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

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, March 25, 2010, 19:49 (5165 days ago) @ David Turell


> > 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.
> 
> I believe that your time is spent so much on your chosen education and career that you have not had the time to study how complex a single cell can be. I cannot see how chemistry can go from inorganic to this degree of complexity, which is constantly increasing as research continues, without an guidance.
> > -To a certain extent you're right--my training is such that no problems are considered unsolvable until they're proven unsolvable. As to the complexity within cells, as we're just now beginning to unravel the mysteries within cells--seems premature to claim "problem solved" (as you do) when we haven't fully defined the problem yet. You are the astronomer who has probed the depths of the biological cosmos and am amazed by what you see... but what we lack is an explanation of how our biological stars have come to be. Since we lack that explanation, we are in NO position to judge, in my book. -
> > 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! 
> 
> My mind and logical thinking cannot be compared to court cases, where one set of individuals disagree with another group usually on technical legal grounds.
> -No, its the same. You have logically analyzed your evidence, and support your view, but to an outsider such as myself, it isn't convincing. The judge is each person you have met here (and elsewhere) that discusses them. I probed your position quite thoroughly, and it is technically sound. But since you're arguing for the position of an inference, your case rests on the strength of your evidence, and at least in my case, I find it weak, for mainly the reasons stated above. Your argument asks me to accept the existence of a creator based purely upon the notion that we don't have an alternative explanation. Since there is no other explanation, we have no choice but to accept the creator, no matter how weak the evidence is. I make the claim that weak evidence means more work is required, not that we accept the claim. Especially when dealing with statistical arguments. -> 
> >
> > So to me, I'm scrambling to explain why positing a deity does ENOUGH. What does it explain that chance doesn't? 
> 
> My answer is that my expectation is 'chance' can NEVER explain it, and will never, so we have left onlly design.
> -But it doesn't answer the question why it is ENOUGH. -> > 
> > Especially if multiple universes pan out to be true:
> 
> When will that be? String, membrane theory is unproven after 35 years of work. It may predict 10^500 universes, outside ours, never to be proveable! Try leaving ours. Atheist pie in the sky. 
>-Well, it has been proven that we don't live in Euclidean 3-space. Already we're dealing with a universe that has more than three dimensions, even though we can't directly detect the fourth. You are correct to be cautious about String Theory--even I consider it a dead end. (Albeit one that has driven some very excellent mathematics.) -But to declare "never to be provable" is a misnomer; we can't presently conceive of 10^500 other universes, so why would we think it possible to detect them? Don't take this the wrong way, but you consistently seem to make judgments about ideas before they have time to be given flesh. 35 years is a blink of an eye. It took 3-4k years (perhaps longer!) to realize that our universe had more than 3-dimensions in the first place.-It is the fact that we have continually proven ourselves wrong that makes me adhere to the principle that no idea should be accepted that doesn't provide hard evidence. 
 
> >
> > Though I have yet to delve into the math, I'm really beginning to think that the basic accepted explanations of quantum mechanics (superposition vsa . many worlds) are completely off the mark. I can't explain why yet.
> 
> I'm hoping you can one day. I still am sure there is only one of me, here and now. A herd of me would need a wrangler in control, not possible. )-Quantum computing is going to provide some very hard evidence about the nature of nature.

--
\"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.\"