David B. <bdb@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
[talk.origins added]
"Secrets of the Cell with Michael Behe"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw94qm4qdn8
The video is about half an hour long. I found the content absolutely
fascinating.
No longer do I believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution!
Good for you!
If you take the time out to watch this video presentation, I'd be really
interested to learn what YOU think about what you've seen and heard.
May I point you to to the newsgroup talk.origins ?
They are badly in need of fresh creationists there.
[Fto: set]
They'll gladly tell you there what they think of Michael Behe,
Jan
On 2/25/24 10:38 AM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:18:41 GMT, "J. J. Lodder" <J. J. Lodder> wrote:
David B. <bdb@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
[talk.origins added]
"Secrets of the Cell with Michael Behe"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw94qm4qdn8
The video is about half an hour long. I found the content absolutely fascinating.
No longer do I believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution!
Good for you!
If you take the time out to watch this video presentation, I'd be really
interested to learn what YOU think about what you've seen and heard.
May I point you to to the newsgroup talk.origins ?
They are badly in need of fresh creationists there.
[Fto: set]
They'll gladly tell you there what they think of Michael Behe,
Jan
That's very kind of you to so advise, Jan.
Thank you.I'm bemused that Google's disinvolvment with groups has led to new creationists and a couple of older ones to appear (or reappear). For a
while it looked as though there were none left. For the record, I think
Behe is pretty close to being a crank. Ain't tenure wonderful?
He got bounced out of the Royal Navy two steps ahead of a court for conduct unbecoming involving three black recruits. Three male black recruits. It’s not as if the RN was overflowing with blacks...
For the record, I think
Behe is pretty close to being a crank.
On 25 Feb 2024 at 20:42:03 GMT, "WolfFan" is a *LIAR!
He got bounced out of the Royal Navy two steps ahead of a court for conduct unbecoming involving three black recruits. Three male black recruits. It’s
not as if the RN was overflowing with blacks...
FALSE!
On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com>Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need to know.
wrote:
For the record, I think
Behe is pretty close to being a crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik?
TIA
On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com>The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been kicked around on
wrote:
On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com> >>>> wrote:Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need to know.
For the record, I think
Behe is pretty close to being a crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik?
TIA
I've not heard of the organisation before. I've read here:-
https://www.discovery.org/about/
What do you feel is contentious?
this group for many years, and has its proponents. Obviously, I'm not
one of them. I don't propose to re-argue this subject. Check through
prior discussions here if you want to get the flavor of it. I'm not interested in getting involved in such a discussion.
notice how he doesn’t even try to deny the other points. He just hates being outed. poor boy.
On 2/25/24 3:44 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:35:17 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com>I've deleted all but this year's discussions. Go to Google Groups and
wrote:
On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com> >>>> wrote:The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been kicked around on
On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need to know.
For the record, I think
Behe is pretty close to being a crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik?
TIA
I've not heard of the organisation before. I've read here:-
https://www.discovery.org/about/
What do you feel is contentious?
this group for many years, and has its proponents. Obviously, I'm not
one of them. I don't propose to re-argue this subject. Check through
prior discussions here if you want to get the flavor of it. I'm not
interested in getting involved in such a discussion.
OK. Thanks, Erik.
If you can point me to any specific past discussion, it will be much
appreciated.
you can see everything except the most recent posts. Posts by Peter
Nyikos and the responses to his posts will discover the hottest discussions.
On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson"The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been kicked around on
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:I've not heard of the organisation before. I've read here:-
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson"Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need to know.
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
For the record, I think Behe is pretty close to being a crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik?
TIA
https://www.discovery.org/about/ What do you feel is contentious?
this group for many years, and has its proponents. Obviously, I'm not
one of them. I don't propose to re-argue this subject. Check through
prior discussions here if you want to get the flavor of it. I'm not interested in getting involved in such a discussion.
erik simpson formulated on Sunday :
On 2/25/24 3:44 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:35:17 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com> >>> wrote:I've deleted all but this year's discussions. Go to Google Groups and you >> can see everything except the most recent posts. Posts by Peter Nyikos and >> the responses to his posts will discover the hottest discussions.
On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been kicked around on >>>> this group for many years, and has its proponents. Obviously, I'm not >>>> one of them. I don't propose to re-argue this subject. Check through >>>> prior discussions here if you want to get the flavor of it. I'm not
On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson"Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need to know.
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
For the record, I think
Behe is pretty close to being a crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik?
TIA
I've not heard of the organisation before. I've read here:-
https://www.discovery.org/about/
What do you feel is contentious?
interested in getting involved in such a discussion.
OK. Thanks, Erik.
If you can point me to any specific past discussion, it will be much
appreciated.
Does GG still archive NNTP articles?
[....]
Does GG still archive NNTP articles?
On Feb 25, 2024, erik simpson wrote
(in article<a0af9cb8-49a0-4913-af82-c9514e93e9b9@gmail.com>):
On 2/25/24 10:38 AM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:18:41 GMT, "J. J. Lodder" <J. J. Lodder> wrote:
David B. <bdb@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
[talk.origins added]
"Secrets of the Cell with Michael Behe"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw94qm4qdn8
The video is about half an hour long. I found the content absolutely fascinating.
No longer do I believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution!
Good for you!
If you take the time out to watch this video presentation, I'd be really interested to learn what YOU think about what you've seen
and heard.
May I point you to to the newsgroup talk.origins ?
They are badly in need of fresh creationists there.
[Fto: set]
They'll gladly tell you there what they think of Michael Behe,
Jan
That's very kind of you to so advise, Jan.
Thank you.I'm bemused that Google's disinvolvment with groups has led to new creationists and a couple of older ones to appear (or reappear). For a while it looked as though there were none left. For the record, I think Behe is pretty close to being a crank. Ain't tenure wonderful?
Warning: David Brooks is a stalker and a troll and a complete nutball.
He's on a par with Nando.
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson"The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been kicked around on
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:I've not heard of the organisation before. I've read here:-
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson"Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need to know.
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
For the record, I think Behe is pretty close to being a crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik?
TIA
https://www.discovery.org/about/ What do you feel is contentious?
this group for many years, and has its proponents. Obviously, I'm not
one of them. I don't propose to re-argue this subject. Check through
prior discussions here if you want to get the flavor of it. I'm not
interested in getting involved in such a discussion.
In a group whose description is "Evolution versus creationism (sometimes >hot!)." I would have thought the subject will come up over and over.
On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:30:47 GMT, "WolfFan" - *Usenet LIAR*
notice how he doesn’t even try to deny the other points. He just hates being outed. poor boy.
Words That Harm
The tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life, and set on fire by hell … No human being can tame the tongue.
James 3:6, James 3:8
Three things never come back: the spent arrow, the spoken word, and the lost opportunity. What we say cannot be unsaid. What’s more, we will be called to
account for every word we have spoken—even our careless ones—at the day of
reckoning (see Matthew 12:36). As King Solomon put it, “Whoever guards his mouth preserves his life; he who opens wide his lips comes to ruin” (Proverbs
13:3); and “Death and life are in the power of the tongue” (18:21). Our words
can serve to encourage, to nourish, and to heal. But they can also cause strife, create dissension, and do harm. Solomon gives us a multifaceted picture of what characterizes such harmful words. He describes words that harm
as those that are reckless, as being “like sword thrusts” (12:18). Our words
so often spill forth unguardedly, and we become someone who “gives an answer
before he hears” (18:13). “When words are many, transgression is not lacking”
(10:19).
You will likely have heard the saying that sticks and stones can break our bones, but words can never harm us—but that is dead wrong. Bruises may fade and the marks they made be forgotten. But hurtful words that have been said to
us and about us tend to remain with us for a long time. Truer are these lines:
A careless word may kindle strife,
A cruel word may wreck a life,
A bitter word may hate instill,
A brutal word may smite and kill.
It would be difficult to estimate how many friendships are broken, how many reputations are ruined, or the peace of how many homes is destroyed through harmful words. The very source of all such animosity and abusive language, according to James, is none other than hell itself. Yes, our tongue is “a fire,” and “no human being can tame the tongue” without the work of God’s Holy
Spirit.
Stop and think of how many words you have used in the last 24 hours, and how they were used. “Death and life are in the power of the tongue”—so did any of
your words cause harm, tearing someone else down in some way? That is a sin to
be repented of and turned from. Is that something you need to do, both before God and to the person to whom those words were spoken?
Then think of the words you may speak over the next 24 hours. How might they be used to bring life? How might you reflect the one who “committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth”? Rather, “when he was reviled, he did
not revile in return … He himself bore our sins … that we might die to sin and
live to righteousness” (1 Peter 2:22-24).
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
For the record, I think
Behe is pretty close to being a crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik?
On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
For the record, I think
Behe is pretty close to being a crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik?
I find it telling that Behe has never acknowledged (that I know of) that
his most famous idea (to creationists and evolutionists) was presented
nearly a hundred years earlier by another biologist.
erik simpson formulated on Sunday :
On 2/25/24 3:44 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:35:17 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com> >>> wrote:I've deleted all but this year's discussions. Go to Google Groups and you >> can see everything except the most recent posts. Posts by Peter Nyikos and >> the responses to his posts will discover the hottest discussions.
On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been kicked around on >>>> this group for many years, and has its proponents. Obviously, I'm not >>>> one of them. I don't propose to re-argue this subject. Check through >>>> prior discussions here if you want to get the flavor of it. I'm not
On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson"Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need to know.
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
For the record, I think
Behe is pretty close to being a crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik?
TIA
I've not heard of the organisation before. I've read here:-
https://www.discovery.org/about/
What do you feel is contentious?
interested in getting involved in such a discussion.
OK. Thanks, Erik.
If you can point me to any specific past discussion, it will be much
appreciated.
Does GG still archive NNTP articles?
David B. <bdb@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
[talk.origins added]
"Secrets of the Cell with Michael Behe"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw94qm4qdn8
The video is about half an hour long. I found the content absolutely
fascinating.
No longer do I believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution!
Good for you!
If you take the time out to watch this video presentation, I'd be really
interested to learn what YOU think about what you've seen and heard.
May I point you to to the newsgroup talk.origins ?
They are badly in need of fresh creationists there.
[Fto: set]
They'll gladly tell you there what they think of Michael Behe,
Jan
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:46:40 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson"The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been kicked around
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:I've not heard of the organisation before. I've read here:-
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson"Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need to know.
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
For the record, I think Behe is pretty close to being a
crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik?
TIA
https://www.discovery.org/about/ What do you feel is contentious?
on this group for many years, and has its proponents. Obviously,
I'm not one of them. I don't propose to re-argue this subject.
Check through prior discussions here if you want to get the flavor
of it. I'm not interested in getting involved in such a discussion.
In a group whose description is "Evolution versus creationism
(sometimes hot!)." I would have thought the subject will come up over
and over.
It has. My impression is that's one reason so many aren't interested.
in it.
On 28 Feb 2024 at 06:06:03 GMT, "Mark Isaak" <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com> >>> wrote:
For the record, I think
Behe is pretty close to being a crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik?
I find it telling that Behe has never acknowledged (that I know of) that
his most famous idea (to creationists and evolutionists) was presented
nearly a hundred years earlier by another biologist.
Thank you for responding, Erik.
I apologise for being so naive. Please will you explain - to what, exactly, are you referring?
David B. <bdb@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 28 Feb 2024 at 06:06:03 GMT, "Mark Isaak" <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
For the record, I think
Behe is pretty close to being a crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik?
I find it telling that Behe has never acknowledged (that I know of) that his most famous idea (to creationists and evolutionists) was presented nearly a hundred years earlier by another biologist.
Thank you for responding, Erik.You’re not responding to Erik.
I apologise for being so naive. Please will you explain - to what, exactly, are you referring?
bdb@nomail.afraid.org
dgb@usenet.invalid
We have a live one.
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:46:40 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson"The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been kicked around
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:I've not heard of the organisation before. I've read here:-
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson"Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need to know.
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
For the record, I think Behe is pretty close to being a
crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik?
TIA
https://www.discovery.org/about/ What do you feel is contentious?
on this group for many years, and has its proponents. Obviously,
I'm not one of them. I don't propose to re-argue this subject.
Check through prior discussions here if you want to get the flavor
of it. I'm not interested in getting involved in such a discussion.
In a group whose description is "Evolution versus creationism
(sometimes hot!)." I would have thought the subject will come up over
and over.
It has. My impression is that's one reason so many aren't interested.
in it.
What are the other kinds of creationism apart from I.D.?
On 28/02/2024 22:29, Richmond wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:46:40 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:What are the other kinds of creationism apart from I.D.?
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson"The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been kicked
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:I've not heard of the organisation before. I've read here:-
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson"Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need to know.
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
For the record, I think Behe is pretty close to being a
crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik? >>>>>>>>
TIA
https://www.discovery.org/about/ What do you feel is contentious?
around on this group for many years, and has its proponents.
Obviously, I'm not one of them. I don't propose to re-argue this
subject. Check through prior discussions here if you want to get
the flavor of it. I'm not interested in getting involved in such
a discussion.
In a group whose description is "Evolution versus creationism
(sometimes hot!)." I would have thought the subject will come up
over and over.
It has. My impression is that's one reason so many aren't
interested. in it.
One could argue that ID is all kinds of creationism. The
distinguishing points of ID are
1) a professed agnosticism about the identity of the creator
("designer"), at least when wearing one's ID hat.
2) a claim, shared with scientific creationism, that there is evidence
that life was created rather than evolved.
Members of the ID movement can hold to just about any version of
creationism (include geocentrism and platygaianism). ID is a political movement, and theistic evolutionists tend not to share the movement's
goals, so they are rare among ID advocates.
* abiotic creationists (God created the universe) * single creation creationists (God created the urorganism) * multiple-creation
creationists (God created multiple kinds of life) ** young earth
creationists *** young earth anevolutionists *** young earth hyperevolutionists ** young life creationists ** old earth
creationists * progressive creationists ** episodic progressive
creationists (God creates successive biotas) ** discontinuous
progressive creationists (God creates species) ** continuous
progressive creationism (God creates mutations/selection) **
occasionalist creationism (Islamo-Calvinist determinism)
There are non-Abrahamic forms of creationism. One might also consider Raelianism as a non-religious form of creationism.
It's most useful to define creationism so it lines up with the fault
lines in society, rather than focussing on the particularities of
belief (defining creationism as equivalent to theism isn't helpful.)
Hence, my preferred definition of creationism is "religiously
motivated rejection of substantial proportions of the scientific
consensus, especially as relating to biology, geology and cosmology,
or the promotion thereof". The line I'd draw between theistic
evolutionism and progressive creationism is that the former has God
guiding the course of evolution but accepts that natural processes can produce the same or equivalent result, while the latter asserts that
natural processes cannot produce the modern day biota.
In another context creationism is the position that human souls are
created de novo, as opposed to traducianism and other positions.
On 28 Feb 2024 at 06:06:03 GMT, "Mark Isaak" <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson" <eastside.erik@gmail.com> >>> wrote:
For the record, I think
Behe is pretty close to being a crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik?
I find it telling that Behe has never acknowledged (that I know of) that
his most famous idea (to creationists and evolutionists) was presented
nearly a hundred years earlier by another biologist.
Thank you for responding, Erik.
I apologise for being so naive. Please will you explain - to what, exactly, are you referring?
On 2/28/24 12:07 AM, David B. wrote:
On 28 Feb 2024 at 06:06:03 GMT, "Mark Isaak"
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson"
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
For the record, I think
Behe is pretty close to being a crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik?
I find it telling that Behe has never acknowledged (that I know of) that >>> his most famous idea (to creationists and evolutionists) was presented
nearly a hundred years earlier by another biologist.
Thank you for responding, Erik.
I apologise for being so naive. Please will you explain - to what,
exactly,
are you referring?
Behe's claim to fame is irreducible complexity -- the idea that some
systems need each and every part (so they could not have formed by
adding parts to simpler systems). Hermann Muller proposed the same idea
in 1918 and called it "interlocking complexity" in 1939. Except for him,
it was a prediction based upon evolution: Some systems would have
duplicate or unnecessary parts removed via selection, so they would be reduced to such a state.
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:
On 28/02/2024 22:29, Richmond wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:46:40 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>What are the other kinds of creationism apart from I.D.?
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson"The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been kicked
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:https://www.discovery.org/about/ What do you feel is contentious? >>>>>>>
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson"Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need to know. >>>>>>> I've not heard of the organisation before. I've read here:-
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
For the record, I think Behe is pretty close to being a
crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik? >>>>>>>>>
TIA
around on this group for many years, and has its proponents.
Obviously, I'm not one of them. I don't propose to re-argue this
subject. Check through prior discussions here if you want to get
the flavor of it. I'm not interested in getting involved in such
a discussion.
In a group whose description is "Evolution versus creationism
(sometimes hot!)." I would have thought the subject will come up
over and over.
It has. My impression is that's one reason so many aren't
interested. in it.
One could argue that ID is all kinds of creationism. The
distinguishing points of ID are
1) a professed agnosticism about the identity of the creator
("designer"), at least when wearing one's ID hat.
2) a claim, shared with scientific creationism, that there is evidence
that life was created rather than evolved.
Members of the ID movement can hold to just about any version of
creationism (include geocentrism and platygaianism). ID is a political
movement, and theistic evolutionists tend not to share the movement's
goals, so they are rare among ID advocates.
* abiotic creationists (God created the universe) * single creation
creationists (God created the urorganism) * multiple-creation
creationists (God created multiple kinds of life) ** young earth
creationists *** young earth anevolutionists *** young earth
hyperevolutionists ** young life creationists ** old earth
creationists * progressive creationists ** episodic progressive
creationists (God creates successive biotas) ** discontinuous
progressive creationists (God creates species) ** continuous
progressive creationism (God creates mutations/selection) **
occasionalist creationism (Islamo-Calvinist determinism)
There are non-Abrahamic forms of creationism. One might also consider
Raelianism as a non-religious form of creationism.
It's most useful to define creationism so it lines up with the fault
lines in society, rather than focussing on the particularities of
belief (defining creationism as equivalent to theism isn't helpful.)
Hence, my preferred definition of creationism is "religiously
motivated rejection of substantial proportions of the scientific
consensus, especially as relating to biology, geology and cosmology,
or the promotion thereof". The line I'd draw between theistic
evolutionism and progressive creationism is that the former has God
guiding the course of evolution but accepts that natural processes can
produce the same or equivalent result, while the latter asserts that
natural processes cannot produce the modern day biota.
In another context creationism is the position that human souls are
created de novo, as opposed to traducianism and other positions.
Thanks, that is fascinating, I had to look up a few words.
What interests me is: what is it in the human psyche which made people
come up with these theories, and gives them the energy to keep persuing
them even in the face of adversity. Also the idea of another world,
which is more real than this one, which crops up still in popular
culture, like "The Matrix", a Gnostic idea that the world is created by something evil, and our purpose is to break free of the illusion and
take our rightful place. I think Jung would say that other place is the unconscious, and that it created consciousness in its own image.
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:Jung was quite open about being influenced by Schopenhauer. The whole
On 28/02/2024 22:29, Richmond wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:46:40 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>What are the other kinds of creationism apart from I.D.?
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson"The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been kicked
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:https://www.discovery.org/about/ What do you feel is contentious? >>>>>>>>
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson"Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need to know. >>>>>>>> I've not heard of the organisation before. I've read here:-
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
For the record, I think Behe is pretty close to being a
crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik? >>>>>>>>>>
TIA
around on this group for many years, and has its proponents.
Obviously, I'm not one of them. I don't propose to re-argue this >>>>>>> subject. Check through prior discussions here if you want to get >>>>>>> the flavor of it. I'm not interested in getting involved in such >>>>>>> a discussion.
In a group whose description is "Evolution versus creationism
(sometimes hot!)." I would have thought the subject will come up
over and over.
It has. My impression is that's one reason so many aren't
interested. in it.
One could argue that ID is all kinds of creationism. The
distinguishing points of ID are
1) a professed agnosticism about the identity of the creator
("designer"), at least when wearing one's ID hat.
2) a claim, shared with scientific creationism, that there is evidence
that life was created rather than evolved.
Members of the ID movement can hold to just about any version of
creationism (include geocentrism and platygaianism). ID is a political
movement, and theistic evolutionists tend not to share the movement's
goals, so they are rare among ID advocates.
* abiotic creationists (God created the universe) * single creation
creationists (God created the urorganism) * multiple-creation
creationists (God created multiple kinds of life) ** young earth
creationists *** young earth anevolutionists *** young earth
hyperevolutionists ** young life creationists ** old earth
creationists * progressive creationists ** episodic progressive
creationists (God creates successive biotas) ** discontinuous
progressive creationists (God creates species) ** continuous
progressive creationism (God creates mutations/selection) **
occasionalist creationism (Islamo-Calvinist determinism)
There are non-Abrahamic forms of creationism. One might also consider
Raelianism as a non-religious form of creationism.
It's most useful to define creationism so it lines up with the fault
lines in society, rather than focussing on the particularities of
belief (defining creationism as equivalent to theism isn't helpful.)
Hence, my preferred definition of creationism is "religiously
motivated rejection of substantial proportions of the scientific
consensus, especially as relating to biology, geology and cosmology,
or the promotion thereof". The line I'd draw between theistic
evolutionism and progressive creationism is that the former has God
guiding the course of evolution but accepts that natural processes can
produce the same or equivalent result, while the latter asserts that
natural processes cannot produce the modern day biota.
In another context creationism is the position that human souls are
created de novo, as opposed to traducianism and other positions.
Thanks, that is fascinating, I had to look up a few words.
What interests me is: what is it in the human psyche which made people
come up with these theories, and gives them the energy to keep persuing
them even in the face of adversity. Also the idea of another world,
which is more real than this one, which crops up still in popular
culture, like "The Matrix", a Gnostic idea that the world is created by
something evil, and our purpose is to break free of the illusion and
take our rightful place. I think Jung would say that other place is the
unconscious, and that it created consciousness in its own image.
Matrix concept was a bit of Plato’s cave mixed with Bishop Berkeley. The filmmakers tried to shoehorn a deliberate reference to Jean Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation but he thought the movie was bullshit.
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:Jung was quite open about being influenced by Schopenhauer. The whole
On 28/02/2024 22:29, Richmond wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:46:40 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>What are the other kinds of creationism apart from I.D.?
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson"The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been kicked
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:https://www.discovery.org/about/ What do you feel is contentious? >>>>>>>>>
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson"Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need to know. >>>>>>>>> I've not heard of the organisation before. I've read here:-
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
For the record, I think Behe is pretty close to being a >>>>>>>>>>>> crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik? >>>>>>>>>>>
TIA
around on this group for many years, and has its proponents.
Obviously, I'm not one of them. I don't propose to re-argue this >>>>>>>> subject. Check through prior discussions here if you want to get >>>>>>>> the flavor of it. I'm not interested in getting involved in such >>>>>>>> a discussion.
In a group whose description is "Evolution versus creationism
(sometimes hot!)." I would have thought the subject will come up >>>>>>> over and over.
It has. My impression is that's one reason so many aren't
interested. in it.
One could argue that ID is all kinds of creationism. The
distinguishing points of ID are
1) a professed agnosticism about the identity of the creator
("designer"), at least when wearing one's ID hat.
2) a claim, shared with scientific creationism, that there is evidence >>>> that life was created rather than evolved.
Members of the ID movement can hold to just about any version of
creationism (include geocentrism and platygaianism). ID is a political >>>> movement, and theistic evolutionists tend not to share the movement's
goals, so they are rare among ID advocates.
* abiotic creationists (God created the universe) * single creation
creationists (God created the urorganism) * multiple-creation
creationists (God created multiple kinds of life) ** young earth
creationists *** young earth anevolutionists *** young earth
hyperevolutionists ** young life creationists ** old earth
creationists * progressive creationists ** episodic progressive
creationists (God creates successive biotas) ** discontinuous
progressive creationists (God creates species) ** continuous
progressive creationism (God creates mutations/selection) **
occasionalist creationism (Islamo-Calvinist determinism)
There are non-Abrahamic forms of creationism. One might also consider
Raelianism as a non-religious form of creationism.
It's most useful to define creationism so it lines up with the fault
lines in society, rather than focussing on the particularities of
belief (defining creationism as equivalent to theism isn't helpful.)
Hence, my preferred definition of creationism is "religiously
motivated rejection of substantial proportions of the scientific
consensus, especially as relating to biology, geology and cosmology,
or the promotion thereof". The line I'd draw between theistic
evolutionism and progressive creationism is that the former has God
guiding the course of evolution but accepts that natural processes can >>>> produce the same or equivalent result, while the latter asserts that
natural processes cannot produce the modern day biota.
In another context creationism is the position that human souls are
created de novo, as opposed to traducianism and other positions.
Thanks, that is fascinating, I had to look up a few words.
What interests me is: what is it in the human psyche which made people
come up with these theories, and gives them the energy to keep persuing
them even in the face of adversity. Also the idea of another world,
which is more real than this one, which crops up still in popular
culture, like "The Matrix", a Gnostic idea that the world is created by
something evil, and our purpose is to break free of the illusion and
take our rightful place. I think Jung would say that other place is the
unconscious, and that it created consciousness in its own image.
Matrix concept was a bit of Plato’s cave mixed with Bishop Berkeley. The >> filmmakers tried to shoehorn a deliberate reference to Jean Baudrillard’s >> Simulacra and Simulation but he thought the movie was bullshit.
It doesn't alter the fact that the idea is gnostic. And The Matrix is
science fiction, so what does 'bullshit' mean in that context?
On 01/03/2024 15:59, Richmond wrote:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:Jung was quite open about being influenced by Schopenhauer. The
On 28/02/2024 22:29, Richmond wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:46:40 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>>What are the other kinds of creationism apart from I.D.?
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson"The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been kicked >>>>>>>>> around on this group for many years, and has its proponents. >>>>>>>>> Obviously, I'm not one of them. I don't propose to re-argue >>>>>>>>> this subject. Check through prior discussions here if you
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson"Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need to >>>>>>>>>> know. I've not heard of the organisation before. I've read >>>>>>>>>> here:- https://www.discovery.org/about/ What do you feel is >>>>>>>>>> contentious?
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
For the record, I think Behe is pretty close to being a >>>>>>>>>>>>> crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, >>>>>>>>>>>> Erik?
TIA
want to get the flavor of it. I'm not interested in getting >>>>>>>>> involved in such a discussion.
In a group whose description is "Evolution versus creationism
(sometimes hot!)." I would have thought the subject will come
up over and over.
It has. My impression is that's one reason so many aren't
interested. in it.
One could argue that ID is all kinds of creationism. The
distinguishing points of ID are
1) a professed agnosticism about the identity of the creator
("designer"), at least when wearing one's ID hat.
2) a claim, shared with scientific creationism, that there is
evidence that life was created rather than evolved.
Members of the ID movement can hold to just about any version of
creationism (include geocentrism and platygaianism). ID is a
political movement, and theistic evolutionists tend not to share
the movement's goals, so they are rare among ID advocates.
* abiotic creationists (God created the universe) * single
creation creationists (God created the urorganism) *
multiple-creation creationists (God created multiple kinds of
life) ** young earth creationists *** young earth anevolutionists
*** young earth hyperevolutionists ** young life creationists **
old earth creationists * progressive creationists ** episodic
progressive creationists (God creates successive biotas) **
discontinuous progressive creationists (God creates species) **
continuous progressive creationism (God creates
mutations/selection) ** occasionalist creationism
(Islamo-Calvinist determinism)
There are non-Abrahamic forms of creationism. One might also
consider Raelianism as a non-religious form of creationism.
It's most useful to define creationism so it lines up with the
fault lines in society, rather than focussing on the
particularities of belief (defining creationism as equivalent to
theism isn't helpful.)
Hence, my preferred definition of creationism is "religiously
motivated rejection of substantial proportions of the scientific
consensus, especially as relating to biology, geology and
cosmology, or the promotion thereof". The line I'd draw between
theistic evolutionism and progressive creationism is that the
former has God guiding the course of evolution but accepts that
natural processes can produce the same or equivalent result, while
the latter asserts that natural processes cannot produce the
modern day biota.
In another context creationism is the position that human souls
are created de novo, as opposed to traducianism and other
positions.
Thanks, that is fascinating, I had to look up a few words.
What interests me is: what is it in the human psyche which made
people come up with these theories, and gives them the energy to
keep persuing them even in the face of adversity. Also the idea of
another world, which is more real than this one, which crops up
still in popular culture, like "The Matrix", a Gnostic idea that
the world is created by something evil, and our purpose is to break
free of the illusion and take our rightful place. I think Jung
would say that other place is the unconscious, and that it created
consciousness in its own image.
whole Matrix concept was a bit of Plato’s cave mixed with Bishop
Berkeley. The filmmakers tried to shoehorn a deliberate reference to
Jean Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation but he thought the movie
was bullshit. >> It doesn't alter the fact that the idea is
gnostic. And The Matrix >> is >> science fiction, so what does
'bullshit' mean in that context?
Fiction is often not just entertainment, but often, by intention or otherwise, carries an additional message. In the case of "The Matrix"
it reportedly explores certain philosophical concepts, particularly
those of Baudrillard. Baudrillard thought that the film did not
accurately reflect his work.
The Wikipedia article on the film has a number of references; perhaps
one of those might clarify, or lead to a clarification, of the point
of dispute.
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:Jung was quite open about being influenced by Schopenhauer. The whole
On 28/02/2024 22:29, Richmond wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:46:40 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>What are the other kinds of creationism apart from I.D.?
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson"The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been kicked
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:https://www.discovery.org/about/ What do you feel is contentious? >>>>>>>>>
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson"Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need to know. >>>>>>>>> I've not heard of the organisation before. I've read here:-
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
For the record, I think Behe is pretty close to being a >>>>>>>>>>>> crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik? >>>>>>>>>>>
TIA
around on this group for many years, and has its proponents.
Obviously, I'm not one of them. I don't propose to re-argue this >>>>>>>> subject. Check through prior discussions here if you want to get >>>>>>>> the flavor of it. I'm not interested in getting involved in such >>>>>>>> a discussion.
In a group whose description is "Evolution versus creationism
(sometimes hot!)." I would have thought the subject will come up >>>>>>> over and over.
It has. My impression is that's one reason so many aren't
interested. in it.
One could argue that ID is all kinds of creationism. The
distinguishing points of ID are
1) a professed agnosticism about the identity of the creator
("designer"), at least when wearing one's ID hat.
2) a claim, shared with scientific creationism, that there is evidence >>>> that life was created rather than evolved.
Members of the ID movement can hold to just about any version of
creationism (include geocentrism and platygaianism). ID is a political >>>> movement, and theistic evolutionists tend not to share the movement's
goals, so they are rare among ID advocates.
* abiotic creationists (God created the universe) * single creation
creationists (God created the urorganism) * multiple-creation
creationists (God created multiple kinds of life) ** young earth
creationists *** young earth anevolutionists *** young earth
hyperevolutionists ** young life creationists ** old earth
creationists * progressive creationists ** episodic progressive
creationists (God creates successive biotas) ** discontinuous
progressive creationists (God creates species) ** continuous
progressive creationism (God creates mutations/selection) **
occasionalist creationism (Islamo-Calvinist determinism)
There are non-Abrahamic forms of creationism. One might also consider
Raelianism as a non-religious form of creationism.
It's most useful to define creationism so it lines up with the fault
lines in society, rather than focussing on the particularities of
belief (defining creationism as equivalent to theism isn't helpful.)
Hence, my preferred definition of creationism is "religiously
motivated rejection of substantial proportions of the scientific
consensus, especially as relating to biology, geology and cosmology,
or the promotion thereof". The line I'd draw between theistic
evolutionism and progressive creationism is that the former has God
guiding the course of evolution but accepts that natural processes can >>>> produce the same or equivalent result, while the latter asserts that
natural processes cannot produce the modern day biota.
In another context creationism is the position that human souls are
created de novo, as opposed to traducianism and other positions.
Thanks, that is fascinating, I had to look up a few words.
What interests me is: what is it in the human psyche which made people
come up with these theories, and gives them the energy to keep persuing
them even in the face of adversity. Also the idea of another world,
which is more real than this one, which crops up still in popular
culture, like "The Matrix", a Gnostic idea that the world is created by
something evil, and our purpose is to break free of the illusion and
take our rightful place. I think Jung would say that other place is the
unconscious, and that it created consciousness in its own image.
Matrix concept was a bit of Plato’s cave mixed with Bishop Berkeley. The >> filmmakers tried to shoehorn a deliberate reference to Jean Baudrillard’s >> Simulacra and Simulation but he thought the movie was bullshit.
It doesn't alter the fact that the idea is gnostic. And The Matrix is
science fiction, so what does 'bullshit' mean in that context?
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:18:41 GMT, "J. J. Lodder" <J. J. Lodder> wrote:
David B. <bdb@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
[talk.origins added]
"Secrets of the Cell with Michael Behe"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw94qm4qdn8
The video is about half an hour long. I found the content absolutely
fascinating.
No longer do I believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution!
Good for you!
If you take the time out to watch this video presentation, I'd be really >>> interested to learn what YOU think about what you've seen and heard.
May I point you to to the newsgroup talk.origins ?
They are badly in need of fresh creationists there.
[Fto: set]
They'll gladly tell you there what they think of Michael Behe,
Jan
I've read about him here:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
Somewhat taken aback to learn that he has NINE children!!!
On 3/1/24 9:32 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:Always a mistake to take things too cereal after breakfast.
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:https://youtu.be/bf9J35yzM3E?si=OtG97gJNfilmH5H7
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:Jung was quite open about being influenced by Schopenhauer. The whole
On 28/02/2024 22:29, Richmond wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:46:40 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>What are the other kinds of creationism apart from I.D.?
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson"The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been kicked >>>>>>>>>> around on this group for many years, and has its proponents. >>>>>>>>>> Obviously, I'm not one of them. I don't propose to re-argue this >>>>>>>>>> subject. Check through prior discussions here if you want to get >>>>>>>>>> the flavor of it. I'm not interested in getting involved in such >>>>>>>>>> a discussion.
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson"Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need to know. >>>>>>>>>>> I've not heard of the organisation before. I've read here:- >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.discovery.org/about/ What do you feel is contentious? >>>>>>>>>>>
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
For the record, I think Behe is pretty close to being a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
TIA
In a group whose description is "Evolution versus creationism >>>>>>>>> (sometimes hot!)." I would have thought the subject will come up >>>>>>>>> over and over.
It has. My impression is that's one reason so many aren't
interested. in it.
One could argue that ID is all kinds of creationism. The
distinguishing points of ID are
1) a professed agnosticism about the identity of the creator
("designer"), at least when wearing one's ID hat.
2) a claim, shared with scientific creationism, that there is evidence >>>>>> that life was created rather than evolved.
Members of the ID movement can hold to just about any version of
creationism (include geocentrism and platygaianism). ID is a political >>>>>> movement, and theistic evolutionists tend not to share the movement's >>>>>> goals, so they are rare among ID advocates.
* abiotic creationists (God created the universe) * single creation >>>>>> creationists (God created the urorganism) * multiple-creation
creationists (God created multiple kinds of life) ** young earth
creationists *** young earth anevolutionists *** young earth
hyperevolutionists ** young life creationists ** old earth
creationists * progressive creationists ** episodic progressive
creationists (God creates successive biotas) ** discontinuous
progressive creationists (God creates species) ** continuous
progressive creationism (God creates mutations/selection) **
occasionalist creationism (Islamo-Calvinist determinism)
There are non-Abrahamic forms of creationism. One might also consider >>>>>> Raelianism as a non-religious form of creationism.
It's most useful to define creationism so it lines up with the fault >>>>>> lines in society, rather than focussing on the particularities of
belief (defining creationism as equivalent to theism isn't helpful.) >>>>>>
Hence, my preferred definition of creationism is "religiously
motivated rejection of substantial proportions of the scientific
consensus, especially as relating to biology, geology and cosmology, >>>>>> or the promotion thereof". The line I'd draw between theistic
evolutionism and progressive creationism is that the former has God >>>>>> guiding the course of evolution but accepts that natural processes can >>>>>> produce the same or equivalent result, while the latter asserts that >>>>>> natural processes cannot produce the modern day biota.
In another context creationism is the position that human souls are >>>>>> created de novo, as opposed to traducianism and other positions.
Thanks, that is fascinating, I had to look up a few words.
What interests me is: what is it in the human psyche which made people >>>>> come up with these theories, and gives them the energy to keep persuing >>>>> them even in the face of adversity. Also the idea of another world,
which is more real than this one, which crops up still in popular
culture, like "The Matrix", a Gnostic idea that the world is created by >>>>> something evil, and our purpose is to break free of the illusion and >>>>> take our rightful place. I think Jung would say that other place is the >>>>> unconscious, and that it created consciousness in its own image.
Matrix concept was a bit of Plato’s cave mixed with Bishop Berkeley. The >>>> filmmakers tried to shoehorn a deliberate reference to Jean Baudrillard’s
Simulacra and Simulation but he thought the movie was bullshit.
It doesn't alter the fact that the idea is gnostic. And The Matrix is
science fiction, so what does 'bullshit' mean in that context?
And: https://youtu.be/ZJmp9jfcDkw?si=CaE7XObMqvx3XurW
The first Matrix was ok but kinda jumped the simulated shark. The most
recent aptly mocked itself. Some people, namely Bostrom and Musk, took it
way too cereal.
On 29/02/2024 15:51, Richmond wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes: > [Explains the
varieties of "creationism"] Thanks, that is fascinating, I had to
look up a few words. What interests me is: what is it in the human
psyche which made people come up with these theories, and gives them
the energy to keep persuing them even in the face of adversity.
People don't like to admit they're wrong. Especially they don't like
their beliefs exposed as being silly, and they don't like the beliefs
that they use to influence other people's lives to be made less
credible.
And on the other hand, it's a lot easier to make up creationist stuff
then to do actual science and find out real things. We talk about
Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace and Boaty McBoatface roaming
all over the world for the sake of science. But to do creationism you
can just stay at home and announce things like that plants aren't
actually alive, it is only things that God breathed into, that are
alive.
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:Jung was quite open about being influenced by Schopenhauer. The whole
On 28/02/2024 22:29, Richmond wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:46:40 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>What are the other kinds of creationism apart from I.D.?
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson"The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been kicked
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:https://www.discovery.org/about/ What do you feel is contentious? >>>>>>>>>
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson"Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need to know. >>>>>>>>> I've not heard of the organisation before. I've read here:-
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
For the record, I think Behe is pretty close to being a >>>>>>>>>>>> crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik? >>>>>>>>>>>
TIA
around on this group for many years, and has its proponents.
Obviously, I'm not one of them. I don't propose to re-argue this >>>>>>>> subject. Check through prior discussions here if you want to get >>>>>>>> the flavor of it. I'm not interested in getting involved in such >>>>>>>> a discussion.
In a group whose description is "Evolution versus creationism
(sometimes hot!)." I would have thought the subject will come up >>>>>>> over and over.
It has. My impression is that's one reason so many aren't
interested. in it.
One could argue that ID is all kinds of creationism. The
distinguishing points of ID are
1) a professed agnosticism about the identity of the creator
("designer"), at least when wearing one's ID hat.
2) a claim, shared with scientific creationism, that there is evidence >>>> that life was created rather than evolved.
Members of the ID movement can hold to just about any version of
creationism (include geocentrism and platygaianism). ID is a political >>>> movement, and theistic evolutionists tend not to share the movement's
goals, so they are rare among ID advocates.
* abiotic creationists (God created the universe) * single creation
creationists (God created the urorganism) * multiple-creation
creationists (God created multiple kinds of life) ** young earth
creationists *** young earth anevolutionists *** young earth
hyperevolutionists ** young life creationists ** old earth
creationists * progressive creationists ** episodic progressive
creationists (God creates successive biotas) ** discontinuous
progressive creationists (God creates species) ** continuous
progressive creationism (God creates mutations/selection) **
occasionalist creationism (Islamo-Calvinist determinism)
There are non-Abrahamic forms of creationism. One might also consider
Raelianism as a non-religious form of creationism.
It's most useful to define creationism so it lines up with the fault
lines in society, rather than focussing on the particularities of
belief (defining creationism as equivalent to theism isn't helpful.)
Hence, my preferred definition of creationism is "religiously
motivated rejection of substantial proportions of the scientific
consensus, especially as relating to biology, geology and cosmology,
or the promotion thereof". The line I'd draw between theistic
evolutionism and progressive creationism is that the former has God
guiding the course of evolution but accepts that natural processes can >>>> produce the same or equivalent result, while the latter asserts that
natural processes cannot produce the modern day biota.
In another context creationism is the position that human souls are
created de novo, as opposed to traducianism and other positions.
Thanks, that is fascinating, I had to look up a few words.
What interests me is: what is it in the human psyche which made people
come up with these theories, and gives them the energy to keep persuing
them even in the face of adversity. Also the idea of another world,
which is more real than this one, which crops up still in popular
culture, like "The Matrix", a Gnostic idea that the world is created by
something evil, and our purpose is to break free of the illusion and
take our rightful place. I think Jung would say that other place is the
unconscious, and that it created consciousness in its own image.
Matrix concept was a bit of Plato’s cave mixed with Bishop Berkeley. The >> filmmakers tried to shoehorn a deliberate reference to Jean Baudrillard’s >> Simulacra and Simulation but he thought the movie was bullshit.
It doesn't alter the fact that the idea is gnostic. And The Matrix is
science fiction, so what does 'bullshit' mean in that context?
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> writes:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:Jung was quite open about being influenced by Schopenhauer. The whole
On 28/02/2024 22:29, Richmond wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:46:40 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>>What are the other kinds of creationism apart from I.D.?
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson"The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been kicked >>>>>>>>> around on this group for many years, and has its proponents. >>>>>>>>> Obviously, I'm not one of them. I don't propose to re-argue this >>>>>>>>> subject. Check through prior discussions here if you want to get >>>>>>>>> the flavor of it. I'm not interested in getting involved in such >>>>>>>>> a discussion.
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson"Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need to know. >>>>>>>>>> I've not heard of the organisation before. I've read here:- >>>>>>>>>> https://www.discovery.org/about/ What do you feel is contentious? >>>>>>>>>>
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
For the record, I think Behe is pretty close to being a >>>>>>>>>>>>> crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, Erik? >>>>>>>>>>>>
TIA
In a group whose description is "Evolution versus creationism
(sometimes hot!)." I would have thought the subject will come up >>>>>>>> over and over.
It has. My impression is that's one reason so many aren't
interested. in it.
One could argue that ID is all kinds of creationism. The
distinguishing points of ID are
1) a professed agnosticism about the identity of the creator
("designer"), at least when wearing one's ID hat.
2) a claim, shared with scientific creationism, that there is evidence >>>>> that life was created rather than evolved.
Members of the ID movement can hold to just about any version of
creationism (include geocentrism and platygaianism). ID is a political >>>>> movement, and theistic evolutionists tend not to share the movement's >>>>> goals, so they are rare among ID advocates.
* abiotic creationists (God created the universe) * single creation
creationists (God created the urorganism) * multiple-creation
creationists (God created multiple kinds of life) ** young earth
creationists *** young earth anevolutionists *** young earth
hyperevolutionists ** young life creationists ** old earth
creationists * progressive creationists ** episodic progressive
creationists (God creates successive biotas) ** discontinuous
progressive creationists (God creates species) ** continuous
progressive creationism (God creates mutations/selection) **
occasionalist creationism (Islamo-Calvinist determinism)
There are non-Abrahamic forms of creationism. One might also consider >>>>> Raelianism as a non-religious form of creationism.
It's most useful to define creationism so it lines up with the fault >>>>> lines in society, rather than focussing on the particularities of
belief (defining creationism as equivalent to theism isn't helpful.) >>>>>
Hence, my preferred definition of creationism is "religiously
motivated rejection of substantial proportions of the scientific
consensus, especially as relating to biology, geology and cosmology, >>>>> or the promotion thereof". The line I'd draw between theistic
evolutionism and progressive creationism is that the former has God
guiding the course of evolution but accepts that natural processes can >>>>> produce the same or equivalent result, while the latter asserts that >>>>> natural processes cannot produce the modern day biota.
In another context creationism is the position that human souls are
created de novo, as opposed to traducianism and other positions.
Thanks, that is fascinating, I had to look up a few words.
What interests me is: what is it in the human psyche which made people >>>> come up with these theories, and gives them the energy to keep persuing >>>> them even in the face of adversity. Also the idea of another world,
which is more real than this one, which crops up still in popular
culture, like "The Matrix", a Gnostic idea that the world is created by >>>> something evil, and our purpose is to break free of the illusion and
take our rightful place. I think Jung would say that other place is the >>>> unconscious, and that it created consciousness in its own image.
Matrix concept was a bit of Plato’s cave mixed with Bishop Berkeley. The >>> filmmakers tried to shoehorn a deliberate reference to Jean Baudrillard’s >>> Simulacra and Simulation but he thought the movie was bullshit.
It doesn't alter the fact that the idea is gnostic. And The Matrix is
science fiction, so what does 'bullshit' mean in that context?
"Matrix Mechanics: Developed in 1925 by Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, and Pascual Jordan, it was the first successful theory for quantum
mechanics. It described the properties of atomic and subatomic particles
not as precise values, but as probabilities represented by matrices.
The Math Behind It: These matrices are essentially grids of
numbers. Each element represents the probability of a particle being in
a specific quantum state, like a certain energy level. Unlike classical mechanics, where you could pinpoint a particle's position and momentum exactly, Heisenberg's matrices dealt with the probabilities of these properties.
Not Trajectories, But Transitions: Matrix mechanics focused on how these probabilities changed over time, rather than providing a clear picture
of the particle's trajectory. It described the transitions between
states, not the exact path the particle took.
"
On 11/03/2024 14:02, Richmond wrote:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> writes:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:Jung was quite open about being influenced by Schopenhauer. The
On 28/02/2024 22:29, Richmond wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:46:40 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>What are the other kinds of creationism apart from I.D.?
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson"The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been kicked >>>>>>>>>> around on this group for many years, and has its proponents. >>>>>>>>>> Obviously, I'm not one of them. I don't propose to re-argue >>>>>>>>>> this subject. Check through prior discussions here if you >>>>>>>>>> want to get the flavor of it. I'm not interested in getting >>>>>>>>>> involved in such a discussion.
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson"Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need to >>>>>>>>>>> know. I've not heard of the organisation before. I've read >>>>>>>>>>> here:- https://www.discovery.org/about/ What do you feel is >>>>>>>>>>> contentious?
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
For the record, I think Behe is pretty close to being a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Erik?
TIA
In a group whose description is "Evolution versus creationism >>>>>>>>> (sometimes hot!)." I would have thought the subject will come >>>>>>>>> up over and over.
It has. My impression is that's one reason so many aren't
interested. in it.
One could argue that ID is all kinds of creationism. The
distinguishing points of ID are
1) a professed agnosticism about the identity of the creator
("designer"), at least when wearing one's ID hat.
2) a claim, shared with scientific creationism, that there is
evidence that life was created rather than evolved.
Members of the ID movement can hold to just about any version of
creationism (include geocentrism and platygaianism). ID is a
political movement, and theistic evolutionists tend not to share
the movement's goals, so they are rare among ID advocates.
* abiotic creationists (God created the universe) * single
creation creationists (God created the urorganism) *
multiple-creation creationists (God created multiple kinds of
life) ** young earth creationists *** young earth anevolutionists
*** young earth hyperevolutionists ** young life creationists **
old earth creationists * progressive creationists ** episodic
progressive creationists (God creates successive biotas) **
discontinuous progressive creationists (God creates species) **
continuous progressive creationism (God creates
mutations/selection) ** occasionalist creationism
(Islamo-Calvinist determinism)
There are non-Abrahamic forms of creationism. One might also
consider Raelianism as a non-religious form of creationism.
It's most useful to define creationism so it lines up with the
fault lines in society, rather than focussing on the
particularities of belief (defining creationism as equivalent to
theism isn't helpful.)
Hence, my preferred definition of creationism is "religiously
motivated rejection of substantial proportions of the scientific
consensus, especially as relating to biology, geology and
cosmology, or the promotion thereof". The line I'd draw between
theistic evolutionism and progressive creationism is that the
former has God guiding the course of evolution but accepts that
natural processes can produce the same or equivalent result,
while the latter asserts that natural processes cannot produce
the modern day biota.
In another context creationism is the position that human souls
are created de novo, as opposed to traducianism and other
positions.
Thanks, that is fascinating, I had to look up a few words.
What interests me is: what is it in the human psyche which made
people come up with these theories, and gives them the energy to
keep persuing them even in the face of adversity. Also the idea of
another world, which is more real than this one, which crops up
still in popular culture, like "The Matrix", a Gnostic idea that
the world is created by something evil, and our purpose is to
break free of the illusion and take our rightful place. I think
Jung would say that other place is the unconscious, and that it
created consciousness in its own image.
whole Matrix concept was a bit of Plato’s cave mixed with Bishop
Berkeley. The filmmakers tried to shoehorn a deliberate reference
to Jean Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation but he thought the
movie was bullshit.
It doesn't alter the fact that the idea is gnostic. And The Matrix
is science fiction, so what does 'bullshit' mean in that context?
Born, >> and >> Pascual Jordan, it was the first successful theory"Matrix Mechanics: Developed in 1925 by Werner Heisenberg, Max
for quantum >> mechanics. It described the properties of atomic and
subatomic particles >> not as precise values, but as probabilities
represented by matrices. >> The Math Behind It: These matrices are
essentially grids of >> numbers. Each element represents the
probability of a particle being in >> a specific quantum state, like
a certain energy level. Unlike classical >> mechanics, where you
could pinpoint a particle's position and momentum >> exactly,
Heisenberg's matrices dealt with the probabilities of these >>
properties. >> Not Trajectories, But Transitions: Matrix mechanics
focused on how >> these >> probabilities changed over time, rather
than providing a clear picture >> of the particle's trajectory. It
described the transitions between >> states, not the exact path the
particle took. >> "
Wiktionary gives 19 senses for the noun matrix. The relevant sense for
Matrix Mechanics is number 9, described as mathematical, which is
related to senses 8, 10 and 12, in relating to elements arranged in a
grid. Sense 11 relates to the film, being taken from the film. The
remaining senses can be placed in two groups - either a mould (which,
giving the etymology, I take to be the older sense) or a substrate, underpinning, background or supporting structure, which I take to be
region of conceptual space underlying the choice of title for the
film.
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:
On 11/03/2024 14:02, Richmond wrote:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> writes:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:Jung was quite open about being influenced by Schopenhauer. The
On 28/02/2024 22:29, Richmond wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:46:40 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:What are the other kinds of creationism apart from I.D.?
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson"The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been kicked >>>>>>>>>>> around on this group for many years, and has its proponents. >>>>>>>>>>> Obviously, I'm not one of them. I don't propose to re-argue >>>>>>>>>>> this subject. Check through prior discussions here if you >>>>>>>>>>> want to get the flavor of it. I'm not interested in getting >>>>>>>>>>> involved in such a discussion.
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson"Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need to >>>>>>>>>>>> know. I've not heard of the organisation before. I've read >>>>>>>>>>>> here:- https://www.discovery.org/about/ What do you feel is >>>>>>>>>>>> contentious?
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
For the record, I think Behe is pretty close to being a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a conclusion, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Erik?
TIA
In a group whose description is "Evolution versus creationism >>>>>>>>>> (sometimes hot!)." I would have thought the subject will come >>>>>>>>>> up over and over.
It has. My impression is that's one reason so many aren't
interested. in it.
One could argue that ID is all kinds of creationism. The
distinguishing points of ID are
1) a professed agnosticism about the identity of the creator
("designer"), at least when wearing one's ID hat.
2) a claim, shared with scientific creationism, that there is
evidence that life was created rather than evolved.
Members of the ID movement can hold to just about any version of >>>>>>> creationism (include geocentrism and platygaianism). ID is a
political movement, and theistic evolutionists tend not to share >>>>>>> the movement's goals, so they are rare among ID advocates.
* abiotic creationists (God created the universe) * single
creation creationists (God created the urorganism) *
multiple-creation creationists (God created multiple kinds of
life) ** young earth creationists *** young earth anevolutionists >>>>>>> *** young earth hyperevolutionists ** young life creationists ** >>>>>>> old earth creationists * progressive creationists ** episodic
progressive creationists (God creates successive biotas) **
discontinuous progressive creationists (God creates species) **
continuous progressive creationism (God creates
mutations/selection) ** occasionalist creationism
(Islamo-Calvinist determinism)
There are non-Abrahamic forms of creationism. One might also
consider Raelianism as a non-religious form of creationism.
It's most useful to define creationism so it lines up with the
fault lines in society, rather than focussing on the
particularities of belief (defining creationism as equivalent to >>>>>>> theism isn't helpful.)
Hence, my preferred definition of creationism is "religiously
motivated rejection of substantial proportions of the scientific >>>>>>> consensus, especially as relating to biology, geology and
cosmology, or the promotion thereof". The line I'd draw between
theistic evolutionism and progressive creationism is that the
former has God guiding the course of evolution but accepts that
natural processes can produce the same or equivalent result,
while the latter asserts that natural processes cannot produce
the modern day biota.
In another context creationism is the position that human souls
are created de novo, as opposed to traducianism and other
positions.
Thanks, that is fascinating, I had to look up a few words.
What interests me is: what is it in the human psyche which made
people come up with these theories, and gives them the energy to
keep persuing them even in the face of adversity. Also the idea of >>>>>> another world, which is more real than this one, which crops up
still in popular culture, like "The Matrix", a Gnostic idea that
the world is created by something evil, and our purpose is to
break free of the illusion and take our rightful place. I think
Jung would say that other place is the unconscious, and that it
created consciousness in its own image.
whole Matrix concept was a bit of Plato’s cave mixed with Bishop
Berkeley. The filmmakers tried to shoehorn a deliberate reference
to Jean Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation but he thought the
movie was bullshit.
It doesn't alter the fact that the idea is gnostic. And The Matrix
is science fiction, so what does 'bullshit' mean in that context?
Born, >> and >> Pascual Jordan, it was the first successful theory"Matrix Mechanics: Developed in 1925 by Werner Heisenberg, Max
for quantum >> mechanics. It described the properties of atomic and
subatomic particles >> not as precise values, but as probabilities
represented by matrices. >> The Math Behind It: These matrices are
essentially grids of >> numbers. Each element represents the
probability of a particle being in >> a specific quantum state, like
a certain energy level. Unlike classical >> mechanics, where you
could pinpoint a particle's position and momentum >> exactly,
Heisenberg's matrices dealt with the probabilities of these >>
properties. >> Not Trajectories, But Transitions: Matrix mechanics
focused on how >> these >> probabilities changed over time, rather
than providing a clear picture >> of the particle's trajectory. It
described the transitions between >> states, not the exact path the
particle took. >> "
Wiktionary gives 19 senses for the noun matrix. The relevant sense for
Matrix Mechanics is number 9, described as mathematical, which is
related to senses 8, 10 and 12, in relating to elements arranged in a
grid. Sense 11 relates to the film, being taken from the film. The
remaining senses can be placed in two groups - either a mould (which,
giving the etymology, I take to be the older sense) or a substrate,
underpinning, background or supporting structure, which I take to be
region of conceptual space underlying the choice of title for the
film.
A matrix can be three dimentional, so there is no reason why the matrix
in The Matrix cannot be 9 or 10. (I don't know why 10 says two
dimentional array, if it is computing that restriction isn't there. But
then arguably even a two dimentional matrix is a a one dimentional array divided up, and anyway the concept of dimensions doesn't literally
apply.).
What was it in the film you decided defined it as sense 11?
On 11/03/2024 15:53, Richmond wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:
On 11/03/2024 14:02, Richmond wrote:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> writes:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:Jung was quite open about being influenced by Schopenhauer. The
On 28/02/2024 22:29, Richmond wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:46:40 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:What are the other kinds of creationism apart from I.D.?
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:In a group whose description is "Evolution versus
On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson"The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson"Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need to >>>>>>>>>>>>> know. I've not heard of the organisation before. I've >>>>>>>>>>>>> read here:- https://www.discovery.org/about/ What do you >>>>>>>>>>>>> feel is contentious?
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
For the record, I think Behe is pretty close to being a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a
conclusion, Erik?
TIA
kicked around on this group for many years, and has its >>>>>>>>>>>> proponents. Obviously, I'm not one of them. I don't
propose to re-argue this subject. Check through prior >>>>>>>>>>>> discussions here if you want to get the flavor of it. I'm >>>>>>>>>>>> not interested in getting involved in such a discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>
creationism (sometimes hot!)." I would have thought the
subject will come up over and over.
It has. My impression is that's one reason so many aren't >>>>>>>>>> interested. in it.
One could argue that ID is all kinds of creationism. The
distinguishing points of ID are
1) a professed agnosticism about the identity of the creator
("designer"), at least when wearing one's ID hat.
2) a claim, shared with scientific creationism, that there is
evidence that life was created rather than evolved.
Members of the ID movement can hold to just about any version
of creationism (include geocentrism and platygaianism). ID is a >>>>>>>> political movement, and theistic evolutionists tend not to
share the movement's goals, so they are rare among ID
advocates.
* abiotic creationists (God created the universe) * single
creation creationists (God created the urorganism) *
multiple-creation creationists (God created multiple kinds of
life) ** young earth creationists *** young earth
anevolutionists *** young earth hyperevolutionists ** young
life creationists ** old earth creationists * progressive
creationists ** episodic progressive creationists (God creates >>>>>>>> successive biotas) ** discontinuous progressive creationists
(God creates species) ** continuous progressive creationism
(God creates mutations/selection) ** occasionalist creationism >>>>>>>> (Islamo-Calvinist determinism)
There are non-Abrahamic forms of creationism. One might also
consider Raelianism as a non-religious form of creationism.
It's most useful to define creationism so it lines up with the >>>>>>>> fault lines in society, rather than focussing on the
particularities of belief (defining creationism as equivalent
to theism isn't helpful.)
Hence, my preferred definition of creationism is "religiously
motivated rejection of substantial proportions of the
scientific consensus, especially as relating to biology,
geology and cosmology, or the promotion thereof". The line I'd >>>>>>>> draw between theistic evolutionism and progressive creationism >>>>>>>> is that the former has God guiding the course of evolution but >>>>>>>> accepts that natural processes can produce the same or
equivalent result, while the latter asserts that natural
processes cannot produce the modern day biota.
In another context creationism is the position that human souls >>>>>>>> are created de novo, as opposed to traducianism and other
positions.
Thanks, that is fascinating, I had to look up a few words.
What interests me is: what is it in the human psyche which made
people come up with these theories, and gives them the energy to >>>>>>> keep persuing them even in the face of adversity. Also the idea
of another world, which is more real than this one, which crops
up still in popular culture, like "The Matrix", a Gnostic idea
that the world is created by something evil, and our purpose is
to break free of the illusion and take our rightful place. I
think Jung would say that other place is the unconscious, and
that it created consciousness in its own image.
whole Matrix concept was a bit of Plato’s cave mixed with Bishop >>>>>> Berkeley. The filmmakers tried to shoehorn a deliberate reference
to Jean Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation but he thought the >>>>>> movie was bullshit.
It doesn't alter the fact that the idea is gnostic. And The Matrix
is science fiction, so what does 'bullshit' mean in that context?
Born, >> and >> Pascual Jordan, it was the first successful theory"Matrix Mechanics: Developed in 1925 by Werner Heisenberg, Max
for quantum >> mechanics. It described the properties of atomic
and subatomic particles >> not as precise values, but as
probabilities represented by matrices. >> The Math Behind It:
These matrices are essentially grids of >> numbers. Each element
represents the probability of a particle being in >> a specific
quantum state, like a certain energy level. Unlike classical >>
mechanics, where you could pinpoint a particle's position and
momentum >> exactly, Heisenberg's matrices dealt with the
probabilities of these >> properties. >> Not Trajectories, But
Transitions: Matrix mechanics focused on how >> these >>
probabilities changed over time, rather than providing a clear
picture >> of the particle's trajectory. It described the
transitions between >> states, not the exact path the particle
took. >> "
Wiktionary gives 19 senses for the noun matrix. The relevant sense
for Matrix Mechanics is number 9, described as mathematical, which
is related to senses 8, 10 and 12, in relating to elements arranged
in a grid. Sense 11 relates to the film, being taken from the
film. The remaining senses can be placed in two groups - either a
mould (which, giving the etymology, I take to be the older sense) or
a substrate, underpinning, background or supporting structure, which
I take to be region of conceptual space underlying the choice of
title for the film. >> A matrix can be three dimentional, so there
is no reason why the >> matrix >> in The Matrix cannot be 9 or
10. (I don't know why 10 says two >> dimentional array, if it is
computing that restriction isn't there. But >> then arguably even a
two dimentional matrix is a a one dimentional array >> divided up,
and anyway the concept of dimensions doesn't literally >> apply.).
What was it in the film you decided defined it as sense 11?
I didn't. I interpreted wiktionary as saying the sense 11 was a new
sense inspired by the film - so clearly not the meaning that inspired
the choice of the title for the film.
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:
On 11/03/2024 15:53, Richmond wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:
On 11/03/2024 14:02, Richmond wrote:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> writes:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:Jung was quite open about being influenced by Schopenhauer. The
On 28/02/2024 22:29, Richmond wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:46:40 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:What are the other kinds of creationism apart from I.D.?
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:In a group whose description is "Evolution versus
On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson"The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been >>>>>>>>>>>>> kicked around on this group for many years, and has its >>>>>>>>>>>>> proponents. Obviously, I'm not one of them. I don't >>>>>>>>>>>>> propose to re-argue this subject. Check through prior >>>>>>>>>>>>> discussions here if you want to get the flavor of it. I'm >>>>>>>>>>>>> not interested in getting involved in such a discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. I've not heard of the organisation before. I've >>>>>>>>>>>>>> read here:- https://www.discovery.org/about/ What do you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> feel is contentious?
wrote:
For the record, I think Behe is pretty close to being a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a
conclusion, Erik?
TIA
creationism (sometimes hot!)." I would have thought the >>>>>>>>>>>> subject will come up over and over.
It has. My impression is that's one reason so many aren't >>>>>>>>>>> interested. in it.
One could argue that ID is all kinds of creationism. The
distinguishing points of ID are
1) a professed agnosticism about the identity of the creator >>>>>>>>> ("designer"), at least when wearing one's ID hat.
2) a claim, shared with scientific creationism, that there is >>>>>>>>> evidence that life was created rather than evolved.
Members of the ID movement can hold to just about any version >>>>>>>>> of creationism (include geocentrism and platygaianism). ID is a >>>>>>>>> political movement, and theistic evolutionists tend not to
share the movement's goals, so they are rare among ID
advocates.
* abiotic creationists (God created the universe) * single
creation creationists (God created the urorganism) *
multiple-creation creationists (God created multiple kinds of >>>>>>>>> life) ** young earth creationists *** young earth
anevolutionists *** young earth hyperevolutionists ** young
life creationists ** old earth creationists * progressive
creationists ** episodic progressive creationists (God creates >>>>>>>>> successive biotas) ** discontinuous progressive creationists >>>>>>>>> (God creates species) ** continuous progressive creationism
(God creates mutations/selection) ** occasionalist creationism >>>>>>>>> (Islamo-Calvinist determinism)
There are non-Abrahamic forms of creationism. One might also >>>>>>>>> consider Raelianism as a non-religious form of creationism.
It's most useful to define creationism so it lines up with the >>>>>>>>> fault lines in society, rather than focussing on the
particularities of belief (defining creationism as equivalent >>>>>>>>> to theism isn't helpful.)
Hence, my preferred definition of creationism is "religiously >>>>>>>>> motivated rejection of substantial proportions of the
scientific consensus, especially as relating to biology,
geology and cosmology, or the promotion thereof". The line I'd >>>>>>>>> draw between theistic evolutionism and progressive creationism >>>>>>>>> is that the former has God guiding the course of evolution but >>>>>>>>> accepts that natural processes can produce the same or
equivalent result, while the latter asserts that natural
processes cannot produce the modern day biota.
In another context creationism is the position that human souls >>>>>>>>> are created de novo, as opposed to traducianism and other
positions.
Thanks, that is fascinating, I had to look up a few words.
What interests me is: what is it in the human psyche which made >>>>>>>> people come up with these theories, and gives them the energy to >>>>>>>> keep persuing them even in the face of adversity. Also the idea >>>>>>>> of another world, which is more real than this one, which crops >>>>>>>> up still in popular culture, like "The Matrix", a Gnostic idea >>>>>>>> that the world is created by something evil, and our purpose is >>>>>>>> to break free of the illusion and take our rightful place. I
think Jung would say that other place is the unconscious, and
that it created consciousness in its own image.
whole Matrix concept was a bit of Plato’s cave mixed with Bishop >>>>>>> Berkeley. The filmmakers tried to shoehorn a deliberate reference >>>>>>> to Jean Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation but he thought the >>>>>>> movie was bullshit.
It doesn't alter the fact that the idea is gnostic. And The Matrix >>>>>> is science fiction, so what does 'bullshit' mean in that context? >>>>>>>> "Matrix Mechanics: Developed in 1925 by Werner Heisenberg, Max
Born, >> and >> Pascual Jordan, it was the first successful theory >>>>>> for quantum >> mechanics. It described the properties of atomic
and subatomic particles >> not as precise values, but as
probabilities represented by matrices. >> The Math Behind It:
These matrices are essentially grids of >> numbers. Each element
represents the probability of a particle being in >> a specific
quantum state, like a certain energy level. Unlike classical >>
mechanics, where you could pinpoint a particle's position and
momentum >> exactly, Heisenberg's matrices dealt with the
probabilities of these >> properties. >> Not Trajectories, But
Transitions: Matrix mechanics focused on how >> these >>
probabilities changed over time, rather than providing a clear
picture >> of the particle's trajectory. It described the
transitions between >> states, not the exact path the particle
took. >> "
Wiktionary gives 19 senses for the noun matrix. The relevant sense
for Matrix Mechanics is number 9, described as mathematical, which
is related to senses 8, 10 and 12, in relating to elements arranged
in a grid. Sense 11 relates to the film, being taken from the
film. The remaining senses can be placed in two groups - either a
mould (which, giving the etymology, I take to be the older sense) or
a substrate, underpinning, background or supporting structure, which
I take to be region of conceptual space underlying the choice of
title for the film. >> A matrix can be three dimentional, so there
is no reason why the >> matrix >> in The Matrix cannot be 9 or
10. (I don't know why 10 says two >> dimentional array, if it is
computing that restriction isn't there. But >> then arguably even a
two dimentional matrix is a a one dimentional array >> divided up,
and anyway the concept of dimensions doesn't literally >> apply.).
What was it in the film you decided defined it as sense 11?
I didn't. I interpreted wiktionary as saying the sense 11 was a new
sense inspired by the film - so clearly not the meaning that inspired
the choice of the title for the film.
Maybe, but it cites 1984, William Gibson, Neuromancer, for sense 11, so
such a sense must have existed before 1999.
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:I was thinking more about the Vedic Mayan veil which via Schopenhauer
On 11/03/2024 15:53, Richmond wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:
On 11/03/2024 14:02, Richmond wrote:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> writes:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:Jung was quite open about being influenced by Schopenhauer. The >>>>>>>> whole Matrix concept was a bit of Plato’s cave mixed with
On 28/02/2024 22:29, Richmond wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:46:40 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:What are the other kinds of creationism apart from I.D.? >>>>>>>>>>>
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson"The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>> kicked around on this group for many years, and has its >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proponents. Obviously, I'm not one of them. I don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> propose to re-argue this subject. Check through prior >>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussions here if you want to get the flavor of it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not interested in getting involved in such a
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:before. I've read here:-
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to know. I've not heard of the organisation
wrote:
For the record, I think Behe is pretty close to being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion, Erik?
TIA
https://www.discovery.org/about/ What do you feel is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious?
discussion.
In a group whose description is "Evolution versus
creationism (sometimes hot!)." I would have thought the >>>>>>>>>>>>> subject will come up over and over.
It has. My impression is that's one reason so many aren't >>>>>>>>>>>> interested. in it.
One could argue that ID is all kinds of creationism. The
distinguishing points of ID are
1) a professed agnosticism about the identity of the creator >>>>>>>>>> ("designer"), at least when wearing one's ID hat.
2) a claim, shared with scientific creationism, that there is >>>>>>>>>> evidence that life was created rather than evolved.
Members of the ID movement can hold to just about any version >>>>>>>>>> of creationism (include geocentrism and platygaianism). ID is >>>>>>>>>> a political movement, and theistic evolutionists tend not to >>>>>>>>>> share the movement's goals, so they are rare among ID
advocates.
* abiotic creationists (God created the universe) * single >>>>>>>>>> creation creationists (God created the urorganism) *
multiple-creation creationists (God created multiple kinds of >>>>>>>>>> life) ** young earth creationists *** young earth
anevolutionists *** young earth hyperevolutionists ** young >>>>>>>>>> life creationists ** old earth creationists * progressive
creationists ** episodic progressive creationists (God
creates successive biotas) ** discontinuous progressive
creationists (God creates species) ** continuous progressive >>>>>>>>>> creationism (God creates mutations/selection) **
occasionalist creationism (Islamo-Calvinist determinism)
There are non-Abrahamic forms of creationism. One might also >>>>>>>>>> consider Raelianism as a non-religious form of creationism. >>>>>>>>>>
It's most useful to define creationism so it lines up with >>>>>>>>>> the fault lines in society, rather than focussing on the
particularities of belief (defining creationism as equivalent >>>>>>>>>> to theism isn't helpful.)
Hence, my preferred definition of creationism is "religiously >>>>>>>>>> motivated rejection of substantial proportions of the
scientific consensus, especially as relating to biology,
geology and cosmology, or the promotion thereof". The line >>>>>>>>>> I'd draw between theistic evolutionism and progressive
creationism is that the former has God guiding the course of >>>>>>>>>> evolution but accepts that natural processes can produce the >>>>>>>>>> same or equivalent result, while the latter asserts that
natural processes cannot produce the modern day biota.
In another context creationism is the position that human
souls are created de novo, as opposed to traducianism and
other positions.
Thanks, that is fascinating, I had to look up a few words.
What interests me is: what is it in the human psyche which
made people come up with these theories, and gives them the
energy to keep persuing them even in the face of
adversity. Also the idea of another world, which is more real >>>>>>>>> than this one, which crops up still in popular culture, like >>>>>>>>> "The Matrix", a Gnostic idea that the world is created by
something evil, and our purpose is to break free of the
illusion and take our rightful place. I think Jung would say >>>>>>>>> that other place is the unconscious, and that it created
consciousness in its own image.
Bishop Berkeley. The filmmakers tried to shoehorn a deliberate >>>>>>>> reference to Jean Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation but he >>>>>>>> thought the movie was bullshit.
It doesn't alter the fact that the idea is gnostic. And The
Matrix is science fiction, so what does 'bullshit' mean in that
context? >> "Matrix Mechanics: Developed in 1925 by Werner
Heisenberg, Max Born, >> and >> Pascual Jordan, it was the first >>>>>>> successful theory for quantum >> mechanics. It described the
properties of atomic and subatomic particles >> not as precise
values, but as probabilities represented by matrices. >> The
Math Behind It: These matrices are essentially grids of >>
numbers. Each element represents the probability of a particle
being in >> a specific quantum state, like a certain energy
level. Unlike classical >> mechanics, where you could pinpoint a >>>>>>> particle's position and momentum >> exactly, Heisenberg's
matrices dealt with the probabilities of these >> properties.
on how >> these >> probabilities changed over time, rather thanNot Trajectories, But Transitions: Matrix mechanics focused
providing a clear picture >> of the particle's trajectory. It
described the transitions between >> states, not the exact path
the particle took. >> "
Wiktionary gives 19 senses for the noun matrix. The relevant sense
for Matrix Mechanics is number 9, described as mathematical, which
is related to senses 8, 10 and 12, in relating to elements
arranged in a grid. Sense 11 relates to the film, being taken from
the film. The remaining senses can be placed in two groups -
either a mould (which, giving the etymology, I take to be the
older sense) or a substrate, underpinning, background or
supporting structure, which I take to be region of conceptual
space underlying the choice of title for the film. >> A matrix
can be three dimentional, so there is no reason why the >> matrix
there. But >> then arguably even a two dimentional matrix is a ain The Matrix cannot be 9 or 10. (I don't know why 10 says two
dimentional array, if it is computing that restriction isn't
one dimentional array >> divided up, and anyway the concept of
dimensions doesn't literally >> apply.). >> What was it in the
film you decided defined it as sense 11?
I didn't. I interpreted wiktionary as saying the sense 11 was a new
sense inspired by the film - so clearly not the meaning that
inspired the choice of the title for the film.
Maybe, but it cites 1984, William Gibson, Neuromancer, for sense 11,
so such a sense must have existed before 1999.
is a better metaphor for illusion that predates Gnosticism. Life of Pi renders such things in a manner far superior to The Matrix though the
initial point of the sinking ship is inspired by the divine
contraction of Isaac Luria’s Jewish mysticism.
Did Pi eat his mom along with the cook?
Life of Pi compared to The Matrix is the better story.
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:I was thinking more about the Vedic Mayan veil which via Schopenhauer
On 11/03/2024 15:53, Richmond wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:
On 11/03/2024 14:02, Richmond wrote:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> writes:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:Jung was quite open about being influenced by Schopenhauer. The >>>>>>>>> whole Matrix concept was a bit of Plato’s cave mixed with
On 28/02/2024 22:29, Richmond wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:46:40 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:What are the other kinds of creationism apart from I.D.? >>>>>>>>>>>>
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kicked around on this group for many years, and has its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proponents. Obviously, I'm not one of them. I don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> propose to re-argue this subject. Check through prior >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussions here if you want to get the flavor of it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not interested in getting involved in such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion.
wrote:
On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:before. I've read here:-
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to know. I've not heard of the organisation
wrote:
For the record, I think Behe is pretty close to being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion, Erik?
TIA
https://www.discovery.org/about/ What do you feel is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious?
In a group whose description is "Evolution versus
creationism (sometimes hot!)." I would have thought the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject will come up over and over.
It has. My impression is that's one reason so many aren't >>>>>>>>>>>>> interested. in it.
One could argue that ID is all kinds of creationism. The >>>>>>>>>>> distinguishing points of ID are
1) a professed agnosticism about the identity of the creator >>>>>>>>>>> ("designer"), at least when wearing one's ID hat.
2) a claim, shared with scientific creationism, that there is >>>>>>>>>>> evidence that life was created rather than evolved.
Members of the ID movement can hold to just about any version >>>>>>>>>>> of creationism (include geocentrism and platygaianism). ID is >>>>>>>>>>> a political movement, and theistic evolutionists tend not to >>>>>>>>>>> share the movement's goals, so they are rare among ID
advocates.
* abiotic creationists (God created the universe) * single >>>>>>>>>>> creation creationists (God created the urorganism) *
multiple-creation creationists (God created multiple kinds of >>>>>>>>>>> life) ** young earth creationists *** young earth
anevolutionists *** young earth hyperevolutionists ** young >>>>>>>>>>> life creationists ** old earth creationists * progressive >>>>>>>>>>> creationists ** episodic progressive creationists (God
creates successive biotas) ** discontinuous progressive
creationists (God creates species) ** continuous progressive >>>>>>>>>>> creationism (God creates mutations/selection) **
occasionalist creationism (Islamo-Calvinist determinism) >>>>>>>>>>>
There are non-Abrahamic forms of creationism. One might also >>>>>>>>>>> consider Raelianism as a non-religious form of creationism. >>>>>>>>>>>
It's most useful to define creationism so it lines up with >>>>>>>>>>> the fault lines in society, rather than focussing on the >>>>>>>>>>> particularities of belief (defining creationism as equivalent >>>>>>>>>>> to theism isn't helpful.)
Hence, my preferred definition of creationism is "religiously >>>>>>>>>>> motivated rejection of substantial proportions of the
scientific consensus, especially as relating to biology, >>>>>>>>>>> geology and cosmology, or the promotion thereof". The line >>>>>>>>>>> I'd draw between theistic evolutionism and progressive
creationism is that the former has God guiding the course of >>>>>>>>>>> evolution but accepts that natural processes can produce the >>>>>>>>>>> same or equivalent result, while the latter asserts that >>>>>>>>>>> natural processes cannot produce the modern day biota.
In another context creationism is the position that human >>>>>>>>>>> souls are created de novo, as opposed to traducianism and >>>>>>>>>>> other positions.
Thanks, that is fascinating, I had to look up a few words. >>>>>>>>>>
What interests me is: what is it in the human psyche which >>>>>>>>>> made people come up with these theories, and gives them the >>>>>>>>>> energy to keep persuing them even in the face of
adversity. Also the idea of another world, which is more real >>>>>>>>>> than this one, which crops up still in popular culture, like >>>>>>>>>> "The Matrix", a Gnostic idea that the world is created by
something evil, and our purpose is to break free of the
illusion and take our rightful place. I think Jung would say >>>>>>>>>> that other place is the unconscious, and that it created
consciousness in its own image.
Bishop Berkeley. The filmmakers tried to shoehorn a deliberate >>>>>>>>> reference to Jean Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation but he >>>>>>>>> thought the movie was bullshit.
It doesn't alter the fact that the idea is gnostic. And The
Matrix is science fiction, so what does 'bullshit' mean in that >>>>>>>> context? >> "Matrix Mechanics: Developed in 1925 by Werner
Heisenberg, Max Born, >> and >> Pascual Jordan, it was the first >>>>>>>> successful theory for quantum >> mechanics. It described the
properties of atomic and subatomic particles >> not as precise >>>>>>>> values, but as probabilities represented by matrices. >> The
Math Behind It: These matrices are essentially grids of >>
numbers. Each element represents the probability of a particle >>>>>>>> being in >> a specific quantum state, like a certain energy
level. Unlike classical >> mechanics, where you could pinpoint a >>>>>>>> particle's position and momentum >> exactly, Heisenberg's
matrices dealt with the probabilities of these >> properties. >>>>>>>>>> Not Trajectories, But Transitions: Matrix mechanics focused
on how >> these >> probabilities changed over time, rather than >>>>>>>> providing a clear picture >> of the particle's trajectory. It
described the transitions between >> states, not the exact path >>>>>>>> the particle took. >> "
Wiktionary gives 19 senses for the noun matrix. The relevant sense >>>>>> for Matrix Mechanics is number 9, described as mathematical, which >>>>>> is related to senses 8, 10 and 12, in relating to elements
arranged in a grid. Sense 11 relates to the film, being taken from >>>>>> the film. The remaining senses can be placed in two groups -
either a mould (which, giving the etymology, I take to be the
older sense) or a substrate, underpinning, background or
supporting structure, which I take to be region of conceptual
space underlying the choice of title for the film. >> A matrix
can be three dimentional, so there is no reason why the >> matrix >>>>>>>> in The Matrix cannot be 9 or 10. (I don't know why 10 says two >>>>>>>> dimentional array, if it is computing that restriction isn't
there. But >> then arguably even a two dimentional matrix is a a
one dimentional array >> divided up, and anyway the concept of
dimensions doesn't literally >> apply.). >> What was it in the
film you decided defined it as sense 11?
I didn't. I interpreted wiktionary as saying the sense 11 was a new
sense inspired by the film - so clearly not the meaning that
inspired the choice of the title for the film.
Maybe, but it cites 1984, William Gibson, Neuromancer, for sense 11,
so such a sense must have existed before 1999.
is a better metaphor for illusion that predates Gnosticism. Life of Pi
renders such things in a manner far superior to The Matrix though the
initial point of the sinking ship is inspired by the divine
contraction of Isaac Luria’s Jewish mysticism.
Did Pi eat his mom along with the cook?
Life of Pi compared to The Matrix is the better story.
Well yes I picked it as an example of popular culture. The TV series 'Westworld' has plenty of references to gnosticism in it.
My point was that these ideas are coming back in a different form, but
they are the same ideas and they have persistent appeal.
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:So what. People are resounding interested in the Book of Enoch which
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:I was thinking more about the Vedic Mayan veil which via
On 11/03/2024 15:53, Richmond wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:
On 11/03/2024 14:02, Richmond wrote:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> writes:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:Jung was quite open about being influenced by
On 28/02/2024 22:29, Richmond wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:46:40 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:What are the other kinds of creationism apart from I.D.? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kicked around on this group for many years, and has its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proponents. Obviously, I'm not one of them. I don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> propose to re-argue this subject. Check through prior >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussions here if you want to get the flavor of it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not interested in getting involved in such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion.
wrote:
On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:https://www.discovery.org/about/ What do you feel is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious?
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to know. I've not heard of the organisation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before. I've read here:-
wrote:
For the record, I think Behe is pretty close to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being a crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion, Erik?
TIA
In a group whose description is "Evolution versus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creationism (sometimes hot!)." I would have thought the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject will come up over and over.
It has. My impression is that's one reason so many >>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't interested. in it.
One could argue that ID is all kinds of creationism. The >>>>>>>>>>>> distinguishing points of ID are
1) a professed agnosticism about the identity of the
creator ("designer"), at least when wearing one's ID hat. >>>>>>>>>>>>
2) a claim, shared with scientific creationism, that there >>>>>>>>>>>> is evidence that life was created rather than evolved. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Members of the ID movement can hold to just about any
version of creationism (include geocentrism and
platygaianism). ID is a political movement, and theistic >>>>>>>>>>>> evolutionists tend not to share the movement's goals, so >>>>>>>>>>>> they are rare among ID advocates.
* abiotic creationists (God created the universe) * single >>>>>>>>>>>> creation creationists (God created the urorganism) *
multiple-creation creationists (God created multiple kinds >>>>>>>>>>>> of life) ** young earth creationists *** young earth
anevolutionists *** young earth hyperevolutionists ** young >>>>>>>>>>>> life creationists ** old earth creationists * progressive >>>>>>>>>>>> creationists ** episodic progressive creationists (God >>>>>>>>>>>> creates successive biotas) ** discontinuous progressive >>>>>>>>>>>> creationists (God creates species) ** continuous
progressive creationism (God creates mutations/selection) >>>>>>>>>>>> ** occasionalist creationism (Islamo-Calvinist determinism) >>>>>>>>>>>>
There are non-Abrahamic forms of creationism. One might >>>>>>>>>>>> also consider Raelianism as a non-religious form of
creationism.
It's most useful to define creationism so it lines up with >>>>>>>>>>>> the fault lines in society, rather than focussing on the >>>>>>>>>>>> particularities of belief (defining creationism as
equivalent to theism isn't helpful.)
Hence, my preferred definition of creationism is
"religiously motivated rejection of substantial proportions >>>>>>>>>>>> of the scientific consensus, especially as relating to >>>>>>>>>>>> biology, geology and cosmology, or the promotion
thereof". The line I'd draw between theistic evolutionism >>>>>>>>>>>> and progressive creationism is that the former has God >>>>>>>>>>>> guiding the course of evolution but accepts that natural >>>>>>>>>>>> processes can produce the same or equivalent result, while >>>>>>>>>>>> the latter asserts that natural processes cannot produce >>>>>>>>>>>> the modern day biota.
In another context creationism is the position that human >>>>>>>>>>>> souls are created de novo, as opposed to traducianism and >>>>>>>>>>>> other positions.
Thanks, that is fascinating, I had to look up a few words. >>>>>>>>>>>
What interests me is: what is it in the human psyche which >>>>>>>>>>> made people come up with these theories, and gives them the >>>>>>>>>>> energy to keep persuing them even in the face of
adversity. Also the idea of another world, which is more >>>>>>>>>>> real than this one, which crops up still in popular culture, >>>>>>>>>>> like "The Matrix", a Gnostic idea that the world is created >>>>>>>>>>> by something evil, and our purpose is to break free of the >>>>>>>>>>> illusion and take our rightful place. I think Jung would say >>>>>>>>>>> that other place is the unconscious, and that it created >>>>>>>>>>> consciousness in its own image.
Schopenhauer. The whole Matrix concept was a bit of Plato’s >>>>>>>>>> cave mixed with Bishop Berkeley. The filmmakers tried to
shoehorn a deliberate reference to Jean Baudrillard’s
Simulacra and Simulation but he thought the movie was
bullshit.
It doesn't alter the fact that the idea is gnostic. And The
Matrix is science fiction, so what does 'bullshit' mean in
that context? >> "Matrix Mechanics: Developed in 1925 by
Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, >> and >> Pascual Jordan, it was >>>>>>>>> the first successful theory for quantum >> mechanics. It
described the properties of atomic and subatomic particles >> >>>>>>>>> not as precise values, but as probabilities represented by
matrices. >> The Math Behind It: These matrices are
essentially grids of >> numbers. Each element represents the >>>>>>>>> probability of a particle being in >> a specific quantum
state, like a certain energy level. Unlike classical >>
mechanics, where you could pinpoint a particle's position and >>>>>>>>> momentum >> exactly, Heisenberg's matrices dealt with the
probabilities of these >> properties. >> Not Trajectories,
But Transitions: Matrix mechanics focused on how >> these >> >>>>>>>>> probabilities changed over time, rather than providing a clear >>>>>>>>> picture >> of the particle's trajectory. It described the
transitions between >> states, not the exact path the particle >>>>>>>>> took. >> "
Wiktionary gives 19 senses for the noun matrix. The relevant
sense for Matrix Mechanics is number 9, described as
mathematical, which is related to senses 8, 10 and 12, in
relating to elements arranged in a grid. Sense 11 relates to the >>>>>>> film, being taken from the film. The remaining senses can be
placed in two groups - either a mould (which, giving the
etymology, I take to be the older sense) or a substrate,
underpinning, background or supporting structure, which I take
to be region of conceptual space underlying the choice of title
for the film. >> A matrix can be three dimentional, so there is >>>>>>> no reason why the >> matrix >> in The Matrix cannot be 9 or
10. (I don't know why 10 says two >> dimentional array, if it is >>>>>>> computing that restriction isn't there. But >> then arguably
even a two dimentional matrix is a a one dimentional array >>
divided up, and anyway the concept of dimensions doesn't
literally >> apply.). >> What was it in the film you decided
defined it as sense 11?
I didn't. I interpreted wiktionary as saying the sense 11 was a
new sense inspired by the film - so clearly not the meaning that
inspired the choice of the title for the film.
Maybe, but it cites 1984, William Gibson, Neuromancer, for sense
11, so such a sense must have existed before 1999.
Schopenhauer is a better metaphor for illusion that predates
Gnosticism. Life of Pi renders such things in a manner far superior
to The Matrix though the initial point of the sinking ship is
inspired by the divine contraction of Isaac Luria’s Jewish
mysticism.
Did Pi eat his mom along with the cook?
Life of Pi compared to The Matrix is the better story.
Well yes I picked it as an example of popular culture. The TV series
'Westworld' has plenty of references to gnosticism in it.
My point was that these ideas are coming back in a different form,
but they are the same ideas and they have persistent appeal.
fills in a pre-flood lacuna about the nephilim. You know why? Because
stupid conspiracy theories dwell on a race of giants.
What is gnosticism aside from historical curiosities that didn’t make
the canon. Just because they, like Enoch, cut against the grain does
not make them any more relevant to how the world actually works.
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:So what. People are resounding interested in the Book of Enoch which
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:I was thinking more about the Vedic Mayan veil which via
On 11/03/2024 15:53, Richmond wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:
On 11/03/2024 14:02, Richmond wrote:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> writes:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:Jung was quite open about being influenced by
On 28/02/2024 22:29, Richmond wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:46:40 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:What are the other kinds of creationism apart from I.D.? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kicked around on this group for many years, and has its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proponents. Obviously, I'm not one of them. I don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> propose to re-argue this subject. Check through prior >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussions here if you want to get the flavor of it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not interested in getting involved in such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion.
wrote:
On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:https://www.discovery.org/about/ What do you feel is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious?
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to know. I've not heard of the organisation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before. I've read here:-
wrote:
For the record, I think Behe is pretty close to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being a crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion, Erik?
TIA
In a group whose description is "Evolution versus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creationism (sometimes hot!)." I would have thought the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject will come up over and over.
It has. My impression is that's one reason so many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't interested. in it.
One could argue that ID is all kinds of creationism. The >>>>>>>>>>>>> distinguishing points of ID are
1) a professed agnosticism about the identity of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> creator ("designer"), at least when wearing one's ID hat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) a claim, shared with scientific creationism, that there >>>>>>>>>>>>> is evidence that life was created rather than evolved. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Members of the ID movement can hold to just about any >>>>>>>>>>>>> version of creationism (include geocentrism and
platygaianism). ID is a political movement, and theistic >>>>>>>>>>>>> evolutionists tend not to share the movement's goals, so >>>>>>>>>>>>> they are rare among ID advocates.
* abiotic creationists (God created the universe) * single >>>>>>>>>>>>> creation creationists (God created the urorganism) * >>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple-creation creationists (God created multiple kinds >>>>>>>>>>>>> of life) ** young earth creationists *** young earth >>>>>>>>>>>>> anevolutionists *** young earth hyperevolutionists ** young >>>>>>>>>>>>> life creationists ** old earth creationists * progressive >>>>>>>>>>>>> creationists ** episodic progressive creationists (God >>>>>>>>>>>>> creates successive biotas) ** discontinuous progressive >>>>>>>>>>>>> creationists (God creates species) ** continuous
progressive creationism (God creates mutations/selection) >>>>>>>>>>>>> ** occasionalist creationism (Islamo-Calvinist determinism) >>>>>>>>>>>>>
There are non-Abrahamic forms of creationism. One might >>>>>>>>>>>>> also consider Raelianism as a non-religious form of
creationism.
It's most useful to define creationism so it lines up with >>>>>>>>>>>>> the fault lines in society, rather than focussing on the >>>>>>>>>>>>> particularities of belief (defining creationism as
equivalent to theism isn't helpful.)
Hence, my preferred definition of creationism is
"religiously motivated rejection of substantial proportions >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the scientific consensus, especially as relating to >>>>>>>>>>>>> biology, geology and cosmology, or the promotion
thereof". The line I'd draw between theistic evolutionism >>>>>>>>>>>>> and progressive creationism is that the former has God >>>>>>>>>>>>> guiding the course of evolution but accepts that natural >>>>>>>>>>>>> processes can produce the same or equivalent result, while >>>>>>>>>>>>> the latter asserts that natural processes cannot produce >>>>>>>>>>>>> the modern day biota.
In another context creationism is the position that human >>>>>>>>>>>>> souls are created de novo, as opposed to traducianism and >>>>>>>>>>>>> other positions.
Thanks, that is fascinating, I had to look up a few words. >>>>>>>>>>>>
What interests me is: what is it in the human psyche which >>>>>>>>>>>> made people come up with these theories, and gives them the >>>>>>>>>>>> energy to keep persuing them even in the face of
adversity. Also the idea of another world, which is more >>>>>>>>>>>> real than this one, which crops up still in popular culture, >>>>>>>>>>>> like "The Matrix", a Gnostic idea that the world is created >>>>>>>>>>>> by something evil, and our purpose is to break free of the >>>>>>>>>>>> illusion and take our rightful place. I think Jung would say >>>>>>>>>>>> that other place is the unconscious, and that it created >>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness in its own image.
Schopenhauer. The whole Matrix concept was a bit of Plato’s >>>>>>>>>>> cave mixed with Bishop Berkeley. The filmmakers tried to >>>>>>>>>>> shoehorn a deliberate reference to Jean Baudrillard’s
Simulacra and Simulation but he thought the movie was
bullshit.
It doesn't alter the fact that the idea is gnostic. And The >>>>>>>>>> Matrix is science fiction, so what does 'bullshit' mean in >>>>>>>>>> that context? >> "Matrix Mechanics: Developed in 1925 by
Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, >> and >> Pascual Jordan, it was >>>>>>>>>> the first successful theory for quantum >> mechanics. It
described the properties of atomic and subatomic particles >> >>>>>>>>>> not as precise values, but as probabilities represented by >>>>>>>>>> matrices. >> The Math Behind It: These matrices are
essentially grids of >> numbers. Each element represents the >>>>>>>>>> probability of a particle being in >> a specific quantum
state, like a certain energy level. Unlike classical >>
mechanics, where you could pinpoint a particle's position and >>>>>>>>>> momentum >> exactly, Heisenberg's matrices dealt with the
probabilities of these >> properties. >> Not Trajectories, >>>>>>>>>> But Transitions: Matrix mechanics focused on how >> these >> >>>>>>>>>> probabilities changed over time, rather than providing a clear >>>>>>>>>> picture >> of the particle's trajectory. It described the
transitions between >> states, not the exact path the particle >>>>>>>>>> took. >> "
Wiktionary gives 19 senses for the noun matrix. The relevant
sense for Matrix Mechanics is number 9, described as
mathematical, which is related to senses 8, 10 and 12, in
relating to elements arranged in a grid. Sense 11 relates to the >>>>>>>> film, being taken from the film. The remaining senses can be
placed in two groups - either a mould (which, giving the
etymology, I take to be the older sense) or a substrate,
underpinning, background or supporting structure, which I take >>>>>>>> to be region of conceptual space underlying the choice of title >>>>>>>> for the film. >> A matrix can be three dimentional, so there is >>>>>>>> no reason why the >> matrix >> in The Matrix cannot be 9 or
10. (I don't know why 10 says two >> dimentional array, if it is >>>>>>>> computing that restriction isn't there. But >> then arguably
even a two dimentional matrix is a a one dimentional array >>
divided up, and anyway the concept of dimensions doesn't
literally >> apply.). >> What was it in the film you decided
defined it as sense 11?
I didn't. I interpreted wiktionary as saying the sense 11 was a
new sense inspired by the film - so clearly not the meaning that
inspired the choice of the title for the film.
Maybe, but it cites 1984, William Gibson, Neuromancer, for sense
11, so such a sense must have existed before 1999.
Schopenhauer is a better metaphor for illusion that predates
Gnosticism. Life of Pi renders such things in a manner far superior
to The Matrix though the initial point of the sinking ship is
inspired by the divine contraction of Isaac Luria’s Jewish
mysticism.
Did Pi eat his mom along with the cook?
Life of Pi compared to The Matrix is the better story.
Well yes I picked it as an example of popular culture. The TV series
'Westworld' has plenty of references to gnosticism in it.
My point was that these ideas are coming back in a different form,
but they are the same ideas and they have persistent appeal.
fills in a pre-flood lacuna about the nephilim. You know why? Because
stupid conspiracy theories dwell on a race of giants.
What is gnosticism aside from historical curiosities that didn’t make
the canon. Just because they, like Enoch, cut against the grain does
not make them any more relevant to how the world actually works.
But who is talking about how the world works?
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:Me.
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:So what. People are resounding interested in the Book of Enoch which
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:I was thinking more about the Vedic Mayan veil which via
On 11/03/2024 15:53, Richmond wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:
On 11/03/2024 14:02, Richmond wrote:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> writes:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:Jung was quite open about being influenced by
On 28/02/2024 22:29, Richmond wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:46:40 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:What are the other kinds of creationism apart from I.D.? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kicked around on this group for many years, and has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its proponents. Obviously, I'm not one of them. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't propose to re-argue this subject. Check >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through prior discussions here if you want to get the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flavor of it. I'm not interested in getting involved >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in such a discussion.
wrote:
On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:https://www.discovery.org/about/ What do you feel is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious?
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to know. I've not heard of the organisation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before. I've read here:-
wrote:
For the record, I think Behe is pretty close to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being a crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion, Erik?
TIA
In a group whose description is "Evolution versus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creationism (sometimes hot!)." I would have thought >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the subject will come up over and over.
It has. My impression is that's one reason so many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't interested. in it.
One could argue that ID is all kinds of creationism. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinguishing points of ID are
1) a professed agnosticism about the identity of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> creator ("designer"), at least when wearing one's ID hat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) a claim, shared with scientific creationism, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is evidence that life was created rather than >>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolved.
Members of the ID movement can hold to just about any >>>>>>>>>>>>>> version of creationism (include geocentrism and
platygaianism). ID is a political movement, and theistic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolutionists tend not to share the movement's goals, so >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are rare among ID advocates.
* abiotic creationists (God created the universe) * >>>>>>>>>>>>>> single creation creationists (God created the urorganism) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * multiple-creation creationists (God created multiple >>>>>>>>>>>>>> kinds of life) ** young earth creationists *** young >>>>>>>>>>>>>> earth anevolutionists *** young earth hyperevolutionists >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ** young life creationists ** old earth creationists * >>>>>>>>>>>>>> progressive creationists ** episodic progressive
creationists (God creates successive biotas) **
discontinuous progressive creationists (God creates >>>>>>>>>>>>>> species) ** continuous progressive creationism (God >>>>>>>>>>>>>> creates mutations/selection) ** occasionalist creationism >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Islamo-Calvinist determinism)
There are non-Abrahamic forms of creationism. One might >>>>>>>>>>>>>> also consider Raelianism as a non-religious form of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> creationism.
It's most useful to define creationism so it lines up >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the fault lines in society, rather than focussing on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the particularities of belief (defining creationism as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent to theism isn't helpful.)
Hence, my preferred definition of creationism is
"religiously motivated rejection of substantial
proportions of the scientific consensus, especially as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> relating to biology, geology and cosmology, or the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> promotion thereof". The line I'd draw between theistic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolutionism and progressive creationism is that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> former has God guiding the course of evolution but >>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepts that natural processes can produce the same or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent result, while the latter asserts that natural >>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes cannot produce the modern day biota.
In another context creationism is the position that human >>>>>>>>>>>>>> souls are created de novo, as opposed to traducianism and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> other positions.
Thanks, that is fascinating, I had to look up a few words. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
What interests me is: what is it in the human psyche which >>>>>>>>>>>>> made people come up with these theories, and gives them >>>>>>>>>>>>> the energy to keep persuing them even in the face of >>>>>>>>>>>>> adversity. Also the idea of another world, which is more >>>>>>>>>>>>> real than this one, which crops up still in popular
culture, like "The Matrix", a Gnostic idea that the world >>>>>>>>>>>>> is created by something evil, and our purpose is to break >>>>>>>>>>>>> free of the illusion and take our rightful place. I think >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jung would say that other place is the unconscious, and >>>>>>>>>>>>> that it created consciousness in its own image.
Schopenhauer. The whole Matrix concept was a bit of Plato’s >>>>>>>>>>>> cave mixed with Bishop Berkeley. The filmmakers tried to >>>>>>>>>>>> shoehorn a deliberate reference to Jean Baudrillard’s >>>>>>>>>>>> Simulacra and Simulation but he thought the movie was
bullshit.
It doesn't alter the fact that the idea is gnostic. And The >>>>>>>>>>> Matrix is science fiction, so what does 'bullshit' mean in >>>>>>>>>>> that context? >> "Matrix Mechanics: Developed in 1925 by >>>>>>>>>>> Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, >> and >> Pascual Jordan, it >>>>>>>>>>> was the first successful theory for quantum >> mechanics. It >>>>>>>>>>> described the properties of atomic and subatomic particles >>>>>>>>>>> >> not as precise values, but as probabilities represented >>>>>>>>>>> by matrices. >> The Math Behind It: These matrices are
essentially grids of >> numbers. Each element represents the >>>>>>>>>>> probability of a particle being in >> a specific quantum >>>>>>>>>>> state, like a certain energy level. Unlike classical >>
mechanics, where you could pinpoint a particle's position >>>>>>>>>>> and momentum >> exactly, Heisenberg's matrices dealt with >>>>>>>>>>> the probabilities of these >> properties. >> Not
Trajectories, But Transitions: Matrix mechanics focused on >>>>>>>>>>> how >> these >> probabilities changed over time, rather than >>>>>>>>>>> providing a clear picture >> of the particle's
trajectory. It described the transitions between >> states, >>>>>>>>>>> not the exact path the particle took. >> "
Wiktionary gives 19 senses for the noun matrix. The relevant >>>>>>>>> sense for Matrix Mechanics is number 9, described as
mathematical, which is related to senses 8, 10 and 12, in
relating to elements arranged in a grid. Sense 11 relates to >>>>>>>>> the film, being taken from the film. The remaining senses can >>>>>>>>> be placed in two groups - either a mould (which, giving the
etymology, I take to be the older sense) or a substrate,
underpinning, background or supporting structure, which I take >>>>>>>>> to be region of conceptual space underlying the choice of
title for the film. >> A matrix can be three dimentional, so >>>>>>>>> there is no reason why the >> matrix >> in The Matrix cannot >>>>>>>>> be 9 or 10. (I don't know why 10 says two >> dimentional
array, if it is computing that restriction isn't there. But >> >>>>>>>>> then arguably even a two dimentional matrix is a a one
dimentional array >> divided up, and anyway the concept of
dimensions doesn't literally >> apply.). >> What was it in
the film you decided defined it as sense 11?
I didn't. I interpreted wiktionary as saying the sense 11 was a
new sense inspired by the film - so clearly not the meaning that >>>>>>> inspired the choice of the title for the film.
Maybe, but it cites 1984, William Gibson, Neuromancer, for sense
11, so such a sense must have existed before 1999.
Schopenhauer is a better metaphor for illusion that predates
Gnosticism. Life of Pi renders such things in a manner far
superior to The Matrix though the initial point of the sinking
ship is inspired by the divine contraction of Isaac Luria’s Jewish >>>>> mysticism.
Did Pi eat his mom along with the cook?
Life of Pi compared to The Matrix is the better story.
Well yes I picked it as an example of popular culture. The TV
series 'Westworld' has plenty of references to gnosticism in it.
My point was that these ideas are coming back in a different form,
but they are the same ideas and they have persistent appeal.
fills in a pre-flood lacuna about the nephilim. You know why?
Because stupid conspiracy theories dwell on a race of giants.
What is gnosticism aside from historical curiosities that didn’t
make the canon. Just because they, like Enoch, cut against the grain
does not make them any more relevant to how the world actually
works.
But who is talking about how the world works?
What interests me is: what is it in the human psyche which made people
come up with these theories, and gives them the energy to keep
persuing them even in the face of adversity. Also the idea of another
world, which is more real than this one,
On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 19:39:25 +0000, *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:I was thinking more about the Vedic Mayan veil which via Schopenhauer is a >> better metaphor for illusion that predates Gnosticism. Life of Pi renders
On 11/03/2024 15:53, Richmond wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:
On 11/03/2024 14:02, Richmond wrote:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> writes:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:Jung was quite open about being influenced by Schopenhauer. The >>>>>>>>> whole Matrix concept was a bit of Plato’s cave mixed with Bishop >>>>>>>>> Berkeley. The filmmakers tried to shoehorn a deliberate reference >>>>>>>>> to Jean Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation but he thought the >>>>>>>>> movie was bullshit.
On 28/02/2024 22:29, Richmond wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:46:40 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:What are the other kinds of creationism apart from I.D.? >>>>>>>>>>>>
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:In a group whose description is "Evolution versus
On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kicked around on this group for many years, and has its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proponents. Obviously, I'm not one of them. I don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> propose to re-argue this subject. Check through prior >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussions here if you want to get the flavor of it. I'm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not interested in getting involved in such a discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
wrote:
On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you need to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. I've not heard of the organisation before. I've >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read here:- https://www.discovery.org/about/ What do you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feel is contentious?
wrote:
For the record, I think Behe is pretty close to being a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion, Erik?
TIA
creationism (sometimes hot!)." I would have thought the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject will come up over and over.
It has. My impression is that's one reason so many aren't >>>>>>>>>>>>> interested. in it.
One could argue that ID is all kinds of creationism. The >>>>>>>>>>> distinguishing points of ID are
1) a professed agnosticism about the identity of the creator >>>>>>>>>>> ("designer"), at least when wearing one's ID hat.
2) a claim, shared with scientific creationism, that there is >>>>>>>>>>> evidence that life was created rather than evolved.
Members of the ID movement can hold to just about any version >>>>>>>>>>> of creationism (include geocentrism and platygaianism). ID is a >>>>>>>>>>> political movement, and theistic evolutionists tend not to >>>>>>>>>>> share the movement's goals, so they are rare among ID
advocates.
* abiotic creationists (God created the universe) * single >>>>>>>>>>> creation creationists (God created the urorganism) *
multiple-creation creationists (God created multiple kinds of >>>>>>>>>>> life) ** young earth creationists *** young earth
anevolutionists *** young earth hyperevolutionists ** young >>>>>>>>>>> life creationists ** old earth creationists * progressive >>>>>>>>>>> creationists ** episodic progressive creationists (God creates >>>>>>>>>>> successive biotas) ** discontinuous progressive creationists >>>>>>>>>>> (God creates species) ** continuous progressive creationism >>>>>>>>>>> (God creates mutations/selection) ** occasionalist creationism >>>>>>>>>>> (Islamo-Calvinist determinism)
There are non-Abrahamic forms of creationism. One might also >>>>>>>>>>> consider Raelianism as a non-religious form of creationism. >>>>>>>>>>>
It's most useful to define creationism so it lines up with the >>>>>>>>>>> fault lines in society, rather than focussing on the
particularities of belief (defining creationism as equivalent >>>>>>>>>>> to theism isn't helpful.)
Hence, my preferred definition of creationism is "religiously >>>>>>>>>>> motivated rejection of substantial proportions of the
scientific consensus, especially as relating to biology, >>>>>>>>>>> geology and cosmology, or the promotion thereof". The line I'd >>>>>>>>>>> draw between theistic evolutionism and progressive creationism >>>>>>>>>>> is that the former has God guiding the course of evolution but >>>>>>>>>>> accepts that natural processes can produce the same or
equivalent result, while the latter asserts that natural >>>>>>>>>>> processes cannot produce the modern day biota.
In another context creationism is the position that human souls >>>>>>>>>>> are created de novo, as opposed to traducianism and other >>>>>>>>>>> positions.
Thanks, that is fascinating, I had to look up a few words. >>>>>>>>>>
What interests me is: what is it in the human psyche which made >>>>>>>>>> people come up with these theories, and gives them the energy to >>>>>>>>>> keep persuing them even in the face of adversity. Also the idea >>>>>>>>>> of another world, which is more real than this one, which crops >>>>>>>>>> up still in popular culture, like "The Matrix", a Gnostic idea >>>>>>>>>> that the world is created by something evil, and our purpose is >>>>>>>>>> to break free of the illusion and take our rightful place. I >>>>>>>>>> think Jung would say that other place is the unconscious, and >>>>>>>>>> that it created consciousness in its own image.
It doesn't alter the fact that the idea is gnostic. And The Matrix >>>>>>>> is science fiction, so what does 'bullshit' mean in that context? >>>>>>>>>> "Matrix Mechanics: Developed in 1925 by Werner Heisenberg, Max >>>>>>>> Born, >> and >> Pascual Jordan, it was the first successful theory >>>>>>>> for quantum >> mechanics. It described the properties of atomic >>>>>>>> and subatomic particles >> not as precise values, but as
probabilities represented by matrices. >> The Math Behind It: >>>>>>>> These matrices are essentially grids of >> numbers. Each element >>>>>>>> represents the probability of a particle being in >> a specific >>>>>>>> quantum state, like a certain energy level. Unlike classical >> >>>>>>>> mechanics, where you could pinpoint a particle's position and
momentum >> exactly, Heisenberg's matrices dealt with the
probabilities of these >> properties. >> Not Trajectories, But >>>>>>>> Transitions: Matrix mechanics focused on how >> these >>
probabilities changed over time, rather than providing a clear >>>>>>>> picture >> of the particle's trajectory. It described the
transitions between >> states, not the exact path the particle >>>>>>>> took. >> "
Wiktionary gives 19 senses for the noun matrix. The relevant sense >>>>>> for Matrix Mechanics is number 9, described as mathematical, which >>>>>> is related to senses 8, 10 and 12, in relating to elements arranged >>>>>> in a grid. Sense 11 relates to the film, being taken from the
film. The remaining senses can be placed in two groups - either a
mould (which, giving the etymology, I take to be the older sense) or >>>>>> a substrate, underpinning, background or supporting structure, which >>>>>> I take to be region of conceptual space underlying the choice of
title for the film. >> A matrix can be three dimentional, so there >>>>>> is no reason why the >> matrix >> in The Matrix cannot be 9 or
10. (I don't know why 10 says two >> dimentional array, if it is
computing that restriction isn't there. But >> then arguably even a >>>>>> two dimentional matrix is a a one dimentional array >> divided up, >>>>>> and anyway the concept of dimensions doesn't literally >> apply.). >>>>>>>> What was it in the film you decided defined it as sense 11?
I didn't. I interpreted wiktionary as saying the sense 11 was a new
sense inspired by the film - so clearly not the meaning that inspired
the choice of the title for the film.
Maybe, but it cites 1984, William Gibson, Neuromancer, for sense 11, so
such a sense must have existed before 1999.
such things in a manner far superior to The Matrix though the initial point >> of the sinking ship is inspired by the divine contraction of Isaac Luria’s >> Jewish mysticism.
Did Pi eat his mom along with the cook?
Life of Pi compared to The Matrix is the better story.
Life of Pi provided two stories. Are both better than The Matrix?
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:Me.
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:So what. People are resounding interested in the Book of Enoch which
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:I was thinking more about the Vedic Mayan veil which via
On 11/03/2024 15:53, Richmond wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:
On 11/03/2024 14:02, Richmond wrote:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> writes:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:Jung was quite open about being influenced by
On 28/02/2024 22:29, Richmond wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:46:40 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:What are the other kinds of creationism apart from I.D.? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kicked around on this group for many years, and has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its proponents. Obviously, I'm not one of them. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't propose to re-argue this subject. Check >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through prior discussions here if you want to get the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flavor of it. I'm not interested in getting involved >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in such a discussion.
wrote:
On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>https://www.discovery.org/about/ What do you feel is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious?
wrote:Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to know. I've not heard of the organisation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before. I've read here:-
For the record, I think Behe is pretty close to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being a crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion, Erik?
TIA
In a group whose description is "Evolution versus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creationism (sometimes hot!)." I would have thought >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the subject will come up over and over.
It has. My impression is that's one reason so many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't interested. in it.
One could argue that ID is all kinds of creationism. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinguishing points of ID are
1) a professed agnosticism about the identity of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creator ("designer"), at least when wearing one's ID hat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) a claim, shared with scientific creationism, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is evidence that life was created rather than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolved.
Members of the ID movement can hold to just about any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version of creationism (include geocentrism and
platygaianism). ID is a political movement, and theistic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolutionists tend not to share the movement's goals, so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are rare among ID advocates.
* abiotic creationists (God created the universe) * >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single creation creationists (God created the urorganism) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * multiple-creation creationists (God created multiple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kinds of life) ** young earth creationists *** young >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earth anevolutionists *** young earth hyperevolutionists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ** young life creationists ** old earth creationists * >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> progressive creationists ** episodic progressive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creationists (God creates successive biotas) **
discontinuous progressive creationists (God creates >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> species) ** continuous progressive creationism (God >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creates mutations/selection) ** occasionalist creationism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Islamo-Calvinist determinism)
There are non-Abrahamic forms of creationism. One might >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also consider Raelianism as a non-religious form of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creationism.
It's most useful to define creationism so it lines up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the fault lines in society, rather than focussing on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the particularities of belief (defining creationism as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent to theism isn't helpful.)
Hence, my preferred definition of creationism is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "religiously motivated rejection of substantial
proportions of the scientific consensus, especially as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relating to biology, geology and cosmology, or the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> promotion thereof". The line I'd draw between theistic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolutionism and progressive creationism is that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> former has God guiding the course of evolution but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepts that natural processes can produce the same or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent result, while the latter asserts that natural >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes cannot produce the modern day biota.
In another context creationism is the position that human >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> souls are created de novo, as opposed to traducianism and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other positions.
Thanks, that is fascinating, I had to look up a few words. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What interests me is: what is it in the human psyche which >>>>>>>>>>>>>> made people come up with these theories, and gives them >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the energy to keep persuing them even in the face of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> adversity. Also the idea of another world, which is more >>>>>>>>>>>>>> real than this one, which crops up still in popular >>>>>>>>>>>>>> culture, like "The Matrix", a Gnostic idea that the world >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is created by something evil, and our purpose is to break >>>>>>>>>>>>>> free of the illusion and take our rightful place. I think >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jung would say that other place is the unconscious, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it created consciousness in its own image.
Schopenhauer. The whole Matrix concept was a bit of Plato’s >>>>>>>>>>>>> cave mixed with Bishop Berkeley. The filmmakers tried to >>>>>>>>>>>>> shoehorn a deliberate reference to Jean Baudrillard’s >>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulacra and Simulation but he thought the movie was >>>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit.
It doesn't alter the fact that the idea is gnostic. And The >>>>>>>>>>>> Matrix is science fiction, so what does 'bullshit' mean in >>>>>>>>>>>> that context? >> "Matrix Mechanics: Developed in 1925 by >>>>>>>>>>>> Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, >> and >> Pascual Jordan, it >>>>>>>>>>>> was the first successful theory for quantum >> mechanics. It >>>>>>>>>>>> described the properties of atomic and subatomic particles >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not as precise values, but as probabilities represented >>>>>>>>>>>> by matrices. >> The Math Behind It: These matrices are >>>>>>>>>>>> essentially grids of >> numbers. Each element represents the >>>>>>>>>>>> probability of a particle being in >> a specific quantum >>>>>>>>>>>> state, like a certain energy level. Unlike classical >> >>>>>>>>>>>> mechanics, where you could pinpoint a particle's position >>>>>>>>>>>> and momentum >> exactly, Heisenberg's matrices dealt with >>>>>>>>>>>> the probabilities of these >> properties. >> Not
Trajectories, But Transitions: Matrix mechanics focused on >>>>>>>>>>>> how >> these >> probabilities changed over time, rather than >>>>>>>>>>>> providing a clear picture >> of the particle's
trajectory. It described the transitions between >> states, >>>>>>>>>>>> not the exact path the particle took. >> "
Wiktionary gives 19 senses for the noun matrix. The relevant >>>>>>>>>> sense for Matrix Mechanics is number 9, described as
mathematical, which is related to senses 8, 10 and 12, in
relating to elements arranged in a grid. Sense 11 relates to >>>>>>>>>> the film, being taken from the film. The remaining senses can >>>>>>>>>> be placed in two groups - either a mould (which, giving the >>>>>>>>>> etymology, I take to be the older sense) or a substrate,
underpinning, background or supporting structure, which I take >>>>>>>>>> to be region of conceptual space underlying the choice of
title for the film. >> A matrix can be three dimentional, so >>>>>>>>>> there is no reason why the >> matrix >> in The Matrix cannot >>>>>>>>>> be 9 or 10. (I don't know why 10 says two >> dimentional
array, if it is computing that restriction isn't there. But >> >>>>>>>>>> then arguably even a two dimentional matrix is a a one
dimentional array >> divided up, and anyway the concept of >>>>>>>>>> dimensions doesn't literally >> apply.). >> What was it in >>>>>>>>>> the film you decided defined it as sense 11?
I didn't. I interpreted wiktionary as saying the sense 11 was a >>>>>>>> new sense inspired by the film - so clearly not the meaning that >>>>>>>> inspired the choice of the title for the film.
Maybe, but it cites 1984, William Gibson, Neuromancer, for sense >>>>>>> 11, so such a sense must have existed before 1999.
Schopenhauer is a better metaphor for illusion that predates
Gnosticism. Life of Pi renders such things in a manner far
superior to The Matrix though the initial point of the sinking
ship is inspired by the divine contraction of Isaac Luria’s Jewish >>>>>> mysticism.
Did Pi eat his mom along with the cook?
Life of Pi compared to The Matrix is the better story.
Well yes I picked it as an example of popular culture. The TV
series 'Westworld' has plenty of references to gnosticism in it.
My point was that these ideas are coming back in a different form,
but they are the same ideas and they have persistent appeal.
fills in a pre-flood lacuna about the nephilim. You know why?
Because stupid conspiracy theories dwell on a race of giants.
What is gnosticism aside from historical curiosities that didn’t
make the canon. Just because they, like Enoch, cut against the grain
does not make them any more relevant to how the world actually
works.
But who is talking about how the world works?
I'm not. What I said earlier was:
What interests me is: what is it in the human psyche which made people
come up with these theories, and gives them the energy to keep
persuing them even in the face of adversity. Also the idea of another
world, which is more real than this one,
I am not buying the idea that it is just stupidity. Afterall when
someone posits a theory they don't know if it is true, so where does it
come from? Partly it fits with what they know, and partly it comes from
who they are, their own psychology. When people looked up at the stars
and saw a hunter, or a bear, or a plough, it wasn't because they were
stupid. It tells us about them, not about the stars.
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:Humans are pattern seekers and storytellers. But they mislead
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:Me.
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:So what. People are resounding interested in the Book of Enoch
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:I was thinking more about the Vedic Mayan veil which via
On 11/03/2024 15:53, Richmond wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:
On 11/03/2024 14:02, Richmond wrote:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> writes:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:Jung was quite open about being influenced by
On 28/02/2024 22:29, Richmond wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:46:40 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:What are the other kinds of creationism apart from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I.D.?
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been kicked around on this group for many years, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and has its proponents. Obviously, I'm not one of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them. I don't propose to re-argue this subject. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Check through prior discussions here if you want to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get the flavor of it. I'm not interested in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting involved in such a discussion.
wrote:
On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>https://www.discovery.org/about/ What do you feel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is contentious?
wrote:Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to know. I've not heard of the organisation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before. I've read here:-
For the record, I think Behe is pretty close to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being a crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion, Erik?
TIA
In a group whose description is "Evolution versus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creationism (sometimes hot!)." I would have thought >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the subject will come up over and over.
It has. My impression is that's one reason so many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't interested. in it.
One could argue that ID is all kinds of
creationism. The distinguishing points of ID are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1) a professed agnosticism about the identity of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creator ("designer"), at least when wearing one's ID >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hat.
2) a claim, shared with scientific creationism, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is evidence that life was created rather than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolved.
Members of the ID movement can hold to just about any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version of creationism (include geocentrism and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> platygaianism). ID is a political movement, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theistic evolutionists tend not to share the movement's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goals, so they are rare among ID advocates.
* abiotic creationists (God created the universe) * >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single creation creationists (God created the
urorganism) * multiple-creation creationists (God >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> created multiple kinds of life) ** young earth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creationists *** young earth anevolutionists *** young >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earth hyperevolutionists ** young life creationists ** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old earth creationists * progressive creationists ** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> episodic progressive creationists (God creates >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> successive biotas) ** discontinuous progressive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creationists (God creates species) ** continuous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> progressive creationism (God creates
mutations/selection) ** occasionalist creationism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Islamo-Calvinist determinism)
There are non-Abrahamic forms of creationism. One might >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also consider Raelianism as a non-religious form of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creationism.
It's most useful to define creationism so it lines up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the fault lines in society, rather than focussing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the particularities of belief (defining creationism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as equivalent to theism isn't helpful.)
Hence, my preferred definition of creationism is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "religiously motivated rejection of substantial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proportions of the scientific consensus, especially as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relating to biology, geology and cosmology, or the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> promotion thereof". The line I'd draw between theistic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolutionism and progressive creationism is that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> former has God guiding the course of evolution but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepts that natural processes can produce the same or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent result, while the latter asserts that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> natural processes cannot produce the modern day biota. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In another context creationism is the position that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human souls are created de novo, as opposed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> traducianism and other positions.
Thanks, that is fascinating, I had to look up a few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
What interests me is: what is it in the human psyche >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which made people come up with these theories, and gives >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them the energy to keep persuing them even in the face >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of adversity. Also the idea of another world, which is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more real than this one, which crops up still in popular >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> culture, like "The Matrix", a Gnostic idea that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world is created by something evil, and our purpose is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to break free of the illusion and take our rightful >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> place. I think Jung would say that other place is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unconscious, and that it created consciousness in its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own image.
Schopenhauer. The whole Matrix concept was a bit of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Plato’s cave mixed with Bishop Berkeley. The filmmakers >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tried to shoehorn a deliberate reference to Jean
Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation but he thought the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> movie was bullshit.
It doesn't alter the fact that the idea is gnostic. And >>>>>>>>>>>>> The Matrix is science fiction, so what does 'bullshit' >>>>>>>>>>>>> mean in that context? >> "Matrix Mechanics: Developed in >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1925 by Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, >> and >> Pascual >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jordan, it was the first successful theory for quantum >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanics. It described the properties of atomic and >>>>>>>>>>>>> subatomic particles >> not as precise values, but as >>>>>>>>>>>>> probabilities represented by matrices. >> The Math Behind >>>>>>>>>>>>> It: These matrices are essentially grids of >>
numbers. Each element represents the probability of a >>>>>>>>>>>>> particle being in >> a specific quantum state, like a >>>>>>>>>>>>> certain energy level. Unlike classical >> mechanics, where >>>>>>>>>>>>> you could pinpoint a particle's position and momentum >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly, Heisenberg's matrices dealt with the
probabilities of these >> properties. >> Not
Trajectories, But Transitions: Matrix mechanics focused on >>>>>>>>>>>>> how >> these >> probabilities changed over time, rather >>>>>>>>>>>>> than providing a clear picture >> of the particle's
trajectory. It described the transitions between >>
states, not the exact path the particle took. >> "
Wiktionary gives 19 senses for the noun matrix. The relevant >>>>>>>>>>> sense for Matrix Mechanics is number 9, described as
mathematical, which is related to senses 8, 10 and 12, in >>>>>>>>>>> relating to elements arranged in a grid. Sense 11 relates to >>>>>>>>>>> the film, being taken from the film. The remaining senses >>>>>>>>>>> can be placed in two groups - either a mould (which, giving >>>>>>>>>>> the etymology, I take to be the older sense) or a substrate, >>>>>>>>>>> underpinning, background or supporting structure, which I >>>>>>>>>>> take to be region of conceptual space underlying the choice >>>>>>>>>>> of title for the film. >> A matrix can be three
dimentional, so there is no reason why the >> matrix >> in >>>>>>>>>>> The Matrix cannot be 9 or 10. (I don't know why 10 says two >>>>>>>>>>> >> dimentional array, if it is computing that restriction >>>>>>>>>>> isn't there. But >> then arguably even a two dimentional >>>>>>>>>>> matrix is a a one dimentional array >> divided up, and
anyway the concept of dimensions doesn't literally >>
apply.). >> What was it in the film you decided defined it >>>>>>>>>>> as sense 11?
I didn't. I interpreted wiktionary as saying the sense 11 was >>>>>>>>> a new sense inspired by the film - so clearly not the meaning >>>>>>>>> that inspired the choice of the title for the film.
Maybe, but it cites 1984, William Gibson, Neuromancer, for
sense 11, so such a sense must have existed before 1999.
Schopenhauer is a better metaphor for illusion that predates
Gnosticism. Life of Pi renders such things in a manner far
superior to The Matrix though the initial point of the sinking
ship is inspired by the divine contraction of Isaac Luria’s
Jewish mysticism.
Did Pi eat his mom along with the cook?
Life of Pi compared to The Matrix is the better story.
Well yes I picked it as an example of popular culture. The TV
series 'Westworld' has plenty of references to gnosticism in it.
My point was that these ideas are coming back in a different
form, but they are the same ideas and they have persistent
appeal.
which fills in a pre-flood lacuna about the nephilim. You know
why? Because stupid conspiracy theories dwell on a race of
giants.
What is gnosticism aside from historical curiosities that didn’t
make the canon. Just because they, like Enoch, cut against the
grain does not make them any more relevant to how the world
actually works.
But who is talking about how the world works?
I'm not. What I said earlier was:
What interests me is: what is it in the human psyche which made
people come up with these theories, and gives them the energy to
keep persuing them even in the face of adversity. Also the idea of
another world, which is more real than this one,
I am not buying the idea that it is just stupidity. Afterall when
someone posits a theory they don't know if it is true, so where does
it come from? Partly it fits with what they know, and partly it comes
from who they are, their own psychology. When people looked up at the
stars and saw a hunter, or a bear, or a plough, it wasn't because
they were stupid. It tells us about them, not about the stars.
themselves with their concoctions and create vengeful gods and
such. We are still dealing with the aftermath of such toxic
concoctions.
Humans are pattern seekers and storytellers. But they mislead
themselves with their concoctions and create vengeful gods and
such. We are still dealing with the aftermath of such toxic
concoctions.
Well it's great to have someone or something to blame. But religion was illegal in the USSR.
and it didn't seem like any kind of utopia.
What about North Korea? does that pass for religion?
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:Humans are pattern seekers and storytellers. But they mislead
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:Me.
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:So what. People are resounding interested in the Book of Enoch
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:I was thinking more about the Vedic Mayan veil which via
On 11/03/2024 15:53, Richmond wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:
On 11/03/2024 14:02, Richmond wrote:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> writes:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Jung was quite open about being influenced by
On 28/02/2024 22:29, Richmond wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:46:40 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:What are the other kinds of creationism apart from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I.D.?
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>In a group whose description is "Evolution versus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creationism (sometimes hot!)." I would have thought >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the subject will come up over and over. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
wrote:The focus on Intellligent Design (ID). This has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been kicked around on this group for many years, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and has its proponents. Obviously, I'm not one of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them. I don't propose to re-argue this subject. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Check through prior discussions here if you want to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get the flavor of it. I'm not interested in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting involved in such a discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>https://www.discovery.org/about/ What do you feel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is contentious?
wrote:Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to know. I've not heard of the organisation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before. I've read here:-
For the record, I think Behe is pretty close to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being a crank.
What evidence do you have for reaching such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion, Erik?
TIA
It has. My impression is that's one reason so many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't interested. in it.
One could argue that ID is all kinds of
creationism. The distinguishing points of ID are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1) a professed agnosticism about the identity of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creator ("designer"), at least when wearing one's ID >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hat.
2) a claim, shared with scientific creationism, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is evidence that life was created rather than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolved.
Members of the ID movement can hold to just about any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version of creationism (include geocentrism and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> platygaianism). ID is a political movement, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theistic evolutionists tend not to share the movement's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goals, so they are rare among ID advocates.
* abiotic creationists (God created the universe) * >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single creation creationists (God created the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> urorganism) * multiple-creation creationists (God >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> created multiple kinds of life) ** young earth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creationists *** young earth anevolutionists *** young >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earth hyperevolutionists ** young life creationists ** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old earth creationists * progressive creationists ** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> episodic progressive creationists (God creates >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> successive biotas) ** discontinuous progressive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creationists (God creates species) ** continuous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> progressive creationism (God creates
mutations/selection) ** occasionalist creationism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Islamo-Calvinist determinism)
There are non-Abrahamic forms of creationism. One might >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also consider Raelianism as a non-religious form of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creationism.
It's most useful to define creationism so it lines up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the fault lines in society, rather than focussing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the particularities of belief (defining creationism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as equivalent to theism isn't helpful.)
Hence, my preferred definition of creationism is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "religiously motivated rejection of substantial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proportions of the scientific consensus, especially as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relating to biology, geology and cosmology, or the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> promotion thereof". The line I'd draw between theistic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolutionism and progressive creationism is that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> former has God guiding the course of evolution but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepts that natural processes can produce the same or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent result, while the latter asserts that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> natural processes cannot produce the modern day biota. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In another context creationism is the position that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human souls are created de novo, as opposed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> traducianism and other positions.
Thanks, that is fascinating, I had to look up a few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
What interests me is: what is it in the human psyche >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which made people come up with these theories, and gives >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them the energy to keep persuing them even in the face >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of adversity. Also the idea of another world, which is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more real than this one, which crops up still in popular >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> culture, like "The Matrix", a Gnostic idea that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world is created by something evil, and our purpose is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to break free of the illusion and take our rightful >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> place. I think Jung would say that other place is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unconscious, and that it created consciousness in its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own image.
Schopenhauer. The whole Matrix concept was a bit of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Plato’s cave mixed with Bishop Berkeley. The filmmakers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tried to shoehorn a deliberate reference to Jean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation but he thought the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> movie was bullshit.
It doesn't alter the fact that the idea is gnostic. And >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Matrix is science fiction, so what does 'bullshit' >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean in that context? >> "Matrix Mechanics: Developed in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1925 by Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, >> and >> Pascual >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jordan, it was the first successful theory for quantum >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanics. It described the properties of atomic and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> subatomic particles >> not as precise values, but as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> probabilities represented by matrices. >> The Math Behind >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It: These matrices are essentially grids of >>
numbers. Each element represents the probability of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> particle being in >> a specific quantum state, like a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> certain energy level. Unlike classical >> mechanics, where >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you could pinpoint a particle's position and momentum >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly, Heisenberg's matrices dealt with the
probabilities of these >> properties. >> Not
Trajectories, But Transitions: Matrix mechanics focused on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> how >> these >> probabilities changed over time, rather >>>>>>>>>>>>>> than providing a clear picture >> of the particle's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> trajectory. It described the transitions between >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> states, not the exact path the particle took. >> " >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Wiktionary gives 19 senses for the noun matrix. The relevant >>>>>>>>>>>> sense for Matrix Mechanics is number 9, described as
mathematical, which is related to senses 8, 10 and 12, in >>>>>>>>>>>> relating to elements arranged in a grid. Sense 11 relates to >>>>>>>>>>>> the film, being taken from the film. The remaining senses >>>>>>>>>>>> can be placed in two groups - either a mould (which, giving >>>>>>>>>>>> the etymology, I take to be the older sense) or a substrate, >>>>>>>>>>>> underpinning, background or supporting structure, which I >>>>>>>>>>>> take to be region of conceptual space underlying the choice >>>>>>>>>>>> of title for the film. >> A matrix can be three
dimentional, so there is no reason why the >> matrix >> in >>>>>>>>>>>> The Matrix cannot be 9 or 10. (I don't know why 10 says two >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dimentional array, if it is computing that restriction >>>>>>>>>>>> isn't there. But >> then arguably even a two dimentional >>>>>>>>>>>> matrix is a a one dimentional array >> divided up, and >>>>>>>>>>>> anyway the concept of dimensions doesn't literally >>
apply.). >> What was it in the film you decided defined it >>>>>>>>>>>> as sense 11?
I didn't. I interpreted wiktionary as saying the sense 11 was >>>>>>>>>> a new sense inspired by the film - so clearly not the meaning >>>>>>>>>> that inspired the choice of the title for the film.
Maybe, but it cites 1984, William Gibson, Neuromancer, for
sense 11, so such a sense must have existed before 1999.
Schopenhauer is a better metaphor for illusion that predates
Gnosticism. Life of Pi renders such things in a manner far
superior to The Matrix though the initial point of the sinking >>>>>>>> ship is inspired by the divine contraction of Isaac Luria’s
Jewish mysticism.
Did Pi eat his mom along with the cook?
Life of Pi compared to The Matrix is the better story.
Well yes I picked it as an example of popular culture. The TV
series 'Westworld' has plenty of references to gnosticism in it. >>>>>>>
My point was that these ideas are coming back in a different
form, but they are the same ideas and they have persistent
appeal.
which fills in a pre-flood lacuna about the nephilim. You know
why? Because stupid conspiracy theories dwell on a race of
giants.
What is gnosticism aside from historical curiosities that didn’t >>>>>> make the canon. Just because they, like Enoch, cut against the
grain does not make them any more relevant to how the world
actually works.
But who is talking about how the world works?
I'm not. What I said earlier was:
What interests me is: what is it in the human psyche which made
people come up with these theories, and gives them the energy to
keep persuing them even in the face of adversity. Also the idea of
another world, which is more real than this one,
I am not buying the idea that it is just stupidity. Afterall when
someone posits a theory they don't know if it is true, so where does
it come from? Partly it fits with what they know, and partly it comes
from who they are, their own psychology. When people looked up at the
stars and saw a hunter, or a bear, or a plough, it wasn't because
they were stupid. It tells us about them, not about the stars.
themselves with their concoctions and create vengeful gods and
such. We are still dealing with the aftermath of such toxic
concoctions.
Well it's great to have someone or something to blame. But religion was illegal in the USSR and it didn't seem like any kind of utopia.
What about North Korea? does that pass for religion?
[...]What I said earlier was:
What interests me is: what is it in the human psyche which made people
come up with these theories, and gives them the energy to keep
persuing them even in the face of adversity. Also the idea of another
world, which is more real than this one,
I am not buying the idea that it is just stupidity. Afterall when
someone posits a theory they don't know if it is true, so where does it
come from? Partly it fits with what they know, and partly it comes from
who they are, their own psychology. When people looked up at the stars
and saw a hunter, or a bear, or a plough, it wasn't because they were
stupid. It tells us about them, not about the stars.
On 3/12/24 4:56 AM, Richmond wrote:
[...]What I said earlier was:
What interests me is: what is it in the human psyche which made peopleI am not buying the idea that it is just stupidity. Afterall when
come up with these theories, and gives them the energy to keep
persuing them even in the face of adversity. Also the idea of another
world, which is more real than this one,
someone posits a theory they don't know if it is true, so where does it
come from? Partly it fits with what they know, and partly it comes from
who they are, their own psychology. When people looked up at the stars
and saw a hunter, or a bear, or a plough, it wasn't because they were
stupid. It tells us about them, not about the stars.
There is a book by Elizabeth and Paul Barber titled _When they Severed
Earth from Sky_ which deals with your question, although it focuses
more on how myths evolve than how they originate. I don't remember
much of it, but one of the processes they propose is simple
exaggeration. Also, keep in mind that people remember stories far
better than non-narrative arrangements of facts.
The energy to keep pursuing the mythic stories is more easily
explained: Those stories have been collected into religion and marked
sacred, and thereby they gain a superpowerful administrative and
social organization to defend them. Plus, the stories would not have
got as far as they did without being really good stories to begin
with.
There have been lots of different speculations on origins of myths. It
is a field which which is fun to speculate in. Most proposals have,
once the initial interest has dropped of, been seen as baseless.
Although neither story can be proved or disproved, and neither explain
the shipwreck, the book concludes "the other story" is the better
because its fantastic elements model faith in God. I argue the
fantastic elements make it more similar to The Matrix, and for that
reason both make great stories but terrible explanations.
Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:
On 3/12/24 4:56 AM, Richmond wrote:
[...]What I said earlier was:
What interests me is: what is it in the human psyche which made people >>>> come up with these theories, and gives them the energy to keepI am not buying the idea that it is just stupidity. Afterall when
persuing them even in the face of adversity. Also the idea of another
world, which is more real than this one,
someone posits a theory they don't know if it is true, so where does it
come from? Partly it fits with what they know, and partly it comes from
who they are, their own psychology. When people looked up at the stars
and saw a hunter, or a bear, or a plough, it wasn't because they were
stupid. It tells us about them, not about the stars.
There is a book by Elizabeth and Paul Barber titled _When they Severed
Earth from Sky_ which deals with your question, although it focuses
more on how myths evolve than how they originate. I don't remember
much of it, but one of the processes they propose is simple
exaggeration. Also, keep in mind that people remember stories far
better than non-narrative arrangements of facts.
The energy to keep pursuing the mythic stories is more easily
explained: Those stories have been collected into religion and marked
sacred, and thereby they gain a superpowerful administrative and
social organization to defend them. Plus, the stories would not have
got as far as they did without being really good stories to begin
with.
Not quite so easily, in the case of gnosticism it was supressed and persecuted to extinction, by, wait for it, the orthodox church!
"The Inquisition was established in 1233 to uproot the remaining
Cathars.[86] Operating in the south at Toulouse, Albi, Carcassonne and
other towns during the whole of the 13th century, and a great part of
the 14th, it succeeded in crushing Catharism as a popular movement,
driving its remaining adherents underground.[86] Cathars who refused to recant or relapsed were hanged, or burnt at the stake.[5]
"On Friday 13 May 1239, in Champagne, 183 men and women convicted of Catharism were burned at the stake on the orders of the Dominican
inquisitor and former Cathar Perfect Robert le Bougre [fr].[87] Mount
Guimar, in northeastern France, had already been denounced as a place of heresy in a letter of the Bishop of Liège to Pope Lucius II in 1144.[88][full citation needed][89] "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism
There have been lots of different speculations on origins of myths. It
is a field which which is fun to speculate in. Most proposals have,
once the initial interest has dropped of, been seen as baseless.
The energy to keep pursuing the mythic stories is more easily
explained: Those stories have been collected into religion and marked
sacred, and thereby they gain a superpowerful administrative and
social organization to defend them. Plus, the stories would not have
Of course I don’t know how much any of this relates to Mark’s reference to
When they Severed Earth from Sky though you apparently like gnosticism.
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
The energy to keep pursuing the mythic stories is more easily
explained: Those stories have been collected into religion and marked
sacred, and thereby they gain a superpowerful administrative and
social organization to defend them. Plus, the stories would not have
Of course I don’t know how much any of this relates to Mark’s reference to
When they Severed Earth from Sky though you apparently like gnosticism.
I was responding to the point above about things being marked sacred,
and so having a survival advantage as it were. Clearly it was not an advantage for Cathars.
You say I apparantly like gnosticism, I hope you weren't inferring that
I liked what Gnostics did. Gnosticism can be applied to many things. In
a general sense it only means to know from within or directly. Some say
for example that Buddhism is gnostic.
(I snipped lots of stuff for brevity, not to deny that it was ever
said.)
On 11/03/2024 17:14, Richmond wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:
[Origin of "The Matrix"]Maybe, but it cites 1984, William Gibson, Neuromancer, for sense 11,
I interpreted wiktionary as saying the sense 11 was a new
sense inspired by the film - so clearly not the meaning that inspired
the choice of the title for the film.
so
such a sense must have existed before 1999.
It may have been mentioned, possibly by me,
that _Doctor Who_ story "The Deadly Assassin"
in 1976 presented "The Matrix", a computer
which contains memories of the Doctor's people,
"Time Lords". It's experienced as a rather
dangerous "virtual reality".
William Gibson used "matrix" for - what being
inside the internet looks like, basically.
A space in which most online resources have a
visual representation, and you fly around
(virtually) like Superman to get to the data
that you want to deal with.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromancer>
mentions that Gibson's short story
"Burning Chrome" used the term in 1982.
"Burning" is story slang for hacking, and Chrome
is a person in the story whose money, not
personality, is under attack.
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
On 11/03/2024 17:14, Richmond wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:
[Origin of "The Matrix"]Maybe, but it cites 1984, William Gibson, Neuromancer, for sense 11,
I interpreted wiktionary as saying the sense 11 was a new
sense inspired by the film - so clearly not the meaning that inspired
the choice of the title for the film.
so
such a sense must have existed before 1999.
It may have been mentioned, possibly by me,
that _Doctor Who_ story "The Deadly Assassin"
in 1976 presented "The Matrix", a computer
which contains memories of the Doctor's people,
"Time Lords". It's experienced as a rather
dangerous "virtual reality".
William Gibson used "matrix" for - what being
inside the internet looks like, basically.
A space in which most online resources have a
visual representation, and you fly around
(virtually) like Superman to get to the data
that you want to deal with.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromancer>
mentions that Gibson's short story
"Burning Chrome" used the term in 1982.
"Burning" is story slang for hacking, and Chrome
is a person in the story whose money, not
personality, is under attack.
Another example of Gnostic ideas resurfacing in popular culture is
'Forbidden Planet'. The surface of the planet has a small settlement
with only two people, some animals, and a robot. This surface settlement >represents consciousness. But hidden beneath it is something vast, and
from which the powers of creation come (the unconscious). And demons
which lurk there are projected onto the outside world, the planet
surface outside the settlement.
If the settlement corresponds to the island in The Tempest, then the
vast space under the planet surface represents the ocean around the
island. Water is the symbol of the unconscious in mythology.
Why is it necessary to have mythology to understand things? Because
mythology points to things which cannot be described in words. All words
have opposites and so cause division. This is shown by this newsgroup
which is doomed to polarised arguments for all eternity.
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
On 11/03/2024 17:14, Richmond wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:
[Origin of "The Matrix"]Maybe, but it cites 1984, William Gibson, Neuromancer, for sense 11,
I interpreted wiktionary as saying the sense 11 was a new
sense inspired by the film - so clearly not the meaning that inspired
the choice of the title for the film.
so
such a sense must have existed before 1999.
It may have been mentioned, possibly by me,
that _Doctor Who_ story "The Deadly Assassin"
in 1976 presented "The Matrix", a computer
which contains memories of the Doctor's people,
"Time Lords". It's experienced as a rather
dangerous "virtual reality".
William Gibson used "matrix" for - what being
inside the internet looks like, basically.
A space in which most online resources have a
visual representation, and you fly around
(virtually) like Superman to get to the data
that you want to deal with.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromancer>
mentions that Gibson's short story
"Burning Chrome" used the term in 1982.
"Burning" is story slang for hacking, and Chrome
is a person in the story whose money, not
personality, is under attack.
Another example of Gnostic ideas resurfacing in popular culture is
'Forbidden Planet'. The surface of the planet has a small settlement
with only two people, some animals, and a robot. This surface settlement represents consciousness. But hidden beneath it is something vast, and
from which the powers of creation come (the unconscious). And demons
which lurk there are projected onto the outside world, the planet
surface outside the settlement.
If the settlement corresponds to the island in The Tempest, then the
vast space under the planet surface represents the ocean around the
island. Water is the symbol of the unconscious in mythology.
Why is it necessary to have mythology to understand things? Because
mythology points to things which cannot be described in words. All words
have opposites and so cause division. This is shown by this newsgroup
which is doomed to polarised arguments for all eternity.
On 3/25/24 1:13 PM, Richmond wrote:
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
On 11/03/2024 17:14, Richmond wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes: > [Origin of "The >>>>Matrix"] > I interpreted wiktionary as saying the sense 11 was a new
sense inspired by the film - so clearly not the meaning thatinspired > the choice of the title for the film. Maybe, but it
cites 1984, William Gibson, Neuromancer, for sense 11, so such a
sense must have existed before 1999.
It may have been mentioned, possibly by me, that _Doctor Who_ story
"The Deadly Assassin" in 1976 presented "The Matrix", a computer
which contains memories of the Doctor's people, "Time Lords". It's
experienced as a rather dangerous "virtual reality".
William Gibson used "matrix" for - what being inside the internet
looks like, basically. A space in which most online resources have
a visual representation, and you fly around (virtually) like
Superman to get to the data that you want to deal with.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromancer> mentions that Gibson's
short story "Burning Chrome" used the term in 1982. "Burning" is
story slang for hacking, and Chrome is a person in the story whose
money, not personality, is under attack. >> Another example of
Gnostic ideas resurfacing in popular culture is >> 'Forbidden
Planet'. The surface of the planet has a small settlement >> with
only two people, some animals, and a robot. This surface settlement
vast, and >> from which the powers of creation come (therepresents consciousness. But hidden beneath it is something
unconscious). And demons >> which lurk there are projected onto the
outside world, the planet >> surface outside the settlement. >> If
the settlement corresponds to the island in The Tempest, then the >>
vast space under the planet surface represents the ocean around the
Why is it necessary to have mythology to understand things? Becauseisland. Water is the symbol of the unconscious in mythology. >>
words. All words >> have opposites and so cause division. This ismythology points to things which cannot be described in
shown by this newsgroup >> which is doomed to polarised arguments
for all eternity.
Nitpick: Not all words have opposites; probably most do not. (E.g.,
what is the opposite of "broccoli"?, of "modem"?, of "scissors"?) What
words do, which I think supports your point at least as well, is
corral ideas into discrete categories.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 307 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 69:36:32 |
| Calls: | 6,915 |
| Files: | 12,380 |
| Messages: | 5,431,960 |