Not a God, a creator.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

People have feelings. About all sorts of things. I've had women tell me they could just feel that I was really in love with them I just couldn't admit it or they could feel that I was thinking about them or that they could feel that we had a connection. Those were not valid either;P

Psychics have feelings all the time and tell us about them.


People have feelings they want to feel. That doesn't mean there is any objective reality associated with them. It just means they want to feel something.

Be careful with your feelings. Check them in reference to other people, know that they are not always rational, but proceed. They are a part of you. Perhaps the best part.

I am guessing that you are more drawn to intention than lack of accident.

You would be wrong. I believe in luck. If it happens just the right way, nothing else is required. I don't like that puppet thing at all. An accident would give us a "creator-less" character. Something that is great for the egos that need that. It also piles on us the responsibility to "make it work," for those who need that.

But then an explicable creator is not nearly as fun. There could be one, absolutely agreed, but then what created it? And then what created that? It is as easy to imagine a null creator as an infinitely recursive one. But it is more parsimonious to imagine a null creator

What came before the big bang? And before that?

 

[Faithkills]

Be careful with your feelings. Check them in reference to other people, know that they are not always rational, but proceed. They are a part of you. Perhaps the best part.

Feelings untempered by reason are useless at best and destructive at worst. Logic without emotion isn't much fun. We are evolved to enjoy and respond to feelings, ie excited neurochemical states. We would be animals without reason and angels without emotions. Only knowing what being human is like and having no other choice I'll stick with human.

You would be wrong. I believe in luck. If it happens just the right way, nothing else is required. I don't like that puppet thing at all. An accident would give us a "creator-less" character. Something that is great for the egos that need that. It also piles on us the responsibility to "make it work," for those who need that.

You believe in luck? You believe probability can be skewed by consciousness or some other way? I can be lucky or I can be unlucky? I can be predisposed to have good or bad outcomes?

What came before the big bang? And before that?

Exactly my point. Null creator is less of a stretch than infinite creators.

But before the bang could have come the crunch and before the crunch could have come the bang, etc. If there is a creator likely it had a creator. Thinking there is no creator is thus less problematic.

I still don't know what you mean by creator tho.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Nope. I'm asking you to come clean about your attempt to make evolution a teleological process. You are implying that evolution is purposeful in terms of human value judgments and that humans are more "highly" evolved than other life-forms.

I am saying that evolution is a patterned process. A process that evolves more and more complex forms of energy, matter, and information. Humans represent a point where the process is able to create "artificial" forms of matter, energy, and information.

Being part of the process, they can't help but work in accordance with it.

This is nonsense. There is no scale with an "end goal of evolutionary perfection" guided by a creator or some such.

More complex is never ending, but the process does guide its creations. One part more than others.

This is a human conceit which you are clinging to. It is an anthropocentric delusion.

Clinging? Humans can't be the purpose of the process. That has to be true even if they reigned for a billion years. "Something" developing consciousness was something that had to happen, it just "happened" to be them.
And I think the word delusion is a bit strong... its a view-far from comparing airplanes to sticks. I have never said anything about humans being the end product of evolution.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

This is completely wrong. Research the evolution of parasitic worms for the classic example of how evolution can lead to less complex forms.

Mutations are all about "exceptions," and evolution is about mutations. So, are you saying that because that of that example (and I'll give you others) that the direction of evolution is not towards more and more complex forms of ....

 

[Hokulele]

Mutations are all about "exceptions," and evolution is about mutations. So, are you saying that because that of that example (and I'll give you others) that the direction of evolution is not towards more and more complex forms of ....

Absolutely. Mutations do not necessarily result in more complex forms. Parasitic worms being just one example.

 

[Tricky]

Absolutely. Mutations do not necessarily result in more complex forms. Parasitic worms being just one example.

An excellent example. Tapeworms, for example, have no digestive system, though they evolved from organisms with digestive systems. Since they live in digestive tracts, having their own was just excess baggage and accordingly, selective pressure favored the direction of a reduced system.

And no, LCL, evolution is not "about mutations". Mutation is just one important aspect of what drives evolution. Selective pressure, complex interactions, changing ecosystems, gene pools and a whole multitude of things that have nothing to do with mutation are critical to the various paths (upward and downward) of evolution.

 

[D'rok]

I am saying that evolution is a patterned process. A process that evolves more and more complex forms of energy, matter, and information. Humans represent a point where the process is able to create "artificial" forms of matter, energy, and information.

Being part of the process, they can't help but work in accordance with it.


More complex is never ending, but the process does guide its creations. One part more than others.

Clinging? Humans can't be the purpose of the process. That has to be true even if they reigned for a billion years. "Something" developing consciousness was something that had to happen, it just "happened" to be them.
And I think the word delusion is a bit strong... its a view-far from comparing airplanes to sticks. I have never said anything about humans being the end product of evolution.

What's with the dupe post? My response is here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2739221#post2739221

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Nope. There is no necessity for evolution to increase complexity. If a decrease in complexity is naturally selected as advantageous, that too is evolution.

Duh.

You sound like you've read too much Kurzweil. The technological activities and "creations" of humans are not part of the evolutionary process. You are making an unsupportable rhetorical and philosophical leap.

What about genetics? God I hope that they don't mess around and give germs another advantage, like they did when they made some more willing to kill us.

Nor can we be the process. And reigned what? We don't even reign on this planet. Insects have that one in the bag.

So you have an insecticentric view? (I had to make the the word.)

Nope. Completely without merit. Just because something happened does not mean that it had to happen. There is nothing about evolution that mandates consciousness.

I'm going to have to disagree. If someone were able to read the whole genetic code, saw it when it started, he may have. Science thinks that most of the genetic code is "junk," I bet it ain't.

Consciousness is not the "purpose of the process" any more than humans are.

I never said that they were, I just posted that I didn't.

This is the source of your delusion.

Considering that you either accidently, purposely, or delusionally miss me posting about humans not being the "purpose of the process," just one post ago, I would not be throwing that word around.
Hey. Are you trying for an emotional response, even though you said emotions have no "whatever" that was?

Would you prefer egregious error?

It ain't that bad. Your type tend towards the "gloom and doom" thing, its not that bad.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Absolutely. Mutations do not necessarily result in more complex forms. Parasitic worms being just one example.

Okay, the process isn't perfect.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

What's with the dupe post? My response is here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2739221#post2739221

Dupe post?

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

An excellent example. Tapeworms, for example, have no digestive system, though they evolved from organisms with digestive systems. Since they live in digestive tracts, having their own was just excess baggage and accordingly, selective pressure favored the direction of a reduced system.

Okay, and someone said that the brain of the panda bear shunk due to nonuse. And I am sure there are plenty of other examples.

And no, LCL, evolution is not "about mutations". Mutation is just one important aspect of what drives evolution. Selective pressure, complex interactions, changing ecosystems, gene pools and a whole multitude of things that have nothing to do with mutation are critical to the various paths (upward and downward) of evolution.

Okay... mutations are an important part of the process? Mutations help in adaptation?

 

[qayak]

I'm not burying that mini-universe thing where the scientist/creator lives pretty much like we do, only in the clouds, meddling when he sees fit.
And I have already said what I think the creators attributes are: negative, positive, attraction and repulsion.

Okay, I understand. Now can you explain how a creator with negative, positive, attraction and repulsion could create the universe we see around us?

They blended two different words. The creator of something is not necessarilly a God, which seems to mean an "all powerful" being. Something that comes with all types of flaws. The women need not be a saint, to give birth to a pope.

No. What they did was to say: "If this universe had a creator, he would have to be supernatural, with all the attributes that go along with supernatural beings. Supernatural beings are gods by definition. The creator of the universe was a god." And, depending on which religion they subscribed to, their particular god was credited with the creation of the universe.

So, you are claiming a non-supernatural being with the attributes positive, negative, attraction and repulsion is what created the universe and I am asking you what evidence you have that would lead you to that conclusion. I am also asking how a being with these attributes could create the universe.

 

[Tricky]

Okay, and someone said that the brain of the panda bear shunk due to nonuse. And I am sure there are plenty of other examples.

Plenty indeed. In vact, vestigial organs are one of the things that is used as strong evidence for evolution. The human appendix is one example of an organ that once had a use, but now is more likely to kill you than do anything useful for you. Also, snakes evolved from lizards with legs. Some primative snakes (like boa constrictors) still have rudimentary hips. I'd call losing limbs a definite step down in complexity, yet it is still adaptive.

Okay... mutations are an important part of the process? Mutations help in adaptation?

Really, they are unrelated. Mutations give a wider variety of traits for adaptation to "choose" from, but they would occur even if none of them were advantageous.

 

[Tricky]

Now what the hell is wrong with you? Oh wait. Are you saying that what I said makes as much sense as what you just posted? I just can't believe that you just didn't have anything else to do.

No, he's making a light-hearted comment on my humorous free verse.

But really, my poem is not just a joke. It has meaning that is appropriate to this thread. Do you want to discuss it?

 

[D'rok]

Duh.

Precisely. So have you now changed your tune about complexity?

What about genetics? God I hope that they don't mess around and give germs another advantage, like they did when they made some more willing to kill us.

Germs have wills?

So you have an insecticentric view? (I had to make the the word.)

Nope. Just trying to dispel your anthropocentric fluff.

I'm going to have to disagree. If someone were able to read the whole genetic code, saw it when it started, he may have. Science thinks that most of the genetic code is "junk," I bet it ain't.

What in the wide world of sports does this unsupportable assertion have to do with your other unsupportable assertion that consciousness is evolutionarily inevitable?

I never said that they were, I just posted that I didn't.

Right. By posting that consciousness had to develop. Thus my reply. Which I don't think you comprehended. Oh well.

Considering that you either accidently, purposely, or delusionally miss me posting about humans not being the "purpose of the process," just one post ago, I would not be throwing that word around.

Re-read for comprehension and you'll see that I was replying to your assertion that evolution has to produce consciousness. You admit that humans are not the purpose. Fine. Neither is consciousness.

Hey. Are you trying for an emotional response, even though you said emotions have no "whatever" that was?

I have emotions. You have emotions. The solar system doesn't. Light doesn't. The universe doesn't. Emotions are not the means to understand reality. Observation and experimentation are. You can't "feel" your way to the "truth" about life, the universe and everything.

It ain't that bad. Your type tend towards the "gloom and doom" thing, its not that bad.

Your misuse and misunderstanding of evolutionary theory is that bad. And that has nothing to do with doom and gloom. I'm quite happy knowing that I'm cosmically insignificant.

 

[D'rok]

Dupe post?

These two:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2739106#post2739106
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2739881#post2739881

Word for word the same response to the same post.

 

[wollery]

Light, I thought we'd gone over all this anthropic principle stuff ages ago.

 

[arthwollipot]

Nor can we be the process. And reigned what? We don't even reign on this planet. Insects have that one in the bag.

To be pedantic, bacteria outweigh insects by quite a large margin.

This is not the Age of Man. It is not even the Age of Insects. It is the Age of Bacteria, and it has been for four and a half billion years.

Returning to lurk mode.

 

[D'rok]

To be pedantic, bacteria outweigh insects by quite a large margin.

This is not the Age of Man. It is not even the Age of Insects. It is the Age of Bacteria, and it has been for four and a half billion years.

Returning to lurk mode.

Pedantry is one of the JREF-ian virtues. Kind of like Aristotelean virtues but more dorky.

 

[Lonewulf]

To be pedantic, bacteria outweigh insects by quite a large margin.

This is not the Age of Man. It is not even the Age of Insects. It is the Age of Bacteria, and it has been for four and a half billion years.

Population size/weight is the only thing that matters? Not sure I agree.