Here's a lively one, not enough resources on this planet to build a starship, which is a feat in itself, but think of all the resources necessary to build the infrastructure, and all of the incremental developments overtime on the way to building a starship. People who believe this are insane. Hahaha!
Not even enough resources on this planet, in the context on how all the fascists siphoning the surpluses (getting a cut) to feed, cloth, and provide adequate shelter on this planet for every human being.
Basically its come down to people starve huddling in the dark so the insane can build up something that won't ever become reality. Like I typed, at risk of being redundant, insane.
Make no mistake I have no despair, been working on separating myself from the system that's imploding. The despair is all with those people desperate to save the system (that can not be saved).
Good to hear. I recommend that everybody get as much food, shelter, water, ammo, tribe, silver, Bitcoin, and gold as they understand under the current circumstances.
Even even worser: Read The Naked Bible, because Mauro Biglino points out the Old Testament sure reads like it's documenting the genetic manipulation and creation of humans by an evil, old, dead space alien.
The only way I know of to explain what we see is something like Morphic Resonance https://www.sheldrake.org/
Thanks I'll check it out. Absent any of us becoming experts in translating ancient Aramaic and proto-Hebrew (along with the relevant history), however, we'll need to rely on the word of experts.
I reject chaos theory. I consider that life is a representative entity in this universe and that it has an integral function. That life on this particular planet has advanced as far as it has suggests we may be among the more advanced life forms in the universe. The progression of extension of physical animal powers (mechanisation) and mental powers (computerisation) strongly suggests we will eventually form a coalition with our own technology and, perhaps one day, fuse with whatever energy is composed of. Intuitively, this suggests that is when we will serve our universal purpose, perhaps to precipitate a flow into some other aspect of the multiverse. Whatever, this seems infinitely more probable to me than the Big Bang with its presumption that life has no integral purpose.
Bab the prophet once said that Noah was a geneticist and he didn't take the animals into an Ark in their mature state, but in test tubes. The test tubes were actually of human embryos and to create all the different animals all Noah had to do was to arrest the development of it at a certain time. Then God would give it a "Speciel Memory" and it would have life. Rupert Sheldrake would call this Morphic Resonance. Each species has its own Speciel Mind as does humanity. So, isn't it interesting to in lieu of Darwinism that it is exactly backward. Curiouser and curiouser.
Well, I know it's all for the progress of mankind and our future convergence in the elonosphere, but I am getting a bit tired of seeing so many mutations in public. I miss the normal human shapes and behaviors of my youth. And I'm not even "get off my lawn" old yet. If only Saint Barry was right when he said, "the science is settled". Instead Sciency stuff seems to be in overdrive trying to kill us now. I guess all those decades of progressive hubris turning Jesus into a magic carpet salesman to paper over all those teeny tiny gaps in the unifying theory of everything wasn't enough so now we must be punished for our tendency to look beyond the myopic microscopes of Scientism.
Oct 9, 2022·edited Oct 9, 2022Liked by Winston Smith
"After a very long time of new standard toy car manuals we arrive at the manual for the construction of the Starship Enterprise (as well as many other offshoot manuals that went onto describe all manner of functional machines), including the sourcing of raw materials, manufacture of parts, assembly, computer coding, all the technology involved."
This analogy was both hilarious and gripping.
I have always found "religious" Darwinians (i.e. those who view blind mechanism as some form of God-proxy) to be quite shallow and simple-minded, once you scratch the shiny surface. This is not to say they are stupid; many of them are quite brilliant, in the generic sense of that word. But their brilliance is reminiscent of athletes who've exercised one particular muscle-group to such an absurd degree that their bodies have become unsuitable for any other task (My wife once proposed the image of a skateboarder with one GIANT leg, lmao).
The notion of "complexity-through-error" is itself revealing, in a "million monkeys typing Shakespeare" sort of way. It is almost as if they are working very, very hard to divorce meaning from life, the way men like Dawkins and Sam Harris do. It never surprises me when their mask of sanity slips, revealing the howling darkness within. Oddly enough, the reveal often has to do with the harming of children. In Dawkins' case, it was the suggestion that it would be "unethical" to bring children with Down's Syndrome to term. In Harris', more recently, it was the statement that he didn't care if they "found a basement full of dead kids on Hunter Biden's laptop."
I know that a sample size of two does not constitute a pattern, but I have witnessed the same overlap between atheism and child-harm in discussions of gender identity and abortion often enough to suggest that the correlation is extremely widespread, and I find that fascinating.
Is that spicy enough for you?
Anyway, good show, Winston. I already love this series and can't wait to read more.
"I have witnessed the same overlap between atheism and child-harm in discussions of gender identity and abortion often enough to suggest that the correlation is extremely widespread, and I find that fascinating."
Indeed. I've noticed the same pattern, and my take is that Darwinism and Atheism are manifestations of a counter-life, nihilistic state of rebellion that I call satanism. Not hooves and pitchfork satanism, but again, a state of rebellion against norms and rules. An opposing force that Dao-like, helps create the dynamics of life. And it is a faith-based belief system.
So many cats who subscribe to Darwinism or any of several related philosophies seem to want, at root, to be exempt from the generally agreed upon rules. Their particular "bag" might be sex with minors, immoral scientific experiments, or whatever.
But, bottom line, they want to be the rule makers, the standard setters, and the All Knowers. Traditionally, most cultures assign this role to God.
Yep. Noah Yuval Harrari, Kurzweil and others of that ilk are always saying that through technology, they will become "like unto gods", compared to us. Personally, I'm scared to even entertain a thought like that.
The philosophical, and then practical outcomes of Darwinian evolution have birthed some of the most horrendous anti-human, anti-life activities one could imagine. I'd say full-term abortion, even post-partum murder, has to be securely underpinned by such doctrine or who, with any conscience at all, could possibly do such things. We won't even mention Nazi or Soviet actions against humanity, we all know those horrors, but again, fully convinced these things are OK. After all we are just mutations from pond-scum right?
Many have evoked the name of God, claiming God is "on their side", when in fact God was far from them, even opposing them - I think there was an episode of drinking Cool Aid that didn't end well for those poor souls.
Here's an interesting point that genetics itself is a broken science, just like virology. Trying to understand invisible processes by inference of instruments leads to an imaginary explanation... Even if the intent was honest. Same goes for quantum "theory"
So you see here again the problem comes out in genetics we do not really know how to interfere with the way the world is. The way the world actually is is an enormously complex interrelated organism. The same problem arises in medicine, because the body is a very complexly interrelated organism.
Even some complex machines have a mind of their own, which is joked to be the "ghost in the machine".
Obviously, we don't "think" like the machine or the system, so we are confused by things that don't match OUR thinking.
And that's why there's hundreds of theories that are truly untestable, in evolution, intelligent design, or creationism.
We may never really know what is the truth because we are not meant to think that way... I think Alan Watts said something like that in one of his lectures. Zen is a pretty interesting philosophy, accepting that some things may never make sense to the way our brains work.
Oct 10, 2022·edited Oct 10, 2022Liked by Winston Smith
My own views of this is that science in their left brained thinking, ended up finding a holy Grail.
But as time went on, there were huge inconsistencies that were ignored.
The tests themselves assume a lot of things... It's like the story of the blind men and the elephant, every person "sees" what they want to see.
This was made worse with fast computers. The data was thrown into programs that looked for common patterns which a lot of times were just really junk. That's why they say we have so much "junk" dna... They used it as an excuse to not find patterns everywhere, but really it is because they have a lot of junk. They think they have a puzzle to put together, even when they find most of the pieces not part of the picture!
The holy Grail was too important to ignore, even if they imagined it, due to their simple mechanic minded obsession of finding answers in the unseeable.
In essence it is very similar to virology, which thought they found the answer to disease, ignoring the clear causes (pesticides in polio for example). There are other examples, like the recent discovery that a known cause of Alzheimer's was actually not found... Hmm, how would that be possible for many years to not be noticed???
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." ― Upton Sinclair
Proof positive that awe inspiring irreducible complexity is not a barrier to stupidity. I will remember this post the next time some idiot tells me that The Science based authoritarianism is in my best interest.
I love you Mark! (In a totally above-board, non-sexual, but rationalistic cognizant appreciation of a mutually beneficial and reciprocal relationship, kind of way).
Wow, what a great summary to gain understanding just how complex life is.
It really brings to life for me the Einstein quote.
“As a human being, one has been endowed with just enough intelligence to be able to see clearly how utterly inadequate that intelligence is when confronted with what exists.”
Also highlights the hubris and arrogance of anyone demanding that someone else be injected with mRNA!
Yes the possible altering of the human DNA through gene therapy and in the germ line, could be catastrophic. We are playing with things we have no idea about (they will talk as if they know, but I'm certain it's just rudimentary knowledge, enough for us to mess things up in a big way).
Oct 9, 2022·edited Oct 9, 2022Liked by Winston Smith
You say, "If it were a computer code we’d call it artificial intelligence of a very complex design rather than a random chance collection of computer characters."
I used to work as a computer programmer, so I know humans cannot create artificial intelligence, but the establishment wants us to think so, to divert any attention or relevance to conscience. Then they can just make up morality, and we get the crazy left brain dominated world we have now, disconnected from right brain heart based feelings connection to Creator. The "elite" can manipulate people better that way, with trauma based fear mind control. You really think Putin and America are randomly threatening nuclear war without getting authorization from their handlers/masters first? Like Morpheus said to Neo, "You think that's air you are breathing?" The matrix deceives everybody at first.
What humans CAN do, is create some robot and deceive ourselves into thinking our complex computer algorithms are somehow sentient. But really what is happening is deceptive consciousnesses traditionally called "demons", are possessing and manipulating the robot to talk like a human. Fiction conditions human perception more than the classroom. Droids in Star Wars, Data in Star Trek, and many other sci-fi examples combined with some fancy real-life tech, like my chess program that seems so intelligent when it mostly beats me, makes us think humans can actually create AI. I KNOW computers do not think and never will. They simply do exactly what the programmer programs them to do. But some people are easily deceived, for a variety of reasons.
I am reminded of the movie Independence Day, about alien invasion. Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum played two characters that docked an alien ship with the mother ship and uploaded a computer virus, which caused the aliens' shields to fail and the humans won the day. This scene probably went by most viewers, but a computer programmer like me can't help from thinking things like this: 1) How can Jeff's character create a computer virus on alien tech that is probably using something other than human base-2 math numbering system called binary? 2) Might they be using base-10 instead, way too complicated to be compatible with human tech? 3) Could not the aliens perhaps even be using organic or genetic code based computer systems, many orders of magnitude beyond human tech to be compatible enough to upload a virus? 3) Even assuming base-2 compatible tech based on similar binary digital systems, would not Jeff's character need to know what operating system and basic architecture the aliens use for their computers? 4) How could Jeff create a virus program so fast and without testing from the Quality assurance department to make sure it worked, as nothing in computer programs work the first time without testing? 5) How did Jeff get past any firewalls so easily and quickly upload the virus the first time and it work immediately, without knowing ANY of these details that he would need? But the impossible (ie evolution) becomes possible in the world of imagination, if you don't think too much, or understand necessary details.
Anyway....people choose to believe genetic code (many orders of magnitude beyond computer code), can randomly assemble itself into humans as easily as Jeff's character created & uploaded his virus program. These believers are not stupid people, rather in a hypnotic trance that causes them to believe what the establishment has brainwashed them to believe since birth. The indoctrination system called the education system, which has been hijacked by the "elite" manipulators, has intentionally deceived people, and it truly is easier to fool young minds than it is to convince those same minds later in life that they have been fooled. That is why these people are under mass psychosis and need to escape, like this substack says......
Thanks Dennis for you input here. I'm afraid I'm not a computer programmer and probably have a layman's idea of AI, although I don't suspect for a second it could be sentient, but maybe 'complex', which was the whole point of the analogy. I've seen attempts at calculating the incredible complexity of the genome, and is far and above any complexity of computer programs, or the software + hardware combination that we have created.
But that sounds like another way to say that it's 'too complex for me/us to understand'.
I find is strange that our lack of understanding should be seen as proof of anything other than the limit of our knowledge, and how much more we have to learn.
It is probably more accurate to say "too complex for us to fully understand." So, everybody should be willing to admit evolution should at least be considered a THEORY and a theory with many holes actually. But evolutionists will never admit that. It is 100% fact, they will scream. And governments and the government supported education systems have ALREADY screamed for 150 years since Darwin, that evolution is 100% fact. What does that say to any thinking person?
I think that we can all admit that there are many parts of evolution that we don't understand, or maybe even don't make sense (to us). And I agree that there's a good chance that we will never fully understand evolution. But what does our lack of understanding mean about that the theory of evolution is untrue, or that we have more research to do?
I'm unaware of any screaming, or of biologists not admitting that there are many unknowns regarding evolution.
Both. The theory of evolution is untrue and we need to do more research. Dawkins does not admit many unknowns regarding evolution. I remember an interview Richard Dawkins did where he insisted evolution happened after the big band and millions of years of evolution. When asked how did the big bang happen, he admitted he did not know. When asked how did the first cells come together to start evolution, he admitted he did not exactly know and neither does anybody else. Then the interviewer basically said, "You freely admit you don't know when the big bang happened, and you admit you don't know how evolution started, but you want us to believe you know with 100% certainty it all somehow happened billions of years ago by random chance? Does that make logical sense to believe you about these things on "faith", when you admit you don't know such important things, and nobody knows, so it should at least be POSSIBLE some sort of mysterious Creator may have started everything and influencing things behind the scenes." He had nothing to say and got angry and walked away from the interview.
Here good research they need to do. Whatever brought us into existence is responsible for creating the non-human entities in our skies called UFOs. If evolution explains everything, like the education system wants us to believe, then the UFOs really are "highly evolved ancient alien-gods." But if some form of creationism is true, as in the universe is a matrix simulation of true reality that only appears very old, and the Creator (of humans and these UFO beings) fired up the "earth simulation" program in the recent past (thousands of years NOT billions), then that is NOT enough time for evolution and these beings are NOT what most are led to believe...not all of them, anyway. There is a reason the Bible (and just about ALL religious traditions) reveals much about dark forces, traditionally called Satan and his fallen angels. These beings CANNOT be "Christ" and His angels, because spirit beings do NOT need technology-type craft to fly, so this is a deception.
So, the decision people have to make is what seems more credible, evolution "evidence" to explain otherworldly beings in a matrix designed to deceive the 5 senses and therefore would taint all this evolution "evidence", or simulation theory, philosophized almost as long as evolution theory, but flawed humans will soon build a better matrix computer world in a few short years, estimates range from 20-50 years. We already have virtual reality headset simulation ping-pong games so lifelike one cannot distinguish it from reality, and of course, we all know about facebook's 3D metaverse coming soon---just need to perfect things a little more. Yes, I know the deep state releases some tech a little at a time for the public, and they probably already have this advanced tech. I am talking from the point of view of the average public. For this reason, simulation theory has greater direct evidence and therefore trumps evolution theory, and those who refuse to even consider UFOs are angels (both "good" and "bad"), demonstrate that they simply DO NOT want to acknowledge any Creator; this is a big problem in today's world. As Spock would say regarding the mystery of origins and its relation to UFOs, "Logical decision, logically arrived at."
Simulation theory really does trump evolution theory, and therefore 5 sense data could be the devil manipulating reality and God allows this. Why does God allow this might be better question than trying to defend nonsense evolution. Obviously it takes great intelligence to build the first computer "simulation" of reality, aka the matrix.
How long did it take to advance human computer technology to the point of basically creating our own simulations within this so-called real world (a simulation for sure, since we can do it ourselves even----is God more stupid than humans)? Did computers evolve themselves, or did it take humans behind the scenes to do this? Just because you did not see the humans evolving computer technology personally, does it make sense such complicated machines could create and evolve themselves?
I'm sorry, but I'm unfamiliar with Dawkins various statements. But, in a general way, not knowing when or how something happened doesn't prove that it didn't happen or that a theory is wrong. The lack of evidence is not the same as evidence of a lack.
But In what way do you mean that 'theory of evolution is untrue'?
💬 Fiction conditions human perception more than the classroom.
↑ Great line 👌 Just as your enumerated controlled demolition of David Levinson’s case in the court of logic. But sure you don’t need me to tell this to you 😉
Could the mistake be in ascribing ‘simplicity’ to the fundamental particles of matter? The fact that we measure certain characteristics about them, or deduce their existence from theory, does not mean that they do not have other, yet to be comprehended, properties. Perhaps it is these properties, in combination with the vastness of time, that gives rise to life?
I've nothing terribly clever to add save to more or less echo my comment on the last piece. Personally, I've found the irreducible complexity argument quite convincing for some time. The basic elements of cellular "machinery" at the molecular level could not have been assembled from scratch by random processes. We are then left with the question: where did they come from? Taking it further, the fossil record clearly shows that life has become more diverse and sophisticated over time, again posing the question, how? "Intelligent Design" as a working high level hypothesis is all very well and good but tells us nothing about HOW the intelligence designs life. What are the tools used by Universe, or God, or whatever name you want to give to it, to reach into molecular structures and impart information into them? Is it by viruses? Electromagnetic fields? Light? All of the above?
The other question, of course, that is probably the most interesting and cannot be answered even in principle when working from Darwinian priors, is WHY.
That may be because 'why' is not a scientific question, and therefore cannot be answered by any scientific theory. The question of 'why' something happened should best be left to other disciplines (such as philosophy, theology etc.).
Science can (attempt to) answer questions of where, how, what, when etc.
I'm not sure that's true outside of physics and other disciplines whose subject matter is focused on the inanimate. Psychologists, for example, regularly address the Why question; and while when pressed they insist it's a figure of speech, so do biologists.
If life was designed by an intelligence - and is being continually redesigned by that same intellect - then, as a mind, it has motives. In that context the question of Why becomes both scientifically meaningful and unavoidable. No theory of intelligent design - and by this I mean a working scientific theory capable of making precise predictions, rather than an ad hoc hypothesis - can be completed without addressing it.
It's true - the term 'why' is often incorrectly used. WE have a tendency to attribute human characteristics to non-human objects or organisms. Why is much easier to say that 'what mechanism' (and sounds less pretentious), but It would be better if we were to ask 'how', 'what', 'where from' etc. If we ask the wrong question, we will get the wrong answer, and have only our selves to blame.
But why would life necessarily have motive, simply by having a 'designer'? What kind of motive(s) would it have, and would they be different that is there was no 'designer'? I can understand that a designer might have motive, but I'm not sure how this would extend to the designed, be it an organism or an object. Most objects are designed for a purpose, but often there are other different purposes that are discovered with further use.
As for a 'working scientific theory' of intelligent design, do you have any details?
Well, there is no question whatsoever that Darwinism, as it is usually conceived by materialists, is plain wrong. Anybody who takes the trouble to read, for example, Michael Behe's books carefully, will realize this. Seriously.
That being said, all you need to change the picture is some form of teleology or another. (Darwin approved of teleology btw.) This opens the door to a whole host of solutions/possibilities - from an outlook that keeps much of evolutionary thinking intact (like McGilchrist) to a more theistic approach.
Here's a lively one, not enough resources on this planet to build a starship, which is a feat in itself, but think of all the resources necessary to build the infrastructure, and all of the incremental developments overtime on the way to building a starship. People who believe this are insane. Hahaha!
Not even enough resources on this planet, in the context on how all the fascists siphoning the surpluses (getting a cut) to feed, cloth, and provide adequate shelter on this planet for every human being.
Basically its come down to people starve huddling in the dark so the insane can build up something that won't ever become reality. Like I typed, at risk of being redundant, insane.
Be of good cheer, the fact this psycho-plutocratic-murdering clique is being discussed everywhere means they're goin' down this Yuga.
Make no mistake I have no despair, been working on separating myself from the system that's imploding. The despair is all with those people desperate to save the system (that can not be saved).
Good to hear. I recommend that everybody get as much food, shelter, water, ammo, tribe, silver, Bitcoin, and gold as they understand under the current circumstances.
I would enhance the food issue with learning how to grow with no commercial inputs. Ammo would be the highest on the list of hard assets for sure.
It's even worse!
"The fastest observed rate of mutation fixation is too slow to account for the genetic divergence between any two species."
-Meme from this https://voxday.net/tag/evolution/
Even even worser: Read The Naked Bible, because Mauro Biglino points out the Old Testament sure reads like it's documenting the genetic manipulation and creation of humans by an evil, old, dead space alien.
The only way I know of to explain what we see is something like Morphic Resonance https://www.sheldrake.org/
Thanks Dave for this The Naked Bible sounds like a fascinating book, I am just looking into it now.
It's pretty mind-blowing. Biglino has done a bunch of interviews as well, you can find them on various platforms.
If you are reading Biglino you should also read Dr. Michael S. Heiser as a counterbalance - especially his The Unseen Realm.
Thanks I'll check it out. Absent any of us becoming experts in translating ancient Aramaic and proto-Hebrew (along with the relevant history), however, we'll need to rely on the word of experts.
No lively commentary needed. Just a pause to experience full immersion into the wonderful complexities of life.
I'm assuming you liked those videos? I've seen them so many times and it still blows me away.
The videos are visually and aurally enticing, but the concepts from the written words are even better.
I reject chaos theory. I consider that life is a representative entity in this universe and that it has an integral function. That life on this particular planet has advanced as far as it has suggests we may be among the more advanced life forms in the universe. The progression of extension of physical animal powers (mechanisation) and mental powers (computerisation) strongly suggests we will eventually form a coalition with our own technology and, perhaps one day, fuse with whatever energy is composed of. Intuitively, this suggests that is when we will serve our universal purpose, perhaps to precipitate a flow into some other aspect of the multiverse. Whatever, this seems infinitely more probable to me than the Big Bang with its presumption that life has no integral purpose.
Bab the prophet once said that Noah was a geneticist and he didn't take the animals into an Ark in their mature state, but in test tubes. The test tubes were actually of human embryos and to create all the different animals all Noah had to do was to arrest the development of it at a certain time. Then God would give it a "Speciel Memory" and it would have life. Rupert Sheldrake would call this Morphic Resonance. Each species has its own Speciel Mind as does humanity. So, isn't it interesting to in lieu of Darwinism that it is exactly backward. Curiouser and curiouser.
Well, I know it's all for the progress of mankind and our future convergence in the elonosphere, but I am getting a bit tired of seeing so many mutations in public. I miss the normal human shapes and behaviors of my youth. And I'm not even "get off my lawn" old yet. If only Saint Barry was right when he said, "the science is settled". Instead Sciency stuff seems to be in overdrive trying to kill us now. I guess all those decades of progressive hubris turning Jesus into a magic carpet salesman to paper over all those teeny tiny gaps in the unifying theory of everything wasn't enough so now we must be punished for our tendency to look beyond the myopic microscopes of Scientism.
"a bit tired of seeing so many mutations in public" love it lol
"After a very long time of new standard toy car manuals we arrive at the manual for the construction of the Starship Enterprise (as well as many other offshoot manuals that went onto describe all manner of functional machines), including the sourcing of raw materials, manufacture of parts, assembly, computer coding, all the technology involved."
This analogy was both hilarious and gripping.
I have always found "religious" Darwinians (i.e. those who view blind mechanism as some form of God-proxy) to be quite shallow and simple-minded, once you scratch the shiny surface. This is not to say they are stupid; many of them are quite brilliant, in the generic sense of that word. But their brilliance is reminiscent of athletes who've exercised one particular muscle-group to such an absurd degree that their bodies have become unsuitable for any other task (My wife once proposed the image of a skateboarder with one GIANT leg, lmao).
The notion of "complexity-through-error" is itself revealing, in a "million monkeys typing Shakespeare" sort of way. It is almost as if they are working very, very hard to divorce meaning from life, the way men like Dawkins and Sam Harris do. It never surprises me when their mask of sanity slips, revealing the howling darkness within. Oddly enough, the reveal often has to do with the harming of children. In Dawkins' case, it was the suggestion that it would be "unethical" to bring children with Down's Syndrome to term. In Harris', more recently, it was the statement that he didn't care if they "found a basement full of dead kids on Hunter Biden's laptop."
I know that a sample size of two does not constitute a pattern, but I have witnessed the same overlap between atheism and child-harm in discussions of gender identity and abortion often enough to suggest that the correlation is extremely widespread, and I find that fascinating.
Is that spicy enough for you?
Anyway, good show, Winston. I already love this series and can't wait to read more.
"I have witnessed the same overlap between atheism and child-harm in discussions of gender identity and abortion often enough to suggest that the correlation is extremely widespread, and I find that fascinating."
Indeed. I've noticed the same pattern, and my take is that Darwinism and Atheism are manifestations of a counter-life, nihilistic state of rebellion that I call satanism. Not hooves and pitchfork satanism, but again, a state of rebellion against norms and rules. An opposing force that Dao-like, helps create the dynamics of life. And it is a faith-based belief system.
So many cats who subscribe to Darwinism or any of several related philosophies seem to want, at root, to be exempt from the generally agreed upon rules. Their particular "bag" might be sex with minors, immoral scientific experiments, or whatever.
But, bottom line, they want to be the rule makers, the standard setters, and the All Knowers. Traditionally, most cultures assign this role to God.
Or, more specifically, a role taken by men who seen themselves as speaking in God's name... And we all have an idea of their moral compass.
Yep. Noah Yuval Harrari, Kurzweil and others of that ilk are always saying that through technology, they will become "like unto gods", compared to us. Personally, I'm scared to even entertain a thought like that.
Glad you are with us Mark.
The philosophical, and then practical outcomes of Darwinian evolution have birthed some of the most horrendous anti-human, anti-life activities one could imagine. I'd say full-term abortion, even post-partum murder, has to be securely underpinned by such doctrine or who, with any conscience at all, could possibly do such things. We won't even mention Nazi or Soviet actions against humanity, we all know those horrors, but again, fully convinced these things are OK. After all we are just mutations from pond-scum right?
History is full of examples were people were convinced that they were morally correct and that God was 'on their side'.
Isn't that true!
That's why it is mistaken, and even dangerous, to attribute morality to only one group.
Many have evoked the name of God, claiming God is "on their side", when in fact God was far from them, even opposing them - I think there was an episode of drinking Cool Aid that didn't end well for those poor souls.
That's why I'm especially suspicious of those who use God as justification for their beliefs and actions...
Here's an interesting point that genetics itself is a broken science, just like virology. Trying to understand invisible processes by inference of instruments leads to an imaginary explanation... Even if the intent was honest. Same goes for quantum "theory"
https://viroliegy.com/2022/01/26/the-epistemological-crisis-in-genomics/
Great point Rob, as Alan Watts says
So you see here again the problem comes out in genetics we do not really know how to interfere with the way the world is. The way the world actually is is an enormously complex interrelated organism. The same problem arises in medicine, because the body is a very complexly interrelated organism.
Yes that's so true.
Yep! Complex dynamical systems.
Even some complex machines have a mind of their own, which is joked to be the "ghost in the machine".
Obviously, we don't "think" like the machine or the system, so we are confused by things that don't match OUR thinking.
And that's why there's hundreds of theories that are truly untestable, in evolution, intelligent design, or creationism.
We may never really know what is the truth because we are not meant to think that way... I think Alan Watts said something like that in one of his lectures. Zen is a pretty interesting philosophy, accepting that some things may never make sense to the way our brains work.
Any chance of a summary Rob?
My own views of this is that science in their left brained thinking, ended up finding a holy Grail.
But as time went on, there were huge inconsistencies that were ignored.
The tests themselves assume a lot of things... It's like the story of the blind men and the elephant, every person "sees" what they want to see.
This was made worse with fast computers. The data was thrown into programs that looked for common patterns which a lot of times were just really junk. That's why they say we have so much "junk" dna... They used it as an excuse to not find patterns everywhere, but really it is because they have a lot of junk. They think they have a puzzle to put together, even when they find most of the pieces not part of the picture!
The holy Grail was too important to ignore, even if they imagined it, due to their simple mechanic minded obsession of finding answers in the unseeable.
In essence it is very similar to virology, which thought they found the answer to disease, ignoring the clear causes (pesticides in polio for example). There are other examples, like the recent discovery that a known cause of Alzheimer's was actually not found... Hmm, how would that be possible for many years to not be noticed???
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." ― Upton Sinclair
Got it. Thanks Rob.
Proof positive that awe inspiring irreducible complexity is not a barrier to stupidity. I will remember this post the next time some idiot tells me that The Science based authoritarianism is in my best interest.
https://markbisone.substack.com/p/mark-recommends-a-thing-1
I love you Mark! (In a totally above-board, non-sexual, but rationalistic cognizant appreciation of a mutually beneficial and reciprocal relationship, kind of way).
Nailed it. Again.
Wow, what a great summary to gain understanding just how complex life is.
It really brings to life for me the Einstein quote.
“As a human being, one has been endowed with just enough intelligence to be able to see clearly how utterly inadequate that intelligence is when confronted with what exists.”
Also highlights the hubris and arrogance of anyone demanding that someone else be injected with mRNA!
Yes the possible altering of the human DNA through gene therapy and in the germ line, could be catastrophic. We are playing with things we have no idea about (they will talk as if they know, but I'm certain it's just rudimentary knowledge, enough for us to mess things up in a big way).
You say, "If it were a computer code we’d call it artificial intelligence of a very complex design rather than a random chance collection of computer characters."
I used to work as a computer programmer, so I know humans cannot create artificial intelligence, but the establishment wants us to think so, to divert any attention or relevance to conscience. Then they can just make up morality, and we get the crazy left brain dominated world we have now, disconnected from right brain heart based feelings connection to Creator. The "elite" can manipulate people better that way, with trauma based fear mind control. You really think Putin and America are randomly threatening nuclear war without getting authorization from their handlers/masters first? Like Morpheus said to Neo, "You think that's air you are breathing?" The matrix deceives everybody at first.
What humans CAN do, is create some robot and deceive ourselves into thinking our complex computer algorithms are somehow sentient. But really what is happening is deceptive consciousnesses traditionally called "demons", are possessing and manipulating the robot to talk like a human. Fiction conditions human perception more than the classroom. Droids in Star Wars, Data in Star Trek, and many other sci-fi examples combined with some fancy real-life tech, like my chess program that seems so intelligent when it mostly beats me, makes us think humans can actually create AI. I KNOW computers do not think and never will. They simply do exactly what the programmer programs them to do. But some people are easily deceived, for a variety of reasons.
I am reminded of the movie Independence Day, about alien invasion. Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum played two characters that docked an alien ship with the mother ship and uploaded a computer virus, which caused the aliens' shields to fail and the humans won the day. This scene probably went by most viewers, but a computer programmer like me can't help from thinking things like this: 1) How can Jeff's character create a computer virus on alien tech that is probably using something other than human base-2 math numbering system called binary? 2) Might they be using base-10 instead, way too complicated to be compatible with human tech? 3) Could not the aliens perhaps even be using organic or genetic code based computer systems, many orders of magnitude beyond human tech to be compatible enough to upload a virus? 3) Even assuming base-2 compatible tech based on similar binary digital systems, would not Jeff's character need to know what operating system and basic architecture the aliens use for their computers? 4) How could Jeff create a virus program so fast and without testing from the Quality assurance department to make sure it worked, as nothing in computer programs work the first time without testing? 5) How did Jeff get past any firewalls so easily and quickly upload the virus the first time and it work immediately, without knowing ANY of these details that he would need? But the impossible (ie evolution) becomes possible in the world of imagination, if you don't think too much, or understand necessary details.
Anyway....people choose to believe genetic code (many orders of magnitude beyond computer code), can randomly assemble itself into humans as easily as Jeff's character created & uploaded his virus program. These believers are not stupid people, rather in a hypnotic trance that causes them to believe what the establishment has brainwashed them to believe since birth. The indoctrination system called the education system, which has been hijacked by the "elite" manipulators, has intentionally deceived people, and it truly is easier to fool young minds than it is to convince those same minds later in life that they have been fooled. That is why these people are under mass psychosis and need to escape, like this substack says......
Thanks Dennis for you input here. I'm afraid I'm not a computer programmer and probably have a layman's idea of AI, although I don't suspect for a second it could be sentient, but maybe 'complex', which was the whole point of the analogy. I've seen attempts at calculating the incredible complexity of the genome, and is far and above any complexity of computer programs, or the software + hardware combination that we have created.
Incredibly complex seems an understatement...
But that sounds like another way to say that it's 'too complex for me/us to understand'.
I find is strange that our lack of understanding should be seen as proof of anything other than the limit of our knowledge, and how much more we have to learn.
It is probably more accurate to say "too complex for us to fully understand." So, everybody should be willing to admit evolution should at least be considered a THEORY and a theory with many holes actually. But evolutionists will never admit that. It is 100% fact, they will scream. And governments and the government supported education systems have ALREADY screamed for 150 years since Darwin, that evolution is 100% fact. What does that say to any thinking person?
I think that we can all admit that there are many parts of evolution that we don't understand, or maybe even don't make sense (to us). And I agree that there's a good chance that we will never fully understand evolution. But what does our lack of understanding mean about that the theory of evolution is untrue, or that we have more research to do?
I'm unaware of any screaming, or of biologists not admitting that there are many unknowns regarding evolution.
Both. The theory of evolution is untrue and we need to do more research. Dawkins does not admit many unknowns regarding evolution. I remember an interview Richard Dawkins did where he insisted evolution happened after the big band and millions of years of evolution. When asked how did the big bang happen, he admitted he did not know. When asked how did the first cells come together to start evolution, he admitted he did not exactly know and neither does anybody else. Then the interviewer basically said, "You freely admit you don't know when the big bang happened, and you admit you don't know how evolution started, but you want us to believe you know with 100% certainty it all somehow happened billions of years ago by random chance? Does that make logical sense to believe you about these things on "faith", when you admit you don't know such important things, and nobody knows, so it should at least be POSSIBLE some sort of mysterious Creator may have started everything and influencing things behind the scenes." He had nothing to say and got angry and walked away from the interview.
Here good research they need to do. Whatever brought us into existence is responsible for creating the non-human entities in our skies called UFOs. If evolution explains everything, like the education system wants us to believe, then the UFOs really are "highly evolved ancient alien-gods." But if some form of creationism is true, as in the universe is a matrix simulation of true reality that only appears very old, and the Creator (of humans and these UFO beings) fired up the "earth simulation" program in the recent past (thousands of years NOT billions), then that is NOT enough time for evolution and these beings are NOT what most are led to believe...not all of them, anyway. There is a reason the Bible (and just about ALL religious traditions) reveals much about dark forces, traditionally called Satan and his fallen angels. These beings CANNOT be "Christ" and His angels, because spirit beings do NOT need technology-type craft to fly, so this is a deception.
So, the decision people have to make is what seems more credible, evolution "evidence" to explain otherworldly beings in a matrix designed to deceive the 5 senses and therefore would taint all this evolution "evidence", or simulation theory, philosophized almost as long as evolution theory, but flawed humans will soon build a better matrix computer world in a few short years, estimates range from 20-50 years. We already have virtual reality headset simulation ping-pong games so lifelike one cannot distinguish it from reality, and of course, we all know about facebook's 3D metaverse coming soon---just need to perfect things a little more. Yes, I know the deep state releases some tech a little at a time for the public, and they probably already have this advanced tech. I am talking from the point of view of the average public. For this reason, simulation theory has greater direct evidence and therefore trumps evolution theory, and those who refuse to even consider UFOs are angels (both "good" and "bad"), demonstrate that they simply DO NOT want to acknowledge any Creator; this is a big problem in today's world. As Spock would say regarding the mystery of origins and its relation to UFOs, "Logical decision, logically arrived at."
Simulation theory really does trump evolution theory, and therefore 5 sense data could be the devil manipulating reality and God allows this. Why does God allow this might be better question than trying to defend nonsense evolution. Obviously it takes great intelligence to build the first computer "simulation" of reality, aka the matrix.
How long did it take to advance human computer technology to the point of basically creating our own simulations within this so-called real world (a simulation for sure, since we can do it ourselves even----is God more stupid than humans)? Did computers evolve themselves, or did it take humans behind the scenes to do this? Just because you did not see the humans evolving computer technology personally, does it make sense such complicated machines could create and evolve themselves?
I'm sorry, but I'm unfamiliar with Dawkins various statements. But, in a general way, not knowing when or how something happened doesn't prove that it didn't happen or that a theory is wrong. The lack of evidence is not the same as evidence of a lack.
But In what way do you mean that 'theory of evolution is untrue'?
💬 Fiction conditions human perception more than the classroom.
↑ Great line 👌 Just as your enumerated controlled demolition of David Levinson’s case in the court of logic. But sure you don’t need me to tell this to you 😉
Could the mistake be in ascribing ‘simplicity’ to the fundamental particles of matter? The fact that we measure certain characteristics about them, or deduce their existence from theory, does not mean that they do not have other, yet to be comprehended, properties. Perhaps it is these properties, in combination with the vastness of time, that gives rise to life?
Considering how much we don't know, any or all could be true.
I've nothing terribly clever to add save to more or less echo my comment on the last piece. Personally, I've found the irreducible complexity argument quite convincing for some time. The basic elements of cellular "machinery" at the molecular level could not have been assembled from scratch by random processes. We are then left with the question: where did they come from? Taking it further, the fossil record clearly shows that life has become more diverse and sophisticated over time, again posing the question, how? "Intelligent Design" as a working high level hypothesis is all very well and good but tells us nothing about HOW the intelligence designs life. What are the tools used by Universe, or God, or whatever name you want to give to it, to reach into molecular structures and impart information into them? Is it by viruses? Electromagnetic fields? Light? All of the above?
The other question, of course, that is probably the most interesting and cannot be answered even in principle when working from Darwinian priors, is WHY.
That may be because 'why' is not a scientific question, and therefore cannot be answered by any scientific theory. The question of 'why' something happened should best be left to other disciplines (such as philosophy, theology etc.).
Science can (attempt to) answer questions of where, how, what, when etc.
I'm not sure that's true outside of physics and other disciplines whose subject matter is focused on the inanimate. Psychologists, for example, regularly address the Why question; and while when pressed they insist it's a figure of speech, so do biologists.
If life was designed by an intelligence - and is being continually redesigned by that same intellect - then, as a mind, it has motives. In that context the question of Why becomes both scientifically meaningful and unavoidable. No theory of intelligent design - and by this I mean a working scientific theory capable of making precise predictions, rather than an ad hoc hypothesis - can be completed without addressing it.
It's true - the term 'why' is often incorrectly used. WE have a tendency to attribute human characteristics to non-human objects or organisms. Why is much easier to say that 'what mechanism' (and sounds less pretentious), but It would be better if we were to ask 'how', 'what', 'where from' etc. If we ask the wrong question, we will get the wrong answer, and have only our selves to blame.
But why would life necessarily have motive, simply by having a 'designer'? What kind of motive(s) would it have, and would they be different that is there was no 'designer'? I can understand that a designer might have motive, but I'm not sure how this would extend to the designed, be it an organism or an object. Most objects are designed for a purpose, but often there are other different purposes that are discovered with further use.
As for a 'working scientific theory' of intelligent design, do you have any details?
Well, there is no question whatsoever that Darwinism, as it is usually conceived by materialists, is plain wrong. Anybody who takes the trouble to read, for example, Michael Behe's books carefully, will realize this. Seriously.
That being said, all you need to change the picture is some form of teleology or another. (Darwin approved of teleology btw.) This opens the door to a whole host of solutions/possibilities - from an outlook that keeps much of evolutionary thinking intact (like McGilchrist) to a more theistic approach.