Why would an intelligent designer use mass extinctions?

[Scorpion]

You have died?

I have received many evidential messages from dead relatives. They were not cold readings as I knew better than to feed the medium with clues.
I once received a message from a dead brother I did not even know I had, but when I asked my mother she admitted she had a baby that died in the war. But I got a message from him, and was even told his name. There is no way the medium could have known that, because I had never seen her before, she was from out of town, and my mother never came to the church.

 

[Myriad]

The spirit is just using the brain...

Let's focus on this idea, if you wish to discuss it.

What is the spirit using the brain for?

And what can the spirit do, without the brain?

For instance, without the brain (and the other relevant physical apparatus such as the eyes), can the spirit see? If so, then why does physical damage to the retina, optic nerve, or visual cortex make a person blind?

Can a spirit, without the brain, read or understand language? If so, why must an infant learn language? Why aren't we able to understand the languages our spirits were fluent in in previous lifetimes?

Can the spirit, without the brain, remember? If so, why does deterioration of the brain (such as in senile dementia) cause memory loss? Why can't the spirit fill in any missing information that the brain can no longer provide (such as, in extreme cases, the name of a spouse or relative) from its own memory? For that matter, why can't my spirit tell me where I left my car keys, when my brain forgets?

Can a spirit, without the brain, make wise decisions? If so, then why do people whose brains are physically impaired by alcohol, drugs, or illness make poor decisions?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[bruto]

Haven't we all?

Over and over, but alas, it doesn't stick.

 

[tsig]

Spiritualism teaches that God has always existed, and we are all a part of him, therefore the answer is yes.

I'm guessing that we're passing thru this flesh existence to learn some life lessons?

 

[tsig]

Haven't we all?

I got better.

 

[Navigator]

Navigator seems to fear that he'll come to the end of his life having skipped something important. I, on the other hand, fear that I'll come to the end of my life having spent too much time thinking about other people's bogus ideas and too little cleaning my plate.

The problem with your reasoning regarding me bruto is that you have to transfer yourself onto me which gives you the 'it seems like Navigator must fear'.

What is more to the point is that i simply am interested in the subjects of god ideas and afterlife and have the opportunity to engage with these concepts here and now.

I simply want to make sure I cover as much as I can while the opportunity affords itself to do so.

I can do all this and, hang out with my partner and friends, make new friends, travel, create and play music on my own and with others, create art, go to gigs and festivals, work, sleep and play...none of which are affected negatively by my thinking about such immaterial topics.

 

[Navigator]

It is because I am a skeptic, and skeptics tend not to accept claims without evidence to support those claims. It doesn't apply only to the supernatural. If you were asserting that there existed some new kind of natural force never observed before, or that some kind of extraordinary event that isn't impossible under a materialistic of philosophy had occurred, I'd also want to be presented with adequate supporting evidence before accepting it as true.

I too am a skeptic and because of this I tend not to discard the possibility. No claims have been made other than it is a possibility.

I'm not objecting to you pondering such things, I regard myself free to ponder these things too. It's the assertion without evidence that these things are fact that I object to.

The only fact asserted is that it is possible.

Why does this seem to be an oxymoron to you?

What possible reason could you have for assuming that intelligent conscious entities capable (collectively) of building such things as computers should necessarily be capable of intelligently constructing other conscious entities?

And what reason do you have to assume that we won't be capable of this at some point in the future? I see no reason why, theoretically, we couldn't eventually be capable of such a thing. (Although I don't claim to know if we ever will or will not develop technology capable of such things.)

I was just pointing out that our current technology is nowhere near advanced enough to produce the equivalent of an organic brain, and so we shouldn't be surprised that it can't do all the same things that organic brains do.

Organic brains will need to understand the creation of consciousness in order to understand if it is possible to replicate.
Even then it might not provide conclusive evidence that consciousness does not survive death of brain.

What evidence do you have that attempts at space exploration puts our home planet at any risk of irrevocable harm?

If space is invested in without first making sure the planet is stable and running self supporting systems, we shall find out how bad a choice that will work out to be.
I do not have your faith in such a position being sustainable without heavy sacrifice.
I have more faith in this happening.

Materialism is a philosophical position, and is in no way defined by a person's actions. Your assertions that all are materialists and that all believe that "such attitude simply a conscious expression of what evolution is doing anyway" is absurd.

Nevertheless, that is what materialism is.

Nice strawman you've constructed there. I don't think you'll find many people who actually understand evolution who would describe humanity as "evolution's finest and fittest".

Nevertheless it happens. It is an underlying attitude of materialism. History itself verifies this.

In evolutionary terms, my personal position is that bacteria are demonstrably far more evolutionarily fitter than primates (including humans).

Well what is it we might learn from these that will work well for primates?

This is supported by the fact that bacteria can survive in far more diverse conditions than humans can, that in total they outnumber humans by 700,000,000,000,000,000,000 to one, and that human bodies carry ten times more bacteria cells than they do human cells (bacteria cells are far smaller than human cells), which makes us effectively little more than mobile homes for bacteria.

Materialists also think they are just 'the body' so I can see why you would think of yourself as a mobile home for bacteria, but I would say that this is not something which causes you any concern or feeling that you'd rather be bacteria.
Materialists spend too much time observing and categorizing material. Hardly any time actually observing that which does the observing and categorizing.
Great wonder is made of the physical while consciousness is thought of as something far less important.

I don't see how you get from the premise to the conclusion here.

I don;t see how those who say people are 'ill' do so because those people like to think about things which are not materially obvious.

I assume that it's a product of brain function because nobody has ever demonstrated the existence of any other plausible mechanism, materialistic or otherwise.

No one can by my understanding. I do not see that as enough reason to assume anything.

No, it's not what I think. I think that it's perfectly natural for people to be somewhat irrational in their beliefs and opinions. Nobody's immune to cognitive biases. The trick is to figure out how to identify when your position is not logically sound.

Unfortunately some decide it is not logical to remain undecided on such things

Okay, so I'm arguing from a position of belief. I don't have a problem admitting that. But unlike your position of belief, my position of belief is supported by a large body of demonstrable evidence and critical thinking.

But I am not arguing from a belief position.

Indeed it is illogical to argue for or against. It is only logical to argue that there is no conclusive evidence. Me arguing there might be continuation of consciousness and you arguing there is not and cannot be shows who is arguing from belief.

If you believe that humans can afford to spend so much on space programs whilst fellow human beings continue to live in conditions which are terrible, and feel okay about that, what difference is your attitude from that of any gods humans worship?

Would you be okay if humans got to colonize mars or the moon while the actual living planet suffered mass extinctions due to careless attitudes of those permitting it to happen?

 

[Brian-M]

If you believe that humans can afford to spend so much on space programs whilst fellow human beings continue to live in conditions which are terrible, and feel okay about that

Why pick on space programs? The US spends more than thirty times more money on defense than it does on space. It would make far more sense to argue that we should stop waging war than it does to argue that we should stop investing in space programs.

US Spending | Year | US$ billion Defense Budget | 2011 | $664.84
Catholic Church | 2010 | $170
Alternative "medicine" | 2008 | $33.9
NASA Budget | 2011 | $18.4

I think it's clear that there are a lot of better places the US can cut spending for the purpose of improving human well-being than space exploration.

Plus it's important to remember that the US already spends more than 31 billion on foreign aid already, far more than they invest in space exploration.

Worldwide governments spend $128 billion on foreign aid, and private donations came to about $56 billion, a total of $184 billion on foreign aid. Worldwide, governments spend a total of $62 billion on space travel. So we're already spending three times as much on helping the impoverished than we are on space travel, and that's not counting the even greater amounts nations spend domestically on helping the poor and instituting economic reforms.

Hell, worldwide sales of computer games and gaming systems come to around a hundred billion US dollars. We're a species that spends far more on computer games than we do on space exploration!

So why do you think that spending this money on space exploration is so harmful to us?

 

[smartcooky]

It is because I am a skeptic, and skeptics tend not to accept claims without evidence to support those claims. It doesn't apply only to the supernatural. If you were asserting that there existed some new kind of natural force never observed before, or that some kind of extraordinary event that isn't impossible under a materialistic of philosophy had occurred, I'd also want to be presented with adequate supporting evidence before accepting it as true.

While I agree, I also think that pushing the boundaries of the known can lead to revelation of the unknown. Often, new things are theorised long before there is any hard evidence for them. For example, although the existence of Dark Matter was theorised in the 1930s by Zwicky, and again in the 1950's by Rubin, you will struggle to find many Astrophysics texts dated before the late 1990's that treat Dark Matter as a serious subject for study.

It also doesn't pay to be too much of a skeptic when it come to new technology. When I first studied electronics in my early teens, transistor radios were relatively new, and the transistor itself was very limited in its applications. I distinctly remember being in a class about power amplifiers and high powered transmission, when our instructor passed around an OC72 (a germanium transistor) for everyone to look at. He said words to the effect that "this is a transistor. You won't need to learn about them here, as they are low power only, and will never be suitable for high power uses."

That was in 1967. Within eight years someone invented the Power MOSFET!!!

 

[Navigator]

Why pick on space programs? The US spends more than thirty times more money on defense than it does on space. It would make far more sense to argue that we should stop waging war than it does to argue that we should stop investing in space programs.

Well there is yet another hole to drop wealth into.
The thing about space exploration is that it is like the new promise, still looking for salvation in the skies.

Again, with the problem of warfare - that is an earthbound problem which could do with fixing.
Scientific agenda wants the bucks to do what it does, whether that is making smarter weapons, promoting space exploration - all these things which benefit a few and take from the many to have happen.
Selling the many some dream about getting to mars or the moon, when our planet needs all the science it can get here which is focused upon healing the planet and making sure it is a viable healthy nurtured thing.
Also it stems from recent conversations on the board to do with investing in space, so has been on my mind.

I think it's clear that there are a lot of better places the US can cut spending for the purpose of improving human well-being than space exploration.

Lets expand it into all the West. America and its allies. There is so much we could do to make it better for us all in the (so called) 'free world' which - once we have our own **** together could be a great thing for the rest of the world.

Plus it's important to remember that the US already spends more than 31 billion on foreign aid already, far more than they invest in space exploration.

The problem is that spending that kind of cash on others while it is needed at home isn't really logical.
Charity begins at home. When every citizen is well cared for then look to seeing what can be done for the rest of the world.

Worldwide governments spend $128 billion on foreign aid, and private donations came to about $56 billion, a total of $184 billion on foreign aid. Worldwide, governments spend a total of $62 billion on space travel. So we're already spending three times as much on helping the impoverished than we are on space travel, and that's not counting the even greater amounts nations spend domestically on helping the poor and instituting economic reforms.

Hell, worldwide sales of computer games and gaming systems come to around a hundred billion US dollars. We're a species that spends far more on computer games than we do on space exploration!

So why do you think that spending this money on space exploration is so harmful to us?

The harm is that we live for the $, a human invention which has no logical value of its own in terms of everyone equally.
However we can see how people spend their money. Investing in off world ventures while so much can and needs to be done here on this planet, seems to me to indicate an attitude which is illogical in relation to a sapient specie.

I do understand that it is hard for those in situations where $ is no object - where position and influence and lifestyle of the ruling class make it hard to identify with need, the needy - with issues which affect multitudes of individuals that were born into less fortunate positions...this **** has been happening since ancient times and while religion has had its influence in supporting that agenda, it is not solely the only offender involved.

Jesus spoke about another way. However that was/is bent to suit the opposing agenda, but the truth remains. His was a message to the poor who are deceived by false dreams planted in their minds from day one and fed BS about how it is and how it cannot be any other way.

So. The wealth is obviously on the planet. But it belongs to so few. And the trail of destruction, deceit, murder, pillage, distortion of history, genocide done in the name of 'good' is undeniable and criminal.

I am not against space exploration of itself. I think it will bee far more successful a venture when we can deliver ourselves out of the quagmire our fore-parents insisted upon us and we need to be able to develop our own path based on likely future events rather than arguing as to the validity of some of the things we are faced with which have yet to become real.


Also...I think it is one of the absurdest things to argue 'how we got here' rather than discuss the fact that we are here and what we can do to make that better all round, - with the future in mind.

 

[Pixel42]

Hell, worldwide sales of computer games and gaming systems come to around a hundred billion US dollars. We're a species that spends far more on computer games than we do on space exploration!

Then there's sport, music, art ...

Man does not live by bread alone. Even the poor need food for their minds as well as their bodies.

 

[Navigator]

Then there's sport, music, art ...

Man does not live by bread alone. Even the poor need food for their minds as well as their bodies.

Everything humans need to create what they then sell each other is sourced here on this planet.
There is no reason why we cannot change the way we 'do business'.

 

[Pixel42]

I can still remember racing home from work to see the latest pictures from the Voyager probes on the six o'clock news. I was living hand to mouth at the time, but I would have willingly have paid for the privilege.

 

[pakeha]

Not coincidentally, it also sounds like hermeticism (Golden Dawn, OTO, etc., and the reason why every adventure movie set in late 19th century London features a secret cult that dresses up in silly ancient Egyptian costumes), Freemasonry, and (with some terminology substitutions) Scientology.

Take eastern reincarnation narratives, combine with Judeo-Christian monotheism, and steep them in the prevailing progress narratives of the industrial era. Voila: everyone's now striving toward inevitable eventual perfection over multiple lifetimes. Mix liberally to taste with your choice of miscellaneous woo, ancient or modern (astrology, quabalah, alchemy, UFOs, psychic powers, or whatever).

Respectfully,
Myriad

As comprehensive a description of the roots of the twentieth century's spiritual movements as I've seen.

 

[John Jones]

It is my view that computers will never be able to do anything more than add up from 0 to 1. Everything else they do is an illusion created by the programmer. [...]

And yet here you are using one to share your thoughts.

 

[Brian-M]

The thing about space exploration is that it is like the new promise, still looking for salvation in the skies.

What offer of salvation from the skies? Despite the large body of science-fiction in existence, I'm not aware that anyone expects space exploration to drastically affect our daily lives beyond the ways that it already does (such by means of satellites).

It's not like we think that we're all going to live on an artificial paradise built on Mars or anything.

Scientific agenda wants the bucks to do what it does, whether that is making smarter weapons, promoting space exploration - all these things which benefit a few and take from the many to have happen.

You're forgetting other fields of scientific research, such as biology, chemistry, genetics, agriculture, electronics, ect. All of these things affect and improve the lives of billions of people.

, when our planet needs all the science it can get here which is focused upon healing the planet and making sure it is a viable healthy nurtured thing.

Even if we scrapped space-exploration, how is this going to make any realistic progress to "healing the planet and making sure it is a viable healthy nurtured thing" (whatever that's supposed to mean)? Please explain how stopping space exploration is going to allow us to make significant progress in achieving this.

If you want to argue for us working to "healing the planet" the first step (after providing a coherent explanation of what this is supposed to mean) is to provide a realistic plan for achieving this, and then convince people that this plan is worthwhile and likely to succeed.

It's only after you've done this that you can start arguing that we should divert funds from other fields of endeavor in order to be able to implement the plan.

Trying to convince people to divert funds for the sake of implementing a plan that doesn't yet exist, or because of vague and fuzzy feelings that the money could be better spent elsewhere is rather pointless.

Besides, it isn't the money that's the main issue here, it's the resources that the money represents. Diverting the money from space exploration isn't going to magically transform rocket scientists into doctors, agricultural engineers and social workers. The land used for space research isn't going to magically start sprouting bountiful crops that teleports itself into the kitchens of the impoverished without needing to solve the seemingly intractable problems of logistics and equitable distribution.

Doing this will simply put all these people out of work... and many of them (or the people who are unable to find work because one ex-NASA employee or another has taken the jobs they'd have otherwise have gotten) will be the ones needing assistance from the government in order to feed themselves. The money these employees, contractors and associated organizations would have gotten now no longer trickles into the economy through wages into various businesses through spending, and no longer end up back in the government's hands through taxes, so the effective savings are far less than they would seem at first glance.

This doesn't strike me as a particularly effective strategy for improving the world.

Also it stems from recent conversations on the board to do with investing in space, so has been on my mind.

You mean the thread about a proposed non-government funded Mars colony that's filled with responses like... ?

I think I'll pass. Of course they wouldn't choose me anyway.

Why go there, sit on a planet with plenty of resources, and not make any plans on coming back ? Seems silly.

Looks like more pie-in-the sky wishful thinking. Or a conscious scam.

My money's on a conscious scam.

After perusing the Mars One website I can see it is obviously a super scam.

NASA astronaut/physicist explains why it's so hard to get to Mars, and even harder if you want to come back

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fturU0u5KJo

And that's all there is to this project. MarsOne will not send anyone to Mars by 2023 - there will be no money nor technology for that by then. With all the publicity they're getting with their outlandish promises they might be able to raise enough money for a reality-TV show where some people are being "martians" in a desert setting - for a season or two.

 

[smartcooky]

It is my view that computers will never be able to do anything more than add up from 0 to 1. Everything else they do is an illusion created by the programmer. Computers will not become concious because they lack an immortal soul and we are concious because we have one. The spirit is just using the brain and it is my experience we do survive the death of the body.

In the contrary, self-aware computers are not far away from reality

http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/technology/59121-computers-almost-self-aware-scientist-says

 

[Scorpion]

Let's focus on this idea, if you wish to discuss it.

What is the spirit using the brain for?

And what can the spirit do, without the brain?

For instance, without the brain (and the other relevant physical apparatus such as the eyes), can the spirit see? If so, then why does physical damage to the retina, optic nerve, or visual cortex make a person blind?

Can a spirit, without the brain, read or understand language? If so, why must an infant learn language? Why aren't we able to understand the languages our spirits were fluent in in previous lifetimes?

Can the spirit, without the brain, remember? If so, why does deterioration of the brain (such as in senile dementia) cause memory loss? Why can't the spirit fill in any missing information that the brain can no longer provide (such as, in extreme cases, the name of a spouse or relative) from its own memory? For that matter, why can't my spirit tell me where I left my car keys, when my brain forgets?

Can a spirit, without the brain, make wise decisions? If so, then why do people whose brains are physically impaired by alcohol, drugs, or illness make poor decisions?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Yes! very interesting questions, and of course I do not know the answers to most of it. As far as what we use a brain for, it is the vessel of consciousness when we are incarnate. The occult teaches we have higher bodies that lay dormant during our physical lives. These are connected to the earthly body by what is called the etheric double, and that contains energy centers called chakras. The spirit mind is channeled down through the chakras and into the brain. The brain only remembers what it has learned from birth and has stored in its memory cells. After we die we first inhabit the astral and then the mental body but the seat of consciousness is the soul body. The soul body contains the memory of all past incarnations, but we do not remember these lives until we have reached the end of our cycle of incarnations.
We can see with astral and mental eyes while still incarnate, and we can see into those realms if we develop our psychic powers. But the senses of each body can only see into the corresponding realm, so we cannot see the physical world with astral eyes. So developing astral vision would not make a blind person see this world. It would just make them see into the astral plane.
Memory loss is due to brain deterioration, but when the person dies and goes to the astral or mental realms, they will recover their memories.
I do not know how the spirit mind is stored, because I never heard those details from any spirit guide, but clearly it is not limited by brain cells. In fact it is said the spirit mind is infinitely expandable, and can contain unlimited information. But we cannot normally access the higher levels of consciousness while still incarnate and using a brain. However some people say they can achieve heightened levels of awareness through meditation, and other methods.

 

[Scorpion]

In the contrary, self-aware computers are not far away from reality

http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/technology/59121-computers-almost-self-aware-scientist-says

The key word in that article is that computers are "almost" self aware.
Almost is not being there, in fact it is just speculation.

 

[TimCallahan]

Yes! very interesting questions, and of course I do not know the answers to most of it. As far as what we use a brain for, it is the vessel of consciousness when we are incarnate. The occult teaches we have higher bodies that lay dormant during our physical lives. These are connected to the earthly body by what is called the etheric double, and that contains energy centers called chakras. The spirit mind is channeled down through the chakras and into the brain. The brain only remembers what it has learned from birth and has stored in its memory cells. After we die we first inhabit the astral and then the mental body but the seat of consciousness is the soul body. The soul body contains the memory of all past incarnations, but we do not remember these lives until we have reached the end of our cycle of incarnations.
We can see with astral and mental eyes while still incarnate, and we can see into those realms if we develop our psychic powers. But the senses of each body can only see into the corresponding realm, so we cannot see the physical world with astral eyes. So developing astral vision would not make a blind person see this world. It would just make them see into the astral plane.
Memory loss is due to brain deterioration, but when the person dies and goes to the astral or mental realms, they will recover their memories.
I do not know how the spirit mind is stored, because I never heard those details from any spirit guide, but clearly it is not limited by brain cells. In fact it is said the spirit mind is infinitely expandable, and can contain unlimited information. But we cannot normally access the higher levels of consciousness while still incarnate and using a brain. However some people say they can achieve heightened levels of awareness through meditation, and other methods.

So, do you believe these teachings. If so, what is your evidence?