Yeah, forgive my typos and grammar, I notice a couple already but gotta run.
Just walked Maddy, and it occurred to me I got two things going on, the one hippy dippy perspectives, how we see the world,
The other is pushing a more intellectually confrontational approach to the nonstop deception and slander that all the major Faith-Blinded political battle are built upon, be it evolution/ID - the “right to life” farce - climate science denial - a punitive paranoid civic presence
It the same old, SOW DOUBT tactic after four plus decades of evolution and victories, while the liberals stand on the sidelines bemoaning the situation and we’re all talking past each other. Why not some direct: Wait a fukin minute, that is false and this and this you are ignoring - and shove their faces in their own deceit.
see ya
Cc-v.3 said,Why not some direct: Wait a fukin minute, that is false and this and this you are ignoring – and shove their faces in their own deceit?
They’ll kill you for blasphemy, or apostasy, or witchcraft, or devil talk? “It’s in the book so it’s OK”. “God commanded it”.
Personally, I’ll stick with a “Mathematical Universe”. It doesn’t require intelligence, mathematics is a quasi-intelligent physical interaction based on physically relative values and functions.
That last sentence is not comprehensible to me. For one thing, how can a physical interaction (as you refer to math) be “quasi intelligent”?
mathematics is a quasi-intelligent physical interaction based on physically relative values and functions.Sound like intelligent design to me.
Also keep in mind this is about challenging the faith-shackled with sticky challenges - not about informing the sciences.
. . . and if it does have to do with any science I’d think it belongs under psychology/philosophy - certainly not the physical sciences.
I’m suggesting not enough is made of that distinction.
It the same old, SOW DOUBT tactic after four plus decades of evolution and victories, while the liberals stand on the sidelines bemoaning the situation and we’re all talking past each other. Why not some direct: Wait a fukin minute, that is false and this and this you are ignoring – and shove their faces in their own deceit.Because they don't see it as just sowing doubt, and "liberals" don't agree on things because we ask the actual questions and get different answers. For some rich liars, sure, pretty sure they don't care and doubt is their marketing strategy, but why does that work? Because people actually doubt the liberal scientism, and they are often right. We lost the Scopes Monkey Trial and William Jennings Bryan died soon after, that was not a victory. Madalyn Murray O'Hair was extremely unpopular. Meanwhile, evangelicals were quietly working their way into the White House. Despite everyone saying they aren't fundamentalists, they hold some possibility that those fundies have it right, because it's easier than thinking about it. Psychology in the 70's said we teach kids to be rational, that we could teach them to control their emotions with reason. Not to mention science gave us the nuclear bomb which still threatens to end the world.
You can’t get all left-wing thinking people to stop and focus on something like this because it goes against left-wing thinking to put aside individualistic thinking and do that sort of group action.
Cc-v.3 said,I’m suggesting not enough is made of that distinction.
Reading the appropriate definitions shows a clear distinction between Intelligent design and Quasi-Intelligent design.
Intelligent design = motivated sentient pattern construction
Quasi-Intelligent design = self-forming non-sentient mathematical pattern construction.
Is a magentic field an Intelligent design?
Its an Intelligently designed mathematical construct, no? Who designed it?
This is a quasi-intelligent mathematical construct. Who designed this?
I had an intuitive sense of the theme of The Righteous Mind before I read it, maybe I had heard some of the themes in media. It’s pretty dense, but he stops and summarizes often enough that you don’t need to memorize the name of every philosopher and psychologist he mentions. Likewise, I can’t give you a forum post size summary of all the points. Try following this link. It should land on pg 214, “IN SUM”.
W4U, you aren’t reading what I wrote - Nothing I’m saying is about redefining the science - this is about confronting assumptions of the faith-shackled. Of the unschooled.
If we aren’t changing minds, we’re failing.
Mind you Trump’s 40% just keeps getting more paranoid, pissed off and extreme - and the left is giving that a free pass. Is that a smart strategy? Hell NO!
Why not clearly, simply define and confront their deceptions? Why not try to come up with sticky challenges to their self- certitude? That’s what I’m talking about.
Now back to your post and quasi this and that and basic principles. Who designed this? A great start would be to explain why we remove the “who” from the question.
We’re not talking making sense of bar magnets - people are trying to make sense out of this:
Watch that stuff closely, ponder, then try scaling it up. Not to mention our internal organs and all that, it justifiably boggles the mind -
it dangles Design and Planning in front of us. And in fact even scientifically speaking, there certainly is design and planning happening, then it gets complicated.
Any of that helping
Oh heck that was supposed to start at 1:40 - fast forward, not that this first half isn’t just as wild. Part two makes my point better.
Cc-v.3 said,W4U, you aren’t reading what I wrote – Nothing I’m saying is about redefining the science – this is about confronting assumptions of the faith-shackled. Of the unschooled.
Not to worry, were on the same team. I also like to demonstrate the awesome power of evolution and natural selection of chemical actions over long periods of time.
Oh heck that was supposed to start at 1:40 – fast forward, not that this first half isn’t just as wild. Part two makes my point better.I love Drew Berry's work. As I understand it, the "eye-candy" is actually faithful representation of the real thing in real time.
He speaks also of Mitochondria and the Cytoskeleton, made possible by microtubules, the tiny computers that build and regulate the human part of humans which is not regulated by our bacterial friends. The human biome consists of 10% human cells and 90% bacterial cells, or if we count DNA then we are 1% human and 99% bacterial.
Seems that there is very little room for God to have assembled all these parts in a day, to present us with “irreducible complexity”.
start @ 25:00
this is about confronting assumptions of the faith-shackled. Of the unschooled.You might want to start by not calling them ignorant and closed minded.
They aren’t in this audience.
Be nice if they didn’t act it.
They aren’t in this audience.It's an open forum. I assume some of "them" are stopping by but not staying for coffee.
Sorry if I sound a bit frustrated, but I’m a bit frustrated. “Listen first” and “understand before trying to be understood” are basic tenants that have been around for a long time. Maybe not quite as well known; if you’re saying things like this in private liberal enclaves, it shows in public mixed company.
Been thinking about that Lausten -
In my high school ('73) days seems that Jesus Freaks were just starting to build up a head of steam - oh yeah can’t label them with that, either, shouldn’t do that, might offend, eh?
but I’ll define it, Jesus Freak: People possessing the self-certain belief that only through Jesus will you find an eternal home in heaven and all others are going to go to eternal hell,
(never mind that the notion of an after-life evaporates upon any serious consideration of Earth’s evolution and a bit of meditating on the reality of our mindscape’s connection our living bodies - a bit of Earth Centrism offers the philosophical grounding)
simply because they have not accepted Jesus as their one and only “savior.” (I mean we’ve laid down and allowed them to take on that conceit - stuff like that I can’t wrap my head around, guess since I been watching so long and seeing desperately few recognized and feared the brainwashing going on…)
That was their religious “Faith” and god help anyone who had a disparaging thing to say about that transmutation of the Christian’s “Faith”.
(it used to be about the way we live our lives, now its been raped into being all about fear and telling other’s how to live.
Yet, we were supposed to shut up bow-down and let it fly - which we dutifully did.
They just got more and more disconnected from basic humanistic instincts, and worse from rational assessment of this creation we live within - with a growing hatred and rejection of rational learning and constructive public dialogue.
Being expected to learn fact based stuff became a moral personal insult, assault to be treated with derision and hostility - why - well, if you’re self-certain, no one better tell you a damned thing.
Faith - became the sacred cow that dare not be disputed, even if it was based on the insane presumption that you petty human have achieved a direction relationship with the God Almighty of Light and Time, Life and Love. That is literally insane thinking - but it was impolite to say anything, might hurt some feelings.
No one seems capable of providing a simple explanation as to why religion and science were different. Namely that they belong to two completely different realms. One being our Mindscape (roll that term around a little, landscape, seascape, and yes mindscape) and physical reality.Religions were all about how to live our own individual lives, and about creating community and civil order - beautiful necessary things.
Science was about understanding the ways and means of our planet this moment in its evolution that we are now a part of.
Now we have evolved into a reality situation where around 40% of our nation are okay with ignoring physical facts, realities of complex natural systems, believing that Earth was created 6 f’n thousand years ago, or maybe not, whatever, that’s cool, don’t make no difference to my God worshipping consumerism while trying to have fun focused life.
What’s scary is that as Trump gets more paranoid and angry, they are doing the same thing - doubling down fear driven hateful fantasy thinking.
And we liberal still worry about being polite and never dare be pushing, just turns them off. Well you know it’s worked for Trump pretty damned good - yet our political “brain trust” seems lost somewhere around the turn of century. It’s a new terrifying day, and we’ve normalized it into hoohum.
I really should reread, fix the usual, but life’s calling and I want to post this anyways. Basket weaving, but hey 
W4U: Seems that there is very little room for God to have assembled all these parts in a day, to present us with “irreducible complexity”.No doubt. I'm not saying there is. But a lot of people are trying to claim that - many believe it.
I’m saying I can appreciate where and why unschooled people naturally see a God in there.
Just cause it’s obvious to us that there’s more going on there, than a simplistic “God”
doesn’t mean we shouldn’t talk about and confront the way others do perceive?
But where do you start that discussion from the top down or the bottom up?
Been thinking about that Lausten –I’m just all broken up about your straw man argument. Save your keystrokes. I’ve been working on this for a couple decades and I’ve gone a little beyond “be nice”. The President is sending up flags of civil war to see who salutes. They’re winning. Might be time to consider strategies.
The scientific method is based on the idea that we have confirmation biases and that we do better when we have a multiplicity of views on the same data. Yet, even while discussing that method, we ignore it. My first inclination when I started working with community organizers was that tribalism is hindering our ability to discuss capitalism and dismantle power structures. Then, with each successive community of self-proclaimed enlightened freethinkers, I ran in to tribalism. At first I thought it was the corporate money in grants. If you really want a lion’s den, try going in to the kitchen. Not a metaphorical one, I mean the actual kitchen where they are making soup for the homeless or spaghetti for the fundraiser of the month. Make one suggestion about the smallest thing. Let me know how that goes.
Sorry I did not mean to up set you Lausten.
You lost me. Please define this straw man.
Think I never get my hands dirty?
https://www.facebook.com/pg/swlplibrarydistrict/photos/
FCFP - “Breen LandUseCode Community Meeting - This Is What Democracy Looks Like !”
Cc-v.3 said,But where do you start that discussion from the top down or the bottom up?
IMO, from both sides working toward the middle. I believe that in the end both disciplines (religion v science) are seeking the same answers. I am proposing that the guiding equation is Mathematical in essence. After that we can debate if Mathematics can be an inherent property of spacetime itself or if Mathematics require an sentient intelligent motivated “Creator”, which requires worship.
From my perspective of quasi-intelligent mathematical metaphysics, I can identify with the believer’s perspective of some “form” of metaphysical intelligence, dubbed God, which uses Mathematics to achieve its ends.
But then, I object to the definition of God as a sentient motivated entity, without any apparent motivation other than a subjective emotional attachment or extension of self.
The problem lies in the actual physics. We can prove that the physical universe is able to produce self-forming patterns, a mathematically creative ability, functioning without any purposeful intent. Mathematical functions do not require sentience, only dynamical change.
p.s. Max Tegmark proposes that the universe can be described using 32 numbers and a handful of equations.
OTOH, God is an “irreducibly complex sentient object”, apparently being responsible for creation of a chaotic universe, via the BB from “nothing”, by means of mathematical functions. We need only look at the evolutionary formation of the most fundamental elements to understand that the process is an implaccable progression of mathematical functions processing relative mathematical values.
The believer is unable to produce a single argument how a God could be a self-forming sentiently intelligent entity, given our knowledge of the physical universe, unless it were a self -forming mathematical metaphysical pattern. Occam’s razor offers guidance.
Why make it more difficult than it already is?
IMO, from both sides working toward the middle. I believe that in the end both disciplines (religion v science) are seeking the same answers.Depends on what you mean by "religion."
There is a particular subset of believers who really aren’t seeking any answers, outside of the one they believe they already have. They are by no means the majority. But the ones I’m talking about have beliefs that are pretty intractable.