06 Nov 09
2 edits
Originally posted by black beetle=============================
Yes! Οf course this is twhiteheads' faith speaking; methinks that twhitehead is stranded following his false "just is" belief and so he ends up at the same (false) crossroad along with you. Then, at that point, you take the direction according to which the living cell has "programs" designed by the intelligent supernatural entity known as “god”, wh ...[text shortened]... whitehead claims that these "programs" arose according to the theory of the evolution
😵
Yes! Οf course this is twhiteheads' faith speaking; methinks that twhitehead is stranded following his false "just is" belief and so he ends up at the same (false) crossroad along with you.
=================================
And what would make your "methinks" any different ?
So you end up in the same fate ?
Of course I did NOT say that because it is his "faith" speaking what he speaks CANNOT be the truth.
I just point out that it is his "faith" making the statement. There is still the possibility that he is speaking an unprovable truth.
Now, that's pretty generous for a Bible thumper. So give me some credit. But if not, anyway FAITH to me does not automatically mean "Ain't true, its only faith."
I think that is your assumption.
==============================
Then, at that point, you take the direction according to which the living cell has "programs" designed by the intelligent supernatural entity known as “god”, whilst twhitehead claims that these "programs" arose according to the theory of the evolution
===================================
I say, even if they did arise by a process of Evolution, intelligence is still evidenced.
A program, to me, reveals a plan, forethought, the ability to look ahead and direct a process to the desired outcome. Since I was a computer programmer for decades, it is nearly impossible for me to not associate the word "program" with intelligent logic.
06 Nov 09
Originally posted by jaywillThe respect is mutual, dear jaywill; the fact that our ways are totally different means nothing to me -in fact I know well that every human being is different and unique, and I always act like as Vyasa ordered: I hear everybodys' story.
[b]=============================
Yes! Οf course this is twhiteheads' faith speaking; methinks that twhitehead is stranded following his false "just is" belief and so he ends up at the same (false) crossroad along with you.
=================================
And what would make your "methinks" any different ?
So you end up in the same ...[text shortened]... ble for me to not associate the word "program" with intelligent logic.[/b]
Methinks that my "methinks" is different because I 'm ever ready to change my beliefs on the spot once I see that there is the required evidence.
In order to clarify further my position I say that I make a distinction between two different ways of collapsing the wavefunction. The Human monitors and describes from outside by means of, say, his Maths and his rest sciences a specific procedure of a given living cell in its kosmos, whilst the living cell is an observer too of a kosmos that remains totally different than the one observed by the observer Human due to the fact that the cell interacts differently than the Human within the given environment. For the Human the physical world of the living cell is understood solely as a plexus of an abstract mathematical structure (that has to be exposed and identified) and of specific biochemical compounds, whilst the living cell in its kosmos is the star at its own movie of life, which it does not correspond to single frames (as we perceive them by means of our monitoring) but to the entire film.
So I assume that reality is totally different in Human and living cell perspectives, therefore the phenomenology linking them is by far harder to be spotted than just finding the correct mathematical structure that would enable us to understand even under our own mathematical terms the miscellaneous sequences of events that they take place in the kosmos of the living cell. Therefore, since the quantum wavefunction of the Human and of the living cell contains many perspectives of both of these observers, if both observers were interacting according to a common language (Maths) we would not be able to monitor events that they appear that they are occuring randomly.
Furthermore, I just used broken English instead of Maths in order to describe the above case, therefore I was philosophising. Am I now supposed to claim that, due to the fact that I used philosophy and specific scientific finds and evidence in order to back up my opinion regarding the way a living cell acts, the living cell follows this specific philosophic system whenever it has to decide when it has to act this way or another during its procedures that I named “programs” solely for my convenience during my conversation with you?
This means (to me and for the time being, that is) that the intelligence of every sentient being, and even the intelligence of a given living cell, is not an ID product
😵
10 Nov 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadedit: "I am not convinced that just because the only known manufacturers of computers at this time is humans that computers are universally dependent on humans. If aliens on some other planet have manufactured computers then the dependency is broken. To claim a universal dependency if flawed."
Living cells are capable of quite sophisticated computation. They have programs (DNA and RNA amongst others) which were not designed by humans or any designer for that matter.
[b]Also, "dependency of the computers on a human brain" means to me that the computers are designed and manufactured by human beings, however methinks you say something else that ...[text shortened]... nufactured computers then the dependency is broken. To claim a universal dependency if flawed.
In order to go through this matter I have to answer you over here in detail; your thesis is radical Platonism! Do you remember that old Pythagorean idea according to which the universe is in some sense mathematical? Then came along Galileo and stated that "...the Universe is a grand book written in the language of mathematics..." etc! Well, you follow the same path when you insist that the living cell is indeed a computer the way we are perceiving this term. Therefore I will wait to see you proving (amongst else) that the physical world of the living cell is anyway completely mathematical and isomorphic to some mathematical structure, and also that the living cell is aware of the fact that it conducts mathematical computations.
My denial of your Math-Living Cell (thus computer, if I understand well your personal notion about computers) link is similar to the well known objection of the Platonist doctrine, which points towards the suggestion that mathematical objects have an independent existence of their own. If we accept that the electric fields and the protons exist independently of us, then we should give the same status to real numbers, Hilbert spaces and to the other mathematical objects that we use in science -but this is not convincing because by scientific standards mathematics don’t have within their procedures a procedure regarding a cross check against nature. Checking whether a theorem is true is not like an experiment –definitely, it is like checking whether or not a sentence is grammatically correct. So at this point I repeat what was exactly said by Palynka in the beginning of this conversation.
Therefore, when you say “If aliens on some other planet have manufactured computers then the dependency is broken. To claim a universal dependency is flawed”, I discard your thought alright because you assume that aliens from another planet might have incomprehensible ideas about many things but their math would anyway map on or extend to ours. This is a false conclusion and not solely because you decide on your own out of the blue which parts of the alien procedures we can call “math” and which not; of course the notion “math” is anyway linked to your unjustified hypothesis that if we pick out the parts that look like our math, then the aliens’ procedures that you name “math” will map onto our math. So kindly please explain how can we bring up an accurate mapping supposed to cover a reasonable amount of material of both species (Human - Alien, and in our very case Human - Living Cell) if we cannot cleanly identify in their behaviour anything that corresponds to “doing math”.
I am quite sure that the successful feats of “engineering” of the living cell is not based on a coherent mathematical theory known to the living cell; it is rather based on what looks to us like a set of rules of thumb, whilst for the cell itself is merely “memory of its components of reality” Mind you, “memory of its components of its reality” has every observer (sentient beings and physical objects like a grain of sand, a cloud, a rock etc), so BTW I would be really very excited to hear you claiming that a rock is a “computer” too due to this kind of "memory".
I also accept that a living cell drove through its historical evolution countless trillions of computational combinations before becoming able to declare “true”/ real the ones that we are constantly monitoring herenow -but this process would merely mean that at a single level of life the observer Human and the observer Living Cell are alike due to the fact that they have to be inventive in order to survive and not because they both apply the same mathematical theorems -and for the time being I leave aside my inevitable hypothesis that in the future the next bunch of living cells might turn out to use not “maths” (neither as we grasped them two thousand years ago nor as we grasp them today) but Something Else, some other product of ours that would have turn down our maths of today the way the maths of our past were discarded thanks to our modern theories.
😵
10 Nov 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSure thing😵
If a DNA molecule is a computer because it 'calculates', so too is a fly; if a fly can be said to have a mind, so too can a DNA molecule.
I suspect that the same can be said of an electron.
Hence my deep-seated conviction that the intuition that 'mind is all' is unfathomably correct.
10 Nov 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOh working out treckhod and recognizing the rootless empty essence of all thoughts, appearances and phenomena will ease you to see that the HeartMind of all the Buddhas is solely your own mind, meth inks😵
I have a warning aura of a catastrophic regression into full-blown animism.
