Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shade-o]

Don't worry, our mastery of iron makes us invulnerable to divine intervention. That's why there haven't been miracles for so long.

[malimbar04]

If he would have created us to be able to understand him completely, we'd be her. We would be copies of it, rendering the whole point moot.

Not true.  We wouldn't have to understand God completely, just enough so we could understand his message.  I can read and understand a book without being a clone of the author.

But you're both human. Would you understand a book written by a dog (if it could write in english)? Probably. Would you be able to write a book that that same dog could understand? Probably not. It has no idea of a lot of human concepts, and might probably understand half of it and just interpret the other half in his own worldview (and that's a safe estimate). It's the interpretations where it goes wrong, as they differ wildly and no-one knows which is right, if any of them is at all.

If a dog could read english, I could definately write a book that they could understand. Heck, they don't speak english, we didn't create them, and they still can be relatively easily trained. Our communication isn't deep (by our level), but they can definately understand soemthing if we know how to say it.

[Max White]

I can understand a computer. I can look at a computer and know the logic gates interact, how certain elements come together for certain things, how this translates into machine code, and how that translates into higher programing languages, that I can also understand. I dare say that with a text book or two (Think of these as the bibe) and enough time, I could rebuild the computer I am currently working on. I understand computers!


That dosn't mean I can do what they do. Understanding and being are not the same thing. Interesting fact:

The entire human genome could fit on a flash drive. The human mind, on the other hand, is vastly greater, and although it's size is debated, a few terrabytes should be close. Yet the genome must understand the brain in order to build it, no? Something can not only understand something else without being it, but something can understand something greater then itself.

[Siquo]

Something can not only understand something else without being it, but something can understand something greater then itself.

Can it? Knowing my genome still won't tell you what I'm thinking right now.

[Max White]

Can it? Knowing my genome still won't tell you what I'm thinking right now.

Ah, but if you knew what I was thinking right now, you would understand something greater then yourself! 

[Leafsnail]

Genomes don't "understand" anything.  I'd say that, even metaphorically, it's probably a step too far.

They just encode.  Think of them as little zip files .

[Max White]

Genomes don't "understand" anything.  I'd say that, even metaphorically, it's probably a step too far.

They just encode.  Think of them as little zip files .

That's not right. A genome represents process, while a zip represents data. Totally different.

[optimumtact]

Stuff made by aliens is also artificial. I actually find the whole term "artificial" kind of artificial. Humans are part of nature, too, so everything we make is natural, to me.

Wasn't the perceived artificialness of the universe the basis of the watchmaker argument? Because I thought you were supporting it. Do correct me if I'm mistaking you with somebody else.

This is interesting, this guy did a video about the watchmaker argument, let me see if I can dredge it up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

here it is, very interesting indeed.

[optimumtact]

I can understand a computer. I can look at a computer and know the logic gates interact, how certain elements come together for certain things, how this translates into machine code, and how that translates into higher programing languages, that I can also understand. I dare say that with a text book or two (Think of these as the bibe) and enough time, I could rebuild the computer I am currently working on. I understand computers!


That dosn't mean I can do what they do. Understanding and being are not the same thing. Interesting fact:

The entire human genome could fit on a flash drive. The human mind, on the other hand, is vastly greater, and although it's size is debated, a few terrabytes should be close. Yet the genome must understand the brain in order to build it, no? Something can not only understand something else without being it, but something can understand something greater then itself.

I think it comes down to the abstract nature of our world, for example, if I were to put a PC together from the usual parts (i.e. the hard drive, ram, dvd drive and so on) I don't have to know how those objects work, I can just put them together in the way laid out in the instruction manual. Therefore the genome doesn't have to know how the brain works, all it has to do is create the structure that allows the brain to function.

On that note, it's actually quite amazing just how much abstraction is a major part of everything we do, for example, if I want to use some electricity I don't have to know how it works, all I need to be able to do is operate the interface

[Max White]

I wasn't implying abstraction, I know how most of the vital parts of a computer work to the state where as I can build a simplistic computer from wires and transistors. Especialy an analog computer, they tend to be easyer, but reguardless, give me more time and the text books to catch up on the parts I don't currently know, and I could build any computer, although the time required could break into hundreds of years.

And your right, a genome does not ned to know how a brain works, and just because I have Siquo's dna dosn't mean I know what he is thinking, and just because I can build a car dosn't mean I can drive one, but these examples use calculation, rather then understanding.

Calculation != understanding.

[optimumtact]

I know, I was just remarking that to me, it seems to follow this remarkable principle.

[Zrk2]

What is the current debate? I want to get into this again.

[optimumtact]

Partly about the watchmakers fallacy and partly about whether or not we could understand god, or he could understand us. I slightly derailed it by talking about abstraction because I didn't read what Max posted properly.

[Zrk2]

If there is a god we cannot understand him because he is defined as being incomprehensible. All descriptions of him say he cannot be described, so the best comprehension of him would be knowing that he is incomprehensible. If he is real.

[Shade-o]

And a weakness to iron weaponry. That's got to be a big part of it.