Re: Belief - I'd like to share this item with you.

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
 

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:
 

On 11/03/2024 15:53, Richmond wrote:

Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:
 

On 11/03/2024 14:02, Richmond wrote:

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> writes:
 

*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
 

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:
 

On 28/02/2024 22:29, Richmond wrote:

jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
 

On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:46:40 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
 

erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
 

On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:

On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson"
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
 

On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:

On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson"
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
 

For the record, I think Behe is pretty close to being
a crank.

 
What evidence do you have for reaching such a
conclusion, Erik?
 
TIA
 

Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need

to know.  I've not heard of the organisation
before. I've read here:-
https://www.discovery.org/about/ What do you feel is
contentious?
 

The focus on Intellligent Design (ID).  This has been
kicked around on this group for many years, and has its
proponents.  Obviously, I'm not one of them.  I don't
propose to re-argue this subject.  Check through prior
discussions here if you want to get the flavor of it.
I'm not interested in getting involved in such a
discussion.

 
In a group whose description is "Evolution versus
creationism (sometimes hot!)." I would have thought the
subject will come up over and over.

 
 
It has.  My impression is that's one reason so many aren't
interested.  in it.
 

What are the other kinds of creationism apart from I.D.?
 

 
One could argue that ID is all kinds of creationism. The
distinguishing points of ID are
 
1) a professed agnosticism about the identity of the creator
("designer"), at least when wearing one's ID hat.
 
2) a claim, shared with scientific creationism, that there is
evidence that life was created rather than evolved.
 
Members of the ID movement can hold to just about any version
of creationism (include geocentrism and platygaianism). ID is
a political movement, and theistic evolutionists tend not to
share the movement's goals, so they are rare among ID
advocates.
 
* abiotic creationists (God created the universe) * single
creation creationists (God created the urorganism) *
multiple-creation creationists (God created multiple kinds of
life) ** young earth creationists *** young earth
anevolutionists *** young earth hyperevolutionists ** young
life creationists ** old earth creationists * progressive
creationists ** episodic progressive creationists (God
creates successive biotas) ** discontinuous progressive
creationists (God creates species) ** continuous progressive
creationism (God creates mutations/selection) **
occasionalist creationism (Islamo-Calvinist determinism)
 
There are non-Abrahamic forms of creationism. One might also
consider Raelianism as a non-religious form of creationism.
 
It's most useful to define creationism so it lines up with
the fault lines in society, rather than focussing on the
particularities of belief (defining creationism as equivalent
to theism isn't helpful.)
 
Hence, my preferred definition of creationism is "religiously
motivated rejection of substantial proportions of the
scientific consensus, especially as relating to biology,
geology and cosmology, or the promotion thereof". The line
I'd draw between theistic evolutionism and progressive
creationism is that the former has God guiding the course of
evolution but accepts that natural processes can produce the
same or equivalent result, while the latter asserts that
natural processes cannot produce the modern day biota.
 
In another context creationism is the position that human
souls are created de novo, as opposed to traducianism and
other positions.

 
Thanks, that is fascinating, I had to look up a few words.
 
What interests me is: what is it in the human psyche which
made people come up with these theories, and gives them the
energy to keep persuing them even in the face of
adversity. Also the idea of another world, which is more real
than this one, which crops up still in popular culture, like
"The Matrix", a Gnostic idea that the world is created by
something evil, and our purpose is to break free of the
illusion and take our rightful place. I think Jung would say
that other place is the unconscious, and that it created
consciousness in its own image.
 

Jung was quite open about being influenced by Schopenhauer. The
whole Matrix concept was a bit of Plato’s cave mixed with
Bishop Berkeley. The filmmakers tried to shoehorn a deliberate
reference to Jean Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation but he
thought the movie was bullshit.

 
It doesn't alter the fact that the idea is gnostic. And The
Matrix is science fiction, so what does 'bullshit' mean in that
context?  >> "Matrix Mechanics: Developed in 1925 by Werner
Heisenberg, Max Born, >> and >> Pascual Jordan, it was the first
successful theory for quantum >> mechanics. It described the
properties of atomic and subatomic particles >> not as precise
values, but as probabilities represented by matrices.  >> The
Math Behind It: These matrices are essentially grids of >>
numbers. Each element represents the probability of a particle
being in >> a specific quantum state, like a certain energy
level. Unlike classical >> mechanics, where you could pinpoint a
particle's position and momentum >> exactly, Heisenberg's
matrices dealt with the probabilities of these >> properties.

Not Trajectories, But Transitions: Matrix mechanics focused

on how >> these >> probabilities changed over time, rather than
providing a clear picture >> of the particle's trajectory. It
described the transitions between >> states, not the exact path
the particle took.  >> "

 

 
Wiktionary gives 19 senses for the noun matrix. The relevant sense
for Matrix Mechanics is number 9, described as mathematical, which
is related to senses 8, 10 and 12, in relating to elements
arranged in a grid. Sense 11 relates to the film, being taken from
the film. The remaining senses can be placed in two groups -
either a mould (which, giving the etymology, I take to be the
older sense) or a substrate, underpinning, background or
supporting structure, which I take to be region of conceptual
space underlying the choice of title for the film.  >> A matrix
can be three dimentional, so there is no reason why the >> matrix

in The Matrix cannot be 9 or 10. (I don't know why 10 says two
dimentional array, if it is computing that restriction isn't

there. But >> then arguably even a two dimentional matrix is a a
one dimentional array >> divided up, and anyway the concept of
dimensions doesn't literally >> apply.).  >> What was it in the
film you decided defined it as sense 11?

 

 
I didn't. I interpreted wiktionary as saying the sense 11 was a new
sense inspired by the film - so clearly not the meaning that
inspired the choice of the title for the film.

 
Maybe, but it cites 1984, William Gibson, Neuromancer, for sense 11,
so such a sense must have existed before 1999.
 

I was thinking more about the Vedic Mayan veil which via Schopenhauer
is a better metaphor for illusion that predates Gnosticism. Life of Pi
renders such things in a manner far superior to The Matrix though the
initial point of the sinking ship is inspired by the divine
contraction of Isaac Luria’s Jewish mysticism.
 
Did Pi eat his mom along with the cook?
 
Life of Pi compared to The Matrix is the better story.

 
Well yes I picked it as an example of popular culture. The TV series
'Westworld' has plenty of references to gnosticism in it.
 
My point was that these ideas are coming back in a different form, but
they are the same ideas and they have persistent appeal.
 

So what. People are resounding interested in the Book of Enoch which fills
in a pre-flood lacuna about the nephilim. You know why? Because stupid
conspiracy theories dwell on a race of giants.

What is gnosticism aside from historical curiosities that didn’t make the
canon. Just because they, like Enoch, cut against the grain does not make
them any more relevant to how the world actually works.