In Triplicate, Please!

[KerrTexas]

Re: Spooky indeed

The number One. In this number are the other nine hidden. It is indivisible, it is also incapable of multiplication; divide one by itself and it stil remains 1. Multiply 1 by itself and it is still 1 and unchanged. Thus it is a fitting representative of the great unchangeable Father of all. Now this number of unity has a two fold nature, and thus forms, as it were, the link between the negative and the positive. (non-existence / existence ) In its unchangeable one-ness it is scarcely a number; but in its property of capability of addition it may be called the first number of a numerical series. Now, the zero, 0 , is incapable of even addition, just as also is negative existence.

How, then, if 1(one) can neither be multiplied nor divided, is another 1 to be obtained to add to it; in other words how is the number TWO to be found?

"By Reflection Of Itself" For though 0 be incapable of definition, 1 is definable. And the effect of a definition is to form a Eidolon, duplicate, or image, of the thing defined. Thus, then, we obtain a duad composed of 1 and its reflection. Now we also have the commencement of a vibration established, for the number 1 vibrates alternately from changelessness to definition, and back to changelessness again.

From this vibration comes forth the Sephiroth. In each of the three trinities or triads of the Sephiroth is a duad of opposite sexes, and uniting intellegence which is the result. ( Must have been before marriage ) In this, the masculine and feminie potencies are regarded as two scales of the balance, and the uniting Sephira as the beam which joins them. Thus, then, the term balance may be said to symbolize the Triune, Trinity in Unity, and the Unity represented by the central point of the beam. In the Sephiroth there is a triple Trinity, the upper, lower, and middle. Now, these three are represented thus: the Supernal, or highest, by the Crown, Kether; themiddle the King, and the inferior by the queen; which will be the greastest trinity.

And the earthly correlatives of these will be the "primum mobile". The lower "emanations" relfect the upper "emanations". ( The Micro is as the Macro/ The Macro is as the Micro ) The reflections become imperfect as they move away from the original vibration ( copy of a copy of a copy )

It is the Trinity which created the world, or, in qabalistic language, the universe was born from a union of the crowned King and queen. But, according to the Qabalah, before the complete form of the heavenly man ( the ten Sephiroth ) was produced, there were certain primodial worlds created, but these could not subsist, as the equilbrium of balance was not yet perfect, and they were convulsed by the unbalanced forces and destroyed. These primodial worlds are called the "kings of ancient time," and "Kings of Edom" In this sense, Edom is the world of unbalanced force, and Isarael is the balanced Sephiroth ( Genisis xxxvi. 31 ). This important fact, that worlds were created and destroyed prior to the present creation.

It is the vibration as mentioned previously that forms the creation of all that is known and those things that remain unknown. The vibration forms the basis of all things, light, sound, dna patterns...etc. When compared to each other all they all just seem "reflections" of each other with some variations depending upon thier purpose.

Time Travel has to be woven into the manipulation of the vibration, without disturbing the equilbrium and balance of the Sephiroth.

As a side note, it seems difficult for many to believe in some form of A God, but are quick to believe in Demons. There are only two words in the entire bible that are capitalized in bold print..."I AM". I think regardless of the rest of the bible and all those writings that evolve around the religious texts, this was the one point that God wanted to emphasize.

There are many stories of those who were skeptical of esoteric experiences of "magicians" of high magick. Even when warned not to play with rituals of the practitioners of these ancient Arts, they did so anyway and have gone quite mad. Magicians of said Arts either have really good imaginations and telekinesis abilities, or they are truly communicating and interacting with all types of spiritual entities. If the latter be so, then there exists much more than many are aware, or wish to know.

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Spooky indeed

Very well done. The Emanation of All from None.

RainmanTime

 

[CAT]

Re: Spooky indeed

I am speechless! All these great posts! Get it while it lasts Hot Cross Buns...

Ray, THAT'S ONE HELL OF A GREAT POST! at explaining a "systems of systems" (subsystem) in terms of balance between extremes... Spirituality needed for evolution and self-similar, fractally-organized systems embedded within larger systems as a whole....

Ok Roel lets not use the word divine. Lets look at it from a different perspective. Take for example "OUR BODY"... The very cells of our body serve us as we in turn serve even a greater source. As Ray says, system inside of a system...

Do the cells inside of our body know who it is that they are serving? NO!

They only know their given function by definition of their purpose. So in the same breath do we serve a source greater than we can perceive. It is as intelligent as we are, only far more advanced and superior in the fact that it has control of the whole system of systems. It understands its own function as controller...It is the master brain and we are the emulations...(i.e. as OvrLrdLegion put it, a copy of a copy of a copy )(By Reflection Of Itself though 0)

As we are evolving and becoming smarter, we are devising ways in which to communicate with our body through scientific medical advances. Perhaps one day we will be able to understand the whole workings of our body, inside and out... For starters, we can certainly hear our own thoughts, cant we?

There is no doubt in my mind that the big chief is there completely cognizant and coherent to every subtle thought/prayer and sparrow that falls... /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

The meaning of the word "divine" is clear. There's hardly any room for misinterpretation of the word as it has only one meaning.

I couldn't disagree with you more. If this were actually true, and the whole world agreed upon the real meaning of "divine", then we would not be saddled with differences of religious opinions that leads to murder and mayhem. Your statement borders on absolutism: The meaning is clear TO YOU, and there is hardly any room for misinterpretation of how YOU view what "divine" means. But the reality is that all words are described and given context by other words. In your view, it is clear that when you hear "divine" that it must always imply God, and that relates to your experiences in listening to and observing people who are fervent in their religion. So when you say:

What you are doing is giving the word a whole different meaning.

No, I am not, because the "meaning" of divine is not as clear-cut as you seem to think. What I am doing is what humans have always done when there is contention about the meaning of a highly-charged word: I am using different words, from different realms, to approach a broader understanding of what the term "divine" MAY apply to. I am trying to REMOVE the connection between "divine" and "God" that all people seem to dogmatically infer. The connection between "God" and "divine" is not an absolute. The controlling aspects of man-made religions would like you to THINK that it is absolute, but nothing could be further from the truth. I am trying to get you to erase that immediate connection of "divine" with "God", and instead consider that "divine" may have a much broader context, and I am using the context of scientific systems engineering which has accumulated an awful lot of evidence for how systems integrate with one another, and are hierarchical with one another.

I just don't see why we have to explain the unknown by calling it god, or the divine.

Your own words show what I am talking about. You are apparantly steadfast and dogmatic that divine=God....so much so that you believe this "meaning" (implication) is clear and that this is how all people think when it comes to defining the term. And to answer your point in this observation: I am trying to remedy the very thing you are complaining about in this sentence. I am trying to explain the unknown in scientific terms of "systems of systems", and at the same time I am trying to show that this form of scientific thinking COULD broaden the space of what we think of when we say "divine". In other words, the tired relgious extremists who have co-opted the meaning of divine such that it always implies their notion of God...they are on the way out. Theirs is a very limited, and unscientific view of what the notion of "God" really is.

Let me put it this way: I don't think a higher form of intelligence responsible for our existence.

You might be in for a big surprise.

So....does this also mean that you reject the whole "systems of systems" view I am describing? Because one eminently leads to the other. If you agree, by all the evidence in our universe you can see around yourself, that we live in a "system of systems", then there is really no reason to believe that the "system of systems" STOPS at the edge of our phyiscal universe, right? There would be no reason to believe that there is no super-system outside the context of our universe, right?

Imagine you and I are two DNA molecules living in someone's body having this same conversation. I am pointing to all the "systems of systems" evidence, all around us in the body we live in. I am pointing to all this evidence to get you to think about the high probability that there is a higher-level system context external to the "universe" of the body we live in. Yet you are telling me that, despite all this evidence around us, you think there is no higher-level context. That "we just are the way we are by accident" and that nothing external to our observed system had any hand in creating us. And yet when you look at the "systems of systems" from this lower-level context (DNA), clearly you can see that such a view is incorrect. The DNA molecules are not aware that they live within a human body. Nor do they understand the "divine nature" of that human body, and the human bodies (mother and father) that created the human body they live in. I maintain that the real crux of the word "divine" is simply rooted to the aspects of CREATION. ANY act of creation is, in my view, divine. But please do not immediately restrict this view such that it simply MUST have something to do with other people's LIMITED view of a "God".

So let me know: If you do reject the "systems of systems" view, then fine....we just don't agree on something that a great deal of scientific data shows to be true. But if you DO accept the "systems of systems" view, I would like to understand what YOUR beliefs are with regard to what kind of system exists above the level of context of our perceived universe.

But to me there is no reason to believe that there is such thing as a god or any other form of higher intelligence.

You do not see the omnipresent evidence of "systems of systems" structure in our observable universe as a good enough reason to believe there is a system with a higher level of context? You are a higher-level context to your DNA. And so you see no reason to believe that you are an element within an even higher level of context? It would seem that you are, literally, throwing out ALL the evidence that is our universe!

I've never seen, heard of felt anything that would suggest its existence.

Again: You do not think that the "systems of systems" structure of everything around us is not in the least bit suggestive that we might live within a higher level context? That seems quite odd to me. It almost seems as if your idea of perception stops at the boundaries of your body, and that you do not see yourself as living within the contexts of: Community, city, country, continent, planet, solar system, galaxy, universe.

Like I already said, the word "divine" has a certain meaning. You just took "divine" out of its own context and claimed that it's scientifically being validated.

I am doing nothing more than trying to dissociate the word "divine" with the tired concepts of what people have claimed God to be. That link is not absolute, and not permanent, and the only people who have a vested interest in making you think it is absolute are the religious extremists who want to TELL YOU what "divine" means. If I am correct that "Science" and "Spirituality" are two extremes from which creation can occur, then there MUST be a scientific view of what constitutes "divine" just as there is obviously already a spiritual view of what constitutes "divine". Coming to a true understanding of what is "divine" should result in a balance of these two views... because balance of extremes is how everything else works in our universe of Energy.

I'll take your word for it. It still contains flaws and contradictions though

And wouldn't you find it highly likely that the flaws and contradictions were introduced by the many levels of TRANSLATION performed on the original text? In fact, this is precisely why people who have discovered the scientific underpinnings of Genesis have only been able to do so by studying the book in its native Hebrew. There is a reason for this: Hebrew is a very unique language because of its formal mathematical constructs. Like other languages, it has a visual form (shape of the letters) and auditory form (sound of the letters). But it also has a third element, and that is a numerical value of the letters. This is the connection to "universal" science. Furthermore, the way letters are combined to form words, and from these come meanings, are mathematically rigorous. When you study Genesis, mathematically, using the Hebrew language that it was written in, all of the "flaws and contradictions" fall away. What you are left with is a scientific, mathematical treatise of dimensionality and the process of Creation.

When you read Genesis in the translated (how many times?) King James version....or any other tranlated version, you are essentially reading a second hand (or third....or 10th....or 100th hand) telling of the original story. Ever play the game where one person initiates a story, and each person in the circle re-tells the story to the person next to them? Isn't it amazing how DIFFERENT the story is when it has gone all the way around the circle? Is there any reason to NOT think that such distortions and errors are also present in the translated versions of the Bible?

RainmanTime

 

[trollface]

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

Hmmmm. Can I take this to mean that you've given up on this conversation with me again, Rainman?

Rainman said:
And the rest, they say, is Dark Matter, which one could read as "black holes"...around another 24-34%.

Dark Matter and black holes are two completely different things.

Rho said:
[...]science will never disprove god (as hard as its trying)[...]

Science doesn't care if there's a God or not. Science is not trying to disprove God, however, there are many religions that try to disprove or adapt science for their own ends.

I want to make a comment about a line of reasoning that I've seen in this thread twice now from two different people. It's one of those arguments that sounds like it could be reasonable, but actually has no logical merit whatsoever. It's the argument where you say "look at our cells, they work for us and don't know it, therefore isn't it possible that we're in the same boat as those cells".

Well, the one is completely unrelated to each other. Yes, our cells interact in a certain way. That they're a subset of a larger organism doesn't mean that we therefore must be. Because if that's true, then the same logic must be true down the other way. So, individual cells (or DNA strands) are part of a larger system, so doesn't it follow logically that there must be a smaller system within them? Okay, so there's constituent components of a cell, so it is? Well, the same must be true of those smaller elements, too. By exactly the same logic. And, as such, we discover that a cell nucleus is made up of smaller subsystems. And those subsystems must be part of even smaller subsystems. And so on, infinitely, until we get to a stage were even an electron would be comparatively the same size as the Milky Way is to us. And still there would have to be more systems. And infinitely higher and higher, too. If that argument were logically sound, that is.

Really, it's comparing things that don't bear much comparison. It really is exactly the same logic as could lead me to declare that I've noticed that all dogs have four legs. And my table has four legs. Is it, therefore, unreasonable for me to assume that my table will fetch me my pipe and slippers?

I'm sure you can see the flaw in the logic with that one.

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

Hmmmm. Can I take this to mean that you've given up on this conversation with me again, Rainman?

I don't really see why I should continue, given that you seem to wave-off as irrelevant the scientific connections that I have described are going on. The mathematics of fractal geometry and Chaos (non-linear) dynamics match-up with nature...much more accurately than our earlier, linear models of nature. The theory of energy as information and information as energy is "out there" and supported by a lot of great minds. Once again, we even see evidence to this in the fact that the same mathematics used to describe thermodynamic entropy have been shown to apply to information coding and retrieval over discrete noiseless channels. You either seem to reject these links outright, or toss them away as irrelevant. And then you go on to make "bold" statements that take the discussion away from discussing the evidence I have presented to you on these subjects.

It's not too nice when someone makes unpleasent assumptions about you, is it? Please don't do it to me. My beliefs are nothing to do with comfort

Someone once told me something that I think applies here: "I tend to write in big, flowerly terms. You'll get used to me." In other words, you are just as annoying sometimes. I only match your energy and snideness. So here is another of your bold statements:

the argument where you say "look at our cells, they work for us and don't know it, therefore isn't it possible that we're in the same boat as those cells".

Well, the one is completely unrelated to each other.

Yep...that's bold...and it is also BS. COMPLETELY unrelated to each other, are they? Now how can that be that they are COMPLETELY unrelated to each other, when one can obvious see one huge RELATIONSHIP in that one thing is an internal subsystem of the other. The very fact that one system contains the other means they are likely HIGHLY related to each other....certainly not COMPLETELY unrelated to each other, as you say. So we have defined one big relationship between the two right there, and I bet we can find more. Aha! They are both related in that the "network architecture" is the prevailing theme in both systemic realms. The human body is composed of networks of nerve fibers, networks of arteries and veins, etc. And the DNA molecule is essentially composed of a network of amino acid molecules, linked in triplet codons. Should we go on with how the two are less than completely unrelated to each other? OK. Another common relationship between the two is that both the human body and DNA exhibit the mathematical structure of the Golden Mean Spiral (Phi). We could go on and on, but suffice it to say that your bold statement of the two being completely unrelated is highly questionable in its truthfulness. But now I suppose you will just say this is more of your "flowery language", and that you didn't really mean they were "completely" unrelated.

Really, it's comparing things that don't bear much comparison.

Really? This is only the entire fundamental basis for systems theory and systems engineering....comparing and quantifying relationships of systems within systems, via information. So here again you are throwing away mathematical theory that is well-supported, and which has been put to use in creating the complex systems we have at our service today. And your refutation appears to support this, because it does not take into account the fundamentals of information science:

It really is exactly the same logic as could lead me to declare that I've noticed that all dogs have four legs. And my table has four legs. Is it, therefore, unreasonable for me to assume that my table will fetch me my pipe and slippers?

No, I'm sorry...it is NOT "exactly the same logic". You are, once again, only addressing the physical aspect of a comparision between dog legs and table legs. You have ignored the functional aspect of the two systems, namely what functions the legs serve. The Functional Architecture of a system is every bit as information-rich as the Physical Architecture of a system. Take my word for this (or don't and do some research), because I do large-scale, complex systems-of-systems engineering. I know of what I speak.

You see, your analogy and the logic behind it is based on only the physical dimension similarity of dog legs and table legs. There is companion logic associated with the Functional and the Operational information domains that is used to discriminate the difference between dogs legs and table legs. The major function distinction is that dogs legs perform at least two distinct functions, where table legs provide just one: Table legs "Provide Stability" for their common platform. For dog's legs, they also "Provide Stability" but they also provide another important function and that is "Provide Mobility". This means that the functional architecture of dog's legs have a higher information content, since they perform more functions. And right here, in this functional domain, we see the logic that would distinguish the reason why your table is not going to fetch your pipe and slippers.... because the table legs do not fulfill (by design) the "Provide Mobility" function.

There are other logical imperatives that show up in the Operational domain of information that I could discuss, but I think I have made my point...

I'm sure you can see the flaw in the logic with that one.

No, actually I do not see any flaw in my logic, especially given the analysis I have provided above. Perhaps you can tell me what is wrong with my "systems of systems" triplex model, where any system is described in 3 orthogonal information domains: Operational, Functional, and Physical. If you can show some flaw in this logic, then I can show you some references for how it is becoming a defacto standard for systems engineering. Who knows...there might be some big consulting work for you in it if you can show us how everything we are doing is based on flawed logic?

Oh yeah....note the proliferation of "triplex orthogonal constructs" throughout all of this (i.e. Operational-Functional-Physical). It is a central organizing theme in the language of Nature and Creation.

RainmanTime

 

[trollface]

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

I don't really see why I should continue, given that you seem to wave-off as irrelevant the scientific connections that I have described are going on.[...]You either seem to reject these links outright, or toss them away as irrelevant.

Well, I'm not actually going to look back over this thread at the moment to check this, but I don't remember doing any of that. In fact, I seem to remember asking you to expand on one or two things, and to explain with more depth with regards to other things.

Of course, I disregarded things that I found to be logically flawed or pointless, such as the statement that consiousness is countinuous, but only if you discount when it's not. You can, of course, challenge my assessment of what you've said. Maybe I've misunderstood and you could explain further. Maybe you think there's something wrong with my argument. Maybe you think I've applied my logic incorrectly, and you could show me where. If you think I'm being unfair, say so.

It's polite to at least notify someone if you're abandoing a conversation with them.

Someone once told me something that I think applies here: "I tend to write in big, flowerly terms. You'll get used to me." In other words, you are just as annoying sometimes. I only match your energy and snideness.

Yup, well, you got me there. I don't think, though, that I have ever attacked you, personally. Rather, I've stuck to your arguments. Wheras you have attacked me, personally. You'll also notice (from the bit with the "flowery" quote) that when I was challenged on it, I was polite and I apologised immediately. Maybe we're not as similar as you'd at first think.

You can be as flowery, annoying, energetic or whatever else you want to call me. I'd just appreciate it if you could stick to attacking the things I say, not the things that you assume about the way you think I am.

COMPLETELY unrelated to each other, are they? Now how can that be that they are COMPLETELY unrelated to each other, when one can obvious see one huge RELATIONSHIP in that one thing is an internal subsystem of the other.

Because that's not what we're analysing them for. You have to bear in mind the purpose of our comparison. We're comparing DNA strands (or whatever it is the other guy said) to humans in terms of intelligence to see whether it's credible that there is a higher intelligence outside of ourselves, are we not? I mean, if we're just saying that it's true that things can be subsystems of other things then I don't think that really counts as proof of anything beyond what our senses tell us. Or, indeed, a statement that rates highly on the "wow" list.

Yes, I'll happily grant you that DNA strands are a subsystem of the human body. I'll also offer that compacted fecal matter is an essentail subsystem, too. And that my particular body is a subsystem of my neighbourhood. And of my circle of friends. And my country. And the planet. If this is logically leading me down the path to believeing in higher intelligences, then I'm not seeing it. In other words, "so what?"

Really? This is only the entire fundamental basis for systems theory and systems engineering....comparing and quantifying relationships of systems within systems, via information.

Really? The foundation of this study is the comparison of DNA molecules to humans with regard to their intelligence and spirituality?

So here again you are throwing away mathematical theory that is well-supported, and which has been put to use in creating the complex systems we have at our service today.

I'm not debating the mathematical theory, I'm debating whether it's applicable to this argument.

I mean, I could say that spirituality was like a vertical axis and that intelligence was like a horizontal axis. If you take those two points and draw a line between them, then you have God. So, to discover how big God is, you take the lengths of the other two axes, squared them, added them together, and then did the root. And then, if you disputed this, would you be disputing what I had said, and my choice of illustration/proof, or would you be disputing Pythagoras' Theorem itself?

I'm not disputing that things can be subsystems of each other. Exactly how much of a stupid argument would that be?

No, I'm sorry...it is NOT "exactly the same logic". You are, once again, only addressing the physical aspect of a comparision between dog legs and table legs. You have ignored the functional aspect of the two systems, namely what functions the legs serve.

No, actually. You cannot, after all, say that the dog and the table are completely unrelated.

It's true that I ignored the functional aspect of the legs, but so what? What functional aspect do humans and DNA strands have in common? To replicate themselves, right? Which, again, seems to have little to do with higer intelligences. Unless said higher intelligences also plan to just reproduce themselves.

No, actually I do not see any flaw in my logic[...]

I said that I was sure you could see the flaw in my logic. But, if you want to take it like that...

My point is this: The fact that humans contain a subsystem of DNA strands does not logically lead to the conclusion that it is likely that there is a divine intelligence out there. If you can show me how this point is wrong, then do so.

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

I couldn't disagree with you more.

You can disagree all you want, but it will do you no good, since what I'm saying is a fact. Now I'm usually very careful with claiming things as facts (for one thing I always use phrases like "My personal opinion..."), but in this case I'm 100% sure that I'm right. The word "divine" has only one meaning and hey, I didn't make up the English language. It means as much as "supreme being", nothing more and nothing less. I've even crossreferenced it, just to be sure. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

differences of religious opinions

In every religion "divine" means the exact same thing. However, every religion has its own way to describe the enitity they call "divine". But again, it's still the same thing.

it is clear that when you hear "divine" that it must always imply God

It does, it implies God, or godlike, supreme being if you will. There's no way around it. It's the English language. I'm open to almost any discussion, but this is a fact.

No, I am not, because the "meaning" of divine is not as clear-cut as you seem to think.

Yes you are, so I'll repeat myself one more time... "divine" is probably the most clearly defined word in the English language /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I am trying to REMOVE the connection between "divine" and "God" that all people seem to dogmatically infer. The connection between "God" and "divine" is not an absolute.

I suggest you start rewriting the English dictionary in that case.

and I am using the context of scientific systems engineering which has accumulated an awful lot of evidence for how systems integrate with one another, and are hierarchical with one another.

Yes and that's what I meant with "kindergarten science". Calling something "divine", while it is not and claiming that there's scientific evidence for it. It's like me calling martians "apples" and claiming there is proof of their existence. Don't get me wrong, I can relate to what you are saying, but personally I don't believe in a higher form of intelligence being responsible for our existence.

You might be in for a big surprise. So....does this also mean that you reject the whole "systems of systems" view I am describing? Because one eminently leads to the other. If you agree, by all the evidence in our universe you can see around yourself, that we live in a "system of systems", then there is really no reason to believe that the "system of systems" STOPS at the edge of our phyiscal universe, right? There would be no reason to believe that there is no super-system outside the context of our universe, right?

You are now asking me to either reject or accept the "systems of systems" view. It's like Bush saying "either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists". That's hardly a scientific approach! Personally I can relate to the "systems of systems" view, but I don't see how this would imply that there's a higher form of intelligence responsible for our existence.

You might be in for a big surprise.

Or not... I'm open to the theory, but certain things seem improbable and as of yet unproven!

a higher-level system context external to the "universe" of the body we live in

I tend to agree with you when you speak of a higher-level system. However, in my opinion it's not intelligent and not what people would call "a creator". I realize that you're trying to tell me that I should let go of my traditional view of "divine", but I suggest you let go of the word "divine" since it's inextricably connected to the traditional way of thinking. Let me illustrate what I'm saying by providing you with two points:

1) There's no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a supreme being, god, or godlike figure.
2) I'm open to this new theory of "systems of systems", but I still think that it does not imply that a possible higher level system would have to be intelligent.

You do not see the omnipresent evidence of "systems of systems" structure in our observable universe as a good enough reason to believe there is a system with a higher level of context? You are a higher-level context to your DNA. And so you see no reason to believe that you are an element within an even higher level of context? It would seem that you are, literally, throwing out ALL the evidence that is our universe!

I think I've made my point clear now. I also think I'm right in claiming there's no evidence of the classic god. It seems like you're using certain infamous psycholgical tactics to make me think I'm wrong /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif Of course I'm not "throwing out ALL the evidence that is our universe!", that's plain silly.

Again: You do not think that the "systems of systems" structure of everything around us is not in the least bit suggestive that we might live within a higher level context? That seems quite odd to me. It almost seems as if your idea of perception stops at the boundaries of your body, and that you do not see yourself as living within the contexts of: Community, city, country, continent, planet, solar system, galaxy, universe.

Seems like today is "Worldwide Repeat Yourself Day" /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif But, YES, I think it's possible that we live within a higher level context and NO, I don't think it's intelligent in any form whatsoever.

That link is not absolute, and not permanent, and the only people who have a vested interest in making you think it is absolute are the religious extremists who want to TELL YOU what "divine" means.

Really, I don't think people who make dictionaries are really extremists. And AGAIN (in the spirit of Worldwide Repeat Yourself Day) the link IS absolute and it's as permanent as the people who make dictionaries want it to be! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

And wouldn't you find it highly likely that the flaws and contradictions were introduced by the many levels of TRANSLATION performed on the original text?

By saying "I'll take your word for it" I actually meant to say that I believe you /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif There are a lot of old texts which to date are still very useful. I still maintain however, that there's no evidence for "the act of creation" (oh and for the geezer who supposedly did it)

Right... I think it's time for a Heineken now

Roel

(edited: typo)

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

OK, I'll continue if you insist. But can we agree that this conversation appears to be centered on "systems of systems" comparisons, especially human-to-DNA, with regard to establishing basis of scientific evidence for a higher-level, intelligent system? At least that is what I think we are talking about. I could be wrong, because you see I often have to address some of your own bold statements that have logical flaws or are otherwise pointless. Maybe that's an overuse of flowery words that get in the way of my comprehension of your point. Don't worry, I'll use some examples as I try to clean-up some other issues so we can focus on the point above (if you agree that this is what we are talking about).... first:

Of course, I disregarded things that I found to be logically flawed or pointless,

And I am similar in the flawed or pointless things that you say. However, I feel the need to make the obvious counterpoints to show where your logic, or analogies, are flawed. And I think you do the same.

Maybe you think I've applied my logic incorrectly, and you could show me where.

And I have, and I do, and I will below.

Rather, I've stuck to your arguments. Wheras you have attacked me, personally.

If you've taken it personally, then I do apologize (polite enough, Mr. Manners?). But I guess this is my "flowery words" way to get you to come out of your shell and share some of your beliefs of what constitutes our higher-level system, in terms of what sorts of power and influence it may have over us. Call me guilty of "baiting" you, and I'd probably admit to it. I guess that's my style. Don't take it personally, but maybe instead share some of your personal beliefs. It could lively up the debate.

Because that's not what we're analysing them for.

See, this is where we get sidetracked. You are now applying conditional logic with the basis of analysis as your condition. However, your initial statement (perhaps flowery) drew an unconditional implication..namely, that of being COMPLETELY unrelated. I simply gave a few examples of how your unconditional was not true, and therefore was an invalid argument. Now you want to go into a grey area discussion of the conditions of analysis and comparisions, when my point was simply to refute your statement that they were completely unrelated. And I think I have done that, so I will move on.

We're comparing DNA strands (or whatever it is the other guy said) to humans in terms of intelligence to see whether it's credible that there is a higher intelligence outside of ourselves, are we not? I mean, if we're just saying that it's true that things can be subsystems of other things then I don't think that really counts as proof of anything beyond what our senses tell us.

It is a foothold from which logical inference can be enjoyed. We use this method all the time in the sciences to develop new, testable theories. The fact that DNA and humans are systemically related as subsystem-supersystem is the first realization we make on this road of logical inference. The other common relationships I cited are more fodder for this foothold (e.g. they self-replicate, they employ network structures....all are true and all are evidence of how they are not COMPLETELY unrelated). Now let's look at more potential, valid relationships between the two, for sake of the higher-level intelligence argument: I would assume that you consider yourself to be intelligent, and that we consider the human species to be intelligent. And in your abilities of intellect (which establish your intelligence) I suppose you would agree that you exercise certain standards of intelligence over your DNA subsystem, right? In short, you use your intelligence to make calculated decisions of who you choose to procreate with. In fact, if you choose to NEVER procreate then this shows you, an intelligent being, have a supreme measure of power over your DNA, and whether your particular "brew" of DNA will get to "live on" in a new creation. So now we have established another valid relationship between humans and DNA, where you were saying they were completely unrelated and not worthy of comparision. We have established that you are intelligent and you have a certain amount of power over the "universe" of your DNA subsystem. And this is a result of the system-subsystem relationship analysis. Hmmm...the plot thickens. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Yes, I'll happily grant you that DNA strands are a subsystem of the human body. I'll also offer that compacted fecal matter is an essentail subsystem, too.

You are again arguing from a "form" (physical) standpoint to the exclusion of the functional standpoint. Do DNA and compacted fecal matter have the same subsystem functionality? I can tell you right off the bat that they do not, as DNA can perform the function of organized, self-replication, thanks to its fractal structure. DNA is recombinant, is it not? I don't think fecal matter is recombinant. OK....so enough crap /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif Let's keep the comparisions between humans and DNA, because they share functional self-similarities. Your crappy /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif argument is a functionally invalid comparison. (Not a personal attack... but a punny colloquialism!)

If this is logically leading me down the path to believeing in higher intelligences, then I'm not seeing it. In other words, "so what?"

Hang with me. Keep walking down the path, because I am hopeful the light is getting brighter. I hope you will agree that we, as humans, are an intelligent supersystem to our DNA. And that furthermore, as an intelligent supersystem, we hold a certain amount of creative power over our DNA. And CREATION and CREATIVE POWER is the name of this path I am walking you down. It is the same point I am trying to make with Roel in our discussions of the grey areas of the definition of "divine".

Really? The foundation of this study is the comparison of DNA molecules to humans with regard to their intelligence and spirituality?

Flippant non-sequitor. So here is another example of how I think we get off track. Let's review where these statements came from, because I read your flippancy in this answer as a means to deflect from having to admit the point I was making that lead to this remark. Here's the chronology:

You said:

Well, the one is completely unrelated to each other. ...and
Really, it's comparing things that don't bear much comparison.

And then my ENTIRE statement, which was in response to your implication that we should not investigate comparisons was:

This is only the entire fundamental basis for systems theory and systems engineering....comparing and quantifying relationships of systems within systems, via information.

And then you come back with your flippant remark trying to make it seem as if I was saying the basis of systems theory was only human-DNA systemic comparisions. However, you can see that my added words clarify what I am talking about, namely, that there is a body of knowledge and practice (systems engineering) that relies heavily on comparisions of systems and their subsystems. Comparitive relationships, and the information that define them. So I was pointing to this body of knowledge as a means to logically counter your argument that the human-DNA systemic relationship were things that don't bear much comparison. So all of this chat, and your flippant remark, was apparantly trying to draw me away from the fact that I have showed you MORE than one way in which humans and DNA are related, and that the more of these relationships we "find", the more relevant is their comparison. Instead of being flippant and trying to make me look silly, you could just say "OK, I guess you are right, there are some valid comparisions. They are not, as I stated, COMPLETELY unrelated." Such admissions would prevent me from having to explain all my reasonings for my arguments (and maybe save a few keystrokes) in the future.

No, actually. You cannot, after all, say that the dog and the table are completely unrelated.

OK, now I am unclear on what you are admitting to. First, I was never one who said that a dog and a table are completely unrelated. In fact, I showed they both possess common functional relationships in that their legs both "provide stability". So is this you way of saying "yes, I was incorrect to use the words 'completely unrelated' in my argument"?

It's true that I ignored the functional aspect of the legs, but so what?

So what? Have I not shown that the functional aspects, and their related information, are what provide the discriminating factor for purported logic that would make you think your table was going to fetch your slippers? So what? So.... by ignoring the information in the functional architectures of dogs and tables, you have tried to use that comparison to invalidate my comparison of humans and their DNA. Since humans and DNA *do* share common functional architectures, and since dogs and tables *do NOT*, then by ignoring the functional aspects you introduce an argument that is an invalid comparison.

What functional aspect do humans and DNA strands have in common? To replicate themselves, right? Which, again, seems to have little to do with higer intelligences. Unless said higher intelligences also plan to just reproduce themselves.

Ahhhhhhhh.....NOW we are moving down the path.....NOW we are getting somewhere! You think it SEEMS to have little to do with higher intelligence. But it appears to me it has a LOT to do with higher intelligence. I think we are in agreement that we humans are a higher form of intelligence to our DNA, right? We DO have the power of intelligent choices in how, or even if, our DNA continues it its existence. So the fact that humans and DNA both replicate themselves, and the fact that we hold the creative reigns of our DNA via our intelligence DOES have something to do with my argument. It is laying more groundwork for logical inferences of embedded systems. And as for your statement about higher intelligences than us planning to reproduce themselves.... Did you ever hear the words "in the image and likeness of their creator?" Comes from a popular book called the Bible. In fact, Genesis, Book #1...the seminal work, if you can pardon the pun!

My point is this: The fact that humans contain a subsystem of DNA strands does not logically lead to the conclusion that it is likely that there is a divine intelligence out there. If you can show me how this point is wrong, then do so.

And I think I have made it clear that the system-subsystem physical hierarchy is not the ONLY relationship I am relying on in my inductive process. It is a big one...it is one that gets a person looking around for other relationships to further investigate the potential links between human and DNA, with regard to a higher-level system to the human body system. But besides physical systemic relationships, I have also pointed to the important functional systemic relationships. And I have barely scratched the surface when it comes to the operational systemic relationships. Actually, the operational domain is where we assess "intelligence", because this is the domain where Functional and Physical are integrated to achieve goals and objectives. A physical thing is just a hunk of matter...hardly intelligent. And a function is nothing more than a transformation of input-to-output...while it may appear a bit more "intelligent" than a physical element, it really is not. But when you mix physical elements and functional elements into an operational, goal-directed environment, you begin to see how intelligence can arise out of the time-based considerations of the operational domain....and chaotic feedback loops....and fractals.

I am "weaving a rug" with regard to information here. I am not arguing about a single strand in that rug, namely that DNA is a subsystem of the human. I am trying to point out ALL the strands in the rug (functional and operational self-similarity, in addition to the physical system-subsystem). I think we have established that humans and DNA share physical, functional, and operational similarities. We are self-similar (a fractal term) with our DNA in this regard. And I think we have also established that humans generally agree that we are an intelligent lot, as we execute operational decisions that allow us to flexibly achieve goals and objectives. And I think we have also established that we, the intelligent supersystem to our DNA, hold a very important power of Creation over that DNA. We decide whether our DNA will ever get the chance to propagate, and "recombinate" with someone else's DNA. We exercise creative judgment over our DNA. If one were to include a functional desscription of what might constitute "divinity", I would think the main function one would cite would be "the ability to create". More on this when I get around to answering Roel's post...it may be a holiday here in the States, but I still have work around the house to get done! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I hope you can see the "tapestry" I am weaving or, to use the other analogy, the path I am leading you down. It's not really a scary path, unless you have an aversion to helping humanity get a better grip on a definition of what may constitute "divinity". The relationships of human to DNA seem to show common themes. We are intelligent. We exercise creative power over our DNA. If all these things are basically "right" from a macrocosm/microcosm point of view in this comparision, then it does not seem exeedingly unlikely that these same forms of relationships could appear between us and the next-higher level supersystem of which we are part (and I think you said you DO agree that there probably is a next-higher system context).

And oh yes...another point of mathematical order to note, as to relationships in this inductive process. Examine the spatial/size relationships of the elements we are discussing in this "systems of systems" view. I'd say the ratios are pretty comparable: DNA strand is to the entire human body, as the human body is to the entire known universe. Without actually performing a calculation for an exact number, I'd say the scalings in these ratios are fairly close. We are SO much larger than our DNA, that one could easily see our DNA saying "yeah...I don't see any evidence in our universe that there is a higher-level intelligent being." That same vastness of our macrocosmic universe outside our bodies can, and does, lead some of us to the same type of conclusion that we may attribute to our DNA. Doesn't mean these conclusions are not flawed..it only means that the horizons of observability are SO large as to make it seemingly impractical to "prove".

RainmanTime

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

OK, I'll continue if you insist.

Can I join in? And if so, can we get rid of "divine"?

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

Can I join in? And if so, can we get rid of "divine"?

Answers: Certainly, and no! (At least not until I answer your last post and make a few more points on relativistic vs. absolutist points of view). /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif I know you "get" the basic point I am trying to make about the word... the point being that there ARE "shades of grey" interpretations of such highly contentious words. And the fact that you seem to be arguing from an absolutist point of view with respect to its definition is what I find interesting, since that does not address the relativistic point I am trying to make.

Give me a few more hours of yardwork and a couple dips in the pool, and then I'll make a few points on your last post, Roel. Maybe a few beers thrown in for good measure!

I'm not trying to convert you, but rather give a bit more scientific reasoning to the argument for what some people mean with respect to "divinity" and a "higher power". The key word and relationship is Creation and Creative Power. More later...

RainmanTime

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

the point being that there ARE "shades of grey" interpretations of such highly contentious words.

Yes, I acknowledge there are many shades of grey, but the word "divine" still means one thing and one thing only, no matter what you call it and how you describe it. It always implies god, godlike, supreme being, etc. And from that perspective there is no evidence for its existence.

Have a nice dip in the pool, get a brewsky, grab a dictionary and come join us

Roel

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

Have a nice dip in the pool, get a brewsky, grab a dictionary and come join us

Ahhhh.... OK, I'll try one of Creedo's tactics and speak about myself in the 3rd person: /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Rainman is now refreshed. Furthermore, Rainman is approaching a nize little beer buzz! Rainman likes Memorial Day Holiday. :D

OK, as for a dictionary reference, I think this dictionary.com set of definitions would do us well in this discussion. It does seem to cover the aspects that you have discussed, from your point of view of this word having an absolutely unique meaning...100% certain, I believe you said, and if that is not absolutist, I don't know what is! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif So now in the same, absolutist fashion, let's compare the descriptions in dictionary.com against some of the things you have said about "divine".

but the word "divine" still means one thing and one thing only, no matter what you call it and how you describe it.

OK, so looking at the reference link defintions we can see, in a very technical sense, that you are incorrect in saying it means "one thing and one thing only". Certainly, the reference does contain the "one and only one" definition you are speaking of when it describes the adjective divine as: "1. Having the nature of or being a deity. and also in 2. Superhuman; godlike." Yep..looks like those are the "one" definition you are talking about. But I am sure you can see, technically, how there are more definitions. The one that is the MOST different is the intransitive verb divine given as "2. To have or feel a presage or foreboding." Now, you may say this is splitting hairs, as I should know the ONE definition you are talking about, and this is true. But I did want to point out your technical error in saying there is "one thing and one thing only". What can I say? I am technical in my nature! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

But let's ignore the intransitive verb "other" definition of divine, as I know that is not the one you meant. Instead, let us look at some of the OTHER alternate definitions given in our reference link, shall we? We have "3.a. Supremely good or beautiful; magnificent and 3.b. Extremely pleasant; delightful. and even 4. Heavenly; perfect." Now, those don't explicity refer to "God, godlike, supreme being, or deity", now do they? I guess we could consider these the grey area definitions that I see, where you see 100% certainty. OK, I give you that "heavenly, perfect" are indirect references to a "place" where a diety may be said to "exist". But the definitions for (3) are very explicitly NOT God-referenced. Again, I am only pointing out the technical errors in your statements. So your 100% certainty is maybe a little less than 100...and that's OK. In fact, in my business we are not absolutist enough to think that ANYTHING can be 100% anything. We can guarantee no loss of human life on commercial aircraft to a very high degree of certainty... we even do it in excess of 99% certainty... thank the divine for those of us who fly! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif But not 100%. For safety-critical operational phases, like automatic landing, we can do approximately 99.999956% certainty....not bad, but still not 100%....technically speaking. But let's move on, shall we (as Rainman takes another long draw on his St. Pauli Girl)

It always implies god, godlike, supreme being, etc.

OK, so I hope you agree now that it does not always imply this. Certainly not in the intransitive verb definition, and not even really in the "extremely delightful, pleasant" definition. In other words, it is open to debate given the variety of definitions. But I really like that you used these 3 terms of reference...and not just once, but TWICE, as you used them in your initial, long reply to me. Because the use of these three deity-driven words are EXACTLY what I would like to use to discuss the "shades of grey" interpretations of "divine" that I have spoken of before. I want to encourage a relativistic line of thought here....not the absolutist line of thought that lead you to make your technically inaccurate assessments of the defintionS (plural) of "divine". OK? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

God, godlike, supreme being, etc.
Since we are being technical about definitions: Do these 3 words describe the EXACT same thing? Not really. They each have their own connotations...both subjective and objective. Certainly "God" and "godlike" are not the same thing. Because something is either God itself, or it is not. Thus "godlike" is something LIKE God, but not really God...that is how I would reasonably distinguish between these shades of grey. And then "supreme being" moves even further away from the "strict" definition used by the term God. If God is the white, then supreme being is something a little less white than God in its connotation... and "godlike" is even further to the grey side of God. THESE are the very shades of grey that I am debating when it comes to a hard/fast, asbolutist definition of the connotations/denotations of the word "divine". Could we discuss these shades of grey for awhile, Roel???...that is, if I have convinced you of the fact that there IS room for interpretation of "divine" since there IS more than one definition for it?

If the authors of the various dictionaries are permitted to use shades-of-grey words, such as the above three, in their definitions, then this would imply we are not prohibited from (i.e. we are free to) perhaps enhance and/or expand the definition with yet MORE descriptive words. And in adding some other, descriptive words, maybe we can even get to a more neutral, common definition of "the divine" such that some religions would stop killing each other over it?

I generally, think this is the process of how language evolves, rather than staying absolutist, and stagnant. Am I wrong?

I've gone thru great pains to lay out this explanation, Roel, because I wanted to challenge your assertion that I am "completely redefining" what "divine" means. I am doing nothing of the sort. I am using some of the existing descriptive words used to define it, and suggesting some others that EXPAND, rather than change altogether, the connotations of what "divine" might mean to given groups of peoples. OK, so are you ready for my suggestions for some words that might augment global human understanding of a "scientific" view of what "divine" may mean? Here they are:

"Of or relating to some entity that possesses and utilizes the power of Creation." OK, so I guess I could just boil it down to one additional word: Creation, of the concept of Creative Power. Do you see the grey area I am discussing here? I know you can see the inference to your "one" definition of divine here, because people who talk about God also attribute to God the "almighty power of creation". But it also plays to my side of the grey area, in that it does not exclude other forms of creative power in our universe. I am simply saying that an alternate, broader connotation of what "divine" means could reasonably be taken to refer to anything that has/weilds creative power is, in some shade of grey, divine. In fact, this is EXACTLY what the more common teachings of Qabalah ascribe to: The active power of creation is one of the "functional" descriptions of divinity.

I'm sure you've been keeping up with my discussion with trollface, and so I am going to merge some of these thoughts here. I've been speaking of the RELATIONSHIPS between the supersystem of human body and the subsystem of DNA. I've set out some of these relationships that allow us to compare the two systemic levels, and see their inherent self-similarities with one another. I have distinguished the systems engineering practice of identifying systemic information in the 3 domains of "operational, functional, and physical". So now I would submit that your adherence to your "one and only one" definition of divine, which "implies God, godlike, or supreme being" is a definition of divine from a physical sense of "what God IS" (even tho many would say that God is not physical...you get the point...this definition speaks of the "Is-ness" of God, or God's state of BEING). By suggesting the addition of "Creation" and "Creative Power" to the definition, I am trying to address the definition of "divine" from an alternate information domain: The functional domain. Functions are based in verbs, and so functional definitions are always given (in the science of systems engineering) as verbs and verb phrases. Since "to create" is definitely a verb phrase, you can probably see that the functional definition of "divine" that I am suggesting by adding "Creation" to the definintion. Your definition of "God, godlike, supreme being" is addressing the "Is-ness" or state of BEING for divine. My additional functional definition of divine is addressing what divine "does"...or what God does...and that is to Create. So where your strict definition addresses state of BEING, my additions address another aspect of divine, namely the state of DOING. BEING/DOING. Two sides to one coin.

To illustrate my point, we could extend these thoughts into the operational domain as well, and provide a similar keyword pertinent to that domain. If "state of BEING" describes the Physical domain, and "state of DOING" describes the Functional domain... then we might say that the "state of HAVING" (realization of some objective) would provide an operational domain definition for "divine". In fact, there is an entire segment of language theory that concedes the concept of "operational definition", "functional definition", and "physical definition".

So...would you like to discuss the "shades of grey" issue? And furthermore, would you like to comment on my additional, functional, definition of divinity? Or maybe discuss the orthogonal triplex domains of Operational-Functional-Physical, and their relationship to information science? I mean, to try to stay on-thread-topic...this thread was initiated to talk about "triplex and triplicates". /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

And I am sure you see the obvious parallels between my 3x3 Matrix of Massive SpaceTime theory, and the triplex orthogonal information domains (Ops-Func-Phys). I am still trying to weave all this stuff together....maybe my weaving job is not "professional quality" work, but I do know where I am going and know that I AM (pun!) going to get there, because I possess the Power of Creation!

Kind Regards....always good discussing with you, Roel, as you do get me thinking and pondering deeply. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
RainmanTime

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

Oops....forgot one other thing I wanted to point out...again, being very technical in my analysis:

In every religion "divine" means the exact same thing. However, every religion has its own way to describe the enitity they call "divine". But again, it's still the same thing.

OK, but that combination of sentences sounds a bit silly. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif You say it means the "exact same thing" in every religion... and yet in the next sentence you are rightly describing that each religion has a DIFFERENT way of describing the godlike supreme being. Well, if the religions DO NOT agree, and they have DIFFERENT ways to define their version of God, then I would say (speaking from a technical language standpoint) that they DO NOT mean the "exact same thing."

And on the International Repeat Oneself Day... I would ascribe to being guilty of having that affliction....I mean....I AM the RAINMAN, and the nickname was given to me for good reasons! :D

Enjoy the European evening! Beers on Ray...all around the forum! Virtual beers, that is!

And now, I am off to a friend's house to watch my LA Lakers put Minnesota Timberwolves out of their misery, and advance to the NBA finals! GO LAKERS! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
RainmanTime

 

[RainmanTime]

LATE EDITION UPDATE

Lakers beat T-wolves in 6 games...advance to NBA Finals as the favorite! This team has what it takes.

And it would almost seem we are traveling back in time... two, three, and four years ago when the Lakers won 3 titles in a row. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif Time travel...wow... I wonder if Chrono can tell us who will win the NBA final, and in how many games? Heh heh.... set the bait and see what shows up.

RainmanTime

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

Okay, I'm glad you at least partially agree with me now.

Let me review your comments here.

Mind you, English is not my native tongue. However, I think I've told you before that my language skills are pretty good compared to my math and science skills /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

What can I say? I am technical in my nature!

Although this may sound a bit awkward coming from my mouth, but understanding the sole meaning of the word "divine" requires more than just your technical insight. You need to interpret the word as it was meant. This might seem to contradict my claim that the word "divine" is not open to interpretation, but it doesn't. The word really has only one meaning and there is only one way to interpret it. Every word that is derived from "divine" is inextricably linked to the original meaning of "divine".

The one that is the MOST different is the intransitive verb divine given as "2. To have or feel a presage or foreboding."

Although this definition might seem different from the rest, it can easily be reduced to the original meaning of "divine". Lets take a look at the full description of the intransitive verb, which you conveniently left out of your quote /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

divine

\Di*vine"\, v. i.

1. To use or practice divination; to foretell by divination; to utter prognostications.

The prophets thereof divine for money. --Micah iii. 11.

2. To have or feel a presage or foreboding.

Suggest but truth to my divining thoughts. --Shak.

3. To conjecture or guess; as, to divine rightly.

The first description has a reference to a passage in the bible, so the v.i. is clearly linked to the original meaning of "divine".

We have "3.a. Supremely good or beautiful; magnificent and 3.b. Extremely pleasant; delightful. and even 4. Heavenly; perfect." Now, those don't explicity refer to "God, godlike, supreme being, or deity", now do they?

Well... actually they do refer to "God, godlike, supreme being, or deity". Pretty obviously AND in more than one way, I might add. I don't see how they don't, please enlighten me.

So your 100% certainty is maybe a little less than 100...and that's OK.

In danger of sounding cocky, but alas... I'm still 100% certain /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif Lets see if you can agree with this phrase:

The word "divine", regardless of its conjugation or context, is inextricably linked to "God, godlike, supreme being, or deity" in one way or the other.

Which is not strange, when you take into account that the word is originally derived from the Latin word for "God".

OK, so I hope you agree now that it does not always imply this.

Nope... *taking a sip of my Duvel* no can do, sir

I'm sorry you had to go through great pains to layout this explanation, but I can't.

OK, so I guess I could just boil it down to one additional word: Creation, of the concept of Creative Power.

I've always had a love-hate relationship with your theories. Not to the extent that I really hate your theories of course, but I usually only agree with them partially.

I support the "systems of systems" theory. Excuse my oversimplified summary, but just like you I think the universe acts like a fractal. This is, however, no evidence for what you call Creation. I personally think there was no act of creation, at least, not by an entity. I agree that there could very well be a "higher level system", but to me it's not capable of creation.

After writing the last paragraph I realized that I might just understand what you're getting at. You're refering to the ability of (for instance) a cell, to replicate itself. You could consider that an act of creation and I admit that it would be logical to assume that a higher level system, which we cannot perceive, has the same ability. Am I correct?

That still doesn't mean there's evidence for that theory. It remains a theory, that seems logical, but can't be proven. The only thing you can do is make assumptions. Now I know that a lot of assumptions have been made in the history of science, some of which are still current. But let us agree that "the evidence that is the universe" doesn't cover the full load.

Divine and Creation have really put me on a wrong track. I hate the idea of having to worship something or someone, especially since there's no reason to it. I also want to add that I think it's safe to asume that if there really is a "creative power", it does not have a conscience or self awareness.


Geesh, sorry Ray, I'm going to quit now... I finished my Duvel and I have to work tomorrow. Looking forward to your reply. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Roel

 

[Transient001]

Re: Mayhaps the question is..

Friends

I have read all of your points about the divinity however, maybe we are not discussing the right thing. Maybe we should not pay as much attention to the existence of G-d but to our place in existence. I do understand Roel's point of view, yes maybe there are no tangible proof of a Living Breathing Power Above, but maybe there is. This debate could go on and on until....later becomes now. However, since that seems to be the stalwart barrier that keeps us from moving on, let us say that somehow, somewhen that question was answered and that it is no longer of conscequence, what would we do. Would we become ultimately evil, would we become ultimately good, would we start to behave selfishly or philantropically? What would we do?

I do believe that it is not up to us to question the unquestionable, we must simply decide whether to accept our place in "the system of subsystems" and do our part or not to do it and try to find our own way. Either way The Great Unknown will not mind, it would simply understand our decision as an act of learning.

So, I think we should start pondering where am I standing in relation to my beliefs and not if my beliefs are true or false. Once you find your bearings and follow your north regarding your belief system you will never have to discuss G-d's veracity again for you shall know first hand if S/he is out there or not.

Happy Thoughts fellow campers, summer is near.

Until later becomes now.

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

Okay, I'm glad you at least partially agree with me now.

I always did, as I am not the absolutist here. I was not the one claiming there was ONLY one definition of divine, and as such I was always in partial agreement with you! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Although this may sound a bit awkward coming from my mouth, but understanding the sole meaning of the word "divine" requires more than just your technical insight. You need to interpret the word as it was meant. This might seem to contradict my claim that the word "divine" is not open to interpretation, but it doesn't.

Well, again I am afraid I must inform you that you are technically incorrect....they DO contradict each other. You can't say " you need to interpret the word as it was meant" and then turn around and say "it is not open to interpretation"! I guess I am going to have to agree to disagree and abandon this, because I cannot hold a debate with someone who clearly contradicts themselves, and then claims he is not contradicting himself! I'm no Kurt Godel....it makes my brain hurt!

Although this definition might seem different from the rest, it can easily be reduced to the original meaning of "divine".

HEY! Where did that absolutist go???? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif All of a sudden, now that you need relativism to defend your "one definition", you employ it! You seem to do the same thing with technical science and logical contradiction....use them when you need to, throw them away when they don't give you what you want. You might not realize it, but in this attempt to broaden the v.i. version of divine to meet your needs of connecting it to the adj. divine, you are doing the EXACT same thing that I was doing in trying to expand/connect the adj. version of divine to creation!

The first description has a reference to a passage in the bible, so the v.i. is clearly linked to the original meaning of "divine".

That is called an EXAMPLE of the word's usage, and it is not accepted as part of the definition. I have a college degree, Roel, and even though I am an engineer, it required me to pass advanced English classes. I understand the difference between definition and operational example of a word's use. You are REALLY stretching here....

I realized that I might just understand what you're getting at. You're refering to the ability of (for instance) a cell, to replicate itself. You could consider that an act of creation and I admit that it would be logical to assume that a higher level system, which we cannot perceive, has the same ability. Am I correct?

Yes, you are getting there. That is not "the whole enchilada" but you are approaching an understanding of what I am getting at.

That still doesn't mean there's evidence for that theory. It remains a theory, that seems logical, but can't be proven.

I must now ask if you understand the concept of "standard of evidence". There are many, and yes, they are very far from being absolutist statements of truth. If "evidence" was a clear, non-grey-area concept, then we wouldn't need a jury of our peers, and there would be no false convictions, etc. All you are really saying here is that you choose to adopt the STRICTEST standard of evidence, because it appears you really do not want to believe there might be a God. Unfortunately, if one adopts the strictest standard of evidence, there is no way to prove anything. For the strictest standards of evidence, when coupled to the concept of mathematical proof, would require that ALL basic assumptions that go into a proof must also be shown to be true by evidence. This leads to an endless loop where you are always having to provide evidence all the way back in the chain of proofs. So define for me, precisely, your standard of evidence required. And be careful! Because you may demand a standard of evidence so high that you would not be able to prove some things you believe about yourself!

I hate the idea of having to worship something or someone, especially since there's no reason to it.

Continued discussions always reveal subliminal thoughts...and in this we see it. This statement shows the level of which you are "reverse-brainwashed" by the tired religions of our world that demand allegiance to their mores and to their God. Now THIS is evidence of what is going on in your mind, Roel! Who EVER said you HAD to WORSHIP someone or something that may be God? I have to agree with your statement, Roel, as I think this is one of the silliest things that religions try to force on people. Do you really think (if there does happen to be a God) that he/she/it REALLY gives a flying flip whether we worship him/her/it? In fact, if my logical inference is correct with regard to humans and DNA...it is quite obvious that we DO NOT give a flying flip if our DNA is worshipping us! :D As long as our DNA is "serving" us in its operational capacity, we don't care if it goes into little DNA churches and celebrates the Last DNA Supper! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Sorry, Roel, but this quote seals it for me. Your mind appears SOOOOO locked into the "absolutist" view of what world religions TELL us we must believe, and how we must behave, with respect to God, that it seems to have affected your ability to consider that there JUST MAY BE an alternate "version" of God... one which is FAR less akin to what man-made religions say God is, and one that is FAR closer to what science would infer about how a higher-level creative system would be. I find this amusingly ironic, because you have resisted the controlling message of the world religions SO MUCH, and so WELL, that they have driven you into an absolutist view that what THEY say God "is" must be what EVERYONE is talking about when they talk of a higher-level state of being. My own personal analysis tells me there is a middle-ground belief where the integration of science and spirituality yields a balanced solution to Mind/Body, and Time.

I agree that there could very well be a "higher level system", but to me it's not capable of creation.

Interesting.... and yet you, at your systemic level, ARE capable of creation. Now *I* am the one who wants to see *you* provide proof and evidence of this higher level system not being capable of creation! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I also want to add that I think it's safe to asume that if there really is a "creative power", it does not have a conscience or self awareness.

Gosh, now why are you being so damned hard on yourself, Roel? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif Not only do I not think it is safe to assume, I think it is downright dangerous to assume...given the obvious fact that YOU possess "creative power"!!! Sorry, but you need a little bit more technical logic here, Roel: You consider yourself conscious, correct? You consider yourself self-aware, correct? You possess a power to create another human. You ARE a higher-level, conscious, self-aware supersystem to your DNA. Argue in a non-technical manner if you wish, but this is still true. And thus, your assumption that a higher-level system context to ourselves is definitely NOT conscious or self-aware is tenuous, at best. If WE are all these things at our level of the "system of systems", then why would we assume the next higher level is NOT?

Well, Roel... while I do really enjoy debating things with you, I do have a problem with your loose application of technical science, logic, and semantics. If we both do not adhere to the same level of technical rigor, there is little possibility of us reaching agreement on many issues. Kind of like having different standards of evidence.

Do you want to keep both of us haranging around "divine" or do you want to debate any of the other topics I suggested in my last post?

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime

 

[trollface]

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

Right, I did have a reply all nearly finished, and then my stupid browser deleted it all for me (pressing "delete" twice in quick succession is the same as hitting the "back" button, and you don't seem to be able to stop it). It's now 2 in the morning and I've been tired and hungover all day. forgive me if this post isn't my best effort so far.

OK, I'll continue if you insist.

I don't insist on anything. I'd like for you to continue with this conversation, as I find it interesting. If you don't find it interesting, productive or worth the effort, you are more than free to leave it. I just request that if you do leave it that you articulate this, rather than just leaving me hanging.

But can we agree that this conversation appears to be centered on "systems of systems" comparisons, especially human-to-DNA, with regard to establishing basis of scientific evidence for a higher-level, intelligent system?

That's what I thought.

And I have, and I do, and I will below.

Actually, you gave this as the reason for why you've abandoned 3 conversations with me mid-flow in the short period of time that I've been here. So, you haven't always, you don't always and we'll see.

If you've taken it personally, then I do apologize (polite enough, Mr. Manners?).

It's not so much that I've taken it personally, it's just that it's counter-productive and childish. You have accused me of having "reverence" for physics and physicists to such a degree as it affecting my reasoning in such a manner that I find it impossible to question either. You have also, when I've attacked your application of a mathematical theory, you've accused me of attacking the theory, rather than your application of it. What effect, other than possibly annoying me, did you think that these contradictory, inflamatory and dismissive statements could possibly have? What constructive purpose did you think they would serve?

But I guess this is my "flowery words" way to get you to come out of your shell and share some of your beliefs of what constitutes our higher-level system, in terms of what sorts of power and influence it may have over us.

A much more eloquent and constructive way of doing that would be to type "what are your beliefs of what constitutes our higher-level system, in terms of what sorts of power and influence it may have over us?" I don't need to come out of my shell. I'm not exactly shy and retiring when it comes to sharing my point of view. However, it is hard to answer a question that you haven't been asked.

To answer that question, other than the ordinary societal pressuers put upon us by our societies, I do not believe that any higher-level system has any power or influence over us.

I would assume that you consider yourself to be intelligent, and that we consider the human species to be intelligent. And in your abilities of intellect (which establish your intelligence) I suppose you would agree that you exercise certain standards of intelligence over your DNA subsystem, right? In short, you use your intelligence to make calculated decisions of who you choose to procreate with. In fact, if you choose to NEVER procreate then this shows you, an intelligent being, have a supreme measure of power over your DNA, and whether your particular "brew" of DNA will get to "live on" in a new creation.

I would say that, yes, we have a very, very limited and minimal control over our DNA in that manner, yes. If I had a "supreme measure" of power over my DNA, I'd rest assured that I'd never die from cancer. I'd never get Alzheimer's. I could choose the sex, eye colour, lack of deformity or genetic disease of my offspring...

. Do DNA and compacted fecal matter have the same subsystem functionality? I can tell you right off the bat that they do not, as DNA can perform the function of organized, self-replication, thanks to its fractal structure. DNA is recombinant, is it not? I don't think fecal matter is recombinant.

And "being recombitant" is the criteria we're using, is it? I can think of a functional aspect that fecal matter and humans have in common - we're both host to billions of lifeforms.

If you get to choose the criteria as to what is and what is not "valid", then you can make "valid" comparisons between anything.

And, yes, while I agree that there are similarities in some ways between DNA and humans - more so than humans and fecal matter - I don't think that they are profound or significant enough to prove what you seem to be claiming that they prove.

And CREATION and CREATIVE POWER is the name of this path I am walking you down.

While I agree that we have extremely limited creative power with regards to our DNA (in as much as we can (usually) choose who we have sex with and what, if any, contraception is used), we don't have the power of creation over it. You cannot create your own DNA (well, you could make an argument for the generation of sperm being exactly that, but I see that as more of an automatic subsystem, as it's not a consious act. Plus, it'd be leaving out the women, who are born with their lifetime's supply of eggs in situ). What you can do is to attempt to fuse a random half of your DNA with a random half of the DNA of someone else (usually) of your choice. But that's not the same thing as being able to replicate your own DNA at all.

Instead of being flippant and trying to make me look silly, you could just say "OK, I guess you are right, there are some valid comparisions. They are not, as I stated, COMPLETELY unrelated."

Or, I could instead type "you've just spent 4 or 5 paragraphs dissecting the minutae of the precise semantics that I've employed, utilising gratuitous CAPITALISATION, instead of addressing the points I've made"

Such admissions would prevent me from having to explain all my reasonings for my arguments (and maybe save a few keystrokes) in the future.

And yet, now that you've actually fleshed out your ideas, rather than talking purely in "could be"s and vague generalities, I'm actually a lot more on board than I was previously. Explaining yourself is a good thing, not a bad one.

OK, now I am unclear on what you are admitting to.

I was unaware that I was "admitting to" anything.

Since humans and DNA *do* share common functional architectures, and since dogs and tables *do NOT*, then by ignoring the functional aspects you introduce an argument that is an invalid comparison.

Dogs and tables certainly can share common functional aspects. They can both be decorative. They can both be practical. They can both be vocational. Again, if you get to choose the criteria, and how you define what fills the criteria (and what you can discard), then you can compare anything.

And, while we're on functional aspects, how about the largest, most over-riding functional aspect of DNA which hasn't been mentioned up until now? Pretty much everything about me is defined and controlled by my DNA. From the way my body is built, to the way my brain is built, from the skills I have to the defects I have...aside from a little nurture (and the odd accident, plus wear and tear), everything about me is the way it is because of my DNA. This is not only the primary function of the DNA, it is it's entire raison d'etre. Humans have no equivalent function.

It's those criteria again.

Did you ever hear the words "in the image and likeness of their creator?" Comes from a popular book called the Bible.

I think that the Bible is useful as an anthropological document. It's not as useful as a historical document, but it does have use as one. Then, and only then, do I think it has value as a theological one, and not all that much value at that.

We are self-similar (a fractal term) with our DNA in this regard.

I'll agree that we share some similarities, but to be self-similar, we'd have to be identical. And that we're a long way from being.

I hope you can see the "tapestry" I am weaving or, to use the other analogy, the path I am leading you down.

I see the path. It's just that, unlike you, I think that it's built on some flawed foundations.

It's not really a scary path, unless you have an aversion to helping humanity get a better grip on a definition of what may constitute "divinity".

This is exactly the kind of counter-productive statement I could do without. Other than to patronise me, what was the point of this?

No, I don't find it remotely scary. I just think that it's wrong, on a fundamental level. Think of it like this; I don't not believe in Santa Claus because I'm scared of what the world would be like if there was one, I simply don't think that the reasoning behind the existence of Santa holds up to scrutiny.

As for the ad hominem about anyone who is not agreeing with your thinking being "adverse to helping humanity get a better grip on a definition of what may constitute 'divinity'", I think it's an admirable goal, and one that I do try to help people to achieve. One that I think it's possible that I'm contributing to right now, in fact. I just do not agree with your definition of what that understanding is. That doesn't make me someone that you can legitimately look down upon, it just makes me someone that disagrees with your reasoning. We can discuss it like adults, or you can score points off me. It's up to you.

If all these things are basically "right" from a macrocosm/microcosm point of view in this comparision, then it does not seem exeedingly unlikely that these same forms of relationships could appear between us and the next-higher level supersystem of which we are part (and I think you said you DO agree that there probably is a next-higher system context).

Well, if we say that I agree that these things are "right" for the sake of argument, then, yes, it is possible that what you say is true. However, there is still no evidence that it is. It's equally likely - more, even - that there is no "divine intelligence".

If I conceed that it's not "exceedingly unlikely" (given the veracity of the above) that there is a higher intelligence, then will you conceed that it is also not "exceedingly unlikely" that there is no higher intelligence?

Examine the spatial/size relationships of the elements we are discussing in this "systems of systems" view. I'd say the ratios are pretty comparable: DNA strand is to the entire human body, as the human body is to the entire known universe. Without actually performing a calculation for an exact number, I'd say the scalings in these ratios are fairly close.

This is confirmational bias at it's worse. You freely admit that you don't actually know the sizes (and it's even impossible to) and therefore this is not based on any kind of factual grounding, but you offer up your theory about it as if it confirms your point of view. It doesn't at all. It's simply another theroy which doesn't seem to have much basis in fact.

Would it weaken your conviction if I could disprove it?

Anyway, this post was much better 1st time round. Bloody machine.

 

[zerubbabel]

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

Hey fellow Travelers,

I've really enjoyed readiing all the sides in the current debate/discussion about whether "divinity" has any validity at all in the "systems of systems" concept. In a very real sense, you have yourselves created a system within a system; and we can, to some degree, examine this system and determine a concensus of view that is observable by all the individual elements. In order to do so, each element would have to cede "sovereignty" to "something" in the center of all that would define the "truth" of the matter. Whether we like to believe it or not, this is how science works. Interestingly enough, this is also how "religion" is supposed to work as well. Unfortunately, in both cases, one element gravitates to the center and corrupts and, consequently, disrupts the concentual view. I've found this to be true working with adolescents, with groups of teachers as well as groups of religious "experts". When "all" can lay aside preconceived ideas and beliefs and see ourselves as "elements" in the system and not the only "true" element, then there is a possibility for true growth away from our "linear" lines of thinking toward dimensional understanding. This goes for all elements of the system. Unfortunately, there is always a strong period of "dissonance". When opposing waves interract, this is a natural occurrence and eventually it balances out.

I've noticed a lot of dissonance in this thread, but I've also noticed a great deal of patience and willingness to go the extra mile--simply because you all CARE. You care about lots of things, but mostly you care about the TRUTH. Just as we all may not have the ability to tune a guitar, we can all tell when it is NOT in tune. There is no doubt in my mind that if the "proof" could be shown, not only would the concept of divinity be wholeheartedly accepted--or rejected--you would all put your whole being into "preaching" it from that point on. Some may have already reached that point but I always hold hope that "place" in the middle can be reached. I think the Bible teaches this concept throughout its pages. When you view it in this way, the contradictions turn into points of view--sometimes contrary to my own point of view. Science is also very indicative of this. There are several points of view. The totality is "something" beyond all of us. We are all limited to our understanding of that last infinitesmal moment following First Cause. None of us can penetrate that veil. I suspect that if the moment ever comes that we CAN penetrate the veil, science and divinity will be holding hands when it happens.

On the basis of evidence alone, our universe is mechanistic and deterministic. Yet in the words of a famous physicist, John Wheeler, (and I paraphrase)--despite the fact that we have discovered the "differential equations", we still don't know why it "flies". Simply because of the discovery of "non-local events", he changed his whole focus of study from the "what" to the "why". At 90-something years of age, he began to look beyond his own self-imposed paradigm. Few other scientists who are "in the know" are willing to even discuss, let alone study, "future science". In this, they are no different than those in the past who have refused to accept "advances". Of course this does not imply that "divinity" will hold the keys to the answers. However, there are few other directions to go in. Like it or not, some scientists are considering "god" or, at least, something "godlike". Hats off to all of you. Your observations really make me think.