Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

BREAKING: Leaked US Supreme Court Draft that would overturn the rulings that have led to 63+ million abortion deaths in the US since 1973

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

This, seems worth pondering on the state of the US’s ongoing 4th generation civil war as a civilisation level issue:

A draft Supreme Court opinion overruling Roe v. Wade has been leaked to the press in one of the greatest scandals to ever hit the nation’s highest court and a possible attempt to intimidate one or more justices to reverse their vote or to ignite a liberal brushfire to pack the Supreme Court before Democrats lose Congress in November.

“It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives,” the possible draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito reads, making the case that where the Constitution is silent, the American people govern themselves through elections and elected leaders, not federal judges. It quotes the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who said, “The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.” It then adds, “That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand.”

The document published by Politico that claims to be a draft opinion appears to be authentic, but it is not a binding decision of the court unless at least five justices sign it, and this looks like a transparent and unprecedented betrayal by one of the 45 or so people with access to a draft Supreme Court opinion to prevent this decision from becoming law by scaring off moderate justices and attempting to whip the political left into a frenzy.

Of course, the global pattern, with the US as a trend setter, has seen 800+ million [statistically 1.4+ billion] deliberately inflicted deaths on our living posterity in the womb. An associated picture is that in certain asian countries, devaluation of girls has led to widespread sex selection abortions and a preponderance of boys and now young men in population statistics.

To all of this, I make two self-evident assertions. 1: A human child is precisely that, human. 2: The first right is life, without which there are no rights.

Let’s add, 3: there can be no right to take innocent life at will.

Our civilisation is in the dock. END

U/D, Blaze TV discussion:

U/D, May 10, as Vivid has pointed it out, let us embed a video of testimony by a former abortionist regarding second trimester abortions:

F/N May 7: As tangential objections to the design inference have been taken up (in obvious subject switching) I pose p. 5 from Sir Francis Crick’s March 19, 1953 letter to his son:

Crick’s letter

And, here is the protein synthesis process in outline:

Protein Synthesis (HT: Wiki Media)

Together with a summary of the information communication system involved, as outlined by Yockey:

Yockey’s analysis of protein synthesis as a code-based communication process

F/N, May 8: As the tangent continues, it seems a further illustration is advisable:

It seems more is needed, so here is how this fits into protein synthesis and the metabolic network and how we see prong height coding:

In for a penny, in for a pound, here is a video:

Notice, we are actually dealing with a storage register. Say, each shaft with pins is set for five positions, four elevated, one on the ledge. This is directly comparable to GCAT, and as the video shows there are five digits:

| X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | X5 |

The key is encoded to the correct string of digits that in combination will open the lock, say 13213. The resting fully locked position is of course 00000.

Comments
. Briefly checking back in. JVL, I thought you might be a bit smarter, or perhaps a bit more clever, in your response. Attempting to position me as a person who is speaking from some overpowering “faith” is patently dishonest on your part. It is a lie, and you know it. It is a lie, and you knew it when you wrote it. Your position (that there is no evidence of design in biology) has been repeatedly decimated by the recorded history of science. While it requires no faith on my part to recount that history, you’ve been forced to answer that history with logical fallacies, ad hoc double-standards, and deception. To make matters worse, your fallacies and deceptive tactics are of the type that are blatantly obvious to anyone with a pulse. It should not require me to say this, but once you’ve stated a logical fallacy in the defense of your position, repeating that fallacy does not constitute a further defense. Yet it is quite amazing to see you, as an educated person, do just exactly that … while continuously preening and positioning yourself as a person of science and reason. Clearly, being an educated person doesn’t make you a person of reason, any more than standing in a barn makes you a horse. You cannot blatantly and knowingly violate logic and reason with fallacies and deception while selling yourself as a rational person. It is incredible that you need this fact to be pointed out to you again and again. You simply cannot acknowledge physical evidence that contradicts your personal beliefs — and whether or not your denial is riddled with fallacies, or is even coherent, is of no concern to you in any way whatsoever (i.e. the ends justify the means). Clearly, the idea of integrating your beliefs with science is appealing to you at a personal self-image level, but as you have repeatedly demonstrated, if hard science and documented history contradict your preferred worldview, then acknowledging it is just not something you can do. You fail at your own standards. You are then forced by that failure to repeat the same fallacies over and over again, and you will continue to do so. I suppose I could have pity for your position, but you don’t seem to have enough sense to walk away. Fred at 540, As I indicated in my previous comment to you, if you have something to say, then say it.Upright BiPed
June 7, 2022
June
06
Jun
7
07
2022
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
Projection? I assume everyone else here is able to decide for themselves whether to comment here or not. If Upright Biped decides to comment again promoting his semiotic theory, I hope to raise some points with him... If I'm spared.Fred Hickson
May 19, 2022
May
05
May
19
19
2022
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT
FH, turnabout projection. UB has spent time and effort on evidence and sees Wilsonian sidesteps and strawman fallacies. That speaks, speaks to the true balance on merits and to the determination of adherents of evolutionary materialism and fellow travellers to not go there. The reality is SETI success has happened but the messages are in the cells in our bodies. KFkairosfocus
May 19, 2022
May
05
May
19
19
2022
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT
Upright Biped
I see now that I have been mentioned several times on this thread.
Why yes, yes you have been, Upright Biped. First question, why are you picking on JVL? Next: history! No need to reinvent the wheel here. It's the weekend starting, the sun is shining, I'm feeling guilty about Ukraine... But I'll try and find time to chip in. RNA World.Fred Hickson
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: Maybe the fact is, that the ID inference is logically simple to accept, but at the personal level it’s not that simple to deal with. We might even say that it takes faith — and if so, then that’s different than just logic or a mathematical formula. Thank you for your kind comments. I think the design inference is logically simple to accept; I just don't happen to think that the science supports it. I don't think I'm making that decision based on any personal issues. I think (i.e. my own personal opinion) acceptance of the design inference is partially dependent on the emphasis given to various threads of evidence or arguments. We all see and accept the same data; we disagree on the interpretation of that data. Anyway, I hope you have a nice weekend! The weather where I live is supposed to be lovely . . . we'll see. Here, it's always best to be skeptical regarding weather reports!!JVL
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
JVL I agree with Upright BiPed about your underlying sincerity and character - and care for other people. Yes, I also think that if you continue that way, there is a reward attached. At the same time, it's frustrating to see your good desire to take the leap of faith but then feel your blocked on that path. It's also a good reminder for those of us that have faith, not to take it for granted or to think that we're better than anyone else for having it - since it's a gift and not an achievement. To me, what you express of faith seems that you already know it well. I've praised that in you before -- your expressions that were soaring upwards with the knowledge of the hope and destiny and strength that faith gives. At moments like that, it seems that you're just an arm's length away. But then I think you just circle back into yourself and you'll get impetuous or resistant. The "Contact" dialogue just struck me as crystal-clear. But at the same time, there's no sense in forcing an issue. I brought that dialogue up again to see if you'd deal with it differently. Maybe the fact is, that the ID inference is logically simple to accept, but at the personal level it's not that simple to deal with. We might even say that it takes faith -- and if so, then that's different than just logic or a mathematical formula. In that case, it takes some time to contemplate what it means and try to sort it out. With that, I agree also to just drop the reminders on the Contact dialogue.Silver Asiatic
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed: Instead, you were asked — specifically without committing to any belief whatsoever — to acknowledge the standing validity of the documented science and history. You simply could not do it, and you cannot do it now I did agree with the work done by Dr Pattee and said so. However, Dr Pattee himself does not extend his work to the inference that life on earth was designed. This is quite true. None of his compatriots do so either. This is also true. You're interpreting the work of the semiotic community in a way that they themselves do not do. And I pointed that out. You may think there are reasons why they have not agreed with your interpretation but the truth is that not one of them has publicly offered support for your interpretation. Not that I have been able to find anyway; if I am wrong about that then I will change my tune. So, from my point of view, I am agreeing with the accepted science. Which does not include the design hypothesis. As far as signal detection goes regarding SETI we have not yet found a signal that is unambiguously and clearly NOT formed by natural processes with the exception of some signals that turned out to have originated from Earth, generated by human beings! I would expect any candidate signal to be heavily and exhaustively checked before anyone would ever come to the conclusion that it was the result of some kind of alien intelligence. Of course I would love to have such a thing occur but, to be honest, I'm starting to ask myself the question Dr Fermi posed: if there are alien intelligences then where are they? I have no problem with money being spent on trying to find signals from other lifeforms but I don't financially support the effort because I'm beginning to suspect it's not going to be successful. If a somewhat ambiguous signal was detected that's when I would to look for other evidence. That seems a reasonable and sensible approach. I don't think there is an unambiguous and smoking gun reason to believe there are aliens out there. We don't have a signal which would indicate they are there and we have no other evidence they exist. I don't think there is an unambiguous and smoking gun reason to believe that an intelligent designer affected the development of life on Earth. I don't think we have a clear signal that they are there (you disagree) and I don't think we have any other evidence they exists (and, again, you would disagree). You disagree with me. Fair enough. We have been over and over this. I'm happy to agree to disagree and leave it at that. I'm not asking you to drop the issue because I'm afraid of scrutiny or questions; I just think we have had our say, many times, and there doesn't seem to be any good reason to keeping going over it. I’ll tell you something JVL. I would bet my last dollar that if someone was to sit down with you for a long open conversation, I think they would come away thinking that you are a person who is truly and genuinely concerned about your fellow man. I suspect you know very well that people with financial and social resources can certainly make a hell of a mess of themselves and the things around them, but they do however have means. They are in a vastly different place than those who have very little, or nothing at all. I suspect you are keenly aware of these kinds of things. I am glad you are. I am too. It is something we share in common, and it is important. Thank you for that. I hope that I can live up to your impressions as they are gallant and caring. I strongly suspect if we were neighbours we would get along very well. I think the same about ET and I have told him so. The truth is we have a lot more in common than we tend to focus on. Long ago, (after you had bombed out) I mentioned to you that if you intended to stay here and drill people over socio-political yadda yadda, then I would reserve the right to occasionally remind you of your glowing string of logical fallacies. Perhaps this could be the last of those exchanges. That would probably be best. For everyone else at least. This last incident was raised by Silver Asiatic (I think) and I prefer not ignoring comments from serious contributors. When I'm allowed. Anyway, I'll leave any further discussions up to you. I respect the work you've done, I respect your deeply held and, clearly, sustaining faith and I believe you might not have made it through your life without that faith. There is no way I want to dissuade you from that as it clearly is part of you, right down to the core. As I have mentioned, in some way, I am . . . jealous? . . . deprived? . . . not having that faith because I don't have a belief that someday I might get rewarded for the way I've tried to treat people well and help them. Also, I understand (even if I don't share it) the feeling that there is a love, a caring that is unconditional, eternal, there to catch you when you fall. You are lucky, in my eyes. I can't share that with you but I promise you I respect it. Okay?JVL
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
. I see now that I have been mentioned several times on this thread.
What I have said to Upright BiPed over and over again
JVL, this is not a television drama, and you are not some sympathetic figure being hounded by the powerful — all for the sin of merely disagreeing with them. If it were a television drama, you would be the cat on the corner, running the same hustle day after day, pretending the shopkeepers don’t know who you are or what you’re doing. Instead, you are here on the web, in this particular audience, almost solely to engage in political and social disagreements, and you want to have the imprimatur of science on your side in order to bolster your comments along. You simply want it to be a given that this is the case, and you’ll say anything to make it so. Unfortunately, over the past three years you’ve become acquainted with a particular design inference in biology, taken directly from the recorded history of science — an uncontroversial history to which you could not disagree, and cannot now un-know.
What I have said to Upright BiPed over and over again
Yes, JVL, you have responded to your predicament. But let us be completely candid about your predicament; you were never asked to believe in ID. I clearly never asked you to ascend to any social, moral, or political position as a result of explaining the design inference to you. Instead, you were asked — specifically without committing to any belief whatsoever — to acknowledge the standing validity of the documented science and history. You simply could not do it, and you cannot do it now. So, what you’ve said to me (“over and over again”) is the resulting patchwork of fallacies you’ve strung together in order to obfuscate your abandonment of documented physical evidence. You have three or four of these fallacies that you shuffle around, rotating them in and out, just to stay one step ahead of the game. And again, just to be clear, these are not things you say to “clarify” some position or correct some misunderstanding; they are the things you say to keep your fallacious reasoning alive. They don’t make the fallacies go away, they are the fallacies. And you keep repeating them to me.
What I have said to Upright BiPed over and over again
We have been all the way through the evidence, JVL, from the fact and necessity of symbolic memory, to the organizational and physical requirements of semantic closure and self-reference; through Peirce, and Turing, and Von Neumann, and Crick, and Hoagland, and Zamecnik, and Nirenberg, and others — through the key predictions that were made along the way, as well as their subsequent confirmations via experimental result. We’ve been through all the dates, one by one. When asked to acknowledge the validity of these facts, you first stumbled, then introduced your primary defensive fallacy (which you now repeat over and over again, including in this very thread). You take the position that the design inference is rendered invalid because others (semiotic experts) simply don’t believe it. And then, apparently unable to stop yourself from demonstrating the problem, you post snippets to articles that go through the many competing ideas under research as to how purely unguided (non-intelligent) causes might be able to create the system we find today. What does it mean if there are many competing theories as to how non-intelligent causes could establish what we see? It means that no one has established that non-intelligent forces are even capable of it, despite decades of motivated research, piles of cash, and an open door at every suitable research institution on the surface of the planet. Thus, our shared universal experience (that intelligence is the only cause known to be capable of physically establishing the gene system) remains universal, and in full force. The idea that this universally observed fact is invalidated by the undemonstrated words of authority figures is preposterous. That kind of thinking may have been prevalent in the pre-scientific era, but we are not living in an age of alchemy. Undemonstrated beliefs (particularly those made one-hundred percent contrary to the universal evidence) do not invalidate scientific observations. Which brings us to the next stitch in your patchwork of fallacies. You are recorded on these very pages making a clear distinction between what a researcher might believe personally and what that same researcher is actually able to demonstrate in the proper practice of science. Once, when you were here promoting how even-handed you are, you found the opportunity to tell us that you would have no compunction about accepting the properly-conducted science of a person who believed differently than you (say, a religious person). The point you were raising, so bravely, is that it is the science, when done properly, that has the higher and more important role to play in reasoning and knowledge. I remember years ago, when a certain cadre of scientists and science popularizers were making the rounds on the interview circuit to denigrate ID. I happen to be sweeping my porch one afternoon, and I actually heard a promo for an upcoming appearance on one of the radio shows back then. The tape of the interview had already been cut, and they had b-roll of it within the promo. One of the clips they used had the guest Professor Whomever warning the audience that “if this is not stopped” then our “medical sciences” would certainly fall into ruin. In an effort to make his point more immediate, he said something to the effect of “the reason Uncle Bob has cancer is because he lived wrong and is being punished for his sins” and “there would no longer be any point in trying to figure out how disease works”. With that warning in mind, it is certainly admirable of you to take such a risk. In any case, you now know of a particular inference to design, and you also know that this inference is based on nothing but universal evidence, experimental result, and broadly-accepted scientific reasoning. And as it turns out, you don’t like the result. So now you suddenly want to reverse the roles between science and belief, and have the science take a backseat this time around. Clearly another fallacy is called for — another contradiction — for the guy (gal) who knows full well that science is based on what can be demonstrated and documented. And when science is properly conducted, it is certainly not invalidated by the undemonstrated personal beliefs of anyone (including “experts”) that are wholly contradictory to it. What all this means, of course, is that your primary reasoning is a logical fallacy, and your defense of it is a contradiction of your own reasoning. I’ll tell you something JVL. I would bet my last dollar that if someone was to sit down with you for a long open conversation, I think they would come away thinking that you are a person who is truly and genuinely concerned about your fellow man. I suspect you know very well that people with financial and social resources can certainly make a hell of a mess of themselves and the things around them, but they do however have means. They are in a vastly different place than those who have very little, or nothing at all. I suspect you are keenly aware of these kinds of things. I am glad you are. I am too. It is something we share in common, and it is important. Unfortunately , we now have to move on to your next patch. After weeks and months of talking, when our long walk through the evidence was as complete as it was going to be, you stated your fallacies and then jumped out of the conversation. You then did something that looked a lot like a slapstick comedy moment — within the blink of an eye, you enthusiastically blurted out the exact same design inference you had just refused to acknowledge. It was yet another real-time contradiction, but this one had a special twist. You already had all the facts, and dates, and people, and observations that make up the design inference, but then you took the exact reasoning behind the design inference (i.e. something not made by humankind that contains encoded symbolic content is a valid inference to a previously unknown intelligence) and you enthusiastically held it up as completely obvious. In other words, you accept the exact same thing you deny. It’s a brain cramp. And when called out on it, you injected a completely ad hoc double-standard in order to make it all go away. The hits just keep on coming. Here is the special twist. SETI seeks a sign of intelligence from interstellar space. The primary operational definition of “intelligence” used by SETI in this pursuit is “the physical capacity to transmit a narrow-band radio signal detectable from earth”. SETI explains “Narrow-band signals – perhaps only a few Hertz wide or less – are the mark of a purposely built transmitter. Natural cosmic noisemakers, such as pulsars, quasars, and the turbulent, thin interstellar gas of our own Milky Way, do not make radio signals that are this narrow.” So, if such a signal was received, SETI would infer that the signal was a product of a previously unknown intelligence based solely on their operational definition. The signal would mean that there was a purposely built transmitter out there somewhere, and that fact would require an intelligence to build it. If SETI received such a signal they would first verify that the signal was not mistakenly of terrestrial origin, and then, as SETI has promised, they would immediately announce the discovery throughout the world. Undoubtedly, one can be sure, there would still be nay-sayers among the crowd. After all, how do we know for certain there is not some unknown natural condition out there that can create what otherwise appears to us to be a short-wave carrier signal? At this point, SETI would have begun to study the received signal for any indications of semiotic content (that is, the use of structure, symbol strings, encoding), and if found, they would immediately seek to develop the set of constraints required to interpret those symbols. It would no doubt be an all-hands-on-deck effort across the globe. And if, incredibly, they were able to actually accomplish this second more rigorous task, then any doubts that might linger regarding the unknown intelligent origin of the signal would be forever answered. Indeed, a finding of encoded symbolic content would immediately erase any rational doubts whatsoever. Only the irrational and the obstinate would remain. With this in mind, lets look once again at how you positioned your design inference:
JVL: Something like in the movie Contact. A signal that’s very clearly NOT produced by unguided processes. A signal which, after inspection, was shown to have compressed data.
You hit the nail on the head, my friend. And following the patchwork of fallacies listed above, all of your subsequent attacks on me that stem from these exchanges, are a glowing residual marker of just how hard you hit that nail. This includes comments like: “I also said there would have to be some kind of design candidate around at the time”. This statement isn’t so much as another fallacy, it’s just straight out dishonest on your part. You need this statement in order to pretend that you’ve answered the double standard. Unfortunately, as these ad hoc attempts inevitably do, it leads elsewhere. Earlier in this response I used the word “preposterous” to describe your insufferable insistence that the undocumented beliefs of someone (anyone) can invalidate universal evidence in science. It is the year 2022. Your insistence is indeed preposterous. But it is no less preposterous than the comical idea that — if we received a radio signal from space that was shown to contain encoded symbolic content — you would first need to know that there was “a design candidate around at the time” before you would believe it came from an intelligent source. That’s just plain ole bullshit. And you know it. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JVL … science and logic and history have beaten you around the head and neck on this deal for months. All you were asked to do is to simply acknowledge the validity of the recorded facts, but you could not do it. Now you signal, over and over again, for me to “just drop it”. This is certainly not a surprising or unexpected request on your part. After all, you want to go on haunting the UD regulars over politics and morality, and want the imprimatur of science and reason on your side while you do it. To that end, you’d like me to “just drop it” with the obvious reason being that I had failed to make my case, or that I had overstepped my pursuit of the matter, or that we had simply “agreed just to disagree” — anything but the blatantly obvious fact that you intend to keep your preferred beliefs over the documented science and history at all costs. Well. There is a somewhat common notion around here that it is just so much easier for people like you to say irrational or false statements, than it is to muster all the effort sometimes required to refute those comments with detail. Long ago, (after you had bombed out) I mentioned to you that if you intended to stay here and drill people over socio-political yadda yadda, then I would reserve the right to occasionally remind you of your glowing string of logical fallacies. Perhaps this could be the last of those exchanges. ** I see a potential sock name Fred who appears to want to defend your fallacies for you. If you are waiting on me, you are backing up (although I can’t guarantee my participation at this time). Let us hope you can do something better than “RNA!!”Upright BiPed
May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT
Vivid, historically, lawless oligarchy is the natural state of government. In our time, hereditary nobility being dead that will be ideological; doubtless a form of socialistic statist, politically messianistic utopianism, which will predictably fail . . . never mind the self promotion of those with an over inflated view of their wisdom and capability, an occupational hazard of the credentialled but indoctrinated rather than soundly educated. . However, perhaps we can sufficiently renew the understanding and recognition of built in intelligible law of our nature that we can reform before it is too late. The US DoI, 1776 and the US Constitution understood in that light are actually good but not perfect places to begin. But for such to work there has to be much soul searching of a type that is unlikely to be indulged at large absent serious pain and loss. KFkairosfocus
May 11, 2022
May
05
May
11
11
2022
03:10 AM
3
03
10
AM
PDT
KF Thinking more about things, honestly I never thought that in my lifetime that I would see a major political party put forth a bill to kill babies even if the mother is dilating.. words fail me. A country cannot last long that allows abortion up to the time of birth, up until the baby starts to crown. This a wicked evil, pure evil. A society that traffics in this is a society that is evil, a society that is barreling down the highway of disintegration. A nation that promotes infanticide is a wicked and perverse country. Our leaders are wickedly evil yet they were voted in by the voters. What does that say about the voters? I have my own opinion on that. Anyway I am saddened by the moral decay my country has embraced because no Constitutional Republic can survive very long reveling in the culture of death. History is replete with mighty Empire's sinking into the cesspool of evil and then drinking.the the sludge of the night soil, then they are no more a whole only fragments. I fear for my children and grandchildren. A hot civil war is coming, my side will lose, totalitarianism will be the winner. Vividvividbleau
May 11, 2022
May
05
May
11
11
2022
12:48 AM
12
12
48
AM
PDT
KF “We can take it to the bank that this is projection of their own crooked yardstick, ideological thinking to try to discredit other views without actually addressing and engaging fairly on merits. KF” Exactly! The baby killers advocates will do anything in their power to distract and obfuscate from the core issue on the table. “Hey look at this shiny object over here “ We are talking about ripping babies out of the womb minutes away from being born and we get “ Oh what about the pill and IUD’s” as if your some kind of king of the world. As to religious beliefs only a fool doesn’t recognize that they too are operating under their own worldview ie religious beliefs which leads them to promote a culture of death. Vividvividbleau
May 10, 2022
May
05
May
10
10
2022
11:01 PM
11
11
01
PM
PDT
Vivid, notice the snide use of religious, as though there is no rational basis and we are showing sheeplike blind conformity to oppressive priestcraft? [BTW, the actual priests I dealt with on a daily basis for several years, I came to deeply respect, including intellectually. Jesuits are smart and well educated.] The first context of serious discussion is philosophical-logical-ethical. This context frames science and mathematics, e.g. mathematics is extensive study of an aspect of logic of being, logic of structure and quantity. The sciences address issues of warrant and knowledge of the world of observables. We can take it to the bank that this is projection of their own crooked yardstick, ideological thinking to try to discredit other views without actually addressing and engaging fairly on merits. KFkairosfocus
May 10, 2022
May
05
May
10
10
2022
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT
“Nobody is encouraging this, or even enjoys this, but if you are not going to allow the pill, IUD or condom, due to your religious beliefs..,” What a crock of [SNIP] KF is not Chuck Schumer or in Congress. Vividvividbleau
May 10, 2022
May
05
May
10
10
2022
09:49 PM
9
09
49
PM
PDT
PPS, more on oracle machines https://notendur.hi.is/hh/kennsla/rrr/Oracle%20machines.pdf Note, Turing's comment: "We shall not go any further into the nature of this oracle apart from saying that it cannot be a machine. Alan Turing, 1939 [=> PhD Dissertation]." Yes, this was there all along as modern computing theory and AI etc emerged.kairosfocus
May 10, 2022
May
05
May
10
10
2022
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT
JH, the just above and the video now in the OP correct your false assertion. And even that is talking about what is visible. Going further, there is good reason to see that our rational, responsible, morally governed minds and intelligent behaviour cannot be adequately accounted for on GIGO- constrained computation on a wetware substrate. For, as Haldane pointed out:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For
if [p:] my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain [–> taking in DNA, epigenetics and matters of computer organisation, programming and dynamic-stochastic processes; notice, "my brain," i.e. self referential] ______________________________ [ THEN] [q:] I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. [--> indeed, blindly mechanical computation is not in itself a rational process, the only rationality is the canned rationality of the programmer, where survival-filtered lucky noise is not a credible programmer, note the functionally specific, highly complex organised information rich code and algorithms in D/RNA, i.e. language and goal directed stepwise process . . . an observationally validated adequate source for such is _____ ?] [Corollary 1:] They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence [Corollary 2:] I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. [--> grand, self-referential delusion, utterly absurd self-falsifying incoherence] [Implied, Corollary 3: Reason and rationality collapse in a grand delusion, including of course general, philosophical, logical, ontological and moral knowledge; reductio ad absurdum, a FAILED, and FALSE, intellectually futile and bankrupt, ruinously absurd system of thought.]
In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Cf. here on (and esp here) on the self-refutation by self-falsifying self referential incoherence and on linked amorality.]
The evolutionary materialist and fellow traveller computationalism thesis collapses in self referential absurdity. Where, too, as even to form their flawed theories such rely on the credibility of mind we can take that credibility as more certain than any theorising that would undermine it. Yes, this is another branch on which we all sit case, much as Haldane pointed out. In that context, we have a fund of in common experience to hold as valid empirical evidence, evidence of shared introspection on experience of being intelligent, rational, knowing, morally governed creatures. A model for embodied intelligence can be taken from Eng Derek Smith's two tier controller cybernetic loop. Here, a controller in the loop is influenced by and influences a supervisory controller, which brings to bear non algorithmic oracular judgement; effecting an oracle machine. Such transforms the possibilities. Again, Wiki compelled to acknowledge, against ideological interest:
Oracles An oracle machine can be conceived as a Turing machine connected to an oracle. The oracle, in this context, is an entity capable of solving some problem, which for example may be a decision problem or a function problem. The problem does not have to be computable; the oracle is not assumed to be a Turing machine or computer program. The oracle is simply a "black box" that is able to produce a solution for any instance of a given computational problem: A decision problem is represented as a set A of natural numbers (or strings). An instance of the problem is an arbitrary natural number (or string). The solution to the instance is "YES" if the number (string) is in the set, and "NO" otherwise. A function problem is represented by a function f from natural numbers (or strings) to natural numbers (or strings). An instance of the problem is an input x for f. The solution is the value f(x). An oracle machine can perform all of the usual operations of a Turing machine, and can also query the oracle to obtain a solution to any instance of the computational problem for that oracle. For example, if the problem is a decision problem for a set A of natural numbers, the oracle machine supplies the oracle with a natural number, and the oracle responds with "yes" or "no" stating whether that number is an element of A. Definitions There are many equivalent definitions of oracle Turing machines, as discussed below. The one presented here is from van Melkebeek (2000:43). An oracle machine, like a Turing machine, includes: a work tape: a sequence of cells without beginning or end, each of which may contain a B (for blank) or a symbol from the tape alphabet; a read/write head, which rests on a single cell of the work tape and can read the data there, write new data, and increment or decrement its position along the tape; a control mechanism, which can be in one of a finite number of states, and which will perform different actions (reading data, writing data, moving the control mechanism, and changing states) depending on the current state and the data being read. In addition to these components, an oracle machine also includes: an oracle tape, which is a semi-infinite tape separate from the work tape. The alphabet for the oracle tape may be different from the alphabet for the work tape. an oracle head which, like the read/write head, can move left or right along the oracle tape reading and writing symbols; two special states: the ASK state and the RESPONSE state. From time to time, the oracle machine may enter the ASK state. When this happens, the following actions are performed in a single computational step: the contents of the oracle tape are viewed as an instance of the oracle's computational problem; the oracle is consulted, and the contents of the oracle tape are replaced with the solution to that instance of the problem; the oracle head is moved to the first square on the oracle tape; the state of the oracle machine is changed to RESPONSE. The effect of changing to the ASK state is thus to receive, in a single step, a solution to the problem instance that is written on the oracle tape . . .
In short, we have ways to explore other possibilities, if we are willing rather than locked into crooked yardstick thinking. Such exploration puts on the table a whole new world of self concept and implies serious questions regarding our attitude to our living posterity in the womb which has led to the ongoing slaughter of about a million per week on a baseline of 1.4+ billions. Truly, this is a dark age. KF PS, predictably, you project, but as you raise the issues, I think there are serious questions indeed to be asked about contraceptives that do not block zygote formation but cause or may cause implicit early abortions.kairosfocus
May 10, 2022
May
05
May
10
10
2022
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PDT
KF: JVL & FH, “a woman’s choice . . . ” to do what, pray, tell us? The gap is of essence here. The omitted material truth, to kill at will a living member of our posterity for his/her crime of being seen as a trespasser in his or her mother’s body.
No. To remove an undifferentiated mass of a few hundred cells from her body. No brain, no nervous tissue. Nobody is encouraging this, or even enjoys this, but if you are not going to allow the pill, IUD or condom, due to your religious beliefs..,JHolo
May 10, 2022
May
05
May
10
10
2022
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT
PS, for those open to it, observe the recorded testimony of Mary regarding her pregnancy with Jesus:
Luke 1: 39 In those days [--> soon after she saw Gabriel] Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah [--> so, within 2 - 4 weeks], 40 and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. 41 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, 42 and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord [--> note, recognised spiritual presence] should come to me? 44 For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. [--> spiritual perception] 45 And blessed is she who believed that there would be7 a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.”
One may deride and dismiss but given this further bit of evidence, one cannot say our civilisation has not been duly warned on record celebrated every year. KFkairosfocus
May 10, 2022
May
05
May
10
10
2022
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT
F/N: While I do not equate personhood with bodily maturity, let us note the following admissions: https://www.womenshealth.gov/pregnancy/youre-pregnant-now-what/stages-pregnancy
First trimester (week 1-week 12) At four to five weeks: Illustration of a fetus at 4 weeks Your baby's brain and spinal cord have begun to form. The heart begins to form. Arm and leg buds appear. Your baby is now an embryo and one-twenty-fifth inch long. At eight weeks: Illustration of a fetus at 8 weeks All major organs and external body structures have begun to form. Your baby's heart beats with a regular rhythm. The arms and legs grow longer, and fingers and toes have begun to form. The sex organs begin to form. The eyes have moved forward on the face and eyelids have formed. The umbilical cord is clearly visible. At the end of eight weeks, your baby is a fetus and looks more like a human. Your baby is nearly 1 inch long and weighs less than one-eighth ounce. At 12 weeks: Illustration of a fetus at 12 weeks The nerves and muscles begin to work together. Your baby can make a fist. The external sex organs show if your baby is a boy or girl. A woman who has an ultrasound in the second trimester or later might be able to find out the baby's sex. Eyelids close to protect the developing eyes. They will not open again until the 28th week. Head growth has slowed, and your baby is much longer. Now, at about 3 inches long, your baby weighs almost an ounce. Second trimester (week 13-week 28) At 16 weeks: Illustration of a fetus at 16 weeks Muscle tissue and bone continue to form, creating a more complete skeleton. Skin begins to form. You can nearly see through it. Meconium (mih-KOH-nee-uhm) develops in your baby's intestinal tract. This will be your baby's first bowel movement. Your baby makes sucking motions with the mouth (sucking reflex). Your baby reaches a length of about 4 to 5 inches and weighs almost 3 ounces. At 20 weeks: Illustration of a fetus at 20 weeks Your baby is more active. You might feel slight fluttering. Your baby is covered by fine, downy hair called lanugo (luh-NOO-goh) and a waxy coating called vernix. This protects the forming skin underneath. Eyebrows, eyelashes, fingernails, and toenails have formed. Your baby can even scratch itself. Your baby can hear and swallow. Now halfway through your pregnancy, your baby is about 6 inches long and weighs about 9 ounces. At 24 weeks: Illustration of a fetus at 24 weeks Bone marrow begins to make blood cells. Taste buds form on your baby's tongue. Footprints and fingerprints have formed. Real hair begins to grow on your baby's head. The lungs are formed, but do not work. The hand and startle reflex develop. Your baby sleeps and wakes regularly. If your baby is a boy, his testicles begin to move from the abdomen into the scrotum. If your baby is a girl, her uterus and ovaries are in place, and a lifetime supply of eggs have formed in the ovaries. Your baby stores fat and has gained quite a bit of weight. Now at about 12 inches long, your baby weighs about 1½ pounds . . .
It seems that women typically become aware of pregnancy at about 5.5 weeks. KFkairosfocus
May 10, 2022
May
05
May
10
10
2022
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT
Vivid, the clip of testimony by a former abortionist, on 2nd trimester D & E abortions, has been added to the OP. KFkairosfocus
May 10, 2022
May
05
May
10
10
2022
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT
Schumer has a bill that is currently scheduled for vote tomorrow that will Federalize abortions up to the time of birth. Sick and incredibly evil. How evil see below. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0tQZhEisaE Vividvividbleau
May 10, 2022
May
05
May
10
10
2022
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT
JVL & FH, "a woman's choice . . . " to do what, pray, tell us? The gap is of essence here. The omitted material truth, to kill at will a living member of our posterity for his/her crime of being seen as a trespasser in his or her mother's body. This carries us right back to the core issue that life is the first right. The strategic omission is telling. KFkairosfocus
May 10, 2022
May
05
May
10
10
2022
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
JVL
Oh, by the way, I heard an interesting solution to the abortion issue: give all young males a reversible vasectomy which they can reverse when they are in a stable relationship.
Fit them with the male equivalent of chastity belts (not sure what that is, a challenge for our ID engineers perhaps) and make sure only women have the keys.Fred Hickson
May 10, 2022
May
05
May
10
10
2022
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
"Modern liberals hate Christianity, not because it’s repressive, but because they are" And I have been noting, for the last few years at least, the obvious hostility towards Christians by some commenters at UD. None of said commenters will address this issue, so the axe keeps grinding. Andrewasauber
May 10, 2022
May
05
May
10
10
2022
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
Tucker: Modern liberals hate Christianity, not because it's repressive, but because they are https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-modern-liberals-hate-christianity-not-because-its-repressive-but-because-they-are JOY REID: The Christian right's decades-long push to revoke abortion rights is just part of their broader agenda. Well, what else? What else do they want? What else is at stake? ROBERT JONES, CEO OF PUBLIC RELIGION RESEARCH INSTITUTE: This is not just about abortion. This is about a much broader set of issues that are really about a kind of White Christian-Right worldview. AMY HAGSTROM MILLER, CEO OF WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH: It's very important for us to recognize that it is Christian extremism that is at the root of the shame and the stigma that allows laws like this to pass, that allows justices like this to be confirmed. ALI VELSHI: They discovered that they could manufacture and then channel their moral outrage toward abortion, creating a new litmus test for conservative politicians. References to God and Christian beliefs are often invoked in these political instances, with some saying outright that they believe America is a Christian nation. So, they're mad, not really just at Alito, but at Christianity and Christians, believers, people of faith. They have been for a long time, but it's weird if you think about it. Why are liberals angry at Christianity? You wouldn't think they would be. Christianity has been the single greatest force for human rights in history. In fact, the Western understanding of human rights, our understanding of human rights, all of us, atheists included, is based on Christianity. That's where it comes from. Christianity is the reason we don't have slavery and segregation and children working in factories. Christians did that. So, if you're a sincere liberal, it would seem odd to hate Christians. But the totalitarians always do hate Christians. The Soviets killed the priests first, so did Mao. During the Spanish Civil War, the Communists subjected a statue of Jesus to a symbolic execution in front of a firing squad. It was one of the first things they did within weeks of the war breaking out. Here's the picture on your screen. Shooting Jesus. It tells you everything. Modern liberals hate Christianity, not because it's repressive, but because they are. Any religion that puts God before government is by definition a threat to their power. Most offensive of all, Christianity specifically rejects their most cherished dogma, which is racial hierarchy. The Christian message is the opposite of the equity agenda.
Silver Asiatic
May 10, 2022
May
05
May
10
10
2022
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT
JVL
just might solve the problem
Being able to clearly identify and describe the problem is the first step. One should not propose a solution before he has done that.Silver Asiatic
May 10, 2022
May
05
May
10
10
2022
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
JVL@516, unfortunately, most of the people who oppose a woman’s choice also oppose birth control. Many oppose the pill and the IUD because, heaven forbid, a few hundred undifferentiated cells be prevented from implanting in the uterus.JHolo
May 10, 2022
May
05
May
10
10
2022
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
You could probably sell Trekkies on plumbing in the Bionyx Phaser.Seversky
May 10, 2022
May
05
May
10
10
2022
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT
Oh, by the way, I heard an interesting solution to the abortion issue: give all young males a reversible vasectomy which they can reverse when they are in a stable relationship. What do you think? It would be effective and just might solve the problem.JVL
May 10, 2022
May
05
May
10
10
2022
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
F/N: Sen Hawley on intimidatory behaviour: https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2022/05/10/hawley-on-abortion-activists-targeting-scotus-justices-homes-you-cannot-give-an-inch/
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) weighed in on left-wing protesters targeting the homes of U.S. Supreme Court justices over the leaked draft opinion overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling. Hawley, who clerked for Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, noted the “hypocrisy from the left” with the “White House encouraging people to go out and to engage in what amounts to harassment.” He added he hoped the justices would stand their ground and not “give an inch” to the protesters. “You know, the hypocrisy from the left is really unbelievable,” Hawley stated. “I mean, here we have the White House encouraging people to go out and to engage in what amounts to harassment, which, by the way, is illegal. Federal law says that you cannot picket or protest or harass justices with the purpose of trying to change their vote in a case. And that’s exactly what they are doing.” He continued, “But yeah, unfortunately, we’ve been on the receiving end of that. We know what it’s like. Erin [Hawley] was home alone with our baby girl when a bunch of thugs showed up at our house and screamed and yelled at her. When she asked them to leave, they didn’t. They came to the house and pounded on the doors and ultimately were charged with trespass. But here’s the deal — you cannot give in to these people. You cannot give an inch. When they come at you, you have to stand your ground, and I hope that’s what the justices will do.” Hawley’s wife, Erin, who also clerked for Roberts, described the protests at people’s homes as “an assault on the American family and on the institution of the Supreme Court.”
Note, the law cited at 509 above. KFkairosfocus
May 10, 2022
May
05
May
10
10
2022
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
Thank youSilver Asiatic
May 10, 2022
May
05
May
10
10
2022
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
1 2 3 19

Leave a Reply