Carlos Castaneda

[Selene]

Lighten up. That was meant as humor.

Greg

My apology then.

[Jonathan]

And this, MSK, is why some of us take issue with Greg. You see him as a "live and let live" kind of guy, and that is the kind of philosophy he seems to follow on the surface. Underpinning that, however, is a disconcerting smugness that thus far has only been an annoyance, at least for me.

It's not just an underlying smugness, but a very childish smugness. Anyone who disagrees with his half-baked opinions is accused of being "jaded" and "yawning and shrugging" in response to infinitely wise and awesome things, and they are accused of preferring icky, stinky, poopy things instead. Ellen, for example, is a yucky, poopy, jaded lady, even though it's quite clear that she's very passionate, intellectually engaged, and anything but jaded.

He says in one breath, yes of course it's a lovely world where we all have our own views. In the next breath he says something about just desserts that implies he really has no tolerance at all for anyone's view but his own. Finally, in this thread, he shows his true character. In his view, there's an eternal lake of fire and brimstone reserved for those who do not agree with him. That is most definitely not a live and let live philosophy.

And he doesn't focus his morality on himself. There's no questioning of his own behavior. If you point out his morally shitty actions, in his childish mind you are being immoral for bringing them up.

J

[Jonathan]

In the next breath he says something about just desserts that implies he really has no tolerance at all for anyone's view but his own.

That's odd... Confusing agreement with tolerance is generally what liberals do.

Finally, in this thread, he shows his true character. In his view, there's an eternal lake of fire and brimstone reserved for those who do not agree with him. That is most definitely not a live and let live philosophy.

I didn't invoke that image, that's your own not mine. Paradise and hell are not nearly that melodramatic.

Paradise is simply happy grateful people going about their business of living productive meaning-filled lives.

Whereas hell is just perpetually emotionally offended victims angrily blaming (unjustly accusing) others.

I have no problem with your choice to disagree with Ayn Rand's dead-on accurate prescience on the fate of America even as it unfolds all around you right here and now.

If you see the coming flood you build an ark because it's simple rational logical common sense.

Don't see a flood coming? Ok with me. Don't build one.

Greg

Greg, we can't do your thinking for you, so please stop asking. It's time for you to take responsibility for your life and for your ideas, and to stop looking to us for help and guidance. We're not here to give liberals like you hand-outs. You're jaded and miserable, but that's your problem, not ours.

J

[moralist]

Lighten up. That was meant as humor.

Greg

My apology then.

No offense taken.

Greg

[moralist]

Me, I've got this thing about Conviction. I understand, I take it as given, where religious folk in all their variations are coming from -and we agree to disagree nearly always. Nothing gets too heated. But what I respect in them is that they are able to hold convictions.

Love it! even if I think (know) they are wrong.

But God preserve me from secular skeptics who won't commit to one firm idea. (Except the firm idea that nothing is firm).;}

Even not choosing is a choice.

I sure don't mind catching a little flak from the good folk here for my choice. And in like manner I'm not the least bit offended by the choices that others here have already made, because it is precisely this difference of views that makes for lively and entertaining discussions.

Greg

[Mikee]

"Putting Randomness in Its Place" - by Gennady Stolyarov II

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/10/100315-4.htm

"The recognition of randomness as epistemological can be of great aid both to those who believe in biological evolution and to advocates of the free market. Neither the laws of evolution, nor the laws of economics, of course, would fit any definition of 'randomness'."

Excellent essay by Mr. Stolvarov, as usual.

[moralist]

I like that.

When we come to see randomness as a product of our limited knowledge, rather than of reality per se, we can begin to appreciate how much there is about reality that can be understood―rather than dismissed as impossible or inherently chaotic―and can broaden our knowledge and mastery of phenomena we might otherwise have seen as beyond our grasp.

To me, perceived randomness is just a lack of information as to the governing laws.

[anthony]

Very good, thanks Mike.

[Ellen Stuttle]

And those "big numbers" are honest truthfully accurate rational descriptions of physical reality.

The length you gave might be accurate, but so what?

Ellen... I believe that no matter how hard I tried, I could never come close to being that jaded.

I believe that no matter how hard I tried, I could never come close to being wowed by a contextless number.

Suppose the base pairs of the DNA in the "average" adult blue whale's body were strung out - would you take that as even more convincing evidence of God at work?

What about the hydrogen atoms in an "average" star strung as if on a thread?

Ellen

My understanding is that the DNA in the smallest organism is incredibly complex coding.

Yes. It's terabytes of well ordered rational coherent information which govern specific forms and functions necessary for physical life.

See?

Two completely different responses to exactly the same information.

Greg

Note that the issue has been changed - with your help, Brant.

"Coding" is a loaded word, and necessary to ID arguments where it's interpreted literally instead of in the metaphorical way it's generally used by biologists.

That point noted, I didn't say boo about DNA not being complex. Greg was claiming that the total length of uncoiled DNA from the "average" human body is somehow a significant indicator of intelligent design. He's now sidestepping the original issue, and, as usual, ignoring questions.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Greg is quoting from the article by Stolyarov which is linked below.

I like that.

When we come to see randomness as a product of our limited knowledge, rather than of reality per se, we can begin to appreciate how much there is about reality that can be understood―rather than dismissed as impossible or inherently chaotic―and can broaden our knowledge and mastery of phenomena we might otherwise have seen as beyond our grasp.

To me, perceived randomness is just a lack of information as to the governing laws.

Which laws of course have been decreed pre-"creation" by God.

Amusing to see Greg applauding a quote from an article which provides further disproof of his claim that everyone subscribes to one of two alternatives - order proceeding from either God or chaos, no other option.

Stolyarov, like me, is among the many who subscribe to neither of Greg's supposedly exhaustive options.

"Putting Randomness in Its Place" - by Gennady Stolyarov II

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/10/100315-4.htm

[bold emphasis added]

Evolution is often accused of being incapable of producing intelligent life and speciation because of its "randomness." For many advocates of "intelligent design," it does not appear feasible that the complexity of life today could have arisen as a result of "chance" occurrences―such as genetic mutations―that nobody planned and for whose outcomes nobody vouched. However, each of these mutations―and the natural selection pressures to which they were subject―can only be described as random to the extent that we cannot precisely describe the circumstances under which they occurred. The more knowledge we have of the circumstances surrounding a particular mutation, the more it becomes perfectly sensible to us, and explicable as a product of causal, natural laws, not "sheer chance." Such natural laws work both at the microscopic, molecular level where the proximate cause of the mutation occurred, and at the macroscopic, species-wide level, where organisms with the mutation interact with other organisms and with the inanimate environment to bring about a certain episode in the history of life.

Ellen

[moralist]

moralist: To me, perceived randomness is just a lack of information as to the governing laws.

Which laws of course have been decreed pre-"creation" by God.

That is one view. The other view is that they don't.

Amusing to see Greg applauding a quote from an article which provides further disproof of his claim that everyone subscribes to one of two alternatives - order proceeding from either God or chaos, no other option.

Lack of information about the way things are does not change what they are. The two choices remain:

1. God

2. chaos

"Evolution is often accused of being incapable of producing intelligent life..."

I don't make that accusation because evolution unfolds according to well ordered laws.

Greg

[Ellen Stuttle]

Repeating your stupid theory about "previously chosen views" a million more times won't make it true.

J

Just as repeating one cell's length of DNA for X billion miles won't add a jot to the (so-called) "information" of one cell's DNA.

Ellen

[Selene]

Greg:

None of the above two (2) choices that you try to restrict this discussion to, is, basically, not exhaustive.

Can't you understand that there are an infinite, possibly, amount of options to this issue?

A...

[Ellen Stuttle]

The two choices remain:

1. God

2. chaos

"Evolution is often accused of being incapable of producing intelligent life..."

I don't make that accusation because evolution unfolds according to well ordered laws.

Greg,

You're bordering on demonstrating outright dishonesty. Some while back, on a different thread, I told Jonathan that I thought you were honest in your illogicality. This thread is changing my opinion.

And the snippeting is beginning to remind me of Phil Coates. (Some here will understand the allusion.)

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

The base issue is reason vs faith. A "view" is not reason absent the reasoning. It is faith. Greg wants to suck the discussion into implicit acceptance of faith without calling it faith. He wants to have his faith and eat it too and it's his gift for you and me too. This is at least a search for sanction. One's faith is okay with me. Live and let live. Hypocrisy is not--and to pass it around like a gift? No, no thank you!

--Brant

we can all go down together

[moralist]

The two choices remain:

1. God

2. chaos

"Evolution is often accused of being incapable of producing intelligent life..."

I don't make that accusation because evolution unfolds according to well ordered laws.

Greg,

You're bordering on demonstrating outright dishonesty.

I'm ok with you believing that I'm dishonest, Ellen.

That's a perfectly natural reaction because you hold a different view. The view you didn't choose will always discounted as being flawed. And if not that, there's always the person holding the view who can be deemed to be flawed which discounts the view not chosen.

This is something we all share. Everyone of us here believes they chose the right view. And everyone of us here believes that the view they did not choose is wrong.

The only final judge of our choice is our own life... and not each other.

Greg

[moralist]

Greg:

None of the above two (2) choices that you try to restrict this discussion to, is, basically, not exhaustive.

Can't you understand that there are an infinite, possibly, amount of options to this issue?

A...

Sure. Mindless chaos by definition includes infinite options... but they're all still mindless chaos.

So feel free to pick whatever you want from that infinite chaos buffet. But if you pause for a closer look, you just might discover that all of the choices are coming off of the same mindless plate...

...while in contrast, on the mind plate is a singularity.

bon appetite!

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Sure. Mindless chaos by definition includes infinite options... but they're all still mindless chaos.

So feel free to pick whatever you want from that infinite chaos buffet. But if you pause for a closer look, you just might discover that all of the choices are coming off of the same mindless plate...

...while in contrast, on the mind plate is a singularity.

A Big Bang?

--Brant

[Jonathan]

I'm ok with you believing that I'm dishonest, Ellen.

It's not an issue of people "believing" that you're dishonest. It's an issue of their knowing it. Your honesty or dishonesty is an objective fact of reality, just as your being a creepy stalker is.

That's a perfectly natural reaction because you hold a different view. The view you didn't choose will always discounted as being flawed.

I often hold views while not discounting other views as being flawed. It depends on the context.

Stalker, do you ever critically think about any of the silly shit that you preach before preaching it? It's as if you observe some phenomenon in reality for three seconds, and then your first thought is to believe that the phenomenon is a black-or-white, universal truth in all cases. It never seems to occur to you to test your stupid theories and to see if there are any instances in which they are not true, or if there might be three or more options rather than the two that popped into your head after half a second's thought.

J

[tmj]

Sure. Mindless chaos by definition includes infinite options... but they're all still mindless chaos.

So feel free to pick whatever you want from that infinite chaos buffet. But if you pause for a closer look, you just might discover that all of the choices are coming off of the same mindless plate...

...while in contrast, on the mind plate is a singularity.

A Big Bang?

--Brant

But who told all the hydrogen atoms to go to where the stars were to be formed ?

[Ellen Stuttle]

Greg wants to suck the discussion into implicit acceptance of faith without calling it faith.

And while doing so, he wants to get away with misrepresenting what others' views are.

According to his own notions of how reality works, he has some "just and deserved consequences" to look forward to in his life.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

It never seems to occur to you to test your stupid theories and to see if there are any instances in which they are not true, or if there might be three or more options rather than the two that popped into your head after half a second's thought.

I think he's genuinely lacking in knowledge of how to test a theory. But even allowing for woeful deficiency in epistemological standards, his continued insistence, despite being presented with plain evidence to the contrary, that there are only two possible alternate views about the workings of the universe goes beyond plausible bounds of being simply mistaken.

I often hold views while not discounting other views as being flawed. It depends on the context.

It's also possible to consider an alternate view flawed without believing that it's held dishonestly. Happens all the time in scientific circles.

Ellen

[PDS]

It never seems to occur to you to test your stupid theories and to see if there are any instances in which they are not true, or if there might be three or more options rather than the two that popped into your head after half a second's thought.

I think he's genuinely lacking in knowledge of how to test a theory. But even allowing for woeful deficiency in epistemological standards, his continued insistence, despite being presented with plain evidence to the contrary, that there are only two possible alternate views about the workings of the universe goes beyond plausible bounds of being simply mistaken.

I often hold views while not discounting other views as being flawed. It depends on the context.

It's also possible to consider an alternate view flawed without believing that it's held dishonestly. Happens all the time in scientific circles.

Ellen

Ellen: I was thinking the same thing about the assumption Greg seems to hold about dishonesty.

What an odd way to view the world: i.e., that people are routinely dishonest if/when they happen to hold a different view and to be "ok" with people considering one to be dishonest.

[Brant Gaede]

Sure. Mindless chaos by definition includes infinite options... but they're all still mindless chaos.

So feel free to pick whatever you want from that infinite chaos buffet. But if you pause for a closer look, you just might discover that all of the choices are coming off of the same mindless plate...

...while in contrast, on the mind plate is a singularity.

A Big Bang?

--Brant

But who told all the hydrogen atoms to go to where the stars were to be formed ?

The Big Bang makes sense to the Pope.

--Brant

I need say no more!

[tmj]

carpe diety