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

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, March 29, 2010, 01:54 (5161 days ago) @ dhw

MATT: Okay, fine, say we agree that the universe had to be designed. What then do we do with this agreement? Maybe David disagrees, but an explanation must really DO something.
> 
> Obviously I can't answer for David, but there are a few interesting ramifications to this argument. Some people feel that "truth" is an end in itself. Humans get restless when there are mysteries, and we feel better when we solve them. So if someone is satisfied that the mystery of life's origin can be explained by chance, or by design, it's one less niggle. You have acknowledged that you can't really do anything with "chance" either. No, of course you can't. You're dealing with one question, and one answer. That's the end of the story. And that's why atheist materialism is the simplest of all explanations, even though it depends on the unprovable hypothesis that life and the mechanisms of evolution came about by accident. 
> -But then--life being designed is yet again another mystery, isn't it? It doesn't answer any question about life, it is a jumping point to more questions about the creator(s). --> However, if your answer is design, it opens up vast new avenues of thought, all of which can be subsumed under the one question: what is the nature of the designer? I won't go into the rest, because it constitutes theology ... the "study of divine things", which is almost a contradiction in terms if you follow the line of thought that proclaims God is unknowable! But that's what the explanation "does". In David's case (sorry, David, only I need to refer to you as our only committed theist), it leads to panentheism. 
> -It depends on what you're willing to limit yourself to study, doesn't it? Yes it might open more vistas, but only if you're willing to consider absolutely subjective ideas. We know where I stand there. My question, is why enter a realm of the completely subjective? It's about as fruitful as debating the existence of numbers. -> I enumerated the strengths and the weaknesses of the two cases, and you wrote: "this clearly demonstrates that you don't feel either has enough justification", so you see no difference between us. The only difference, which is very minor, is that you can't understand why David firmly believes in a designer (though I don't recall you expressing the same incomprehension towards George's firm belief in chance and the natural laws). I can understand both beliefs. You're quite right that I can't embrace either of them, because I don't accept their weighting of the evidence, but that's the nature of belief, non-belief and disbelief: one's personal weighting of the evidence. The two faiths don't have enough justification for ME, but I won't challenge David or George on the grounds that their beliefs don't "do" anything.-Why? What are some explanations that don't do anything? I'd agree with you if we can somehow demonstrate that there are common explanations that do nothing. Generally speaking, if an explanation does nothing, we treat it as a bad one. -UFO's might be aliens, but most people accept that its more likely to be test aircraft. We can DO something with test aircraft, but what can we do with Aliens? We can "open up vast new avenues of thought, all of which can be subsumed under the one question: what is the nature of [Aliens]." -I'm not very concerned with detailing the aspects of a creature that we don't know exists, because I really think doing so beforehand causes more problems than they solve.

--
\"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.\"