Three Powerful Books

[_honorentheos]

The universe exists because at its beginning there was a massive expansion of energy from which the basic forces and matter emerged. At its most fundamental level, that's why the universe exists.

Well then, I guess that about wraps it up.

Regards,
MG

So you've come around to this basic starting point? Or are you rejecting it because it doesn't match up with your attempt to squeeze it into your belief system?

[_mentalgymnast]

MG: To help us out in going down a path that moves towards answering this question let’s start here:

[honor then postulates as he cuts out ALL the ‘meat’] “Stuff MG doesn't understand coupled with intelligent design arguments.“

Wow. That was a quick gloss over and rejection if I’ve ever witnessed one. Extreme bias maybe?

Must be nice to be a know it all.

Regards,
MG

[Guest]

Well then, I guess that about wraps it up.

Regards,
MG

So you've come around to this basic starting point? Or are you rejecting it because it doesn't match up with your attempt to squeeze it into your belief system?

I found myself chuckling at this statement. I could say “right back atcha”. It wasn’t THAT hard to cut out the meaty section of my previous post now, was it?

Especially if it doesn’t match up with your belief system?

Regards,
MG

[Guest]

To drive this home, MG, this quote you shared appears to be incompatible with information theory.

David Christian said it well, “. . . but at the biological level of complexity, new rules appear as well. Living organisms operate according to distinctive and more open-ended rules of change, which are superimposed on the simpler and more deterministic rules of physics and chemistry.” Also, “So to understand living things, we need a new paradigm, one that takes us beyond the rules of nuclear physics, chemistry, or geology and into the realm of biology” (Christian, 2011, p81). Professor Christian also seems to give primacy to high energy flows as the defining characteristic of complex life: “The rules of biology are made possible by the high degree of precision with which living organisms reproduce. Handling large energy flows are such a delicate task that it requires extremely precise mechanisms; the rule book for creating and re-creating such structures has to be complex, exact, and accurate” (Christian, 2011, p81). Admittedly, metabolism is one of the defining features of life and it has all the features that Christian mentions. However, I would assert that the information needed to realize the complex mechanisms of metabolism, as well as reproduction and evolution is co-equal to energy flows, if not paramount.

According to information theory, this is not actually true. The rules of biology are reduced to 1 and 0, and conveyed through gates or switches that are bound by the laws of physics. Biology reduces to "It from Bit". And the apparent intricate complexity is due to the enormous number of interactions between information exchanges that give rise to the complexity but also reduce down to one-on-one interactions that either flip a 1 to a 0 or vice versa, or don't change anything.

You don't know what it is you are playing with here.

[_honorentheos]

So you've come around to this basic starting point? Or are you rejecting it because it doesn't match up with your attempt to squeeze it into your belief system?

I found myself chuckling at this statement. I could say “right back atcha”. It wasn’t THAT hard to cut out the meaty section of my previous post now, was it? especially if it doesn’t match up with your belief system?

Regards,
MG

I cut it out because you don't understand it so a reply to you, by necessity, had to ignore it. But I gave my response to your quote in the separate post that followed above.

[_mentalgymnast]

You don't know what it is you are playing with here.

In large part you’re right on that count. I’ve fully admitted to approaching these matters from a lay person’s point of view.

Regards,
MG

[_honorentheos]

You don't know what it is you are playing with here.

In large part you’re right on that count. I’ve fully admitted to approaching these matters from a lay person’s point of view.

Regards,
MG

Then why do you keep asserting that a person who doesn't see it as supporting god belief is doing so out of bias?

[_Lemmie]

Then why do you keep asserting that a person who doesn't see it as supporting god belief is doing so out of bias?

Good point.

To drive this home, MG, this quote you shared appears to be incompatible with information theory.

<snip>

According to information theory, this is not actually true. The rules of biology are reduced to 1 and 0, and conveyed through gates or switches that are bound by the laws of physics. Biology reduces to "It from Bit". And the apparent intricate complexity is due to the enormous number of interactions between information exchanges that give rise to the complexity but also reduce down to one-on-one interactions that either flip a 1 to a 0 or vice versa, or don't change anything.

You don't know what it is you are playing with here.

A discussion of the biases at work would also need to acknowledge that even though the article Mentalgymnast found mentions “miracle, “information,” and as a bonus quotes a human named “Christian,” it actually has nothing at all to do with the central thesis he is using it for. His position:

The author uses the word ‘miracle’. I see it as God’s hand made manifest through the miraculous thing we call life. The astronomically small chance of information leading to consciousness and arising out of the Big Bang (all dependent on minute degrees of relationship and cooperation) directly point to Occam’s Razor in my opinion.

Abstract of the article:

Abstract

This essay’s central thesis is that information and its “flows” are just as crucial as energy flow densities for the realization of increasingly complex systems over the course of big history.

https://jbh.journals.villanova.edu/article/view/2254

When Honor left out the quote that clearly didn’t fit your argument:

I found myself chuckling at this statement. I could say “right back atcha”. It wasn’t THAT hard to cut out the meaty section of my previous post now, was it?

Especially if it doesn’t match up with your belief system?

More to the point, what led you to believe that article matched up with your belief system?

[_honorentheos]

I think it is literally a miracle (hand of God) that life evolved into consciousness.

This also seems wrong. Life didn't evolve "into" consciousness. The apparent science/philosophy of mind currently suggests conciousness is an emergent quality that comes about from different regions of the brain interacting. The brain appears to be a hive of information exchange without a central controller. Rather, the sense of self that arises from this activity is is a product of, not controller of, this activity. States of consciousness appear to increase or decrease relative to that chatter. During general anesthesia it seems like the regions of the brain are cycling in a wave firing in series such that the regions aren't able to communicate. This implies that inside of what you imagine is a single consciousness are infact numerous not-quite-consciousnesses. I offered up an example of a split brain patient who clearly became two different people inside one body when the hemispheres of the brain were prevented from talking to one another.

Consciousness is certainly a miracle. And I love the effects of it that include wonder, aesthetic appreciation, give additional meaning to social relationships, bring burdens and challenges, and all that it includes that makes us human. But that's not an argument for the Christian-Judeo God. It's a wonder without current explanation.

[_honorentheos]

I found myself chuckling at this statement. I could say “right back atcha”. It wasn’t THAT hard to cut out the meaty section of my previous post now, was it?

Especially if it doesn’t match up with your belief system?

More to the point, what led you to believe that article matched up with your belief system?

All great points, Lemmie, capped off with an excellent question.

There's a layer to this that's a bit of an Easter egg, too. Up thread MG had shared a link to a video on arrogance being a defense to cover up ones insecurities. I thought it was an interesting demonstration of his lack of self-awareness but also allowed for the corrupting influence of Mormonism perverting his idea of what it meant to be humble so brushed it off. But one has to wonder if it ever clicks for those who think like this that the misuse of just about every concept they encounter in the service of a predefined orthodoxy reveals a pattern they could learn from instead if they'd stop and think about it.