The Hard Problems Of Consciousnes - One of the best cases for Intelligent Design

[BIGFOOT]

The Implicate Order! Read David Bohm's "Wholeness and the Implicate Order".

p.s. the correct term is "superposition"

I know about it, and I agree with it. I also agree with Karl Pribram and Karl Lashley findings about the Human Mind, that it replicates the Universe as a Hologram . This is where my argument of Consciousness being Unity instead of “Objective” and “subjective” is coming from

 

[exchemist]

What I understand about Quantum Mechanics, is that "big things" are not made of "Small Things" There are no "small things frozen in space, out of which matter is made. There are scientists who have explained it very well, and no-scientists like me, understand what is being said. I do not need to do complex formula, to understand the "Wave Particle" duality of Quantum entity. I understand in lay-man's language, the EPR paradox. I understand Bells Theorem.

Quantum Mechanics, basically is a new physics that breaks away from Classical Mechanics , which treats matter as "objectively testable and logically deducible." and therefore deterministic. But Quantum Mechanics treats matter as probabilistic, and supper positioned and therefore existing as in-deterministic state.

In a way therefore, to me, Quantum Mechanics demands a different approach, beyond the classical method, and therefore beyond logic. And its my opinion that some here, especially Sarkus who are forcing Classical approach, , on Quantum approach. If you understand Quantum Mechanics, and you understand that it has broke away from Classical Physics, you would realize that the nature of matter has been found to be mare speculative . (Wave Particle)

So, if Big Things and not made of small things, and the state of matter is speculative, should it not be our curiosity to wonder, if we are in this state of supper positioning, what is this "thinking thing"? If matter is made of undulating "nothingness" what then, is consciousness which perceives this undulating "nothingness" as some form of experience?

 

[exchemist]

What I understand about Quantum Mechanics, is that "big things" are not made of "Small Things" There are no "small things frozen in space, out of which matter is made. There are scientists who have explained it very well, and no-scientists like me, understand what is being said. I do not need to do complex formula, to understand the "Wave Particle" duality of Quantum entity. I understand in lay-man's language, the EPR paradox. I understand Bells Theorem.

Quantum Mechanics, basically is a new physics that breaks away from Classical Mechanics , which treats matter as "objectively testable and logically deducible." and therefore deterministic. But Quantum Mechanics treats matter as probabilistic, and supper positioned and therefore existing as in-deterministic state.

In a way therefore, to me, Quantum Mechanics demands a different approach, beyond the classical method, and therefore beyond logic. And its my opinion that some here, especially Sarkus who are forcing Classical approach, , on Quantum approach. If you understand Quantum Mechanics, and you understand that it has broke away from Classical Physics, you would realize that the nature of matter has been found to be mare speculative . (Wave Particle)

So, if Big Things and not made of small things, and the state of matter is speculative, should it not be our curiosity to wonder, if we are in this state of supper positioning, what is this "thinking thing"? If matter is made of undulating "nothingness" what then, is consciousness which perceives this undulating "nothingness" as some form of experience?

You are being (deliberately?) woolly in your thinking here, by confusing a model with the scientific method. QM is beyond classical mechanics, certainly. But that does not mean it is not a product of the scientific method or is, in some woo-woo way, "beyond logic".

How do you suppose QM was developed? Have you read anything of the history of how the evidence for it accumulated, and how QM models were developed? It was done by the classic process of trying to account (logically) for observations that classical mechanics could not adequately explain. It is in fact a beautiful, one could say a "classic", example of the scientific method in action, leading by an inexorable process of logic from the previous unsatisfactory model to something counterintuitive but which works and has been shown to work by being tested.

QM was not the only branch of physics to "break away" from what you are calling classical physics in the early 1900s. Such developments are in the nature of science. Science is not like a religious text, fixed for eternity. Science evolves pragmatically. QM and relativity developed physics in new ways, but it is addle-headed to think that logic became therefore somehow abandoned, inadequate, or no longer applicable.

It is fine to speculate about the nature of matter: this has been a preoccupation of people since the Ancient Greeks and no doubt before, and has not stopped in today's era of particle physics. But that does not remotely justify corrupting the scientific method, as ID advocates. The scientific method continues to serve us well.

(Sarkus is in my opinion spot-on, by the way. He clearly has more patience than I have in dealing with your notions, for which he has my admiration.)

 

[BIGFOOT]

You are being (deliberately?) woolly in your thinking here, by confusing a model with the scientific method. QM is beyond classical mechanics, certainly. But that does not mean it is not a product of the scientific method or is, in some woo-woo way, "beyond logic".

How do you suppose QM was developed? Have you read anything of the history of how the evidence for it accumulated, and how QM models were developed? It was done by the classic process of trying to account (logically) for observations that classical mechanics could not adequately explain. It is in fact a beautiful, one could say a "classic", example of the scientific method in action, leading by an inexorable process of logic from the previous unsatisfactory model to something counterintuitive but which works and has been shown to work by being tested.

QM was not the only branch of physics to "break away" from what you are calling classical physics in the early 1900s. Such developments are in the nature of science. Science is not like a religious text, fixed for eternity. Science evolves pragmatically. QM and relativity developed physics in new ways, but it is addle-headed to think that logic became therefore somehow abandoned, inadequate, or no longer applicable.

It is fine to speculate about the nature of matter: this has been a preoccupation of people since the Ancient Greeks and no doubt before, and has not stopped in today's era of particle physics. But that does not remotely justify corrupting the scientific method, as ID advocates. The scientific method continues to serve us well.

(Sarkus is in my opinion spot-on, by the way. He clearly has more patience than I have in dealing with your notions, for which he has my admiration.)

How do you suppose QM was developed? Have you read anything of the history of how the evidence for it accumulated, and how QM models were developed? It was done by the classic process of trying to account (logically) for observations that classical mechanics could not adequately explain. It is in fact a beautiful, one could say a "classic", example of the scientific method in action, leading by an inexorable process of logic from the previous unsatisfactory model to something counterintuitive but which works and has been shown to work by being tested.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, even some allegedly stated; "If you think you understand quantum theory . . . you don't understand quantum theory." Attributed to Richard Feynman So, am not saying that QM. requires us to abandon logic. QM. is to me like a statement someone makes, and then waits for the “pin to drop” All logical approach to QM, appears to confirms “uncertainty” “super positioning” “probabilistic” “locality” “super-luminal signaling” “entanglement” “wave-particle” “existence-nonexistence” So, its still a controversial subject, with controversial results. And yeah, it has been studied classically, and every time, it refused “classical state” Therefore even if it’s a beautiful “classical” example of scientific method in action, its also an example of an entity that refuses to embrace “classical” state!


QM was not the only branch of physics to "break away" from what you are calling classical physics in the early 1900s. Such developments are in the nature of science. Science is not like a religious text, fixed for eternity. Science evolves pragmatically. QM and relativity developed physics in new ways, but it is addle-headed to think that logic became therefore somehow abandoned, inadequate, or no longer applicable.

“Science is not like a religious text, fixed for eternity.”

I only wish some of you guys could appreciate that. Am not saying we abandon logic, but we rather listen to what logic is saying with the apparent ideological states of Quantum Systems”

It is fine to speculate about the nature of matter: this has been a preoccupation of people since the Ancient Greeks and no doubt before, and has not stopped in today's era of particle physics. But that does not remotely justify corrupting the scientific method, as ID advocates. The scientific method continues to serve us well.

Am not corrupting any scientific method. Rather, am just asking myself what is possible about ourselves and our reality, if we were to put together all we have gathered with our scientific knowledge. The way I put it together may appear “crude” but I do not mind. It’s a joyful exercise in the short life I have on earth. The need to know”

(Sarkus is in my opinion spot-on, by the way. He clearly has more patience than I have in dealing with your notions, for which he has my admiration.)

Am not a scientists, that is why am giving myself the freedom to speculate in a more relaxed mindset appreciating as much possibilities as embraced by scientists who dared to do the same. If Max Plank, yes, Max Plank said this, who am my not to wonder about the same?

“ I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Max Planck

And this; "Anyone not shocked by quantum mechanics has not yet understood it."
---Niels Bohr

 

[BIGFOOT]

You are being (deliberately?) woolly in your thinking here, by confusing a model with the scientific method. QM is beyond classical mechanics, certainly. But that does not mean it is not a product of the scientific method or is, in some woo-woo way, "beyond logic".

How do you suppose QM was developed? Have you read anything of the history of how the evidence for it accumulated, and how QM models were developed? It was done by the classic process of trying to account (logically) for observations that classical mechanics could not adequately explain. It is in fact a beautiful, one could say a "classic", example of the scientific method in action, leading by an inexorable process of logic from the previous unsatisfactory model to something counterintuitive but which works and has been shown to work by being tested.

QM was not the only branch of physics to "break away" from what you are calling classical physics in the early 1900s. Such developments are in the nature of science. Science is not like a religious text, fixed for eternity. Science evolves pragmatically. QM and relativity developed physics in new ways, but it is addle-headed to think that logic became therefore somehow abandoned, inadequate, or no longer applicable.

It is fine to speculate about the nature of matter: this has been a preoccupation of people since the Ancient Greeks and no doubt before, and has not stopped in today's era of particle physics. But that does not remotely justify corrupting the scientific method, as ID advocates. The scientific method continues to serve us well.

(Sarkus is in my opinion spot-on, by the way. He clearly has more patience than I have in dealing with your notions, for which he has my admiration.)

As long as I keep getting statements like these, I am hooked!!

“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." Max Planck

And this!!

"And what we've discovered at the core basis of the universe, the foundation of the universe, is a single unified field of intelligence; a field that unites gravity with electromagnetism, light with radioactivity, with the nuclear force. So that all the forces of nature and all the so-called particles of nature - quarks, leptons, protons, neutrons - are now understood to be one. They're all just different ripples on a single ocean of existence that is the unified field... And that field is a non-material field. It is ultimately a field of consciousness and everything in the universe is nothing but that. Planets, trees, people, animals - we're all just waves of vibration of this underlying, unified, superstring field…" -John Hagelin, particle physicist

And this

"Mind has elected an objective outside world……..out of its own stuff". Schrödinger



I think am still with the Big Guns! Ha!

 

[exchemist]

How do you suppose QM was developed? Have you read anything of the history of how the evidence for it accumulated, and how QM models were developed? It was done by the classic process of trying to account (logically) for observations that classical mechanics could not adequately explain. It is in fact a beautiful, one could say a "classic", example of the scientific method in action, leading by an inexorable process of logic from the previous unsatisfactory model to something counterintuitive but which works and has been shown to work by being tested.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, even some allegedly stated; "If you think you understand quantum theory . . . you don't understand quantum theory." Attributed to Richard Feynman So, am not saying that QM. requires us to abandon logic. QM. is to me like a statement someone makes, and then waits for the “pin to drop” All logical approach to QM, appears to confirms “uncertainty” “super positioning” “probabilistic” “locality” “super-luminal signaling” “entanglement” “wave-particle” “existence-nonexistence” So, its still a controversial subject, with controversial results. And yeah, it has been studied classically, and every time, it refused “classical state” Therefore even if it’s a beautiful “classical” example of scientific method in action, its also an example of an entity that refuses to embrace “classical” state!


QM was not the only branch of physics to "break away" from what you are calling classical physics in the early 1900s. Such developments are in the nature of science. Science is not like a religious text, fixed for eternity. Science evolves pragmatically. QM and relativity developed physics in new ways, but it is addle-headed to think that logic became therefore somehow abandoned, inadequate, or no longer applicable.

“Science is not like a religious text, fixed for eternity.”

I only wish some of you guys could appreciate that. Am not saying we abandon logic, but we rather listen to what logic is saying with the apparent ideological states of Quantum Systems”

It is fine to speculate about the nature of matter: this has been a preoccupation of people since the Ancient Greeks and no doubt before, and has not stopped in today's era of particle physics. But that does not remotely justify corrupting the scientific method, as ID advocates. The scientific method continues to serve us well.

Am not corrupting any scientific method. Rather, am just asking myself what is possible about ourselves and our reality, if we were to put together all we have gathered with our scientific knowledge. The way I put it together may appear “crude” but I do not mind. It’s a joyful exercise in the short life I have on earth. The need to know”

(Sarkus is in my opinion spot-on, by the way. He clearly has more patience than I have in dealing with your notions, for which he has my admiration.)

Am not a scientists, that is why am giving myself the freedom to speculate in a more relaxed mindset appreciating as much possibilities as embraced by scientists who dared to do the same. If Max Plank, yes, Max Plank said this, who am my not to wonder about the same?

“ I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Max Planck

And this; "Anyone not shocked by quantum mechanics has not yet understood it."
---Niels Bohr

No you're not a scientist, that much is clear.

Which I why I am trying so hard to disabuse you of the fundamentally misguided idea that you can start introducing religious ideas into science.

Saying QM is "beyond logic" makes no sense to me. It is a logical product of observation. It is, like relativity, counterintuitive, which is what the quote from Bohr means. But counterintuitive is not "beyond logic". Nor did Feynman mean QM was "beyond logic". The maths is hard to interpret physically. That is what he meant, I think. But the maths is remorseless logic at its purest.

Planck and many other scientists, including Bohm evidently, have speculated beyond the science of QM and that is fine. There is nothing "daring" about doing that. However I do not believe you will find Planck wrote any physics papers about QM and consciousness (though Im open to correction if you can cite any). This is the point: we can all do metaphysical or mystical speculation - human beings do these things - but we do not pretend it is part of science. We step out of science when we do it.

The corruption of science that I mention comes when people try, as ID does, to introduce religion into it. Going by the title of this thread and by your early posts, it seemed that this is what you were arguing for. But if you are now avoiding that and simply saying you want to see what happens when you combine science with other ideas, you are most welcome. There is nothing wrong with that - it may well prove insightful for many people.

(My only further advice would be to avoid referring to ID in your ideas. This term, to most people, now means the particular, rather deceitful, socio-political movement in the US, which is self-avowedly aimed at introducing religion into science and as such is heartily detested by scientists.)

 

[BIGFOOT]

No you're not a scientist, that much is clear.

Which I why I am trying so hard to disabuse you of the fundamentally misguided idea that you can start introducing religious ideas into science.

Saying QM is "beyond logic" makes no sense to me. It is a logical product of observation. It is, like relativity, counterintuitive, which is what the quote from Bohr means. But counterintuitive is not "beyond logic". Nor did Feynman mean QM was "beyond logic". The maths is hard to interpret physically. That is what he meant, I think. But the maths is remorseless logic at its purest.

Planck and many other scientists, including Bohm evidently, have speculated beyond the science of QM and that is fine. There is nothing "daring" about doing that. However I do not believe you will find Planck wrote any physics papers about QM and consciousness (though Im open to correction if you can cite any). This is the point: we can all do metaphysical or mystical speculation - human beings do these things - but we do not pretend it is part of science. We step out of science when we do it.

The corruption of science that I mention comes when people try, as ID does, to introduce religion into it. Going by the title of this thread and by your early posts, it seemed that this is what you were arguing for. But if you are now avoiding that and simply saying you want to see what happens when you combine science with other ideas, you are most welcome. There is nothing wrong with that - it may well prove insightful for many people.

(My only further advice would be to avoid referring to ID in your ideas. This term, to most people, now means the particular, rather deceitful, socio-political movement in the US, which is self-avowedly aimed at introducing religion into science and as such is heartily detested by scientists.)

“If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck!” Robin Cook

If it infers Intelligence, and wholeness, it’s an Intelligent wholeness.

"My only further advice would be to avoid referring to ID in your ideas"

Well, as you must have now realized in this thread, am for uniting Religion, (Christianity) and science. Of course there are many versions of Christianity, which when considering all other cacophony of noises that claim the name of religions, this appears to make a mockery of science when one claims that its possible to unite Religion and Science. That's why I understand you outrage with my claims, and comments that bolder on ridicule .

Well, the religion am talking about, is not your everyday Christianity. Its Christianity stripped out all doctrines, dogmas, traditions, and which has been put under the glare of logic, and succeeded in making sense, i.e logic. So, if this version of Christianity makes logic, my presupposition was that it should indeed, fit science, which is what am still endeavoring to do.

Its of course expected that scientists cannot fathom ANY religion ever coming close to science. I understand your logical rage.

 

[Sarkus]

“If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck!” Robin Cook

If it infers Intelligence, and wholeness, it’s an Intelligent wholeness.

And yet the soundness of your inference of such has been challenged on grounds of it being based on unwarranted assumptions, yet you continue to ignore that challenge. Instead you claim a lofty moral ground by virtue of a tenuous association between your position and those of actual scientists, but for some reason claiming their being scientist as grounds for all their positions, and thus those you share with them, as being scientific.

But you are right... IF it infers intelligence.
You simply have yet to show that condition to be sound.

Well, as you must have now realized in this thread, am for uniting Religion, (Christianity) and science. Of course there are many versions of Christianity, which when considering all other cacophony of noises that claim the name of religions, this appears to make a mockery of science when one claims that its possible to unite Religion and Science. That's why I understand you outrage with my claims, and comments that bolder on ridicule .

Yet you don't understand the reason for the "outrage". You think it is merely your purpose that gives rise to it? It is the manner in which you try that causes such response, not the endeavour itself. It is how you try to claim as scientific that which simply is not, and how you appeal to the weakest of association as somehow legitimacy for your position.
No one thinks bad of someone for wanting to persuade people to play rugby rather than soccer, but they will think bad of them, and be "outraged", when that person invades a soccer game and tries to rugby-tackle everyone, while claiming what they are doing is part of soccer.

Well, the religion am talking about, is not your everyday Christianity. Its Christianity stripped out all doctrines, dogmas, traditions, and which has been put under the glare of logic, and succeeded in making sense, i.e logic. So, if this version of Christianity makes logic, my presupposition was that it should indeed, fit science, which is what am still endeavoring to do.

While science should adhere to what is logical, it does not mean that everything that is logical is therefore scientific.
Science is applicable to the natural world, to what is testable, and falsifiable.
If logic is applied to that which is not falsifiable, to that which is not testable, the logic can still be valid, yet it's soundness will be in question.
And the only way to make such logic (relating to the unfalsifiable) applicable to reality is to introduce unwarranted assumptions, which is what you have done from the outset.

Its of course expected that scientists cannot fathom ANY religion ever coming close to science. I understand your logical rage.

You are simply trying to deflect criticism of the detail as being criticism of the endeavour.
Address the criticism of the detail that you have presented, because that is what we are criticising and not necessarily the endeavour.

 

[exchemist]

“If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck!” Robin Cook

If it infers Intelligence, and wholeness, it’s an Intelligent wholeness.

"My only further advice would be to avoid referring to ID in your ideas"

Well, as you must have now realized in this thread, am for uniting Religion, (Christianity) and science. Of course there are many versions of Christianity, which when considering all other cacophony of noises that claim the name of religions, this appears to make a mockery of science when one claims that its possible to unite Religion and Science. That's why I understand you outrage with my claims, and comments that bolder on ridicule .

Well, the religion am talking about, is not your everyday Christianity. Its Christianity stripped out all doctrines, dogmas, traditions, and which has been put under the glare of logic, and succeeded in making sense, i.e logic. So, if this version of Christianity makes logic, my presupposition was that it should indeed, fit science, which is what am still endeavoring to do.

Its of course expected that scientists cannot fathom ANY religion ever coming close to science. I understand your logical rage.

"Infers" intelligence? Who does? Or do you mean "implies" rather than "infers"?

"Infers wholeness"? What is "wholeness" and who is inferring it? Or implying it?

"Bolder on ridicule"? What? Do you mean "border"? Are you Chinese?

"if this version of Christianity makes logic"? Do you mean "if this version of Christianity is logical"? Or something else?

Since you acknowledge that "scientists cannot fathom any religion ever coming close to science", I'm intrigued as to how you propose to unite religion and science. You are going to do it in spite of scientists, then? And without being a scientist yourself?

With the thoughts of Geoff Haselhurst to guide you?

Good luck!

P.S. Just had a later thought: Are YOU Geoff Haselhurst?!

 

[iceaura]

As you have well nigh dismissed chance, the only other mechanism is Darwinian evolution. But Darwinian evolution has two major problems.

(1), the beginning or the cause of life.

How is that a problem for Darwinian evolution? As things stand now Darwinian evolution is the leading and all but unchallenged candidate for explanatory theory in that matter.

(2) Human Intelligence

Likewise. Another illustration of the potential usefulness of such a profound theory.

which, (if we are to believe climate change proponents) is a challenge to nature. How could nature evolve a creature which is more powerful than she is, to an extent of this creature now appear to threaten nature’s very existence?

How on this earth does anyone get from "nature bats last", the common bumper sticker of the climate change alarmists, to believing that fouling our nest is somehow equivalent to being more powerful than natural law?

How can that which is alleged to have brought forth man, and gave him his intelligence, also appear to also be subjective, and subservient to him?

Because you are crosseyed from squinting through fundie goggles?

How could nature endow man, with superior intelligence, yet it denies herself powers to control him?

Darwinian evolution does not presuppose deities of any sort, gods or goddesses or "its" of any kind. Nobody's running the show, in evolutionary theory. Nobody's "endowing" or "denying" or anything of the sort.

 

[Write4U]

I have read this brief summation of Bohm's Implicate Order and to me this sounds like a logical evolutionary process at a fundamental level.

The Explicate Order, weakest of all energy systems, resonates out of and is an expression of an infinitely more powerful order of energy called the Implicate order. The Implicate is the precursor of the Explicate, the dreamlike vision or the ideal presentation of that which is to become manifest as a physical object. The Implicate order implies within it all physical universes. However, it resonates from an energy field which is yet greater, the realm of pure potential. It is pure potential because nothing is implied within it; implications form in the implicate order and then express themselves in the explicate order. Bohm goes on to postulate a final state of infinite [zero point] energy which he calls the realm of insight intelligence. The creative process springs from this realm. Energy is generated there, gathers its pure potential, and implies within its eventual expression as the explicate order.' Will Keepin, David Bohm, Noetic Science Journal

Note Bohm's ultimate causality, "Insight Intelligence". I don't believe Bohm meant that phrase the way it is most often interpreted. To me, this could mean several things.

As reference I'll use the term Artificial Intelligence as used in computer science. While these systems are purposely designed by a programmer, they are not in themselves Intelligent as such. However, the programmer uses knowledge of physics to create this artificial construct.

So, we have an "artificial" (or pseudo-intelligent) construct which must follow the programmers instructions and does not imply that the computer itself is "sentient" . The prgrammer only uses fundamental potentials of natural energetic and physical functions and behaviors to construct the "artificial intelligence".

As to Bohm's term Insight Intelligence, we can use a similar analogy, but without a programmer. As I understand it, Bohm uses the potential of energy as a self-programming vehicle from which Implications form and evetually become Explicate in our reality.

Perhaps something like : BB>energy>potential>implication>expression, each and all following sets of natural laws inherent in the media itself.

I see the term "Insight" not as sentient, but as "sets of inherent fundamental, unalterable functions" which convert pure energy into the world we know. We have identified several (if not all) of these sets and converted them into mathematical equations. E = Mc^2
is but one of them.

IMO, you cannot design or program for E = Mc^2. Simply put, when applied in reverse order and dissembling the atomic structure of matter, all (most) of the "stored" energy (potential) that was used to form this matter is released back as pure energy.
An example might be a Super Nova? Intelligent Design?? IMO, there is nothiung intelligent about such an event, it is pure chaos!

As to the apparent conflict with GR and QM, IMO as layman, I see an important difference in these inherent universal functions.

QM is the creative function through which energy is converted into different kinds of matter. I have a feeling that what we call "uncertainty" has to do with how different energetic wave frequencies and "interferences" are expressed in the formation of different elements.

As I understand it quarks and leptons enabled the formation of different atomic nuclei with different potentials eventually expressed as the fundamental elements from which matter and their specific functions are formed.

GR is way we are able to observe how these functions express themselves in relation to each other.

Thus, both theories are valid and related, but not dependent on each other.

Question: are QM and GR inextricably connected (such as space and time)?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

“If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck!” Robin Cook

If it infers Intelligence, and wholeness, it’s an Intelligent wholeness.

"My only further advice would be to avoid referring to ID in your ideas"

Well, as you must have now realized in this thread, am for uniting Religion, (Christianity) and science. Of course there are many versions of Christianity, which when considering all other cacophony of noises that claim the name of religions, this appears to make a mockery of science when one claims that its possible to unite Religion and Science. That's why I understand you outrage with my claims, and comments that bolder on ridicule .

Well, the religion am talking about, is not your everyday Christianity. Its Christianity stripped out all doctrines, dogmas, traditions, and which has been put under the glare of logic, and succeeded in making sense, i.e logic. So, if this version of Christianity makes logic, my presupposition was that it should indeed, fit science, which is what am still endeavoring to do.

Its of course expected that scientists cannot fathom ANY religion ever coming close to science. I understand your logical rage.

You seem to be deciding between your god & the god Nature & the god Evolution but nature & evolution are not gods. They are not even beings, they are not conscious & do not have intentions.
If you are trying to construct a new religion, why do you quote the HolyBabble so much.
No religion which involves belief without evidence can fit with science. It is not a matter of fathoming or rage.
No 1 is mocking science & you are not ridiculing anything but yourself.

 

[BIGFOOT]

And yet the soundness of your inference of such has been challenged on grounds of it being based on unwarranted assumptions, yet you continue to ignore that challenge. Instead you claim a lofty moral ground by virtue of a tenuous association between your position and those of actual scientists, but for some reason claiming their being scientist as grounds for all their positions, and thus those you share with them, as being scientific.

But you are right... IF it infers intelligence.
You simply have yet to show that condition to be sound.
Yet you don't understand the reason for the "outrage". You think it is merely your purpose that gives rise to it? It is the manner in which you try that causes such response, not the endeavour itself. It is how you try to claim as scientific that which simply is not, and how you appeal to the weakest of association as somehow legitimacy for your position.
No one thinks bad of someone for wanting to persuade people to play rugby rather than soccer, but they will think bad of them, and be "outraged", when that person invades a soccer game and tries to rugby-tackle everyone, while claiming what they are doing is part of soccer.
While science should adhere to what is logical, it does not mean that everything that is logical is therefore scientific.
Science is applicable to the natural world, to what is testable, and falsifiable.
If logic is applied to that which is not falsifiable, to that which is not testable, the logic can still be valid, yet it's soundness will be in question.
And the only way to make such logic (relating to the unfalsifiable) applicable to reality is to introduce unwarranted assumptions, which is what you have done from the outset.
You are simply trying to deflect criticism of the detail as being criticism of the endeavour.
Address the criticism of the detail that you have presented, because that is what we are criticising and not necessarily the endeavour.

But you are right... IF it infers intelligence

I think I boils down to what we can call “Intelligence” As long as we do not have a consensus on this, we may argue for ever. To me, its commonsensical logic, that our scientific modeling of nature, infers intelligent design of nature. For we could not have developed these models that fits nature, if nature were not intelligently designed.

Look at it this way, I was reading of how Karl Lashley did a number of experiments with rats while finding out how the brain of rats worked. He trained a group of rats, how to go through a series of mazes at the end of which, they would find food. He then started cutting potions of their brains, and testing whether they would remember how to go though the mazes.

Now, pardon me for this analogy, replace rats for men. men keep seeking to understand nurture and then they develop models of nature according to how they have understood it. Replace rats mazes, with models. Well, just as the rats did not create the mazes but learnt how to go through the mazes, men did not create these models of nature but figures how they operates. And just as an Intelligent Man created the mazes for the rats, its logical to conclude that an intelligence created these models in nature which men later learned and figures how they operated, and developed replicas. But well, it’s a matter of subjective opinion. Some of us, we only accept an opinion because a large number of “experts” have accepted it. This could very easily expose us to “intellectual lemming effect.”



Yet you don't understand the reason for the "outrage". You think it is merely your purpose that gives rise to it? It is the manner in which you try that causes such response, not the endeavour itself. It is how you try to claim as scientific that which simply is not, and how you appeal to the weakest of association as somehow legitimacy for your position. No one thinks bad of someone for wanting to persuade people to play rugby rather than soccer, but they will think bad of them, and be "outraged", when that person invades a soccer game and tries to rugby-tackle everyone, while claiming what they are doing is part of soccer.

Well, well, well, Its almost like all scientists have this clear, logical, dispassionate approach in their sturdy. Its almost like they do not wander. I read that Isaac Newton dabbed in Alchemy. And very many scientists have been inspired by religion. Since you scientists also invade our rugby and try to play soccer, I regard your “outrage” for me dabbing in science as sorry, let me borrow from you, “unwarranted!”

“While science should adhere to what is logical, it does not mean that everything that is logical is therefore scientific.”

With due respect, I beg to differ.








Science is applicable to the natural world, to what is testable, and falsifiable.
If logic is applied to that which is not falsifiable, to that which is not testable, the logic can still be valid, yet it's soundness will be in question. And the only way to make such logic (relating to the unfalsifiable) applicable to reality is to introduce unwarranted assumptions, which is what you have done from the outse

Logic is a methodology of reasoning, which is necessitated in science, and everyday engagement. You want to create a boundary in science as if science can never merge with another body of knowledge. That’s a classical approach. All knowledge tend towards a merger. But that is my opinion.



You are simply trying to deflect criticism of the detail as being criticism of the endeavour.
Address the criticism of the detail that you have presented, because that is what we are criticising and not necessarily the endeavour.



I think the problem we have here is “seeing the forest for the trees”

 

[BIGFOOT]

"Infers" intelligence? Who does? Or do you mean "implies" rather than "infers"?

"Infers wholeness"? What is "wholeness" and who is inferring it? Or implying it?

"Bolder on ridicule"? What? Do you mean "border"? Are you Chinese?

"if this version of Christianity makes logic"? Do you mean "if this version of Christianity is logical"? Or something else?

Since you acknowledge that "scientists cannot fathom any religion ever coming close to science", I'm intrigued as to how you propose to unite religion and science. You are going to do it in spite of scientists, then? And without being a scientist yourself?

With the thoughts of Geoff Haselhurst to guide you?

Good luck!

P.S. Just had a later thought: Are YOU Geoff Haselhurst?!

"Infers" intelligence? Who does? Or do you mean "implies" rather than "infers"?

infer, implies, suggests, deduces, supposes, conjectures, etc.

Who does?

If the sturdy of nature, suggests to us, (me) that an intelligence is behind it.


"Infers wholeness"? What is "wholeness" and who is inferring it? Or implying it?

Wholeness as in Unity. Reality and the observer are united.

"Bolder on ridicule"? What? Do you mean "border"? Are you Chinese?

Yeah I mean border. Chinese? well lets say that English is, obviously not my first language.

"if this version of Christianity makes logic"? Do you mean "if this version of Christianity is logical"? Or something else?

Yeah I will go with that.


Since you acknowledge that "scientists cannot fathom any religion ever coming close to science", I'm intrigued as to how you propose to unite religion and science. You are going to do it in spite of scientists, then? And without being a scientist yourself?

As I said Scientists also invade religious matter, so, there.


With the thoughts of Geoff Haselhurst to guide you?

Anybody who is brave enough to leave the shores and wander in to the unknown world of possibilities have my admiration. Call is “ Nemo effect”

Good luck!

THANKYOU!!

P.S. Just had a later thought: Are YOU Geoff Haselhurst?!

No.

 

[BIGFOOT]

How is that a problem for Darwinian evolution? As things stand now Darwinian evolution is the leading and all but unchallenged candidate for explanatory theory in that matter.

Likewise. Another illustration of the potential usefulness of such a profound theory.
How on this earth does anyone get from "nature bats last", the common bumper sticker of the climate change alarmists, to believing that fouling our nest is somehow equivalent to being more powerful than natural law? Because you are crosseyed from squinting through fundie goggles? Darwinian evolution does not presuppose deities of any sort, gods or goddesses or "its" of any kind. Nobody's running the show, in evolutionary theory. Nobody's "endowing" or "denying" or anything of the sort.

How is that a problem for Darwinian evolution? As things stand now Darwinian evolution is the leading and all but unchallenged candidate for explanatory theory in that matter.

It has no foundation! It may be unchallenged, but it does not make it the correct on. Geocentric view of the Universe was reigning until Copernicus.



Likewise. Another illustration of the potential usefulness of such a profound theory.

“It will, therefore, probably excite some surprise among my readers, to find that I do not consider that all nature can be explained on the principles of which I am so ardent an advocate; and that I am now myself going to state objections, and to place limits, to the power of “natural selection.” I believe, however, that there are such limits; and that just as surely as we can trace the action of natural laws in the development of organic forms, and can clearly conceive that fuller knowledge would enable us to follow step by step the whole process of that development, so surely can we trace the action of some unknown higher law, beyond and independent of all those laws of which we have any knowledge. We can trace this action more or less distinctly in many phenomena, the two most important of which are—the origin of sensation or consciousness, and the development of man from the lower animals. (See Alfred Russell Wallace, “Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection” On “The Limits of Natural Selection as applied to Man”. Pp. 333—371) (Emphasis mine)

“How on this earth does anyone get from "nature bats last", the common bumper sticker of the climate change alarmists, to believing that fouling our nest is somehow equivalent to being more powerful than natural law?”

Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Man can, and does, destroy nature.



Darwinian evolution does not presuppose deities of any sort, gods or goddesses or "its" of any kind. Nobody's running the show, in evolutionary theory. Nobody's "endowing" or "denying" or anything of the sort.

“Organisms vary, and pass on their variation to their offspring. That they produce more offspring that can survive. And that on average, offspring that vary strongly in direction favored by the environment will survive and propagate. Favorable variations, will therefore accumulate in population, by natural selection” ( See Pg 11, Stephen Jay Gould “ Ever Since Darwin”)

So, nature changes, and these changes in nature, impact on organisms. Organisms changes, and adapt to changes in nature. So, nature has to change first-before organisms change in order to adopt to natural changes in environment. But Man does not change with nature. He changes nature. So, the question is, why is he above nature? Darwin does not answer this question.

“In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation. Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history.” (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1859).

 

[BIGFOOT]

I have read this brief summation of Bohm's Implicate Order and to me this sounds like a logical evolutionary process at a fundamental level.


Note Bohm's ultimate causality, "Insight Intelligence". I don't believe Bohm meant that phrase the way it is most often interpreted. To me, this could mean several things.

As reference I'll use the term Artificial Intelligence as used in computer science. While these systems are purposely designed by a programmer, they are not in themselves Intelligent as such. However, the programmer uses knowledge of physics to create this artificial construct.

So, we have an "artificial" (or pseudo-intelligent) construct which must follow the programmers instructions and does not imply that the computer itself is "sentient" . The prgrammer only uses fundamental potentials of natural energetic and physical functions and behaviors to construct the "artificial intelligence".

As to Bohm's term Insight Intelligence, we can use a similar analogy, but without a programmer. As I understand it, Bohm uses the potential of energy as a self-programming vehicle from which Implications form and evetually become Explicate in our reality.

Perhaps something like : BB>energy>potential>implication>expression, each and all following sets of natural laws inherent in the media itself.

I see the term "Insight" not as sentient, but as "sets of inherent fundamental, unalterable functions" which convert pure energy into the world we know. We have identified several (if not all) of these sets and converted them into mathematical equations. E = Mc^2
is but one of them.

IMO, you cannot design or program for E = Mc^2. Simply put, when applied in reverse order and dissembling the atomic structure of matter, all (most) of the "stored" energy (potential) that was used to form this matter is released back as pure energy.
An example might be a Super Nova? Intelligent Design?? IMO, there is nothiung intelligent about such an event, it is pure chaos!

As to the apparent conflict with GR and QM, IMO as layman, I see an important difference in these inherent universal functions.

QM is the creative function through which energy is converted into different kinds of matter. I have a feeling that what we call "uncertainty" has to do with how different energetic wave frequencies and "interferences" are expressed in the formation of different elements.

As I understand it quarks and leptons enabled the formation of different atomic nuclei with different potentials eventually expressed as the fundamental elements from which matter and their specific functions are formed.

GR is way we are able to observe how these functions express themselves in relation to each other.

Thus, both theories are valid and related, but not dependent on each other.

Question: are QM and GR inextricably connected (such as space and time)?

Question: are QM and GR inextricably connected (such as space and time)?

I see it that way, but scientists here may disagree with me. I see them both describing the same thing which tends towards change in form, not character, That’s why its presence is so pervasive.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Humans are not above or below nature. Humans are part of nature.

 

[Sarkus]

I think I boils down to what we can call “Intelligence” As long as we do not have a consensus on this, we may argue for ever. To me, its commonsensical logic, that our scientific modeling of nature, infers intelligent design of nature. For we could not have developed these models that fits nature, if nature were not intelligently designed.

Question begging of the highest order. There is zero support for what you assume, other than your obvious desire for it to be so.
Furthermore, applying what one considers to be common sense is not the same as thinking critically about something, and you need to do the latter rather than rely on the former.

And if you want to deflect the argument onto one of semantics around "intelligence" then you are also missing the point to a large extent in that, whether there intelligent or not, you are advocating a Designer.
So you tell me how you want "intelligence" means in the context you are using it, and while you're at it, do the same for "design" so that we can avoid going through any further attempts to evade.

Look at it this way, I was reading of how Karl Lashley did a number of experiments with rats while finding out how the brain of rats worked. He trained a group of rats, how to go through a series of mazes at the end of which, they would find food. He then started cutting potions of their brains, and testing whether they would remember how to go though the mazes.

Now, pardon me for this analogy, replace rats for men. men keep seeking to understand nurture and then they develop models of nature according to how they have understood it. Replace rats mazes, with models. Well, just as the rats did not create the mazes but learnt how to go through the mazes, men did not create these models of nature but figures how they operates. And just as an Intelligent Man created the mazes for the rats, its logical to conclude that an intelligence created these models in nature which men later learned and figures how they operated, and developed replicas. But well, it’s a matter of subjective opinion. Some of us, we only accept an opinion because a large number of “experts” have accepted it. This could very easily expose us to “intellectual lemming effect.”

Again the analogy makes the assumption of design.
As a means of explaining your position, fair enough, but it is already understood. The issue is that it is unsupported by anything other than unwarranted assumptions, wishful thinking, appeals to common sense etc.

Well, well, well, Its almost like all scientists have this clear, logical, dispassionate approach in their sturdy. Its almost like they do not wander. I read that Isaac Newton dabbed in Alchemy. And very many scientists have been inspired by religion. Since you scientists also invade our rugby and try to play soccer, I regard your “outrage” for me dabbing in science as sorry, let me borrow from you, “unwarranted!”

Do you mean "dabbling"?
Scientists as people are as vulnerable to passions, emotions and every other gamut of human experience as the next person.
Science is not.
Do not equate the two. Whether scientists, as people, dabble in alchemy, ghost hunting, witch craft, religion, rugby, cricket or soccer has no bearing on the actual process of science, although it may well inform their focus. This is why peer review is also so important, to weed out the bias, the errors, the emotion.
Science does not invade religion other than where religion makes scientific claims, or tries to rely on scientific claims to support the religious position, such as ID does.
That is when the rugby players invite the soccer players on the pitch to play soccer.

With due respect, I beg to differ.

So if all Zargs are Xeegs, and all Xeegs are Yarps, then all Zargs are Yarps.
This is logical.
How is it scientific? How is it testable?
This is merely an example of logic at work on abstract notions. There is nothing scientific about it... no means of following the scientific method.
So beg to differ all you want, but while science uses logic, and has its foundation in logic, not everything that is logical is scientific.
This is, ironically, a logical fallacy on your part: affirming the consequent.

Logic is a methodology of reasoning, which is necessitated in science, and everyday engagement. You want to create a boundary in science as if science can never merge with another body of knowledge. That’s a classical approach. All knowledge tend towards a merger. But that is my opinion.

Logic is a method that of reasoning, yes. Science is a method of applying that logic to observations of the universe. Where there is no observation, such as mere abstracts, then there is no science but there is still logic.
And you are arguing a strawman... no one wants to create a boundary where none exist, but we do have to be mindful of where there is an inherent boundary, and to ignore it will result in meaningless conclusions based on fallacies.

I think the problem we have here is “seeing the forest for the trees”

The only problem in that regard is you seeing a tree and claiming the existence of a forest.

 

[Write4U]

I just saw an exeptional movie on this entire conversation. I urge, if you have access to it, watch it. It's excellent.
The name of the movie is "Frequencies" , the title is self-explanatory.

 

[BIGFOOT]

I just saw an exeptional movie on this entire conversation. I urge, if you have access to it, watch it. It's excellent.
The name of the movie is "Frequencies" , the title is self-explanatory.

Thought you were kidding. Saw the trailer. Will check on it.