Knowing the mind of God

[cjd]

a. Probably. But that isn't an assumption of evolution, it's just an assumption.

However, I heard a guy on the radio yesterday saying something incomprehensible about consciousness being the object rather than the subject - sounded bollox to me but I'm mostly ears.

 

a. Probably. But that isn't an assumption of evolution, it's just an assumption.

However, I heard a guy on the radio yesterday saying something incomprehensible about consciousness being the object rather than the subject - sounded bollox to me but I'm mostly ears.

It is time you thought deeper about the logical consequences of your own believe CJD

You cannot have it all ways..

You believe that you are chemistry, however complex, you are just a chemical process. That is a direct consequence of your belief that you evolved from microbes as a result of chemical mutation.


So confirm as a consequence

that You believe life is a chemical process, your thought patterns, perceptions, responsees are all a biochemical process occuring within the confines of your body.

Yes or no.

Say yes, and then I will explain a paradox.
Not proof, Just compelling evidence., with a sting in the tail

 

[Arhiann]

This is still going? Don't you get bored with it Colin.

 

[cjd]

It is time you thought deeper about the logical consequences of your own believe CJD

Thanks for the heads up. It had never occurred to me that I should think it through. All those wasted years - how could I have been so blind?

If you think you have something interesting to say, just say it.

 

[cjd]

Don't you get bored with it Colin.

Just at the moment, yes. But not with the ideas, just the patronising, self important drivel we seem to have to wade through to get to them.

 

Thanks for the heads up. It had never occurred to me that I should think it through. All those wasted years - how could I have been so blind?

If you think you have something interesting to say, just say it.

No.

This is core fundamental CJD, not some detail

Scientific rationalists believe that they and life are just chemical processes.

And that has logical consequences.

One of which is conscience cannot occur outside the body.

No fudging.

Yes or no -

Never known you to be quite so timid on professing belief in evolution by chemical process

 

[marchog]

Science does not lead to the truth of anything. It is always tentative. Anyone who says that science leads inevitably to a certain philosophical position is mistaken. However this is a strawman position used to place science on some kind of pedastal that it may be knocked off. The positions of both supernaturalism and naturalism are flawed. Supernaturalism is meaningless - it is simply what naturalism isn't, and naturalism is redundant. Nature works in a predictable fashion because the universe is cold, and just about empty in all ways. It is almost empty of matter and it is almost empty of rules or constraints. What we think of as laws of science are the absence of point of view dependence. The universe has no mechanism to keep track of anything, so it appears to have the same properties no matter when you are, where you are, how you are moving, or how charged you are. What we see as the consistency of the universe - our ability to use induction - comes from being in a universe that is largely empty, reasonably old and reasonably cool, combined with point of view relativity. Newton did not see this because he did not know about relativity as we see from the structure of his laws of inertia. Now all your evidence ad is classical logic yet your square/circle god is dialetheist logic and the intellectual duality of a paraconsistent logician is unable to reconcile the two. Put simply ad, you can't have your evidence and your god. Your verbal handwaving is an attempt to obfuscate the fact that you have no backing for your central argument.

Point me to your higher logic.

 

your entire post can be summarised with this.

an attempt to obfuscate

Tackle issues one at a time marchog - cramming as many high sounding words into one sentence does not impress or advance your argument.

Particularly if you think that how cool the universe is has any baring on the status of science in philosopy.

You jump to a conclusion not based or derived on any of the previous hoping nobody will notice.

BTW

If you accept my paradigm...

That any scientific rationalist believes his conscience and thoughts are brain biochemistry, and conscience therefore is confined to the body.


Then I will show you another piece of evidence with a sting in the tail.

 

[marchog]

Sure I accept. Don't be so harsh with me, I've been getting just seconds on here and so I've had to make up general answers and type them in quick.

I'm certain you can't have your evidence and your god, but we'll come back to that.....next year probably.

 

[cjd]

Scientific rationalists believe that they and life are just chemical processes.

That'll do for me until proven otherwise - but I take exception to the word 'just'.

 

That'll do for me until proven otherwise - but I take exception to the word 'just'.

The word just is important?
Dont understand the problem.

Evolution does not accept anything other than life developing as a chemical processes - responding to environmental factors of course...

So why object to just? Genuinlely interested

 

That'll do for me until proven otherwise - but I take exception to the word 'just'.

Dont understand the problem with just?

However complex processes are, evolution regards life exclusively as a chemical process, mutating with environment.

What else are you objecting to in "just" dont understand, genuinely interested.

 

[cjd]

What else are you objecting to in "just" dont understand, genuinely interested.

Because 'just' is a throw away and diminishing word that belittles its effect.

After all, chemicals, or rather the bits and pieces that make them, create what we call consciousness.

'It's just paint' would describe a lot of art - but rather badly.

 

Because 'just' is a throw away and diminishing word that belittles its effect.

After all, chemicals, or rather the bits and pieces that make them, create what we call consciousness.

'It's just paint' would describe a lot of art - but rather badly.

Thats not the point I was making.
Just making sure that nothing else is involved than chemistry

OK

I dont have the references here.

There are many fascinating bilocation experiences with too many details correct to dismiss them easily

But this is one with a sting in the tail...

So am giving you a summary from memory.

A peasant, briefly a nun became a completely bedridden woman who lived out her years in a small bedroom, unable to travel. She had visions into someone elses life. These visions were documented in several volumes.

One of the tales describes a house where a woman was living. in another country more than 1000 miles away
She described the view of a major named city visible from the hillside, and out to the sea and islands visible. Well off any major tracks or paths.

She described details of the house. Very unusual, probably unique in design for the period. She describes it as it was in the life time of the person many hundreds of years before. Including details such as the location of a fire.

After she died, and years later a group of people scoured the hills around a city to see if they could find it from the description in the books. They discovered from maps only one location on one particular hill could both see the city and the sea and islands many miles away.

After scouromg the hillside and some searching they found the house. An overgrown ruin. The remains were totally consistent with the description , including unusual curved walls. It was the only house in that region, in exactly the place described

All the architectural details coincided. Although later walls had been built on part of an old foundation..the old foundation exactly correpsonded to what the lady saw
When they dug down into the floor they found ancient remains of fires exactly where described
Many other details coincide

The details are compelling evidence that the bedridden ladies conscience had been there, else how could she describe any of it? The detail is Uncanny so hard to dismiss as made up fantasy.

So how could she describe it? And if conscience can travel independent of body, then life is not just a chemical machine and evolution does not explain life.

Fascinating stuff well worth reading.
Draw your own conclusions.

The bedridden lady was Anne Catherine Emmerich, her works published in several volumes

The investigation into the discovery of the ruins and assessment of evidence is scattered in a number of books. But a lot of it is in a book researching the phenomenon and history called "our lady of ephesus"

The sting in the tail - you guessed it.

The lady whose life she documented was mary living 1600 years before.

And Anne was also author of the Dolorous Passion more of her visions - turned into a mel gibson film.

 

[marchog]

I must say you're in fine form admagic, you have been much missed. Steve's a moderator now. Tony Miles never came to much. I remember everyone laughed when I said I was going to be a comedian....well noone's laughing now.

'The sting in the tail - you guessed it' - don't overestimate us.

 

[cjd]

Oh bum. Another Marian story.........

 

[marchog]

Thats not the point I was making.
Just making sure that nothing else is involved than chemistry

OK

I dont have the references here.

There are many fascinating bilocation experiences with too many details correct to dismiss them easily

But this is one with a sting in the tail...

So am giving you a summary from memory.

A peasant, briefly a nun became a completely bedridden woman who lived out her years in a small bedroom, unable to travel. She had visions into someone elses life. These visions were documented in several volumes.

One of the tales describes a house where a woman was living. in another country more than 1000 miles away
She described the view of a major named city visible from the hillside, and out to the sea and islands visible. Well off any major tracks or paths.

She described details of the house. Very unusual, probably unique in design for the period. She describes it as it was in the life time of the person many hundreds of years before. Including details such as the location of a fire.

After she died, and years later a group of people scoured the hills around a city to see if they could find it from the description in the books. They discovered from maps only one location on one particular hill could both see the city and the sea and islands many miles away.

After scouromg the hillside and some searching they found the house. An overgrown ruin. The remains were totally consistent with the description , including unusual curved walls. It was the only house in that region, in exactly the place described

All the architectural details coincided. Although later walls had been built on part of an old foundation..the old foundation exactly correpsonded to what the lady saw
When they dug down into the floor they found ancient remains of fires exactly where described
Many other details coincide

The details are compelling evidence that the bedridden ladies conscience had been there, else how could she describe any of it? The detail is Uncanny so hard to dismiss as made up fantasy.

So how could she describe it? And if conscience can travel independent of body, then life is not just a chemical machine and evolution does not explain life.

Fascinating stuff well worth reading.
Draw your own conclusions.

The bedridden lady was Anne Catherine Emmerich, her works published in several volumes

The investigation into the discovery of the ruins and assessment of evidence is scattered in a number of books. But a lot of it is in a book researching the phenomenon and history called "our lady of ephesus"

The sting in the tail - you guessed it.

The lady whose life she documented was mary living 1600 years before.

And Anne was also author of the Dolorous Passion more of her visions - turned into a mel gibson film.

I will accept that as fact. Now prove to me your deductions are not invalid and your conclusions not paradoxical. Otherwise you are talking nonsense. Literally non-sense.

 

I will accept that as fact. Now prove to me your deductions are not invalid and your conclusions not paradoxical. Otherwise you are talking nonsense. Literally non-sense.

Marchog. That is the response I expect from someone who is more interested in playing a game, than a journey of discovery - in which they might learn something.

And I cant be bothered to post more, if that is the best you can do.

If you are after proof, you are out of luck. Not because of my inability to prove, but the philosophical impossibility of such proof

Neither for example cannot "prove" life came solely from evolution, without making assumptions on abiogenesis...the point is . Even if you find a mechanism for how something can happen. Is not sufficient to prove that that is how it did happen. A weakness in the abilitiy of logic and science we all have to accept. The best any of us have is evidence.

And clearly there is a paradox.

My english makes sense.

The reasoning makes sense.

It is nonsense - only that it does not make sense in the context of your own trapped beliefset

I drew no conclusion - I said make up your own mind, but be prepared to accept the logical consequence of any conclusion you draw.

This case: If you accept as a fact that Anne Catherines conscience and perception was present at the time and place of the vision of the house, and yet you still believe that life is a pure biochemistry, it is you who accetps dialetheist logic, and is prepared to accept a logical contradiction.

Clearly there is a paradox

And progress in logic comes from discovering the solution to paradoxes, normally by extending the acceptance of what constitutes natural or disproving the evidence that led to the paradox.

The evidence points to a fundamental problem in a scientific realists perception of what life is.

For your information

There are THOUSANDS of stories just like this, compelling evidence of knowledge of places and times that the biochemical body can never have been present, and no real possibilty for forgery

And thousands of other pieces of evidence (not proof because none is possible) that the present viewpoint of scientific rationalists is untenable, These views are clearly flawed at a philosophical level anyway and a misunderstanding of what science can possibly reveal.

Which you accept in a previous post anyway.

Moving on.

You do not explain what you accept as a fact.

 

Oh bum. Another Marian story.........

Just for you CJD. Thought you would appreciate the sting in the tail

 

[cjd]

So that's the best you can do? What happened to your OoBE?

 

So that's the best you can do? What happened to your OoBE?

It is not lost on me that this is Page 666 of this thread CJD

And it is not lost that there is nothing anyone could possibly present to you that you will ever research unless it meets your subjective criteria to support your present belief set -

Which belief set will never change because you have neither the logic, nor scientific investigation skills to ever allow such a change to happen - or to investigate evidence that challenges your postiong

Evidence such as the above can shatter your entire world perception in one blow. Therefore you should be researching it to determine whether your world view or the evidence is flawed.


You are welcome to your beliefs, and the unscientific mantras and methods you use to protect them But dont ever pretend you are arguing from a case of evidence or sicence.

And that concludes our entire conversation.

By the way.

The evidence of healings that you seek, which addresses all the problem you have with other healings exists.


But I will not help you find it.

 

[cjd]

But I will not help you find it.

ffs, don't you think that's just a tad childish?

I was going to tell you about genetic drift but now I'm not, so there; nah.

<sigh>

 

ffs, don't you think that's just a tad childish?

I was going to tell you about genetic drift but now I'm not, so there; nah.

<sigh>

Not at all.

You have proven consistently that I am wasting my time.

The evidence I presented for the lady of ephesus clearly has massive repurcussions.

So if you were at all interested in the question of what life is - you think a biochemical machine - you would look at it to judge whether the evidence is sound, or your belief set needs changing

You do neither except ask facile and facetious questions.

Which you would do if I presented evidence of hundreds of healings in which natural process is completely discountable.

So I cannot be bothered to write it.

 

[marchog]

Marchog. That is the response I expect from someone who is more interested in playing a game, than a journey of discovery - in which they might learn something.

And I cant be bothered to post more, if that is the best you can do.

If you are after proof, you are out of luck. Not because of my inability to prove, but the philosophical impossibility of such proof

Neither for example cannot "prove" life came solely from evolution, without making assumptions on abiogenesis...the point is . Even if you find a mechanism for how something can happen. Is not sufficient to prove that that is how it did happen. A weakness in the abilitiy of logic and science we all have to accept. The best any of us have is evidence.

And clearly there is a paradox.

My english makes sense.

The reasoning makes sense.

It is nonsense - only that it does not make sense in the context of your own trapped beliefset

I drew no conclusion - I said make up your own mind, but be prepared to accept the logical consequence of any conclusion you draw.

This case: If you accept as a fact that Anne Catherines conscience and perception was present at the time and place of the vision of the house, and yet you still believe that life is a pure biochemistry, it is you who accetps dialetheist logic, and is prepared to accept a logical contradiction.

Clearly there is a paradox

And progress in logic comes from discovering the solution to paradoxes, normally by extending the acceptance of what constitutes natural or disproving the evidence that led to the paradox.

The evidence points to a fundamental problem in a scientific realists perception of what life is.

For your information

There are THOUSANDS of stories just like this, compelling evidence of knowledge of places and times that the biochemical body can never have been present, and no real possibilty for forgery

And thousands of other pieces of evidence (not proof because none is possible) that the present viewpoint of scientific rationalists is untenable, These views are clearly flawed at a philosophical level anyway and a misunderstanding of what science can possibly reveal.

Which you accept in a previous post anyway.

Moving on.

You do not explain what you accept as a fact.

Have all of science mistaken, have a hundred magic nuns. Logic is god and reason without logic is madness. You are attempting to conflate mutually exclusive forms of logic. Your otherwise internally incoherent god concept invalidates your evidential inferences and validates an infinite insanities.

 

[cjd]

So I cannot be bothered to write it.

The way debate works is that you make your claim and back it up with evidence. Then people can decide whether the evidence supports the claim and rebut or develop the argument.

If you can't 'be bothered' to support your claim, wtf are you doing here?

 

Have all of science mistaken, have a hundred magic nuns. Logic is god and reason without logic is madness. You are attempting to conflate mutually exclusive forms of logic. Your otherwise internally incoherent god concept invalidates your evidential inferences and validates an infinite insanities.

I made no mention of a god.
I made mention of evidence.
So your argument is already fallacious.
And your post illogical based on mine.

Your post is empty rhetoric of high sounding words, that claim logic is supreme, yet not one single part of your post is a process of logical deduction- simply a statement of what you percieve as true - and an insult since that is the intention.

If you want to fight from a platform of logic - start with logic and draw a conclusion. Do not pretend assertions are logic however long the words in your thesaurus are.

A mountain of evidence will continue to stick 2 fingers up high at the fragility of your house of logical cards

Good day.

Since nobody has thought to comment either on the evidence I present, alternative deductions that can be drawn, or any possiblility for error.

I cannot be bothered to write.

Farewell.
This time for good.

 

The way debate works is that you make your claim and back it up with evidence. Then people can decide whether the evidence supports the claim and rebut or develop the argument.

If you can't 'be bothered' to support your claim, wtf are you doing here?

Atr no point have you challenge any part of the evedience, supported or rebutted it. I have explained the essence of the evidence, available for anyone to find it -

Yet you do none of the above.

You are too lazy to look. Researching the shroud will take you months.
"medieaval forgery" you said.....The conclusion only of lazyarses, or people who do not want to entertain the possibility it is real

Pointless.

Farewell.

My time is too precious to waste on games.

 

[cjd]

My time is too precious to waste on games.

Bye, thanks for the fish.

 

Bye, thanks for the fish.

I continued on the thread, because Marchog did me the courtesy of finding the forensic evidence that leaves only one credible position - that the shroud and sudarium are indeed real.

You have never engaged with the evidence.

So indeed, thanks but no thanks.

But dont ever be so disingenuous, to use the words "there is no evidence"

 

[marchog]

This case: If you accept as a fact that Anne Catherines conscience and perception was present at the time and place of the vision of the house, and yet you still believe that life is a pure biochemistry, it is you who accetps dialetheist logic, and is prepared to accept a logical contradiction.

I accept no logical contradictions. Show me the blood line between Anne Catherine and Mary.

 

[marchog]

The number of bits of information held in the DNA of a human zygote is short by the odd million. It is like a .zip file and it is unzipped during gestation. Embryological development is under maternal chemical control. It is a short causal walk form the maternal neurotransmitters to the brain of the embryo. Here we have the not quite Lamarckian epigenetic mischief and the pathway of inherited memory. So animals migrate successfully to places they have never seen, and people remember places they have never been to.

This is not a problem for anyone who thinks information can be stored in bits.

 

This is not a problem for anyone who thinks information can be stored in bits.

It is a problem for anyone who knows something about information stored in bits though. Like most of the "science" trotted out on this thread it is woefully lacking.

But then dont let information theory and entropy get in the way of a good piece of fantasy if it saves you looking for the truth.

Or the details of what anne catherine saw, hopelessly contradicts your hypothesis.

Thats the problem Marchog.

It is pointless.

If you actually read up on it, you would see two separate reasons ( other than scientific infeasibility) that kill your hypothesis stone dead.

But nobody does the research. They look for the easy way out.

There is no easy way out.

When I present evidence, it is because I have spent weeks looking at it.
You can be certain that there is no dumb answer, or I would have already found it.
My first assumption is wishful thinking, chance or fraud.

And the fact that nobody takes any of this seriously enough to investigate it deep enought to form a real judgement, is why I have gone.

It is no bones to me if you read it in some depth,and come to an alternative conclusion. In fact I will be interested why.

The reason I have gone, is the lack of interest in research

 

[marchog]

It is a problem for anyone who knows something about information stored in bits though. Like most of the "science" trotted out on this thread it is woefully lacking.

But then dont let information theory and entropy get in the way of a good piece of fantasy if it saves you looking for the truth.

I see the problems re. her particular visions, but what problem is there in information theory or entropy? I can't see a problem in entropy at all...I don't know about information theory.

edit - oh i see - entropy not entropy.

 

[marchog]

Where's the problem? In the compression?

 

[marchog]

http://www.icr.org/article/epigenetics-more-information-than-evolution-can-ha/

Here's something for you ad.

 

Where's the problem? In the compression?

When I was young.... As a mathematician I spent a lot of time studying entropy, information content in images - compression methods, part funded by ESA trying to get satellite camera data across a lossy band limited channel through space and partly by military on stuff I am not alowed to talk about. If you do any calculation based on estimates of the effective duration "video footage" of anne catherines visions, and even at high entropy you just dont have enough chemistry or even close. When you read what she said - she was there....ie she precieved in "3D" not as a limited 2D projection. Which increases yet again.

ie what is good enough for ducks to go find a holiday destination,aint enough to record the entire movie.....

Anne catherines revelations have at least 2 serious problems that make the above likely irrelevant. She saw mary and others, she did not see through marys eyes which would be the outcome of transferred neural patterns even if that were possible, even if lineage were correct. Worse still some of the visions do not have any of the same characters in that renders the hypothesis wrong by itself.

So the hypothesis does not even fit where it touches

But then I doubt you have read anne catherine before trying to
assess or explain the evidence. Which is scientific nonsense.. and also the reason I cannot be bothered

 

[marchog]

When I was young.... As a mathematician I spent a lot of time studying entropy, information content in images - compression methods, part funded by ESA trying to get satellite camera data across a lossy band limited channel through space and partly by military on stuff I am not alowed to talk about. If you do any calculation based on estimates of the effective duration "video footage" of anne catherines visions, and even at high entropy you just dont have enough chemistry or even close. When you read what she said - she was there....ie she precieved in "3D" not as a limited 2D projection. Which increases yet again.

ie what is good enough for ducks to go find a holiday destination,aint enough to record the entire movie.....

Anne catherines revelations have at least 2 serious problems that make the above likely irrelevant. She saw mary and others, she did not see through marys eyes which would be the outcome of transferred neural patterns even if that were possible, even if lineage were correct. Worse still some of the visions do not have any of the same characters in that renders the hypothesis wrong by itself.

So the hypothesis does not even fit where it touches

But then I doubt you have read anne catherine before trying to
assess or explain the evidence. Which is scientific nonsense.. and also the reason I cannot be bothered

No I did. She said some very strange things. I'll admit I got side-tracked with epigenetic excitement. I'll test you though - which wound hurt Christ the most? I know.

 

[marchog]

I suggest it is a different type of compression. The majority of the computational power is in the reading device. Enormous short-cuts are possible via the inheritance of symbolic language mnemonics. And transference would be lateral as well as direct descending lineage. Remember the military's disbelief when it was first suggested bats could do sonar.

edit - We are still superior computers to computers you must agree, and in which particular areas?

 

[marchog]

I'll give you a research test ad. In the games that Kasparov won, how many positions a second was Deep Blue analysing? How many million positions I should say. And how many positions was Kasparov analysing? How could Kasparov take a million-factor short-cut?

 

I'll give you a research test ad. In the games that Kasparov won, how many positions a second was Deep Blue analysing? How many million positions I should say. And how many positions was Kasparov analysing? How could Kasparov take a million-factor short-cut?

Ten years ago I could have answered that, because I was half interested.,

What amused me more was Kasparov getting **stuffed** by Judit Polgar....then trying to think up excuses - or that is how I remember it!!

Bobby fischer was my hero........I still have most of what was ever published, including articles from "chess magazine" - does it still exist?
I was a frequent visitor to the centre of the chess universe......B.H.Woods Sutton Coldfield Railway Station shop....Could be that I lived there. Another bizarre and random memory, was Midland playing against London, the guy next on board 2? 3? was called Hollis. This squat little pinstripe suit was looking over his game. Turns out it was the very same shadowy Sir Roger Hollis - Control of MI5, at least in part suspected as a mole in "Spycatcher", and the trials in which the phrase "being economical with the truth" was coined

Heady days

What is your connection with the ghastly game???