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

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

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.

 
But who is talking about how the world works?