ZEPHYRA's avatar

Ain’t nothing nowhere.

gondwanalon's avatar

God is an infinitely and ever-changing power that exists only in the minds of some people.

SecondHandStoke's avatar

Us.

(A work in progress).

JLeslie's avatar

I define God as some sort of being that can create miracles and watches over the earth and universe.

I am an atheist.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@JLeslie By your definition, Green Peace would be God to primitive cultures.

stanleybmanly's avatar

He resides in your wallet (if you’re worthy)

kess's avatar

God is all that it is good

kritiper's avatar

There is no “God,” god, or gods. The notion was an invention of ancient peoples in an effort to explain the unexplainable.

kritiper's avatar

Since you believe in some entity of some sort, you are more accurately an Agnostic.

kess's avatar

@kritiper and you have just given an explanation which defines God

kritiper's avatar

@kess Thank you!

JLeslie's avatar

@kritiper Are you saying the OP is an agnostic? The way I see it the OP is a theist. Agnostic means you are unsure it there is a God or not. The OP identifies as an atheist, but then talks about specific beliefs she does have that sound rather Godly to me. I tend to honor whatever the person self identifies as, so if the OP wants to call themselves an atheist I am fine with it, but I don’t see why you would say the OP is agnostic.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies many different cultures define God in many different ways and it wouldn’t be the first time a primitive culture thought some regular ol’ human beings were Gods.

My father, a long term self identified atheist has become interested in how some of his peers define God, and he realizes that to some people he is a theist. Might be easier to just call oneself a theist and then just have a definition that suits the person. What my dad does not believe in is a God that has supernatural powers or that is going to send someone to heaven or hell. It isn’t really a lie to use the term theist since people can define God as they want. He still considers himself an atheist, but it is an interesting realization that when someone says they believe in God, we really don’t necessarily know what that specifically means to a particular individual.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Like your father, I too disbelieve in the supernatural.

But I do believe in a creator being who understands, and has control over what the natural world is capable of much better than humans do.

If there is a God, then it is perfectly natural for a God to exist. If that God has a better grasp on what the natural world is capable of, then it is perfectly natural for that to be so.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Supernatural, is the belief that materialists put forth claiming that sentience can arise from chaos. Since no such event has ever been documented with a responsible mechanism, the belief is such a thing is equal to believing in miracles. Nothing could be further from the concept of natural.

Mimishu1995's avatar

God is:
– Someone who helps people only if they obey strict rules.
– Someone you only see when you are dead.
– Someone who can help you pass an exam successfully but fail to save a hundred people in a sinking ship.
– Someone who is widely considered superior to human but is sometimes treated like human.
– Someone… I don’t know.

I’m an agnostic.

hearkat's avatar

‘God’ is the human’s feeble attempt to name the source of that which we can not (yet) explain. If there are ‘supreme’ being(s), especially any that are omniscient and omnipresent and omnipotent, any phrasing that our limited languages can use to attempt to describe or name it/them is sure to be inadequate.

kritiper's avatar

@JLeslie Because the OP believes in something, i.e. ”...some power…”, as does the Agnostic, without knowing or being able to define what it is or what they might think it is exactly.

livelaughlove21's avatar

@kritiper You should look up agnosticism.

JLeslie's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies My father does not believ what you believe. He just believes in the balance in the universe, that there is a cause and effect. He doesn’t feel that is a belief in God.

@kritiper Some power to me would mean God, to the OP it doesn’t (which I really don’t understand, I guess the OP thinks of God like the Christian God up there controlling everything). Agnostic is when someone is unsure if God exists, the OP sounds sure.

kritiper's avatar

@livelaughlove21 and @JLeslie An Agnostic is a person who draws all of the same conclusions as an Atheist but cannot bring themselves to make the final conclusion that there is no “God.” The op doesn’t believe in a god but cannot make that defining final decision.

Seek's avatar

Agnostic means “without knowledge”.

I am an agnostic atheist. I do not believe in any gods, but I do not claim the knowledge that none exist (not that I’m holding my breath or anything).

An agnostic theist could go through the motions of religion but not claim knowledge that a god is really there.

JLeslie's avatar

Right, I think probably, but I have no statistical data, that most atheist are agnostics atheists (to piggy back seek) but generally we just say we are atheists, because we actually live our lives as atheists. We don’t feel unsure, we don’t sit around questioning, but we are willing to say, ok we might be wrong, anything is possible. Religious people here agnostic and it’s like they want to believe we atheists are unsure, or that we want to believe, or there is some sort of opening, or that it is human nature to want to believe, or something similar. We aren’t unsure really. We don’t think about God much at all, it only comes up, because at least in the US the topic is all around us.

Darth_Algar's avatar

Personally speaking I don’t feel the need to qualify my atheism with tacking “agnostic” on to it. Sure, I don’t know that there is no God. I don’t know that there isn’t a giant invisible unicorn living in the center of Jupiter ether, but in the absence of any indicators that there is I feel pretty confident in my lack of belief.

JLeslie's avatar

@Darth_Algar Yeah, I never do either. It is only when in a specific discussion about such things that I bother. Basically, only on fluther do I clarify there might be a God I don’t know about. In every day life I just say I am an atheist, because it is the only way to get the clear message across to most people that I don’t believe in God.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

I’m wondering what type of evidence would satisfy an atheist converting to theism.

Seek's avatar

I don’t typically qualify my atheism with the “agnostic” either. It’s simply an illustration of the actual definition of the word.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

Well, for starters, maybe any tangible evidence at all.

Seek's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

A clearly defined deity, whose attributes can be proven through empirical observation.

If there is a god that wants to be found and worshiped, it wouldn’t be hiding so well.

Darth_Algar's avatar

If there is a God maybe he just wants to be left the fuck alone. Maybe he’s on paid vacation for the next million years or so.

JLeslie's avatar

Believing in God and believing you have to worship Him is two different things in my mind. What are believing? That He was the creator of the universe? That he answers prayers? That he wants to be worshipped or he will punish you in hell? Each thing comes with different demands of the believer.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@Darth_Algar ”...any tangible evidence…”

I believe because of hard tangible, repeatable, verifiable, falsifiable evidence. My belief is not faith based. I don’t even know what faith is beyond something that cannot be trusted.

How can it be helped if others reject the evidence that I accept?

How can I deny empirical evidence for a creator being? I believe because science demands it of me.

JLeslie's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Then go ahead and believe. Is it a big deal if others don’t believe? Do you feel that affects your life in any way that there are nonbelievers? My husband believes, I don’t, it has never been an issue.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@JLeslie “Do you feel that affects your life in any way that there are nonbelievers?”

It makes me do this every time I hear someone claim with authority that a God creator being is somehow synonymous with magic unicorns or the flying spaghetti monster. Some speak so vehemently against the possibility of God that it reeks of religious fervor. But that’s about the only way it “affects” me. And no, I never suppose it to be a “big deal” until insulting accusations of stupidity from atheists start being hurled.

I’m also confused at times when folks can’t seem to separate the concept of God with the institutions of religion. I often wonder if it’s really the potential of a God creator they disbelieve in so much as a bias against religions. I personally disbelieve in the validity of religions, attributing countless injustices to them. But that has nothing to do with my belief in creator deity.

cheebdragon's avatar

Mental illness.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

You can get help for that @cheebdragon. No need to suffer.

dappled_leaves's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies “How can it be helped if others reject the evidence that I accept?”

If everyone else rejects the evidence that you accept, perhaps it’s time to look more closely at the definition of evidence.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

So where is this “hard, tangible, repeatable, verifiable, falsifiable” evidence?

Seek's avatar

His evidence is personal revelation and subjective experience.

cheebdragon's avatar

Get help for what? I don’t talk to imaginary or invisible entities.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@dappled_leaves “If everyone else rejects the evidence…”

I didn’t say “everyone”.

@Darth_Algar “So where is this “hard, tangible, repeatable, verifiable, falsifiable” evidence?”

In every cell of your body. Mine too. It’s in every cell of every living thing.

@Seek “His evidence is personal revelation and subjective experience.”

No my dear, I’m afraid it is not. My evidence is the code which cannot be authored by anything less than a sentient being. A code more advanced than anything humans have ever created. At least that’s what science tells me. I’ll gladly change my position when science informs me differently with something beyond speculation shrouded in agenda.

@cheebdragon “I don’t talk to imaginary or invisible entities.”

What gives you authority to claim that others do? Or that they suffer from mental illness by claiming communication with an entity that you are unaware of, or unwilling to converse with?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Forgive me @cheebdragon. Right after I said… “I never suppose it to be a “big deal” until insulting accusations of stupidity from atheists start being hurled.”

You said “Mental Illness”. How can I not take that comment as a personal insult against my sanity?

So let’s talk about imaginary beliefs. How, (when absolutely no mechanism has ever been demonstrated) can anyone possibly believe that the dumb cosmos can author a super advanced six billion letter code which constructs an individual human being? And writes a separate and unique code for every single living thing ever created on this planet throughout history? A code which is provable by law to identify a unique entity?

Credit card companies count on the fact that codes cannot be authored by chaos.

Google operates on the fact that codes cannot be authored by chaos.

The smart folks at SETI base their entire research on the fact that codes cannot be authored by chaos.

Imagining that codes can be authored by chance, is, in fact, the most preposterous fantasy that a person could ever cling to. Consider it a dogma which should be rejected upon the merit of never having been demonstrated.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

If someone believes that the blind, deaf and dumb cosmos can somehow author a code which builds a living being that can also author code on this thread… Then they are essentially claiming that the blind, deaf and dumb cosmos… HAS SPOKEN, and continues to speak unto this day, through our conversation here on fluther. I propose the universe is a more efficient machine than that, and would never come to a point of arguing with itself. I propose if anyone believes the dumb universe has, and can SPEAK, then they are giving credit to ancient myth and folklore of _talking trees, whispering streams, babbling brooks, and burning bushes that instruct an out cast jew to father a violent nation. The person who claims such a thing becomes a parody of the religions they would otherwise mock.

Balderdash.

dappled_leaves's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies This is nonsense. It has already been shown that given the right materials and the right conditions, life will create itself. And replicate itself. Since Earth has had the necessary conditions, plus a good 4 billion years plus to get around to it, I don’t know how life on Earth can be seen as anything but inevitable.

And you still have no evidence for your “author” who has “spoken.” You have only your faith. You keep saying that it is “what science tells you.” But try looking for a consensus among actual scientists about what you believe. You won’t find them; you’ll only find the one or two people who wrote these ideas that you keep repeating. No one else agrees with them.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

You’re right @dappled_leaves, what you say is indeed nonsense. The Miller-Urey experiment only demonstrates that organic compounds can be created with the right conditions. Organic compounds are NOT synonymous with life. Organic compounds are building blocks,,,, but they are not a building.

Life (and buildings) require a genetic code.

And I don’t think you understand what evidence is. Code IS EVIDENCE of a sentient author… regardless if the author is anonymous or not. You certainly don’t think a book with a cover ripped away means that the book wrote itself, do you? You certainly don’t think the anonymous hieroglyphics wrote themselves do you? What about “John loves Jane” scratched into the side of a tree a hundred years ago? Will you claim the tree wrote that code since the author is dead and gone?

DNA is a code. It is called a code for extremely specific reasons. It was not labeled a code by accident. It was discovered to be a code (by the Russian linguist Gamov), after the molecule was discovered. Hubert Yockey mapped the DNA communications protocols with RNA from the protocols provided by Claude Shannon’s Information Theory.

All codes have sentient authors, or were written by sentient authors with the capacity to re-author themselves. No exceptions.

dappled_leaves's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies See? You’ve just name-dropped exactly the same couple of guys you always do. Everyone else knows these ideas are science fiction.

JLeslie's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies It is just the same as the holy rollers when atheists get too preachy or are insulting, there we agree.

I think most people understand the difference between believing in God and the religious instutions. That the two can be separate things.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Whoa @dappled_leaves, pardon me for “name dropping” the fathers of genetics and information theory. Who in the world believes their research is science fiction? Our entire modern lives are run by the principles they set forth.

@JLeslie “I think most people understand the difference between believing in God and the religious instutions. That the two can be separate things.”

On that, my friend, we will disagree. I don’t even think most religious folk distinguish the differences between God and their religion.

Let me ask you a question @dappled_leaves. Do you believe the dumb mute cosmos wrote a six billion letter code that represents you? And if so, then isn’t that the same thing as admitting the universe can speak, and continues to speak and argue with itself with every word we write here?

dappled_leaves's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I’d love to hear you cite the fathers of genetics. That would be refreshing. I’d never even heard of your guys until you mentioned them around Fluther. And information theory is not biology, sorry.

Look, you can believe that you were created by a deity all you want. I don’t care whether you do or don’t. I only care that you are trying to say that your religious belief is based in science. It is not.

JLeslie's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Maybe the religious people have more trouble separating the two, or understanding they can be separate, because they feel God is a part of their religion, as opposed to people who identify as theists or spiritual and are not attached to a specific religion. Probably atheists also are more likely to understand it also. Or, I could be dead wrong. I’m surrounded by a lot of atheists and I think they get it. I know a lot of Christians who are totally confused that a Jewish person can be an atheist.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@dappled_leaves “information theory is not biology, sorry.”

Genetics is. And so is biology.
“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editiing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.”
Hubert Yockey (emphasis mine)
See link below, or read the book yourself.

Claude Shannon communication protocols are the basis for Hubert Yockey protocols. They are identical. Notice the word “message” at the beginning of both. You didn’t answer my question earlier. Do you think the dumb cosmos can author a “message”? Please answer.

@dappled_leaves “I’d love to hear you cite the fathers of genetics. That would be refreshing.”

Here is the Google Book Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life by Hubert Yockey, who wrote the protocols that every geneticist uses today. Yockey protocols have never been challenged.

Here’s some excerpts which should give reason to consider changing your thoughts about the relationship between information theory, biology, and genetics

@dappled_leaves ” I only care that you are trying to say that your religious belief is based in science.”

I don’t have a religious belief. That’s what @JLeslie and I are discussing right now, the inability of some to separate the concepts of religion with concepts of God. You just proved my point that some cannot distinguish the differences. Since I have no religion, then this has absolutely NOTHING to do with my religious beliefs.

JLeslie's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Would you agree God was a concept first created by religion? That religion and organized religion are two differen things regarding how we use the words? I think some of the miscommunication is semantics and how people define the various things we are talking about.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

The late Leslie Orgel (renowned Abiogenesis proponent) said: the self-organization of the reductive citric acid cycle without the help of “informational” catalysts would be a near miracle.

Martin Line makes a great case in A Hypothetical Pathway from the RNA to the DNA World, but in the end still warns us that:

“The pathway proposed is not intended to represent reality”

and requires “a formidalbe conceptual leap” and hopes that

“If support for some of these steps can be shown, final resort to an intelligent creator for the origin of life (Gibson, 1993) may yet be premature”

This is Abiogenesis proponents own words about their own research. Even they know it’s a joke.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@JLeslie “Would you agree God was a concept first created by religion?”

No. I think God is independent of any religion. I think religion is a concept created by humans.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Nucleotide = Character
Codon = Letter
Gene = Word
Operon = Sentence
Regulon = Paragraph
Chromosome = Chapter

Seek's avatar

Anyone else wondering how we made the jump from genetics (something that only applies to things with DNA or RNA, which as far as we know came into existence about 4 billion years ago) to what is essentially physics and chemistry (the beginning of the universe ten billion+ years before that)?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Someone asked what “evidence” I use to support my belief in a creator being. Kind of just goes there.

And yes, if this being has the smarts to author an individual multi billion letter code for every living thing that ever existed, then it’s probably smart enough to create rocks that go bump in the night.

dappled_leaves's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies You simply have no idea what you are talking about. Once again, I am forced to stop talking to you because you have a language all your own, that no one else can use as currency for ideas.

@Seek Yup. It was a flight of pure fancy.

And for those wondering… as a biologist, I feel that someone has to stand up and call bullshit on these ideas being presented as accepted fact. You would have to write a lot of emails before you found any biologist who has even heard of Yockey, this supposed “father of genetics.” Yockey is a 98-year old physicist who wrote a manifesto that @RealEyesRealizeRealLies has decided to turn into a personal faith. That’s all we have here.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Just trying to give consideration that belief in a deity is not necessarily a result of “Mental Illness” or “nonsense”. There are good reasons to believe that have nothing to do with faith.

Not trying to evangelize anyone here. But I don’t want to be considered stupid for my beliefs either.

@dappled_leaves Do you disagree with anything Yockey promotes? Do you disagree with the Abiogenesis proponents quoted above? Do you disagree with Gamov conclusions? Please illustrate where they are incorrect.

And please @dappled_leaves, for the third time requesting, please answer my direct question to you above… Again, Do you believe the dumb mute cosmos wrote a six billion letter code that represents you? And if so, then isn’t that the same thing as admitting the universe can speak, and continues to speak and argue with itself with every word we write here? Please stop avoiding that question.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@dappled_leaves @RealEyesRealizeRealLies has decided to turn into a personal faith. ”

Please avoid mocking the messenger. Please consider the information shared.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@dappled_leaves “I feel that someone has to stand up and call bullshit… You would have to write a lot of emails before you found any biologist who has even heard of Yockey”

Consider dressing your chops better. This is Yockey, with over 18,000 Bings.

Paradox25's avatar

According to some fringe scientists what many religions term as God may be a giant analogue computer, one that had evolved a gradual sentience over time. The illusions of the macroscopic universe and ‘individuality’ were simple abstract constructs used to give this lone intelligence a meaningful experience.

Unlike Mainlander’s God, one that was desperate to destroy itself through creation, the former type of ‘god’ is interested in finding a meaningful way to experience all of its thoughts/desires via creation before realizing it’s own demise will be inevitable at some point in the distant future.

I’m not sure if I buy the concept of an all-knowing, omnipotent god that’s eternal, or that some entity can exist outside of space-time. Rather I think ‘transcendentalism’ simply comes down to different levels of consciousness. The only things that are truly real in the universe would be the subquantum undetectable background medium making up the super computer, and the information generated from this.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Love the out of box thinking @Paradox25. GA!

It’s about time the G concept was released from religious shackles.

cheebdragon's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I never said that you had a mental illness. The question was “How do you define God?” I think of god as being the product of mentally ill people in ancient civilizations.
Do you honestly believe mental illness is a recently developed issue? The earliest recorded documentation of symptoms that we today recognize as mental disorders date as far as the second millennium before the birth of Christ. Would you believe the homeless guy at the park if he told you god spoke to him today and told him to sacrifice his children in the name of god? Fuck no, you would call the cops on him or walk away quickly. If I told you that I was the daughter of god, are you prepared to believe me just because I said it? Probably not but what makes my words any less credible than the words of someone a couple thousand years ago? At least you could say that you witnessed my testimony. The bible is full of inconsistencies about god, why is he portrayed so differently by each and every prophet?

ragingloli's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies
Of course you have faith.
You have faith in the unproven assumptions that 1. DNA is a code (it is a molecule whose chemical properties dictate its interaction with its environment and cell organelles and which itself is modified by feedback from those interactions), and 2. that code can only be created by an intelligent author.
Your entire position is nothing more than a variation of ‘Intelligend Design’.
And just like any ID proponent, you latch onto the musings of a few single scientists, and use them in an argument from authority to support your unfounded beliefs.
But we have been over this before and I know you will not change your belief.
Hence, faith.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

Sorry, but your assumption that genetic code had to have been authored by a sentient being is not proof of God no matter how much you want it to be.

JLeslie's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies If we are talking about the single Abrahamic God, I think the Jews get the credit for that God usually. What do you think happened over 5700 years ago? People saw God and were aware of God, He showed Himself all the time and religion was not needed to spread the word? People just knew God existed?

I was raised without God and I can tell you it never occured to me there might be some sort of something like a God. I never would have come up with it on my own.

cheebdragon's avatar

“What if you were to simply think about what it would mean if there were a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe? Is it possible for such a being to exist? Epicures thought about it in 300 BCE, and he came up with this:”

“The gods can either take away evil from the world and will not, or, being willing to do so, cannot; or they neither can nor will, or lastly, they are both able and willing. If they have the will to remove evil and cannot, then they are not omnipotent. If they can, but will not, than they are not benevolent. If they are neither able nor willing, then they are neither omnipotent nor benevolent. Lastly, if they are both able and willing to annihilate evil, how does it exist?”

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@ragingloli “You have faith in the unproven assumptions that 1. DNA is a code…”

Discovered to be a code by the Russian linguist, Gamov. It is not an assumption. It is a fact used in courts of law across the globe every day. Please advise of any scientist who doesn’t accept that DNA contains a code which instructs specific information to RNA.

@ragingloli “and 2. that code can only be created by an intelligent author.”
@Darth_Algar “your assumption that genetic code had to have been authored by a sentient being is not proof ”

Please advise of another proven mechanism which can author codified information, aside from sentient authorship. I’ve been searching for over a decade. Haven’t found anything yet.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@JLeslie “If we are talking about the single Abrahamic God…”

I’m not confirming or defending any god of any religion.

Seek's avatar

Please advise of another proven mechanism which can author codified information, aside from sentient authorship. I’ve been searching for over a decade. Haven’t found anything yet.

I believe that’s what Dawkins refers to as the “Argument from personal incredulity”.

JLeslie's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Does the God you believe in punish those who do not nice things? Can He create miracles? That sort of thing? Does He hear prayers? Judge?

ragingloli's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies
Argument from ignorance. “I do not know how, therefore god.”

ragingloli's avatar

Also, DNA “instructs information to RNA” as a car engine “instructs the wheels to turn”.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@Seek “I believe that’s what Dawkins refers to as the “Argument from personal incredulity”.”

I can’t believe P, therefore not-P.

You refer to my disbelief that chaos can author genuine code? A disbelief shared by Google, SETI, and every encryption service on the planet?

Please apply the same fallacy to your disbelief that an original creator could be responsible for our existence.

Please answer this question: Do you believe that chaos can author code, and continues to speak and argue with itself on this thread?

______________

@ragingloli “Argument from ignorance. “I do not know how, therefore god.”

Not at all. I do know. We all do. We all know that sentient authorship is responsible for the authoring of code. There isn’t much debate in that. Anonymous authorship is a soggy and illegitimate refutation to that testable, repeatable, falsifiable hypothesis. Occam’s razor demands that we pursue the most simple and elegant verifications.

@ragingloli “Also, DNA “instructs information to RNA” as a car engine “instructs the wheels to turn”.”

Not at all. What you describe is cause and effect, not instructions. The car does not instruct the wheels with a pre-existing plan. Real instructions exists before the action or physical manifestation is carried out. Therefor, the car doesn’t “instruct” at all. DNA does. There is a verifiable, predictable, testable, repeatable plan that comes into existence BEFORE the RNA carries out the instructions. Not much argument in that either, unless you’ve uncovered a code that the car and the wheels can have a conversation with. If you knew anything about code, then you’d understand that no code exists without a medium to exist upon. There is no medium that a car uses to author code to wheels. The wheels don’t have a receiver mechanism. DNA has all of that, and more, to satisfy the communication protocols set forth by Claude Shannon.

____________

@Darth_Algar “Argumentum ad ignorantiam.”

Not at all. The science of Information Theory is just like any other science. It doesn’t set out to “prove” anything. At best, as with any other science, the most we can do is “infer” relationships between observable phenomenon. Information Theory allows us to comfortably infer a relationship between sentient authors and the existence of code. We will always allow for a black swan to appear. But until that day, science moves forward by acknowledging every testable and repeatable relationship. The relationship between sentient authorship and the existence of code satisfy every scientific discipline.

____________

@JLeslie “Does the God you believe in punish those who do not nice things?”

That’s between the two of them. Neither one of them need me to get involved in their disputes.

“Can He create miracles? That sort of thing?”

As I’ve said before, I don’t believe in what most people call “miracles”. Nor do I believe in the supernatural. I do believe there are numerous potentials in reality that humans haven’t come close to discovering, or harnessing yet. Who am I to say that another entity hasn’t discovered, harnessed, or even created those reality potentials? That would be arguing from one of the many fallacies I’m accused of above.

“Does He hear prayers?”

I don’t know if it’s a He, or She, or what. I don’t know if it has ears to hear with. And if it does, I don’t know if they are like my ears. And sorry, I don’t know if it hears prayer. I try simply to be still and good in its presence. That’s difficult enough.

“Judge?”

I believe that all sentient beings make judgements. That’s one of the qualifiers for being a sentient being.

Seek's avatar

Was that just “I know you are, but what am I?”

As far as code, I simply can’t be arsed to argue further about how silly the whole thing sounds.

ragingloli's avatar

Not at all. I do know. We all do. We all know that sentient authorship is responsible for the authoring of code. There isn’t much debate in that.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
We know that some “code” is “authored” by sentient beings. The only examples of which we know that, are made by humans.
We do not know that DNA was “authored” by a sentient being.
What you are doing is nothing more than a variation of the Creationist/ID Watchmaker fallacy. No amount of your sophistry will change that.

Not at all. What you describe is cause and effect, not instructions.
And that is what DNA does. Cause and effect.
Adenine does not bind to thymine but not to cytosine because of “instructions”. It does so because the molecules chemical properties make only specific configurations of hydrogen bonds possible. And it is chemical properties and reactions all the way down.

Blondesjon's avatar

I’ve noticed that nobody else is patiently posting links to back up their info besides Realeyes.

I’m not a believer in God but I am a believer in debate and I don’t really see the rest of you doing anything like that.

Like Tyler said, “Oh I get it, it’s very clever.”

“How’s that working out for you?”

dappled_leaves's avatar

@Blondesjon He has provided links to the work of one man who is not an authority on the origin of life or the origin of DNA. He has provided a link to a Google search for Yocker, which does not at all prove what he says it does. When he provides a link that is relevant to what he is claiming, it will be worth taking seriously. So far, this has not occurred, in this or any other “god because code” thread I’ve followed.

It also does not require a link to show that most of these claims are pure fallacy. It only requires an understanding of the fallacies. Despite this, @Darth_Algar did generously provide a link to explain one of the fallacies he has been using.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@ragingloli “We know that some “code” is “authored” by sentient beings. The only examples of which we know that, are made by humans.”

Wolf howls, whale song, cat mews, and the figure 8 waggle dance from the bee are all examples of sentient non human code authoring. They all have transmitter/receiver mechanisms, alphabets, error correction, noise reduction, and predetermine the existence of an act or event before they ever occur in physical reality.

Humans are NOT a requirement for the authoring of code.

@ragingloli “What you are doing is nothing more than a variation of the Creationist/ID Watchmaker fallacy.”

Either you don’t understand the Watchmaker fallacy, or you don’t understand what code is.

I completely agree with Dawkins Watchmaker fallacy. We cannot claim the watch was designed just by looking at it. But there is another chapter to the story. The face of the watch has code which represents genuine information. Crack it open, and find more code that denotes gear sizing and foundry tags. Follow the foundry tag to the room that holds the CAD drawings and PLANS for the watch. Then, and only then, upon discovering a code that existed before the watch ever came to be, then and only then may we INFER the existence of a designer. We certainly don’t INFER that chaos created the watch, after finding a set of plans… unless of course you want to claim that chaos can speak and author code.

And so what if you think I present a “variation” on another argument. What in God’s name is wrong with that? Call it what you want. Your mind is set regardless. I disagree that my position is ID/Creationist because they NEVER mention anything about Info Theory or the requirement for code to be accompanied by sentient authors. I don’t care what you call it.

@ragingloli “Adenine does not bind to thymine but not to cytosine because of “instructions”.”

That’s the alphabet. Not the instructions. Bricks don’t “make” a building. Bricks + Plans “make” a building. No building would arise otherwise. Neither would any living creature.

@Seek “I simply can’t be arsed to argue further about how silly the whole thing sounds.”

Not looking for an argument. Just looking for an answer to the same unanswered question I’ve asked at least four times now.

Does anyone here believe that chaos can author a code which evolves into arguing with itself upon this thread?

___________

@dappled_leaves “He has provided links to the work of one man who is not an authority on the origin of life or the origin of DNA.”

Again my friend…
Information Theory, Evolution, and The Origin of Life by Hubert P Yockey.

Find me a scientist, a single scientist that refutes Yockey’s work. Find me any scientist that has presented an alternative thesis. Any genetic scientist at all will do. Find me a genetic scientist that doesn’t follow the protocols set forth by Hubert, even unknowingly so.

@dappled_leaves “When he provides a link that is relevant to what he is claiming, it will be worth taking seriously.”

Above, again, in the words of the most renowned Abiogenisis proponents, they too claim their research doesn’t “represent reality”, or would be a “near miracle” without an “informational catalyst”. Where is the missing “informational catalyst”…? We know of one… Sentient authorship.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Find me a single genetic scientist that disagrees with anything Yockey says in these excerpts from his book. Heck, find me one scientist that presents a single competing alternative research. I can’t. And I’ve tried folks… I’m tired of trying. And I’m tired of folks claiming he is wrong, but never providing any alternatives for consideration.

Seek's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies You’re asking me to defend against something that isn’t a proven fact. I feel no more inclination to argue that chaos can spawn code than I do that a monkey can give birth to a person.

ragingloli's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies
Animal communication actually contradicts your assumption, because all of those evolved over millions of years.
I also doubt you would consider ants and bees sentient.

JLeslie's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Interesting. Some of your answers are a little confusing to me to straighten out in my mind, but at the same time I like how you have your belief in God sorted out. I feel like I should have more questions for you, maybe I am just very tired, but I can’t come up with anything succinct. Thanks for answering my questions.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Seek

He’s asking us to argue against something that’s not even wrong.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

The phrase not even wrong describes any argument that purports to be scientific but fails at some fundamental level,

Information Theory and Genetics are scientific. Sentient authorship is the most fundamental premise when pondering upon code origins.

…usually in that it contains a terminal logical fallacy…

Of previously accused logical fallacies, my refutations stand unchallenged by anyone here. My refutations stand.

…or it cannot be falsified by experiment (i.e. tested with the possibility of being rejected)...

Falsification of the requirement for all codes to be sentient authored are easily accounted for when someone presents an alternative hypothesis which is testable, repeatable, predictable…

…or cannot be used to make predictions about the natural world.

I predict that within the next ten seconds… a male genetic code will recombinate with a female genetic code and through that process author an entirely new genetic code that no living thing in the history of the universe has ever shared. If that’s not a prediction about the natural world, I don’t know what is. Nothing else in nature does that.

____________

@ragingloli “Animal communication actually contradicts your assumption, because all of those evolved over millions of years.”

All codes evolve. That’s one of the many differences between code and chaos. Chaos changes, but doesn’t evolve. Code changes, and thereby evolves. In fact, no evolution is verifiable without a code to verify it upon.

@ragingloli “I also doubt you would consider ants and bees sentient.”

My studies of ants lead me to believe they are not sentient creatures. I’ve studied their pheromone trails to analyze them for code. No code has been found. Ants, at this time, seem to me as non sentient creatures. Their actions are more akin to functional machines working on the principle of cause and reaction only.

Bees on the other hand are most definitely sentient. I define sentience as conscious awareness to the degree of being capable to author, transmit, or receive codified information. The bees are consciously aware to the degree their primitive figure 8 waggle dance can describe phenomenon and predict future outcomes.

For cavity-nesting honey bees, flowers that are located directly in line with the sun are represented by waggle runs in an upward direction on the vertical combs, and any angle to the right or left of the sun is CODED by a corresponding angle to the right or left of the upward direction. (emphasis mine)

The distance between hive and recruitment target is encoded in the duration of the waggle runs.[1] The farther the target, the longer the waggle phase. The more excited the bee is about the location, the more rapidly it will waggle, so it will grab the attention of the observing bees, and try to convince them. (emphasis mine)

Their is “convincing” going on here. Communication… which is “encoded”. There is a certain degree of conscious awareness, and therefor sentient behavior. Ants don’t have a smart dance.

The bee dance encodes for distance to the pollen, direction, wind drift, most efficient routes, alternative routes, and quality of pollen expected to be found there.

It fucking predicts the future man. Ants don’t predict the future. They react to stimuli.

Though the odd thing about ants, is that the colony as a whole seems to act as a sentient being with a singular mind. Like some bird flocks do, or fish schools. Alas, in honor of Richard Dawkins coining the term “Apparent Design”, under the same premise I offer you the term “Apparent Information”, to denote phenomenon which on the surface may seem to be consciously aware, when in fact it only displays the attributes of water running downhill. Nothing to see here folks. Just cause and reaction with ants.

And although the birds may be some degree of sentient with their morning calls, the group mentality is just reacting to stimuli, of a hawk attacking, or a wind drift.

_______________

@Seek “You’re asking me to defend against something that isn’t a proven fact.”

What’s not a proven fact? Sentient authorship of genetic codes, or chaos ability to speak and argue with itself?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@JLeslie “Thanks for answering my questions.”

My pleasure. I appreciate the questions.

@JLeslie “I like how you have your belief in God sorted out.”

A wise man once told me that as soon as you start to believe something, you’d better reject it immediately lest dogma start to wag its tail. I have nothing sorted out. The best I can do is share what I’ve discovered and offer it up for criticism. Isn’t that what heaven is… when one person finds gold and instead of keeping it for themselves, they share it with anyone who wants it… and doesn’t force it upon anyone who doesn’t want it? That’s what heaven is to me.

Seek's avatar

@Darth_Algar

That. Is. the greatest thing. I’ve ever read.

“Not only are you not right, you’re not even wrong”. Bah hahaha. “What you said was so confused that one could not tell whether it was nonsense or not.”

I’m dying. I’m seriously dying. Hahaha.

Paradox25's avatar

@JLeslie I’m thinking that realeyes means most people probably only have a crude understanding of a single entity, hence the reasons for so many religions. Religion has given ‘God’ a bad name. Confining theism, psi and the mind/brain correlation to religious and new age speak has given intelligent design a bad name.

One of course one can believe the brain and mind are the same according to religious dualism too, because of the concept of physical vs spirit. I reject that types of dualism because I don’t believe in physical vs spirit, but simply different levels of a holographic reality that we experience depending on the level of our consciousness and strength of our information filter barriers. I know, this sounds crazy.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I’m open to the possibility of an infinite, omnipotent and omniscient god, but I think it’s unlikely. Have you ever heard of the Kalam Cosmological Argument? I’m sure you have. In order to get around the infinite amounts of prime-movers would be a magical violation of physics, or a concept that allows for a net energy gain without getting more energy out of a system than what’s in it. The only thing that gets around this is the concept of negative mass matter/energy.

A very fringe group of scientists have speculated that what’s termed as dark energy being some mysterious force having long range repulsion powers (another force of nature would need to be created then) is really the ultimate level of reality, made up of super small positive and negative mass particles. The slight net energy gain from the particles colliding with each other and breaking doesn’t violate any physical laws due the unique characteristics of each type of particle. Hawking Radiation uses a similar idea, but if the particles speculated to be making up dark energy collide at an angle, a unique energy gain is created rather than annihilation.

There’s no need for the Kalam Cosmolgical Argument, and what we know as the big bang was really just a programmed event according to this hypothesis. The quantum level of reality would be nothing more than an abstract construct, just information as programmed by the super computer so it could experience unique semi-virtual realities. Once our vehicle wears out here, than the mind perceives reality through another vehicle specifically made for another holographic ‘reality’, and so on.

There are quite a few scientists with quite a few different ideas concerning a holographic universe, but to me one stands out to me over others because it attempts to explain what dark energy is, and is based off of a premise that’s completely allowed by our current knowledge of physics. The universe according to one hypothesis must keep expanding, or the net energy gain that ultimately generated the energy source that allowed the formation of the super computer would immediately come to an end, and only the void would exist again. I don’t know, but I’m open to this because I have a different view of sentience than most others do, and it explains problems in physics as well as fitting in the paranormal, including telepathy and mind not being the result of the brain, though the brain has a major effect on mind.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

You’re taking coded systems developed by humans, conflating that with genetics, making the assumptions that since humans write code then genetic code must be written by some sentient being as well. Your conclusions aren’t based on anything other than an assumption on your part. They’re not observable, they’re not testable, they’re not falsifiable, they’re not scientific.

JLeslie's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies As long as it is not thrust upon people who are not interested it’s fine.

cheebdragon's avatar

Seems pretty Mental.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@Darth_Algar “You’re taking coded systems developed by humans, conflating that with genetics…”

Is there really any argument against the fact that genetics is an information science?... One which has discovered that DNA/RNA transcription is identical to human language protocols, unlike anything else in nature…? One might even posit that human language protocols are a natural evolution of DNA/RNA transcription protocols… Why wouldn’t they be? How could we expect them to be anything else?

Linguistics and Information Theory are friendlier to Genetics far more than biology will ever be capable of. It was the Russian Linguist Gamow who discovered DNA was a language. The DNA is a quaternary code, mapped to binary, then translated into trinary by RNA. Some pretty heavy information processing going on there which Google is just beginning to understand and implement, barely. Gariav, a Russian scientist has discovered that DNA also puts off light waves, adding another dimension to its coding prowess. And just the other day on NPR Science Friday, some cat was talking about the discovery of DNA putting off sound waves too. It’s coding structure is far beyond anything that humans have ever developed, yet it conforms to every known communications protocols that humans have ever invented, prior to the discovery of DNA.

I’m not “conflating” anything with genetics. Genetics IS an information based science, first and foremost.

@Darth_Algar ”...making the assumptions that since humans write code then genetic code must be written by some sentient being as well.”

A safe assumption that science demands me to consider with utmost scrutiny. Of which I’m trying to do for over a decade now. I can’t find any argument against the principles of sentient code authoring. Least non that aren’t reeking of Marxist Materialist Dogmatic agenda in fear of losing next years grant money for their outdated and failed research.

Since sentient authorship is the only known source of code authoring, be it humans, bees, or whales, then we must infer the hypothesis that all codes have sentient authors. It’s the same standards used to claim that an invisible force called gravity must exist, although no one has ever seen, touched, smelled gravity. And we cannot verify that Pluto has gravity until we go there. But we will assume it does on the basis of what is known. And so far, we know that sentient authorship is the ONLY mechanism which can account for the creation of code.

@Darth_Algar ”...Your conclusions aren’t based on anything other than an assumption on your part….”

Will you assume that gravity affects a planet in another galaxy? I should think so, based upon what you know about gravity on earth. Same standards apply to code authoring.

@Darth_Algar ”...They’re not observable…”

This entire thread is an observable example of sentient code authoring. Happens countless times a day, every day, since before recorded history. You can’t have any conversation without observing it.

@Darth_Algar ”... they’re not testable…”

There, I just tested it… Yep, sentient beings are capable of authoring code. You’ve been testing it since at least our conversation started.

@Darth_Algar ”... they’re not falsifiable…”

The requirement of sentient authorship is easily falsifiable… Ask the gravel in your driveway if it will sing you a poem. If it does not, then you must admit, that as far as you know, rocks can’t talk. You’re free to keep looking for a talking rock with an alphabet and communication protocol, and a message to transmit… Keep looking, but until then, you’ll have to admit that rocks cannot speak. The day you find a talking rock, the premise of sentient authorship has been falsified….

Falsification IS POSSIBLE upon the discovery of another mechanism besides sentient authorship which can produce code. That’s how falsification works my friend. Find the black swan.

@Darth_Algar ”...not scientific…”

Our entire discussion has been scientific, on my part. But you left out the “predictions” part of the scientific method… I predict that another sentient author will write new code on fluther by the end of tomorrow 9am. Wanna bet?

The requirement for code to be sentient authored passes every gate of the scientific method. It can even make predictions.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

I’ve enjoyed reading your comments @Paradox25. I want to consider them before replying with time to do so. Sounds like you’re starting an interesting conversation.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@Paradox25 “One of course one can believe the brain and mind are the same according to religious dualism too, because of the concept of physical vs spirit. I reject that types of dualism because I don’t believe in physical vs spirit, but simply different levels of a holographic reality that we experience depending on the level of our consciousness and strength of our information filter barriers. I know, this sounds crazy.”

Doesn’t sound crazy at all. On the surface, I don’t agree with it all. But looking deeper I believe our differences would be attributed to personal definitions of words like “spirit”, “holographic”(which I really don’t have a definition for, oddly), and “consciousness” (which I have some pretty firm definitions of, oddly not);)...

So how do you define those three words @Paradox25…? “spirit”, “holographic”, and “conscioiusness”?

As to “dualism”, I am a card carrying dualist. I believe in non locality of mind, and principles of karma, balance, equilibrium… yin and yang and turtles all the way down. Principles of The Word presented in Christianity, and ancient Indian Philosophers like Bhartrihari’s Sphota Theory of Language.

Anything, any teaching, which promotes the separation of the medium from the message. I can write “Billy Love Joe” in hundreds of different languages upon millions of different mediums. But the message is always the same. That separation, that non locality is the basis behind my belief in a non physical realm where thought/spirits and mind/souls dwell. Yes, thoughts and spirits are the same things. Yes minds and souls are the exact same things. Different words from different disciplines which describe the exact same things.

Many thoughts build a mind, just like many spirits build a soul.

Thoughts of greed, lust, anger, revenge are identical to the spirits of greed, lust, anger and revenge. Thoughts of charity, forgiveness, encouragement… are the same as the spirit of charity, forgiveness, and encouragement.

An old American Indian proverb states there are two wolves inside every person. They fight to gain control over the other. The one you feed becomes strongest, and dominates.

@Paradox25 “an infinite, omnipotent and omniscient god, but I think it’s unlikely. Have you ever heard of the Kalam Cosmological Argument? I’m sure you have. In order to get around the infinite amounts of prime-movers would be a magical violation of physics”

Many versions of Kalam. Notice the last word in your sentence… “physics”. We must consider the Hard Marxist Dialectic Materialism which has been foisted upon Western society for the past fifty years. We’ve been hypnotized, brainwashed with teachings of pure materialism for far too long. In all that time, we’ve never seen a thought spill out onto the floor during brain surgery. We don’t know where the thought is. Sure we can point to electrochemical reactions that represent the thought. But we can’t find the thought itself in the physical world. Where is it?

I propose there must be a hidden dimension from our purely physical senses and instrumentations (perhaps your holographic reality). My thoughts are no more in my brain than they are on your computer screen right now. My brain and your computer screen only represent the same thought. But they are not the thought itself.

The funny thing about code is not only does it represent thought… ALWAYS (just ask SETI), but it’s the only thing in the universe that duplicates itself just by being observed. It duplicates upon observation. That’s fucking wild man. And thats the only way that thoughts may be shared.

ELVIS writes a song. The lyrics and music represent his thoughts.

Elvis dies.

Today, some folk still enjoy experiencing the thoughts of Elvis through the musical representation of them. Elvis thoughts live. How can a thought exist without existing of a mind? Elvis mind lives beyond his physical death. Elvis has NOT left the building. Elvis lives, albeit in a real we cannot detect.

I suppose this realm also accommodates speculations of extra dimensional objects, like Carl Sagan’s Tesseract (fast forward to 5:00 for tesseract, bypassing flatland rap).

Anyway, what I’m getting at here, is that the physical world of physics may not be all there is. Therefor, violating the law of physics is not such a crime. We should allow for it, and encourage it. Didn’t the concept of God come with control over physics, or a being outside space and time? How can we hold such a being in restraints? Somebody should write a fallacy to address such notions.

No need for an infinite amount of prime movers in a realm where that being is in a state of pure eternal IS-NESS, which isn’t possible in our dimension.

@Paradox25 “The quantum level of reality would be nothing more than an abstract construct, just information as programmed by the super computer so it could experience unique semi-virtual realities.”

Computers don’t program unless they are programed to do so by an original author with a desire for such an event to take place. Computers don’t program. Programmers do.

Paradox25's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Oh boy, I’m not used to debating other theists, especially deist/nonreligious types, but it’s a refreshing change of pace from the same old. I can’t debate many nontheists and religious people on this, because they don’t even accept there may be any truth to my premises, so maybe I’ll get somewhere here.

In order for me to define ‘spirit’ I think you have to look at the third paragraph in my previous response to you, because it’s the key of most of my other arguments as well. Quantum mechanics is considered by the hypothesis I’m siding with here to be nothing more than an abstract construct, as would be at least three of the four forces of nature (gravity is still a mystery here). The quantum level of existence that makes up the observable level of ‘reality’ is nothing more than part of a program, one coming from a deeper level of reality. This also means that quantum consciousness hypotheses need to be discarded too, because sentience would be creating and affecting the quantum mechanical program, not being a part of it. This is why I reject people like Penrose and Hammeroff’s ideas.

Since, according to this hypothesis, that we’re programmed to only experience one level of -reality at a time so the ‘creator’ could have a meaningful experience under the illusion sharing these experiences with ‘others’, this would mean that the ‘physical’ body would exist on its own software program to experience the semi-virtual reality it was specifically made for. When this vehicle becomes too defective for mind to have a meaningful experience, the mind simply registers with another body or form, this mind will then experience another level of reality on a different software program. It gets tricky here, because the Law of Attraction that Spiritualism is based off of (not to be confused with the new age concept of the ‘secret’) apparently dictates where our minds will experience reality at, so our actions here will determine not only the nature of our next physical body, but our physical environment and the types of minds we’ll share our existence with, at least until we evolve to increase our spiritual level, thus enhancing the quality of our existence in a better reality, or software program I should say.

Spirit to me would be the astral or etheric copy of our physical body, smaller increments of a greater oversoul or higher-self. Our spirit only pertains to the individual fragments of a greater personality. There is rigid gender identity on lower levels of spirit, but as the spirit evolves its gender identity would be more balanced. Tough to define this, but spirit would be a fragment ego of a greater self, known as the soul to me.

My definition of holographic simply would mean a virtual reality created by a deeper one. You see a holographic image on a film or stage, but the reality is the equipment along with the mind responsible for creating the abstract image.

Concerning my definition of consciousness, I think this is where we’ll disagree. You don’t think that inevitable order coming to energy-fed chaos can evolve a sentience, but the hypothesis I’m siding with at the moment calls for this. Unbelievable things occur to chaotic systems when they are fed with a consistent supply of energy, and given enough time to evolve and develop proper form. I don’t believe the entire universe is sentient, but it had the time, supply of energy (as I’d explained in my previous response) and size to produce a very complicated form, and evolve a gradual disembodied sentience in parts of it. This sentience only exists because of the universe expanding. The only phenomenon that could allow for a net energy gain to allow expansion, and creation would be the existence of both positive and negative mass matter/energy, unless there’s some mysterious anti-gravity force that our current knowledge of physics isn’t aware of yet. Neither string nor multiverse theories do not, and can not solve the problem of the cosmological constant, but the concept of exotic matter can. Consciousness, like the quantum level of reality itself, would also be an abstract entity. The energy for producing the quantum program comes simply from the mechanical energy vibrations from the so-called dark energy expanding. Information is neither energy nor matter, but it still needs a source of energy to produce it.

I’m open to there being different laws of physics in different dimensions of reality, or software program, which may explain why people coming back from near-death and other out-of-body experiences report seeing colors, hearing sounds and experiencing things they never could here. Planck’s constants and physical laws (like mechanical sound waves and gravity) may be programmed to have different values then they do here, thus enhancing our experiences there. This doesn’t sound like the typical boring straw man assumption of ‘heaven’ to me here, but a much better level of existence. I’m familiar with the concept of extra-dimensional shapes, so maybe we need a higher level of consciousness to perceive these too.

Computers don’t program unless they are programed to do so by an original author with a desire for such an event to take place. Computers don’t program. Programmers do. Maybe I’m wrong, and there is an ultimate level of reality, one that just is, like the Absolute in Theosophy, or the Brahman in Hinduism, but unlike the Absolute the Brahman cycles itself. Yes, the cause pre-existing in the effect, so there would be no creator creating the creator loop.

I get my ideas from not religion, but engineers, physicists, quantum physicists, astronomers, doctors and others within the science fields who research life after death, and are trying to tie this event in with the origins of the universe in a scientific way. There’s fierce debate within my circle as well, but we agree that the brain-mind paradigm is very false. These people do agree with you though, that the religious dogmatism people in science had fought has turned into another form of dogmatism itself based on a rigid definition of ‘rationalism’.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Not a debate. Just a discussion my friend.

I have questions coming soon.

cheebdragon's avatar

I feel like it’s probably not nearly as complex and elaborate as you’re making it out to be. There are so many theory’s and opinions, so much thought goes into something that was possibly more or less just a right time & place freak occurrence under the right circumstances.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@Paradox25 “Quantum mechanics is considered by the hypothesis I’m siding with here to be nothing more than an abstract construct, as would be at least three of the four forces of nature (gravity is still a mystery here)...”

I suppose this is what projects the hologram?

@Paradox25 ”...part of a program, one coming from a deeper level of reality.”

Does the program have an author? If not, then what wrote it?

Would you consider the terms “deeper level of reality” and “higher level of consciousness” to have any similar meanings shared between them?

@Paradox25 “This also means that quantum consciousness hypotheses need to be discarded too, because sentience would be creating and affecting the quantum mechanical program, not being a part of it.”

I want to understand you clearly. When you say, “mechanical program”… what do you mean by that? Did a machine author a program? Or is a machine running a program written by some other means? By what means was the programed authored? How do you define program? As far as I understand the word, a program requires a code to run the program upon. What or who wrote the code that made the program? Is the program observable? Is there a code we can translate? How do you know a program is running without having discovered a code which it runs upon? That’s how we discovered it in DNA. We discovered a molecule, then discovered that molecules was the medium used to transmit codified information. We’re even learning how to read that code and learn the program.

As to “quantum consciousness”, let’s cut to the chase. Do you believe there is any form of consciousness beyond what living humans understand? If so, what is the source of that consciousness? If not, then so be it. But I don’t know if I’d consider disbelief in a greater consciousness beyond humans as a reason to claim a theistic label.

@Paradox25 ”...according to this hypothesis, that we’re programmed to only experience one level of -reality at a time so the ‘creator’ could have a”

Who is the “creator”? Is it sentient, or a machine? Like V’Ger?

@Paradox25 ”...the ‘physical’ body would exist on its own software program to experience the semi-virtual reality it was specifically made for….”

Sure why not. Good design philosophy. Who or what designed it that way and did the designer have a purpose to the design. Was it an accident? Or was it intentional?

@Paradox25 “When this vehicle becomes too defective for mind to have a meaningful experience, the mind simply registers with another body or form, this mind will then experience another level of reality on a different software program.”

Let’s be clear. Are you talking about reincarnation?

@Paradox25 “It gets tricky here, because the Law of Attraction that Spiritualism is based off of (not to be confused with the new age concept of the ‘secret’) apparently dictates where our minds will experience reality at, so our actions here will determine not only the nature of our next physical body, but our physical environment and the types of minds we’ll share our existence with, at least until we evolve to increase our spiritual level, thus enhancing the quality of our existence in a better reality, or software program I should say.”

Well said.

I study Napolian Hill. I know the attraction. I experience the attraction.

No issues with countless programs running, and self authoring new realities. Believe it or not, and I know this sounds silly, but I believe there are clues to this in the Christian bible.

Genesis 1:27
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

Like an autonomous computer disc image, imbibed with the capacity to author and create anew, just like the original programmer.

Another odd biblical verse discusses God taking Enoch up to heaven. All the new bibles use the phrase “taken up”. But the older King James uses the term “translated”.

Hebrews 11:5
By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

That’s exactly what codes do. They can be “translated” from one form to another and created upon infinite number of mediums. Translation is when The SAME Meaning is represented IDENTICALLY by another form. That’s how computers work man. That’s how our english language works. That’s how DNA works too.

So be it a hologram, another dimension, an underlying level of reality, heaven, the hidden mist… whatever… is it not all the same realm being suggested. A realm where all these potentials may occur?

Early I spoke of the Medium and Message dualities. That’s only for our earthly physical existence. But in The Nether Realm, the medium and message must be unified. For there is no physical agent available to act as medium. As beings of Pure Meaning, we won’t need a physical representation to be acknowledged. Pure meaning won’t need a code to be meaningful.

@Paradox25 “Spirit to me would be the astral or etheric copy of our physical body, smaller increments of a greater oversoul or higher-self. Our spirit only pertains to the individual fragments of a greater personality.”

That’s why earlier I said that many thought/spirits build a mind/soul just like many bricks build a building. And it’s all directed with intentionality. The “greater personality” is the mind/soul.

Now, I must ask, is the purpose of this greater personality mind/soul to achieve what Hindu’s call Krishna Conscioiusness? Is that the purpose, or just one of many options? Perhaps one would choose darkness over light?

@Paradox25 “There is rigid gender identity on lower levels of spirit, but as the spirit evolves its gender identity would be more balanced.”

Remember above, in God’s image, “male and female he created them”. If both male and female genders come from God’s Disc Image, then God himself itself must be genderless.

@Paradox25 “Tough to define this, but spirit would be a fragment ego of a greater self, known as the soul to me.”

Not tough to define at all. Many thought/spirits build a mind/soul.

@Paradox25 “My definition of holographic simply would mean a virtual reality created by a deeper one. You see a holographic image on a film or stage, but the reality is the equipment along with the mind responsible for creating the abstract image.”

The equipment, the mind, and the information which relates the thoughts of the mind to the receiving observer.

@Paradox25 “Unbelievable things occur to chaotic systems when they are fed with a consistent supply of energy, and given enough time to evolve and develop proper form.”

No doubt, really unbelievable things. But consider a completely different philosophy of why that may be so. Form is not function. Function requires purpose and intent. Function requires meaning. Energy and Matter have no function beyond what humans attribute to them. They don’t come out of the box with a specific function. Energy and Matter have no meaning beyond what humans attribute to them. Without human description, Energy and Matter are meaningless, no matter what form they are in.

So we vibrate some milk bowl and observe a particular form arise. The same frequency is testable and repeatable. It is falsifiable by changing frequencies or liquid. We should always expect the same observation with identical conditions. We observe and identify the phenomenon… we call it form and label it as such. But it has no meaning beyond what humans call it and determine meaningful for it.

Observable patterns called fractals are resulting from chaos every second. But those fractal patterns are nothing more than observable phenomenon (that we called fractals), regardless of how much energy and matter they consist of. It has no function until humans author and apply in-form-ation to it… (run the blender). Information in its most fundamental definiton, The act of forming the formless... “ation denotes an act”. Humans in – form the observation.

“Information is information. Not energy and not matter. Any materialism that does not allow for this cannot survive in the present.”
Norbert Weiner the father of Cybernetics. Page 125.

There is a third devil at play beyond energy and matter… Information. The act of forming the formless. When my formless thoughts are encoded on this thread, by authoring information, they become receivable to you. This would not be possible otherwise.

My point, is that NO INFORMATION exists in the background noise of the cosmos, regardless of the fractal pattern being observed. A hologram cannot run a program without information to run it.

The only way to determine if information truly exists or not, is to first uncover a code which describes the phenomenon. No information can be communicated to humans unless there is a code to communicate it upon. I can explain this much further if requested to.

Code is a material lens created by the process of informing. It allows humans to view the immaterial realm of thought/spirit.

@Paradox25 “I don’t believe the entire universe is sentient, but it had the time, supply of energy (as I’d explained in my previous response) and size to produce a very complicated form, and evolve a gradual disembodied sentience in parts of it.”

That my friend requires and enormous conceptual leap. We have absolutely NO EVIDENCE for a mechanism that allows consciousness to arise from energy, matter, or form, regardless of the size. We do, on the other hand, have billions of examples confirming that consciousness is only beget by consciousness.

We should stick with what we know. Occam’s Razor demands it to be considered.

I don’t believe the entire universe is sentient either. But I do believe in a grand sentient agent beyond the physical realities. It would be considered outside the program… like every other programmer is outside their program.

@Paradox25 “This sentience only exists because of the universe expanding.”

I don’t know of any examples to demonstrates sentients arising from expansion. But the concept of expansion does arise from sentience.

@Paradox25 ”...unless there’s some mysterious anti-gravity force that our current knowledge of physics isn’t aware of yet.”

Good, you’re open to unknown forces being responsible for inexplicable phenomenon. Then you should have the mindset, and no problem with allowing other phenomenon like thought and information to share some of the responsibilities. They are after all, known phenomenon.

@Paradox25 “The energy for producing the quantum program comes simply from the mechanical energy vibrations from the so-called dark energy expanding. ”

Energy cannot author a program. I know of no instances where energy wrote a program. The cosmos cannot speak. It has no alphabet to speak with, and nothing to say if it did.

@Paradox25 “Information is neither energy nor matter, but it still needs a source of energy to produce it.”

Here you seem to agree with Norbert Weiner above. Information is not energy or matter.

And though you may be correct that Information requires energy and matter to be created in our physical realm, that does not follow, or mean that energy and matter can author information. Only sentience can author information, and create programs from it.

@Paradox25 “I’m open to there being different laws of physics in different dimensions of reality…”

Are you open to a new law, not of physics, but a Law of Information?

All codes are attributable to sentient authorship. No exceptions.

How’s that for a law? Are you open to it? Codes are, after all, the only way to determine if information really exists. We don’t receive information through feelings. But we do author information about our feelings. We do that with code.

@Paradox25 ”...people coming back from near-death and other out-of-body experiences report seeing colors, hearing sounds and experiencing things they never could here.”

Light and sound are commonly used mediums to represent, transmit, and receive codified information upon. But just because the medium exists, doesn’t necessarily mean there is a message being transmitted to anyone.

@Paradox25 “Yes, the cause pre-existing in the effect, so there would be no creator creating the creator loop.”

A state of IS-Ness, where all time IS, where all potentialities ARE. It is fairly agreed upon that space/time began at the big bang. People usually ask what happened before that, like asking what created the creator.

NO-THING happened before that. No THINGno PHYSICAL thing. It’s not a physical realm where physical things happen. The whole concept of happen doesn’t need to happen in a timeless state of eternal IS-Ness.

@Paradox25 “I get my ideas from not religion, but engineers, physicists, quantum physicists, astronomers, doctors and others within the science fields who research life after death, and are trying to tie this event in with the origins of the universe in a scientific way.”

So do I. But why count religion out?

Look, I hate organized religion. But religion is the twisted dogma to satisfy personal agenda. That doesn’t mean there isn’t great wisdom within the books OF religion, beyond how the religions have butchered the teachings.

Cheers!

Response moderated (Personal Attack)
RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Hi @fredTOG. Good to speak with you.

@fredTOG “It is about reason, logic, and evidence.”

We’re getting off on a great start together friend. I completely agree with you.

@fredTOG “Theory which has predictive ability to help us grow and become more as a species.”

Agreed. Did you see all the predictions I made about code authoring earlier? Do you think any of them didn’t, or won’t come true? Sentient authorship is about the safest subject in the world to make predictions about. I predict a sentient author will write another sentence after this one. WOW! It came true!

@fredTOG “Evolutionary theory has given us our place in the world”

Which theory? Classic or Neo Darwinian? How did it begin? What repeatable mechanism can be demonstrated as responsible for the beginning? I believe in Intelligent Evolution, like Barbara McClintock and James Schapiro. What kind do you believe in? What church did you attend to learn about it? Your passion approaches religious fervor, hurling accusations that would make any Southern Fundamentalist Preacher blush. Bravo!

@fredTOG ”...but people like you do not care about evidence…”

Is that why I’m the only one on this thread posting links to scientific research? Do I hear some guilty talk in your tone? No Scoobie snacks for @fredTOG today.

@fredTOG “Natural selection means those more adapted to a given environment will survive.”

What physical mechanism does natural selection operate upon?

@fredTOG ”...the second you pop your head up… in a science classroom you will be met with derision, mocking, and in the end, force…”

Does that mean I’m wrong?

@fredTOG “Because we don’t give two shots what you believe.”

I care what you believe. Just out of curiosity of course. I also care why you believe what you believe. This will determine the amount of respect your position deserves consideration. By the way, what is your position. You haven’t mentioned one. And why do you believe it? Come on, don’t be shy. We’re all friends here. Share.

@fredTOG “If you had any real evidence that evolutionary theory was wrong not only could you publish it but you’d have several awards coming your way.”

When did I say evolutionary theory was wrong? I believe in evolution. Classic Darwinian evolution. Have you read Origin of Species? The original, before the Neo Darwinian’s invented a ghost called Random Mutation? Have you read that book @fredTOG?

I hate it when extremists don’t read their own holy books.

@fredTOG ”...when it comes to it to preserve real science…”

Like my sentient authored code rap which passes every gate of the scientific method? Like that kind of real science?

Nice chatting with you @fredTOG.

fredTOG's avatar

Trying to get myths into classrooms and trying to use that inconsistent filth to hinder scientific literacy, that’s when i have a problem with that. Science is a tool for enlightenment and the key to understand and ultimately utilize that universe to our benefit. Trying to hinder the progress of such a marvel only serves to turn that tool into a double edged blade or render it meaningless altogether and i for one won’t have any of it.If somebody says “I firmly believe”, the discussion ends right there. Because it’s not a rational discussion anymore but somebody’s emotionally clinging to delusions by employing ignorance. the Belief in Gods, fairies and ghosts is the domain of the uneducated. It is ultimately logic which helps us understand our Nature. As long as we use correct logic, nature can be explained .The fact that you deny that there is “real evidence” in play is nothing but a denial of reality, but could also be mixed with ignorance.  Fossils aren’t simply “in rocks.”  We have countless fossils that are nothing but the fossils themselves.  And even if we didn’t have have a single fossil, it is accepted by the scientific community that DNA alone demonstrates the reality of evolution.

fredTOG's avatar

And when I says science does not yet know something, this is not a sign of the failures of science, but instead a powerful example of the necessary honesty in which science thrives. The very fact that you see the words “I don’t know” as a weakness shows the lengths of intellectual dishonesty you are willing to go to.If the population begins to understand the living world and realizes it originated from natural events with no help from any supernatural forces, this causes the creationists a serious problem. Not that people will walk away from their faith, but that people will walk away from creationism.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@fredTOG “The fact that you deny that there is “real evidence” in play is nothing but a denial of reality, but could also be mixed with ignorance.”

Show me one thing I’ve denied or retract your statement as false. Your comments will be disregarded without evidence to back them up. What have I denied?

Show me where my comments are wrong or retract your statements as unqualified. You keep claiming I’m wrong, but never offer any research to confront what I’ve presented.

Thanks for the lecture about what you believe science and logic are. Would be nice to see you implement some of your reasoning into our discussion.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@fredTOG ”...no help from any supernatural forces…”

I don’t believe in the supernatural. I’ve said it a few times now.

There is nothing supernatural about code authoring requiring sentient authorship.

But if you want to believe that rocks can speak life into existence, well, that would be the most supernatural event of all time. Is that what you believe @fredTOG? Do you think rocks can accidentally say something meaningful? And even worse, do you think that other rocks could receive their accidental message and do anything about it? Is that what you believe @fredTOG?

ragingloli's avatar

for someone who claims to not be a creationist/IDer, you certainly like to use their strawmen

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

In a perfect world, those who genuinely appreciate science would admit that science never proves or disproves anything one way or another. Science may only infer. We study the dropping ball, and ultimately infer the existence of an unseen force.

I propose there is enough hard evidence that science may rightfully hypothesis about unseen forces, unseen dimensions, unseen realms of reality, and yes, unseen entities.

We should fund such research equal to or greater than NASA and convert the NSA spying facility into a mind and mathematics lab and research facility. Let’s start searching deeper than we’ve ever searched before, into the body, the brain, the mind the spirit and the soul. If there is a creator being, then science should promote all valid efforts coming to know it.

cheebdragon's avatar

How can you not believe in the supernatural? Just because you can’t prove ghosts exist, doesn’t mean that they don’t exist, right?~

At least people have seen them in the last decade and throughout history. Seems much more substantial than an imaginary invisible “god” that no one has ever seen.

Seek's avatar

One cannot hypothesize about “unseen realms of reality” because this phrase is meaningless. How the heck would one set up a falsifiable test for “unseen realms of reality”?

How would one look into the “soul”. when we can’t determine that the “soul” exists, what it is made of, or where it resides?

Seek's avatar

^ edited and added.

Symbeline's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Show me one thing I’ve denied or retract your statement as false. Your comments will be disregarded without evidence to back them up. What have I denied?

Hahaha, nice. :)

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@Seek “One cannot hypothesize about “unseen realms of reality” because this phrase is meaningless.”

Gravity is an unseen realm of reality. We “hypothesize about” it every day. No one has ever seen, tasted, or touched gravity. We see the effects of gravity, but we never see the gravity.

Code is an affect of sentient authorship. We we see code, we infer the existence of an unseen sentient author, just like we infer the existence of unseen gravity when the ball drops.

Notice affect vs effect above.

Thoughts affect code… thought and affect. Code is a product of mind.

Cause and Effect don’t require a mind. Cause can never affect code because cause is mindless. Cause can effect code by spilling coffee over it or a house fire. It can effect it in very bad ways. Cause never effects code in a good way, unless it’s an accidental discovery of how to transmit and receive it better.

@Seek “How the heck would one set up a falsifiable test for “unseen realms of reality”?”

Seek, you are an unseen realm of my reality. We’ve never met in physical space. We’ve met in cyberspace. Where is that?

Science forces me to infer your sentient existence because it seems as though you have written a code. I must infer a sentient author responsible for your comments. One who calls herself @Seek. When science confirms Turing has been toppled, then I may infer that you may be a computer instead of a sentient agent… But if you passed Turing, you would be a sentient agent… and one which was programmed by another sentient agent.

I can falsify unseen forces and entities by discovering another mechanism accountable for their effects, or affects.

@Symbeline “How would one look into the “soul”. when we can’t determine that the “soul” exists, what it is made of, or where it resides?”

The same way we look into gravity, which suffers the same mysteries you just listed.

Symbeline's avatar

I didn’t say that. :p

Seek's avatar

I’m totally on board with the “You’re not even wrong” statement.

That reads like utter nonsense.

Seek's avatar

I recommend reading this short article which outlines what exactly is meant by the word “hypothesis” in a scientific setting.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

I completely agree @Seek. Thanks for that link. It confirms the legitimacy for hypothesizing that all codes require sentient authorship.

Having established that, we may now move science forward by hypothesizing how best to understand the sentient author of life. Not doing so, holds science back.

And you are also correct, the “You’re not even wrong” statement does read like utter nonsense. Unless you’re speaking about my previous comments. You didn’t quote anything in particular, or offer any refutations. If you have issue with anything I’ve said, please be clear in pointing it out. If you don’t like my answers, then we should discuss it further for better understanding.

Seek's avatar

You are using words in nonstandard ways, thus rendering our language unusable as currency for idea-sharing.

In my world, “realm” is a noun meaning “kingdom”. It defines a place by type. Gravity is not a place, thus cannot be a “realm of reality”.

When you want to find a common language in which to continue this discussion, I will be happy to do so. As long as you’re making shit up, we cannot do that.

cheebdragon's avatar

I hypothesize that leprechaughns will takeover the world one day and unicorns are the original creator of life…rainbow unicorns (think Lisa Frank!)...not regular ugly unicorns. The rainbow could explain why some people are born gay, evolution at its finest.

Can’t prove that it’s not true.

Blondesjon's avatar

I can prove that. Rainbow Unicorns are gay and therefore unable to reproduce or create life.

better luck next time mythical creatures

cheebdragon's avatar

Rainbow unicorns are not gay, they are metrosexual….some are even bisexual…they don’t judge…..try to find a scientist who says otherwise!

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

You left out definition #2 @Seek.

realm:
a field or domain of activity or interest.
“the realm of applied chemistry”

@Seek “When you want to find a common language in which to continue this discussion, I will be happy to do so. ”

See definition #2. Or do you not accept the dictionary definition of “field” since that’s where daisies grow, and not a “place” of applied chemistry?

The realm of applied chemistry is not a physical place either. Yet it exists. I use the word realm specifically to denote the existence of another reality which cannot be easily detected by physical instrumentation.

But we have a tool to view the realm of thought. It’s called code. You’re viewing the realm of my thoughts right now, with the tool of code. You could not do so otherwise.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

What is the evidence that rainbow unicorns exist? Sentient authors leave a trail of code behind them, like cows leave manure behind them. Have you found piles of stinky skittles in the forest?

Blondesjon's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies . . . you take the rest of the incoming sgt. i’ll take care of this one here.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

deal, much obliged

Blondesjon's avatar

@cheebdragon . . . Actually, Bill Nye himself is going to create an account here and field this one personally, just as soon as he is finished explaining to folks that . . .

. . . . flank steak is one of those cuts of meat that’s custom-built for the grill. When cooked right, it has a mild, beefy flavor and lean texture, with just the right amount of chew when you slice it thinly across the grain. Butterfly that flank steak and stuff it with flavor-packed ingredients like Italian cold cuts, cheeses, and punchy condiments, and you’re really in business. A nice flank steak pinwheel is one of the fastest-cooking and most impressive-looking pieces of meat you can throw on the grill; the kind of thing to pull out when you want to impress the neighbors.

That’s right, the kind of thing Bill Nye pulls out when he wants to impress the neighbors.

and let them know that their idea of what reality is lacking the basic ingredient of rainbow unicorn gayness

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

A trail of punchy condiments and pinwheels will lead you to a (g)rainbow unicorn every time.

Thank you Mr. Nye.

Paradox25's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I’ve given you links and book recommendations before when we discussed this, like several years ago. It would be difficult (as is being demonstrated right now) to answer your many questions, because you would have to at least read about the hypothesis yourself in order to understand what I mean when I write certain things. Trying to word what I really mean isn’t one of my strong points, at least pertaining to something like this. There are also math given that one would have to understand and use to understand the idea too.

“I don’t know of any examples to demonstrates sentients arising from expansion. But the concept of expansion does arise from sentience”.

This is one example of my above point, because I never stated that expansion produces sentience. What I was saying was this expansion has a perpetual energy source to continue it, and it’s this energy that may have allowed the universe to form the necessary structure, and given enough time, have this subquantum structure gradually evolve a sentience. There’s no need for Craig’s (and other theists) Kalam Cosmological Argument to be required here, because the concept of an ultimate level of reality consisting of two types of matter, with positive and negative mass characteristics, would allow the existence of the necessary prime-mover allowing the universe to come to be. There’s no way I could explain away all of the details in this thread, because then I’d be forced to write most of the material in five different books down for you on a fluther thread.

Good, you’re open to unknown forces being responsible for inexplicable phenomenon. Then you should have the mindset, and no problem with allowing other phenomenon like thought and information to share some of the responsibilities. They are after all, known phenomenon.

I agree with you that sentience was likely necessary to take part in at least the evolution of the macroscopic level of reality, which is made up of quantum probability. The fundamental wave/particle duality that makes up our observable level of ‘reality’ appears to behave more like information than energy-matter. This to me would mean that a mind would have to exist on an even deeper level of reality than the quantum world, since mind would have to program how the information would create its semi-virtual ‘reality’.

The problem I have with your author argument isn’t that I don’t believe there was one involved in some way. Personally I believe this author (or maybe these authors) inevitably came to be whether it wanted to or not, and is not omnipotent, or even omniscient, because it relies on a fundamental level of reality that truly is real. My assertion is backed by the problem of the cosmological constant. I find it absurd that an omnipotent creator would increase the size of the universe to such ridiculous proportions. Dark energy is likely the ultimate level of reality, but I don’t accept current ideas about what it is, which is obvious from the idea of exotic subquantum matter. I would think such an intelligence would actually be embarrassed by its enormous size, and the fact that the universe continues to expand at a rate greater than all of the estimated number of atoms in the entire universe.

Several programming engineers involved with trying to advance this idea have speculated this creator, being an extremely sophisticated analogue computer, is probably nearly omnipotent, because it programmed the quantum level of reality to have meaningful experiences, but one thing it can’t do is stop its own growth. This creator would not be omniscient either, but not far from it. It probably has extremely accurate amount of predicting ability, because it would be an advanced computer armed with the necessary tools to make long-range predictions, somewhat like a weather computer, but much more advanced obviously.

Weiner, information theory and cybernetics would not be without no energy source. Information is not matter-energy, but information needs an energy source because it’s an abstract entity. I could be wrong here since some of your ideas about information are going above my head here, but can you give me an example of any type of information in existence without energy being needed to create it? Obviously you’re not open to the concept of sentient AIs in the future I’d assume too.

All codes are attributable to sentient authorship. No exceptions. You made one exception here though, the author himself. This means that a mind at some default level of reality had to eternally exist. It appears we’re arguing for a different version of a creator.

“I get my ideas from not religion, but engineers, physicists, quantum physicists, astronomers, doctors and others within the science fields who research life after death, and are trying to tie this event in with the origins of the universe in a scientific way.”
So do I. But why count religion out?”
Look, I hate organized religion. But religion is the twisted dogma to satisfy personal agenda. That doesn’t mean there isn’t great wisdom within the books OF religion, beyond how the religions have butchered the teachings.

One of the goals was to not focus on theology or religion, but to present something that has been shunned by many mainstream scientists, but yet obviously happening (various paranormal phenomena, hauntings and personal spiritual experiences of others) in a more scientific way, away from the clutches of religions, eternal hell, saviors, jealous hateful gods, etc, etc. If our mind and personalities do indeed continue after our brains and bodies die off, then this would be more important to me than proving there’s a creator or finding positives about religion. I’d rather rely on anecdotal testimonies, empiricism and investigation from nonbiased investigators, something you can’t get from people like Craig, Ross and other apologists and ancient holy texts. Religion doesn’t have much to offer in my opinion, though there may be some things that have some degree of truth in some of them. You’re playing a dangerous game using the religion card, because now you have to determine what you’ll accept, and what you’ll reject, so this forces one to cherry pick.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

I’m enjoying our conversation @Paradox25, and don’t want to seem argumentative. I’ve read through your comments a few times now, feeling less temptation to question.

When time permits, would you please link me up again to material you suggested earlier?

AshLeigh's avatar

To quote Shane Koyczan, “Religion is something I gave up on… Along with dieting. But love is a feeling that in me and through me I have often called God, so I will love you.”

cheebdragon's avatar

@Blondesjon Bill Nye is a vegetarian. Try again sparky.

Blondesjon's avatar

Yes, but he doesn’t push his beliefs on to others.

Paradox25's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I’ll have to dig through my archives since I’ve been gradually steering away from spending too much time involved with theism, survival and consciousness. Sometimes links change like the wind too. I’d send you links before book recommendations for you may not even be interested in purchasing any books, or even reading free ebooks beyond reading any material I can dig up.

I’ve been busy with job searching, interviews and just trying to survive right now, so my time will be limited on here in the immediate future. I’ll pm you some interesting hypotheses that compete with each other. I really enjoy reading the exchanges between these scientists on my email group. None of my material would be associated with religion though, since it’s all research conducted by secular minded people, including atheists. I could probably get you in this email group if you were interested, and then you would have full access to the material I read.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther