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:

*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.
 

Humans are pattern seekers and storytellers. But they mislead
themselves with their concoctions and create vengeful gods and
such. We are still dealing with the aftermath of such toxic
concoctions.

 
Well it's great to have someone or something to blame. But religion was
illegal in the USSR and it didn't seem like any kind of utopia.
 
What about North Korea? does that pass for religion?