Curious About An Internet Ad

[partinobodycular]

I've been talking about what originated the code of DNA.

Okay, then let's go specifically with DNA.

How is DNA anything more than simply chemistry?

 

[Neogaia777]

Until then I'll have to proceed under the assumption that no such conscious intent exists.

If it does, it's done a very good job of concealing itself.

Well, if we consider that, on the cross, Jesus did absolutely nothing when he very well could have (or at least, that's what most christians believe, etc), but he did nothing, and didn't interfere or intervene, etc, and some say that this was him fully submitting to God the Father's will, etc, which is to sometimes not interfere or intervene and do nothing, etc, but just let all play out just as He (God the Father) has already predetermined or predestined it to be, etc.

I already told you that I think God in the OT is God the (Holy) Spirit in the NT, etc, but what I haven't told you yet is that I think he learned from Jesus, and was also changed by Jesus, etc.

Well, what if one of those lessons/changes was in the area of non-intervention or non-interference and in fully submitting to God the Father's will, etc?

Because that could explain why we don't see Him working a lot out in the open, or undeniably out in the open, in our modern day, etc.

Not that He does not ever work or do anything at all, but that He is maybe restricted to always only doing it in such a way that doesn't ever negate the full need for faith in the world, etc.

People have to be given the right to not believe if they don't want to, and if He did some similar things nowadays like He did back in the OT now, I think you'd have to admit that He would be fully revealing Himself to the world in a way that people would not be allowed to ever doubt it or disbelieve it ever now, etc, and I don't know if He is allowed to do that until Jesus comes back right now, etc.

And with cameras everywhere, and just the way the world is technologically nowadays, He probably has to work in such a way that does not completely negate peoples ability to doubt or disbelieve in the rest of the world right now, etc.

It is not until Jesus comes back that I think that that will be fully allowed again maybe right now, etc.

I know from very much personal experience that sometimes the hardest thing to do is to do nothing, etc, especially when you could have done something, etc. And if it always breaks my heart in a way that can't be fully described to you, then I'm sure it breaks God the Holy Spirits heart in a way that can't be fully described to you, etc, and maybe that's a lesson that He needs to learn, or is right now learning maybe?

And again, not that He does not ever do anything, but just that He has to do it in such a way that others are still allowed to doubt, etc. Not only because then, there would be no need for faith in the world, but also because of Jesus coming back and needing to find faith when he comes back also, etc.

And not that people should not ever pray for anything either, but just that maybe if He does answer it, or does decide to do it, don't expect Him to do it in such a way that it will be 100% undeniable to the rest of the world, etc. And He has enough foreknowledge or foresight to fully know or tell when he does decide to do that, whether or not it will do that with the rest of the world or not right now, etc.

When Jesus does return or come back, he has to find those with faith in the rest of the world, etc. And although God the Holy Spirit probably could do some things that would make faith in the supernatural (and Him) undeniable to the rest of the world, I also don't think, or rather don't know, if He's really fully allowed to do that right now, etc, but also that these restrictions are completely voluntary on His part as well right now, etc, otherwise how would the rest of God the Father's will or plan be able to play out right now, etc, and so because of that, I think He is fully submitting to having these voluntary restrictions on Himself right now, etc. And I do think He knows what that is now, and so would not do anything that would interfere or intervene with that much of it right now, etc. Which probably means not violating these current rules or restrictions that all three members of Trinity, including Himself, are putting on Him right now, etc.

At least, that's maybe my current theory right now, etc.

That is, Him not being able/allowed/wanting to do that right now, etc.

Because of the rest of God the Father's plan right now, etc.

Which was maybe only fully revealed to Him only after Jesus Christ right now, etc.

But that was maybe not all fully revealed to Him in the OT right now, etc.

But He was still doing the Father's will back then though, etc.

Just that it is all very much different now, after Jesus Christ now, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

Abraham and Issac.

At that time in the OT, I think this was God the (Holy) Spirit saying to Abraham "This is what God the Father wants me to do now in order to fix what Adam and Eve did now!", etc. "How does or did that make you feel Abraham?"

One could say He put Abraham through the same kind of test that He Himself might have been preparing Himself to maybe have to go through in the future, etc. Abraham passed the test with flying colors though, etc. Which might have been why God the Spirit/God in the OT made a covenant with him maybe, and called him His friend, etc.

Because not only was Abraham going to go through with it, but he also maintained his faith that, because of the promise that his God had made to him concerning the child, that his God would have to raise him from the dead, if he had to go through with it as well, in order for his God to keep His promise, etc.

But back to what God the (Holy) Spirit was being asked to do, I think God the (Holy) Spirit knew of the possibility of that plan maybe having to happen from the beginning if something like that should happen (Adam and Eve disobeying and messing up His/the original plan, or "The Fall", etc), but I also don't think He was ever at all expecting it to ever happen, so He may not have thought that much about it at first, etc.

And I think He resolved Himself to do and try everything else that he could think of first, before He would ever allow that to happen, etc.

And there might have also been other "trepidatious ideas and thoughts and feelings" that God the (Holy) Spirit had surrounding the possibility of that having to happen as well that He also fully knew about all too well as well also, etc.

But I don't think He knew absolutely all, or all of the full details of the rest of the plan, until after that specific plan had actually happened, or had come to pass, or had actually been fully executed, etc.

But that after that, or after Jesus, He did, etc.

And I think it changed Him for forever after that, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

How much did God the (Holy) Spirit know about the Father God's determinism, or the only one way that the Father God had already predestined for it go, or already made it happen from the beginning?

I think He was given many, many possibilities from the very beginning, but did not ever expect it to go in a way other than how He was planning to make it go or happen from the very beginning.

And that when it finally didn't anymore, after a very, very long period of time of it always perfectly going according to the way He was making it go or happen, I think it was quite a shock to Him, etc, and I think that's about the time when He really started thinking about all those other possibilities that He knew about from the beginning, etc.

I don't think it was until Jesus that He started to get a full knowledge of all of the Father God's full determinism for all other creatures including Himself from the beginning, etc.

And I think He changed after that, or that that changed Him after that, etc.

Was not the only thing that caused a change in Him after that, but it was one of them, etc.

Now He realizes that all other beings are all locked into the Father's full determinism or predeterminism from the very beginning now, etc.

All the way until the ending, etc.

And, right now, here we are in the meantime, etc.

He will work in ways that will go mostly unnoticed in the meantime, and doesn't interfere with the Father's plans, etc.

Until Jesus comes back that is, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

Abraham and Issac.

At that time in the OT, I think this was God the (Holy) Spirit saying to Abraham "This is what God the Father wants me to do now in order to fix what Adam and Eve did now!", etc. "How does or did that make you feel Abraham?"

One could say He put Abraham through the same kind of test that He Himself might have been preparing Himself to maybe have to go through in the future, etc. Abraham passed the test with flying colors though, etc. Which might have been why God the Spirit/God in the OT made a covenant with him maybe, and called him His friend, etc.

Because not only was Abraham going to go through with it, but he also maintained his faith that, because of the promise that his God had made to him concerning the child, that his God would have to raise him from the dead, if he had to go through with it as well, in order for his God to keep His promise, etc.

But back to what God the (Holy) Spirit was being asked to do, I think God the (Holy) Spirit knew of the possibility of that plan maybe having to happen from the beginning if something like that should happen (Adam and Eve disobeying and messing up His/the original plan, or "The Fall", etc), but I also don't think He was ever at all expecting it to ever happen, so He may not have thought that much about it at first, etc.

And I think He resolved Himself to do and try everything else that he could think of first, before He would ever allow that to happen, etc.

And there might have also been other "trepidatious ideas and thoughts and feelings" that God the (Holy) Spirit had surrounding the possibility of that having to happen as well that He also fully knew about all too well as well also, etc.

But I don't think He knew absolutely all, or all of the full details of the rest of the plan, until after that specific plan had actually happened, or had come to pass, or had actually been fully executed, etc.

But that after that, or after Jesus, He did, etc.

And I think it changed Him for forever after that, etc.

God Bless.

And I guess I shouldn't quite let this one go about Abraham and Issac, and God in the OT or God the Holy Spirit, etc, without mentioning Issac also, since I mostly only mentioned Abraham.

Abraham was old, like way old, and in fact, Abraham would die physically very shortly after this, etc, and Issac was about a 30 year old full grown man, and not a boy like many would have you believe, etc.

This was a test for both Abraham and Issac, because Issac could have very, very easily not allowed Abraham to do it, and could have very, very easily gotten out of it, as physically, Issac was much, much stronger than Abraham was, by like, "a lot" at this point in time, etc, and he didn't have to allow his father to bind him, and he didn't have to voluntarily get on that altar with wood ready to burn stacked all around it, etc, anyway, Isaac with just a momentary flex of just one of his muscles didn't have to allow it, so him voluntarily doing it, or fully submitting to it, is very, very, very important here, etc.

Issac had to trust both his father, and the God of his father, that this was God's will right now for the both of them right now. And do it fully voluntarily, and of his own free will, without ever at all trying to free himself, or get out of it, which He could have very easily done at any time very, very easily, etc, so there was a lot of faith and trust going on here for both of them, etc. Issac in his father and his fathers God, and Abraham in his son Issac and his own God, etc.

They probably both knew of the promise, etc, and didn't see how it could be fulfilled or carried out without Issac, etc, but Issac trusted his father and his fathers God, and Abraham had to trust both his son Issac, and his own God, etc, and the Bible says "beyond hope" also, since that, without a resurrection from the dead, something that had never ever happened before at this point, the promise could not ever be fulfilled or carried out, etc.

God in the OT or God the Holy Spirit was given a similar command I think, and is a picture of what he would have to eventually do with his own one and only child of promise, only begotten biological son Jesus Christ, and the test or situation would be the exact same for them, but just bump it all up one level, etc.

Jesus said "No one takes my life from me, but I lay it down by my own free will, and I shall rise or it shall be taken up again, and about this command I have heard/received from my father", etc.

Well, if he figured this all out that I am right now telling you right now, etc, about Abraham and Issac, etc, and God in the OT or God the Holy Spirit (and His Father), etc, then he could have very easily learned this this way, with that perspective on it, etc.

Issac was a/the child that had a promise attached to him, that he would be the only child or Abraham and his truly beloved wife Sarah, and that a great nation and an innumerable amount of descendants would come from him, etc, and that's kind of hard to do or accomplish or make happen if he is dead, etc, and spiritually this same can be applied to Jesus, only it would be Jesus spiritual sons and daughters who were transformed or changed by him, or were born again spiritually by the gospel, and his words, etc.

Anyway, I didn't want to leave this behind without forgetting to mention this about it also.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

And I guess I shouldn't quite let this one go about Abraham and Issac, and God in the OT or God the Holy Spirit, etc, without mentioning Issac also, since I mostly only mentioned Abraham.

Abraham was old, like way old, and in fact, Abraham would die physically very shortly after this, etc, and Issac was about a 30 year old full grown man, and not a boy like many would have you believe, etc.

This was a test for both Abraham and Issac, because Issac could have very, very easily not allowed Abraham to do it, and could have very, very easily gotten out of it, as physically, Issac was much, much stronger than Abraham was, by like, "a lot" at this point in time, etc, and he didn't have to allow his father to bind him, and he didn't have to voluntarily get on that altar with wood ready to burn stacked all around it, etc, anyway, Isaac with just a momentary flex of just one of his muscles didn't have to allow it, so him voluntarily doing it, or fully submitting to it, is very, very, very important here, etc.

Issac had to trust both his father, and the God of his father, that this was God's will right now for the both of them right now. And do it fully voluntarily, and of his own free will, without ever at all trying to free himself, or get out of it, which He could have very easily done at any time very, very easily, etc, so there was a lot of faith and trust going on here for both of them, etc. Issac in his father and his fathers God, and Abraham in his son Issac and his God, etc.

They probably both knew of the promise, etc, and didn't see how it could be fulfilled or carried out without Issac, etc, but Issac trusted his father and his fathers God, and Abraham had to trust both his son Issac, and his own God, etc, and the Bible says "beyond hope" also, since without a resurrection from the dead, the promise could not be fulfilled or carried out, etc.

God in the OT or God the Holy Spirit was given a similar command I think, and is a picture of what he would have to eventually do with his own one and only child of promise, only begotten biological son Jesus Christ, and the test or situation would be the exact same for them, but just bump it all up one level, etc.

Jesus said "No one takes my life from me, but I lay it down by my own free will, and I shall rise or it shall be taken up again, and about this command I have heard/received from my father", etc.

Well, if he figured this all out that I am right now telling you right now, etc, about Abraham and Issac, etc, and God in the OT or God the Holy Spirit (and His Father), etc, then he could have very easily learned this this way, with that perspective, etc.

Issac was a/the child that had a promise attached to him, that he would be the only child or Abraham and his truly beloved wife Sarah, and that a great nation and an innumerable amount of descendants would come from him, etc, and that's kind of hard to do or accomplish or make happen if he is dead, etc, and spiritually this same can be applied to Jesus, only it would be Jesus spiritual sons and daughters who were transformed or changed by him, or were born again spiritually by the gospel, and his words, etc.

Anyway, I didn't want to leave this behind without forgetting to mention this about it also.

God Bless.

Abraham is God in the OT, Issac is Jesus Christ, and their God is God the Father, etc.

Or "Heavenly Father" or our Father in Heaven more specifically, etc.

This was the act that instituted the covenant of faith in the OT, that came way, way before the law with Moses, etc.

God Bless.

 

[returntosender]

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?

No it wasn't as i get those coincidences my self. Maybe you're just getting old. Lol
BTW, I'm insulted by the followings and it's scary.

 

[weekEd]

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?

google runs a DNS, if you are using chrome or any google product (pixel chromebook) the algorithym makes algorithym choices, records what video portions you rewind all kinds of metrics
the algorithym is a process processor it is more ubiquitous than people either know or care to admit
as a process it gambles and is well fed

 

[pgp_protector]

One simple way is targeted ads.
For a given group of people a large percent will need xyz.
So if you fit in that group (age, sex, religion, location, political views, android / apple user, ect...) there's a calculation to get the best return off your views.

Example Glasses

For those with good distance vision , most start having problems up close around 44-45 . That is presbyopia , and they often need just reading glasses . For those who are already farsighted ( hyperopic) they start needing extra plus power for reading earlier, like 41–42

So if you're in your 40s the odds are better that you'll need glasses, so the glasses advertisers might have a checkbox in the age group they're targeting.

About optimized targeting - Google Ads Help

 

[Ophiolite]

Okay, then let's go specifically with DNA.

How is DNA anything more than simply chemistry?

I was following the thread with interest and was looking forward to @Chesterton 's reply, but there isn't one. Chesterton, your response?
Keep in mind, the word used was "simply", not "simple", which would be a quite different question, easily dismissed.
Edit: Though I see from the thread title all of this is off-topic, so I can see it might be inappropriate to continue.

 

[returntosender]

I was following the thread with interest and was looking forward to @Chesterton 's reply, but there isn't one. Chesterton, your response?
Keep in mind, the word used was "simply", not "simple", which would be a quite different question, easily dismissed.
Edit: Though I see from the thread title all of this is off-topic, so I can see it might be inappropriate to continue.

Not sure. Why it's off topic? Even when selecting groceries opponents have swooped in with that on sale at their store. I even confronted them and That's exactly what the guy said, it's a coincidence.

 

[Ophiolite]

Not sure. Why it's off topic? Even when selecting groceries opponents have swooped in with that on sale at their store. I even confronted them and That's exactly what the guy said, it's a coincidence.

You are right. I had been spending some time in The Kitchen Sink forum and momentarily thought this thread was there. Though the link of the discussion to the OP was solid it had transformed into a debate, which is against the Statement of Purpose for that forum. Now that I see it is in Physical and Life Sciences it is appropriate, and so I hope @Chesterton will respond.

 

[Chesterton]

Chesterton, your response?
Keep in mind, the word used was "simply", not "simple", which would be a quite different question, easily dismissed.
Edit: Though I see from the thread title all of this is off-topic, so I can see it might be inappropriate to continue.

First off, I agree they are different questions, but with an important difference. Chemistry doesn't build highly complex machines and factories as we find in living cells. (Unless you choose to believe it does. It's a matter of belief.)

More importantly, how is chemistry any different from computer code? Isn't it all an "if/then" statement? If you combine hydrogen and oxygen, then you get the output called water.

 

[Hans Blaster]

First off, I agree they are different questions, but with an important difference. Chemistry doesn't build highly complex machines and factories as we find in living cells. (Unless you choose to believe it does. It's a matter of belief.)

More importantly, how is chemistry any different from computer code? Isn't it all an "if/then" statement? If you combine hydrogen and oxygen, then you get the output called water.

Not only is chemistry not "all if/then statements" there aren't *any* if/then statements in chemistry. Actual reaction dynamics involve one molecule hitting another and then there may or may not be a reaction path to a chemical change.

 

[Chesterton]

Not only is chemistry not "all if/then statements" there aren't *any* if/then statements in chemistry. Actual reaction dynamics involve one molecule hitting another and then there may or may not be a reaction path to a chemical change.

I don't see much difference. Chemistry is not random. Certain inputs result in certain outputs.

 

[SelfSim]

I don't see much difference. Chemistry is not random. Certain inputs result in certain outputs.

Computing evolved from the Boolean Logic model, in which the values of the variables are constrained to only two values, (ie: true or false). Also the logical operators are basically constrained to: the 'and' (conjunction), 'or' (disjunction) and 'not' (negation) operators.

Chemistry is constrained by the properties of matter and its wide ranging environments. The variables involved were thus modelled as having real and integer number values, with ranges far exceeding the mere two in the Boolean/computing model. As a result, numerical operations apply in chemistry's descriptions .. (and not just logical operators).

The resulting product of these fundamental differences, is vastly more complexity in chemistry.
Organic chemistry is even more complex than inorganic .. for the same reason.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don't see much difference. Chemistry is not random. Certain inputs result in certain outputs.

Individual molecules colliding with other individual molecules are *definitely* random.

If we mix in a 2:1 ratio hydrogen and oxygen gas (H2 & O2) they don't instantly become water (H2O), nor directly. Different outcomes might occur based on the temperature and pressure of the mixture. All sorts of intermediate molecules *will* form (like OH) individual atoms will fly free from reactions, etc.

When an H2 and O2 molecule collide they will first form some sort of intermediate composite state like H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide) usually in an excited state. That intermediate state might relax to create regular hydrogen peroxide, or an oxygen atom might come off and leave behind water.

H2 + O2 --> H2O2* --> H2O + O

or it might restore the original set of molecules ( --> O2 + H2) or even rearrange into two OH molecules ( --> OH + OH ) depending on the shape of the potential energy surface, the details of the molecular quantum mechanics, the energy of the original collision, the orientation of the original collision, and random chance.

(And that's for a simple network with only two types of atoms with limited bonds to make.)

All sorts of reactions (probably most of the possible reactions) will occur in any "simple" chemistry. It is not some sort of assembly line operating on instructions like a logic gate.

 

[Chesterton]

Computing evolved from the Boolean Logic model, in which the values of the variables are constrained to only two values, (ie: true or false). Also the logical operators are basically constrained to: the 'and' (conjunction), 'or' (disjunction) and 'not' (negation) operators.

Chemistry is constrained by the properties of matter and its wide ranging environments. The variables involved were thus modelled as having real and integer number values, with ranges far exceeding the mere two in the Boolean/computing model. As a result, numerical operations apply in chemistry's descriptions .. (and not just logical operators).

The resulting product of these fundamental differences, is vastly more complexity in chemistry.
Organic chemistry is even more complex than inorganic .. for the same reason.

I agree that chemistry is more complex than computing, but the same basic principle applies.

Individual molecules colliding with other individual molecules are *definitely* random.

If we mix in a 2:1 ratio hydrogen and oxygen gas (H2 & O2) they don't instantly become water (H2O), nor directly. Different outcomes might occur based on the temperature and pressure of the mixture. All sorts of intermediate molecules *will* form (like OH) individual atoms will fly free from reactions, etc.

When an H2 and O2 molecule collide they will first form some sort of intermediate composite state like H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide) usually in an excited state. That intermediate state might relax to create regular hydrogen peroxide, or an oxygen atom might come off and leave behind water.

H2 + O2 --> H2O2* --> H2O + O

or it might restore the original set of molecules ( --> O2 + H2) or even rearrange into two OH molecules ( --> OH + OH ) depending on the shape of the potential energy surface, the details of the molecular quantum mechanics, the energy of the original collision, the orientation of the original collision, and random chance.

(And that's for a simple network with only two types of atoms with limited bonds to make.)

All sorts of reactions (probably most of the possible reactions) will occur in any "simple" chemistry. It is not some sort of assembly line operating on instructions like a logic gate.

All you're saying is that there are variables involved. That's also true in mathematics, logic and physics. True in everything. No one would argue with that.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I agree that chemistry is more complex than computing, but the same basic principle applies.

What is that "basic principle"?

All you're saying is that there are variables involved. That's also true in mathematics, logic and physics. True in everything. No one would argue with that.

What I am trying to say is that chemical reactions (even simple looking ones like O2 + H2 makes water) are complex and there isn't a single path and it isn't like logic gates or an instruction set. This is why it is a bad idea to think of the chemical interactions with a molecule of DNA as a computer program.

 

[Chesterton]

What is that "basic principle"?

The if/then principle. The recognition that physical reality is orderly and not random or chaotic.

What I am trying to say is that chemical reactions (even simple looking ones like O2 + H2 makes water) are complex and there isn't a single path and it isn't like logic gates or an instruction set. This is why it is a bad idea to think of the chemical interactions with a molecule of DNA as a computer program.

So their complexity means they don't follow physical laws?