Matt P:
How is speculation deceptive?
Excellent question! It's not Matt...
As long as we remember that
that is, what it is... speculation, theory; or, as a well known member here has said, 'imagination' (and equating that to intelligence). Charlie Manson has more imagination than all of us.
All of the side benefits of the research is very good. You're doing good work. Just remember that discoveries made durring the search for [Atlantis, for example], do not eqaute to finding Atlantis. Many act as though these findings prove the motive legitimate. It does not folow...
By the way, I brought up the bit about 'theo', because it is the same root for the words 'theory' (ie. theoretical) and 'theology'. All are undeniably in the catagory of faith (assuming they are believed as many do).
As I said to Percy in another thread:
What you guys are saying (about evolution) is that because we can see all of this emperically verified evidence of adaptation over here, we are then able to see (though not emperically) what actually is over there (by applying the same principles. And even though it is not proven, we can proceed with robust confidence.
Since there is no material cause for information or code, we can infer that intelligence created it, because we
do know (emperically), that code (systematized and complex information)can be generated by intelligent agents (us).
That is the essence of faith Matt. And there is (as you asked) nothing wrong with that. But it is a theological position. If you will permit me, the Apostle Paul spoke of the same principle in Romans chapter 1:
For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Kind of reminds me of the zealous TOE fundamentalists who say that we numbskull theists have no excuse not to see that evolution is true. They call it stupidity, we call it the supression of aziomatic truth and logic.
In addition, Paul Davies, the theoretical physicist at the Australian Centre for Astrobiology (an agnostic), honestly reminds everyone where the roots of our
faith in logic itself being valid come from:
“The worldview of a scientist, even the most atheistic scientist, is that essentially of Monotheism. It is a belief, which is accepted as an article of faith, that the universe is ordered in an intelligible way.
Now, you couldn’t be a scientist if you didn’t believe these two things. If you didn’t think there was an underlying order in nature, you wouldn’t bother to do it, because there is nothing to be found. And if you didn’t believe it was intelligible, you’d give up because there is no point if human beings can’t come to understand it.
But scientists do, as a matter of faith, accept that the universe is ordered and at least partially intelligible to human beings. And that is what underpins the entire scientific enterprise. And that is a theological position. It is absolutely ”theo’ when you look at history. It comes from a theological worldview.
That doesn’t mean you have to buy into the religion, or buy into the theology, but it is very, very significant in historical terms; that that is where it comes from and that scientists today, unshakably retain that worldview, as an act of faith. You cannot prove it logically has to be the case, that the universe is rational and intelligible. It could easily have been otherwise. It could have been arbitrary, it could have been absurd, it could have been utterly beyond human comprehension. It’s not! And scientists just take this for granted for the most part, and I think it’s a really important point that needs to be made.”
As I suspected, you are a reasonable man. Hang on to that Matt. You'll need it every day. Think for all your worth and question everything. Not that I am in a position to coach or teach. the advice is axiomatic!
Now the admins have given me enormous latitude thus far... it was hard fought for I assure you, but we had better get back to the topic now. If you would like to continue our discussion on this tangent (though within the umbrella topic) let me know and we can proceed elsewhere.
As for digital code. The words I am using here... do the letters contain the information or does your brain receive the concepts shared by recognizing a pattern and translating that pattern into the appropriate concepts?
The answer is obvious. The information itself is non-material. You gained no mass. The physical properties of the letters have nothing to do with the information. The same letters could be combined to say nothing but nonesense. If the owner of this site and a well known member are correct, these words are nothing but letters.
So... playing the devil's advocate I will proceed...
As Ringo eluded to in an earlier question to Hoot Mon, there is nothing above and beyond the letters themselves. Any perception you have is only imposed upon the pattern by you. There is no objective meaning or purpose to the letters. They just exist.
Now, back to 'theo's advocate...
The amazing miracle that is achieved by this, is that we are just chemicals, code is nothing but the components doing what componets do, and by implication everything is meaningless...
Yet, they assume that they have said something meaningful.
That is why i said to Hoot Mon, what cannot be said better than the way C.S. lewis put it:
"... The cool intellect must work not only against cool intellect on the other side, but against the muddy heathen mysticisms which deny intellect altogether."
(Lewis / Learning in War-Time 1949, pg51)
Muddy waters do not produce life (organized ie organisms), or it's conceptual counterpart of understanding (logic).
Clarity is what we seek. Well, some of us do... The rest will bury you, and insult you for having the audacity to question their intelligence and motive (or as they put it; perception).
It's the theists who are blind don't you know? Every last one of them is a curse to humanity and sophisticated [un]scientific postulating.
Have you ever read G.K. Chesterton's 'suicide of thought'? Look it up...
™ Version 4.2
