The evolution of biological species and chance ...

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

There is no harm (or condemnation)!

[Obamot]

Specifiedment >>>

[Janic]

27/09/24, 17:36
Janic wrote:

I return your question to you! Unfortunately you confuse thought with the biological support which allows it to be expressed? As you use a tablet to express your thought

sen no sen

Thought is information stored in our brain, the two are inseparable.

How is information stored on a hard disk? But this hard disk was created by someone; storage decided by someone. But use of the memory and software of the machine, external to it, by someone always. Neither the computer nor its mechanisms are self-created and do not create the information that will be formulated by you.

In no way is it possible to express this information without a structure. This is the principle of hardware (material elements of a computer system) and software (software, program). Software cannot be used without a device capable of implementing it.

You confirm what I have been saying for a long time! All these systems were created to be used later, they do not create themselves.

Neuroscience has made great strides in understanding cognition, and whatever you may think - or rather - believe, thinking is a process. Our ideas do not appear "ex nihilo".

Obviously they do not appear ex nihilo,[*] any more than these computers appeared ex nihilo. However, thought is carried by biological mechanisms and not the mechanisms themselves. For everything, including life, there must be a beginning.
[*] except the big bang?

To think, you need a language, that is to say a code. Languages ​​do not appear spontaneously either, but through successive evolutions.

It is not the languages ​​that matter! Thought, whatever the cultures, is the same. The rest, again, is just unimportant support. Hence the creation of codes,... by thought!
It's like moving, it doesn't matter whether it's on foot, on horseback, by car, by train or by plane, the intention is the same, which is to get from point A to point B and it's not these means, which are ONLY supports, that decide.

According to the same principle, the creative process also requires prerequisites. To take up the image of the clock and the watchmaker, there has never been an overnight creation of a clock by an inventor.

Bad example, since you take a process in progress when it is a question of knowing the starting point of this process, before which there is nothing. (like big bang! )
Just as humans are not creators in the absolute, but creators in a relative way as a visible support of the invisible and therefore of the ambient materialism of which you are the bearer!

create - Definitions, synonyms, conjugation, examples
Robert online dictionary
https://dictionnaire.lerobert.com › definition › create
To do, to achieve (sth. which did not yet exist). ➙ design, develop, invent, produce. Create a science.

The history of ancient watchmaking itself begins in the Middle Ages and has evolved through successive innovations (in biology we would say mutation) up to the present day.

These innovations are due to creations since they did not exist before them.

The postulate of the creator without origin on which creationism is based constitutes a bias of anthropomorphic, individualistic and naive to say the least.

And back to square one! The postulate of a creator, said to have no origin, is also an anthropologism, since it comes from the imagination of the one who supposes one thing or another. Moreover, you take up this same discourse on one without origin, but without god: where is the difference? Clearly, "religious" or non-religious beliefs do not matter since no one knows anything about it (on the level of material evidence only) since in the realm of the invisible. Where is the naive in this case?

The idea is based on the idea of ​​the beginning, because subjectively a human being is endowed with a memory and a consciousness which gives him the impression of "beginning" in existence.

A memory is a culture that goes beyond personal experience limited in time, since we are limited in time and therefore mortal in the short term.

It is therefore not surprising that certain currents simply extrapolate the human condition to a demiurge.

Why do you see the process in only one direction, in only one sense? As for evolutionism, moreover, which seeks to impose only one direction too, a dogma in reality like its religious predecessors since it worked for them and therefore why not for this new anti-"scientific" religion, on principle! The famous: " Out of the church point of salvation " became : "There is no salvation outside of science » Beautiful semantic hypocrisy!

Or extrapolates the idea of ​​a demiurge applied to our human condition.
But where does the individual “begin”?

Good question !

At birth? In the embryo? In the oocyte? The parents' cells? It is a process

Or before all that. Your examples are finished products, but here we are dealing with a beginning (appearance of the slightest bit of life, alpha moment) which will lead to these final products. And there, nib de nib, nothing, zilch, YOUR scientists note that the more they dig into this subject, the more the solution eludes them in its ever-increasing complexity.

In reality there is no real beginning, but a sequencing. And we define in a more or less arbitrary way these different sequences of existence. In reality each living being is registered in the totality, because it takes the whole universe to make an individual.

This is philosophy, not materialistic science.

And where does God begin after all this?

Why AFTER rather than before?

With the postulate of an uncreated demiurge we find ourselves facing a mortal dilemma for creationism:

What a dilemma and a deadly one at that! Non-religious creationism comes from a simple observation that before a creation, of whatever kind, it did not exist before and therefore a creator is needed to create.
This term create is so important and full of meaning that even the most anti-religious atheists use it precisely to define the difference between the non-existent becoming existent.

A "thing" without beginning or end would not be endowed with intelligence, since the latter is by definition an adaptation to incompleteness.

Unless it is on this "intelligence" that everything else depends, from the atom to multiverses (if they exist) You see, you persist in seeing things in only one "cultural" and materialistic sense!
Have you had any personal problems with any religion?

We must then speak of omniscience, of plenitude, which by definition annihilates the postulate ofan intelligent being and sends all representation to the nettles.

This is your side: "if God existed, he would not allow such things" coming from a pure and hard sentimentality in front of this world of violence incomprehensible if it depended on a good God.
(GOOD but not STUPID!)
The words do not matter in this case since, here again, it is a simple linguistic formulation which replaces certain words (embarrassing since religious) by other words (anti-religious) intended to support one belief rather than another. As you use omniscience, fullness, rather God (religions) which amounts to the same thing. Who created omniscience or plenitude? And we go around in circles again like a dog chasing its tail!

What is interesting is that what is left unsaid on the subject is much closer to metaphysics than to any (mis)interpretation specific to creationism.

Again, why such a judgment of supposed “misinterpretation” rather than a “ misinterpretation specific to evolutionism ", subject of this topic? However, as previously pointed out, "scientists" acknowledge their ignorance about the origin of life, which makes any interpretation on this subject obsolete. Except by faith in... for or against this or that belief!
There is no metaphysics separate from physics. It is like a coin that has two sides, opposite each other back to back and ignoring each other. Which side has more value? Heads or tails? Neither, since it is not the intrinsic value of the object that matters, but the value that is given to it by cultural convention.
The same goes for all things, including everyone's beliefs!

[izentrop]

The history of ancient watchmaking itself begins in the Middle Ages.

Long before that but with a big gap in between... https://www.pourlascience.fr/sd/archeol ... -23425.php

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

It is more than uncertain whether this "machine" dates back to the ancient Greeks.

[sen-no-sen]

The history of ancient watchmaking itself begins in the Middle Ages.

Long before that but with a big gap in between... https://www.pourlascience.fr/sd/archeol ... -23425.php

The Antikythera Mechanism was not strictly speaking a clockwork device, but did indeed appear as a sort of common ancestor to it.
Historians date the beginnings of watchmaking (in the strict sense of the term) back to the Middle Ages (1292).

Janic:

Le non-religious creationism comes from a simple observation that before a creation, of whatever kind, it did not exist before and therefore a creator is needed to create.
This term create is so important and full of meaning that even the most anti-religious atheists use it precisely to define the difference between the non-existent becoming existent.

Could you please explain "non-religious creationism"?
The observation is not so simple and the bias of creationist thought is based on this notion of creation.
The term creation, the Larousse definition of which I provide here: “The action of creating, of drawing from nothing” is the source of this confusion.

In fact, and as I mentioned, a human being never creates anything. He assembles, he compiles and copies, he designs but does not create.
We do not draw anything from nothing. Besides, nothingness is a postulate resulting from the dualistic thought of being/non-being, and there is no proof whatsoever of nothingness.
In this respect, no invention is really created, even if the term is used for ease of language, particularly in the artistic field, to symbolize the genius of a painter or a screenwriter...who always draws his inspiration from pre-existing things (example of Leonardo da Vinci).

In nature and as he said so well Lavoisier:"Nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed".
There is no creation or creator in nature. A woman does not create her child, she carries it, a tree is not created, it grows by itself and in synergy with its ecosystem.
The idea of ​​creation is a act of faith which is consubstantial with the notion of creator and by extension of intelligence. It results from the impression for humans of conceiving a new thing in terms of a finished product. However, this is only an illusion because knowledge, like the substance of a work, is always pre-existing.

This is where the bias lies, in this case a hindsight biasIn fact, life appears with a low level of complexity and reaches a degree of increasing complexity through successive evolutions, it has resulted in the appearance of beings endowed with intelligence.
The error of creationist thinking here is to reverse the causes of their effects, that is to say to historically situate a creator as at the origin of.... that which saw him born!
This is a typical confusion of thought systems affected by the phenomenon - we could say the pathology - of autotelism*.Reasoning, failing to confront reality, thus bites its own tail!

So despite your numerous interventions, you are never able to demonstrate real examples to support your demonstration. You simply repeat "that it took a creator", because something as complex as life could not appear by itself... by magnificently eluding (it's crisp!) how such a creator, who let us remember would be eminently more complex than his creation (life) would have appeared by itself!
I admit that I am captivated by such a quagmire of thought!



* From the Greek αὐτός / autós and τέλος / télos and meaning "which is its own purpose": activity undertaken with no other goal than itself.

[eclectronvolt]

The error of creationist thinking here is to reverse the causes of their effects, that is to say to historically situate a creator as at the origin of.... that which saw him born!
This is a typical confusion of thought systems affected by the phenomenon - we could say the pathology - of autotelism*.Reasoning, failing to confront reality, thus bites its own tail!

So despite your numerous interventions, you are never able to demonstrate real examples to support your demonstration. You simply repeat "that it took a creator", because something as complex as life could not appear by itself... by magnificently eluding (it's crisp!) how such a creator, who let us remember would be eminently more complex than his creation (life) would have appeared by itself!
I admit that I am captivated by such a quagmire of thought!

There can be no answer to all this questioning.
If there is a creator, he is eternal, and therefore beyond time.
If God was built over time, who or what created him etc., the chicken, the egg etc.?

We are here like Pac-Man in their 2D world who only know and think 2D and who try to discuss 3D, or 4D, or 5D or…
Eternity is dizzying for the human mind, because this mind is built over time and knows only time (learning through experiences and therefore time, omnipresent principle of causality)
How can a tool designed for and built by causality apprehend non-causality?

Consequently, thought is not the right tool to answer the problem posed; there will never be a good answer.

The awakened, the mystics, those who by stopping the process of their own thought have temporarily entered eternity, cannot, when returning in time, explain in words what God is.
Whoever does so necessarily distorts the experience.
Words are of the order of thought and time and not of the order of eternity.
Apart from experiencing timelessness oneself, experiencing eternity, there can be no verbalizable and transmittable answer that is correct.

On the other hand, between the Divine plan and us there are active plans on matter which intend an evolutionary process in matter. These are always planes where causality reigns.
If only thermodynamics ruled, we would be vortices at best.

Personal opinion, the Divine plan radiates Love and allows everything, even talking stupid things.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

One does not need to believe in God to be awakened just as one does not need to believe in God to have spirituality and/or be mystical.

[eclectronvolt]

One does not need to believe in God to be awakened just as one does not need to believe in God to have spirituality and/or be mystical.

Indeed, we do not need to believe since belief is of the order of thought, therefore of the order of time, which does not help to get close to the timeless, God.
However, it seems that each person's beliefs, however small, are inevitable; they taint, limit, and color the experience that each person can have of God.
Hence the Pac-man bickering afterwards about what God is.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Belief is the death of thought.