Let's talk about why YOU need the god posit. Why do you give it more credit than that of a lazy, boring, unlikely fable? — universeness

Because it aint such a fable and the scientific fable (how interesting it might be, as we both know!) can't explain the universe, life, and consciousness. It can describe it at most.

The majority of religious preachers are wolves in sheep's clothi — universeness

I completely agree!

Why do you need the woo woo? — universeness

How do you know its woo woo?

This line of insult is beneath you EugeneW. It's open to easy returns such as 'The majority of religious preachers are wolves in sheep's clothing.' It's pointless panto talk. — universeness

I just don't like the guy. It's not an insult to science or evolution but to his interpretation.Dont you insult theists?

He would agree with you that, in hindsight, he could have chosen a 'wiser' title for the book but I think you are over-stretching the significance of this shortfall. — universeness

It's not just the title. I have read the book and it's not very optimistic!

But you anthropomorphise what the genes demonstrate as part of their natural functionality and you arrive at the will of the god(s). Its YOUR theistic conflations that try to nudge towards the god posit not anything suggested by Dawkins. — universeness

That's more like it, Scotsman! It's not me anthropomorphizing, it's Dawkins. He calls them selfish. All organisms use genes. The first protein life evolved better means by ribosomes. All different organisms did it their wag, jn mutual stimulation. The nudge to the gods is made to breathe the fire of love and hate into the matter. Matter alone can't explain. When you have a cosmological eternal model, one cannot do other than conclude intelligences created it. The gods were bored. Eternally playing the love game was simply too much. They were tired. So they created the universe. It looks like heaven! Now they watch us, laid back on the heavenly desserts... That realization gives true meaning. We're just acting like the gods. But we die. And get born again. In every new universe renewed. To please the gods with our plays, be it viral or humanoid... Ooookaaaay! :lol:

If so, what is mystical about evolution? — Sapien1

Let me try to answer. I'm not sure what Wittgenstein's take is though. Mysticism is related to not knowing. Evolution is the gradual appearing of a wide spectrum of species. Here and probably the entire universe. Evolution cant be denied. It's demystified by Dawkins and the like. The central dogma of biology underpins the view of selfish genes and memes programming all creatures in order for them to replicate. Now what a view! Sounds like evil religion to me. "The commandments of the central dogma command the genes and memes to replicate by guile and stealth, by programming bodies to achieve this goal". Damned! From this so-called scientific POV on evolution (pseudo-scientific!), all diverging views are just memes with no basis in reality. The new cruscade led by pope Dawkins. I'm sure Wittgenstein didn't like this idea. But what then is the mystique? Consciousness? The miracle of language? Dunno, but the ultimate question that can't be answered is why the heavenly gods, from the virus-gids to the blue whale-gods, got bored with playing the game of love and hate. They created an eternal infinite universe similar to heaven to eternally watch us. They hadn't taken into account the faulty play of the homonid-gods...

So god, nirvana, brahman, etc., are simply various ways of talking about the same thing — Agent Smith

Question is: what is that same thing? Having taken a look in the eternal heavens? Do we know the plans the gods had in mind when they created the worldly realm? Are they the moral imperators? Why should they create a universe for us to morally conform and act as they want? Did they create the universe in the image of their own and the diversity of the gods, reflected by the multitude of universal species? Are we just mortal and recarnatable creatures acting out the eternal heavenly games in universal realms? Is the universe a carbon copy of heaven but devoid of the power of creation? Are we here for their enjoyment? Do they just watch us, laying on their backs in heavenly pastures, eternally enjoying their creation projected on the heavenly heavens? Are the homonoid-gods hiding for their fellow gods?

"And then the clouds break. A ray of sunlight, Gloria!
As if a promise, some strange kind of Euphoria!
And in my darkness, a ray of sunshine, Gloria!
Some strange kind of Euphoria!

Like Orpheus don't look back
Best years are waiting for us!"

Religion again! Ill be damned! What's all the talk about religion the last two weeks? Every religion is part of the total religious jigsaw picture. Every religion is part of the heavenly truth.

Mix all of them together, and the full syncresis is realized. It will be too much for one person to bear. Maybe a new abstract will do.

That's what Dawkins has reduced it to! Genes variating in order to arrive at new proteins to give them a better chance to replicate. Which is no more than an unproven, god-like dogma in biology. Even called the central dogma of molecular biology... How close to religion can you get?

Dawkins might have considered other titles but he didn't actually gave it another title. He might not mean litterally that genes are selfish, but he called them that. What you think people think if they hear about selfish genes? He employed sleazy tactics in "enriching" the world with his reductionist bs. He's a wolf in sheep clothes, talking high English, while being contemptuous towards religion, which in his eyes is just a collection of memes ordering us to propagate them to survive, to cope with life, so without any reality value. That thought is a meme too. A meme he uses in order to wipe religion from the table because he fears religion as he cant explain it, so he rationalizes it...

How can chaos run free on a straight jackened straight structured computer chip?

How do we know you're not swinging towards the other end of the spectrum, underestimation? — Agent Smith

The only thing we should not underestimate is the incredible speed of the computer clock. Pushing instruction in before one hasn't even finished yet. That's all about AI. Speed. Hyperclocking.

I can remember talking to Eliza at university. It was a computer based verbal respond to questions. Like those answers of lady Google. Like those perfect computer generated voices in youtube documensto ries. With sentence melodies repeated ad nausea. Intelligence and emotion just can't be programmed because our brain is not programmed. We learn by memories of things we see. The world gets engraved in the neural network. Creativity plays with memories.

Okay, seriously. Free will. Why you think determinism is a hold for free will? Isn't it an a priori for free will?

I mean, without determined processes no free will in the first place. Only a tiny amount of determined processes is predictable. If a researcher can predict which finger you raise before you are aware, is your free will gone? Could you deceive them?

Is it determined that "I'm afraid of Americans. I'm afraid of the world? I'm afraid I can't help it?" Was I free in that feeling...?

oui oui! :rofl:

Have something in mind dear...,?

I wouldn't blame them! — universeness

I would never forgive them! :lol:

Look for a solitaire version of atheism vs. theism. — Agent Smith

God playing hide and seek with himself? :lol:

It's getting philosophical finally! :lol:

I don't think you've understood the point of my post. I maybe stuck in a blind alley, but you're off on a tangent. Wanna leave the solar system? Be my guest. Send us pictures! :smile: — Agent Smith

A blind alley and a trip outside to the universe? But that's exactly what this thread is about. Blind watchmakers and/or gods.

Im still working out the story. Looking for fine English without translation machines. These things suck for poetic prose! The great story will be revealed on this very forum! Consider yourself lucky to life witness the event of the new millenium. Already now! The future will never be the same again!

we could debate until one or both of us passed out from the beer. But on a public discussion website, I like to try my best to consider other readers, — universeness

They would be delighted to see us both pass out at the same time! :lol:

When Impasse has been reached — universeness

Why you think impasse has been reached? We only warmed up a bit...

Non sono mica Mandrake! — Agent Smith

C’è chi si aspetta che la burocrazia diventi immediatamente efficiente, rispettosa e comprensibile, che la giustizia sia resa rapida e imparziale, che la scuola formi una generazione di tecnici preparati in grado di affrontare le novità tecnologiche del mondo del lavoro, che le carceri siano umane e in grado di riabilitare i detenuti, che le tasse diminuiscano mentre il debito si riduce, per non parlare dello sviluppo produttivo, naturalmente sostenibile, che farà contenti gli ecologisti e gli investitori, che naturalmente accorreranno a frotte per finanziare il nuovo miracolo italiano.

I am immune to such bait EugeneW — universeness

You consider it bait? You think I'm out to getya? :lol:

Ok, thanks for the exchange EugeneW — universeness

Ran out of ammunition? I hear that all the time. "Im off for a walk" "Got things to do", "Good day", and now "for the sake of the members we should stop the conversation". Sorry universeness. A weak excuse!

I hope you appreciate EugeneW that we are doing ourselves no favours here, in the minds of any readers of our current exchange! It has quickly became laboured and rather pointless. I can hear other members shout 'will you two just......' — universeness

For the sake of members? What favour do they need?

For an easy Wednesday morning, we're going pretty deep!

So your happy with 'most common' then! — universeness

Most common?

So? — universeness

Why don't they stand on top?

Let's get there first. The scientific explanation will come but I doubt it will happen in our lifetime. — universeness

The scientific explanation never comes. Like I said, it misses the key ingredient.

already told you, as did Darwin, natural selection. — universeness

But there also viruses.

Become dominant — universeness

Genes don't dominate.

Dawkins speaks towards how the brain formed genetically — universeness

That's exactly how it can't be explained. Genes are just an aid for organisms. Once there were proteins only. Then ribosomes were formed to make new proteins with, in combination with DNA. The proteins (chicken) came before DNA. The chicken came before the egg, in this case.

To me, 'selfish' just points to the idea that our genes don't care about the fact that the genes of the neanderthals (for example) didn't take the top spot, — universeness

So human genes stand on the top? Why?

Yes but not the resulting phenomena of human consciousness!
Those answers are still being sought — universeness

Consciousness is necessary for life. It's present in all forms of life. The gods put this mystic ingredient even in elementary matter fields, with corresponding gauge fields to express it. An explanation in scientific terms will be a vacuous attempt as it misses the necessary ingredient.

The selfish genes are the genes that won — universeness

Can genes win?
That's an assumption as silly as the gods...

You are trying to invoke the image of humans procreating, with god(s) procreating — universeness

Stephen my man, gods don't procreate. They are eternal beings. They created the universe(ness) to watch us playing the game of life. The view that we make love to replicate genes (though this obviously happens) is a deceptive one. But it's precisely the view our friend want to impart on the world.

Anyway, to get right to the point, yep, atheism is an argument and ergo, can be valid/invalid unlike theism which isn't an argument and so is neither valid nor invalid. Theism is, as Wolfgang Pauli put it, not even wrong invalid! — Agent Smith

What's the argument involved in atheism? Please argue with me dear! :lol:

A human is more than the sum of its mechanisms due to the fact that consciousness demonstrates other aspects such as emotional ability. — universeness

Yes. But Dawkins-based evolutiin tries to explain them all in that context of replicating genes. There undeniably is evolution. But his interpretation is rather confused and disjoint.

You do this as an attempt to subtract from Dawkins's argument that there is no reason behind the EMERGENCE of life. — universeness

On the contrary. The reason, according to our friend, about the emergence of life is the selfish gene gene wanting to replicate. Likewise for human life and memes. I don't agree with this. Life just used genes and memes to its advantage. This goes against the central dogma (!). Information is supposed to flow in one direction, which hasn't been proven but taken as dogma, to protect the gene based view on evolution.

He talks about gene replication not procreation. You inserted the imagery of that word for your own purposes. You have to play fair EugeneW! — universeness

Yes. But how do they replicate? By procreation. Unless procreation means something different than I think

Sorry, I asked! — Agent Smith

Why Agentus, why??? Just try tow write it. I tried in vain. If I succeed in writing a random sequence of 1s and 0s, it would a true coincidence!