[b]the Verdict On Intelligent Design[/b], [B]"Breathtaking Inanity"![/B]

Dear gorgeous. You write...

=======================

It matters not, to me, what people 'believe', as only their actions have any effect in the REAL world, but thousands of years of belief in an 'omnipotent being' has not made us any wiser, or more 'moralistic', in fact quite the reverse. However, it may be prudent to note that people care for the things they find 'beautiful', and do not feel like destroying that which they care about...

=======================.

Belief precedes action, because indeed (IMHO), you are correct, people do not destroy that which they care about.

The two go hand in hand, meaning perhaps, IF you agree, you may wish to restate?

Best,
Raphie

No, consideration is not 'belief'. People imagine all sorts of things, but must correlate their thoughts with that which actually exists, hence the need for 'science'.


g.

Dear Gorgeous,

You write...

===========================================
"No, consideration is not 'belief'. People imagine all sorts of things, but must correlate their thoughts with that which actually exists, hence the need for 'science'."
===========================================

1) "What" actually exists when we are speaking of belief except for the belief itself? This is PEOPLE, not a pythagorean theoremed right triangle!

2) I agree that people must "correlate" their actions with their thoughts, but what if they are thinking "Let's kill all people with blue eyes?"

See...
Brown eyes, blue eyes: teaching tolerance in America
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opin...2644_mlk17.html

Should "action " correlate with belief in such a world? Or...

3) Ought we not to think at times about changing the beliefs so that they will then be reasonably "actionable"?

This post has been edited by Raphie Frank on Nov 23 2007, 10:45 AM

Dear Photojack,

Is THIS Quantum Entanglement?



TYC'S ITHACA CHANGES THE AUDIENCES' WAY OF SEEING THINGS

At the world premiere of the Ithaca 2888 at the Prague Theatre of Vinohrady both the contemporary music and dance fans met and the unique experience of the performance united the two expressive streams into one. The composer and conductor Pert Kofroò's one hour presentation, based on the graphic list of Odyssea by Anestis Logothetis from 1964, opted for one of the possible interpretations, and the dance was performed by members of the Prague Chamber Ballet under Petr Tyc's leadership and direction. Logothetis's music as well as Tyc's scenic action abandon dramatic ark and grading. The magnetic field of the performance is fed with sound and action vectors and the result is the state of the spectator's mind - comparable to the state of mind after taking in an abstract image. Kofroò was able to find in the graphic list what probably was not possible to ignore: the nervy and chaotic atmosphere as well as some extraordinarily onomatopoeic parts.

http://www.volny.cz/tanec.tyc/en/ithaka/recenze1.htm

Please do post the link to the thread you mentioned.

Kindest Regards,
Raphie

P.S. I was the lighting designer for this piece -- the score was a visual score -- and also know a thing or two about "quantum entanglement" on an "intuitive" level from running a culture house back in Prague during the early 1990's.

See...

The Asylum Culture House & The Warholesquian Sensibility
http://raphie.wordpress.com/2006/11/14/the...an-sensibility/

Example of a Visual Score by Logothetis...


P.P.S. Folks on this board such as RPenner and Alphanumeric, wonderful posters I might add, often are desirous of mathematical "ciatations" to "prove" this or that notion and to serve as a "point of reference." The "problem" when it comes to the IMPLICATE, at least for me, is that the citation tends to be the life one lives and the life one leads, or alternatively, is "led into," not unrelated to the post re: people as intelligent designers I originally made upon this thread. (That said, I am in the process of trying to learn the associated math, but have been a bit busy...)

See...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=285367


ABOUT ANESTIS LOGOTHETIS
Anestis Logothetis (1921 – 1994) was one of the first – and remains one of the finest – artists to work simultaneously in the auditory and visual dimensions. His drawings take their start from Western traditions of musical notation before moving out into feasts of virtuosic penmanship. As scores, these images identify every aspect of the musical work which accompanies them, whilst remaining open to new technological developments.
from... http://www.logothetisproject.co.uk/

This post has been edited by Raphie Frank on Nov 23 2007, 11:33 AM

The Discovery Institute is probably not as pessimistic.

Oh, so do you think that the "opinion" of The Discovery Institute matters? That's an appeal to authority. What kind of "authority" is Discovery Institute?

The Discovery Institute is a corporate entity and as such has no morals, as such, other than those of its individual members. Those standards are not very high. It's like they never heard of the ninth commandment.

http://texscience.org/files/discovery/miller.htm
"unfair harassment, intimidation, and extortion."
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/OReilly.cfm
Stephen Meyer is not "of Cambridge University."
"the only really important issue here is whether Sternberg did indeed violate the procedures of the journal, and whether the article he published was any good. He did, and it wasn't. Everything else is just politics and PR. "

Furthermore the Discovery Institute nowhere asserts any predictive model of intellegent design. How many designers were there? When did they begin? When did they stop? Why do humans and fish have blind spots when octopi do not? What fact is the Discovery Institute holding secret or proving that others ignore?

MisterBelfry, The Discovery Institute's people formulated the Wedge strategy which describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." THEY HAVE NO SCIENCE AT ALL, CONSONANT WITH CHRISTIAN AND THEISTIC FABLES AND MYTHS! Just what is a "theistic conviction? A euphemism for BLIND "FAITH"?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

MisterBelfry, Whether the Discovery Institute would not be that pessimistic MATTERS NOT in the debate on this all important topic. Their opinion is not only worthless, it is biased and they are trying to drive a wedge where there should be none. Their strategy is insidious, wrongly oriented and corrupt. The Discovery Institute has less science behind it than Mickey Mouse! LONG LIVE SCIENCE (AND ANIMATION!) (())

- and Pythagoras was a person too.

- They must learn that all action has consequence.

- All things are 'actionable', as everything always changes. This is not some 'doctrine', but the natural laws of existence, which 'believers' seem to want to deny. 'Ought' is a subjective view. 'Ought' we to murder ourselves in ignorance, or 'ought' we to try and understand the reality, so that we can learn how to exist within it better? - It's OUR choice, but we must learn to choose wisely, as the are Consequences to every action.

You will not stop 'mad' people emerging into a society that is already MAD! - They are products of the society itself. Therefore, you must go deeper, to the REAL cause of the initial madness...Depends on whether you really want a cure, or not. If you find profit in societies madness, obviously you will want it to stay mad!


g.

This post has been edited by Gorgeous on Nov 24 2007, 11:45 AM

g. quote.

Gee! Are you describing yourself and your background here? Do you want a cure, sweetie? Nothing you said counters the wisdom that Raphie Frank posted. You are once again, nit-picking semantics, thereby RUINING the flow of these posts on yet another thread! Please address the topic of the threads you post on, like I did directly above. Help to clarify, don't confuse and muddle our posts!

Don't worry yourself, pj. It's all getting much clearer all the time... Seem to have touched yet another of your raw nerves with some comments, sweetie, but they weren't aimed at you, which makes it a strange occurrence that you should feel the need to respond in such a way..

It all came from this, that Mr. Frank seemed to have a problem with...

...this is actually an affirmation of the very things that you allude to, so how you can have a problem with it is anyone's (educated) guess! - Or are you now going to 'spontaneously' become 'religious' all of a sudden?

- Of course! People can only display that which they are. I watch 'the news', and I see people destroying their own Planet and its atmosphere, or murdering each other in the name of 'freedom'!!!!. From this, I deduce 'madness'. I also watch the 'forums', see no less 'madness' than anywhere else...People destroying their own threads for no apparent reason, as an example.



g.

g. I posted as I did, to state my agreement with Raphie Frank and to bring attention to YOUR muddling things up. You are still muddling things up! No, I am NOT going to 'spontaneously' become 'religious' all of a sudden? More muddling from you, sweetie?

My reference to your paragraph on madness was facetiously directed at YOU, sweetie! Swoosh! Right over your head! (())

...and there was I, trying to eliminate facetiousness! Swooooshhh...oh well.


g.

"Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design is Wrong for Our Schools"

From Randy Moore's review in BioScience (November 2007; 57 [10]: 885-886)

Bill Nye the Science Guy wrote, "If you're concerned about scientific literacy, read this book. The authors of Not in Our Classrooms are authorities on the various battles fought over the teaching of evolution -- biology's fundamental discovery."

g. Please try to create and post something new like I did right here. Some new news or other information directly related to the thread, not petty nit-picking or nearly useless semantic games that only muddle our issues!

=============================================================
The following began as a post on another thread, that I then edited and clarified and posted to my blog. It may perhaps help to explain my position which is anything but anti-science. The full and annotated (i.e. linked) version is on my blog and may be of interest to some who this way come. Feedback on this board is of course welcome...
=============================================================


photo by Sean Sheridan (of his daughter)

Toward An Exceptional Theory of Everything & Ptolemy's Revenge

Dear [Friend],

In relation to the issue of Intelligent Design, all the rage in the news these days, you mention that clinging to Aristotle is both Anti-Science and Anti-Evolution. I both agree and disagree. Certainly clinging to Aristotle is both Anti-Science and Anti-Evolution, in my view, anyway, but “Einstein on a Surfboard,” Garret Lisi’s recent Grand Unification theory “An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything,” bringing the poor orphan of Physics, Gravity, out of the cold and into the Standard Model fold with the other three fundamental forces of nature via the E8 Lie Group — which at least some blogs are referring to as “Ptolemy’s Revenge” — would seem to suggest that a dialectical synthesis of old and new together, the precision of the technological Modern Age with the wisdom of the Ancients, may just be possible in a non-partisan, creed-blind manner.

Whatever your personal view of the theory, it has certainly generated a fair amount of interest from such notable Physicists as Lee Smolin, Peter Woit, and John Baez, while string theorists such as Karlovy-Vary, Czech Republic-based Lubos Motl are apoplectic, already proclaiming the fiery apocalypse, not just of planet Earth, but of the entire Universe! (from Motl's blog post: Telegraph: Cosmologists are killing the Universe on Motl’s blog “Reference Frame“).

I would suggest that what has in large part created the “ruckus” of late in the Physics community is that many believe Lisi’s theory may lead to the New Dark Ages, a reversion to the blind mysticism and ignorance of the Pre-Galileans, with attendant political consequences that could severely threaten separation of church and state, one of the most sacrosanct bedrocks of any free and pluralistic society...

--------------------------------------------
additional excerpt... (for photojack :-))
--------------------------------------------

In other words, it’s not this or that, but this and that because this is that. Not just the light and the dark — what artists might call the “positive and negative space” — but also the underlying order that threads them both together in celestial chiaroscuro.

====================
For more read the blog post...

Toward An Exceptional Theory of Everything & Ptolemy's Revenge

This post has been edited by Raphie Frank on Nov 25 2007, 03:33 PM

(I) must say (I) find it sad that all of your energies seem directed towards this inane end when the reality is that the god concept is probably something that should be taught in physics classes - as well as in Bio as potential of energy of cellular animation - and is, as the very astute Justice ('Solomon' in a minefield - they were) in that case saw, not based in Christianities Bible or biblical interpretation or any singular Religious/Religions' credence/belief.

It should be based upon scientific premises as extensions of Known potentials as per the indicators found (By experimentation) in reality.

Dear Robin Parsons,

It's the implications of the theory that are important. The theory provides a possible "bridge" to a more inclusive approach to physics. It need not even be "right." He is asking "questions that matter" and that is what is most important and could open up doors to a lot of scientists currently excluded from sources of funding and more, to the detriment of scientific progress, in my opinion.

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvellous structure of reality."
-- Albert Einstein (1879-1955) Physicist

From the blog...

Just a Thought!
http://www.davidwoon.com/blog/2006/08/ques...hat-matter.html

Best,
Raphie

This post has been edited by Raphie Frank on Nov 25 2007, 03:38 PM