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!
Some code bullshit from gpuccio:
Sort of true, except that 90 percent of non-coding DNA is so incredibly sophisticated in its coding that the actual sequence makes no difference. I challenge any human programmer to match that for sophistication.
No, because your comments are such marshmallow-brained idiocy that it’s impossible for a sane witness — that’s me, hello! — to see if you have made any claim whatsoever, and if so, what exactly you feel you are claiming.
However. that doesn’t change the fact that if your god did really exist, it would be the most odious genocidal tyrant ever imaginable. SO unless “odious genocidal tyrant” is what humans are feeling, when they’re supposedly sensing the “mind behind the universe”, then your odious god and the “mind behind the universe” occupy two completely separate realms. The more likely it is that our supposed sense of the “mind behind the universe” is an accurate perception of reality, the less likely that it’s your heinous murdering torturing god.
I wouldn’t be so proud of your god, if I were you.
Total bullshit.
The fact that you might actually believe this when you say it just proves it’s hopeless for us to have an honest discussion with you. For whatever reason, you have a fundamental inability or unwillingness to be honest about what non-theists actually “know”.
Not one of us is a fool. If “we all know that god exists” not one of us would be foolish enough to deny it — even without the threat of eternal hellfire or the wish for life after death — there would never be a point in denying the reality of “knowing” god.
I might hate god, I might choose not to worship it, I might choose to argue on the internet about HOW one knows god (philosophically, emotionally, whatever) — but if I actually “do know that god exists”, it would be impossible for me to deny that knowledge.
You owe everyone here an abject apology for your bullshit, and you owe yourself the honesty of retracting it.
No you don’t.
If you loved anyone, you would never say the kind of bullshit about them that you say here about us.
Either that, or your definition of love is the definition used by an abuser.
I sure hope you learn the difference between your behavior and real human love.
Yep.
So sad.
It’s not an analogy this “is” the problem of other minds. All other minds are different than you to some extent they are also similar to you to some extent.
Normally what we do is decide which similarities and differences are relevant to the question of consciousness and ignore the rest as noise.
ID is simply a Turing test for the universe
1) Do you think it’s even possible for any entity that does not look and act exactly like you to be conscious? What about extraterrestrials or advanced future Computers or Dolphins or boltzmann brains?
2) This sort of reasoning could and has been be used to deny real person-hood and therefore rights to various outsider groups.
3) The Logos became flesh so if Christianity is true the mind behind the universe is quite a bit like us by choice.
peace
Are you calling me a liar? I’m just curious.
peace
Yes, I think things significantly different from me could be conscious. I’ve mentioned that Star Trek with the “No Kill I” Horta before as an example.
But the universe (as a whole) does not pass any sensible Turing test. Some parts (like you) do when not in bot mode, though. 😉
I would disagree and this is entirely what the fuse is about.
I’ve even attempted to develop a tool that tempts to test this hypothesis objectively.
I would love it if we could have a discussion of the merits of the case without lapsing into the old culture war footing. For some reason that proves to be extremely difficult as witnessed by this very thread.
peace
I’m good with that. Not having a religious upbringing myself, I don’t fully understand all the reasons for your posts generating as much responsive heat as they do, but I think I get some of them. There’s blame to be shared all around, IMHO.
Or where I left my car keys
I think I might have ’em.
Hee hee. Physician, heal thyself.
You might recollect a little something you just said:
No peace.
Might have something to do with the usual asshole behavior of inserting bible quotes where they’re not wanted by any of the rest of the witnesses.
Behave inappropriately, then be surprised when you get a “culture-war” response? How very christian of you, fifthmonarchyman.
Behave appropriately, then be surprised when you get no “culture-war” response! It could happen, if you could ever control yourself for more than a few minutes …
It’s interesting that an interacting assembly of intelligent things can be less smart than one intelligent thing.
“A person is smart; people are stupid”.
The capacity to bring forth intelligence isn’t the same as being intelligent.
walto:
fifth:
If you believe the universe as a whole passes the Turing test, or that your tool in any way tests that hypothesis, then you are badly misunderstanding the Turing test. Why not read up on it?
Ok ,support away, the only thing so far that qualifies as evidence was that it is common sense.
No actually it still is a claim, you claim that based on personal revealed knowledge that: It is a fact the everyone knows that God exists. Claiming an observation is a fact is a claim.
FMM knows that everyone knows that God exists because God has revealed that fact to him. Who needs argument or evidence when the Creator of the universe is whispering truths into your soul?
And how does FMM know that it is really is God who is revealing Himself to him? Is it a “presupposition”? Is it “self-evident”?
The clinically insane have their self-evident truths and necessary presuppositions as well. That fact should worry foundationalist epistemologists far more than it does.
So if I act like a nonchristian the atheists will play nicely.
Sorry that is not going to happen I’m a christian and I will continue to try and behave like one.
If that means that a civil discussion is impossible here. I guess that is a price I will have to pay
peace
I suppose that depends on the tightness of the assembly.
Manchester United is an interacting assembly of intelligent things but it is also one thing (a team).
I wonder if we could call the team itself intelligent thing?
peace
We all have our presuppositions.
I’ve been up front and shared mine. Others seem to be trying to play their cards closer to the vest.
peace
check this out
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.4592.pdf
1) Do the authors of the paper badly misunderstand the Turing test?
2) Do you recognize the tool in the paper?
peace
Cool,
In your opinion what would count as supporting evidence that humans have an innate belief in mind(s) behind the universe?
peace
Yeah, or you could be the decent kind of christian — like the majority of your co-religionists actually are — who learned not to vomit bible verses into every conversation. D’ya notice that you are the only one behaving like an asshole in that regard? None of the other theists here — whatever their other faults — are such ill-mannered wankers about their religion.
If you don’t think you can behave decently here, you can always go someplace else where your indecent behavior will be tolerated.
We can have all the civil discussions you wish. It’s completely up to you. All you have to do is choose to be better. And better is presumably what your god wants you to be, anyways, so it’s a win-win situation for you. You stop making enemies for your sycophantic version of christianity, we’ll stop hating it, and your god will be happy. Try it!
First tighten your claim, all humans or some? Please define what you mean exactly by an innate belief. Personally not sure if humans have any innate beliefs, do you have other examples of innate beliefs?
A winning lottery number would be sufficient for me, praise the lord.
Belief in a physical universe is innate. Do you disagree?
I would suppose that belief in your own existence would also qualify. Also the belief that sensory data is at least in principle reliable
What do you think?
I would not go so far as to say all humans. There are some humans with no beliefs at all, The severely handicapped for example.
I would say that I mean something like the general sense of humanity.
something like this
quote:
“If there are certain principles, as I think there are, which the’ constitution of our nature leads us to believe, and which we are under a necessity to take for granted in the common concerns of life,’ without being able to give a reason for them; these are what we call the principles of common sense; and what is manifestly contrary to them, is what we call absurd.”
end quote:
Thomas Reid.
peace
Is this the sort of thing what you have in mind?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom
peace
I don’t know much about the beliefs of folks here but I would hazard to say that my tradition is more prone to quote scripture than most others.
I’m sorry that you are so affected by a quoted phrase now and then. It’s nothing personal It’s sort of what folks like me do.
If you don’t believe it I’m not sure why you can’t just ignore it. That is what I do when you go on and on about how evil God is.
peace
peace
quote:
For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them:
(Rom 12:4-6a)
and
Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone.
(1Co 12:4-6)
end quote:
😉
peace
I love Reid, and FWIW, I’m ok with that list. But you notice that it doesn’t include any “mind(s) behind the universe.” You added that one, and it doesn’t belong.
Reid was much smarter than both of us.
Smarter than both of me put together!
keiths:
fifth:
I don’t think so, but then again they aren’t making the silly mistakes you are. You don’t see them making batshit claims about how their paper proves that the universe passes the Turing test, do you?
Sure thing, boyo. Go ahead and prove that you can’t stop yourself from behaving like an asshole, damaging the reputation of every christian on the planet with your unresponsive ill-mannered acts. Go ahead, make yourself feel better at everyone else’s expense.
Hey, maybe it’s better for you to be an asshole here. Letting yourself go here might be all that’s keeping you from running amok in real life. SO maybe I should think of putting up with your crappy bible quotes as my Scout good deed for the day, every day. Maybe.
But I’m still going to call you on your shitty behavior every time I feel like. Which might be every time I see it, or might not be. Hope that’s okay with you.
IF not, do feel free to pack up and leave for someplace else where they’re too nicey-nice to call you out for being a horrible christian example.
No peace.
Did someone say TSZ is the place to come if you want to abuse children?
I never said that they did, They focused on “markets”.
I have a different focus but it’s the same principle and same tool.
Whether the universe “passes” is yet to be determined.
peace
The list was for newtons benefit. He was asking for other examples.
While we are on the subject how would we determine what would belong on the list?
IOW what sort of evidence would support the claim that belief in mind(s) behind the universe was innate?
thanks in advance
peace
This reminds me of something someone said at UD:
Here is a partial list of proposed human universals
http://condor.depaul.edu/mfiddler/hyphen/humunivers.htm
Belief in supernatural/religion is number 14
peace
Yet that list will change over time. Compile it again in 1000 years and we’ll see if that even makes the top 100.
fifthmonarchyman,
‘Materialism’ is at number – hang on, it’s in alphabetical order; look it up.
God arranged the alphabet in it’s current form just for fmm’s point, don’t-ya-know?
I’m not sure it’s that kind of materialism 😉
peace
According to my guru Hall, one has to look at the forms of language to answer your first question. We are not capable of determining the list independently (or those without access to divine revelation aren’t, anyhow). So, we see what speech (rightly or wrongly) seems to require of the world. That provides only fallible knowledge, but it’s the best we can do.
wrt the question about evidence for innateness, I suppose it depends on what’s meant by “innate belief” here. But that seems a much less interesting question to me. If it turned out that all children around the world believe that they think with their mouths until about the age of 3, so what? While your first question is in “the space of reasons” this one is in “the space of causes.” That’s where the genetic fallacy is hanging around, ready to pounce if you try to use it as a premise. So your “IOW” masks possible peril.
What empirical evidence do you have for this? The list has been static for many thousand years.
peace
You implied that my syllogism fails because belief in mind(s) behind the universe is not innate. So what innate means or does not mean is important to this discussion.
Whether you find the discussion interesting or not is up to you, To each his own
It would simply mean that the burden of proof would fall to those who claimed that thinking did not originate in the mouth.
You are going to have to elaborate.
We are simply talking about who has the burden of proof. I’m not making claims as to the truth of the common sense belief. It may or may not be completely false that is beside the point.
peace
.
I don’t think you should use “innate” at all. Better to say something like “universal to humans at the age of 4” or something like that. And, as I indicated, I don’t think anything much is entailed by the fact that a bunch of particular propositions are believed–at any age. It’s not the content of the beliefs that matters, IMO, it’s the form. Does communication–even perhaps thinking itself–even make sense without something following from this form? Thus, that there are things in the world that our nouns at least sometimes refer to? Does it make sense to talk if there are no other people? Etc.
And I repeat, YOU have the burden of proof of the existence of “mind(s) behind the universe.”
BTW, I didn’t want to suggest that Reid was not a theist. He believed in both some version of a design argument and some version of the cosmological argument. But he didn’t have the benefit of evolutionary theory back then.
Well OK……………SO????????
You are still missing the point.
I’m not making a positive argument for the existence of mind(s) behind the universe. I making a much less demanding claim that “universally” humans think that there is mind(s) behind it all.
OK
How about “more or less universal to all humans sans reflection as demonstrated by peer reviewed studies”?
peace
That’s fine with me, but as I said, nothing follows from the fact that a lot of toddlers believe something. You want the “naturalness” of the belief to shift the burden to those who deny it to prove it’s wrong. But that sort of “naturalness” doesn’t entail any warrant, and that’s what’s needed to shift the burden. What I’m trying to explain to you is that It’s not “naturalness” that matters, it’s unavoidability.
Take perception. If there is no inherent evidence provided by an ostensible perception, nobody can ever know anything. That’s the kind of thing you need.