Debate under one of my comments to previous

1) [comments on] Testing Geocentrism, Part 2 · 2) Debate under one of my comments to previous · 3) Debate under three other of my remarks on previous to previous, part a · part b · part c · 4) Where Bel-Shamharoth Says Hello to kathleen - and Good Bye to me · 5) Where Booth the Grey Continues the Debate · 6) Where Tolland Proves Himself a Jerk

Hans-Georg Lundahl

6:38 How about you making formulas for feet movements of dancers dancing reel?

I mean, reels are very regular therefore very predictable dances. And even so, they are so complex, I bet you would have some difficulty describing the feet of anyone dancing reel using formulas.

But if you succeed, feel free to try your hand at the planets again, only if you really and truly succeed, recall that God used that formula first when giving the angel of each planet instructions for its APPOINTED path or orbit.

And if you recall how many small planets there are (planetary satellites, dwarf planets, asteroids, comets ....) consider how much God did as a creative genius on day Four.

6:51, 5th condition, changing distances of Earth are TWO motions in the abstract: Sun's yearly shifting distance from Earth being mimicked by angel doing the planet + his adding an own periodical shifting distance from Sun.

Alexander Sokolnik

Well, you see, the dancers feet are also affected by gravity, but they are not out there by themselves you know there is the rest of the body attached to them. They are mainly moved by the actions of muscles, which in turn are controlled by human brain. Both of these are fairly predictable, observable physical objects, which exert force on dancers feet. In contrary planets are there by themselves and only affected by gravitational forces, and don't have neither celestial muscles nor celestial brains to guide their way. This your argument only further shows how stupid you are.

Mr.Sanemon

How completely moronic are you?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+Alexander Sokolnik , did you just substitute "human brain" for "human will"?

I agree nerves have to get signals from brain - but is it physical processes of the brain or is it a willed intention of dancing which ultimately moves the feet of a reel dancer?

+Autumn Lauber - your name came up when I searched for that of Mr Sokolnik. Feel free to join the debate!

+Mr.Sanemon - which one of me and Sokolnik?

Alexander Sokolnik

+Hans-Georg Lundahl It is processes in human brain which makes us what we are. There are no magical "Human will", there are only biochemical processes in a complex logical machine called "human brain", which ultimately make up our personality. Sorry to ruin this for you, but that is what we are. Vitalism as an idea is somewhat dead since 1828.

Secondly even if you insist on that the signals in nerves come from some magical process, this still gets you nowhere. Because the key difference between feet of the dancer and planets is that feet are attached to the rest of the body, whereas planets are on their own. There are no "muscles" attached to them, which could act on planets to move in such patterns. This means that until you are able to show, detect (like with radio or gravitational waves), or prove mathematically the existence force which would act on planets to produce such a pattern. Until then your argument goes nowhere

Hans-Georg Lundahl

• 1) I don't know exactly what version of vitalism which died and in what way in 1828.
  
  I do know your proposal is as idiotic as saying an abacus which is used for counting and is useful due to its material processes could become aware of mathematics.
  
  It cannot.
  
  Your and my own experience are of what you call "a magical will".
  
  
• 2) In us, the will rules the feet VIA brain, nerves, muscles.
  
  BUT, at some level, whereever it may be, the will is still ruling the outcome of some material process without any material process coming between.
  
  In the dancers' feet, it is perhaps not the feet and certainly not the feet alone. As angels have no bodies, in their case, their will is acting directly in whatever body they are operating.

Alexander Sokolnik

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes, abacus cannot become aware of math, but a computer which is sophisticated enough can. The abacus of biological world is the Hydra's nervous system. It can slowly do most basic things. Our modern computers are at animal level of intelligence,they can somewhat learn, they can simulate and analyse environment, and they certainly can find solutions but have no "self". With introduction of quantum computers we might be able to produce AI. So, again this is the miss for you.

Well, will rules via brain, in the same way as OS (operating system) rules via computer. Yes they are classified as two different things, but in essence OS is the virtual environment which results from composite of operations carried out in the processor and memory stored in the hard drive/RAM. Same with humans your will is the result of complex logical processes carried out by neurons in your brain, which is further fine-tuned by chemicals, Your long term and short term memory. Your and mine "will" is the virtual self-identity created by our brains. Destroy the brain and the will will survive no longer. Destroy the computer and the OS will follow it into oblivion.

And on topic of idiotic proposals. You suppose that there is an angel assigned holding each planet exactly in the pattern?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Yes, abacus cannot become aware of math, but a computer which is sophisticated enough can."

No. It cannot.

"The abacus of biological world is the Hydra's nervous system."

Except if a Hydra (I suppose you don't mean the thing Hercules killed by chopping off head after head) has a nervous system, it has a soul. And if it has a soul, it has real awareness.

"Our modern computers are at animal level of intelligence,they can somewhat learn, they can simulate and analyse environment, and they certainly can find solutions but have no "self"."

And therefore no awareness.

Being "able to do" and being aware of what one does are two different things. An abacus can do addition, multiplication, subtraction, division, squaring, roots if properly handled - by someone who is aware.

"With introduction of quantum computers we might be able to produce AI. So, again this is the miss for you."

You can come closer and closer to mimicking various aspects of intelligence. But you won't make a computer intelligent. That is an atheist dream.

"Well, will rules via brain, in the same way as OS (operating system) rules via computer."

Except an Operating System is not an immaterial form.

"Yes they are classified as two different things, but in essence OS is the virtual environment which results from composite of operations carried out in the processor and memory stored in the hard drive/RAM."

I suppose you know mroe about computers than I do.

"Same with humans your will is the result of complex logical processes carried out by neurons in your brain, which is further fine-tuned by chemicals, Your long term and short term memory. Your and mine "will" is the virtual self-identity created by our brains. Destroy the brain and the will will survive no longer. Destroy the computer and the OS will follow it into oblivion."

That, again, is an atheist dream.

Destroy a brain while a person is living, and he is incapacpitated for willing. But destroy a brain totally so he dies, and his will will be with the rest of his soul before the throne of God in judgement and then either off to Heaven (directly or via Purgatory) or to Hell.

Those are the realities.

"And on topic of idiotic proposals. You suppose that there is an angel assigned holding each planet exactly in the pattern?"

Indeed. And lots of others not so assigned. Including seraphim above them and guardian angels below them.

Appendix, on FB

a shorter exchange occurred after my posting previous.

SH

I don't think "angelic movers" is a very good retort. Sure, it could be true in a hypothetical sense. But it seems to abandon the entire basis of scientific inquiry, namely, that God governs the universe in a predictable fashion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

In a predictable fashion - two points:

• 1) holds roughly true on earthly level but need not be true (at least for our good) on higher levels of the universe;
• 2) is, as far as orbits are concerned, even so roughly true for the heavens above.

"Sure, it could be true in a hypothetical sense."

It could be true in a true and factual sense - and that is what a good portion of Christians through the ages have thought.

"I don't think "angelic movers" is a very good retort. ... it seems to abandon the entire basis of scientific inquiry"

What if astronomy is NOT a due matter for scientific enquiry, but an easy introduction to metaphysics?

An opportunity of discovering there is a God and there are angels.

Updates

on the main debate, will not be noted separately with date for each two or four new comments. If they become very long, they will be removed to a new post. On 17.VI.2016 I start with two new comments:

Alexander Sokolnik

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

"No. It cannot." - why?

"And therefore no awareness." - you claim that anything that has nervous system has true awareness and then you deny this property to animals.

"That, again, is an atheist dream." - and that, again, is not an argument for why my argument is incorrect.

"Destroy a brain while a person is living, and he is incapacpitated for willing. But destroy a brain totally so he dies, and his will will be with the rest of his soul before the throne of God in judgement and then either off to Heaven (directly or via Purgatory) or to Hell.

Those are the realities."

- That, now, is a christian dream.

As well as all the angels which "hold" planets in place. Ever heard of Occam's razor?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"why?"

Because an abacus is only material bodies.

"you claim that anything that has nervous system has true awareness and then you deny this property to animals."

I claim that anything which has a natural nervous system has some kind of soul, and therefore presumably some kind of awareness, if only of sense perceptions and memories related to that.

Perhaps somewhat off when it comes to that of insects.

I deny that property to an abacus, not to an animal.

You know, abacus, the frame, the mid partition, the pins across it, the hollow beads on the five bead side and the two bead side of the mid partition, the space that allows you to push beads that are counted towards the midpartition. Just so I am sure you are really talking about an abacus. It has no nervous system.

Also, I do not deny awareness to thing that have nervous systems, I am saying it is not a product of it.

Iam dixi: You can come closer and closer to mimicking various aspects of intelligence. But you won't make a computer intelligent. That is an atheist dream.

"and that, again, is not an argument for why my argument is incorrect."

So far, my observation has been born out by the facts. Your atheist dream has not come true.

[Quoting my outline of angelology and human spirit-soul]

"That, now, is a christian dream."

No, at the very least, if we had no divine revelation well documented both as to its facticity and the divinity behind it, it would at least be a very intelligent guess about things.

It would at least be as probable a guess as Somnium Scipionis.

We do have everyday observations behind the fact that awareness is not a material property and therefore, though joined to matter in us, is not a property of material bodies as such.

"As well as all the angels which "hold" planets in place. Ever heard of Occam's razor?"

Ever try to apply it intelligently?

Angels knowing ecliptic and light moving basically as usual are a ONE explanation (or three, if you will) of the planetary movements actually observed.

Heliocentrics have to involve lots more different things:

• gravitation,
• inertia
• and masses (yes, I know, Neptune corresponded to a calculus about these - that is ONE discovery based on it)
• the pure chance that their balance does not get too uneven to maintain the orbits:
  
  [ISS] Don Petit, Science Off The Sphere - Water Droplets Orbiting Charged Knitting Needle
  SpaceVids.tv
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyRv8bNDvq4
  
  I think this video is the one with slow motion, count how few orbits each droplet makes before it clings to the knitting needle because its gravitation takes upper hand over inertia.
  
  
• the pure chance that interfering gravitations from other planets do not disrupt the balance
• the view of relatively still things looking like moving if viewed from relatively moving ones, per day as per earth turning
• dito, per year as per earth leaning different directions of axis towards sun
• human internal ears getting so used to the speed they can't notice being in movement by that either.

That is eight moments of explanation.

Occam's razor prefers three over eight, right?

Entia non sunt preter necessitatem multiplicanda.

Before you try to involve Occam's Razor into some kind of "crusade against the spiritual", have you noticed that Occam was a Franciscan friar, that he was a member of a Church which believed in the existence of angels, and as far as we know, he was NOT arguing against those in it who considered angels move planets.

He was arguing against giving all ten categories of Aristotle a status of existence. He was arguing against real existence of universals. He was probably wrong there. But if he came to Heaven, he must be blushing before the other blessed souls up there each time someone like you mention his razor. Or laughing. Wonder how many angels have offered him razors with the comment "care for a shave?" by now.

As I said about video "before it[s] gravitation takes upper hand", I obviously meant static electricity, which in his experiment takes the role of gravitation.

On to next.