Hi,
I have just managed to finish making a 9 part animated series, which discusses
religious issues as well as discussing more philosophical and science related issues.
And the reason I think it is relevant to this group, is that an option that might not be so often explored is that while God exists, there may be issues with more traditional understandings. And the philosophical support for a belief
in God, can help shape whether evolution ought to be thought of as by design rather than random.
Here's the link for the video series: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGlmuzlMofn040paBFUSSNtPsOnusw4Bj
I'd start at the beginning, but some might rather just skip to number 4. Obviously the series is quite long, but I'd be surprised if people didn't learn
anything in each of the videos 2-6.
[by the way the "Moderation and Posting to Talk.Origins" link seems to be broken
on the talk.origins.org welcome page.]
--
----------------------------------------- --- -- -
Posted with NewsLeecher v7.0 Final
Free Newsreader @ http://www.newsleecher.com/
------------------------------- ----- ---- -- -
The reason is that any computation can be done with an arrangement of NAND gates (they are functionally complete) is because a claim that it could would be
tantamount to suggesting that NAND gates could only be arranged in a certain way
if the reality was one in which things experienced.
On 3/21/24 1:39 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
someone37 <admin@answernot42.com> wrote:Next we'll gt the brains in vats. Wait for it...
[snip]
Aha, NAND gates. Seems the past 36 incarnations of “someone” were
The reason is that any computation can be done with an arrangement of NAND >>> gates (they are functionally complete) is because a claim that it could would be
tantamount to suggesting that NAND gates could only be arranged in a certain way
if the reality was one in which things experienced.
insufficient to the task so the resurrection ship spawned another. Here we >> go again…
someone37 <admin@answernot42.com> wrote:
[snip]
Aha, NAND gates. Seems the past 36 incarnations of someone were >insufficient to the task so the resurrection ship spawned another. Here we
The reason is that any computation can be done with an arrangement of NAND >> gates (they are functionally complete) is because a claim that it could would be
tantamount to suggesting that NAND gates could only be arranged in a certain way
if the reality was one in which things experienced.
go again
In reply to "someone37" who wrote the following:
Hi,
I have just managed to finish making a 9 part animated series, which discusses
religious issues as well as discussing more philosophical and science related
issues.
And the reason I think it is relevant to this group, is that an option that might not be so often explored is that while God exists, there may be issues
with more traditional understandings. And the philosophical support for a belief
in God, can help shape whether evolution ought to be thought of as by design
rather than random.
Here's the link for the video series: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGlmuzlMofn040paBFUSSNtPsOnusw4Bj
I'd start at the beginning, but some might rather just skip to number 4. Obviously the series is quite long, but I'd be surprised if people didn't learn
anything in each of the videos 2-6.
[by the way the "Moderation and Posting to Talk.Origins" link seems to be broken
on the talk.origins.org welcome page.]
--
----------------------------------------- --- -- -
Posted with NewsLeecher v7.0 Final
Free Newsreader @ http://www.newsleecher.com/ ------------------------------- ----- ---- -- -
I'll give an example of an argument which is featured in video 4. Belief, and how it can relate to this talk.origins group. It isn't one of the main arguments, more just a side issue.
It is that while you (presumably) can tell from your experience that at least part of reality experiences (you), and can therefore deduce that your experience
influences you, there isn't a way to compute whether reality is experienced or
not. The reason is that any computation can be done with an arrangement of NAND
gates (they are functionally complete) is because a claim that it could would be
tantamount to suggesting that NAND gates could only be arranged in a certain way
if the reality was one in which things experienced. But that would seem to be a
problem for an account which suggested that the chemicals arranged themselves into some replicating cell which could evolve though mutation, and that we are
some resulting biological machine whose brain can compute that part of reality
experiences.
--
----------------------------------------- --- -- -
Posted with NewsLeecher v7.0 Final
Free Newsreader @ http://www.newsleecher.com/
------------------------------- ----- ---- -- -
On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 08:39:33 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid>:
someone37 <admin@answernot42.com> wrote:
[snip]
The reason is that any computation can be done with an arrangement of NAND
gates (they are functionally complete) is because a claim that it could would be
tantamount to suggesting that NAND gates could only be arranged in a certain way
if the reality was one in which things experienced.
Aha, NAND gates. Seems the past 36 incarnations of someone were insufficient to the task so the resurrection ship spawned another. Here we go again
I knew he (she? it?) sounded familiar. And if anything even
more incoherent than previously.
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
In reply to "Bob Casanova" who wrote the following:
On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 08:39:33 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid>:
someone37 <admin@answernot42.com> wrote:
[snip]
The reason is that any computation can be done with an arrangement of NAND
gates (they are functionally complete) is because a claim that it could would be
tantamount to suggesting that NAND gates could only be arranged in a certain way
if the reality was one in which things experienced.
Aha, NAND gates. Seems the past 36 incarnations of someone were insufficient to the task so the resurrection ship spawned another. Here we
go again
I knew he (she? it?) sounded familiar. And if anything even
more incoherent than previously.
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
Bob C., mentions a minor argument, which explained why whether any of reality is
experienced or not is not computable. Which could be thought to be an issue for
a physicalist belief in which we are evolved biological machines whose brains are running some type of neural network computation (because we can tell that at
least part of reality is experiencing, which isn't computable). Noticeably Bob
C., didn't offer any flaw in the argument, but I am grateful for him having looked at the video, and brought up an argument from it. Though the main issues
raised in that particular video from the series were the Influence Issue, and the Fine Tuning of the Experience Issue, which he didn't mention.
For those that would be interested in just diving into a specific part of the series to understand what is being referred to, you could just follow this link
(which skips the first 7 minutes of 4.Belief): https://vimeo.com/ 921153137#t=7m
There are some comebacks to "4. Belief" covered in the next one in the series,
"5. Issues with belief?".
Series link:https://vimeo.com/showcase/the-lottery-issue
In reply to "Bob Casanova" who wrote the following:
For those that would be interested in just diving into a specific part of the series to understand what is being referred to, you could just follow this link
(which skips the first 7 minutes of 4.Belief): https://vimeo.com/921153137#t=7m
In reply to "Bob Casanova" who wrote the following:
On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 08:39:33 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid>:
someone37 <admin@answernot42.com> wrote:I knew he (she? it?) sounded familiar. And if anything even
[snip]
Aha, NAND gates. Seems the past 36 incarnations of someone were
The reason is that any computation can be done with an arrangement of NAND
gates (they are functionally complete) is because a claim that it could >> > > would be
tantamount to suggesting that NAND gates could only be arranged in a
certain way
if the reality was one in which things experienced.
insufficient to the task so the resurrection ship spawned another. Here we >> > go again
more incoherent than previously.
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
Bob C., mentions a minor argument
, which explained why whether any of reality is
experienced or not is not computable. Which could be thought to be an issue for
a physicalist belief in which we are evolved biological machines whose brains >are running some type of neural network computation (because we can tell that at
least part of reality is experiencing, which isn't computable). Noticeably Bob >C., didn't offer any flaw in the argument
, but I am grateful for him having
looked at the video, and brought up an argument from it. Though the main issues
raised in that particular video from the series were the Influence Issue, and >the Fine Tuning of the Experience Issue, which he didn't mention.
For those that would be interested in just diving into a specific part of the >series to understand what is being referred to, you could just follow this link
(which skips the first 7 minutes of 4.Belief): https://vimeo.com/921153137#t=7m
There are some comebacks to "4. Belief" covered in the next one in the series, >"5. Issues with belief?".
Series link:https://vimeo.com/showcase/the-lottery-issue
Wish you all well, and as a wise man might say:--
"Follow the loving selfless path".
https://vimeo.com/showcase/the-lottery-issue
In reply to "someone37" who wrote the following:
Hi,
I have just managed to finish making a 9 part animated series, which discusses
religious issues as well as discussing more philosophical and science related
issues.
And the reason I think it is relevant to this group, is that an option that might not be so often explored is that while God exists, there may be issues
with more traditional understandings. And the philosophical support for a belief
in God, can help shape whether evolution ought to be thought of as by design
rather than random.
Here's the link for the video series: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGlmuzlMofn040paBFUSSNtPsOnusw4Bj
I'd start at the beginning, but some might rather just skip to number 4. Obviously the series is quite long, but I'd be surprised if people didn't learn
anything in each of the videos 2-6.
[by the way the "Moderation and Posting to Talk.Origins" link seems to be broken
on the talk.origins.org welcome page.]
--
----------------------------------------- --- -- -
Posted with NewsLeecher v7.0 Final
Free Newsreader @ http://www.newsleecher.com/ ------------------------------- ----- ---- -- -
I'll give an example of an argument which is featured in video 4. Belief, and how it can relate to this talk.origins group. It isn't one of the main arguments, more just a side issue.
It is that while you (presumably) can tell from your experience that at least part of reality experiences (you), and can therefore deduce that your experience
influences you, there isn't a way to compute whether reality is experienced or
not. The reason is that any computation can be done with an arrangement of NAND
gates (they are functionally complete) is because a claim that it could would be
tantamount to suggesting that NAND gates could only be arranged in a certain way
if the reality was one in which things experienced. But that would seem to be a
problem for an account which suggested that the chemicals arranged themselves into some replicating cell which could evolve though mutation, and that we are
some resulting biological machine whose brain can compute that part of reality
experiences.
--
----------------------------------------- --- -- -
Posted with NewsLeecher v7.0 Final
Free Newsreader @ http://www.newsleecher.com/
------------------------------- ----- ---- -- -
On 3/21/24 1:39 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
someone37 <admin@answernot42.com> wrote:Next we'll gt the brains in vats. Wait for it...
[snip]
Aha, NAND gates. Seems the past 36 incarnations of “someone” were
The reason is that any computation can be done with an arrangement of NAND >>> gates (they are functionally complete) is because a claim that it could would be
tantamount to suggesting that NAND gates could only be arranged in a certain way
if the reality was one in which things experienced.
insufficient to the task so the resurrection ship spawned another. Here we >> go again…
erik simpson wrote:
On 3/21/24 1:39 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
someone37 <admin@answernot42.com> wrote:Next we'll gt the brains in vats. Wait for it...
[snip]
Aha, NAND gates. Seems the past 36 incarnations of “someone” were
The reason is that any computation can be done with an arrangement of NAND >>>> gates (they are functionally complete) is because a claim that it could would be
tantamount to suggesting that NAND gates could only be arranged in a certain way
if the reality was one in which things experienced.
insufficient to the task so the resurrection ship spawned another. Here we >>> go again…
Can't offer a film, can offer SMBC https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/consciousness-4
In reply to "someone37" who wrote the following:
In reply to "someone37" who wrote the following:
Hi,
I have just managed to finish making a 9 part animated series, which
discusses
religious issues as well as discussing more philosophical and science
related
issues.
And the reason I think it is relevant to this group, is that an option that >>> might not be so often explored is that while God exists, there may be issues
with more traditional understandings. And the philosophical support for a >>> belief
in God, can help shape whether evolution ought to be thought of as by design
rather than random.
Here's the link for the video series:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGlmuzlMofn040paBFUSSNtPsOnusw4Bj >>>
I'd start at the beginning, but some might rather just skip to number 4. >>> Obviously the series is quite long, but I'd be surprised if people didn't >>> learn
anything in each of the videos 2-6.
[by the way the "Moderation and Posting to Talk.Origins" link seems to be >>> broken
on the talk.origins.org welcome page.]
--
----------------------------------------- --- -- -
Posted with NewsLeecher v7.0 Final
Free Newsreader @ http://www.newsleecher.com/
------------------------------- ----- ---- -- -
I'll give an example of an argument which is featured in video 4. Belief, and
how it can relate to this talk.origins group. It isn't one of the main
arguments, more just a side issue.
It is that while you (presumably) can tell from your experience that at least
part of reality experiences (you), and can therefore deduce that your
experience
influences you, there isn't a way to compute whether reality is experienced or
not. The reason is that any computation can be done with an arrangement of >> NAND
gates (they are functionally complete) is because a claim that it could would
be
tantamount to suggesting that NAND gates could only be arranged in a certain >> way
if the reality was one in which things experienced. But that would seem to be
a
problem for an account which suggested that the chemicals arranged themselves
into some replicating cell which could evolve though mutation, and that we are
some resulting biological machine whose brain can compute that part of reality
experiences.
--
----------------------------------------- --- -- -
Posted with NewsLeecher v7.0 Final
Free Newsreader @ http://www.newsleecher.com/
------------------------------- ----- ---- -- -
That argument can be found in "4. Belief", as well as other issues for atheists
that hold the physicalist outlook. For those that would be interested in watching those isues, you could just follow this link (which skips the first 7
minutes of "4. Belief"): https://vimeo.com/921153137#t=7m
And some potential comebacks to that video are handled in "5. Issues with belief?" for those of you interested (including Descartes argument for a physical, Problem of Evil, Free Will issues (including Relativity, and experiments such as Libet type experiments etc.)).
Wish you all well, and as a wise man might say:
"Follow the loving selfless path".
https://vimeo.com/showcase/the-lottery-issue
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 11:34:46 |
| Calls: | 10,389 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,868 |
| Posted today: | 1 |