City-Data Forum The Logical Case Against Intelligent Design (philosophy, demons, Creator, created)
 User Name Remember Me Password [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

02-16-2009, 05:35 PM
 2,633 posts, read 4,457,244 times Reputation: 586

Quote:
 Originally Posted by MysticPhD But only if the reality has the attributes and consistency of the assumptions in the metric you are employing.The manifestations we call our "measures" must meet certain metric requirements to be manipulated successfully to produce usable outcomes in our mathematics . . . and there should be reasonable similarity of metricity in reality.
The metric doesn't matter so long as you are consistent when using it.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by MysticPhD Homoegeneity, triangle inequality,etc.,etc. are not trivial rules . . . they mimic the metric of reality. Absent a universal field establishing the parameters of that metric our models wouldn't work.

02-16-2009, 06:40 PM
 37,650 posts, read 25,348,785 times Reputation: 5865
Quote:
 Originally Posted by coosjoaquin The metric doesn't matter so long as you are consistent when using it.
As I suspected . . . you have no idea what I am talking about, do you. Homogeneity means that a measured distance in a metric space MUST be the same whether you measure it from one end or the other, e.g., the line A--->B MUST be the same distance whether measured from A to B or from B to A. Psychological measurements for example seldom qualify. If asked how similar on a scale from 1 to 10 are a Honda Civic and a Toyota Corolla you would get one number . . . if you subsequently asked how similar on a scale from 1 to 10 are a Toyota Corolla and a Honda Civic you are apt to get a different number. Psychological "space" is not metric. Google or take a research methodology course if you are still confused.

02-17-2009, 01:27 AM
 4,047 posts, read 4,385,695 times Reputation: 1321
Quote:
 Originally Posted by MysticPhD Oh my . . . in my entire career my scientific knowledge was never questioned by my peers or my students . . . yet you presume to do so not even knowing me. Formal logic of the type you refer to has limited applicability in the probabilistic world of modern scientific investigation. That does not mean that illogic replaced it. Google is your friend . . . else a formal course in research methodology might help you.
I do not intend to attack you personally. I merely am pointing out that you base your conclusion on a logical fallacy, which would stop any scientist from making a final conclusion.

Affirming the Consequent Fallacy:
If God exists as I describe, then I will experience fixed brain states.
I experience fixed brain states.
Therefore, God exists as I describe.

You could do further testing, but you now have an ethical stance against continuing that. This prevents any continued attempts at disproving the theory (which rigorous pursuits of knowledge require).

Quote:
 Everyone seems to ignore the significant caveat that I preface my personal certainty with . . . sufficient FOR ME. The experiential proof is NOT transferable or communicable second hand. Your focus on the oracle potential of such contact is anathema to me. I am of an age that taking the next step is sufficiently close that I would be loathe to take any chances by screwing it up. Admittedly . . . for so many years when I thought the very existence of God was pure foolishness . . . I was equally certain that the ridiculous prohibitions and such that had been retained throughout history to this day were entirely the result of stupidity and superstition. That earlier certainty has been removed . . . and while my skepticism remains . . . why tempt fate? Not at all. Communication with God has been explicitly described to be in secret and all such public prayer, etc. is for human glorification and attention . . . it is a "vain" use of my relationship that I simply refuse to even contemplate. I am the only one who needed to be convinced by my efforts and I am the only one who is. I am content.
If you are content at where you are, then I must be as well. Your findings are interesting but inconclusive, given the subjective nature of consciousness, the wide variance among yours and others' experiences, and your refusal to set up controlled experiments in which you rigorously validate your hypotheses by asking questions you do not know and verifying answers, and any other test that can be validated externally.

Your standards are your own, and as you are content to accept that what you have found is not conclusive to anyone but yourself, I respect that. I was hoping for something more substantial to possibly shed some conclusive light on this whole god issue, but as I understand, your goal is not to convince others, correct? At any rate, I don't think I will spend 40 years meditating trying to validate your experience, as it is very different from what many others experience who meditate all their life, and probably very different from what I would achieve.

02-17-2009, 01:49 AM
 37,650 posts, read 25,348,785 times Reputation: 5865
Quote:
 Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend If you are content at where you are, then I must be as well. Your findings are interesting but inconclusive, given the subjective nature of consciousness, the wide variance among yours and others' experiences, and your refusal to set up controlled experiments in which you rigorously validate your hypotheses by asking questions you do not know and verifying answers, and any other test that can be validated externally.
I have enjoyed the discussions with you about it, Logic . . . as I have with so many others here who have been willing to listen and try to understand the basis for my certainty.
Quote:
 Your standards are your own, and as you are content to accept that what you have found is not conclusive to anyone but yourself, I respect that. I was hoping for something more substantial to possibly shed some conclusive light on this whole god issue, but as I understand, your goal is not to convince others, correct?
Correct. It is an individiual and personal journey that must be taken by each of us (or not) as our conscience dictates (I would say as God calls us). I certainly was not expecting the call.
Quote:
 At any rate, I don't think I will spend 40 years meditating trying to validate your experience, as it is very different from what many others experience who meditate all their life, and probably very different from what I would achieve.
I am sure you are correct . . . our perceptual subjectivity is very pronounced and our experiences too varied . . . it is what makes us so unique. There can never be another LogicIsYourFriend or MysticPhD in the universe . . . ever. I find that absolutely awe-inspiring.

02-17-2009, 02:45 AM
 2,633 posts, read 4,457,244 times Reputation: 586
Quote:
 Originally Posted by MysticPhD As I suspected . . . you have no idea what I am talking about, do you. Homogeneity means that a measured distance in a metric space MUST be the same whether you measure it from one end or the other, e.g., the line A--->B MUST be the same distance whether measured from A to B or from B to A. Psychological measurements for example seldom qualify. If asked how similar on a scale from 1 to 10 are a Honda Civic and a Toyota Corolla you would get one number . . . if you subsequently asked how similar on a scale from 1 to 10 are a Toyota Corolla and a Honda Civic you are apt to get a different number. Psychological "space" is not metric. Google or take a research methodology course if you are still confused.
Oh I don't have problems with the meanings and your insults fall on deaf ears. What confuses me is the point you are trying to convey and how it relates to my original statement.

02-17-2009, 10:19 AM
 37,650 posts, read 25,348,785 times Reputation: 5865
Quote:
 Originally Posted by coosjoaquin Oh I don't have problems with the meanings and your insults fall on deaf ears. What confuses me is the point you are trying to convey and how it relates to my original statement.
::sigh:: No insult . . . statement of fact. You seem unaware that our use of mathematics only works BECAUSE the universe has a metric that is established as the properties of a universal field.

02-17-2009, 10:28 AM
 4,512 posts, read 6,592,315 times Reputation: 811
Quote:
 Originally Posted by coosjoaquin Oh I don't have problems with the meanings and your insults fall on deaf ears. What confuses me is the point you are trying to convey and how it relates to my original statement.

oh, this appears to be understandable eventually: ... and off to Marbella, for instance..

02-17-2009, 10:33 AM
 2,633 posts, read 4,457,244 times Reputation: 586
Quote:
 Originally Posted by MysticPhD ::sigh:: No insult . . . statement of fact. You seem unaware that our use of mathematics only works BECAUSE the universe has a metric that is established as the properties of a universal field.
This is what I stated:
Quote:
 The way to deal with assumptions is by making predictions with the mechanisms that come from them. If the predictions are accurate then you can be confident that your model works
Giving me a reason as to why maths is applicable to real life events is fine and all but irrelevant to my statement.

02-17-2009, 01:00 PM
 37,650 posts, read 25,348,785 times Reputation: 5865
Quote:
 Originally Posted by coosjoaquin This is what I stated: Giving me a reason as to why maths is applicable to real life events is fine and all but irrelevant to my statement.
You seem to forget that the discussion was about the philosophical implications of this ability . . . why it REQUIRES that a universal field exists to establish the metrics of the universe that we mimic in our mathematics. The universal field and its mandatory existence was the focus of this discussion . . . not how we use mathematics to predict anything. I am certainly not in need of such instruction . . . having taught it, used it and created the very constructs that accomplish it. Try to keep up, Coos.

02-18-2009, 09:14 PM
 Location: Somewhere out there 9,616 posts, read 11,091,955 times Reputation: 3718
"Frankly, I'd trade it in and go for the newer model myself!"

I'm stopping by to check on my original thread. It was intended to discuss the philosophical points which interrupt the claims that some ID, touted by it's believers as having created perfect and irreduceable complexity into many organ systems, had indeed come up with The Perfect Organism for each known species. No room nor need for any improvements then or now. Hence no evolution.

(BTW, by now, Mystic, I realize you are not the evil anti-evolutionist I grouped you into. My apologies. Of course the option that we were started by a Dawkins-esque alien I find particularly appealing. You also argue that science confuses Nature with God and worships it accordingly as "its own". I'll get to that one later. It's decidedly off topic.)

I then pointed out the problems with this idea, as we humans alone are frought with so many common physical problems which kinesiologists, biologists and medical doctors all note are specifically due to our too-fast acceleration through a previous transitional evolutionary form into our current upright and somewhat arrogant* selves.

(*Arrogant in that nauseating "We shall have dominion over the beasts, by God!" phrase. And yet it's us, not those "damned dirty apes" (Thx Charlton!) who have serious lower back problems. Kinda ironic, wouldn't you say?)

Our poor lower spines, our stone-forming kidneys, our poor eyesight, our aching necks and shoulders when sitting too long. Those darned relict wisdom teeth, needing to be pulled and all... What DID that crazy ID have in mind with those? And on and on.

Hardly the works of any ID worth his salt, but as I suggested, perhaps the promise of getting the Mark II all new, longer-lower-wider body and components when we get into heaven is what keeps the good folks out there tithing regularly at their temples?

Or perhaps we're just one entry in The Bi-Millenium Greater Universe Perfect Organism Design contest, and we were the loser that time.

Well, I hope we can get back to the OP. Or perhaps this ongoing and enchanting, but hugely intense and unrelated, discussion really IS relevant. My lefty mind just dohn' get it.
 Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over \$68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned. Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.