Computer \"reads\" memories... (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, March 25, 2010, 00:36 (5166 days ago) @ David Turell

Sorry David, I would have answered sooner but for some reason I didn't get the alert email. -I guess I just don't understand your perspective well enough. I know enough of Adler's argumentative style to posit that he takes this basis as an "if we have to make a decision now." His style in "A Difference" was very positively in this light. He then builds a "court case" as it were as to the reasons why... however, as far as I'm concerned I don't see how you can differentiate it from the argument from ignorance. -Yes, life is complex. I understand that. I don't understand why that is sufficient reasoning to say that this complexity is sufficient reason to posit an external deity.-It's like... to me you're saying "Because we can't fathom how life could be created by chance, we MUST have SOME explanation, and my chosen explanation is God." -My position (and I venture dhw's, tentatively) is that we can never be justified in making that claim. Court cases are overturned all the time! If you argue similarly to Adler, you might feel justified based on the current information, but I'm quite sure that the scientists that lived during the 16th and 17th centuries were just as certain of their datum concerning the world as you are in your position of God's existence. Chemistry in the 19th century was also as certain of its claims thought it was wrong about much of it. -So to me, I'm scrambling to explain why positing a deity does ENOUGH. What does it explain that chance doesn't? If the answer is "nothing," then it just doesn't sound reasonable to me. At least as far as I can see, it doesn't explain anything any better than chance. -Especially if multiple universes pan out to be true: Then it definitely makes it difficult to be as sure as you are--an infinite number of universes directly corresponds to exactly the kind of "guaranteed win scenario" that I've discussed as well as one of the more recent papers you posted here. 
[EDIT]To finish the court-case analogy, this method asserts on some level that it is necessary to make a decision right now at this moment, however--there is no judge nor jury here, and I see no need to decide on questions that are clearly unanswered. Yes, we're just discovering the true complexity of biology, but complex doesn't mean unanswerable. [EDIT]-Though I have yet to delve into the math, I'm really beginning to think that the basic accepted explanations of quantum mechanics (superposition vs. many worlds) are completely off the mark. I can't explain why yet.-[EDITED]

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"