Upright Biped has announced the launch of his site via this UD post: Writing Biosemiosis-org
All of the unique physical conditions of dimensional semiosis have already been observed and documented in the scientific literature. It is an intractable fact that a dimensional semiotic system is used to encode organic polymers inside the cell. The conclusion of intelligent action is therefore fully supported by the physical evidence, and is subject to falsification only by showing an unguided source capable of creating such a system.
http://biosemiosis.org/index.php/a-scientific-hypothesis-of-design
Discuss!
Did you catch your lack of support for your claims that time?
You never seem to…
Glen Davidson
Try to focus
I never made such a claim and of course you know I would not do so.
peace
No I would say that it is not an innate belief of humanity that women are inferior to men and would argue that the science would be on my side on that one. I think you are confusing cultural prejudice with innate belief.
regardless
Do you honestly think there is no evidence that women are equal to men ?
peace
The flaw in the “logic” is the lie in premise one.
You shouldn’t do that. It makes you look bad. 🙁
Actually, shapes have been put into the retinotopical map of the brain with electricity, showing that at that point in the brain a circle is a circle as encoded by electric signals within the brain. They did it by sticking electrodes onto the retinotopical map, presumably “distorted” in the manner that the retinotopical map is distorted. Turn on a circle, distorted to fit the map, and the subject would see a circle. They wanted to give vision to the blind, and did in a very crude manner, but, unsurprisingly, keeping electrodes in the brain isn’t especially good for said brain.
So certainly shapes have been shown to exist in a very real sense in the physical brain. I’m sure that all sorts of excuses can be made, from “did they find a circle?” (as if that would be the point) to, “has the abstract shape been found in the brain?”, to “has a circle been found in the actual consciousness?” (or some such tripe), but it remains a fact that shapes have been put into the brain and thereby experienced.
Oh I’m sure it’s not good enough for those who demand endless evidence from us while not caring that they have no evidence for their claims at all, but it should satisfy reasonable people.
Glen Davidson
This is an empirical question and as such subject to empirical investigation What sort of evidence would convince you that a belief in mind(s) behind the universe is innate in humans?
peace
I assume that this is what fmm means by saying that he’d like to discuss science. Bringing in his various misapprehensions of logic as if they were reasonable, while rejecting anything sensible–what actually works in the real world.
Glen Davidson
Do you honestly believe It’s a lie to say that humans don’t have an innate belief there is a teapot orbiting Saturn?
Again this in an empirical question we can conduct studies to find out if it’s an innate belief. We could start with a survey if you’d like
smells like science.
peace
GlenDavidson,
I would just note that the experiment with electrodes on the retinotopical map of the brain wasn’t about just seeing shapes, I believe that they could get a crude picture of the world using a camera. The point now, though, is that if the camera was feeding in a picture of a big enough and sharp enough circle, the electrodes would be creating a circle (appropriately “distorted”) on the brain, and the subject would thereby see a circle.
Glen Davidson
It is impossible to represent a true circle in a phyiscal medium yet we all know what a true circle is and can picture one in our minds eye
peace
Yes, no evidence supporting your claims.
Nothing’s changed.
Glen Davidson
What claims? Do you disagree that it is impossible to produce a physical shape who’s ratio of circumference to diameter is precisely pi? I would think that it would be unnecessary to provide evidence for the existence of irrational numbers
I suppose I could if you like
check it out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_%CF%80_is_irrational
peace
What a tiresome diversion.
Glen Davidson
Don’t blame me you are the one who went down that road by claiming that circles exist in the brain
peace
I’m sorry, FMM, but that’s ridiculous. You claim first, that some (extremely obscure and wildly implausible) belief in pan-psychism is natural (or innate, or hardwired or something) to all (or nearly all) human beings. Then, you insist that, as a result of this innateness (or whatever it is exactly), this belief is warranted, and should be taken as true unless it can be refuted. And finally, you have no idea what would constitute evidence to the contrary, when it’s quite clear that the proposition is so nearly without sense and unfalsifiable that nothing could possibly fit the bill. I gave you some suggestions for ostensible disverifications. But you apparently pooh-pooh them because, well, you think the burden is on others to provide their take on what disconfirmation to “mind being behind the universe” (whatever the hell it means) would be.
Wow. If that’s really the sum and substance of your argument for theism, I think you should start from scratch. (And please, no more “I’m not making an argument.” That’s pretty much all you do. That they aren’t much good doesn’t turn them into, I don’t know, lunch recipes.)
Anyhow, if you leave it to me to say what disconfirmation of this odd claim would be, I’ll stick with the fact that nothing giggles when I tickle my lawn. I tried it this morning. QED.
Yep.
And then blaming us for refusing to pick up his own burden of proof.
Oh well, it passes the time.
Example? Are you referring to the meltdown comment?
Yes.
walto, you’ve said this all perfectly.
I’m used to commenting on fanfic and I’m trying to avoid the superlatives that I usually gush with. But I’ll tell ya’- the last paragraph just slays me.
My pleasure in your work is not in the least diminished by the sad knowledge that it’s going to go right over fifthmonarchyman’s head. It’s fine; it’s all fine. 🙂
hotshoe_,
The scare quotes are a “code.”
walto,
Could someone supply a link to this “meltdown” comment?
Wow. Someone at TSZ claiming that the premise of an argument ought to be true.
Trying to give Barry a heart attack?
Mung at UD:
I don’t think of that as a declaration of any sort of victory, just an observation.
And it serves them right!
An accurate one? I read the general consensus as if you want to call X by the name Y, so long as you clearly define Y there’s no problem.
It’s not an insistence on my part but an observation.
We don’t abandon commonsense impressions with out evidence. Do you disagree with this observation?
I simply have no idea what would count as evidence of other minds. Just as I would have no idea what would count as evidence in favor of such.
We believe in other minds because that that is how we are wired. It’s served us well evolutionary speaking.
like I said it will always boils down to the problem of other minds ans you will always be able to deny that they exist.
The same sort of disverifications can be offered for any minds what soever. It’s possible that we are all just complex animatrons. As you know there have even been books written to support that contention.
I just don’t find that sort of thing convincing. I know that minds exist and I also know that other minds exist.
peace
What commonsense impression are you talking about? Nothing you have sain on this site strikes me as sensible.
Again no argument for theism is necessary. We all know that God exists.
All I have done is point out that you are the one making a claim here.
A claim by the way that is contrary to the common sense impression of humanity.
You countine to refuse to support your claim and demand instead that I prove you are wrong.
That is just silly. I love you anyway though
peace
Complete bullshit. You appear to be accusing some of us of lying.
Try to keep up.
You folks complain that I keep repeating myself and then turn around and ask me to repeat what I have already said.
peace
You haven’t said anything that is common sense. You just made an assertion about other people that is a complete lie.
I don’t expect you to go back and read all the posts in this thread that contain the word code, but I am also not going to waste my own time to provide the links.
No, self-deception is what I would put my money on.
And it’s not me who is doing the accusing
quote:
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
(Rom 1:19-20)
end quote:
peace
Why did you make all those posts if you are not going to tell us why you think they are important?
It is you doing the posting.
petrushka,
This is an issue with the rules. I’m raising it in Moderation Issues.
should this comment be included in your deliberations?
quote:
end quote:
Peace
No no no. Neither of us knows. Gotta believe it in order to know it, bro. And you also have to have sufficient evidence. (Really wanting something to be true isn’t enough.) I’m missing two of those; you’re missing one.
I can picture a circle, but I have no idea if it perfect.In fact I doubt it. I cannot really picture a 100 sided shape, does the mean no such thing can exist?
Actually you are making two claims : that all humans have innate belief that God exists and that evidence for it is common sense which is innate. So support your claim that common sense is innate ,not learned , and should be assumed correct unless proven otherwise.
Second you should support your claim with evidence that all humans actually have an innate sense of same exact God beyond that it is obvious to you.
There are many sorts of evidence. One type that can be used to dump silly magical thoughts that are not actually falsifiable is to provide an alternative theory that is fruitful and not magical or silly. As indicated above, maybe paley had some kind of argument before there were any sensible alternatives not requiring magic. That is no longer the case. As I said, not only has there been a reversal but a pin has been executed.
Humans cannot visualize everything they can define.
Allow me to clarify.
I’m not claiming that humans have an innate belief that God exists. I’m claiming that humans have an innate hardwired belief that there is mind(s) behind the universe. I am willing to support this claim with empirical evidence like the evidence that I have already provided
On the other hand
The fact that everyone knows that God exists this is not a claim it is an observation based on revealed knowledge.
Do you see the difference?
peace
Observations when made aloud or in writing are claims, even if they are (also) claimed to be based on “revealed knowledge.” (I.e., that, too, is a claim.)
I don’t know that God exists, therefore your fact is in question. Therefore all your facts are in question. Now, see what you’ve gone and done?
Unless, of course, you know what I know better then I?
Please note that I charitably (and to avoid fruitless argument) assumed there that your belief is true. If it isn’t, you’re missing two of the essential ingredients of knowledge, and I’m missing all three.
I question Fifth’s sanity. He is the poster child for Dawkins’ God Deluded. He is an example of what Dawkins had in mind when he said religion can be child abuse.
Again, the analogy to other minds is very bad. We have lots of good reasons for believing that things that look and act like us under the same stimuli, also feel, see, think etc. like us. There is nothing like that in the “mind(s) behind the universe” biz. Just wishful thinking. The fact that neither is provable makes them each as much like Goldbach’s Conjecture as they are like each other.
47
MungNovember 4, 2015 at 12:48 pm
Over at TSZ they have gone into full meltdown. Now they see codes everywhere.
Bicodalism: From there are no codes to everything is a code.
At UD:
There are names for foot kissers. Fetishist. boolicker, brown noser, flaterer, groveler, toady.
As for phobias, fungiphobia comes to mind.