matthew wrote:It's also worth mentioning that in the context of this thread we are talking about living things, which are on a different ontological plane than non-living things. Thus your example holds little water.

Matt, you are framing the debate around your own rules. It's a fairly standard trick that your uncle probably gave you as a way of arguing these things. The flaw in your argument is simple but fatal. You set up intelligence as some kind of magical occurrence, it isn't. If it was you'd have plenty of ground to stand on, but as it is you are over your head in nonsense.

Explain, in a not theistic, rational way why human intelligence means anything at all? You are, as always, framing the debate around human centric ideas of cosmology.

This is why you are wrong.

So keep asking a pointless question, all it does is make you seem brainwashed.

clocker bob wrote: I can't agree with your certainty. You don't *know*, and you ought to admit that. Matter must originate somehow. We are here. How did it happen? It's a mystery. You choose to reject the 'God Explanation', but you don't have the necessary evidence to rule out the 'God Explanation'.

I'd call it almost certain, as in the really big picture we can't really be certain about anything. But if we always think like that we'd never get anywhere.

Bob, outside of primitive religious texts have you ever seen any real evidence for a god, the supernatural etc? I find it very odd you think this way considering your extreme skepticism of the motives of the most basic actions of governments and corporations. I think you should channel that skepticism into what religions claim about the natural universe.

"How did it happen", I have no idea, it is probable that we will never know. - why do so many people have a problem with this? - All I'm saying is that the Judo Christian story about the universe has no evidence to back it up and is a hindrance to understanding more. How will be ever progress if we have people like Matt, saying "the answer's in this Iron Age book!" It's garbage, lazy garbage.

Gramsci wrote:Explain, in a not theistic, rational way why human intelligence means anything at all? You are, as always, framing the debate around human centric ideas of cosmology.

So you doubt your own ability to understand per se? Oh I admit that as human beings we all have weak, limited intellects....but to cast serious doubt upon the ability to know at all?......I hope you're not on the verge of a nervous breakdown or outright insanity, because that is where that sort of thinking will lead. I don't think you are. I just think you are massively confused.

Furthermore...this..........anthropocentric...notionyoumention. It's reminiscent of Captain Kirk and the gang. I know of no other rational animals other than my fellow human beings. I've never met a capitalist ant, or a cetacean philosopher.....never met a bovine carpenter or a canine bus driver. Furthermore I've never met a Klingon or a Ferengi or a Xindi, nor a Borg for that matter. I'm afraid human beings are the only rational animals which we know of thusfar. Perhaps you can prove me wrong. Just don't use dolphins and chimps as examples of rationality.

I cannot explain to you why intelligence means anything within a mere scientific format because it is not within the realm of natural science to examine things which are not observable and discernable through natural causes. You are asking science to answer a question which it cannot answer, yet the question remains and begs an answer. Your question then is a mere obfuscation, a diversion, and a sophistry.

Gramsci wrote:"How did it happen", I have no idea, it is probable that we will never know. - why do so many people have a problem with this? - All I'm saying is that the Judo Christian story about the universe has no evidence to back it up and is a hindrance to understanding more. How will be ever progress if we have people like Matt, saying "the answer's in this Iron Age book!" It's garbage, lazy garbage.

You're right. We will never comprehend how the universe and biological life came into existence through mere scientific inquiry. Yet the question remains because the ultima thule of scientific inquiry is that things which exist are intelligible and thus an intelligence is behind them. Who or what this intelligence(s) is, scientific endeavor cannot say.

matthew wrote:You're right. We will never comprehend how the universe and biological life came into existence through mere scientific inquiry. Yet the question remains because the ultima thule of scientific inquiry is that things which exist are intelligible and thus an intelligence is behind them. Who or what this intelligence(s) is, scientific endeavor cannot say.

This is completely, blatant false and so utterly fucking disproven by basic neuropsychology that anyone of any honesty and intelligence cannot make the statement without being intentionally mendacious. I find it deeply, personally offensive that you would take it upon yourself to further pollute the conversation of the world with such trite bullshit.

-----

But I'll assume that you don't have a background in psychology, because no evidence of such is floating around here.

The human brain is wired to detect patterns. This is a basic evolutionary step (obviously, an animal must be able to recognize discrete objects so as to find food and not become it), but it is especially developed in human beings, which makes perfect sense as we survive primarily by way of our intelligence and social nature. It comes in handy when making tools, recognizing individuals (especially individual patterns of behavior, as become so important in social circumstances), describing surroundings in ways that are linguistically communicable, tracing changes over time, etc.

The upshot of this is a phenomenon commonly referred to as apophenia - essentially, the internal generation and projection of patterns, a false positive resulting from oversensitivity. This is what makes us see faces in clouds, the Virgin Mary on sandwiches, hidden Satanic messages in reversed audio, ghosts in distorted film, conspiracies and divine miracles under every rock, etc.

Intelligibility in an object or pattern, accordingly, does not - concretely, completely, absolutely motherfucking not - require any intelligence behind the creation of that object or pattern, as intelligibility is produced in the mind of the observer, independently of the actual existence of pattern/intelligibility in the object.

Antero wrote:

matthew wrote:You're right. We will never comprehend how the universe and biological life came into existence through mere scientific inquiry. Yet the question remains because the ultima thule of scientific inquiry is that things which exist are intelligible and thus an intelligence is behind them. Who or what this intelligence(s) is, scientific endeavor cannot say.

This is completely, blatant false and so utterly fucking disproven by basic neuropsychology that anyone of any honesty and intelligence cannot make the statement without being intentionally mendacious. I find it deeply, personally offensive that you would take it upon yourself to further pollute the conversation of the world with such trite bullshit.

Well...heh...DON'T take it personally. SMILE!

Anyway....basic neuropsychology....really? Elaborate as to how the intelligible mechanisms studied in the realm of neuropsychology can be reduced to merely random, unintelligible events. Also, explain to me how it is that a field of science which is devoted to the inquiry of how the mind ITSELF works is at its root a moat of random, unintelligible events? You're going to find yourself in quite a conundrum, boss, whether you like it or not.

Antero wrote:Intelligibility in an object or pattern, accordingly, does not - concretely, completely, absolutely motherfucking not - require any intelligence behind the creation of that object or pattern, as intelligibility is produced in the mind of the observer, independently of the actual existence of pattern/intelligibility in the object.

So basically then your words mean nothing? Or ANYTHING: "The red food grins bad. It is woven. Decks of cards can fly left. Grab a water stick, then grow a fern westward".

Ah phil majors....I used to be one of those!

Gramsci wrote:Explain, in a not theistic, rational way why human intelligence means anything at all? You are, as always, framing the debate around human centric ideas of cosmology.

Amen, Gramsci.

matthew wrote:...never met a... canine bus driver.

You need to get out more.

matthew wrote:

Antero wrote:Intelligibility in an object or pattern, accordingly, does not - concretely, completely, absolutely motherfucking not - require any intelligence behind the creation of that object or pattern, as intelligibility is produced in the mind of the observer, independently of the actual existence of pattern/intelligibility in the object.

So basically then your words mean nothing? Or ANYTHING: "The red food grins bad. It is woven. Decks of cards can fly left. Grab a water stick, then grow a fern westward".

Ah phil majors....I used to be one of those!

Lets put this in context, your context, as a Christian, more to the point a member of the Mel Gibson Branch of the Catholic Church.

Eh em, yes Matthew and a book written a generation after the event described in it occurred and by people that had no first hand knowledge of the person they describe... events which are no more than a mish-mash of the umpteenth other cult around at the same time... add morons and shake for 1500 hundred years. The occasion gem turns up - monkeys with typewriters? - but every single answer the book has to nature of the physical universe is wrong on every point. Instead of doing what any rational person would do, people cling to this nonsense like rats to sinking ship, retro engineering philosophy to fit modernity in with the primitive holy books.

Matthew, I suggest you start reading some Bonhoeffer to exorcise this "God of the gaps" you cling to. Your cherry picking of Bible laws and blind faith in finding Christian explanations to science's demolition of religion is misguided. Remember it's your eternal soul at stake, you wouldn't want to be wrong... but I'm sure you think you are right.

But I've said it before Matthew, you don't really believe this stuff, do you? I mean, what really draws you to these primitive ideas is family ties, tradition and the desire for a sense of place.

You can let go, you will be ok.