Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

That would be to totally misunderstand what this demonstrates, which is that high order complexity naturally derives from lower order complexity.

If this were true, we would surely have overwhelming evidence of the naturally occurring high order complexity occurring throughout this vast universe, but so far we have only evidence of naturally occurring high order chaos elsewhere in this universe.

[torridon]

If this were true, we would surely have overwhelming evidence of the naturally occurring high order complexity occurring throughout this vast universe, but so far we have only evidence of naturally occurring high order chaos elsewhere in this universe.

Very high order complexity would be correspondingly very rare presumably.  The technology to detect it at vast distances is also a work in progress.  Watch this space, I think.

[Alan Burns]

Very high order complexity would be correspondingly very rare presumably.  The technology to detect it at vast distances is also a work in progress.  Watch this space, I think.

Yes, the specific complexity needed to produce life will be very rare indeed.  The naturally occurring events in this universe have no remit to produce such specific complexity, and ever increasing chaos is surely the demonstrable natural consequence of random, unguided forces.  You will be watching this space for a very long time indeed!

[torridon]

Yes, the specific complexity needed to produce life will be very rare indeed.  The naturally occurring events in this universe have no remit to produce such specific complexity, and ever increasing chaos is surely the demonstrable natural consequence of random, unguided forces.  You will be watching this space for a very long time indeed!

I don't think that is right.  Biogenesis research suggests that chemistry will lead inevitably into biology wherever conditions for biology pertain. Also, you talk as if 2LT is the only game in town.  That's clearly incorrect, there are organising forces as well as disorganising forces and order can be borrowed from the trend to disorder as long as it is given back in due course without any compromise to thermodynamic principles.

[SteveH]

Steve H,

You told us that most people with normal vision agree about what colours objects are. I asked you how you’d know that different people experience, say, “red” in the same way even if they use the same label “red” in response to the same external stimuli. You told me that the idea that they might not is unfalsifiable, and therefore “useless”.   

My reply was that the same could be said of the idea that they do experience “red” in the same way, so each hypothesis is equally useful or useless. Thus asserting one unfalsifiable idea to be true while dismissing the other unfalsifiable idea as false because it’s unfalsifiable is special pleading.

QED

We may experience colours in thesame way, or we may not. Both, as you say, are unfasifiable. (There are, of course, various forms of colour-blindness, but they are a special case, and the causes are understood.) However, if three people with nornal colour vision saw three cars, one red, one yellow and one blue, they would agree on their respective colours: One person would not insist that they were green, white and black, one that they were all red, and one that they were red, yellow and blue. Therefore, colour is objective.
QED.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

We may experience colours in thesame way, or we may not. Both, as you say, are unfasifiable. (There are, of course, various forms of colour-blindness, but they are a special case, and the causes are understood.) However, if three people with nornal colour vision saw three cars, one red, one yellow and one blue, they would agree on their respective colours: One person would not insist that they were green, white and black, one that they were all red, and one that they were red, yellow and blue. Therefore, colour is objective.

QED.

You were doing quite well until you tried your conclusion.

First, colour isn’t “objective” in the sense you imply. It doesn’t exist at all independent of us – all there is are differing wavelengths of light that our brains process, model as an experience and label “red” as a functional description of that experience. Similarly there’s no such thing as a smell (just scent molecules) or a sound (just differential air pressures) independent of experiencing minds. 

Second, yes the three people would (in normal circumstances) cohere around the same descriptors “red”, “yellow” etc. That though doesn’t mean they objectively describe the same experiences: person A is just saying something like, “after a lifetime of processing light wavelengths in the range of X to Y, I call that experience “yellow” etc”. Persons B and C are saying the same thing – the experiences themselves are though subjective ones and will remain so until and unless there’s ever a solution to the other minds problem.

[SteveH]

Have you ever admitted you were wrong about anything, in your entire life?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

Have you ever admitted you were wrong about anything, in your entire life?

Which part of my Reply to you do you think was wrong, and why?

[Stranger]

blue,

Steve has a point. The statement "this car is red" is intersubjectively verifiable. Not only by anybody with normal colour vision, but also by anybody who has a digital camera and can examine the resultant data file; even if they are (colour) blind and incapable of experiencing "red" for themselves.

"Red" may not be a single "thing" in the real world, but it corresponds to an objective measurement of an aspect of that world.

First, colour isn’t “objective” in the sense you imply. It doesn’t exist at all independent of us – all there is are differing wavelengths of light that our brains process, model as an experience and label “red” as a functional description of that experience.

This is just semantics. You seem to be insisting that "red" means the subjective experience of "red" but it's perfectly legitimate to regard "red" as a the set of spectra that humans regard as "red". That is, after all, how it is regarded in image processing.

Second, yes the three people would (in normal circumstances) cohere around the same descriptors “red”, “yellow” etc. That though doesn’t mean they objectively describe the same experiences...

Who claimed that they do?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

Steve has a point. The statement "this car is red" is intersubjectively verifiable. Not only by anybody with normal colour vision, but also by anybody who has a digital camera and can examine the resultant data file; even if they are (colour) blind and incapable of experiencing "red" for themselves.

"Red" may not be a single "thing" in the real world, but it corresponds to an objective measurement of an aspect of that world.

Yes I know – a light signal generator producing a specific wavelength will be read the by multiple machines in the same way. What I was talking about though was what people experience when they use terms like “red” etc. Our neural architecture may be sufficiently similar to suggest that our experiences will be as similar as those of equivalently calibrated machines, but that’s not something we can know without getting into each others’ heads.     

This is just semantics. You seem to be insisting that "red" means the subjective experience of "red" but it's perfectly legitimate to regard "red" as a the set of spectra that humans regard as "red". That is, after all, how it is regarded in image processing.

No, it’s a lot more than semantics. It’s easy to assume that “red” (or an A sharp note, or the smell “lavendar”) exist “out there” and we just perceive them. They are all though just labels for the models our brains – locked in silence and darkness as they are – construct to make sense of the sensory data our eyes and ears and noses provide.   

Of course we consistently say “red” in response to a given set of spectra, but that’s not what I was talking about.     

Who claimed that they do?

That seemed to me to be what he was implying ("Therefore, colour is objective"). If he wasn’t though, then fair enough - I've misunderstood his intent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If we are machines then nothing can be subjective. All must be real.

[bluehillside Retd.]

If we are machines then nothing can be subjective. All must be real.

Oh dear.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh dear.

Oh dear what.
Are you wanting to sneak in a bit of your dualism* dressed up as monism again?

Hillsidian Dualism = Real and unreal or irreal.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Oh dear what.

Oh dear whether we’re “machines” or not tells you nothing about how accurately the explanatory stories these machines create will map to “reality”.   
 

Are you wanting to sneak in a bit of your dualism* dressed up as monism again?

Hillsidian Dualism = Real and unreal or irreal.

You’ve been corrected on this already. The first time you were just wrong; now you’re misrepresenting. Given your long history of lying here, why do you bother with it?

[SteveH]

What we call colour, sound, etc. are the intersubjective interpretations of light wavelength, vibrations, etc. (and light itself is our interpretation of electromagnetic radiation within a band of wavelengths), but we agree on their nature (red is red to everyone with normal vision, even though it's possible that they experience it differently), so to that extent it's objective.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,


 
You’ve been corrected on this already. The first time you were just wrong; now you’re misrepresenting. Given your long history of lying here, why do you bother with it?

Playing the man as usual. I expect the decent to intervene once more asking those accusers of lying to change the record.

[BeRational]

What we call colour, sound, etc. are the intersubjective interpretations of light wavelength, vibrations, etc. (and light itself is our interpretation of electromagnetic radiation within a band of wavelengths), but we agree on their nature (red is red to everyone with normal vision, even though it's possible that they experience it differently), so to that extent it's objective.

No this is not bound to be the case.

Just because two people can look at something, and both say RED, it does not mean their experience of it is the same.
IF you could feel that they feel, you might say "No no that's BLUE".

Al you can say is that they say the same word to describe the experience of seeing Red like you do.

As it has been pointed out, in the real world, there is no sound, no colour, no taste.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

What we call colour, sound, etc. are the intersubjective interpretations of light wavelength, vibrations, etc. (and light itself is our interpretation of electromagnetic radiation within a band of wavelengths),...

Yes I know. That's what I've been saying.

...but we agree on their nature (red is red to everyone with normal vision, even though it's possible that they experience it differently), so to that extent it's objective.

Not sure what you mean by "their nature" here but inasmuch as you mean "we agree on using the same term" then, "To that extent", yes it is.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Playing the man as usual.

Identifying lying isn't playing the man - it's identifying lying.
 

I expect the decent to intervene once more asking those accusers of lying to change the record.

Why? Surely the correct option is for the liar to stop lying isn't it?

[ekim]

Steve H,

You were doing quite well until you tried your conclusion.

First, colour isn’t “objective” in the sense you imply. It doesn’t exist at all independent of us – all there is are differing wavelengths of light that our brains process, model as an experience and label “red” as a functional description of that experience. Similarly there’s no such thing as a smell (just scent molecules) or a sound (just differential air pressures) independent of experiencing minds. 

Second, yes the three people would (in normal circumstances) cohere around the same descriptors “red”, “yellow” etc. That though doesn’t mean they objectively describe the same experiences: person A is just saying something like, “after a lifetime of processing light wavelengths in the range of X to Y, I call that experience “yellow” etc”. Persons B and C are saying the same thing – the experiences themselves are though subjective ones and will remain so until and unless there’s ever a solution to the other minds problem.

There is also the condition that a number of people have like grapheme-colour synaesthesia and chromesthesia where colour experience is not even associated with the light spectrum.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

There is also the condition that a number of people have like grapheme-colour synaesthesia and chromesthesia where colour experience is not even associated with the light spectrum.

Good point. Some people will have the experience "red" when, for example, they hear the number three just as you or I will have the experience "red" when looking at something reflecting light in the spectra we call "red". It's a fascinating subject - as I understand it, some people will do their mental maths using the colours they experience.     

[Alan Burns]

I don't think that is right.  Biogenesis research suggests that chemistry will lead inevitably into biology wherever conditions for biology pertain. Also, you talk as if 2LT is the only game in town.  That's clearly incorrect, there are organising forces as well as disorganising forces and order can be borrowed from the trend to disorder as long as it is given back in due course without any compromise to thermodynamic principles.

I know that this borrowing and returning can be used to consciously manipulate temporary order out of chaos without contravening the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but to expect it to happen by chance events is a bit extreme to say the least.  My view is that God does not override the rules of nature, but consciously manipulates natural forces to bring about His awesome creation of life as we know it.  Just as humans can consciously manipulate natural forces to bring about man  made creations.  In this, we can see the power of human will as a reflection of God's will.

[Stranger]

I know that this borrowing and returning can be used to consciously manipulate temporary order out of chaos without contravening the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but to expect it to happen by chance events is a bit extreme to say the least.

Don't be so silly. It's a well understood natural phenomenon.

My view is that God does not override the rules of nature, but consciously manipulates natural forces to bring about His awesome creation of life as we know it.

The evidence for this view is... missing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I know that this borrowing and returning can be used to consciously manipulate temporary order out of chaos without contravening the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but to expect it to happen by chance events is a bit extreme to say the least.

Presumably because you fail to grasp the enormity of the numbers involved. However rare you might think the first self-replicating cells happening “by chance” as you put it to be, you can only claim rarity once you have a grip on the number of opportunities for it to happen. You might for example think a one in a trillion event to be “rare”, but it’s not rare at all if there are trillions of trillions of trillions of opportunities for it to happen – in fact it’d be relatively common even if it only happened one in a trillion times.   

My view is that God does not override the rules of nature, but consciously manipulates natural forces to bring about His awesome creation of life as we know it.  Just as humans can consciously manipulate natural forces to bring about man  made creations.  In this, we can see the power of human will as a reflection of God's will.

Yes, we know that your view is essentially “it’s magic” resting on some very bad thinking (see above for example) but it’d be nice if just for once you’d let some logic in to your thinking.

[BeRational]

ekim,

Good point. Some people will have the experience "red" when, for example, they hear the number three just as you or I will have the experience "red" when looking at something reflecting light in the spectra we call "red". It's a fascinating subject - as I understand it, some people will do their mental maths using the colours they experience.     

I have this. The days of the week are coloured to me, and have been since I was a child.