How human language refutes atheism

Holy Crap!
Post Reply
Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by Coito ergo sum » Wed Nov 10, 2010 5:54 pm

spinoza99 wrote:
Tero wrote:
All knowledge is contained in particles. There is no other way to store information.
This is a very important point. And I'm glad someone is willing to stand up for this idea.
Well, that's actually wrong Knowledge is not contained in "a" particle. Knowledge just how the human brain interprets information it receives from its senses - it's stored in neural structures in the brain. A single particle doesn't have any "knowledge."
spinoza99 wrote:
If knowledge is stored in particles then why is it that two carbons atoms will exhibit different qualities. They are exactly the same. Why would they do different things?
They don't. They don't do different things or exhibit different qualities. Well, they do different things in different situations, of course. Like if a Carbon atom comes into contact with two Oxygen atoms it will bond with them forming carbon dioxide. But, if another carbon atom comes in contact with only one oxygen atom it will bond with them forming carbon monoxide. If a bunch of carbon comes under some pressure, it can form coal, and if it comes under more pressure it can form diamonds. But, that doesn't mean the atoms are different - the atoms are acting as they should under different circumstances. Under the same circumstances they will act the same.
spinoza99 wrote:
Let me explain further. To get certain one-celled organisms you need to sequence 600,000 base DNA pairs into a certain sequence. (The odds of which are one in 10^3600 but that doesn't matter here)
The odds of what? Having one randomly spring out of a bowl full of DNA pairs shaken up randomly? Sure. But, that's not what happens in reality.
spinoza99 wrote:
T G A C are all composed of the same structure. But if what you say is true, that knowledge is located in the particle, then why would one one T do something different than another T.
Knowledge is not "in" a particle. T's do different things under different circumstances.
spinoza99 wrote:
For example, let's say you have this sequence:

TTTTAGGCCTTAAG

And now it is necessary for a T to follow. Why would one T know
T's don't "know" anything. That's anthropomorphizing again.
spinoza99 wrote:
that his time to attach is now,
It's like a carbon atom bonding to an oxygen atom. It's what they do.
spinoza99 wrote:
and the other G A C know that their time to attach is not now? In other words, these four nucleic acids, all 600,000 of them need to know the proper sequence of the whole organism. Moreover, they don't need to just know the sequence of that organism, but every T G A C needs to know the sequence of every being in all of existence. They all need to know what organism is currently being sequenced and behave accordingly. How could that information possibly be encoded in the carbon and hydrogen and nitrogen? It makes far more sense that that knowledge exists in an immaterial mind that has power and will to move the nucleic acids where it wants.
They don't "know" anything. They behave according to physics and chemistry. These processes can be watched under microscopes. We see them happening. They can be measured. There are no violations of any physical laws occurring. Every piece is moving as it is expected to move. Nobody is looking at these processes and going "Jiminy Crickets man! The laws of physics don't allow for these chemicals to act like that! What are they doing!? Must be the invisible hand of god...."

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by Coito ergo sum » Wed Nov 10, 2010 5:56 pm

Gawdzilla wrote:Alas, Babble on.
Great book, by the way...

Image

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Nov 10, 2010 5:59 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Gawdzilla wrote:Alas, Babble on.
Great book, by the way...

Image
Pair it up with Earth Abides.
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

User avatar
Feck
.
.
Posts: 28391
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by Feck » Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:07 pm

Why bother writing this rubbish Spinoza stick to philosophy or some other area that there are some gaps in that you can claim your woo hides in but If you think the above is going to prove anything other than your total lack of insight to even the most basic genetics then you should probably seek help .If you want a clue look up how PCR works .
In all your threads you have been given the chance to learn and links to follow, it is blatantly obvious that you have not bothered to read much, even on the forum never mind anywhere else . At this point when dealing with a boring Troll some members of this forum have a habit of posting pictures of huge Breasts ...I'm not a great Breast fan so This will have to do
Trigger Warning!!!1! :
No can't I be bothered your rubbish doesn't even warrant a pretty picture
:hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog:
Give me the wine , I don't need the bread

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:24 pm

Feck wrote:Why bother writing this rubbish Spinoza stick to philosophy or some other area that there are some gaps in that you can claim your woo hides in but If you think the above is going to prove anything other than your total lack of insight to even the most basic genetics then you should probably seek help .
The problem is blind arrogance. "All I have to do is baffle them with bullshit and they'll be impressed." Too fuckin' bad we've seen this shit before. Just another sad sack with a banner.
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

spinoza99
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:19 am
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by spinoza99 » Wed Nov 10, 2010 7:25 pm

T's don't "know" anything. That's anthropomorphizing again. It's like a carbon atom bonding to an oxygen atom. It's what they do. They don't "know" anything. They behave according to physics and chemistry. These processes can be watched under microscopes. We see them happening. They can be measured. There are no violations of any physical laws occurring. Every piece is moving as it is expected to move. Nobody is looking at these processes and going "Jiminy Crickets man! The laws of physics don't allow for these chemicals to act like that! What are they doing!? Must be the invisible hand of god...."
Yes, they do have the property of binding, but they only have the property to bind to any, in this case the backbone of DNA which is sugar and phosphate. They do not have the property to be aware of the exact sequence, which is what is needed. I'm also not suggesting that they know, I'm suggesting that some mind knows and puts it there.
Also no one has ever seen all the numerous parts of a cell self-assemble into a cell. If they have, please provide citation. There are, however, plenty of animations of cells in action. I would like you to watch one of them and answer for me how is it that the chaperonins were built specifically to transport proteins. Those chaperonins were constructed with a clear purpose in mind: to transport proteins. How could those chaperonins have been constructed for a purpose if there was no mind to know what that purpose was?
http://www.youtube.com/user/ndsuvirtual ... fDYGanMi6Q

and now a side issue:
spinoza99 wrote:
To get certain one-celled organisms you need to sequence 600,000 base DNA pairs into a certain sequence. (The odds of which are one in 10^3600 but that doesn't matter here)
The odds of what? Having one randomly spring out of a bowl full of DNA pairs shaken up randomly? Sure. But, that's not what happens in reality.
I admit I should have been more clear. The odds of 4 different nucleobases lining up in the correct sequence of 600,000.
Those who are most effective at reproducing will reproduce. Therefore new species can arise by chance. Charles Darwin.

User avatar
GenesForLife
Bertie Wooster
Posts: 1392
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:44 pm
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by GenesForLife » Wed Nov 10, 2010 8:08 pm

One may note that the capacity for language does have a lot to do with the FOXP2 gene, since some mutations of this lead to problems with syntax and grammar, among other things.

User avatar
GenesForLife
Bertie Wooster
Posts: 1392
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:44 pm
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by GenesForLife » Wed Nov 10, 2010 8:15 pm

From that paper, we have this.
Individuals with disruption of FOXP2 have multiple difficulties with both expressive and receptive aspects of language and grammar,
and the nature of the core deficit remains a matter of debate18–20. Nevertheless, a predominant feature of the phenotype of affected
individuals is an impairment of selection and sequencing of fine orofacial movements18, an ability that is typical of humans and not
present in the great apes. We speculate that some human-specific feature of FOXP2, perhaps one or both of the amino-acid substitutions
in exon 7, affect a person’s ability to control orofacial movements and thus to develop proficient spoken language.
The paper in question is Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language
Wolfgang Enard*, Molly Przeworski*, Simon E. Fisher†, Cecilia S. L. Lai†,
Victor Wiebe*, Takashi Kitano*, Anthony P. Monaco† & Svante Pa¨a¨bo*

NATURE |VOL 418 | 22 AUGUST 2002

And the diversion ends there, please carry on...

User avatar
electricwhiteboy
Ipsissimus
Posts: 392
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:43 pm
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by electricwhiteboy » Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:13 pm

In “the beginning” was "The Word". With "The Word" WE MADE THE FUCKING GODS, AND WE MADE THEM OUT OF CLAY! Before that the Universe got along quite happily without language and without any metaphysical bullshit and without our art or fiction. Language caused matter, ie humans, do odd things, brilliant things, dangerous, and sometimes beautiful things. That's about as much as you can safely assume.

Someone has some very kooky ideas about information, and doesn’t really understand what it means methinks.

spinoza99
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:19 am
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by spinoza99 » Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:28 pm

I'm still waiting for a good definition for how something that is immaterial can know something. ... You, Spinoza99, have preconceived that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the brain to do it itself, and you surmise that there MUST be some "immaterial" entity at work. However, there is no indication that that's necessary, and there is every indication that the brain is doing these functions on its own.
Ok, this is a fair demand. I'm wrong to demand materialists to answer how material knows, and for that I apologize. But I'm not wrong to ask which is more logical for the source of knowledge, the material or the immaterial? After all you want to know it too. We both agree that knowledge exists, I think, and we both agree that knowledge, at least in one sense, is the ability to routinely choose the right choice. Neither of us can answer how material or the immaterial has knowledge but we can decide which is more logical to be the source of knowledge: material or immaterial? We can't observe immaterial but we can observe material and we are aware of its properties. When we analyze Brownian Motion we observe that its movements are utterly uncoordinated and without purpose. It would be illogical to believe that the source of coordination lies in particles which are so incapable of coordination. Second, two identical bodies should act in the same way. If they behave differently then the source of that difference can't be in the body because the bodies are the same. Now, when we have a DNA sequence TCGAAAG and the next body must be C, well why does C go there when all four of the nucleobases have the property to come next. All of those nucleobases have the property to attach to that DNA backbone but somehow there is a knowledge that they must be sequenced a certain way. Well, all four have the same property to bind to that sugar and phosphate but they don't always bind, what is the source of that difference? That source can't be located in the bodies because the bodies are the same.



You don't have to code the language. You just have to code the ability. That's why there are myriad languages. The words aren't coded - they are invented by the brains. The brains are capable of language. You don't have to code every instruction and every output - we're not card reading computers.
If we're not card readers then I suppose we have to choose the right card on our own free will. If all bodies act according to physical laws, then where does choice come from?

No it isn't. It absolutely is NOT a necessary consequence of materialism or monism that there be a random word generator in our heads.
It is. If you know a word exists and that word is not coded for in space then it must exist in the immaterial. If it exists and its source cannot be material then its source is immaterial.


Magnetism can also coordinate two or more bodies. ... gravity can coordinate material, but it does so mindlessly.
This is a very important point because you have to understand what coordination is. Coordination requires the routine selection of a right choice picked out from a very large set. Magnetism attracts all objects according to a predictable law. It does not choose anything.




******
And now the side issues:

"I don't know" is not the same as "I can't possibly have an explanation." ... It's all just a way to take "I don't know" and replace it with an arbitrary explanation that makes one feel better.
This is like saying, just because I don't have a material explanation for something does not mean there isn't one, which is tantamount to saying: I know that there is a material explanation for everything, even though there are some things that I cannot account for.

Modern science has uncovered that certain sections of the brain are responsible for certain things, even our moral sense.
I think that would be difficult to prove, seeing as it's so hard to agree on what moral is.
Basically, groups of neurons form functional networks which do the thinking, remembering, perceiving, interpreting, moralizing, dreaming, longing, etc. The structures in the brain do these things without the need, as far as we can tell, of an outside "immaterial" influence.
I agree that certain locations in the brain are responsible for certain things. Remember I believe in the Samuel Taylor Cooleride theory of mind: the right neurons in the right order. You need a mind to coordinate the neurons, they can't coordinate themselves.




It's not necessarily that language itself conferred the advantage - the large, more capable brain is a powerful tool and only one of its many abilities is language. As it happens, language does provide a huge advantage - even rudimentary grunts and calls provide an advantage - because messages can be sent over longer distances than face-to-face, and knowledge can be passed from one generation to another (even very basic knowledge).
I'm not convinced. The languageless also get to pass on their genes. Moreover, two humans of the same tribe would have to have the same mutation at the same time.

the amino acid sequence
of histone H4 from a
pea and from a cow differ at only 2 of the 102
positions.

That would mean that 100 of those amino acids mostly likely are necessary and can only be sequenced one way, but let's be dishonest and say that only 90 are necessary.
Necessary for what? When? And, why can they only be sequenced "one" way?
[/quote]
Certain functions are necessary to the cell's life. You read what Albert said, he said the proteins are precisely built and he's a Darwinist. The Histone H4 as you can see has barely changed over millions of years. If there is another way, it has not appeared in nature. Some of the same proteins do appear differently in other animals, unfortunately Albert did not give us more information on how different they are.

spinoza99 wrote:
What are the odds of forming a protein 90 amino acids long spontaneously?
Evolution doesn't say the string of 90 or 100 were formed "spontaneously," though, does it?
If it doesn't work it's discarded. There is a minimum number of amino acids before a protein refuses to be discarded. It depends on the protein, some of them require 2000, which are horrendous odds.
spinoza99 wrote:
around one in 10^90. That's just one protein. That's how hard it is to do one baby step. There are about two million known proteins, though they all have different function, even if you imagine that a million protein sequences are available for a certain function, the odds are still one in 10^84. I've already stated numerous times in this forum that if each atom were to try to form a protein for every nanosecond in the history of our universe that would still only bring us to only 10^106 events.
However, what you've described is a straw man. Evolution doesn't suggest it happening that way.
It does, evolution cites the baby-steps formula. One protein is one baby-step. A protein that does not work does not make a successful step. That baby-step is too large to be crossed through undirected means.



And, you're making false associations anyway. Like ...all atheists are monists/materialists - or if monism/materialism is wrong then there is a god, etc. One, so what if it was a necessary consequence of monism/materialism? Either we have language or we don't. Either it evolved or was specially created. Dualists can certainly accept evolution, and due, and so can monists, and monists can believe in gods and often do.
It would be illogical to think:
A. The Universe is partly coordinated
B. I believe coordination is due to an immaterial force
C. But I don't believe the Universe is coordinated due to an immaterial force
Those who are most effective at reproducing will reproduce. Therefore new species can arise by chance. Charles Darwin.

User avatar
electricwhiteboy
Ipsissimus
Posts: 392
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:43 pm
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by electricwhiteboy » Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:43 pm

spinoza99 wrote:Ok, this is a fair demand. I'm wrong to demand materialists to answer how material knows, and for that I apologize.
One theory is that the electromagnetic field generated by the brain is the actual carrier of conscious experience. That's still a bit woo and not favoured by neuroscientists, but it's still more logical than any of your musings.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by Coito ergo sum » Wed Nov 10, 2010 11:15 pm

spinoza99 wrote:
T's don't "know" anything. That's anthropomorphizing again. It's like a carbon atom bonding to an oxygen atom. It's what they do. They don't "know" anything. They behave according to physics and chemistry. These processes can be watched under microscopes. We see them happening. They can be measured. There are no violations of any physical laws occurring. Every piece is moving as it is expected to move. Nobody is looking at these processes and going "Jiminy Crickets man! The laws of physics don't allow for these chemicals to act like that! What are they doing!? Must be the invisible hand of god...."
Yes, they do have the property of binding, but they only have the property to bind to any, in this case the backbone of DNA which is sugar and phosphate.
Of course. Some enzymes react under certain circumstances, and others react under other circumstances. Some elements of the periodic table can bond with other elements of the periodic table, but they can't all bond with each other. Some things are soluble in water, and other things are not soluble in water.
spinoza99 wrote:
They do not have the property to be aware of the exact sequence, which is what is needed.

Awareness is no more required than a Sodium atom needs to be aware that it can join with Chlorine to form Sodium Chloride.
spinoza99 wrote:
I'm also not suggesting that they know, I'm suggesting that some mind knows and puts it there.
A mind is not required to do that, though. They can do what they do because of the properties of matter.
spinoza99 wrote:
Also no one has ever seen all the numerous parts of a cell self-assemble into a cell.
Sure they have: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 152757.htm Scientists 'Watch' Formation of Cells' Protein Factories, Ribosomes, for First Time - here's blood cell birth under a microscope: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoBf7Nfg ... re=related and Electron microscopes viewing cells --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNN_1A3U ... 1&index=48

Nobody has seen "numerous parts of a cell self-assemble into a cell" - the way you put it - because that's not how cells come to be. There aren't pieces of the cells laying about on the floor and suddenly they "self assemble." These are biological organisms and cells are created biologically. You need to read something like this: http://www.molbiolcell.org/ or http://www.amazon.com/Molecular-Biology ... 0815332181
spinoza99 wrote:
If they have, please provide citation.
http://www.molbiolcell.org/ or http://www.amazon.com/Molecular-Biology ... 0815332181

REmember - the straw man you created where you want to see cells picking themselves up from scattered pieces and putting themselves together is not biology.
spinoza99 wrote:
There are, however, plenty of animations of cells in action.
And, plenty of views of cells and even proteins (parts of cells), and even individual ATOMS, all the way down - under electron microscopes.
spinoza99 wrote:
I would like you to watch one of them and answer for me how is it that the chaperonins were built specifically to transport proteins. Those chaperonins were constructed with a clear purpose in mind: to transport proteins. How could those chaperonins have been constructed for a purpose if there was no mind to know what that purpose was?
http://www.youtube.com/user/ndsuvirtual ... fDYGanMi6Q
They were not created for a purpose any more than than a pothole was created for the purpose of holding water. It CAN hold water, but it was not created for any purpose.

and now a side issue:
spinoza99 wrote:
To get certain one-celled organisms you need to sequence 600,000 base DNA pairs into a certain sequence. (The odds of which are one in 10^3600 but that doesn't matter here)
The odds of what? Having one randomly spring out of a bowl full of DNA pairs shaken up randomly? Sure. But, that's not what happens in reality.
I admit I should have been more clear. The odds of 4 different nucleobases lining up in the correct sequence of 600,000.[/quote]

It's actually very likely - they're chemical bonds - see, for example:

Image

It's not different in character than this:

Image

It's chemistry.

How does pure carbon "know" to form pure graphite?

Here's a cholesterol molecule (C27H46O) :

Image

What are the odds of these molecules forming?

Here's an amino acid:

Image

Here is a protein:

Image

Do you see the pattern, Spinoza?

See - they are just elements from the periodic table that merge naturally to form "molecules" -- molecules than bond to other molecules and more elements and form bigger molecules...... all perfectly naturally and without "knowing" or "awareness" - it's the properties of the matter.

With the right mix of chemicals, we get nucleotides:

Image


With the right mix of nucleotides, we get ---- drum roll please..... nucleic acid and nucleobases (nucleic acid bases):

Image

Image

And, when enough of these nucleic acids form, we get -- mega drum roll please!

Image

DEOXYRIBONUCLEIC ACID


My friend, Spinoza --- it's just a great big ole molecule full of nucleic acids and such that bond together just the same as other molecules bond together. It's a very natural process.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by Coito ergo sum » Wed Nov 10, 2010 11:18 pm

spinoza99 wrote:Ok, this is a fair demand. I'm wrong to demand materialists to answer how material knows, and for that I apologize.
Material - atoms, molecules, etc....doesn't "know."

Consciousness is something created by the brain.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by Coito ergo sum » Wed Nov 10, 2010 11:21 pm

spinoza99 wrote:

You don't have to code the language. You just have to code the ability. That's why there are myriad languages. The words aren't coded - they are invented by the brains. The brains are capable of language. You don't have to code every instruction and every output - we're not card reading computers.
If we're not card readers then I suppose we have to choose the right card on our own free will. If all bodies act according to physical laws, then where does choice come from?
There are no cards. You seem to be of the assumption that physical laws have anything to do with "choice." They don't.

Let me ask it this way: what law(s) - give me an example - precludes free choice, and why?

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by Coito ergo sum » Wed Nov 10, 2010 11:28 pm

No it isn't. It absolutely is NOT a necessary consequence of materialism or monism that there be a random word generator in our heads.
spinoza99 wrote:]It is. If you know a word exists and that word is not coded for in space then it must exist in the immaterial. If it exists and its source cannot be material then its source is immaterial.
No words are "coded for" in space, and there need not be a warehouse of words somewhere outside of the brain. The brain has storage capacity, and the words are stored there. Information is transferred from short-term memory (also known as working memory) to long-term memory through the hippocampus.

Image Image

Image

http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/i/i_07/ ... r_tra.html

The brain has structures that store memory - long term and short term.

Different parts of the brain do different things, like language: http://www.neuroskills.com/tbi/btemporl.shtml

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests