General Music Chat

From another angle:
A human designing a computer program is free to incorporate improvements from programs developed by other humans in other parts of the world. On the other hand, this is precisely what we do *not* see in biological systems. (Horizontal transfer does occur, but not separated by space and time.)

The genome of humans does not include evolutionary improvements discovered by flowering plants, for example. If today's biological diversity is the product of "intelligent design", it is entirely remarkable that this designer chose to make life appear to be arranged in a branching hierarchy consistent with common descent, without incorporating improvements across different branches.

If life is designed, why does it look so much as if it evolved?

Why cant evolution be part of the 'design'?

As a veteran programmer, I can assure two things:

1) Incorporating improvements (Aka "reuse of code " in accordance with object oriented principles) is confined precisiely to the context of the program itself. On any given day, a program is designed for a specific solution. Because of this fact, any robot, which can handle 32 flavors of ice cream, will most definitely crash when the 33rd flavor (new problem) is introduced. Thus, there is no accounting for anything in a random universe and That is the way of ALL things in the randomness of the Universe. So, Why do humans prevail past the 32 flavors? Our 'program' is bigger than mere randomness. How do we overcome the randomness? The design for us, which is counter-intuitive to the robots... has accounted for all such contingencies....despite the randomness... We don't crash at the introduction of the 33rd flavor , or any subsequent flavor after that... Finally, if you can identify and list every contingency...then you are to be congratulated, for having discovered the proof, that an ordered universe does in fact exist.

2) Human Genome..was , is and always will be nothing more than the map of geno/pheno type expressions for all organic, carbon based life. Such a map cannot speak to 'improvement or degradation' Engineering of the map, might. But any engineering of that map falls squarely under the spell of "rationalism", which again, implies an ordered arrangement of things.
With respect to programming, such are the things that genetic engineers do best. Unfortunately we can't define random and order. (we try) In fact I submit there actually is no such thing as random. At the end of the day, an outcome, is precisely the result of a compelling arrangement of contingenies and conditions...(AKA an order), whether we recognize this or not.

Does god have a band? If so i'd like to cover one of his tunes.

I am impressed with all of the information above, with the following exception;

"Finally, if you can identify and list every contingency...then you are to be congratulated, for having discovered the proof, that an ordered universe does in fact exist."

I think this falls squarely in the realm of a discussion of predestination, not one of order or chaos.

if a train moves along a track and that track is in useable but not perfect condition, and that train has an engineer, you can make a decent wager on the fact that the train will come to rest close to the platform upon entering the station.
This is by design, but if for some reason the train derails, this would not necessarily mean the was no design just that the design did not cope with all contingencies.

Does god have a band? If so i'd like to cover one of his tunes.

I'm afraid you're it

Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply 'god'.

This is mere speculation,
you would have to quote a generally accepted theory on how self replicating DNA came to be formed, in stages from light weight molecules through heavy metals until heavy molecules became self replicating,
I have never heard of such a theory being put forward.
but i would like to hear it if one has been published.

Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply 'god'.

This is mere speculation,
you would have to quote a generally accepted theory on how self replicating DNA came to be formed, in stages from light weight molecules through heavy metals until heavy molecules became self replicating,
I have never heard of such a theory being put forward.
but i would like to hear it if one has been published.

Yet neither you or PaperDog evidence anything that proves there is a god, like my side of the story it is just speculation, and who can deliver the better argument for or against.

I am impressed with all of the information above, with the following exception;

"Finally, if you can identify and list every contingency...then you are to be congratulated, for having discovered the proof, that an ordered universe does in fact exist."

I think this falls squarely in the realm of a discussion of predestination, not one of order or chaos.

if a train moves along a track and that track is in useable but not perfect condition, and that train has an engineer, you can make a decent wager on the fact that the train will come to rest close to the platform upon entering the station.
This is by design, but if for some reason the train derails, this would not necessarily mean the was no design just that the design did not cope with all contingencies.

1) If there is such a place as heaven, we will come to know everything in the universe...
2) If there is such a place as hell, we will come to know everything in the universe.
3) If there is neither a heaven or a hell, it wont matter that we have any knowledge... but it might be comforting to hold on to what ever love we brought with us.


Having said that, an imperfect train track is laid out before us...We have the power to engineer subsequent outcomes. Predestination, it seems, can be toggled for multiple options. I think the power of love helps us to find the optimal position of that switch....and all the rest is 'the knowledge' to make it happen.

I could be wrong...

Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply 'god'.

This is mere speculation,
you would have to quote a generally accepted theory on how self replicating DNA came to be formed, in stages from light weight molecules through heavy metals until heavy molecules became self replicating,
I have never heard of such a theory being put forward.
but i would like to hear it if one has been published.

Yet neither you or PaperDog evidence anything that proves there is a god, like my side of the story it is just speculation, and who can deliver the better argument for or against.

I have to Ask...with respect to two key operatives here, "Existence" and "God"

1) When you refer to the term God, what is the idea of GOD in your mind, which already affords you the reference to him/her?

2) Are you aware of the evidence/ proof of your own existence?


3) If the only tacit evidence surrounding the existence of the feeling and expression of 'Love' is neural stimulation then why might you assign that, objectively onto other human beings? (How does one even prove that love exists)

Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply 'god'.

This is mere speculation,
you would have to quote a generally accepted theory on how self replicating DNA came to be formed, in stages from light weight molecules through heavy metals until heavy molecules became self replicating,
I have never heard of such a theory being put forward.
but i would like to hear it if one has been published.

Yet neither you or PaperDog evidence anything that proves there is a god, like my side of the story it is just speculation, and who can deliver the better argument for or against.

I have to Ask...with respect to two key operatives here, "Existence" and "God"

1) When you refer to the term God, what is the idea of GOD in your mind, which already affords you the reference to him/her?

2) Are you aware of the evidence/ proof of your own existence?


3) If the only tacit evidence surrounding the existence of the feeling and expression of 'Love' is neural stimulation then why might you assign that, objectively onto other human beings? (How does one even prove that love exists)

1) I'm using the term god here as an Intelligent Creator of the Universe . . . normally I don't use the term god because I don't believe in an Intelligent Creator.

2) I am aware of the existence of my physical and non-physical being. I have Beliefs in things beyond the physical.

3) I find love to be a survival mechanism predominant in our species.

Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply 'god'.

This is mere speculation,
you would have to quote a generally accepted theory on how self replicating DNA came to be formed, in stages from light weight molecules through heavy metals until heavy molecules became self replicating,
I have never heard of such a theory being put forward.
but i would like to hear it if one has been published.

Yet neither you or PaperDog evidence anything that proves there is a god, like my side of the story it is just speculation, and who can deliver the better argument for or against.

well, I can't argue that,
But we arrived here once before didn't we?
But I will offer this;

The eternal can not be seen, nor measured,
it can only be brought to our attention through forms designed to act as filters, that can only partially screen out the physical, leaving an eternal imprint on the mind.
The 1st law is so important in this regard, once I am forbidden to use a form, the mind leaps out in to the void to take the hand of God himself.
This is the beginning.
Oh well I collapsed into a sermon.
Sorry.

Dang Etu,

I used to be just like you but was never able to explain my reasoning as well.

You have amazing knowledge. If only you could see past religion. It is unwise to argue with a person who refuses to look at a tree and see that it isn't an accident.

Those trees growing in my fence rows are
accidents.

We all get a glimpse of eternity isn't that what
religion is offering. You might not be able to
measure it, but it can probably be measured.

My problem comes with the 'I'm right, I've always
been right about religion, it's my way, that is the only
tru way, I know what god wants' see yourself there jcp

Those trees growing in my fence rows are
accidents.

We all get a glimpse of eternity isn't that what
religion is offering. You might not be able to
measure it, but it can probably be measured.

My problem comes with the 'I'm right, I've always
been right about religion, it's my way, that is the only
tru way, I know what god wants' see yourself there jcp

Well I definitely see your problem,
that makes you always wrong.
that must be awful to be always wrong.
explains why your so angry.

Lynard,

IMO religion serves only two purposes, to comfort and to provide community.

Thanks Yod, but I'm anal with all this stuff from years of defending my Path.

All in all these are better discussions and debates than I have on forums dedicated to religion and spirituality . . . who says musicians aren't 'spiritual'?