Is the Galton Board evidence for intelligent design of the universe?

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 16, 2023

Intelligent Design, Physics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Ken Francis writes: “Proof that God placed order out of chaos in the universe. Each ball has a 50-50 chance of bouncing right or left off of each peg as it traverses the board, but every time the result is a bell curve. More proof of Intelligent Design.”

The comments are interesting.

Hat tip: Ken Francis, co-author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd

Comments

Well JVL, so you issued an ad hominem attack on me and called me a coward simply because I refused to play your silly game and admit to an obviously true point on classification? And since you have become increasing abusive and angry towards me recently, do you think I ought to have admin settle the matter for us JVL? Or do you think I ought to let you continue with your ad hominem attacks against me? Seeing that we are humans, not apes, we do have rules of behavior you know. Please try to be better in your dialogue with me. You have been given fair warning.bornagain77_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

Relatd: Not according to the definition I posted. There is no connection between humans and the animals listed. So, humans do not have advanced development of binocular vision? Or enlarged cerebral hemispheres?JVL_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

JVL at 277, Not according to the definition I posted. There is no connection between humans and the animals listed.relatd_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

FP at 273, I have no idea how you reached your conclusion. Perhaps you can provide a more detailed explanation.relatd_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

Relatd: I can’t use my feet for grasping. I can pick up things with my feet. Anyway, in general, do you think humans match the morphological definition of primate?JVL_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77: Whatever JVL, you want to ignore the profound mental differences between apes and humans and exaggerate superficial physical similarities, so as to make it seem that humans are just highly evolved apes. Look, there is a morphological definition of Primate; do you think humans match that definition? You are such a coward you can't even answer such a simple question honestly. You could say: yes, humans match that category but I disagree with the evolutionary explanation. But you can't even do that. Like I said, coward.JVL_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

Ford Prefect, that may be your false personal opinion, but unfortunately for you, words have meaning. and anyone can read her words for themself, Again, there is a direct contradiction in logic in her two statements,
“My belief that “all our beliefs are tentative to some degree or another” is a tentative belief: just as with all my beliefs, to some degree or another,” “I am certain about certain things that are logically true. ” cer·tain adjective known for sure; established beyond doubt. ten·ta·tive adjective not certain or fixed; provisional.
bornagain77_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

JVL at 271, It's definitely related to evolution. "Primate; ": any of an order (Primates) of mammals that are characterized especially by advanced development of binocular vision resulting in stereoscopic depth perception, specialization of the hands and feet for grasping, and enlargement of the cerebral hemispheres and that include humans, apes, monkeys, and related forms (such as lemurs and tarsiers)" Note: I can't use my feet for grasping.relatd_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77 writes:
Again, there is a direct contradiction in logic in her two statements,
Then I can only conclude that you have no idea what you are talking about.Ford Prefect_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

Whatever JVL, you want to ignore the profound mental differences between apes and humans and exaggerate superficial physical similarities, so as to make it seem that humans are just highly evolved apes. That is precisely why I provided multiple lines of empirical evidence that 'scientifically' refute the Darwinian claim that humans evolved from apes. Moreover, according to PM1's 'right culture' hypothesis, it is theoretically possible that you are simply an ape that had the good fortune of being raised up in the right culture so as to develop a human mind. :) According to PM1's 'right culture' hypothesis, I have every right to ask, "Is an ape or human asking?" It ain't rocket science.bornagain77_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77: Is an ape or human asking? I'll assume you don't think humans are primates even though you failed to directly answer a very simple question. Since Primate is a human-defined classification (not necessarily related to descent or evolution) then what is your objection for having humans defined as primates? What part of the definition of primate do you think humans do not match?JVL_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

"would you agree that humans are primates?" Is an ape or human asking?
Jan. 2022 Fossil Record refutes human evolution https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-fox-news-adam-and-eve-are-compatible-with-evolution/#comment-744141 Fossils and Human Evolution (full series) - Casey Luskin - Oct. 2022 https://evolutionnews.org/tag/fossils-and-human-evolution-series/ Sept: 2022 - Genetic Evidence falsifies the claim the humans evolved from apes-like creature. And falsifies it in a ‘hard’ manner. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-evolution-news-did-life-first-arise-by-purely-natural-means/#comment-765765 Darwinists simply have no evidence that morphology, and/or biological form, is reducible to mutations to DNA. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evangelical-scientists-getting-it-wrong/#comment-740247 Population Genetics falsifies, instead of confirms, Darwinian claims for human evolution https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/christian-darwinists-must-now-backtrack-re-adam-and-eve/#comment-741335 Human exceptionalism falsifies Darwinian claims for human evolution https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evangelical-scientists-getting-it-wrong/#comment-740249 Darwinists, (in what makes the ‘problem’ of explaining the origin of the human species pale in comparison), have no clue whatsoever why “I” should even come into existence as a “person” with a unique individual subjective conscious experience, but are instead reduced to arguing that my sense of self, my “I”, is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/casey-luskin-the-mytho-history-of-adam-eve-and-william-lane-craig/#comment-740568
bornagain77_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77: The assertion that man is an ape is self-refuting. Just curious; would you agree that humans are primates?JVL_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

PM1 at 264, ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? "The basic idea is that what needs to be explained is the evolution of human culture itself, since it is culture that makes the minds of human beings different from the minds of non-human animals." In the chicken or egg question, a mind that is human comes first, not culture. In the fictional story about 'primitive' man living in caves, humans could just grunt and point. Then there is the fictional story about humans living in trees until a change in the environment forced them to walk on land. How they got water prior to that is not explained. This does not include the idea that humans got 'smarter' as their brains got bigger.relatd_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

PM1 264 "since it is culture that makes the minds of human beings different from the minds of non-human animals." And there you go, all we need to do to change a monkey mind into a human mind is to drop him into the proper 'culture', supposedly for an extended period of time.
Chimp in haute couture https://www.leslielangtry.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/chimp-grey-suit.jpg
But then again, something tells me that PM1 may be overlooking some small detail with his hypothesis in which he holds "it is culture that makes the minds of human beings different from the minds of non-human animals." Namely, the 'small detail' that "We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses."
The Fundamental Difference Between Humans and Nonhuman Animals - Michael Egnor - November 5, 2015 Excerpt: Human beings think abstractly, and nonhuman animals do not. Human beings have the power to contemplate universals, which are concepts that have no material instantiation. Human beings think about mathematics, literature, art, language, justice, mercy, and an endless library of abstract concepts. Human beings are rational animals. Human rationality is not merely a highly evolved kind of animal perception. Human rationality is qualitatively different — ontologically different — from animal perception. Human rationality is different because it is immaterial. Contemplation of universals cannot have material instantiation, because universals themselves are not material and cannot be instantiated in matter.,,, It is in our ability to think abstractly that we differ from apes. It is a radical difference — an immeasurable qualitative difference, not a quantitative difference. We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses. Our difference is a metaphysical chasm. It is obvious and manifest in our biological nature. We are rational animals, and our rationality is all the difference. Systems of taxonomy that emphasize physical and genetic similarities and ignore the fact that human beings are partly immaterial beings who are capable of abstract thought and contemplation of moral law and eternity are pitifully inadequate to describe man. The assertion that man is an ape is self-refuting. We could not express such a concept, misguided as it is, if we were apes and not men. https://evolutionnews.org/2015/11/the_fundamental_2/
Of related note:
Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language - December 19, 2014 Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,, (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, "The mystery of language evolution," Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).) Casey Luskin added: “It's difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/leading_evoluti092141.html "The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena." - Vlatko Vedral - Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College -
It is hard to imagine a more convincing scientific proof that we are ‘made in the image of God’, than finding that both the universe and life itself are ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information, and have come to ‘master the planet’, not via brute force as is presupposed in Darwinian thought, but precisely because of our ability to infuse immaterial information into material substrates
John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men.
Of course, a more convincing proof that we are made in the image of God could be if God Himself became a man, walked on water, healed the sick, raised the dead, and then defeated death itself on a cross. And that just so happens to be precisely the proof that is claimed within Christianity.
John: 14:8-9 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us.” Jesus replied, “Philip, I have been with you all this time, and still you do not know Me? Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Quantum Hologram - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-TL4QOCiis
bornagain77_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

PyrrhoManiac1: Wherever did you get the idea that the approach I’m proposing is not committed to “first principles and duties of reason”? 'Cause you came to a different conclusion from him. It's not the journey, it's the end.JVL_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

@263
PM1, if someone is not committed to first principles and duties of reason, that is already decisive. And yes, that shows a problem with the approach you propose.
Wherever did you get the idea that the approach I'm proposing is not committed to "first principles and duties of reason"?PyrrhoManiac1_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

Erratum in my @259: I wrote that Plantinga ignores teleosemantics. That is in fact not the case: he considers both Dretske and Millikan as offering responses to the threat of "semantic epiphenomenalism". He does not think that either theory can do the job -- or more precisely, he thinks that teleosemantics could not ground metaphysical or mathematical beliefs. I think this is a misreading of the explanatory function of teleosemantics. What the naturalist needs is a theory that connects the kinds of reliable feature-detecting representations that teleosemantics explains in 'simple minds' (bees or beavers) with the kinds of symbolically articulated, culturally scaffolded representations that we find in mathematics, philosophy, and science. It's at this point that the naturalist would need to look to work by Cecilia Hayes, Joseph Heinrich, or Ken Sterelny. The basic idea is that what needs to be explained is the evolution of human culture itself, since it is culture that makes the minds of human beings different from the minds of non-human animals.PyrrhoManiac1_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

PM1, if someone is not committed to first principles and duties of reason, that is already decisive. And yes, that shows a problem with the approach you propose. KFkairosfocus_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

Ba77 at 248, Someone should send the Dean of every university the following: "If a man walks into a doctor’s office and says “I never have direct access to my thoughts and I have no first person point of view,” the man will be referred to a psychiatrist and may be involuntarily hospitalized until it is established that he is not a danger to himself or others. If the same guy walks into the philosophy department at Duke University, he gets tenure.” 'relatd_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

Ba77 at 245, I think you're missing the overarching concept: 'My beliefs are my beliefs and that's that.' Your attempt to add logic to the situation may not apply. Or someone is pulling your leg.relatd_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

“My belief that “all our beliefs are tentative to some degree or another” is a tentative belief: just as with all my beliefs, to some degree or another,” “I am certain about certain things that are logically true. ” This is a train wreck of ideas demolishing each other. Andrewasauber_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

@224
What is PM1 trying to convey with the term ‘external criticism’? Is being ‘external’ perhaps a convenient reason to discard certain criticism? If not, PM1 is, of course, free to argue that naturalism allows for teleological processes that have the ultimate goal or purpose of believing truth, or that truth does not matter, or whatever he wants.
I defined "external criticism" very carefully: a criticism is external if it is based on criteria to which someone is not committed. By contrast an internal criticism is a criticism based on premises to which someone is committed. Slagle is attempting internal criticism because he is trying to show that naturalism is self-refuting: that the naturalist is committed to premises which undermine their own project. From what I can tell, he is committed to a Plantinga-like account of how this is supposed to work. Plantinga claims that the naturalist is committed to the low or inscrutable likelihood that cognitive faculties are reliable, which should include their own, hence undermining the beliefs formed through those faculties, including naturalism. My main objection is that it's not really clear why, according to Plantinga, the naturalist is committed to the low or inscrutable likelihood of the reliability of our cognitive faculties. His argument in "Content and Natural Selection" depends on the assumption that we can conceive of a belief having different content but still having the same impact on behavior, hence we have no reason to believe that content can be a target of natural selection:
It is easy to see how beliefs thus considered can enter the causal chain leading to behavior; current science gives us a reasonably plausible account of the process whereby volleys of impulses propagated along the efferent nerves cause muscle contraction, motor output, and thus behavior. It is exceedingly difficult to see, however, how they can enter that chain by virtue of their content; a given belief, it seems, would have had the same causal impact on behavior if it had had the same NP properties, but different content. . . . it will not be the case that a false belief causes maladaptive behavior by virtue of its having false content, and it will not be the case that a true belief causes adaptive behavior by virtue of having true content. The truth or falsehood of the belief will then be irrelevant to fitness and thus, so to speak, invisible to natural selection; but then it is hard to see how natural selection can promote or enhance or reward true belief (or reliable belief-producing processes) and penalize false belief (or unreliable belief-producing processes). (pp. 436-437)
This argument is so terrible that it hurts me to spend time responding to it. Here's the crux of the problem: "It is exceedingly difficult to see, however, how they can enter that chain by virtue of their content". What is "difficult to see" depends on the stock of concepts one has at ones disposal. It was "difficult to see" how electricity and magnetism could have anything to do with each other before the work of Faraday and Maxwell: post Faraday and Maxwell, we find it difficult to see how the connection would have been difficult to see! In this context, specifically, of course one cannot understand how content could affect behavior if one is unfamiliar with naturalized theories of content. But someone who does understand how content can be naturalized would not agree with Plantinga that it is at all "difficult to see" how content can affect behavior. The naturalization of content is still being hotly debated in the philosophy of cognitive science, and yes, no one can be expected to know everything. But "Content and Natural Selection" was published in 2011, long after the first attempts were made to naturalize content by Dretske, Millikan, and Paul Churchland. By 2011, teleosemantics was a major area of interdisciplinary inquiry. Yet Plantinga writes as if it doesn't exist. And that's a real problem, because then his project fails as an internal criticism of naturalism. This goes to my larger complaint with Plantinga (and perhaps with Slagle, though I haven't read much of him yet): they purport to be engaged in an internal criticism of naturalism, but they haven't really taken the time to understand what naturalists are committed to, and why. We can see the same problem with this thought: "a given belief, it seems, would have had the same causal impact on behavior if it had had the same NP properties, but different content." Is that really so? We can imagine that the neurophysiological properties remain the same while the content changes. That would show at most that the relation between semantic content and neurophysiological properties is not a logically necessary truth. But that's irrelevant, since no naturalist ever contended that it was. What the naturalist needs to say is that, regardless of whatever is logically necessary or contingent, is a fact about how brains work in the actual world that variation in semantic content is a variation in neurophysiological properties. Plantinga ignores this perfectly obvious response because (but I tire of repeating himself) he does not really understand naturalism. Plantinga's criticism of naturalism is based on a monumental act of self-deception; he does not really understand what he thinks he does. By contrast, if teleosemantics is a promising route to naturalize content, and thereby show how semantic content is causally efficacious by virtue of being part of a biological system, then content can be a target of selection, and therefore a naturalist can happily say it is extremely probable that minds formed through natural selection really are generally reliable. @256
if all beliefs are produced by nonrational forces and are thus nonveracious, then the belief that “all beliefs are produced by non-rational forces and are thus nonveracious” is itself produced by nonrational forces and is thus nonveracious.
I have no objection to this line of reasoning. But who exactly is the target here? Who is it who supposedly says "all beliefs are produced by non-rational forces"? I can tell you this much: the Churchlands do not say this. Dennett does not say this. Neither do Dewey, Freud, or Marx say this, despite what Pearcey and Slagle insinuates. (The only philosopher I know of who says anything like this, and who does draw out all of the skeptical conclusions, is Friedrich Nietzsche.)PyrrhoManiac1_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

I did read the words for context, and even read them charitably, not viscerally, as you have falsely accused me. Again, there is a direct contradiction in logic in her two statements,
“My belief that “all our beliefs are tentative to some degree or another” is a tentative belief: just as with all my beliefs, to some degree or another,” “I am certain about certain things that are logically true. ” cer·tain adjective known for sure; established beyond doubt. ten·ta·tive adjective not certain or fixed; provisional.
bornagain77_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77 writes:
Sorry FP, but you and VL can’t have it both ways. You can’t hold a belief to be ‘certain’ and to also be ‘tentative’. For crying out loud, the definition of tentative is “NOT certain’.
BA77 obviously has a problem reading for comprehension. Try reading VL’s comment again but, this time, pay attention to the words being used rather than reacting viscerally because you disagree with her worldview.Ford Prefect_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

Follow-up Self-referentiality #254 Jim Slagle describes the self-referentiality problem for those who claim that beliefs are produced by non-rational forces, (such as blind particles in the void):
More broadly, if all beliefs are produced by nonrational forces and are thus nonveracious, then the belief that “all beliefs are produced by non-rational forces and are thus nonveracious” is itself produced by nonrational forces and is thus nonveracious. This belief, and any position that leads to it, is therefore self-defeating: if it is true, we no longer have any reason for believing it to be true. It is hoist with its own petard.
With an almost painful accuracy, Slagle goes on to describe the self-referentiality problem for skeptics of rationality:
To put this another way, those who claim that all beliefs, acts of reasoning, etc., are nonveracious are positing a closed circle in which no beliefs are produced by the proper methods by which beliefs can be said to be veracious or rational. Yet at the same time, they are arrogating to themselves a position outside of this circle by which they can judge the beliefs of others, a move they deny to their opponents. Since the raison d’être of their thesis is that there is no outside of the circle, they do not have the epistemic right to assume a position independent of it, and so their beliefs about the nonveracity of beliefs or reasoning are just as nonveracious as those they criticize. If all of the beliefs inside the circle are suspect, we cannot judge between truth and falsity, since any such judgment would be just as suspect as what it seeks to adjudicate. We would have to seek another argument, another chain of reasoning, another set of beliefs, by which we can judge the judgment—and a third set to judge the judgment of the judgment, ad infinitum. At no point can they step out of the circle to a transcendent standpoint that would allow them to reject some beliefs as tainted while remaining untainted themselves.
Origenes_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: theorems are fairly commonplace in physics, contrary to your earlier assertion. As I recall for the moment, Bell Theorem in Quantum Physics, Louville;s theorem [in statistical mechanics topics], the Carnot theorem on maximum efficiency of a heat engine, the rather useful Buckingham Pi theorem for dimensional analysis of physical relationships, even the BVG theorem, roughly, on a finite past to expanding cosmos Carroll tried to counter. (A list by Wikipedia here will help clarify that in physics there are results that are indeed described as theorems; so, no the term theorem is not exclusively used by Mathematicians.) Okay, I will certainly concede that there are 'theorems' in physics (although they all look to be highly mathematical). Interestingly enough, one of the theorems on that Wikipedia list is The free will theorem of John H. Conway and Simon B. Kochen which:
states that if we have a free will in the sense that our choices are not a function of the past, then, subject to certain assumptions, so must some elementary particles.
Which sounds pretty weird to me. The discussion in the article is a bit beyond my pay-grade. Also, it seems like Dr Carroll proposed a "Quantum Eternity Theorem" in a very off-the-cuff fashion and the idea, might in fact, just be similar to a known result. From Did the Universe Begin? IV: Quantum Eternity Theorem: http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/did-the-universe-begin-iv-quantum-eternity-theorem/ First Dr Carroll's comment:
If you need to invoke a theorem, because that’s what you like to do rather than building models, I would suggest the quantum eternity theorem. If you have a universe that obeys the conventional rules of quantum mechanics, has a non-zero energy, and the individual laws of physics are themselves not changing with time, that universe is necessarily eternal.
But, according to the author of the page:
That's all the Quantum Eternity Theorem (QET) says. It's a little bombastic for Carroll to even refer to this as a "theorem", since it's just an elementary restatement of one of the most basic principles of QM.
And
But if Carroll's QET does apply, then no matter how many fireworks there were at the "Big Bang", it could only really have been the universe passing from one form to another. So is he right? Probably not. Carroll himself states the important loophole in his reasoning, although he does it in a kind of a cryptic way so that only another physicist like me knows what it really means.
It all centres around whether or not the universe has zero energy. I'll leave you to read the full article. Oh, by the way, that page comes from Undivided Looking, a blog about Physics and Theology. From their About section:
"Undivided Looking" expresses the aspiration that, although compartmentalized thinking is frequently helpful in life, one must also step back and look at the world as a whole. This involves balancing specialized knowledge with common sense to keep both kinds of thinking in perspective. "Undivided Looking" also suggests that in order to see the Truth, we have to be earnestly seeking it with our whole self. As Jesus said, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God". The word "pure" means unmixed or whole. Those who want to live wholesome lives must purify themselves from malice, bias and greed, so that the Holy can dwell within them.
So, not some materialistic site. You were right about Physics theorems. I will change my stance on that issue.JVL_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

BA77 @248, 249 Thank you for compiling those baffling self-defeating statements.
Steven Pinker: The Brain: The Mystery of Consciousness – Steven Pinker – Monday, Jan. 29, 2007 Part II The Illusion Of Control Another startling conclusion from the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there’s an executive “I” that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion.
Steven Pinker could not have produced the text above if he was aware of the self-referential implications. Somehow he does not realize that the text refers to himself also. The problem of self-referentiality, or rather the failure to be aware of it, is widespread and cannot be unseen once seen. As Kairosfocus notes:
On topics like this, self-referentiality is almost impossible to avoid, which is part of why core hard questions are hard. What we need to do, is to try to avoid incoherence by making assertions that when referred to ourselves, undercut the point we were trying to make.
The problem of self-referentiality is not limited to claims about the non-existence of consciousness and/or rationality. And it is also not limited to our contemporaries. In particular, it seems to rear its ugly head among the skeptically inclined, such as Popper, Russell, and the like. A few years ago I compiled a long list of self-defeating Popper statements that had the common theme (paraphrasing): ‘There are no true statements.’ Why is it that so few point it out? I am not sure what to make of it.Origenes_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT}

"Perhaps you would also accept a naturalized version of ultimate purpose, such as ‘being fertilizer’?" Reminds me of this comedy skit,
Dane Cook - - Atheist Sneeze https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2ukznw
bornagain77_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT}

VL@
Ori: I take it that you also tentatively believe that there is no ultimate purpose for human beings. Would a near-death experience count as evidence for you? If it is all untrue, then a lot of cardiac patients are liars
VL: What does that have to do with ultimate purpose?
I gathered that life after death is a prerequisite for the existence of an ultimate purpose for human beings. Perhaps I was being presumptuous. Perhaps you would also accept a naturalized version of ultimate purpose, such as ‘being fertilizer’?Origenes_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 11 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply