Non-Theistic Christianity

Aug 9, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Chronicles

There was a time when one could be assured that it was only the fool who denied the existence of God.

Comments
61 - 66 of 66 Comments Last updated Aug 27, 2013
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

“Mystical Atheism for everyone!”

Since: Nov 08

El Cerrito California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62
Aug 26, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be false--[cut to save space]
No, again... think analog.
<quoted text>

It also appears that most of our sensors are analog too. The light sensitive rods and cones appear to be so, as do the signal hairs in our inner ears. I'm not familiar with the sensors of the sense of touch, though.
Taste? That's a chemical sensor, and could be considered digital, as there is a fixed number of receptors, and the number that get stimulated directly translates to intensity. Again, I'm not as familiar as I'd like to be here, either.
What you are saying makes sense somewhat, but I still insist that if we consider an analog measurement we also need to consider the non measured as also existing in order to define the unit of measurement we need.

Logically, the smallest possible value would have to be defined and than the smallest value that can be measured would have to be derived from that value.

We have to select how we wish to divide what is in order to measure it within practical limitations.

Like pi for example. We can take pi to extreme levels of accuracy but we will always fall short of total accuracy. We just have to determine how much accuracy we need for a given task. Or take a fractal formula. We can zoom in on the fractal as much as we want to and it will always reveal more detail.

So technically if we say the brain can accurately process data on an analog scale it would need to be able to detect increments that are much smaller than the Planck scale. The signal to noise ratio may or may not apply in limiting the amount of accuracy depending on how the cells measure the individual signals and just how much inaccuracy (noise) is acceptable in order for the brain to function properly.

Perhaps the human brain can read these values with infinite precision. At this stage we can only speculate ( This would have profound philosophical implications even more so than Bell's theorem on entangled particles and would bring into question the validity of the Copenhagen interpretation.)

Otherwise it still remains digital due to the chemical nature of the brain based on the interaction of a countable number of molecules with a large but limited number of potential connections. Just because the amount of connections is more than all the molecules in the universe does not mean the amount of connections is infinite.

I will have to think about it and research what has been found out so far.

I try to be objective in researching what is, but like most people I am biased to some extent as are we all. Working on letting go of these biases is a life's work.

Each of us is seeing what is with different blinders on.

What I like about the scientific method that I am gradually coming to understand is that we can collaborate on what we agree on and let go of what we have outgrown due to a greater ability to observe what is.

This was something new to me when I was kicked out of the Jehovah's Witnesses 42 years ago.

Thinking, and especially questioning, was forbidden. Challenging so-called common sense was unthinkable!

I am 71 years old now and am still struggling to catch up with what is known about the reality we live in!

Again, I will have to research this further. You have given me much food for thought. Thanks!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63
Aug 26, 2013
 
Grandpasmurf952 wrote:
<quoted text>
What you are saying makes sense somewhat, but I still insist that if we consider an analog measurement we also need to consider the non measured as also existing in order to define the unit of measurement we need.
Logically, the smallest possible value would have to be defined and than the smallest value that can be measured would have to be derived from that value.
We have to select how we wish to divide what is in order to measure it within practical limitations.
...(edited for space)
Yes-- the signal-to-noise ratio would be paramount in determining how fine a step the brain can distinguish between one signal and the next.

Of course, being analog, any given signal is never going to **quite** match the previous signal-- and indeed, this does appear to fit with the real world experience.

By that, I mean that people's memories are never **exact** copies of the actual experiences, but instead, are approximations re-created by the person's brains.

Furthermore, it can be demonstrated that memories of events can shift or change over time, again leading one to conclude that any given signal is slightly different than previously.

And minor differences do not matter within the scope-- the signal-to-noise thing again.

But add up enough minor differences, and they can show drift over the long term.

In the short term, they likely cancel each other out-- making memory in the short term reasonably accurate.

But the older the memory gets, the less likely it is to be accurate (drift).

:)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64
Aug 26, 2013
 
Grandpasmurf952 wrote:
Otherwise it still remains digital due to the chemical nature of the brain based on the interaction of a countable number of molecules with a large but limited number of potential connections. Just because the amount of connections is more than all the molecules in the universe does not mean the amount of connections is infinite.
I will have to think about it and research what has been found out so far.
I do not disagree here-- the brain is definitely finite.

However, some simple math analysis will show you some interesting phenomena.

Let's step back to something easier to comprehend, digital computer memory, or RAM.

Current tech is binary, that is, 0's and 1's is all that is represented. Current RAM consists of microscopic capacitors, who's charge represents a 1 and discharged represents a 0. Due to leak-down, there has to be circuitry that is constantly "reading" this charge, and refreshing the 1's-- but that's carried out in the background hardware.

At the much higher software (OS) level, it can be safely considered fixed until rewritten.

So. Let's say you have 8 gigabytes of RAM-- that would be, using conventional labeling, 1,073,741,824 bytes. Assuming for this argument, that one byte consists of 8 bits or individual 1/0 sets.

How much more could you store, if you converted each individual cell from a 0 or 1, to a 0 or 1 or 2? Twice as much? Or more?(more... I do not remember the exact value, but it's considerably more than 2 times as much data).

Now, consider if your cell could store 0, 1, 2... 100 state.**Now** how much more can that same 8 gig of RAM pack-in?

Some studies appear to indicate that your typical neuron can easily represent more than a mere 100 degrees of intensity-- but exactly what that range is, is not known at present.

It's somewhat difficult to test for, due to a variety of reasons-- isolating a single neural connection, and then trying to make it fire at various levels of intensity is beyond our abilities as far as I can find.

But, having an individual memory "cell" (connection) being capable of even 100 steps?

That is orders of magnitude more "information dense" than just 0 and 1... the density of storage progresses logarithmically as you increase the number of possible states at each cell.

In short? By being analog, the information capacity of our brains is immensely more than if they were simple digital connections.

----------

Here's a real-world example of the difference between analog signals and digital ones:

Old vinyl records were analog, as you well know. The information contained on one record, if stored **faithfully**, would exceed the hard drives of most modern computers-- you'd need to sample it down to the level of plank's constant, to be 100% accurate.

Of course, that would be ludicrously over-the-top. Our human senses are not **that** good, even if trained to extremes: Indeed, audiophiles hated the first CD's that came out, as they only sampled the analog signal (approximately) 40,000 times a second-- too course for those highly skilled/trained ears.

Some experiments with human's ability to detect differences seem to show that anything higher than roughly 50,000 times a second cannot be detected. Even so, super-high quality sampling at roughly 100,000 times a second has and is done.

But the sheer size of that digital signal, when compared to the original analog track is... something to think about.

:D

Of course, that original analog is replete with noise and other unwanted information too.

Whereas in digital, it's easier to eliminate the noise, as it takes on a different aspect--it's typically easy to detect and ignore/compensate for.

Presuming you had a perfect input signal, of course.

Okay, I've wandered all over the place here...

:D

“Mystical Atheism for everyone!”

Since: Nov 08

El Cerrito California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65
Aug 26, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
[cut to make room]
:D
I follow you. I grew up with vacuum tubes and hardwiring and was a ham radio operator in the 1950s. I have used the same analogy when trying to explain the difference between analog and digital to people.

I have no idea how old you are but do you perhaps remember the Heathkit analog computer kit? I lusted after one so bad I could taste it. But for a paper boy to come up with over a grand in 1957 was kind of hard at $20.00 a month :)

Here is it is at the Heathkit Virtual Museum:

http://heathkit-museum.com/computers/hvmec-1....

There were several cheaper models but they were out of my reach too so I figured I might as well lust after the best one.

I wander a a lot too. It drives my wife crazy, especially right after my morning coffee when I start to motormouth :)

have a nice evening!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66
Aug 26, 2013
 
Grandpasmurf952 wrote:
<quoted text>
I follow you. I grew up with vacuum tubes and hardwiring and was a ham radio operator in the 1950s. I have used the same analogy when trying to explain the difference between analog and digital to people.
I have no idea how old you are but do you perhaps remember the Heathkit analog computer kit? I lusted after one so bad I could taste it. But for a paper boy to come up with over a grand in 1957 was kind of hard at $20.00 a month :)
Here is it is at the Heathkit Virtual Museum:
http://heathkit-museum.com/computers/hvmec-1....
There were several cheaper models but they were out of my reach too so I figured I might as well lust after the best one.
I wander a a lot too. It drives my wife crazy, especially right after my morning coffee when I start to motormouth :)
have a nice evening!
I well remember Heathkits. As you say, they were pricy, so I never managed to get any of them. But they were pretty cool for a tinkerer.

Back in the late 60's, when I was a kid, I had my dad's old tube-type shortwave radio (I still wonder what happened to it, even now). He had picked it up as an unfinished project--just the guts--someone was trying to make a portable (non-mains power) radio.

By the time I got it, it was just the chassis, with a few tubes missing-- I figured out what went in those missing holes, and got it functional. I even built a rough wooden box for the whole, but never did get around to making a dial. I'd just "wing it", tuning in the bands to see what I could hear. Lots of foreign language stuff, and plenty of "CQ" radio too. All strictly AM, of course.

:)

Yeah, that takes me back-- I did purchase a few Radio Shack electronic kids, though-- built'em too. All discrete components to be soldered to a large (relative to today) scale circuit board.

“Mystical Atheism for everyone!”

Since: Nov 08

El Cerrito California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#67
Aug 27, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I well remember Heathkits. As you say, they were pricy, so I never managed to get any of them. But they were pretty cool for a tinkerer.
Back in the late 60's, when I was a kid, I had my dad's old tube-type shortwave radio (I still wonder what happened to it, even now). He had picked it up as an unfinished project--just the guts--someone was trying to make a portable (non-mains power) radio.
By the time I got it, it was just the chassis, with a few tubes missing-- I figured out what went in those missing holes, and got it functional. I even built a rough wooden box for the whole, but never did get around to making a dial. I'd just "wing it", tuning in the bands to see what I could hear. Lots of foreign language stuff, and plenty of "CQ" radio too. All strictly AM, of course.
:)
Yeah, that takes me back-- I did purchase a few Radio Shack electronic kids, though-- built'em too. All discrete components to be soldered to a large (relative to today) scale circuit board.
In the 50s there was still a lot of electronics left over from WWII and Korea. I managed to get an old receiver at a war surplus store out of my paper route money and than got a kit to make a converter for it so I could even work the 2 meter ham radio band.

My first transmitter was a one tube affair using a 6L6 in a socket nailed to a two by four. Printed circuits had yet to be invented. Everything was hardwired so people usually did not build their own receivers as the amount of wiring needed would be tremendous.

Sometimes I look around my computer room and feel like I am living in a science fiction movie!:)

Have a good evening!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

8 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 6 min Buck Crick 224,656
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 1 hr ChristineM 851
Atheists on the march in America (Aug '09) 2 hr John 70,965
Our world came from nothing? 3 hr Buck Crick 261
Talking some sense into you people... 3 hr Buck Crick 29
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 3 hr Magyar 101 21,407
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 5 hr CunningLinguist 30
•••
•••