Producing a hierarchy of human life .

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

Mike, you possibly know the expression "He sleeps with the fishes". It relates to an incident in Mario Puzio's Godfather novel where one of the characters has his body disposed of in the sea.

If this were to happen to you and the fishes consumed your remains, I think that rather screws up the hierarchy you are trying to assemble. As I have argued from the outset, you have failed, thus far, to justify elevating this particular hierarchy over the many other exist. In those other hierarchies the fish are typically level with, or even above us.

I am getting ready ! 

 

 

In answer to your comments . I think what I am attempting is a special case scenario. Rather than trying to state a special HEIRACHY for use with cataloging biological ranking generally . I am trying to establish " that a rule for certain positioning , say of Gold fish to Humans " which I call a  HEIRACHY. 

Carries with it certain attitude and behaviour on both sides .  Say respect, a gentle measure of fear, expectancy , pleasure , superiority! This is gold fish toward me. Whereas I have a certain ownership, concern for their well being . 

If I now attempt to take this approach when suggesting a superior to humans . I could look for the similar type of interplay, feeling , position ( HEIRACHY) . If I can find this anywhere , maybe I am touching on Gods territory . Do I get the same or similar type of interplay , feeling . Superiority , ( inferiority, Gods  ownership , concern for well being, HEIRACHY? 

Be this only on an experiment basis . Will this test for the relevance of God in the relationship of man to God , God to man ? 

 

mike 

Edited August 24, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Area54]

You are projecting your feelings onto the goldfish and quite misinterpreting how they view you. You then project the same quality of feelings onto the imagined superior being. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Manticore]

Reality doesn't look very hierarchical to me at all.

 

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

There is something very distinctive as I attend my pool ( with the goldfish in ) . My eyes gaze about the various goldfish swimming about . 

WITHOUT FAIL , ....I AUTOMATICALLY COUNT THE FISH . 

CURRENTLY     10  ( 7 gold coloured , 3 black ) . There was 11 , but when I counted only 10 , . I immediately combed with my eyes , and 'low and behold ' the Big fish was dead . 

This daily procedure of automatically counting to see they were all there , I could not stop. 

I then thought , is there a comparison with the upper HEIRACHY to us humans . Is there a daily count to see we are ALL ALRIGHT. . Then it came to me . There was some discussion somewhere between JESUS  and some onlookers ( not sure who) but Jesus was heard to say something to the effect that " fear not ". " not a single Bird or animal , falls to the ground and dies without this knowledge being known to God . So there is the similarity of behaviour between the two HEIRACHY.  Quite interesting . Found ref .

( Ref Bible Matthew chap 10: verse 29-31 ) 

Even we , on earth , have head counts to the nearest 10,000 . There appears to be a mechanism in place , the next up in the HEIRACHY, where the numbers of ' man ' and ' beast ' are known  exactly . 

 

Mike 

Edited August 24, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

There is something very distinctive as I attend my pool ( with the goldfish in ) . My eyes gaze about the various goldfish swimming about . 

WITHOUT FAIL , ....I AUTOMATICALLY COUNT THE FISH . 

CURRENTLY     10  ( 7 gold coloured , 3 black ) . There was 11 , but when I counted only 10 , . I immediately combed with my eyes , and 'low and behold ' the Big fish was dead . 

This daily procedure of automatically counting to see they were all there , I could not stop. 

I then thought , is there a comparison with the upper HEIRACHY to us humans . Is there a daily count to see we are ALL ALRIGHT. . Then it came to me . There was some discussion somewhere between JESUS  and some onlookers ( not sure who) but Jesus was heard to say something to the effect that " fear not ". " not a single Bird or animal , falls to the ground and dies without this knowledge being known to God . So there is the similarity of behaviour between the two HEIRACHY.  Quite interesting . Found ref .

( Ref Bible Matthew chap 10: verse 29-31 ) 

Even we , on earth , have head counts to the nearest 10,000 . There appears to be a mechanism in place , the next up in the HEIRACHY, where the numbers of ' man ' and ' beast ' are known  exactly . 

 

Mike 

 

 

Why should what some fairy tale claims have anything to do with reality Mike? The Bible is demonstrably wrong about everything it asserts about the natural world that can be confirmed one way or another. Why should anyone give any credence to what any ancient book of mythology says about anything? 

 

I will again say, show me evidence for a god, then we can talk about evidence for your god. What some (not so) ancient book says is meaningless unless it can be confirmed in some way. The Bible is not evidence of anything, the Bible is a book of claims that need supporting evidence...

[Area54]

1 hour ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

There is something very distinctive as I attend my pool ( with the goldfish in ) . My eyes gaze about the various goldfish swimming about . 

WITHOUT FAIL , ....I AUTOMATICALLY COUNT THE FISH . 

CURRENTLY     10  ( 7 gold coloured , 3 black ) . There was 11 , but when I counted only 10 , . I immediately combed with my eyes , and 'low and behold ' the Big fish was dead . 

This daily procedure of automatically counting to see they were all there , I could not stop. 

I then thought , is there a comparison with the upper HEIRACHY to us humans . Is there a daily count to see we are ALL ALRIGHT. . Then it came to me . There was some discussion somewhere between JESUS  and some onlookers ( not sure who) but Jesus was heard to say something to the effect that " fear not ". " not a single Bird or animal , falls to the ground and dies without this knowledge being known to God . So there is the similarity of behaviour between the two HEIRACHY.  Quite interesting . Found ref .

( Ref Bible Matthew chap 10: verse 29-31 ) 

Even we , on earth , have head counts to the nearest 10,000 . There appears to be a mechanism in place , the next up in the HEIRACHY, where the numbers of ' man ' and ' beast ' are known  exactly . 

 

Mike 

Seriously? Mike, the assertion that God is aware of the fall of a single sparrow is an assertion made by man. It is hardly surprising that it reflects the same sentiments you feel towards your goldfish. It is not evidence for the divine. It is evidence for the like thinking of men over two millenia.

As a side note, if this benign God is only checking in on us once a day he isn't doing his job right.

[Moontanman]

7 hours ago, Manticore said:

Reality doesn't look very hierarchical to me at all.

 

That is a good tree of life but I think this one best represents hierarchies:

 

 

[Area54]

Nice finds from both of you. I especially like the second one, on account of the minor parts played by humans and goldfish.

[Moontanman]

I think maybe this one is the best: It's interactive. 

 

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

18 hours ago, Area54 said:

You are projecting your feelings onto the goldfish and quite misinterpreting how they view you. You then project the same quality of feelings onto the imagined superior being. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I do understand your reasoning. However the same could be said of a strictly ' centre stage ' approach by conventional science. If we cannot stick a probe in it and measure a value ' it ain't there ' ! 

Well that might have been alright while science was doing all sorts of mechanics , atomic and electric development. But now we have gone to the outskirts of the universe , the very small sub particles , the very old , the very fast , we are coming across some things that do not behave predictably. 

How do you not know , we might be having this issue with ' the concept of super being/s ' ? 

---------------------------------------------------

Perhaps for a moment , one should take part in a modern phycological practice of " a willing suspension of disbelief " 

Like ' what if there really is such an invisible .' Absolute horde of such beings ' what if they did start the whole lot going ? What if they did leave some clues? What if they are currently observing , and are not too keen on what they see? What if they are looking for some form of inquiring approach? What if they are giving us the opportunity to search for the answer to things Philosophical , that are in fact bound up in the very life systems we already have ?  What if some of the answers are embedded in the very nature of things , such as I am proposing .? What if ?

------------------------------------------------------

Citation :- " Willing suspension of disbelief " 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief

 

Mike 

Edited August 25, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

31 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

However the same could be said of a strictly ' centre stage ' approach by conventional science.

Except, of course, it couldn't. Science works (consider the fact you are using a computer/phone and Internet to converse with people thousands of miles apart) while making stuff up, doesn't.

Quote

we are coming across some things that do not behave predictably. 

Are we? Citation needed.

31 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

What if ?

And what if there isn't?

Edited August 25, 2017 by Strange

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

I do understand your reasoning. However the same could be said of a strictly ' centre stage ' approach by conventional science. If we cannot stick a probe in it and measure a value ' it ain't there ' ! 

I have to say that this shows a rather profound ignorance of how science proceeds.

1 hour ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

 Perhaps for a moment , one should take part in a modern phycological practice of " a willing suspension of disbelief " 

That's an adage for movies, where a fictional world being depicted.  

[Strange]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

That's an adage for movies, where a fictional world being depicted.

So maybe it is appropriate here

[Area54]

2 hours ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

I do understand your reasoning. However the same could be said of a strictly ' centre stage ' approach by conventional science. If we cannot stick a probe in it and measure a value ' it ain't there ' !

No. Science currently employs methodological naturalism. In your words that mean that if we cannot currently stick a probe in it and measure it then it is not suitable for scientific investigation.

Quote

Well that might have been alright while science was doing all sorts of mechanics , atomic and electric development. But now we have gone to the outskirts of the universe , the very small sub particles , the very old , the very fast , we are coming across some things that do not behave predictably. 

I agree that we have encountered some things one might describe as unpredictable, contrary to Strange's position. I'd be interested to know what examples you consider fit the bill.

Quote

How do you not know , we might be having this issue with ' the concept of super being/s ' ?

How do I not know David Icke's claim the Royal Family is a group of alien lizards is true?

How do I not know that a conspiracy of powerful people has prevented me taking my rightful place as a world leader

How do I not know that there are not creatures that look like inflated cabbages living in the clouds of Venus?

How do I not know that the world was created in the last five minutes, with all previous memories artificially created?

In each instance, including yours, I do not know, but if I consider likelihood there is essentially no evidence for believing any of those things. I don't rule any of them out, but I certainly don't give them space on my mantelshelf.

You consider the possibility of superior beings because you like the possibility of superior beings.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

9 hours ago, Area54 said:

You consider the possibility of superior beings because you like the possibility of superior beings.

What's wrong with that ? 

 

so did Michel Angelo , so he spent a great deal of time and effort painting this picture on the Roof of the Cisteen Chapel. Of God and a few others giving Adam a start in life .

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Creation_of_Adam

 

mike 

9 hours ago, Area54 said:

 

I agree that we have encountered some things one might describe as unpredictable, contrary to Strange's position. I'd be interested to know what examples you consider fit the bill.

shronigers cat , some things about an atom that do not behave predictably until you " open the box " . ( the box that the cat is inside . ) And then you have either killed the cat , by opening the box , or given it life . But before you opened the box it was neither or both . Often in connection with radiation from the nucleus of an atom . 

Mike 

 

Edited August 25, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

38 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

What's wrong with that ? 

Nothing, as long as you are discussing religion rather than science.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

GRRHHHH ! 

So why am I awarded (-1 points ) . When I am in a relaxed Lounge environment , having a quiet glass of Presseco , chatting ( yes fairly heated at times ) with my colleagues . Where the LOUNGE is described as a place where we can discuss ' anything ' Perhaps (-1's should NOT be anonymous but have names attached . Then at least I could throw my glass of prosseco over them ) 

Having stated quite clearly earlier on , that I personally do not have any problem having one foot in the engineering scientific camp , and the other foot in the philosophical / religious camp . ( enjoying a discussion from both angles ) . 

Why should individuals want to drive me into -  SILENCE  -  , here in the lounge , when I am ( yes having a provocative discussion ) , yet stimulating the thinking process on such a needy subject , as " quite how did we come about from nowhere  , In fact how did the whole universe thing , come about from nowhere ? " 

 

Mike 

Edited August 26, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Manticore]

Perhaps it was your mis-spelling of "Schrödinger"? There do seem to be a number of grammar and spelling pedants around these days.

(Why on earth do you think somebody is trying to "SILENCE" you just because they give you a -1? Some people carry on happily with their reputation well into the negative.}

[Strange]

30 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

GRRHHHH ! 

So why am I awarded (-1 points ) .

I am tempted to give you a -1 vote for this.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

1 hour ago, Manticore said:

Perhaps it was your mis-spelling of "Schrödinger"? There do seem to be a number of grammar and spelling pedants around these days.

(Why on earth do you think somebody is trying to "SILENCE" you just because they give you a -1? Some people carry on happily with their reputation well into the negative.}

I d'ont know , I just feel a slight pressure , whenever any scientific subject, gets anywhere near , the idea of the presence of anyone else in the Universe , Other than us humans . Things get very ' Touchy' from the ardent science camp. As if there has to be a guard against any form of belief  , getting anywhere near a scientific subject. Lest it contaminate its ' Hallow Ground ' 

I am sure God himself or herself , thinks , " they need to grow up a bit , or they are never going to understand somethings , like

" Why I placed a protecting fence around ' bla-de-bla "  to prevent an accidental ' Melt Down of space ' , or some such other universally dangerous 'PHENOMENON '  ".

I am sure that's why we have been placed on a world that we are only just getting ready to move out across the Universe.  It's interesting with the " Tower of Babal " story of the occupants of Babylon building a tower to reach the sky . When a voice was heard to say " we must go down and confuse their language , as now there is nothing they cannot do to reach the sky " . It's taken thousands of years for us to overcome our language difference , and finally reach for the sky( space ) .  And these things are not fable. A war was fought recently with Sadam Hussain in or near the sacred remains of Babylon in Iraq. As indeed the wars going on in that region are all treading on the historic sites in that whole Middle East region , from early Biblical times . ( Isreal , Syria , Iran , Iraq, Afganistan, Saudi Arabia, the Red Sea etc ) 

Mike  

 

 

 

Edited August 26, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

15 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

I d'ont know , I just feel a slight pressure , whenever any scientific subject, gets anywhere near , the idea of the presence of anyone else in the Universe , Other than us humans . Things get very ' Touchy' from the ardent science camp. As if there has to be a guard against any form of belief  , getting anywhere near a scientific subject. Lest it contaminate its ' Hallow Ground ' 

It has already been explained that science can say nothing about this because it is not amenable to testing. The only "pressure" I see is people telling you not to pretend you are talking about science when you are talking about your personal beliefs.

16 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

" Why I placed a protecting fence around ' bla-de-bla "  to prevent an accidental ' Melt Down of space ' , or some such other universally dangerous 'PHENOMENON '  ".

What on Earth does that mean? It is totally incomprehensible. 

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

It has already been explained that science can say nothing about this because it is not amenable to testing. The only "pressure" I see is people telling you not to pretend you are talking about science when you are talking about your personal beliefs.

As explained earlier in this thread " I  personally have no problem whatsoever in accepting both science explanations as well as believing in a God . I make no apology for stating that although quite a lot of others get a bit sensitive ,in discussing anything that sounds like a God or Person from another world ." Within the Science Forum main subjects " . Which I do understand . This is a science forum and currently has no place for God or Space Man , due to the rules of Science ( as it currently stands ) . I personally believe we may be restricting our understanding ( not science in practice ) , but in theory . That Our  future understanding of say a subject called " SCIENCE -PLUS" will need to bring in the notion of a God ( collective ) , somehow , to make sense of the universe as a whole . Or the necessary progress will be , unable to be understood or Utilised.  That is what I in principle believe . 

I have spent my working life doing the normal Engineering - Science , bit . Which obviously needed the approach of Science as we both understand it .  Now , however , being fully retired , am not constrained by that same stricture  ( strictness ).  To me , it does not matter any more , nothing matters anymore. I am free to think what I want . Which sounds at first pass , irresponsible. But I do not mean it like that . I am freed up to look at the " what if ? " questions . 90 % , can be " blind alley " endeavours. However it can be , that by daring to ask , or think a strange thought , one may ' turn up trumps ' one day . That is if you do not go insane in the process. It is those things , that from this ' nether region ' that I dare to bring to this forum . ( not the tripe , that is clear to me at this time ' is tripe ' , but those things that I genuinely believe are true , even though they may sound a bit on the edge. )  

By bringing these up in the Lounge ( ....... Anything ) . I feel I am not doing wrong . ( no -1 's please ) 

 

Quote

What on Earth does that mean? It is totally incomprehensible. 

Well , I am here trying to speak like a ' God ' saying in effect , like a father would think about his young children playing in the garden, near his work shed. 

" you are not to go in there , as Daddy's electric tools  can hurt you. Don't go in , and if I have accidentally left the door unlocked, " do not touch daddy's tools AT ALL ! 

............ The God version of this being ....

the Tower of Babel was a " lock the door " statement , with language confusion . We are now past that !  As even if you can't understand the language , you can use a translation device . We are getting a bit near the " now there is nothing they can not do " 

Now I think it's getting near the " locking the garden shed time " or if it's accidentally left open , there are either some secondary precautions in place . Like switching the mains supply off in the house . Or an intervention in the garden to stop the kids going anywhere near the shed! 

The implication of this being :- twice this century'   ish . We have been at a dangerous point in being capable to make a real mess of the world , Nuclear War , pollution , overpopulation , violence etc which we seem unable to resist . 

I do not think any God is going to stand by and watch the world go ' belly up ' . I think an intervention is imminent ! 

Like a bigger version of the " Tower of Babel " intervention . 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel

Mike 

Edited August 26, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

26 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

This is a science forum and currently has no place for God or Space Man , due to the rules of Science ( as it currently stands ) . I personally believe we may be restricting our understanding ( not science in practice ) , but in theory . That Our  future understanding of sa

It has nothing to do with "currently". And it is probably these constant repetitions of the same errors/falsehoods that annoys people, rather than your vague waffle about your beliefs. 

[Area54]

58 minutes ago, Strange said:

It has nothing to do with "currently". And it is probably these constant repetitions of the same errors/falsehoods that annoys people, rather than your vague waffle about your beliefs. 

I have to disagree very strongly here. As I noted earlier, science employs methodological naturalism. i.e. the supernatural is excluded, not because its existence is denied, but because its existence is considered unsuitable for scientific investigation. The first scientists did not work under this "constraint". The knowledge gathered by naturalists, most/many of them churchmen, that provided the foundation for Darwin and Wallace was done to explore and glorify the creation of God. Darwin set out on the Beagle with the same attitude. I have no objection to the current arrangement, but Mike is correct that it is the current arrangement.

 

20 hours ago, Area54 said:

You consider the possibility of superior beings because you like the possibility of superior beings.

 

12 hours ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

What's wrong with that ? 

If you cannot see the illogic of that, I don't know what to say. There are valuable arguments that can be made for following one or other religion that are not based on choosing a nice philosophy just because it makes you feel good. Your position is no different than if I were to think I shall live to be at least one hundred and fifty when I shall emigrate to Mars, simply because this is what I should like to do! It's just silly. (My unedited post contained many expletives at this point.)

Michael Angelo did not portray this concept just because he liked it. He portrayed it because he had been raised in an environment in which the concept was largely unquestioned, in which the sophisticated arguments of scholars supported the concept and in which his own contemplation provided insights and revelations that went far beyond simply liking the idea.

Moreover, we have the interesting similarity of the figure of God and his immediate background to the structure of the human brain. Was Michael Angelo making a subtle declaration on a ceiling at the heart of Christianity that he thought God was the product of the human mind?

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Area54 said:

I have to disagree very strongly here. As I noted earlier, science employs methodological naturalism. i.e. the supernatural is excluded, not because its existence is denied, but because its existence is considered unsuitable for scientific investigation. The first scientists did not work under this "constraint". The knowledge gathered by naturalists, most/many of them churchmen, that provided the foundation for Darwin and Wallace was done to explore and glorify the creation of God. Darwin set out on the Beagle with the same attitude. I have no objection to the current arrangement, but Mike is correct that it is the current arrangement.

Fair comment. I was not thinking about the historic development (for once) but the future. Science is not going to suddenly start including random beliefs alongside evidence. If it did, then it wouldn't be science.

Also, question for Mike: why should science include your beliefs and not those of the millions of others with different, but equally strong beliefs? 

The answer is: that is why the scientific method is the way it is. So it doesn't depend on personal beliefs.