Curious About An Internet Ad

[Chesterton]

I'm looking for the conscious intent you say is required for a code to transmit information.

I didn't say it was needed to transmit. I said it was needed for code to exist.

We have good evidence that the coding and decoding processes work fine without a conscious intent involved in their actual operations.

Depends on what you mean by "coding process". ?

As for: was this whole scheme invented by a conscious mind, we have no direct evidence it was. And its way too premature to say it had to be. We are far from exhausting our investigations into the material aspects of this processes history.

Okay, let's not say it had to be. But I will say, every instance of meaningful code we know of was created by conscious intent. We have no experience of meaningful code ever creating itself from nothing but matter.

 

[partinobodycular]

Okay, let's not say it had to be. But I will say, every instance of meaningful code we know of was created by conscious intent.

I'm always reminded of Richard Feynman's explanation for why light travels in a straight line. Light simply takes every possible path from the source to the observer, but of course light being a wave it inevitably does what waves just naturally do, it interferes with itself, and lo and behold the resulting path is always a straight line.

Now the easily amazed among us might look at this and think... WOW!!!, that must be by design, what other explanation could there possibly be? While the more level-headed among us might just go... DUH!!!, what did you expect it to do?

Some information looks like it was the product of intent, when in fact it's nothing more than the byproduct of some very fundamental properties of nature. God didn't have to sit around wondering how He was going to design all the fiddley bits, as far as we know all He did was create a few fields and then voila... chickens... and everything else.

Me thinks that you're giving intent a lot more credit than it deserves.

 

[Neogaia777]

Question: Explain the Trinity please?

Answer: One who started everything and all and who always knew all from that time, and two who always did not always, but who were meant to show us that One, but might know all now, etc.

Jesus was the first to figure this out, and he built a whole new theology around it.

It was a question of omniscience, etc.

Jesus claimed that the Heavenly Father was greater than he was (John 14:28) but also that he was also very much equal to the great "I AM" in the Old Testament (John 8:58) and beyond that did not exceed in calling himself or only referring to himself as "God's Son" or the Son of God (John 10:36).

These might seem like contradictions, but they are not.

Because they actually fully explain the whole Trinity arrangement, and how it is supposed to be, if you have to courage to believe in both him and this, etc.

I believe Jesus realized a few truths about God in the Old Testament, and gave that One a new place and new name in his new Holy Trinity, etc.

That God in the OT was now God the Holy Spirit, or God the Spirit, etc, and that there was a much higher "Heavenly Father" above them both, etc, and that Jesus developed a whole new teaching and theology around this, etc.

I don't propose to know exactly how he got all of this information way back then, etc.

Because it's a whole heck of a lot easier to get now, etc.

And this is a lot in part because of him, etc.

Visions? Special connection with this new higher or highest "Heavenly Father" maybe? or maybe God in the Old Testament maybe? or maybe "both" maybe? Special connection with maybe all spirits in general maybe? I really don't know. But Jesus was very special, and unique, and was also the very first to realize any of this, etc. I believe he was all of who and what he said he was, and claimed to be, etc.

Was there in the very beginning with God, and all of that, etc, is our Savior and Messiah, perfect sacrifice and only way to this "Father", etc.

There are other gods of other religions, but none of them ever had a full grasp on this Heavenly Father God Jesus speaks of/spoke of like Jesus did. Their gods are more like people or men, whereas this God is not like people, or a man, etc. If there is any truth to these other gods or any other religions at all, beyond just being just only made-up stories or human wisdom only, etc, then it would have to be or involve angels or demons, if there is any kind of truth to them at all, because they are not at all like this Heavenly Father God Jesus speaks of, who is not at all like any of these other gods, who are much, much more just like people, or men/man, etc.

This God that Jesus was trying to tell us about had to have two others who would have to start out lesser than Him just to show us Himself, because that is just how "different" this One is in comparison to us, etc.

God Bless.

 

[partinobodycular]

Question: Explain the Trinity please?

Answer: One who started everything and all and who always knew all from that time, and two who always did not always, but who were meant to show us that One, but might know all now, etc.

And here I thought that you were going to explain the Trinity... my mistake.

 

[Neogaia777]

And here I thought that you were going to explain the Trinity... my mistake.

What are your questions about it?

God Bless.

 

[Chesterton]

I'm always reminded of Richard Feynman's explanation for why light travels in a straight line. Light simply takes every possible path from the source to the observer, but of course light being a wave it inevitably does what waves just naturally do, it interferes with itself, and lo and behold the resulting path is always a straight line.

Now the easily amazed among us might look at this and think... WOW!!!, that must be by design, what other explanation could there possibly be? While the more level-headed among us might just go... DUH!!!, what did you expect it to do?

Some information looks like it was the product of intent, when in fact it's nothing more than the byproduct of some very fundamental properties of nature. God didn't have to sit around wondering how He was going to design all the fiddley bits, as far as we know all He did was create a few fields and then voila... chickens... and everything else.

Me thinks that you're giving intent a lot more credit than it deserves.

Except I'm not talking about what certain things "look like", I'm talking about what we indisputably know to be true (unless I'm overlooking something).

 

[partinobodycular]

What are your questions about it?

I can visualize a Trinity rather easily... I'm a trinity. I'm made up of three distinct attributes. There's my body with hands, and eyes, and a few assorted teeth. But laid out on a mortician's slab there's obviously a bit more to me than that.

There's also my mind. The part that thinks about really deep stuff like 'cogito ergo sum' and what the heck @AV1611VET is always jabbering on about. It's the part that can remember how to almost do basic math and 'righty tighty lefty loosey'. But then again hook my computer up to an AI and it could remember how to cook lasagna, and play Parcheesi, and interpret Homer's 'Iliad' all at the same time. But I still think that I've got at least one up on my computer.

I've got something that my computer has never had... I'm alive... I'm conscious... I am. Call it whatever you want, but I've got it and Siri doesn't.

So that makes three for me and by golly that's a trinity.

Now I'm not exactly sure what you're describing, but it sounds to me like you've just made up three things, stuck them together and called them a trinity. What I want to know is what distinct attributes does each of these respective "Persons" possess that the others don't? And how do each of them contribute to one indivisible whole?

As it is there's only one trinity that I can be certain exists... and that's me.

 

[Neogaia777]

I can visualize a Trinity rather easily... I'm a trinity. I'm made up of three distinct attributes. There's my body with hands, and eyes, and a few assorted teeth. But laid out on a mortician's slab there's obviously a bit more to me than that.

There's also my mind. The part that thinks about really deep stuff like 'cogito ergo sum' and what the heck @AV1611VET is always jabbering on about. It's the part that can remember how to almost do basic math and 'righty tighty lefty loosey'. But then again hook my computer up to an AI and it could remember how to cook lasagna, and play Parcheesi, and interpret Homer's 'Iliad' all at the same time. But I still think that I've got at least one up on my computer.

I've got something that my computer has never had... I'm alive... I'm conscious... I am. Call it whatever you want, but I've got it and Siri doesn't.

So that makes three for me and by golly that's a trinity.

Now I'm not exactly sure what you're describing, but it sounds to me like you've just made up three things, stuck them together and called them a trinity. What I want to know is what distinct attributes does each of these respective "Persons" possess that the others don't? And how do each of them contribute to one indivisible whole?

As it is there's only one trinity that I can be certain exists... and that's me.

Well, all "Trinity" means is three parts of one whole, basically, etc.

But in Christian theological terms, it means, either, the three parts of God that are one whole, or three God's that are one whole, making up one complete God, etc.

My problem is with how it has been classically taught, or with the way people have tried to explain it over the years. They present it as some kind of "oh so mysterious divine mystical mystery that cannot be possibly understood", etc, and their way of explaining it has always been that they are the exact same, have always been equal in every single way, and are interchangeable, and I disagree with that now, because of new information/revelation, etc.

Full omniscience always and from the beginning is the first point/issue, etc. And the biggest evidence of God not always being fully omniscient, is with God in the OT, or God from the beginning starting with Adam and Eve on onward throughout the OT, etc. Not only does He not act or behave like a God who always knew/knows everything, but there are also some things also (certain decisions, actions, inactions/choices, etc) that He just couldn't see past, or didn't fully know fully, etc, which is inconsistent with a God who knows everything, etc. He (God in the OT) knew, or could know, or could see a lot, but just not all, etc, and I also think that Jesus at some point realized this also, or maybe even perhaps always knew this maybe also, etc.

Either way, Jesus knew or found out about this somehow, and created almost a whole new religion or theology around it, etc. Reasoning, or maybe perhaps knowing, that there was also a God (besides God in the OT) who did always fully know all, etc. How He knew this or came to know this I guess no one can know for 100% absolutely sure, etc, for there are many theories, etc, but either way, he knew this, or came to know this, etc, and it changed everything for him (as it would also change everything for us, etc) because he knew this, etc. So much so that he built almost a whole entirely new religion or theology around it, etc. Consisting now of God the Heavenly Father, (who was the Highest/Higher of all at the beginning), and God in the OT, (who would now be called God the Holy Spirit) (who was slightly less than that One from the beginning), and also himself, who would be/now is the God who was man, or was the God-man, or was God in fleshly form, not being either God the Father, or God the (Holy) Spirit, but still God just the same, claiming to be equal to, or having just as much equal abilities (ability to do miracles, just as much, if not more, knowledge and wisdom, etc) as God the God in the OT had, whom Jesus would now re-call or re-name or re-label, God the (Holy) Spirit now, etc.

This God the Heavenly Father that Jesus claimed to have new information about, knows all, and is the only One who always knew absolutely everything from the very beginning, etc. (but the others might come to it later, etc) (but that's another story/discussion for another time, etc) but anyway, this God the Heavenly Father who was the only One who started out knowing everything, etc, is so different than any of us others, including the other Two, that He could not just show Himself to us without the other Two doing so for Him, etc, because He would have to become more limited than He both always is/has been quote/unquote "now", etc. Think of the other Two as being God in time with us, whereas this other One, or this other Higher God, could not ever be in time with us, etc, which makes Him very, very different than all of the rest of us, etc.

I guess you could say that knowing all and being outside of time always limits, or will limit Him in that way always, etc.

Limits Him in being able to express Himself in certain way that are required for us to be able to know Him, and that is why He has the other Two, etc. So that there is a beginning to God, and let's say a middle (to God), and then also let's maybe say a much more fully mature version, or an ending (to God), etc, whereas these things were just not ever possible for the One who always, always, knew or knows all, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

Well, all "Trinity" means is three parts of one whole, basically, etc.

But in Christian theological terms, it means, either, the three parts of God that are one whole, or three God's that are one whole, making up one complete God, etc.

My problem is with how it has been classically taught, or with the way people have tried to explain it over the years. They present it as some kind of "oh so mysterious divine mystical mystery that cannot be possibly understood", etc, and their way of explaining it has always been that they are the exact same, have always been equal in every single way, and are interchangeable, and I disagree with that now, because of new information/revelation, etc.

Full omniscience always and from the beginning is the first point/issue, etc. And the biggest evidence of God not always being fully omniscient, is with God in the OT, or God from the beginning starting with Adam and Eve on onward throughout the OT, etc. Not only does He not act or behave like a God who always knew/knows everything, but there are also some things also (certain decisions, actions, inactions/choices, etc) that He just couldn't see past, or didn't fully know, etc, which is inconsistent with a God who knows everything, etc. He (God in the OT) knew, or could know, or could see a lot, but just not all, etc, and I also think that Jesus at some point realized this also, or maybe even perhaps always knew this maybe also, etc.

Either way, Jesus knew or found out about this somehow, and created almost a whole new religion or theology around it, etc. Reasoning, or maybe perhaps knowing, that there was also a God (besides God in the OT) who did always fully know all, etc. How He knew this or came to know this I guess no one can know for 100% absolutely sure, etc, for there are many theories, etc, but either way, he knew this, or came to know this, etc, and it changed everything for him (as it would also change everything for us, etc) because he knew this, etc. So much so that he built almost a whole entirely new religion or theology around it, etc. Consisting now of God the Heavenly Father, (who was the Highest/Higher of all at the beginning), and God in the OT, (who would now be called God the Holy Spirit) (who was slightly less than that One from the beginning), and also himself, who would be/now is the God who was man, or was the God-man, or was God in fleshly form, not being either God the Father, or God the (Holy) Spirit, but still God just the same, claiming to be equal to, or having just as much equal abilities (ability to do miracles, just as much, if not more, knowledge and wisdom, etc) as God the God in the OT had, whom Jesus would now re-call or re-name or re-label, God the (Holy) Spirit now, etc.

This God the Heavenly Father that Jesus claimed to have new information about, knows all, and is the only One who always knew absolutely everything from the very beginning, etc. (but the others might come to it later, etc) (but that's another story/discussion for another time, etc) but anyway, this God the Heavenly Father who was the only One who started out knowing everything, etc, is so different than any of us others, including the other Two, that He could not just show Himself to us without the other Two doing so for Him, etc, because He would have to become more limited than He both always is/has been quote/unquote "now", etc. Think of the other Two as being God in time with us, whereas this other One, or this other Higher God, could not ever be in time with us, etc, which makes Him very, very different than all of the rest of us, etc.

I guess you could say that knowing all and being outside of time always limits, or will limit Him in that way always, etc.

Limits Him in being able to express Himself in certain way that are required for us to be able to know Him, and that is why He has the other Two, etc. So that there is a beginning to God, and let's say a middle (to God), and then also let's maybe say a much more fully mature version, or an ending (to God), etc, whereas these things were just not ever possible for the One who always, always, knew or knows all, etc.

God Bless.

This that I am saying right now is considered a very, very great blasphemy, or very great heresy, by almost all other Christians, and the so-called Christain Church, etc, so I'm taking a very great risk here, etc. It could get deleted, or pulled down, etc. So I'd hear it or take note of it now, etc.

God Bless.

 

[durangodawood]

....Okay, let's not say it had to be. But I will say, every instance of meaningful code we know of was created by conscious intent. We have no experience of meaningful code ever creating itself from nothing but matter.

I think that's right. But I dont know for sure.

What I find unreasonable is to kick this problem "up a level" to a proposed place thats defined as being inaccessible to objective inquiry. That should be a last resort after every avenue of scientific inquiry has been exhausted. We arent remotely there yet.

 

[partinobodycular]

But I will say, every instance of meaningful code we know of was created by conscious intent.

Well I disagree with @durangodawood on this one because I think that there are plenty of examples of meaningful code for which there's no indication of conscious intent. DNA being the clearest example. If you disagree then prove that DNA was created with conscious intent. I certainly can't prove that it wasn't, but you can't prove that it was either, therefore it's a question without a conclusive answer.

Hence you cannot truthfully say that "every instance of meaningful code we know of was created by conscious intent." Because DNA is a meaningful code for which you have no evidence of it having been created with conscious intent. If you would like to qualify that statement such that every example of meaningful code created by humans was created with conscious intent then it would be structurally sound, if not actually accurate.

 

[Chesterton]

I think that's right. But I dont know for sure.

What I find unreasonable is to kick this problem "up a level" to a proposed place thats defined as being inaccessible to objective inquiry.

Why's that? That sounds a little arrogant, a bit too human-centric.

 

[Chesterton]

Well I disagree with @durangodawood on this one because I think that there are plenty of examples of meaningful code for which there's no indication of conscious intent. DNA being the clearest example. If you disagree then prove that DNA was created with conscious intent. I certainly can't prove that it wasn't, but you can't prove that it was either, therefore it's a question without a conclusive answer.

Hence you cannot truthfully say that "every instance of meaningful code we know of was created by conscious intent." Because DNA is a meaningful code for which you have no evidence of it having been created with conscious intent. If you would like to qualify that statement such that every example of meaningful code created by humans was created with conscious intent then it would be structurally sound, if not actually accurate.

No, it's not on me to qualify the observably obvious. If I say "water always flows downhill" and you want to disagree, the burden is on you to provide an example of water flowing uphill.

 

[Laodicean60]

I've never had to wear eyeglasses but about two weeks ago I started needing to sometimes wear glasses to read fine print. Yesterday I was watching a YouTube video and I got an advertisement for eyeglasses. It was a little creepy because I'd never received an ad about glasses before, and I had not searched for anything related to glasses or optometry, or visited any retail sites or read any articles about glasses. But then I remembered that three days prior to getting the ad, I typed the word "eyeglasses" in a post in this forum.

I don't know how it works, but is it possible for a bot to crawl a forum like this one, and associate information found with a poster, and know when the poster visits YouTube, for example? I should add that although I visit YouTube occasionally, I've never signed in there, nor with any other part of the Googleverse.

Was this just a coincidence? Am I just being paranoid?

It's the times we live in and don't get worked up over it. AI is gonna read your loan application or anything else you put on paper and send your data to the powers to be. How else is satan gonna prevent you from buying and selling?

 

[durangodawood]

No, it's not on me to qualify the observably obvious. If I say "water always flows downhill" and you want to disagree, the burden is on you to provide an example of water flowing uphill.

Water is water. One explanation will suffice for all of its relation to gravity everywhere.

Codes are diverse. Here we're discussing a chemical coding. Is there some law of logic or nature that says this one must have developed the same was as, say morse code? Id be interested to hear it.

Its definitely too early to make definitive statements about it while work like this is underway: Origin of life -- a prebiotic route to DNA

 

[durangodawood]

Why's that? That sounds a little arrogant, a bit too human-centric.

Its unreasonable because we are way far from exhausting our efforts at physical explanations for this phenomenon. And because our search for physical explanations for other things has been so incredibly fruitful to date. Its throwing in the towel far too early.

 

[partinobodycular]

No, it's not on me to qualify the observably obvious. If I say "water always flows downhill" and you want to disagree, the burden is on you to provide an example of water flowing uphill.

Show me where it's observably obvious that DNA was created with conscious intent and I'll grant you your premise, but seeing as how you can't possibly do that your premise is fatally flawed. It doesn't matter how much you insist otherwise.

 

[dlamberth]

No, it's not on me to qualify the observably obvious. If I say "water always flows downhill" and you want to disagree, the burden is on you to provide an example of water flowing uphill.

The clouds in the sky are the result of water flowing uphill. Here in the Pacific North West Atmospheric rives that have traveled for thousands of miles in the atmosphere are not at all uncommon. Water does not always flow downhill.

 

[Chesterton]

Codes are diverse. Here we're discussing a chemical coding. Is there some law of logic or nature that says this one must have developed the same was as, say morse code? Id be interested to hear it.

Remember that in materialistic science there is no law. The word "law" merely iterates the fact that we observe things doing the same things consistently, universally and uniformly. So based on that, yes I would say, although it doesn't yet have a name, there is a law that code requires conscious intent.

Think of SETI, those scientists who constantly monitor electromagnetic radiation from outer space. There's plenty of radiation, but what they're looking for is coded radiation. Why look for coded radiation? Because it would be proof of conscious intent.

Its unreasonable because we are way far from exhausting our efforts at physical explanations for this phenomenon. And because our search for physical explanations for other things has been so incredibly fruitful to date. Its throwing in the towel far too early.

I've heard of God-of-the-gaps. Sounds like you're proposing a Science-of-the-gaps.

 

[Chesterton]

Show me where it's observably obvious that DNA was created with conscious intent and I'll grant you your premise, but seeing as how you can't possibly do that your premise is fatally flawed. It doesn't matter how much you insist otherwise.

I haven't gone as far as specifically saying that. All I've said is that all code we know of is created with conscious intent. If you agree that DNA is a kind of code, then you can put 2 and 2 together...or not.