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:

*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?
 

Me.

I'm not. What I said earlier was:

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,

I am not buying the idea that it is just stupidity. Afterall when
someone posits a theory they don't know if it is true, so where does it
come from? Partly it fits with what they know, and partly it comes from
who they are, their own psychology. When people looked up at the stars
and saw a hunter, or a bear, or a plough, it wasn't because they were
stupid. It tells us about them, not about the stars.