Comprehensive coverage

Within ten years life will be found outside the Earth, most likely on Mars

This is what Peter Smith, a professor at the University of Arizona who led NASA's Phoenix mission to Mars, predicts.

In the picture - the Phoenix dug up soil samples and transferred them to the laboratory on board for testing
In the picture - the Phoenix dug up soil samples and transferred them to the laboratory on board for testing

In 10 years, life will be found outside of Earth - so predicts Peter Smith, a professor from the University of Arizona who led NASA's Phoenix mission to Mars. And he also says that whether it will be in this century or thousands of years from now, we will send humans to the red planet.

The Phoenix mission was an international collaboration of several companies and academic institutes, among others the University of Arizona, NASA and the Martin Lockheed Space Systems Institute in Denver. Scientists from various institutes in Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany and Switzerland also participated in the mission.

Phoenix Landing Hadera the atmosphere of the red planet at a speed of about 21,000 km/h, and absorbed an enormous heat of 2,600 degrees and finally opened a parachute and landed on the surface of Mars. The shuttle needed solar collectors to operate the rest of the instruments, which included a robotic arm for digging, a weather station, a series of ovens, a microscope and cameras.

For the next five months, the spacecraft controlled by Smith and his team Focused on digging and analyzing soil samples In an area of ​​a few meters on the cold, dry and volcanic side of the star.

Although Phoenix has not discovered life on Mars, Smith says that the climate conditions there are similar to dry and cold places on Earth, for example Antarctica - places where primitive life such as microscopic worms can be found.

"Mars soil is quite sticky and lumpy," says Smith, "it took Phoenix four days to test the soil in ovens and perform chemical experiments on it before we got results.

As the Red weather began to turn rainy and snowy, the shuttle's solar panels stopped receiving sunlight on November 2, 2008, and the Phoenix went into a coma.

At the end of her mission, Phoenix reported findings of icy water beneath the star's surface. In addition to this, minerals that form in water were also found, substances that can feed microbes were found in the soil, and snow was observed in the atmosphere. The shuttle took about 25,000 pictures of the area. In addition to normal pictures, an atomic microscope was also used to take the smallest pictures.

Smith says that for the next mission to Mars they intend to send a larger vehicle with wheels that will last at least 5 years and land in an area of ​​interest.

"We are actively looking for evidence of life on the surface of the planet closest to us," says Smith, "I think it will come, I really believe so," he adds. "At a certain point, we will turn a stone, and firecrackers and thunder, it will be there."

This week Smith was awarded a medal by the American Geographical Society in Delaware, USA. The medal awarding ceremony and lecture were held at the University of Delaware on the occasion of the events of the William S. International Polar Year. Carlson, who previously served as the president of the UN and was one of the pioneers of polar explorers.

per Arizona State University press release

More on the subject on the science website

182 תגובות

  1. I didn't understand whether there is life or not, and if there isn't, why can't we exist on other planets?

  2. NASA is lying to you
    keep all the good things for themselves,
    There are a lot of buildings on Mars obviously!!!!!
    And large agricultural areas mainly in craters, humans or aliens or both and who knows....
    CRATER HALE will be tested!!! There is a lot there, even figures of creatures with clear horns from several angles of pictures!!!! , they deleted all the TIF formats and left only JPG which are less clear, but still those who want can check!! , increase CONTRAST, lower brightness and remove the shades of red from (RGB) !!! And stop confusing the mind!! You can also see on YOUTUBE those who uploaded what they found.

  3. Why in ten years have you already found out that it is snowing that has water in it and that means there are bacteria

  4. The truth.. I don't understand something.. We will find life outside of Earth. I have no doubt about that.. Most likely we will find it on Mars.. but if we do find life we ​​will perhaps find quite primitive fossilized bacteria that were found there millions of years ago.. if we have to look Life on Venus.. In my estimation, there was intelligent life there that destroyed itself as a result of the greenhouse effect..

  5. Eddie:
    It's okay that you didn't read my words either.

  6. Eddie:
    From reading the first lines I see that you did not really read my words and since, as I said - I was tired of the discussion - I do not intend to read the rest of your words.

  7. Michael,

    For response 168:
    My focus was from the beginning on cases of 'threshold of death' precisely, and not just phenomena of illusions on a clear psychotic background. Under these circumstances, it is strange that my insistence on focusing precisely on these exceptional cases of 'the brink of death', borderline cases on the face of it, which are significant test cases for the mental issue, is interpreted by you as 'twisting'.
    It seems to me that if you don't have a problem with reading comprehension (and I assume it's not your problem), then the 'punching twist' is with you:
    In clinical death, the person is unconscious, and the sensory perception (hearing, sight, etc.) is neutralized in a way that cannot be absorbed, interpreted and remembered, through required neurological events - impressions and meanings. Only the brainstem is active to the extent required for essential basic processes.
    Still, after the near-death experience, which involves clinical death, those who come back to life know how to report real events that happened at the time of the clinical death event, including events far from the range of sight and hearing, which are normally required to receive information. The question arises - where do those returning to this life get this impossible information, given their situation? As far as I am concerned, (and in my opinion every reasonable person should and is expected to believe this), there was and is evidence of the existence of being and mental skills that cannot be reduced to material understanding.

    You do not encounter this 'problem', and the truth is that you are not the only one. All the chatter of certain doctors about electrical malfunctions in the brain, completing details in retrospect, releasing 'materials' in the brain, etc. (as you try to suggest) in an attempt to justify the reported phenomena in general, on a material basis - always avoid encountering the 'problem' of my reports Truth about the objective events I brought up above, and in fact (always!) don't even mention them! They don't allow the facts to confuse them...
    The item in your argument that was called by 'completion of details in retrospect' - does not meet the test of facts, because there are also documented cases in which the person who came back to life reported to people (the medical staff, for example) about factual revelations that they themselves were not aware of during the event (such as - where exactly Dentures were placed during the incident, which the staff did not notice where they were placed and therefore did not know and were unable to search and find them afterwards. The patient guided the staff to find the loss exactly where it was, the exception in itself - for the size of the surprise. Such a case was documented in a respected Dutch hospital. He did not the only one of its kind).

    In my opinion, without considering any insinuations in your words, your way of dealing with the problem is not serious enough. In any case, I had no 'demagogy'.

    Regarding your defiance ('And what happened, by the way, to your claim that they suppressed the research on the subject?') - the matter is simple: the article you offered as evidence for your claim is not relevant to our case; Indeed, no scientific research has ever been done (as opposed to reliable and well-documented case reports) on the subject of near-death phenomena. - The article you brought as evidence explicitly says a similar thing about just psychotic illusions of out-of-body vision and body positional exchange, and expresses surprise that they have not received scientific research. Because of this, he expresses his opinion that these cases are 'in the area between science and mysticism'...
    In any case, it is clear that the 'threshold of death' phenomena have not received scientific research. Moreover: if you know of a research article about near-death phenomena - show it and we'll wait!

    Regarding response 169:
    Some of the things I said above are also beautiful here. Indeed, this is evidence that there are mental phenomena that cannot be explained on a purely material basis, and I explained this again above, without any 'demagogy'.

    Regarding response 170:
    You mean the first article you wanted to bring as evidence, the one that dealt with the Libet experiments. I already addressed it in a response
    , 136 and I highly recommend reading my reference again, because the things as they are are important, but I don't want to extend them any further.
    On the other hand, I do not treat your new words as 'twisting', and I will answer you matter-of-factly like this:
    This is a theoretical review article, not research. In my understanding, his main benefit for our case is that he clearly refutes the methodology of Libet's experiments, refutes their findings as they are and clearly expresses his opinion that the desires are on a mental basis and that the simultaneity of the mental state with the neurological event must be assumed.
    According to the author's way of argumentation, I believed, and also reasoned - that there is no necessity to stop the advance of the appearance of the conscious will to the exact moment of the neurological event, and it is even reasonable to assume that the mental event can even precede the neurological event.
    In any case, after his above claims, the author made a hypothesis (and 'hypothesis' only!) about the existence of 'unconscious preparatory desires'. There is no need to say that this hypothesis does not have any factual basis, and therefore I already informed in my previous reference, explicitly - that this hypothesis is not binding. It is actually - speculation. Therefore, if you wish to hang your collar on this hypothesis - then it has no factual basis and in any case your reliance on it is ignorantly speculative. Furthermore: note that according to the author's method these 'preparatory desires' are also 'mental' desires - not just neurological electrical events, so the reliance on the author's speculation serves precisely the opposition to a 'purely materialistic' conception of the mental event...

    Michael, even in this last discussion of ours you didn't convince me, and I know I didn't convince you either. That's how it is sometimes... but at least we indicated to ourselves and perhaps also to others the ways of argument and their limits in this issue - each according to his method and understanding, and I believe that we contributed something positive by doing so. We also tried to a reasonable degree to conduct a cultural discussion, which is no small achievement under the circumstances of the time and place...
    In any case, it is important not to get upset...

  8. anxious:
    You wrote a long response but I have already lost patience with you and will not read the whole thing.
    You write that you explained well the claim that you don't know why to kill and I claim that you didn't explain at all.
    All in all, you started - without any relation to the matter - arguing with me about the interpretation of the words "reason" and "motive".
    This is called "throwing sand in the eyes" and not "explaining".
    You said that only the Sanhedrin is authorized to kill for violating Shabbat, but this is also an attempt to throw sand in the eyes because with all your attempt to cover it up - the example I gave is of a man who was murdered because he rode his horse on Shabbat without any Sanhedrin.
    I really don't care if in this case you excuse it as a deterrent punishment. The result is one: you kill a person who has done you no harm.
    You claim that I said in your name that the Sanhedrin is forbidden to kill.
    Why did you see fit to add this lie now?
    I never said that.
    Listen: I'm tired of you and I stop reading at this point.

  9. Michael:
    Let's check who is lying.
    I wrote that I don't know why not to kill, and I explained it perfectly afterwards. So what can be determined based on this, is - at most - that I don't know how to express myself properly. (Which is understandable given the huge difference between my writing experience and yours.)
    What did you infer from that? And why are you stuck so many times? [details; 94 96 98 105 115]
    I wrote that only the Sanhedrin is authorized to kill on Shabbat, (emphasis on Shabbat) This is an explicit Mishna in the Sanhedrin PG A and ruled as a Halacha by Rambam. Not only can such a quote not be defined as a lie, but also not as a half-truth. And this is because, as I went on to explain (and you failed to understand), it is forbidden to kill without a Sanhedrin for any sin. Only in the case where the punishment is a deterrent, (and not for the sin at all, for those who don't understand) or when it threatens public peace, (which I only noticed in response 114) then it is possible to kill without a Sanhedrin, for the simple reason that then the rule belongs; The next to kill the brain to kill.
    On the other hand, you cited the above-mentioned creations, and denied the explicit Mishnahs that I brought. Is this a half truth or a lie?
    The source of my argument about the difference in contemporary Judaism is in your words and in the words of Shimon ben David if you have forgotten. (because it's easy for you to forget)

    You claim on behalf of what I wrote that the Sanhedrin is forbidden to kill, or similar things. Every reader is welcome to check if I said that, or if you didn't understand that either and maybe you made it up.

    And now to the main point of your last response to me, as if the things you are basing yourself on are agreed upon.
    I haven't seen such a powerful brain in a long time and I'm convinced that the other readers will too (apart from Oren). Did I imply that the laws are incorrect? I wrote that the claims against them as if they are immoral, stem from your perception of morality, which is your own language; The distinction that evolution instilled in me. Is it agreed? There are no two people in the world who will always agree on the same sense of morality. Even on the death penalty, many today - in the case of the murder of a relative or a child - believe that the murderer should be given the death penalty. Or at least a much more significant punishment than the punishment imposed by the judicial system. (Regardless of whether they are right, it is clear that not everyone has the same feelings) Moreover, in fact most people were born with a sense of morality guided by G-d, (or any external source) meaning that what G-d said is wrong and nothing else. And it took a lot of work to get them to make it human-driven.
    In relation to facts that are not laws, they also do not constitute an appeal to Judaism XNUMX on their subjects. Although in many cases they too, - even if they are not right - but their mistake is more understandable if they are aware of the facts. For example, you mentioned chastity shifts. What to do that they are mostly urban legends of people like Naomi Regan and more, however I know a few examples. One of them is the organization called 'Redemption Board'. This organization looks like a classic modesty watch to an outside observer, but in reality their claim is simple. Geula was a modest and peaceful ultra-Orthodox neighborhood. Whoever wants to turn it into a bustling commercial center must consider the feelings of the residents and act accordingly. Because of this, they are able to financially harm immodest women. So of course it's wrong, and it's also forbidden according to the Halacha, but it's more understandable to their hearts. And it is also understood that they do not come in the name of religion but in the name of hurting their feelings.

    And if you didn't understand why I wonder about you, then I will explain a little. There is no opinion about a human being as if he is a psychopath, drunk, etc., to justify writing things due to a lack of understanding. Certainly not with stupid aggression. (You don't notice that I don't mind your passionate nicknames at all, I'm sure most of the readers understand that they have no meaning) There is at most a justification in this for not reading his words or not commenting. If you chose to respond, try to do so to the point, as best you can and not as a fool.

    I hope my words here have been understood by every viewer, and I intend to say goodbye to you. Before breaking up, I want to thank you for the references to the Daat Emet website. Many halakhots and tastes of halakhots became clear to me as a result. I thought I'd share them with you, but I don't think you'd enjoy it, so I'll leave it to you.

    One small favor, and I guess you'll be happy to fill it. Directed me to the sources regarding the data that the Greeks and Arabs had on the length of an average synodical month. (Not that I don't believe Yaron Yedan, I need precise details) And if it's really not difficult for you, detail the computer's proof of an isosceles triangle, it intrigues me.


  10. Eddie:
    Because I got angry - I now also read the article to which I referred you in Libet's experiment.
    I am sorry to tell you that in my opinion he completely denies the possibility of the existence of what we call "free will" and leaves room only for "unconscious free will" that is - such that the freedom in it is not our freedom.
    When I responded earlier to your words about this article, I simply thought that it was not really principled to go into details and that nothing would happen if I gave up the decisive conclusion of materialism if all I want is to doubt your claim that there is no materialism, but now, as mentioned, I got angry.

  11. Eddie:

    And by the way, tell me: how can the above story cast doubt on my claim?
    Let's even assume that everything you said is true and the link is not relevant at all (and I completely deny that, but let's say).
    Please explain to me how you draw an anti-materialistic conclusion from this!
    Have we returned to demagoguery?

    It is about 6 cases that the researcher in this particular case knew about in 2004.
    It's been a few years since then.
    You yourself have found many articles but you emphasize the fact that this article speaks of the fact that the subject was hardly studied (again - at the time!).
    Beyond the fact that it's been a long time - don't you really know that everyone wants to look special?

  12. Eddie:

    This is the so-called "punch twist"!
    What does the matter of clinical death belong to?
    After all, it is clear that the person is not really dead - it is a fact that they managed to revive him. Does the fact that they failed to measure brain waves mean anything? Does this mean that there was not exactly the same electrical disturbance that was shown here to be artificially induced?
    The advantage of the fact that the people were not clinically dead is that you could hear from them in real time what they were experiencing and they did experience illusions - just like you!
    The clinically "dead" has all the more reason to report such reports because beyond the malfunctions that happen in his mind, he also completes the picture after or during the awakening.

    And what happened, by the way, to your claim that they suppressed the research on the subject?

  13. Michael,


    I read the link you provided in response 160, and found an article of the type that has been published in the past quite a few articles. And again it turned out that the evidence you brought to substantiate your claim is not evidence, and in fact it casts doubt on your claim... and rather strengthens my claim...

    This is a study of 6 cases of nerve palsy patients who experienced illusions of leaving the body and of changing the position of the body. There is not even one case of near death here. Please note that in no case is there a report that includes an objective fact - in no case is a case described of a real environmental event related to the phenomenon itself, which did happen (in cases of near death, those who come back to life know in detail about real events that happened in the immediate environment and even in more distant environments, when they were clinically dead!). These are just imaginations of neurotic patients with a medical record...
    Therefore, this modest study has nothing to do with our case.
    But it is important to note what the authors of the article add and say about the state of research regarding these illusions. The article expressed surprise at the fact that no systematic studies were ever done on these phenomena, even though many studies were done on other illusions that contributed to science. It was noted that due to this omission, no accepted scientific theory that can be tested has been created to date, regarding the mechanisms of the phenomena. Therefore, the authors of the article point out - that due to the failure to initiate scientific research into the phenomena of out-of-body vision and the vision of a positional exchange of the body (and even they are just illusions of patients!) - these phenomena are 'placed today between neurobiology and mysticism'!

    And hence help to my argument about science's research failure, and in my opinion - science's refusal to investigate extreme phenomena that indicate a mentalistic interpretation of reality, - dogmatic reasons and fears of what they will say, and I even dare to claim - from an ideological fear of the cracking of the materialistic world view, so fashionable and held As 'advanced' in the 'correct' circles.


    I wonder what a materialist's claim can be in the face of a factual report by a clinically dead person about real events that happened in his environment and in distant environments (with which he had no eye contact -) at the time of the event - a report made after the dead person 'came back to life'. And such cases are well documented...the last thing one can imagine is that a 'neurological event in the brain' produced this true report. It is much more appropriate for an ordinary materialist to come up with all kinds of conspiracy theories, but that is not serious either. Not in these cases.

  14. anxious:
    The conversation between us started with your response 89.
    You are welcome to read it.
    Write there that you don't know why not to kill the one who annoys you.
    This statement defines you as a psychopath if it is true and as a liar if it is not true.
    Then you tried to deceive us by claiming that according to contemporary Judaism one should kill for violating the Sabbath only by order of the Sanhedrin.
    I showed you that this is a lie and that the non-existence of the Sanhedrin was never an obstacle that the murderers in the name of religion shied away from.
    It is also in accordance with the laws of Judaism written in the holy books.
    Can you point to the source of your claim about differences in contemporary Judaism? Who exactly defines it? Are these the rabbis who determined that a persecutory law applies to Rabin? Are these the rabbinical courts that ordered - as you saw in my response 119 about rape under the protection of the law? Are you the arbiter of the Halacha who decided on the Marnan innovation?
    And besides - does Judaism forbid the establishment of a Sanhedrin? Is there a law that forbids the Sanhedrin to be tyrannical?
    The Chazon Ish said that there is no necessity to take advantage of the punishment, but he did not forbid its use either.
    In short - your claim on this issue was also a lie and an attempted fraud in almost every possible aspect.

    So tell me - Hared: after all these lies, do you think it's wonderful that I formed an opinion about you? Does the opinion I formed about you following what you said deserve to be called a prejudice? Do you expect me to pay the same attention to reading the words of someone who has proven himself to be a liar as to reading the words of a man from the settlement?

    Isn't what I said at the beginning of the response a collection of reasons? Is something I'm basing on disagreeable?
    For example - is my expectation that you will tell the truth not acceptable to you? Are the facts I mentioned (and I did not invent any of them) not agreed facts? Are the quotes I brought from the Holy Scriptures not agreed upon? Are they based in any way on my perceptions and feelings? After all, religious leaders wrote these things long before I was born. Was their ability to foresee the future so great that they knew what my feelings and perceptions would be and accordingly formulated their words?
    Was my claim that they had no ability to foresee the future and anticipate the results of the murder they are ordering to be carried out at all doubted by anyone?
    Was the fact that I brought about the instruction ordered by the court about rape in any way stem from my perceptions and feelings?
    Are the modesty shifts off despite me?
    Did Benizri say that earthquakes are caused by gays because of my feelings and perceptions?

    In short - all along the way, to put it mildly - the truth is not a candle to your feet.
    And by the way - if you didn't understand, my claim that you are a psychopath was meant to make you admit that you are a liar, but for some reason you cling to psychopathy.

  15. I wrote a long comment and it was deleted, I will write briefly.
    Your words Michael, -all the way, and also in the references- are based solely on your perceptions and feelings. I haven't found a single argument that is based on anything agreed upon, so I'm not convinced.

    Also, the fact is that you did not understand my words. (I don't have the strength to repeat the deleted examples.) And the reason is just an opinion about me, like I'm drunk, etc. which does not justify it.

    I also wonder about you, why do you rely so much on the fact that I'm a psychopath? An educated person like you doesn't need it.
    Maybe tomorrow I will have the strength to write again in more detail. I emphasize detail and not additional content.

  16. Eddie:
    As I said - I'm tired - but your words are a clear false accusation.
    Not only did science deal with the subject but they dealt with it obsessively.
    Search Google Scholar and you will find thousands of articles on the subject.
    Nothing was plastered over and no one was oppressed.
    The conclusion of the best neurologists of our time is that this is a "chemophysical" phenomenon as you say.
    Also found areas of the brain that live cause the sensations discussed in a controlled manner.
    Read one of many links:

  17. Michael,

    OK, you are tired, especially when we are close to the end, and we can summarize this stage, which I chose to see as a kind of philosophical principled discussion with a certain scientific touch.
    Since that's the case, I won't summarize the principle claims, neither will I. I will only leave it to the readers to be impressed by the claims from here and there, each according to the honesty and depth of his understanding and judgment.

    But I want to say a few things instead of a sum:

    The second stage that I wanted to hold in the discussion was supposed to deal with some well-reported and documented phenomena, which probably indicate the existence of an independent mental reality, which is not reducible to the chemophysical reality, in my opinion.
    I'm talking about 'well-reported and documented phenomena' and not about 'scientific research findings', and for good reason. These phenomena were not subjected to scientific research, for the same reason of dogmatism and institutional imposition that prevents the opening of new, fruitful and fascinating horizons for science. This dogmatistic imposition blocks, fixes and freezes science in the framework of partial 'truths' whose truth value is diminishing until it disappears and becomes numb in the tangle of complicated and forced 'interpretations' along the lines of Ptolemy's astronomy. I know of scientific and medical figures who dared to stand up for the nature and meaning of the phenomena, but were afraid (up to a certain point) to publish findings discovered in their investigations, for fear of 'what my colleagues in the barangay will say about me and what the system will do to me'...

    what do I mean?

    I mean first of all the phenomena reported on the subject of 'the brink of death'. Documented investigations by serious and respected people since 1975, experts in the fields of psychiatry, as well as investigations and documentation of medical institutions, leave no room in my opinion for reasonable doubt regarding the existence of a mental being independent of the body, which cannot be reduced, in light of its cognitive functions - to any appropriate brain events. I am convinced that serious and systematic research on the subject, if they had dared to do it, could have advanced science significantly.

    I said 'they leave no room for reasonable doubt' - for two reasons.
    A - and this is the more important explanation because it is documented objectively and characterizes a relatively large number of cases: the phenomena cannot be explained away with neurological chemophysical excuses, because, among other things, the reports of the people who experienced the brink of death contain objective information about facts and events that happened while they were clinically dead, And that they later turned out to be true, and from other grandmothers that the sheet is too short to detail.
    And B, and here Michael I also have a personal story: about nine and a half years ago I went through what is called CVA' and he was not one of the easy ones. I can point out that at a certain point during the event, it was clear to me that I was seeing myself and what was happening to me - from the side. I also 'knew' what was happening in the next room, with which the body had no eye contact. After the fact, I could also describe in the ears of my amazed wife what happened there and what she said to whom at the time of the act, when I was considered 'clinically dead', what the doctors did afterwards, etc. At the time of the event itself, I recognized 'myself' as someone who is not really among the living, but I clearly told myself that I do not want to 'die'. However, for the sake of fairness and honesty, I must point out that I did not experience phenomena that are sometimes reported in near-death events, of a 'great light', etc., perhaps because I refused to part with the reality of life' and 'move forward' to another reality, who knows. For me this episode and its meaning regarding mental existence is a fact, although alas, it is not part of 'research'.

    And there are other anecdotal phenomena that point in the direction I was talking about, but science refuses to investigate them, because of the reasons I mentioned.

    Instead, a lot of energy is invested in studies, some of which are incomplete to the point of fruitlessness, in convoluted scientific interpretations and sophisticated and sometimes sophisticated discussions - when the result is not one that always brings us closer to the truth.

  18. To remind you, the title was "In ten years the debate will end and Michael will be right" and a decade younger.

  19. Indeed, Hugin, there are really hidden secrets here that everyone is afraid of being discovered.
    It's because of the fear of finding out that the activity here is happening online and in full view.

  20. If so, the entire 'black box' of this website will be transferred to the Supreme Court. And everyone will finally see and know who harmed the minors and others on this website.
    The testimonies of the many victims by M. Inside and outside are not lacking.
    If the Supreme Court cannot meet the burden, we will help judges and intellectuals of the highest conscience from the rest of the world.

  21. Uncle:
    As I said - in the vast majority of cases I am not decisive when the other party respects the other and speaks the truth.
    I don't want to pity cruel people. I prefer to apologize when necessary. In my opinion, my firmness actually improves the atmosphere because it discourages those who really and sincerely try to cloud it.

  22. Michael,

    So maybe we can moderate the decisiveness a bit, for the sake of a better atmosphere?
    Maybe you will even discover that not all believers are dark and ignorant people?


  23. Uncle:
    In general, I don't tend to divert the discussion from the topic of the article, and I didn't do it this time either.
    I do respond to challenges posed to others even if they deviate from the topic of the article.
    I must say that sometimes these deviations lead to a much more interesting discussion than the discussion in the article and I think this is what happened this time as well (with the exception of Hugin's intervention).
    I realized that you don't hate me and I'm glad about that. As you can see - there are those who hated me really defines them and you can see that I pay much less attention to discussing you than discussing with you (I don't ignore them - I try to shake them off me - but I don't give too much thought to nothing they usually say).
    Since I express strong opinions against religion, I have quite a few haters (which in itself is proof to me of the damage that religion causes to a person's soul). Unfortunately - most of the responses motivated by religious motives also lead the responders to hatred towards those who deny religion. This is a statistical fact that I have been aware of for a long time and applying its conclusions sometimes (but only sometimes) makes me recognize hatred where there is none.

  24. Are my eyes deceiving me and Hugin is protesting that she is being censored?

    I remember not long ago the day you begged them to delete and censor every comment of yours, even retroactively.

    Then of course you started changing nicknames as much as a one-year-old baby changes diapers (and if the additional connotation disappeared from your sight...)

  25. Michael,

    I completely agree with you, you should sue her and make her pay for her words - people must understand that the word has power, it's not just air coming out of the mouth!

    Especially those who claim to come in the name of the Jewish religion, must be prosecuted for defamation, slander and causing gratuitous hate!


  26. What is better?

    Better not!

    Hugin, I'm sorry, but your personal level is deteriorating into the abyss, and your unpleasant, empty and bloated presence is weighing on the site.

    Won't you activate your paralyzed spiritual senses and realize that you are not welcome on the site?
    Surely you are not that closed to understanding - and maybe you are?

  27. Michael,

    If you mean my response 144, I understood very well that I was writing to "what is better" (I even thought that "she" was "he"), just as I came out against bluntness on your part or on Oren's part, I came out even more forcefully and disgusted against her reaction in 131 (every The spirit of religion-Torah is a thousand times better than the Hitlerian gust emanating from Michael the Nazi and a team of his ilk.), which is a sickly stupid response and not at all worthy of all opinions (I have no words to express my anger at this response). Even though I don't know you personally from here to calling another Jew a Nazi (whether you believe or not - totally irrelevant!), this is an act he will not do. That's why I asked her to apologize. In response 143 she continued to add sin to crime, so in response 144 I tried to prove her more firmly.

    Michael, I don't hate you and I'm fixated on you!:-) In response 144 I responded to her (at the time I thought it was a man). In response 136, I meant that I really appreciate Eddie for his matter-of-fact manner of discussion, without getting into insults and emotional matters, and it really has nothing to do with you - honestly!

    I would be very happy if all the discussions here would be so matter-of-fact and deal with the essence! Notice how many of the comments here deal with the subject of the article at all! Does anyone here even remember what the article was about? In my opinion, this is missing the point and it's a shame.

    With greetings and a warm handshake,

  28. Hugin:
    After all, it is completely clear why your words are censored and also in your current comments you demonstrate exactly the qualities that caused some of your comments to be censored.
    Full of conscience but are you really not afraid that I will be sued for calling me a Nazi?

  29. All the visitors of the site should know that my comments are censored here and there even when I appear with the familiar mental nickname.
    M. recognizes for a very simple reason, and I will also recognize his tone if he emerges under other aliases.
    His blatant contempt shows only his own mirror, as the remnant of his image, if there is anything left in him.
    A sad case, but we will overcome everything.
    I have no desire or desire to go into more detail even for the 'good curious', at this point it's a waste of time.

  30. Uncle:
    You understood correctly the intention of the apology in my words.
    You don't comment much here, so you probably haven't come across Hugin yet.
    I mean, you didn't notice her until her response here under the name "what is better".
    I, on the other hand, have already developed a sense that allows me to recognize her in almost any costume she chooses to wear.
    I didn't really understand what you answered her, but I have a suspicion that maybe you thought for a moment that she was me.
    So for the avoidance of doubt - not only am I not "equal" to Hugin (who often refers to herself as "=") but there is no greater difference than the difference between me and her.

  31. 143 Your intention is clear and understandable.
    And my response? Perhaps it was absorbed somewhere by the vigilant, intelligent and humane recipients who still remain, the ones with true inner integrity.
    Arrows? For auspicious purposes of great weight in this terrible struggle.
    I'm sorry.
    The heartfelt next generation is more important to me than fake and dark 'enlightenment'.

  32. What's better - 131 it's you! I'm 132, if anything!
    Better not add sin to crime!

    I'm not advocating for anyone, I'm trying to prevent you from whitewashing your face in public, from speaking defamation and from adding free sleep! I'm trying to make you turn away from evil and do only good, ask for peace and pursue it!

    am i clear


  33. To 131, Katunat understands what happened 70 years ago and what is happening behind the scenes on this site.
    It is better not to defend the 'creature' and the successors of his terrible legacy.

  34. Michael,

    At the time of the discussion, I did not read all the hundred or so previous comments (it was too exhausting for my taste) and I had no experience of the battles you have here with your bitter "enemies", therefore my argument was completely innocent and honest, without any malicious intentions whatsoever, I assure you!
    I tried to add something to the discussion that I thought was missing, in your opinion it is fundamentally unfounded, your full right to your opinion, I respect it.
    If I understand correctly, the sentence: "I did not think that there could be a person who is not aware of all this and I concluded that the only reason why a person finds it appropriate to make such a claim is his willingness to lie in order to protect religion." - It's a kind of apology, if so, I accept it, thank you for it, and as far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed.


    When you walk down the street, with your foot in the air during the current step, you believe with complete faith that as soon as your foot touches the floor, your body weight will safely transfer to it, right? While your foot is in the air, many unexpected things can happen that will cause you to trip and fall, but still you believe with complete faith that it will not happen. You do this based on past experience and the likelihood of an unusual event that will cause you to fall, right?
    So to the same extent (in contrast) my beliefs can also have a foundation, they are not unfounded and in the air.
    Please don't patronize me, it really doesn't add any respect to you.


  35. Uncle,
    From now on - when you and other "believers" come to present an opinion. Start the response like this:
    "In my opinion…."
    And end with: "This is of course my personal opinion, and it is not based in reality beyond what I believe. It does not rely on any other established claim or proof and cannot be proven by the scientific method"

    If this is how you (and others) would present your response instead of presenting them with facts on the ground, as well-founded claims that have been thoroughly investigated in all respects and with the help of all means, and if your claims did not include distortions of science (whether taken on purpose or due to lack of knowledge - not that this explains why you used these claims in the first place ) – so we were willing to accept it more easily. In this way it was clear to us, the readers (and Michael - the person you are addressing) that your response is really just a personal opinion based on beliefs and nothing more than that and that you do not intend to convince anyone.

    But it is clear in advance, the very fact that you presented your faith as something that you believe in with all certainty that you are right - "which I personally believe in with complete faith" (this is what is called faith - to believe that you are right without the need for substantiation, and on the contrary - to avoid scrutiny and concealment at all costs) indicates Because you and your friends are not capable of it. In the same way that you are not capable of objective internal criticism with objective tools.

  36. Uncle:
    Because your claim did not fall into the void. This strange claim (as if there is no contradiction between the fact that the rabbit rummages and the fact that it does not) comes up again and again here in almost every discussion and it is clear to any reasonable person that this is a contradiction. It is also clear to anyone who has eyes in his head that the entire war in science stems from religious motives throughout history and the persecution of scientists is carried out by religious institutions. I did not think that there could be a person who is not aware of all this and I concluded that the only reason why a person finds it appropriate to make such a claim is his willingness to lie in order to protect the religion.

  37. Uncle:
    Allow me to express my opinion and say that I don't think you admire Eddie for his business but rather for mistakenly thinking he "put in" on me.

  38. Michael,

    I read your correspondence with Eddie (I admit that only in the last few minutes, following his response 133) and indeed you are right and there is really a good and relevant discussion there, you don't agree on many points but that's perfectly fine you are allowed to disagree!

    Regarding your bluntness, allow me to disagree with you, several weeks ago I commented here on the website for the first time on a topic that I personally believe in with complete faith (I argued that there is no contradiction between the Torah and science - and no, I will not enter into this discussion!) and then I also tried to explain Why. You immediately called me a liar - at the beginning you slapped me in the face - why? What hurt you so much, that you hurt me, you didn't know me before, you didn't know anything about me, how did you immediately decide that I was a liar? I didn't try to "convert" anyone!, I didn't try to poison the delicate minds of those sitting on the fence! - What is the stress on? All in all, I tried to express a personal opinion and maybe contribute to the discussion, that's all.


  39. Eddie:
    See: this discussion is already tiring me.
    It seems to me that the whole thing revolves on an axis that is exactly the opposite of the axis on which it started.
    At the beginning of the discussion you accused the scientists of claiming that they know things that they don't really know.
    I explained to you that this is a fundamental limitation of scientific theories, but since then the discussion has taken a completely opposite direction and I am trying to show you that what you claim to know - is not really known to you and that in fact there is serious evidence against it.
    You repeat and try to conclude (literally from nothing) that there is a better way to find out the truth. A way that is better than the scientific investigation in the style we are familiar with.
    Not only that - you also expect others to find this way when you don't provide even a hint of character.
    I didn't claim that the Libet experiment was "proof" of anything, but it seemed to me to be something that your theory of mind was not a hypothesis and the materialist theory was rather a hypothesis. He even forces you to talk about the unconscious as an essential part of the soul, when before you tended to attribute awareness to the soul. This seems to me to be insisting on her name.
    The only thing you can confidently say about the difference between how a computer works and how a human works is that the former is familiar to us and the latter is not. This too, by the way, is only partially true and it is not a case that you did not refer to the neural networks at all since these do not at all correspond to the model you described.
    Regarding my perception of immaterial things, I suggest that if you don't want me to perceive them - don't try to use them as a striking tool. When you write to me "even Ada Lovelace knew something" you are presenting me with a personal claim as if someone already many years ago knew what I do not understand today. This is not an argument but a personal attack, so don't complain about the fact that I responded to the things.
    The joke I told seems to me to be an accurate description of the situation, and I would summarize the discussion as follows: "If you have a constructive suggestion about a better way of investigation - please lay it out before us or take it yourself and show us the way and its results. If not - tell me what you want."

  40. Eddie,

    I admire you, not for anything you "put in" to Michael, but for your practicality!
    That's exactly what I mean all the time, cheers!


  41. Michael:
    I forgot, regarding paragraphs 5-8 of my previous response to say that -
    Following the article you presented in the link in response 117, it is possible to demonstrate how a perceptual change may promote scientific understanding and create fruitful scientific insight. If the author's assumption had been more explicit, that an independent mental phenomenon was possible, he would not have been pushed to limit - arbitrarily on the face of it - the earliest appearance date of the hallucination to the precise moment of the nervous event, meaning that it would be simultaneous with it. In any case, the hypothesis regarding the multiplication of mental desires would have sounded more consistent.

  42. David of Nazareth Elite:
    First of all - to your question if I convinced anyone - the answer is "Yes! I convinced more than one" so what you are sure of is actually not true at all.
    Besides, as you can also understand from Oren's words, my words are not directed only at those I am arguing with, but also at the audience of passive readers who may - without my responses - receive misinformation from those who try to mislead them.
    Contrary to your claim - I do not accept a conviction or anything. On the contrary - I even make claims against those who only complain about a problem without offering a solution and call them (in my blunt language) "cutters".
    Instead - what I always do is to point out the correct facts and the logical way of drawing conclusions wherever someone tries to sell false "facts" and demagogic arguments. I do add justice and wisdom (and this - by the way - unlike you! Pay attention to what is in all this correspondence! You are all - yes - arguing - and arguing about incorrect things!).
    Your comparison of my rapacity with that of the other side is likened to the symmetry that the Europeans use in their relationship to the Israelis and the Palestinians. You are not at all interested in the fact that I have never been predatory towards any honest person and all my blunt responses are aimed at people who, before responding to them, expressed disdain for me or people I value or lied with a determined brow (and yes - I stand by the phrase "lies" because I do not respond bluntly to mistakes but only For saying things that I think the speaker knows are not true.)

  43. Michael,
    I am responding to your response 117:
    1. In your section 1, you refer only to the first claim I raised in response 116 section 1. I will respond to your reference by clarifying again that there is a fundamental difference between our unmediated intuitions, which are our primary mental intuitions, and other intuitions, which need some kind of instrumental mediation, such as the senses our. By the way, when I talk about primary intuitions, I don't mean just thoughts (even if they are sophisticated and smart) but our most basic knowledge - subjective awareness, volition, etc. In any case, we can challenge the initial intuitions only with good evidence, not with speculation.
    2. I read the article you referred to, and I regretted that you did not read it. I was not surprised to be proven that my guesswork and reasoning in my response 116 (Section 2 Sipa) was appropriate, and I only strengthened my opinion regarding the independent status of mental events.
    First, Libet's experiments also point to a 'second result' according to which there is a conscious mental state that does not depend on a specific neural event 'previous in time', a state that cancels previous volition (which is claimed to be late in time to its constitutive neural event).
    Second, and this is more important: indeed, as I hypothesized, the Libet experiments are flawed by a clear methodological failure. The finding on awareness is an exclusive function of the subject's voluntary report, and considering the reaction time required to report after the mental event has already happened, it is impossible to establish a reliable finding of early versus late. Furthermore, considering the incredibly short interval of the report (500 ms), it is likely that the mental event was simultaneous with the neural event, and in my opinion, considering the measured reaction time of the person in all kinds of contexts - it is likely that the mental event even preceded the neural event. In any case, due to the poor methodology, it is impossible to substantiate any findings.
    Third, again as I hypothesized, Libet's experiments are blind to the realm of 'preparatory' desires, i.e. the desires in the pre-conscious stage. These desires, according to the article, are mental events. Thus, even if you accept (and of course I do not) that there is a short delay between the early neurological event and the conscious recitation - then the delay must be attributed only to the conscious recitation, not the unconscious recitation.
    As for myself, I am not ready to commit myself to the hypothesis of an unconscious preparatory will, even though it is a mental state and it is very conceivable that it is not late to the neurological event. I also do not commit to the author's hypothesis that the unconscious volition prepares the 'action' or the decision, and another desire - conscious - indicates it specifically, even though this hypothesis may be consistent with Libet's first finding - and also reconcile Libet's second finding, in a way Which is consistent with our intuitions about free will and free action - and actually confirms them.
    3. To your words in section 3: Don't get caught up in the non-essential side of my argument and its style (the quote from Lovelace), and don't sail into irrelevant areas (Ptolemy vs. the heliocentric hypothesis, Aristrachus of Samos, the Christian church), because at this rate we'll start bickering about 'God' ' - as if it's relevant - and bye bye to our orderly discussion so far (and I don't want to assume that's what you want).
    Your personal story is nice (by the way, we served in those years in the same base and in the same place a few tens of meters away, although my role was completely different from yours. My connection with the people of the Maram was only through playing physical mathematical puzzles that we used to have fun with in the dining room). But 'deeper blue' also managed to beat the international master Kasparov, world champion - and the best of them, while proving an extraordinary ability to analyze and execute thanks to the algorithms and the calculation power that was fed and equipped with them. He demonstrated what appeared to be 'creativity' in the solutions and even as 'boldness', 'determination', 'talent for surprise', etc., etc. - but all these were in the end nothing but the fruit of algorithms fed into them, even if while demonstrating a highly sophisticated manipulative ability, which is also the fruit of the creative genius planning of the person who built it. The computer does not understand content and meaning, and does not think. He only presents a false representation of 'understanding' content and rumors, of 'thinking', and even of 'creative', etc. to an extent.
    Indeed, the computer can sometimes surprise us with its ability to utilize and manipulate the 'knowledge' it has received (and your personal score demonstrates this), but it is not because it has one gram of IQ. But because the programmer did not go deep into the program he himself built. It happens to scientists in all kinds of fields, that the result exceeds the planned expectation, but this is not because of an essential 'demon' that was suddenly created in the machine or in the experiment in question, but because of a 'coincidental' local limitation of the scientist's prior knowledge and ability to predict (a kind of 'predicted and did not know what prophesied'). As for the example of the computer proving a mathematical theorem - the computer learned what it was taught, and this includes axioms, theorems, and proof strategies that have been applied in the past in all kinds of contexts. He receives all of these in an orderly and systematic manner. Without underestimating the achievement, all these are the fruit of human intelligence. It is not surprising that language and there he will be able to improve the proofs in fact, as demonstrated, thanks to the efficiency of his algorithms. I can even think of a computer that builds scientific formulas regarding issues that have not yet been mathematically formatted (and I think that such a computer has been built in practice, although I am not clear on exactly what its level as a 'scientist' is), since its algorithms know mathematics and strategies for scientific work.
    But in any case, the computer is always a machine for the formal operation of symbols, it receives data symbols entered into them, and emits (only) symbols that are the result of algorithms and calculation power entered and equipped by someone who understands and thinks - man. The 'intelligence' of the computer has nothing but algorithmic patterns - a person has perception and thinking processes that are also illogical - experiences, intuitions, feelings, associations and creative ideas that are necessarily surprising and unexpected by definition and necessarily deviate from any previous formula. No logical programming is capable of producing illogical results.
    Therefore, no algorithm and no 'computer' can get out of its 'box'. If the computer congratulates you on a result - do not believe that it knows about the 'experiment' you conducted. It's easy when he 'smiles' at you or even declares an emotional and stormy 'love' declaration towards you... it's all in 'as if'...
    Of course, in all of the above I do not want to belittle the great achievements of the science of artificial intelligence, and I am sure that in the future we will see enormous achievements that are unimaginable today. But with all that, and in spite of all that, one must understand the essential difference between human intelligence and mental state in general - and intelligence that is - as it is called - artificial, even if in some cases the predicted difference appears from a quantitative/resulting external point of view - thin.
    4. You are not really dealing with the 'open and preferred access' claim.
    5-8. So we started with the joke phase? Are we back to 'God' again, which is irrelevant to our case? I don't want to repeat myself, so I refer you, and any intelligent reader, to what I said in paragraphs 5-8 of my previous response.

    It seems to me that we can summarize the phase of the principled arguments (the 'philosophical' ones, let's say).
    For the sake of the completeness of the issue - it is possible to discuss some quasi 'empirical' research findings (to one degree or another) on mental entities. Do you want?

  44. What is better -

    An answer like yours is probably not better! Apologize!

    Do not do to your neighbor what you hate! With such an answer, how are you better than Michael (with all his bluntness)?


  45. Everything in the spirit of religion and Torah is a thousand times better than the Hitlerian blow coming from Michael the Nazi and his team. Shame and shame on you!!!!

  46. Lehg = chatter, gibberish, idle talk, muttering, chatter, chatter, nonsense, nonsense. . .

    Indeed, this is a very polite and pleasant way to open a reply to a person you know nothing about!

    "Beautiful" that you treat me as a god - "You and your friends" You have already decided who I am and who my friends are, you already know everything about me (burnt, wicked, apostate and convert) - I really thank you for all the "compliments" that you gave me, when my only sin was that I came Here to learn from the articles and from people like you, like Noam and like Michael, who I'm sure are full of knowledge like a grenade.

    I didn't come to argue with anyone or try to convince anyone, I only came to testify, that's all! (Watchers' Oath)
    I didn't come to show everyone that I contribute more to the other readers or that I know more than others or that I have a bigger dick. . . After all, I have come to learn what I still don't know, is it such a great sin that I have summoned such an attack from you?


  47. Religion would not have taken over humanity if people had not been open to it. There is an element in us that is addicted, and the religious priests only provide the goods. They can be accused of abusing their position, but if humanity had not shown signs of weakness in the first place this would not have happened. You can try to give the masses a substitute for religion. Indeed, religions develop and improve according to the mechanics of natural selection as conceived by Darwin or according to the behavior patterns of markets as you can learn in economics classes.
    Remove from humans the addictive factor and you have eliminated many negative human phenomena in one go - religion among them

  48. I think what Michael did meets all the requirements for "righteousness" contrary to your usual rhetoric.

    Every claim that Michael, Noam, and I (at least try to), my father and others are accompanied by proofs, explanations and examples (real!). I think it falls into the category of "adding wisdom"? Not to mention that we try to answer, whether it is in our field of knowledge or we can check it, every question in the fields of the articles or even beyond and all this because we want to expand people's knowledge.

    And all this and more, contrary to you and your friends, whose goal is to increase ignorance, not to expand knowledge, and all their rebuttable claims are full of half-truths and half-lies (or just lies), hallucinations and not actual proofs.
    Enters the category of "ignorance" doesn't it?
    Not to mention that all you are doing is not adding knowledge but an attempt to contradict (without using evidence or substantiated claims) most of the scientific articles, principles and theories without really contributing anything real.
    Enters the category of: ""The pure righteous do not accept for conviction but add righteousness, do not accept for apostasy but add faith, do not accept for ignorance but add wisdom."

    According to this "test" she is found to be evil and an infidel, and we, something I never claimed, are the "righteous". So thank you for defining me as righteous, although I'm not sure I would want to fit into that definition if these are the same types of people you are trying to convert us and others on the site.
    Indeed, what heights can be reached...


  49. I came to enjoy the fruits of the site just as much, I didn't come here for the next expert standard to teach others, I'm petty.

    It just bothers me to see all the bickering (which is predatory at times, and from both directions!) which in my opinion does not lead to any positive results, it only leads to gratuitous hatred.

    It is better to spend the energy on more productive discussions on real issues of substance, in my opinion.


  50. Pine,

    "The pure righteous do not accept for conviction but add justice, do not accept for apostasy but add faith, do not accept for ignorance but add wisdom." - Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak HaCohen Kook

    It seems to me that there is a "drop" of wisdom here, no? Let's try to drive like this, and see what beauty and what heights you can reach!
    Now most of the energies just get lost in a terrible waste! The Kinneret is drying up, isn't it a shame? 🙂


  51. I tried to say that I think there is no more positive way Michael can "waste" his time when he is on the site.

    Compared to others, among the science seekers, who only come to enjoy the violations of the site in the articles (which is not a bad thing at all), he invests added value by trying to prevent the demolition of the site and the minds that can be designed.

    And if he managed to educate even one person, then all the discussions that took place with his participation until today were worth it.
    David, to what extent can you say about yourself that you have contributed to the readers of the site?

  52. I actually appreciate Michael more for his ability, his patience, his stubbornness and his perseverance to introduce a little intelligence to certain people and more importantly - to prevent those people who try through incitement, brainwashing and manipulation (for example the use of half-truths and half-facts and a collection of distorted scientific knowledge or simply plain lies) To spoil those who do not know the truth yet and "sit on the fence".

    Although Michael, between us, sometimes you have a rather firm tongue to say the least 🙂 Although relative to the people you react to, you can not only take it as understanding, but say that you are even quite gentle.

  53. Michael,

    I want to make it clear that I'm really not trying to make you miserable by using sarcasm, I mean honestly and truly!


  54. Michael,

    Did not you have enough ? Calm down man! Why are you so angry all the time? How much energy do you waste on an endless argument, and for what? Have you ever convinced someone to the point where they said - "Well, you're right, and everything I've thought so far is nonsense"?
    I'm sure not, so why not use the many energies bursting from you in a positive direction, and not all the time for this endless and boring fight?


  55. anxious:
    And regarding the opium for the masses:
    Not all nonsense can be understood and there is a danger that those who attribute to a liar an attempt to speak the truth will interpret his words incorrectly.
    All this does not belong to the fact that any religion whatsoever is an opium for the masses.
    To understand this there is no need to understand the nonsense of the specific religion.
    All this, of course, has nothing to do with the fact that I understand the Jewish religion no less than you.

  56. anxious:
    I'm sorry that from a decision you made in advance you are unable to see the multitude of arguments I presented to you and the clear conclusions they lead to.
    I am amused by the fact that you attribute anything to my prejudice about you.
    Just like that, to get a little more idea about the stagnation of the religion and its inability to adapt its laws to the spirit of the times even to the fullest extent, you are welcome to read the following link:
    And to complete the picture - for those who are not anxious about things that do not exist, I add the following link:

  57. Michael:
    I did not see in your words an argument (= an attempt to reach a conclusion in the light of agreed upon things) of any kind, therefore I do not bother to respond. It seems that you actually understood my arguments, and besides 'saying' that you disagree with them, or claiming that I didn't mean them in advance, you don't add anything.

    The following are not in the nature of a response/claim, etc., they are just a point for thought.

    If you said in comment 102, you only understood after adding an explanation. (And not because of a lack of ability, but because of a prejudice against me.) How are you sure that you understood the Mishnah of Judaism so clearly, that you can confidently write that it is opium for the masses and the like?

  58. Eddie:
    1. I do not accept your argument. In my opinion there is no internal contradiction in the possibility of understanding ourselves. I took an example from the outside world because I knew you would agree with me there, but in my opinion there is no reason to assume that there is a difference between the fact that we interpret a certain combination of wavelengths as the color red and the fact that we interpret a certain state of mind as happiness, enlightenment or insight.
    2. You will find an example of an article on free choice here"
    I didn't read that particular article but I made sure it talked about the experiments I was referring to.
    3. Don't try to impress me or the readers with "secrets" that Ada Lovelace already knew just as you don't try to impress us with secrets that Ptolemy already knew about the orbit of the stars. This is a cheap and deceptive exercise.
    In the case of Ptolemy, it is already clear to us that the "secret" is not true (by the way - it is interesting to note that the idea of ​​the heliocentric system was conceived hundreds of years before Copernicus, to whom the idea is generally attributed. The first to bring it up was Aristrachus from the island of Samos who lived from 310 to 230 BC but The church preferred, for clear reasons, Ptolemy's wrong opinion.) I do not accept your claims in this section and it is obvious that you have never dealt with neural networks, statistics-based algorithms, and the like.
    In 1980 I won the prize of the Israeli union for information work on a system called "Manufacturing Work Monitor" which I developed. This system is designed to replace the shifts that our unit used to leave every night to make sure that all the work that has to be finished by morning will be entered into the computer and their faults will be taken care of.
    Just as there are people who discover after many years that they actually spoke prose all their lives 🙂 , so I also learned only later that the system I built can be associated with a department of software solutions called "expert system". It was the first expert system I had seen and perhaps the first written in the world for solving real problems.
    The shifts that this system was designed to eliminate, it must be said, were no small matter at all. They required a complete understanding of everything that needs to happen at night and a considerable ability to improvise in malfunction situations (and all this, even before the ongoing confrontation with the computer operators who sometimes seem to be doing us a big favor by doing their job).
    When we started to activate the system, we did it accompanied by people on duty - just to be sure that it doesn't go crazy.
    The experience was dizzying! Almost every time the watchmen were sure that the system did go crazy until it became clear that the solutions it found to the problems were better than theirs. They were locked on a "school solution" and the system actually improvised and took advantage of occasional situations much better.
    The result was that MRAM's computers were able to finish the execution of our unit's nightly collection of works in one third of the usual time - and this without any change in the works themselves.
    Our society - which, after all, are indeed only humans (and not computers) - but intelligent humans - realized very quickly that the system coped with the challenge better than them and stopped trying to follow its decisions.
    Instead they just started calling it "Yaakov Monitor" because they felt that they were facing a system with a personality.
    Another impersonal story: the simplest, most brilliant and most successful proof of the fact that a triangle whose base angles are equal is isosceles was found for the first time (and this after thousands of people were engaged in it) by a computer! The proof that the computer found was a classic example of going outside the box.
    And another personal story: When I was released from the IDF, I joined the DCL company, one of whose areas of specialization was the field of expert systems. At some point, a project I was supposed to manage was canceled and I was looking for something to do there. I came across a team that was trying to develop an expert system based on an idea of ​​a certain doctor who was a friend of the CEO "To. The idea was to let people whistle with a special whistle and analyze the resonance of the whistle in their lungs to learn about their health status and maybe even identify the lung disease if it exists.
    It seems absurd to me that an expert system is usually developed when there is an expert who knows the work - an expert whose methods of operation the system is supposed to specialize in, but in the case before us we are talking about an attempt to apply expertise that no one has ever acquired! (Because no one had ever tried to test lung diseases in this way and there was no knowledge about whether and how it was even possible to draw conclusions from the data).
    I told this to the project manager and he agreed with me. I did not leave him discouraged because I told him that I also had a proposal for a solution. The proposal was to build a neural network that would do the job. Such a network can learn by itself! Just let her "practice" on test cases.
    In our case we let people whistle, recorded the echo in the lungs, and told the system if the person was healthy or sick according to the results of a test conducted by a doctor in other ways.
    The system gradually learns from the test cases and if lucky then it is also able, after that, to deal with real cases.
    After that conversation - I built the system and trusted it as such.
    When I decided to switch to another company, the system knew how to distinguish between healthy and sick with a relatively high probability (I no longer remember the exact numbers, but it seems to me that all the healthy were diagnosed as healthy and over eighty percent of the sick were diagnosed as blue). All this, if you haven't realized it yet - without anyone in the world knowing how she makes her decisions!
    In fact, I even managed to suggest that they try to reverse engineer the system after the training to understand how it makes decisions.
    I don't know if the project was completed and became a medical tool (I have never come across such a tool) but I think we can learn quite a bit from this experience (which is not unique! It's just a case I know closely).
    4. Maybe yes and maybe not. In my opinion, this is a baseless statement.
    5. Here you remind me of the joke about the "inventor" who came to the Minister of Energy and said he solved the world's energy problem.
    "How?" The minister of energy asks him and the inventor answers: "Simple! Should we build an engine that runs on water?"
    "Beauty!" Says the Minister of Energy, "But how do you do that?"
    "Look," the "inventor" tells him, "I did my part - I came up with the idea - the rest is work for the engineers."
    The analogy is clear, right? Everyone is freed from the "example" you attribute to them and simply act on it only because they can't find another way. The need for more and more ways to discover the truth about the world is a clear and self-evident need. Are we having this discussion just because you want to point out such an obvious and trivial fact?
    6. I agree with your point about the Penrose speculation. I brought it up simply to show that there are other speculations besides God and unlike the divine speculation, these speculations are based on the laws of nature. As such, there is also a greater chance that they will be able to confirm or refute them.
    7. I already told the joke about the inventor. I do not offer magic ways, but I do offer ways that are not magic. Contemporary research goes along these lines. In any case, it is clear to both of us that there will always be detractors and this is not a test of a scientific theory.
    8. Here, too, the "inventor" joke is called for. By the way, this is exactly the type of topics that Hagin might express herself on because it is sufficiently vague and pointless (and I am not comparing you to her, HOH).

  59. Eddie,
    This is indeed your very special conversation with Mr. M.R. and some of us are captivated by the formation of the dialogue between you, but since you asked what 'Hoggin' would say in alas:) it will not be surprising to you that you are precisely among the remaining members of my "company" (from Talika:) but to Elia and Kotz in a related definition This is and you will have to not fall into the trap (literally) in your touches and contacts with this messenger and product of this distinct 'revolution', and the one who is unaware of its conditions and essence.
    In any case, you must always take into account that computer discussions are deceptive, creatively blind and create illusions and are only a substitute/default for the necessity of the realities of the current scenarios.
    Good luck in your 'special search for a definition' and continue a fruitful conversation with the above.

  60. Michael,
    Regarding your words in response 112:
    1. Note that in your claim (No. 1) that there is no basis for my 'negative' claim, you use an 'external' example of the mental world of man. Indeed, when it comes to an external object or an external phenomenon, we can question our basic intuitions about them. (It seems to me that modern physics demonstrates this in an impressive way - when basic concepts of space, time, mass, wave and particle (galaxy), ancestral relation, early and late, symmetry, etc., etc. underwent a fundamental change compared to what is known by intuition. It is possible that the process even began in physics The classic.) But this is not the case with our inner, most basic mental existential intuitions - such as the awareness of yourself as an autonomous subject, the experiential quality, the autonomy and coherence of thought, volition and free will, etc. These we cannot deny; They are truths that, if we deny them, we lose our standing as intelligent subjects (a sort of 'if I'm not me, then who am I anyway'), and all authentic litigation is found to contradict itself. It is a logical error to draw an equal conclusion between our intuitions regarding the 'objective' impossibility (in your example - the technological) of any object, and the impossibility of a state - data, forces and processes - primary subjective consciousness. The initial knowledge/intuitions are the 'first opinion', they are the 'Bri' and any other opinion (for example - materialistic monistic method) is necessarily in the possession of a speculative 'maybe'; And they have priority as long as the burden of proof and the burden of persuasion is not lifted to prove the opposite, if at all such a thing is possible - and this is indeed not possible, in light of the self-contradiction discussed above.
    Therefore, in my opinion, my minimal negative claim, that material reality cannot (in principle! and not just randomly!) completely exhaust the mentality without a trace - is correct. There is no room for a complete reduction of mentalism to materialism.
    2. Regarding your claim (No. 2) regarding the objective 'correctness' of the unmediated news (in your language - the 'feelings'):
    In principle, 'existence' should not be limited to material existence in a world with a given number of dimensions - indeed. This existence is a 'real' existence limited, necessarily, in one respect or another. The existence of something can be a 'truth' even outside of a given reality, including the material one.
    Therefore there is no necessity, justification and even no need to 'force' a mental being or event to 'exist' and 'correct' in the objective material world, as a condition for it to be 'existing' and correct'. Thus, he exists and is 'true' in his world of reality. The experience of 'red' which we experience in the most authentic way, has a full existence in its own world, the mental world, and the fact that it cannot be fully reduced to material reality only proves and justifies this, and has no power to detract from or question any of its 'correctness'.
    Of course, the above statements do not deny the connection between the different realities. The chemophysical reality certainly influences in some ways the mental reality, and vice versa - the mental on the chemophysical. However, it is possible that the connection is direct and distinct between a mental being/event and another, or between a chemophysical being/event and another, than between mental and chemophysical and vice versa. This explains, perhaps, what you claimed about the 'open access' of the mental to the mental.
    Regarding the attempts made according to you regarding 'free choice' - this is extremely interesting, and I would like to review this study, to the extent that it is indeed a serious and professional study. I would appreciate it if you could direct me to him. In the meantime, allow me to assume that in such attempts there are difficult interpretive questions and challenges (such as: What does 'before he himself knows it' mean? How do you verify such 'knowledge' in the subject and its exact time? How do you diagnose the process of choice and the developing awareness - for choice? Did it precede the creation of a mental state or was it simultaneous with it? etc. etc.). These interpretive questions and challenges, such may be decisive regarding the analysis of the results and the drawing of the research conclusions. But the problem is that they are often decided or stopped in naivety and professional superficiality or even out of arbitrary approaches.
    3. So you, as a materialist, believe that there is no difference between human intelligence and the computer's artificial intelligence... The truth is that according to your starting point in the discussion, this conclusion seemed to me to be required. From now on we can also decide our issue according to the following test question: Is it permissible for a person from the computer?
    I have already expressed my opinion in response 101 (section 2) in connection with the computer's intelligence. Man understands and thinks - since he perceives content and meaning. The computer does not perceive content and meaning - it is a machine for the formal operation of symbols, it receives data symbols and emits output symbols that are the result of algorithms and calculation power entered and equipped by someone who understands and thinks - man. The 'intelligence' of the computer has nothing but algorithmic patterns - a person has perception and thinking processes that are also illogical - experiences, intuitions, feelings, associations and creative ideas that are necessarily surprising and unexpected by definition and necessarily deviate from any previous formula. No logical programming is able to bring illogical results. No algorithm can get out of its 'box'. This secret was already known by Eda Lovelace, Babbage's colleague who said more than 160 years ago that the analytical engine 'can do (only) what we know how to order it to do'. The belief that artificial intelligence can identify with human intelligence at any time, with phenomenal algorithmic sophistication and unimaginable calculation power - is therefore nonsense, another clear demonstration of the 'fallacy of the first step' (the idea that if you raise a flag on a journey to the moon you can reach it by raising more flags , flag after flag. Raising a flag is, let's say - the victory of Deeper Blue over Kasparov. And Turing must not be believed - his test is one of the most bloated nonsense of the twentieth century).
    Since a person is allowed from the computer, then if the materialist view recognizes the person as a kind of computer (and it does, in principle) - then this view necessarily fails.
    4. According to the claim in section 4 - we have open access to our mentality: it is unmediated, does not need external input through the senses, and is authentic.
    5. For claim 5: I agree with you that new concepts and ways of observation and research must be proposed. This involves a willingness to part with materialistic dogmatic concepts, which have taken control of the world of research, without any justification and for a matter that, in my opinion, is ideological, not business. In a discussion like ours, one of many, one can see the beginning of an attempt at a different perception and a renewed observation. And it's not up to me and my shoulders to finish the job...
    Regarding 'God', I really think that at this stage and in the limited context of the discussion, it is not required to be discussed, what's more, we haven't done enough/anything to try to prove/disprove it, or characterize it.
    6. To claim 6: I said what I think about Penrose's idea, with all due respect to him (which he certainly deserves as one of the greatest physicists in the second half of the last century), in my response 106 Section 6. It seems to me that Penrose has a kind of reliance on a 'God of gaps' ' of quantum origin. In my opinion, this is pure speculation, for the reasons I mentioned. In addition, in order to posit a materialistic method in our issue, more than such speculation is required, because in this issue, in my opinion, the burden of proof and persuasion is on the person claiming materialism.
    7. For claim 7: I repeat what I said in section 5. Unfortunately, I am not a researcher in the relevant professions, nor am I that talented. What to do... by the way, you also do not offer solutions and magic studies that place materialism in our issue as a proven thing that cannot be contested...
    8. For claim 8: In addition to what I said above, I believe that also, and especially if, it is assumed that the mental phenomena also obey laws of a non-material kind, one that is not known today, or at least they maintain relationships with the material entities of a type that has not yet been discovered to date, relationships that we may learn about them at least indirectly - giving science a huge advantage. I believe that perceptual openness leads to research progress and scientific truth. On the other hand, perceptual dogmatism leads to research fixation and scientific distortion at one level or another. The 'existing search' is neither obscene nor wrong in principle. But I believe that the rejection of the additional, non-dogmatic search is wrong. I offer a perceptual change, a new horizon, a guide to true and more correct science. I know it sounds 'exploded' (oh my, what would you say about it 'Hoggin'...) and I don't mean to be so blown, but in all modesty - this is the right direction in my opinion.

  61. anxious,
    Be careful when you go to the links that Lez passes: this link has been brought here many times by him, he uses the sages for his personal benefit only.
    Learn to filter his meandering noises with coughs.

  62. anxious:
    You're just meandering and you're not leading anywhere that makes sense.
    I really don't care how you interpret the word motive or reason. All the similarities and differences between them and all the discussion about the meaning of these words are nothing but the result of your fallen attempt to evade the meaning of your words - things that neither the word reason nor the word motive appeared in them.
    The discussion about the meaning of the words seems to me to be a fruitless debate that serves you only to keep the reader's attention away from the things you said.
    As soon as you started talking about motives as an evolutionary product - even if you didn't mean it - you were talking about me. That's why I said that as someone who does not know why not to murder (that is, as someone in whom evolution has not instilled the distinction between good and evil) you are not exactly the role model who should judge others.
    You didn't understand that either (or again you tried to wrap the lie in many words to confuse the readers).
    The statement that religion is immoral is a completely different statement from the statement that religion is an opium for the masses.
    Unfortunately - both statements are true and that is the only similarity between them.
    The drunken driver as a comparable example to the one who rides a horse on Shabbat is a dress code.
    A drunk driver does endanger the public and riding on Shabbat does not do so and never did. It is only religion that made people see riding a horse on Shabbat as a danger to the public.
    You say that the wise man sees the unborn and I say that no one sees the unborn. The claim that someone can know in advance and with certainty the results of a person's execution (beyond the obvious result of that person's death) is a false and foolish claim.
    And read something else:

    In any case, your claim that the legal murder of people is conditional on the consent of the Sanhedrin was false in the first place and your failed attempt to justify the other acts of murder that the religion justifies does not change this fact which in itself reveals the degree of your honesty.

  63. Michael:
    Since you are sticking to words again I will have to refer specifically.
    Motive in the context we deal with, (=human actions) is a mental action mechanism. (you think my brain)
    A reason in this context is something that stands by itself, external to the human soul. (same as above)
    And what are similar phrases for, if you don't differentiate between them?
    The expressions 'why' and 'know' refer more to the concept of reason, as I defined it. And yet I have already differentiated in this response between a reason and a motive.
    Even if I were a psychopath, I wouldn't even try to discuss your moral sensibilities. XNUMX to try to bring you to the realization that we need an external standard. Even if this is expressed in the Torah, then there is no possibility of claiming immorality in it. In short, I wanted to argue that your arguments against religion are based on presuppositions that are not accepted by the Torah. And in any case, there is nothing in your words, more than the 'written' religion is opium for the masses.
    Since you don't need an external source for morality, (which as a guest I didn't know when I wrote) this passage has no meaning for you.

    Regarding the threat to public peace. I used a topical example, and yet you didn't understand? Drunk driving today is a phenomenon and must be fought with unconventional means. Murder, the easy praise, is not a phenomenon, and there is no need for it. What is not clear, what did you think was meant by the words 'need of the hour'?
    According to what I wrote before, there is no need to justify the Torah, when and what to punish. However, it is important to distinguish between a punishment given by the Sanhedrin, as the Mishna wrote and I quoted. and a deterrent weapon or 'targeted countermeasures', (which also exists in relation to 'traditions') that does not need a Sanhedrin, from the simple rule of 'come to your slaying, let him be killed'. What is not clear again, did you not realize that everything I wrote was about riding a horse?

    Regarding the result, the ability to see the unborn does not exist among those who descend from the monkey. But in the Mishnah, sages wrote, some wise man sees the unborn.

    It's amazing that you bother to emphasize, which is my opinion today. When everything I wrote, is to clarify the opinion of contemporary Judaism.

  64. To Hogin the many names and faces and the zero contents:
    Although I have an argument with Eddie, on the point you are trying to address right now, I actually agree with him and not with you.
    I didn't write this for you (because influencing you for the better is impossible) but only so that Eddie can see that I remain matter-of-fact and do not join the attackers of my friends just because they attack my friends

  65. Eddie:
    1. I claim that there is no basis for your negative claim. All that can be rightfully claimed is that we have not found a full Khmer explanation, but to tap from here that this is not at all possible to perform similar to any other raising of hands. After all, even before the first success in building a flying machine, they did not succeed in this, and indeed there were also those who tried to point out that this was not possible at all. This, in my opinion, is a logical error followed by laxity that has already proven itself to be anti-constructive. It would be great if you would suggest a different line of inquiry - but you don't.
    2. Our unmediated sensations are of free choice, understanding, and the like. But with all that they are unmediated there is no necessity that they are "correct". As I mentioned - the feeling of "red" is also not something that has a clear objective existence. This feeling is nothing but the way we feel a certain reality and in exactly the same way it can be argued that the way we feel reality in relation to our choice gives us the feeling that it is free without this freedom having a hold on reality (and by the way - attempts have been made to put the subject of our free choice to a test that it is difficult to say that it passed Do you know that when a person is given the option to press one of two buttons as soon as he wants, an examiner who picks up electrodes that listen to his brain activity can know what his choice will be even before he himself knows it?!). I do not think that understanding is a free choice and in my eyes there is no problem with a machine that interprets the fact that it has a complete logical chain between cause and effect as understanding.
    3. According to the materialist approach we are really no different from a computer. That is - we are indeed different from the computers that exist today, but it is possible that one day we will succeed in creating a computer endowed with all the qualities we are proud of (that is - that it feels alive, feels - perhaps mistakenly - as having free choice, and understands) but between us it is quite clear that even if we succeed in creating Some living creature - say even a bacterium - your entire attitude will suffer a severe blow.
    4. I did not understand your claim in this section. We can - at least in principle - observe the activity of our minds (and certainly the minds of others) and identify the neural activity involved in each sensation - whether it is the sensation of the color red or whether it is the sensation of free choice. You say that there is no identity between the things, and it is possible that with regard to the neural events we have already identified, your claim is even true (I am not saying it is true, but even so) - it is still not possible to conclude from this that neural activity that will be identified in the future is not the same as the sensation.
    5. I have no problem excluding God from the discussion, but if you want to negate the existing approach, it should be based on at least one of the following two things: presenting another approach that agrees with the facts - or pointing out a point where the accepted approach does not agree with the facts. In my opinion you do neither this nor that.
    6. I do not want to defend Penrose's claim, but only to show that within the materialist approach there are solution proposals that do not fall short of any alternative proposal you offer (which is easy - because you offer nothing). As I mentioned - another evidence of things is that the whole issue of free choice is an illusion.
    7. The question you raised has a fundamental meaning only if an answer is found. You do not offer any method for searching for the answer - apart from the method used today, which is why I said it is not important because when there is no search for an answer and even no idea how to start looking for the answer - there is no chance that the answer will be found and therefore there is no chance that the materialistic approach will crack.
    8. I return you to the previous section. The search is as it is because that is what they know how to search for. Up to this moment you have not offered any way to confirm or refute the dualistic approach and therefore up to this moment there is nothing you can do (nor is there any reason to adopt it because its adoption - if it is justified - should give some advantage and this advantage would allow the definition of the test experiment if it is A concept indeed. I repeat that my main argument against your approach is that it prevents any search by dismissing the existing search and not offering an alternative search. This is a sure recipe for stagnation and we must thank all those who have fought it in the past despite the attempts of religions to impose it.

  66. FYI Eddie,
    Erich von Daniken did not 'work' for anyone. He wrote in a wonderful way and opened our minds and ancient memory a little.
    But you, in spite of the beautiful and successful 'mental' words you utter, which remind me of certain living room circles and are sticky with intellectual slipperiness, pseudo emancipation,
    At this moment, after your blunt response to 107's secondary comment, it is found as a 'digger' and somewhere in the air something that smells like 'eye work' is felt.
    Maybe write a book?

  67. Ladi, why do I have to explain to you?
    It seems you already know what happened in the creation of the world, whether there are aliens here or not, mental status of writers. You know everything.

  68. Pine,
    In my previous response, I did not notice your words in response 104. I definitely agree with you that there is a causal connection between chemophysical conditions, and even just physical ones, and various mental conditions. This is one of the most famous, although there is still a lot of room for careful research to find out the nature of this paternal connection, and most likely it will be revealed. My whole argument was only that it is not possible to make a complete reduction of mentalism to materialism, yes or no.

    In principle, I also want to claim that the causal connection is also in the opposite direction, that is, that mentalism affects the brain's chemophysical events, and even more so - on physical events that are not specifically related to the brain. ).
    In principle, I also want to claim that mentalism exists in its own right, in certain situations and in certain characteristics, even without a brain chemophysical basis or even through a physical intermediary. And I'm not talking about 'mysticism', but about research facts. (I have not raised this claim either in my words so far).

  69. For a monologue:
    We read Erich von Daniken when we were children. Here and there he managed to 'work' on some of us.
    But with what evidence will you convince us, adults who have read Deniken's fiction, that this is not another charlatan/hallucinations/mental imbalance/promiscuous imagination?

  70. A long time ago life was found outside the Earth, and I mean intelligent life that has been coming here since forever.
    I don't believe in NASA, anything.

  71. Michael,
    According to you in response 103:
    1. Like you, I also do not know the sources of wisdom. I do not know the essence of reason, and hardly its processes. If I had known - I would not have discussed it... All I wish to claim at this stage is to make a negative claim: that the material layer cannot exhaust reason. In this context, I have nothing but to rely on unmediated information that I have, like you - information related to the autonomy of awareness, thought, desire... . Since I have no special reason to deny them or to frown upon them, I accept them and their existence, at least seemingly and at least as a starting point of understanding and discussion. I have no special desire or special necessity to strive and adopt a monistic position, a position that reduces all mental phenomena - to existence and chemophysical legality, for example. Those who claim that such a reduction should be made, need to bring good reasons for this - evidence, not speculation - because he is 'excluding' from the rule the immediate knowledge as it is known to us.
    2. The word 'truly', which I repeated in my words in several contexts, refers to our unmediated autonomous knowledge about the existence and nature of awareness, thought, volition... . My argument is, among other things, that the material concept is inappropriate, and in fact contradicts the aforementioned first-hand information. These are not ideological arguments, but rather natural arguments in their simplicity and connection to our most basic existential knowledge - mine as well as yours and that of any person with effective intelligence (with the exception - a person who is a 'plant', for example) knowledge that are actually facts that are not factual; Factual information that is not at all a subject of voting and deciding according to a 'majority', but is by definition common to everything and serves as a basis for any practical decision and action of any intelligent being.
    3. Since you object to 'my definitions', which you claim are the concepts pre-defined by me as non-materialistic, I ask you - in order to understand you better - to clarify how you define, on a materialistic level and in materialistic ways, terms such as: 'intelligence', 'awareness' , 'thought', 'experience' 'desire' 'voluntary act'. In this context, I would like to understand from you, assuming that the materialistic principle exhausts us, are we at all different from the computer? - and if so - how are we, as intelligent beings, different from the computer; And what and how do we become 'aware', 'think', 'experience', 'want' and 'act voluntarily' differently from the computer?
    4. For your claim regarding the equivalence of the claim of open and preferential access to the claim of access to the color red:
    Man is preferentially aware of the color red as the color 'red' as a mental state, without having access to the aforementioned chemophysical process, according to the materialists' method, to exhaust this mental state. If there really was an identity between the chemophysical phenomenon and the mental phenomenon - the approach to them would have to be the same, and this does not happen. There is no advantage in trying and even succeeding in cracking all the components of the chain of chemophysical events of the 'feeling', since even then we will not be able to create an open and preferred approach towards them as we do in relation to the mental experience.
    This is even more true for mental states that are not related to the sensory input - meaning feelings of sadness, exaltation, etc.; or even imaginary experiences (for example - a person can imagine pain (let's say - 'pain in the left hand'), without any neurological event (in the left hand); he wants to imagine such pain and it is possible that the elevation of the will in itself causes some neurological event in the brain (and not the opposite) but from all There is no identity between the two events. And, there is no identity between the neurological event when the pain is imagined, and the neurological event when the pain actually occurs, even though in both cases it is the same experience of pain. The same applies to any other experience. There are two different events here, and therefore not They may be identical, yet the mental experience is one, and access to them is equally open. ).
    In my opinion, in your words I did not find a rejection, even for Kaorit - for the claim of 'the open and preferred approach'.
    5. I do not propose to put 'God' in any 'gap', not even in this 'gap'. I simply point to the gap, (and in fact point to more than just an accidental gap. I point to an essential gap -) as evidence of my opposition to a total reduction of all mentalities to the purely materialistic plane. I generally suggest that we remove the concept of 'God' from our discussion, as long as we have not proven it and tested it and its virtues from the necessary tests (this can be discussed, as I wrote to you before. So I proposed to present the ontological argument in Adams' construction, remember?).
    6. I agree with you that the physical world is not completely deterministic, and it is not deterministic at least at the subatomic level. But with all due respect to Penrose, it is hard to accept his attempt to base free choice on this fact. Without going into all the complex physics that is involved in this and definitely requires proof, it is clear to us that our choice is not made on the basis of the probability that can arise, for example, from the collapse of the wave function from Schrödinger's foundation. We can decide and choose - and do so a lot - against any legal or probabilistic pattern that can be identified; Sometimes - in a rational and consistent way - which of course cannot stem from 'probability', and sometimes in an irrational way, and still not on a probabilistic basis that can be pointed to. In any case, we choose out of an awareness of free will and out of a conscious attribution of essential priority to one option over others. Sometimes there are areas in which we make decisions of a certain type only, and we do not make certain other decisions at all, even though theoretically they should also be 'turned out'. In short, in matters of 'choice' it does not seem that any probability works.
    7. The question I raised is of fundamental importance - regarding the validity of the materialist method. If life includes mental states that cannot be fully reduced to the chemophysical level - then the overall materialistic concept of life - is cracked. It is even possible to link this non-materialistic residual - to the very question of the formation of life; If we come to the conclusion that life itself involves an immaterial element of consciousness and will (or at least a purposeful 'essential'), then we will also conclude that its beginning or its discovery at a sufficiently decisive stage - involves such an element. Many ideologies will be changed by this, including ideologies with practical moral and social consequences, not to mention the disappearance of articles presenting certain charlatan views...
    8. Regarding the claim in section 7 of your response: it is difficult to accept your claim, for several reasons. A. - As I said above, since the materialist monist view is apparently contrary to our basic unmediated knowledge, the burden of bringing evidence and the burden of persuasion rests on the shoulders of the person claiming the materialist view, in order to argue in its favor. It is not enough to raise its theoretical possibility in order to give it equal weight (certainly not an excess) over some dualistic concept. B - it is necessary to show how such a reduction is done. I think we are far from that. Russell proved that it is not possible to make a complete reduction of mental tendencies to behaviors, and personally I believe that in the same way it cannot be done in the direction of chemophysical processes. By the way, even if your last claim is correct (and of course in principle I don't accept it), then from a practical point of view at least, it would be worthwhile to start speaking in a dualistic language, not a monistic materialistic one, both in scientific contexts and purely scientific research and in 'ideological' and 'moral' contexts. I don't see it as expected that people who identify themselves as materialistic would behave in such a good way...

  72. anxious:
    It's not that I don't understand the difference between a reason and a motive, it's that you use these two words and try to misrepresent a difference that doesn't exist between them.
    The word "cause" is related to the action of "rotation" and it acts on the "rotator" and all these "movements" are known to be caused by a "motive".
    All of this regarding your demagogic cover-up attempt, but regarding the essence - you said (how many times does it have to be repeated?) that if God had not told you not to kill, you would not have known why not to kill those who annoy you. When you said this you did not distinguish between a reason and a motive and simply - with remarkable honesty - admitted to us that you are a psychopath.
    That's why I also told you that in light of your situation, you have no authority to come and analyze the moral feelings of others.

    You also have very strange views regarding the danger that people pose to the public.
    A murderer is not contagious, but drunk driving is? What nonsense! And not just drunk driving is contagious, according to you, but it continues to affect people even if the person goes to prison! I hope you don't drive because you seem like a regular drunk to me. And who even talked about drunk driving?!
    You finally touched on the issue of riding a horse on Shabbat and you come back and justify its execution, but before you rush to do so, you should pay attention to the following facts:
    1. The story itself shows that all your stories about the Sanhedrin were rubbish
    2. Your justification shows that the same "moral" standards are used in your environment even today

    This is exactly what I said from the beginning and of course I disagree with your opinion (I repeat - your opinion is yours today and not the opinion of our fools whose memory is cursed) that those who ride a horse on Shabbat should be killed. In fact, in my opinion, there is no reason to punish such a person at all!

    I foresaw your ramblings about the desired result and I also answered them (fortunately - to read what I wrote in the past you don't need a time machine. This is only necessary to know if the actual murder will have the desired results and that's without going into the question of what is even desired and by whom). That's why I repeat and refer you to the response to which you pretend to answer because the answers to your questions are found there.

    It seems to me that despite all the effort I will not be able to explain things to you as long as you do not retaliate from the addiction to the opium of the masses.

    When I talked about the effect through chemophysical means, I of course also meant physical damage.
    In fact, the whole topic is presented in the article I published here under the title "How are you doing?” (and as far as I know he made order even for rational people)

  73. Additionally,
    Just to support the approach you call "materialistic" - when a part of the brain is damaged (or even surgically cut) you can see a change in personality depending on the area of ​​the brain that was damaged. Whether he created more gods or on the contrary more calm. It happened that after a brain injury the person changed completely almost beyond recognition.

    No "soul exchange" is needed to explain the change in personality. It is true that it may be a little depressing to think of us and especially our minds as nothing more than incredibly sophisticated computers. But again, as I claim for all the deniers of evolution and those who are not ready to accept that we are descended from the monkey - you need a little humility to be ready to accept the science and the reality it reveals to us. It is hard to accept that we are not particularly special, even though what science reveals to us about us and the universe around us certainly seems to me to be wonderful and amazing enough for me to look for more things to invent to complete the feeling.

  74. Eddie:

    1. You reject the materialist approach but offer no plausible alternative approach.
    2. All your reasons for rejecting the materialist approach are ideological and not factual. You reject it because in your opinion (and we will touch on the fact that I disagree with this opinion), then if it is true then we do not "really" think, experience and have free will. For some reason you expect us to conclude that if we don't want this to be the case either, then we should also reject the materialistic approach - as if the "truth" will finally hold a vote and decide what to be according to the will of the majority.
    3. Your definition of the terms "thought", "understanding", "will", etc. is what leads you to the claim that according to the materialist approach we are not "really" endowed with them. I do not see any drag of this kind because I do not define thought, desire, choice, etc. ***in advance*** as non-materialistic entities.
    4. The claim that a person does not have access to his mental states is completely equivalent to the claim that he does not have access to the color red. The sensation of the color red is a sensation obtained from a certain combination of wavelengths. In exactly the same way - the feeling of sadness or exaltation are feelings we feel as a result of a certain brain activity. In any case, it is a feeling that is not direct, but the fact that we have not yet cracked all its components does not require God to be pushed into this gap.
    5. The physical world is also not completely deterministic and there are those (Roger Penrose) who try to base our sense of free choice on this fact. He may be right and he may not be, but the followers of God will always be able to claim that quantum randomness is also ultimately controlled by God who chooses when Schrödinger's cat will live or die while promoting his goals - on the one hand - but while maintaining the appearance of randomness on the other.
    6. In any case - the question you raise has no bearing on our lives or on the actions we must do.
    7. While it is possible to say that reduction cannot be done, the possibility of saying so does not make it true.

  75. Michael:
    Apologies, if you don't understand the difference between reasons and motives, then I bothered you for nothing and I'm sorry.
    I thought you were accusing religion of immorality in the conventional sense of the word. If morality in your eyes is evolutionary progress, then there is no debate between us at all. And again apologies for the unnecessary bother, and especially for not noticing this point on Friday.
    Also, I thought you would try to use the human conscience as a standard for morality. And that's why I wrote that it can also be interpreted as a nature that was embedded in us, so that we don't become like the fish of the sea. If you don't need an external standard for morality, then the sentence had no meaning exactly as you wrote. Even though the examples you gave are considered in a "miraculous" way.
    Regarding the death penalty, I will try to write more clearly, because I used an expression whose accepted meaning today is different from the one I intended.
    A murderer, whose fear is that he will repeat his actions, does not threaten the peace of the public, (in the sense I meant) because he can be put in prison for life. But a person who drives a car drunk, even if nothing happened, is a threat to public safety. And it will not help to put him in prison, because many will rise up after him. The only way to deter in this case is disproportionate punishment. (The emphasis is on disproportionality and not on a particular punishment.) In any case, the punishment in this case is not for the sin (=which is not permissible) as a deterrent weapon. (=for the purpose of the hour)
    (Of course, these things do not depend on what type of sin is involved, so even in relation to riding a horse on Shabbat, which is not forbidden by the Torah, this tool exists)
    I hope that now you understand the point better, and realize that there is no contradiction between the explicit secondaries that I quoted, and the quotes that are given in good faith.
    Regarding incitement, you were also wrong in the previous response regarding the desired result of the death penalty. And I must say that I was amazed by the superficiality with which you read the things.
    The desired result is not the death of the sinner. (And this is also true in the case of punishment) because Judaism would have put the responsibility on God, who would have done it for the better side, without the need for witnesses and warning, or other strange laws. The goal is to instill in us the seriousness of sin, as the prophet wrote "A that I quoted in my first response. And to the extent of the need for this, and the extent of this benefit, depends on the execution of the death penalty. And since today it will do nothing to kill you, you can relax, since there was no call to kill or even punish you in the words.
    If you think that it bothers me that you write "religion is an opium for the masses", then you are wrong. It's amazing that you didn't feel the sting. (Hint: What was the worst crime in communist Russia, and in any such country?)

  76. Michael and Oren,
    I do not believe that reason with all its components and powers (awareness, perception, experience, etc., etc.), is a chain of purely chemophysical events, or as Oren says, "everything is chemophysical". I reject the materialistic method, at least in this context.

    The fundamental idea of ​​the method is that chemophysical events (usually it is acceptable to attribute them to the central nervous system) produce states that are identified as 'mental', and are identical to them. I believe that there are quite a few objections to this concept, and allow me to raise them briefly (by the way, the objections facing this method are partly objections that were also asserted against another method advocated in the past - epiphenomenalism):
    1. According to this method, we do not have consciousness as subjects - consciousness is an illusion.
    2. According to this method, we are not truly intelligent. In fact, according to this method we are not able to think - because if the mentality itself does not actually exist, and the chemophysical body alone is the one that creates what is identified as 'thought', - there is no connection between the thoughts as 'thoughts'. The human condition is similar to the condition of a computer; The computer, based on meaningful data that we feed it (say - data about radiation from a certain nebula), performs what we understand as frequency calculations (say, - calculations that prove an orderly decrease in frequency - what we understand as redshift), and reaches a result (we interpret the result as speed certain distance of the nebula). The computer does not 'understand' and it does not 'think', and its calculations are not 'thoughts', its activity, including the output, lacks the same intellectual significance that we understand as 'radiation data', 'redshift' and 'retraction velocity'.
    3. According to this method - we are not truly voluntary, we certainly do not have free will.
    4. According to this method, there is no voluntary act - because there really is no mental state that can affect the chemophysical body.
    5. It is a fact that a person has an open and preferred approach to his mental states:
    A self-aware being, he has direct and preferred access to his conscious mental states, an access that is open only to him (and does not exist for others) regarding his mental states; Also, it is a preferred approach that he did not even have for himself regarding his mental/nervous physical conditions, and his approach to them is intermediate, just as it is regarding the physical conditions of his friend. If there was an identity between mental states and physical states, the conscious approach to both types of processes - would have to be the same, both in the preferred direction and in the non-preferred direction. Beyond that, the very existence of the preferred approach to mental states - cannot be understood and be a candidate for purely physicalistic states. Thus mental states cannot be purely chemophysical states.

    Michael, I read your statement that you don't know the sources of your reason, and I appreciate the honesty in your phrasing
    this one I also accept your claim that it is possible to influence the mental through chemophysical means, as well as the claim that we are making more and more progress in investigating the functions of the brain. It is possible to make a total reduction of the mental to the net chemophysical level. Therefore the materialistic view cannot be correct.

  77. Eddie:
    What is permissible for humans from animals is not something that is required by the force of some natural law.
    In general - the word "permitted" is related to the word "more" and the meaning behind it is that there is more than something "good".
    In my opinion there is no external source for the definition of good and bad and naturally we interpret these terms as a function of the evolution we have undergone and the education we have received.
    The problem I keep talking about is in educational systems that derive the good and the bad from an "external" source that does not exist that dictates dictates that contradict those of evolution.
    All of the above was said to emphasize that in my view "man is allowed from the beast" is also derived from the same sources - meaning that it is possible that a mouse would have judged things differently if he could have understood them.
    And here I come to the main thing that I see as what separates man from animals: his ability to understand the world and decipher its laws in a more efficient and reliable way.
    This is related, among other things, to his ability to use language and more importantly - to create language - as I explained in the article I wrote here:The first word".
    Our ability to understand the world more reliably is an objectively measurable fact.
    The fact that it is a good thing is derived from the terms of good and bad that we discovered during evolution, but in this case I think that even animals would judge our ability as a "good" thing and this is due to the fact that in all animals the urge to recognize patterns has developed, as I explained in another article I wrote here:Meta-beauty or why beauty is not dead".
    With this ability to understand the world and predict the results of our actions and the actions of others comes an increased ability to identify actions as "good" or "bad" according to their expected results. This is expressed in more complex moral laws, some of which have developed in us in the course of evolution and some of which are a "calculated" projection of our basic feelings of good and bad.
    Therefore it can also be said that our moral laws are better because acting according to them will often give results that are more in line with what we perceive as good.
    In other words - even in the field of morality, a person is "permitted".

  78. To Michael and Oren:

    I was a little busy the last few days and didn't take the time to respond to your comments (93, 94).
    The topic I raised in response 90 has a distinct connection to the topic we discussed before, confirming that one of the points of contention is the value of truth in the overall materialist concept.
    I have something to say on the subject, but in the meantime I would like to ask additional questions, namely:
    What is the 'man permitted' from the animal (that is, from another living creature wherever it is a living creature)? Is there any 'allowed' for a person at all?

    I wish for us that the discussion will be matter-of-fact, dignified and respectful, with and despite the differences.

  79. anxious:
    I understood perfectly.
    I repeat: you said that you don't know why not to kill and this statement refers to both the reasons and the motives so that your attempt to create an artificial and false difference between the two does not rescue you from the hole you have made yourself.
    I don't know what you call my statements, but if this is incitement against religion in your eyes, then you have already increased what you did in your last response and incited the public to murder me.
    In any case - in the examples I gave, it was about desecrating Shabbat.
    You just don't read or understand anything or both.

  80. As usual you do not understand and react aggressively.
    Evolutionary morality is not a reason not to kill, but a motive as I said
    A motive is something without being overweight against nerves.
    I asked you for a reason and I didn't get one.
    If we talk about evolution, both the belief and the need to kill in its name have been accepted by the majority of the human population throughout history and today to a large extent. So you have nothing to attack.
    According to the religion, whoever incites against the religion endangers public peace like a murderer, so again you didn't understand the content but the words.

  81. anxious:
    You said the sentence "I don't know why I shouldn't kill the one who annoys me, except for the fact that G-d said."
    In a tanner who doesn't know why one shouldn't murder others, I don't think you are qualified to analyze the moral feelings of others.
    I have already written about the evolution of morality and explained the subject to hundreds of liars like you and I don't have the energy to repeat everything, so I say briefly:
    1. Moral behavior also exists in other developed animals (such as monkeys).
    2. All moral behaviors have an evolutionary explanation.
    3. There is no basis for the claim that God planted morality in us. It is equivalent to saying that God planted my garden or that the Flying Spaghetti Monster just passed your ears.
    4. The "moral" definitions of the Torah contradict the moral definitions that you claim God implanted in me. There is no point in trying to convince me that God implanted in me a feeling of deep aversion to the idea of ​​murder just to command me to murder Sabbath breakers.

    What is the desired result of the death penalty if not the death of the deceased?
    What does the requirement "provided that it will produce the desired result" mean? Even if you think of a different possible outcome - do you think we should equip ourselves with a time machine and check what the outcome will be before carrying out the punishment? Is it even possible to have a time machine that examines the results of actions that in the end will not be done? Is the demand you fabricated right now written somewhere in the laws of Judaism?

    In the text that you continue to ignore, there are both examples of authorization (actually a command) to kill without the involvement of the Sanhedrin and examples of cases where these laws were actually applied. I don't know why I should consider your words if you don't read my words at all (and no - it's not about people who threatened public peace, except, of course, the murderers in religious mitzvot)

    It doesn't take three sentences to state that religion is the opium of the masses. Here - count the sentences I put below in brackets:
    "Religion is the opium of the masses."
    Views?! One sentence was enough!

  82. To Michael:
    Every person has a conscience just like you do. But conscience is not morality nor is it a standard for morality. It motivates, just like the rest of man's instincts and impulses. The fact that billions of people are not murderers stems from what I commented at the end, that luckily God created us this way.
    I expected a better question from you, like: why "God said" is more of a reason than the law. After all, like him, God threatens hell. But since you didn't ask I won't address it now.
    Regarding the application of the death penalty, I found no evidence in the link or in your comments that this is not the case. Indeed, you probably didn't understand what I meant, if the death penalty exists, then it is moral and should be used. Provided that it will bring the desired result, and provided that this is the only way to achieve it. Therefore, they actually used this punishment to the extent necessary, but at the stage when the use might become frequent, the Sanhedrin lost its place and stopped discussing the laws of souls. (Refer to Tractate XNUMX:XNUMX)
    Without the Sanhedrin, there is indeed no discussion of soul laws, and all the examples there on the website deal with people who threatened public peace.
    (This is clear to anyone who pays attention to the content of the matter and not just the words)
    Of course you claim that the death penalty is generally immoral, but the argument is based on your yardstick. Certainly there is no challenge to the morality of any religion. (Epis. Religion of idols.) Admittedly, a religion that leads to the widespread use of this punishment is in trouble, because its God, when he created the world, intended it to exist even in the case of common sins. Otherwise, he would have created him a little differently.
    I wasn't wondering about anything else, so I'm not sure what's in your previous comments.
    Regarding what I promised to write, why the world does not seem to be led by God. There are several books on this question, and those who really want to understand can refer to them. (For example Da'at Tabunon to Ramchal.) The main answer is that man was given here in order to cope, and because of this the world should not appear to be ordered and managed according to the laws of reward and punishment or other laws. But of course it does behave this way, in a wider perspective than we observe it (also from a perspective of 14 billion years)
    And again to Michael:
    What I want to tell you is; It is not possible to state in three sentences that religion is "opium for the masses". Most of your arguments are based on your scale of values. And in order to attack religion, you must equip yourself with claims that are based on what is also agreed upon.

  83. orthodox:
    I don't know if you are telling the truth but if so you must be a psychopath.
    Would you really have become a murderer if not for the Torah?
    If so - maybe it's really good (for others) that you are ultra-Orthodox.
    You should know that there are billions of people who do not believe in God and yet do not become murderers.
    Apparently they do know what I call morality because they are sane.
    Regarding the implementation of the death penalty - I know this lie that you were told (and you believe it because you believe it - period - as usual - no criticism) but I suggest that you refer to the information I provided in my comments before you respond to them.
    Call to use what is written in the link I gave in response 74 which I repeat here for your convenience:

    I will not answer your other words because I am convinced that you have not read anything from my words.
    The answers to all your questions appear already in my previous comments.

    I do not know the sources of my reason.
    I'm trying to figure them out.
    I know that my intelligence can be influenced by chemophysical means and this is a very good indication that intelligence is chemophysical.
    I also know that we are making more and more progress in understanding the functions of the brain and that at the same time we are also achieving certain successes in building thinking machines.
    True - the road is still long - if we even reach the end - but belief in a supernatural source does not solve every problem. It's just self-deception that leads to the end of the search.

    The venom spilled from you does not warrant consideration.

  84. Eddie,
    Answer to all your questions - it's all chemophysical (however you call it at least).

  85. I am amazed by those people who claim others as opaque or not looking for new ways
    And they themselves are short-sighted in all reactions.
    Michael, don't give in to those "trolls" and scumbags in people's eyes, you are among the logical and enlightened commenters on the site.
    It's good to have a person like you who has the ability to express himself and give objective answers.
    When talking is not enough for them, the insults started. Well, there's nothing to do, this is what happens when you corner an animal, the claws are pulled out.
    And I have a question addressed to those people who read and do not respond - who would you like? (Rhetorical of course).

  86. Michael:
    According to your confessions here about your 'revered German teachers' it is evident that you are indeed the product of a mutation and an extremely difficult intervention beyond the line of logic, common sense and the proportionate morality required for learning lessons.
    Since you are continuing the path of the Sitra later, with more vigor and intellectual heights, this time too there is no point in pitying your exploits and your false beliefs that are hidden behind the so-called 'scientific' non-truth.
    Even if you are not aware, ignorance is not excused.
    The more you scoff, the more fate-conscience will scoff at your belief: in no way, as the principle of uncertainty that seized and froze the core of your memory.
    Every attempt to 'smuggle' loyalists of all kinds, which you try to 'wave above you' on this website, only strengthens and exacerbates the affairs of the 'many', which exists and perhaps is possible and is given out of a deliberate, weighted and moderate desire to convert them, reinforces excessive severity to the 'sweetening of the religions'.
    I can't go into more detail.

  87. Michael,

    Do you think that your reason, with all its components and powers (awareness, perception, experience, etc., etc.), is a chain of purely chemophysical events?

    In your opinion, isn't there something here that goes beyond everything known and understood in chemophysical reality, and everything that can be understood as a purely chemophysical event?

  88. To Michael:
    I didn't understand what morality is in your eyes?
    What were you born with?
    This is equivalent to the "common sense" definition which is; What we met until the age of 20.
    As a matter of fact, I don't know why not to kill the one who annoys me, except for the fact that G-d said. For her, the prohibiting law means a threat of imprisonment and nothing more.
    To kill for desecrating the Sabbath: Contemporary Judaism does say that one must kill, if and only if a Sanhedrin is formed. But on the other hand, it should be remembered that a Sanhedrin who killed once every 7 or 70 years is called a slayer. (Matthew XNUMX)
    The explanation (as the "Chazon Ish" said) is that the punishment emphasizes the seriousness of the offense. But there is no need to take advantage of it.
    2. In your opinion, belief in God does not explain how life was created, if it were. But knowledge is true even if there is no explanation, (of course you will disagree about that, but this is the reality.) Our knowledge is that G-d created the world. And he also watches over him, and gives reward and punishment. There is nothing irrational about this belief, certainly nothing immoral.
    Regarding the question of why it doesn't seem like that, I will write tomorrow, I like to move.

  89. Simon:
    Regarding your claim A - come on! After all, this is the state of every scientific theory - there are never proofs and it is only possible to disprove. What to do?
    Apart from science we have no way to find out the facts of reality and if you disagree with this claim you are welcome to suggest a way and point to one fact that was learned through it.
    In relation to section b - you are completely missing out.
    Yaron Yedan's book discusses contemporary Judaism - yes - the one in which the Chastity Guards operate, the one that one of its representatives told us about the new replacement for plate tectonics, the one that saw to it that the Nahari Law was enacted to prevent education from its children, the one that sends us to fight for it and provide for it, the one that rabbinia beni Our time sent Yigal Amir to do his time and said that it is forbidden to desecrate the Sabbath in order to save a Gentile, the one who is avowedly opposed to democracy, the one who avowedly disbelieves in the power of the Knesset to enact laws and uses it only out of choice to impose laws on the donkey of Messiah.
    I understand religion in all its dimensions, and Yaron Yadan, who was a rabbi, head of yeshiva and an expert in halachic rulings - he also knows it better than you.
    The only reason why you call our perception of Judaism two-dimensional is the fact that we disagree with you and a person with all his dimensions in his head will not enjoy disagreeing with you.
    Did I ever say that there were not very wise people in Judaism? What does that even mean? Don't you know that even in Nazism there were very smart people (for example Heisenberg of the uncertainty principle)?
    I did not say that the words of wisdom of the sages should be taken down the drain.
    I think - and I have said so many times on the pages of this site that the expression "Do not do to your friend what you hate" is the most successful and concise expression for the definition of morality and I have no intention of discarding this wise expression just because it was used by a believing Jew, just as I do not intend to claim that the principle of Certainty does not exist because a Nazi invented it or Wagner's music is not beautiful because it was composed by an anti-Semite.
    This is the meaning of true openness, when it is accompanied by critical thinking - you accept what seems right to you while referring to the body of things and not to the body of their sayers.
    Your opinion that there is room for progress in Judaism is an opinion with an internal contradiction.
    A religion that believes it received its commandments from God cannot authorize humans to say that God was wrong.
    So there are all kinds of interpretations through which some people come out who are unable to suppress their conscience from a part of the blessed that they were introduced to, but it is impossible to interpret everything exactly the opposite and there will always remain a hard nucleus of people who will not accept the interpretation and will claim that God should not be disputed. Unfortunately - in Judaism - this nucleus is the most militant group among the believers - a group that everyone else (rightly) fears, and therefore it is this group that sets the tone.
    You can see this phenomenon more objectively if you look at Islam, where many say (and rightly) that there are also moderates, but we know that these moderate Muslims have no influence.

  90. Michael-
    A. The problem with your presentation of things is that every scientific explanation that is found proves the scientific theory, but anything that has not yet been found does not prove that we must continue to investigate. This is certainly acceptable to me, but it does not constitute proof of the scientific method.
    B. My questions are very many, and they did not arise following your words. They led me, in my self-perception, outside the religious-secular bar. The questions you asked certainly have a place, and therefore I offered to find out about them, if you are interested in it. They no longer bother me, Because I am referring to contemporary Judaism and not biblical Judaism.
    third. Regarding Yaron Yedan. I am afraid that he and you, with all respect and courtesy, see the world in a two-dimensional way and you see no room for additional possibilities. As you probably know, there were very wise people in Judaism and there are endless books filled with great wisdom. The thought that a single question that the person who is raising today brings all this wisdom down to Timion is pretentious and simplistic. It is better for those who are really interested to ask, check and wait, and there is certainly no obligation to agree either. Contrary to what Yaron said, and I assume that this is how he learned from others and this is how he taught, there is a development In Judaism, the contemporary concepts are not the same as the simple literal understanding of the Bible. At the same time, as you can see from my words above, I also think there is a lot of room for progress in religious Judaism in all its various and multiple currents.

  91. And again - Shimon:
    You are welcome not to accept my authority but why do you ignore the authority of Yaron Yedan?
    He not only studied in a yeshiva but also taught in a yeshiva and was a rabbi and head of a yeshiva.
    Although I don't think that all of this is necessary since according to your testimony you studied in a yeshiva and you didn't even ask what you started to understand that you should ask only after you read my words. It just shows how much this frame suppresses any thought.

  92. Simon:
    Surely there is an experiment that will disprove the theory.
    It is enough to find one and only one supernatural thing for you to be disproved.
    I explained that in the past people thought that even the movement of the stars in their tracks was supernatural.
    Over time they learned that this is not the case.
    In fact, all the happenings in the world were previously attributed to the supernatural and it gradually became clear that most of them have completely natural explanations.
    Any success in finding a natural explanation for an existing phenomenon is a confirmation of the aforementioned theory.
    The truth is that I said all this, but since your question seemed defiant to me, I decided to defy it again and explain it to you one more time as if you didn't understand the first time.

  93. Michael:
    A. Your ability in so many areas is certainly impressive. I myself have studied in yeshiva and I still do not know the answers to the above questions. I have my own subjective worldview, but I do not know what the talmidim of the sages will answer, of which I am unfortunately not one. In any case, it is absolutely legitimate in my eyes that you are not interested or not This is the place, but the confidence that you know enough is definitely foreign to me.
    B. I wanted to ask - in your opinion, there is a "general scientific theory that claims that everything in the world is natural...". Wouldn't it be more correct to say that this is a working assumption and nothing else? That is - can you think of an experiment that could confirm or disprove the said theory?

  94. Simon:
    If you want a complete picture from the mouth of Bar Samka, who was a rabbi and head of a Yeshiva - you should read Yaron Yadan's book - Religion Rises on Its Creators.
    By the way - some of the links I brought are taken from the Daat Emet site he founded.
    I guess even if you decided to claim (without any substantiation) that I don't understand the matter - you won't be able to do that about him.

  95. Michael:
    Your position that you "know" what true Judaism is (for you, probably - fundamentalist) and what is a deviation from it, seems paternalistic to me. Along with this, I definitely agree that it is worth learning from the experts to talk about how they understand the gaps between the Torah's commandments and contemporary Jewish perception. Worth it Also to wonder about the relationship between personal morality and religious morality and the way to mediate between them.
    If you or anyone else is interested in this, I can try to get a response from someone who understands the matter.

  96. Eddie:
    It seems to me that you simply insist on not understanding that I claim that all theories are never "facts" but hypotheses - or as you choose to call them (and I have no problem with this term except that you use it to mislead) beliefs.
    I myself often use the word "belief" and write "I believe that so and so" and by doing so I mean to say that this "so and so" seems to me to be the most likely of all the possibilities offered. From time to time I even have to justify this form of expression by saying that I do not intend to allow the religious to expropriate words from the Hebrew language.
    More than that - I even allow myself, may God have mercy, to use the word "get stronger" in its true meaning to defy its expropriation.
    Therefore - as I understand the word - all theories are beliefs but - in my words - religious belief is "blind faith" and not just "faith".
    You are trying to drag me into blurring the boundaries between the meaning of faith as I am willing to use the word and the one you use when you talk about religious faith.
    I do not agree with that.
    There is no similarity between the belief in the formation of life naturally and the belief in its formation in a supernatural way.
    The first is based on a more general scientific theory that claims that everything in the world is natural and this theory has received many confirmations and has never been refuted.
    The second is based on another scientific theory - the God of Gaps - the one that once claimed that everything is supernatural and that every time it is disproved as a general theory, it simply narrows the scope of its definition.
    This theory has never been confirmed. As a general theory, it has also been refuted many times, and the only solution it has found to these refutations is to reduce the scope of its definition (when a large part of its believers are not even ready to reduce it and still claim that there is no evolution and that earthquakes are caused by God because of Meshab Zakor) to such an extent that you are also currently reduced to the formation of life and not to all The process of creating the different species of animals and humans within them.

    You insist on not understanding my words in other contexts as well and I simply get tired of repeating things and clarifying things that are self-evident.
    I did not claim that the distortion is an essential part of the religious belief because of the belief itself but only because it is integrated in religion when religion, as I said, is a collection of rules of conduct.
    Any blind faith is bad because any such faith can be misused and this use is always religion - whether one that believes in God or one that believes in other nonsense.

    It is true that in the Middle Ages everyone believed in God, but the people who preceded science did so while apostatizing part of the religious belief and some of them were even punished for it by the religious institutions.
    It is far from your attempt to describe scientific progress as a result of religious belief as far east from west.
    All scientific pursuits are based on the approach that faith is never absolute and that the final arbiter is always the experiment.
    All religious beliefs are absolute (and I really don't care if you point out to me a religious person who also has some belief that is not absolute because I am simply telling you that this belief of his is not a religious belief even if he defines himself as a religious person. A religious person can also hold beliefs that are not blind But this does not open the eyes of his blind beliefs).

    The ridiculous claim that the opposition to scientific theories comes from the scientific establishment is just silly.
    Religion has always opposed scientific theories and even fought them with all its might.
    Throughout most of the human race's life there was no institutionalized science at all and the main reason for this is the rule of religion.
    In these times it is clear that the scientific establishment cannot be accused of opposing scientific progress.
    Only since religion was removed (to a certain extent and insufficiently) from its power - was the scientific establishment established and only since then can a claim of this type be made at all, but it will still remain unfounded.
    It is not that the religion stopped opposing, but that they simply stopped considering its opposition.
    Therefore - the only objection that is still addressed is the objection of the scientific establishment.
    This objection is partly (largely) justified and partly a result of the fact that these are human beings with egos who sometimes find it difficult to admit that they have spent their lives believing in something that has been proven wrong.
    The justified part of the opposition comes from the fact that, of course, most of the theories that were opposed were really unfounded.
    Thanks to the way science works - every scientific theory that stands the test of the experiment is accepted in the end and usually the end is very close to its beginning.
    And so I argue that Kuhn was just talking nonsense.

    I'm tired
    I have already repeated the things many times in different ways and I will not be able to interpret your continued misunderstanding as something that does not stem from extraneous motives.

  97. Michael,
    Your productivity in giving comments is always high, and on Saturday it is even greater... I will refer to your latest comments below:

    I do not require from any factual scientific statement on the issue of the origin of life any more than is standardly required from any other factual scientific statement: that its theory has a coherent internal logic, that its probability be practical, and that it withstand the test of experiment and observation.
    Assuming that we have before us some theory that claims a pure chemophysical spontaneous formation, we will expect it, beyond the required logic, to prove a practical probability and pass the test of experiment and observation.
    Now, whether the calculation methods used do not show a practical probability, or whether it is decided (as you choose to decide, for example) that the calculation methods used by us are not reliable (since the models in chemistry are not sophisticated/there are no process or algorithmic speculations, as you say) - then there is no factual basis To say the least, and until such a basis is found - this is purely a 'belief'.
    If the statement is not demonstrated by experiment or observation, despite the existence of all the necessary and sufficient conditions for it, such as in controlled laboratory conditions, another foundation is dropped under the feet of its factuality.
    In our case the calculated probability is not practical and alternatively we do not have a reliable method to estimate the probability, and in addition to that there is no experiment and no observation that confirms the claim of 'fact'.
    Therefore, also in my opinion, and even more so (and I want to emphasize this:) in your own opinion - the saying about 'spontaneous formation...' is not a fact, but a belief, according to the current state of scientific knowledge.
    Contrary to your words, in order to reach this conclusion we do not need an observation that points to a 'Creator', we do not need to point to a 'natural process in which the Creator was created' and there is no reason for science to see a 'need to include such a Creator in its considerations'. There is also no need to comment on what you call 'the God of the gaps'. It is not relevant. You only need to use simple, cold and razor-sharp logic!
    And since we are dealing with razor issues, your reliance on Ockham's razor is out of place, since for the purpose of deciding whether this is a 'fact' or a 'belief' we do not need two competing theses to choose between, but rather we examine one thesis and come to know which is empty. We do not need the 'Creator' as an additional thesis to reach the conclusion that spontaneous creation is not a fact, in the state of existing knowledge, but a mere belief.
    What you are doing, instead of understanding and applying the simple logic that I am pointing to in all kinds of formulations this time, is to assume what is requested and come up with claims to those who require evidence about that request. As I said before, it is very little wisdom to assume what is requested and demand evidence to contradict it, i.e. to assume that it is a 'fact' and then claim that there is no reliable probabilistic calculation that denies it. Factual claims must be proven, and the burden of proof and the burden of persuasion rests on the shoulders of the one claiming the 'fact', not on the shoulders of those who claim to him that some 'fact' exists, in particular when the latter makes claims about the impossibility of the claimed 'fact'.

    My insistence on the distinction between scientific 'fact' and belief is not punctuation to the scholar. The value of truth is always important, and it is especially important when attempts are made to manipulate through science. In our case, around the issue of the formation of life - and within the pretense that it is scientifically proven that life was created in a purely chemical and spontaneous spontaneous way - a serious attempt is made to build a materialistic philosophical and ideological 'superstructure', which has far-reaching social, educational, economic and political consequences (and this is no accident All the creators of theories on the issue from the first and second generation were communists! And by the way, the perception that all scientists are 'just searching' for scientific truth is completely wrong. It is quite common that scientists - including the greatest - had and still have non-scientific interests - personal, ideological, etc. Even the same Prof. Smith, whose charlatan words were followed by an article that opened the current discussion - proves this).

    If I understand correctly, then following my words that any faith can be abused by distortion, you claim (for the benefit of your statement that only secular faith cannot be abused -) that in religious belief the distortion is inherent ("the distortion is part of the essence") . In my opinion, for this matter there is no difference between secular faith and religious faith. Apart from an axiom or a logical sentence, any belief that can call for a value judgment - is in principle subject to distortion. That is why any faith, including secular faith, can in principle be abused.

    I don't know where you get your historical statements from. Historical research reveals that the progress of science in modern times was not made against religious belief, but rather from a deeply religious attitude (see the article Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Leibniz and many others).

    In the past I have already referred you to Thomas Kuhn's cautionary historical research, and to the interesting (but not entirely surprising) finding that the resistance to scientific progress came mainly from the scientific establishment in any relevant period, much more than from the Christian Church, for example! Take a look!

    By the way, in modern times there are a few examples of a religious (Christian) war on scientific theories - in the case of the theories of Copernicus-Galileo and in the case of Darwin's theory. In both cases, there were also divided opinions among the clergy (as opposed to the religious establishment). Regarding both cases, there was no objection on the part of Judaism, for example, since the issue of the solar system is not one of the fundamentals of the religion, and the issue of human creation can be interpreted as a continuous creation (while exhausting the precision in the languages ​​of 'creation' versus 'creation', 'making' and 'building', and the hypothesis he found for There is also a place in the thought of the sages, because the creation of Adam and Eve was nothing but a parable). Indeed, within the framework of Judaism, different opinions were and are being expressed on the matter, but this does not imply a denial of any scientific truth, if it really is a scientific truth.

    Therefore in my opinion, your effort to find or invent a real contrast between religious belief and scientific findings involves generalizations and inaccuracies. In my opinion, it does not contribute anything to the search for truth, on the contrary, it serves as a strategy to evade the search for truth, and our discussion proves this.

    You claim 'no confirmation has yet been found for the claim of God'. As I explained, we do not need 'God' and any discussion about him to reach the simple conclusion that the claim about the origin of life
    In a spontaneous 'natural' way that we are familiar with, it is now only a belief.
    Knowing the arguments for the existence of God, in particular those of them that make use of scientific categories, concepts and findings from 'exact science', I believe that at the end of all these kinds of arguments the result is always negative. God in himself cannot be confirmed through this science - nor can it be disproved. All the discussion around the issue, and also the attempt to build on the 'scientific disconfirmation' of God - are pointless, unnecessary and even malicious. Proving the existence or non-existence of God (in some concept, which must be agreed upon in order to build the argument) is possible only through arguments that are outside the scope of science known as 'exact science'. This science is limited to the plane of material reference only, and even on this plane its tools are quite limited.

    Shimon ben David:
    In response 73, you raise your point of interest in the discussion, and if I understand correctly, you are referring to the ways of God's leadership and the issue of evil. You are of course assuming a concept of a rational, willing, creator, overseer and 'benevolent' God, in short - a theistic God.
    Under the existing circumstances, I think it is a bit difficult to seriously and intelligently discuss the question. The topic goes beyond the scope of the discussion on this site, and in particular - there is no framework article that constitutes an infrastructure for an in-depth and correct discussion on the topic. Due to this, I am afraid of a lot of unnecessary flesh and spirit...
    I am ready to correspond with you by email, and try to arrive together at well-founded and useful insights on the subject.

    Regarding evolution - I agree with you, and I expressed my opinion in the same article of 'Impressions from an exhibition...'. In general, in my opinion, in the current state of scientific knowledge, there is no algorithm showing the possibility of creating a new species, and the 'explanatory' part of evolutionary theories - principles and mechanisms - is defective and/or lacks something additional basic. However, of course the findings definitely point to certain evolutionary processes.

    Regarding the moral tendency - I agree that the real and ultimate existential question of man is 'what will I do?', and unlike the animal, for whom the question applies to dilemmas related to purely physical reality, this question applies to man as well, and perhaps first of all, to moral dilemmas.
    In order to answer this question, we try to truly understand the human condition in relation to all other beings, both on a general level and on a private level.
    The question of motives is related to the first level. There are people who 'know' what should be done,
    And sometimes they bring themselves to unrealistic insights to justify their a priori 'moral worthiness'. The question of motives is not related to the second level, which is the question of realistic understanding in itself. Therefore, I did not want to address the issue of motives first, but to focus on the correct realistic insight, that is, to prove in a completely matter-of-fact manner that the claim of the spontaneous formation of life is purely a belief, and not a scientific belief.
    As I have already stated, I have no doubt that the presentation of factual nonsense on the subject was intended to serve - and indeed served in practice - goals foreign to science, ideological social and political interests that have nothing to do with science and the truth.
    My position is (and you may agree with me) that fundamentally, the tendency underlying the phenomenon is the desire to break away from a moral code and order that was established in Near Eastern culture and Western culture, in the Jewish framework as well as in the Christian framework - a moral code and order built on the concept of God, the God known in philosophy as a 'theistic' God ', usually. In order to rebel against God, and actually drive him out or murder him - the materialistic system must be invented, or at least given prominence and dominance, and declared as his legal heir. In my opinion, this is where the opening to norms of tyranny, lawlessness and violence at levels of unprecedented and unimaginable magnitudes, and we have already talked about the horrors of Stalin's communism and Nazism, and we can add more and more (Hamar Rouge, for example). Of course, this takeover process is based on many 'local' factors - interests, rationalizations and just brainwashing.
    I would like to clarify and emphasize:
    I am not claiming that decent people who are currently perceived as materialistic, such as those who also expressed themselves in this discussion, have negative tendencies as described. I have no doubt in their belief in high moral values. I am sure that most of the time they use arguments and considerations that are rational in themselves, although these arguments and considerations are not the only rational ones or even always the right ones. The said comes to describe a historical cultural background and process, which should be understood well in order to appreciate the overall historical and moral meaning of 'factual' statements such as the question of the spontaneous formation of life.

    As for your 'religion debates' with Michael: any such debate must be based on clarification and minimal understandings/agreements on fundamental issues such as regarding 'what is Judaism', 'what are the main points of Judaism', what are the mitzvot', 'which mitzvot are binding', 'which mitzvot are practiced' and so'. Without all of these, the argument may be a display of presumptuousness or ignorance or misunderstanding, and it easily turns into an argument and slips into mere slander or incitement. Better to avoid it. This is neither the place nor the issue.

  98. her friends:
    As I said in the long discussion with Eddie, these researchers deserve the title of "squeaks" more than the title of researchers.
    Beyond the fact that they do not know how to calculate any of the probabilities they refer to, they also add "necessary" conditions for the existence of life, some of which are not necessary at all (such as the existence of continents and not just seas, or such as tectonic movement) and some of which exist anyway on a star similar in size to ours (ie - They are not separate conditions but arise from others) such as a sufficiently high internal temperature.
    They add unnecessary conditions wherever they can.
    For example - they demand that we move around a star that is neither too hot nor too cold, on the one hand, and that we move at a suitable distance for the existence of liquid water - on the other hand - but wait! If we are at the right distance then the temperature of the star is no longer important - simply the "right distance" is different!
    They are also not ashamed to talk even about conditions that did not exist on the primordial earth and developed there as a result of the development of life (such as the existence of atmospheric oxygen in sufficient quantity)
    All this before questioning their unsubstantiated assumption that life on another planet must be similar to life here and based on the same ingredients.
    Those who present their words also ignore the fact that beyond the fact that an average galaxy has a hundred billion stars, there are also a hundred billion galaxies, which also turns the small probability they calculated into a certainty on the cosmic scale.
    In short - this is a trending and misleading video.

  99. Below are search results for the phrase "mort yomat" in the Torah:
    Genesis chapter XNUMX
    Verse XNUMX: And Abimelech sent out all the people to say: Whoever touches this man, and his wife, shall be put to death.
    Chapter XNUMX names
    Verse XNUMX: And you commanded the surrounding people to say, keep for yourselves the leaves of the mountain and touch the edge of it: whoever touches the mountain, shall be put to death.
    Names of chapter XNUMX
    Verse XNUMX: Strike a man and he dies, death will die.
    Verse XNUMX: And his father and his mother were struck down, dead. {s}
    Verse XNUMX: And a man steals and sells him, and is found in his hand, shall be put to death. {s}
    Verse XNUMX: And he cursed his father and his mother, death shall die. {s}
    Chapter XNUMX names
    Verse XNUMX: Anyone who lies with an animal will die. {s}
    Chapter names no
    Verse XNUMX: And you kept the Sabbath, for it is holy to you; Those who desecrate it, shall be put to death - because everyone who has done work in it, and that soul has been cut off from among its people.
    Verse XNUMX: Six days, he will do work, and on the seventh day is a holy Sabbath, to Jehovah; Anyone who does work on the Sabbath day will die.
    And read chapter XNUMX
    Verse XNUMX: And unto the children of Israel, say, Every man of the children of Israel and of the sojourner who sojourns in Israel, who gives of his seed to the king, shall be put to death; The people of the land will stone him.
    Verse XNUMX: For every man who curses his father and his mother shall die: his father and his mother he cursed, his blood shall be in him.
    Verse XNUMX: And a man who commits adultery with a man's wife, who commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, shall die the day of the adulterer, and the adulteress.
    Verse XNUMX: And a man, who gives his bed to an animal, will die a day; And the beast, you shall kill.
    And read chapter XNUMX
    Verse XNUMX: And the name of Yahweh shall die, and the whole congregation shall be stoned by it: as Hagar, as Ezerach, in the name of the Lord shall die.
    Verse XNUMX: And a man, because every soul of man shall be smitten with death, shall die.
    And read chapter XNUMX
    Verse XNUMX: Any confiscation, which is confiscated from a person, will not be redeemed: death, death.
    In the desert, chapter XNUMX
    Verse for her: And Jehovah said to Moses, Death is the day a man dies; The whole community stoned him, outside the camp.
    In the desert a chapter for her
    Verse XNUMX: And if he is struck by iron tools and dies, he is a murderer: death shall die, the murderer.
    Verse XNUMX: And if they were struck with a hand stone with which to die, and the murderer died: the murderer shall die.
    Verse XNUMX: Or with wooden tools with which they were to die, and the murderer died: the murderer will die.
    Verse XNUMX: Or in enmity they were struck by his hand, and he died the day of the blow, he was a murderer: the redeemer of blood, he killed the murderer by striking him.
    Verse no: And you shall not ransom the soul of a murderer, who is wicked unto death: for when he dies, he shall die.

  100. Simon:
    It is not true that "the position that favors evolution wants to avoid giving an account for its actions" and this is because a position that favors the correctness of a scientific theory is not a position that relates to actions in any way! This is precisely, as I mentioned, what distinguishes religion from belief.

    Regarding Judaism, you probably really missed something.
    Even if we ignore the mitzvah to eliminate every trace of Amalek and exterminate the inhabitants of the land during the occupation (the first recorded genocide, if the story is true at all) and exempt these acts as part of a settlement war and not as a mitzvah, then you will be able to find in the laws of Judaism, among other things, the following:

    These are the laws of Judaism and the commandments of Judaism are eternal. The reference to contemporary Judaism separates those who fully observe the religious mitzvahs from those who partially observe them and obscures the fact that the pressure against the full observance of the mitzvahs comes from outside the religion and brings people to (justified) violation of the religious mitzvahs due to the influence of non-religious morality. Not everyone is influenced enough and that's why there are people like Yigal Amir and the rabbis whose blessing he received, the crazy woman from Beit Shemesh, rabbis who claim that there is no need to desecrate the Sabbath to save Gentile lives, and on and on.

    All of this pertains to murders only, but it is enough to live in Israel for more than a week to see to what level of immorality the religion brings many of its believers who think they have the right to determine the lifestyles of those who do not believe and to embitter (for example through the modesty vigils) the lives of believers who believe a little differently than them.
    The religious commandments include, as mentioned, moral commandments and non-moral commandments.
    The reason for the demand from the believer to keep is not the morality but the fact that God commanded to do so.
    It is not a coincidence that a man who was commanded by God drove his wife and son out to dry in the desert and was ready to murder his remaining son who is presented in religion as a hero in his time.
    The religious do try to appropriate morality for themselves, but it's a gross lie that turns out to work on you too.
    How do you know what is moral and what is not? Is it because of the religion or because you just know it?
    And if you just know this but you also happen to be religious - what do you do when religious laws command you to act contrary to what you simply know? You have two options in such a case: either stop being religious (if morality prevails) or give up your inner sense of morality (if religion prevails). In the second case - as they say, the more people you kill, the more your sense of guilt fades with each additional murder. This is actually an extreme presentation of the whole treatment of moral problems. It is a fact that a significant part of the religious (an overwhelming majority of those who responded on the science website) are willing to lie in order to convince others of the truth of the religion's claims. In my opinion, this happens, among other things, because their sense of morality has been dulled.

  101. Eddie:
    You fortify your approach and continue arguing with Michael. I'm just trying to understand - what is the connection between God, who is a kind of solution to the mystery of the creation of the universe, and the God who, in your opinion, runs the world? As things seem, our world is not the pinnacle of benevolent and even illogical conduct. One of the great rabbis already said - (unfortunately I don't have the exact quote) we believe in the next world, but we don't know if this world exists - because what we see is hell.
    I do not dispute the scientifically proven findings of the theory of evolution. But there is no doubt that there are significant information gaps that the theory supplements - such as the formation of male and female in many species (I continued in response to the article on the painting exhibition). This supplementation is a type of faith.
    And as for the motives: in the test of the result, it is clear that there is truth in your claims about the abuse of religious beliefs. And the same goes for the exploitation of other beliefs, as already written above. In my opinion, the debate here is not about investigating the truth, but about the moral position that our beliefs require us to take. The position that favors evolution wants to shun accountability for its actions. It is clear that among these there are many who behave morally, but they are the masters of determining the norms. The religious feel obligated to moral behavior because there is someone who judges them and they have to give an account to him. There is more of a commitment to normative behavior here, but as mentioned here too there are many disturbances.
    As for the obligation to kill in the name of religion, I must have missed something. Where do you find in contemporary Judaism an obligation to kill?

  102. Fix:
    Instead of "to beliefs as science relates to them" I should have written "to scientific theories".

  103. Eddie:
    In your response to Shimon, you twist my words and that is really wrong.
    After all, the progress of research did not stem from belief, but rather from opposition to belief.
    In response 65 I spoke specifically about the belief in the God of gaps.
    For those who don't understand (and it's hard for me to say if you didn't understand or if this is again being used cynically) - the God of the Gaps is a nickname for an approach that posits God as the solution to every scientific question that we haven't been able to find out yet.
    It goes without saying that not only does this approach suppress the desire to investigate, but also in most cases where people were encouraged to investigate despite the dictates of this faith, a useful explanation was eventually found that would not have been found had they adhered to the faith (and even in cases where no explanation has yet been found - no confirmation has yet been found for the claim God).
    If we refer to beliefs as science treats them and not as the religious approach preaches, then all in all we are talking about claims whose validity is conditional and subject to the experimental test. Therefore, when you look at faith in this way, it is clear that it includes every claim that is only asserted (except, perhaps, those claims in which we truly believe - such as the axioms of logic, which we believe in so much that we do not bother to put them to the test, but which, due to our human limitations, we are also unable to conclude logical conclusions from such an experiment if we had carried it out). In my opinion, this is a malicious use of the word faith - a use that strips it of its content only to create a similarity between scientific claims and religious claims.

  104. Shimon ben David:
    It seems to me that the 'secular side' calls for a 'solution' - the principle of materialism, and includes within it only chemophysical elements known to the sciences commonly referred to as the exact sciences. Evolution may be a completely materialistic method, and this is indeed how it is perceived by many, including those who claim that every 'mental' concept, virtue and process can be reduced to purely chemophysical reality. In my opinion it does not have to be pure materialistic.

    Even if faith is a respectable thing in scientific contexts. Historically, beliefs, between those that were proven to be true and those that were proven to be false beliefs, had a very important weight in the advancement of science. Therefore, a claim that the declaration of a certain position is only faith does not promote science and may leave science in its condition in the Middle Ages (see in this context Michael's claim in response 65) - is a complete mistake. There are well-known, modern, important and even successful theories that were based purely on 'beliefs'.
    The importance of the distinction between a position that is a fact and a position that is a belief, is sometimes in the fruitfulness or the technological viability that may be to rely on a 'fact' versus a 'belief', and vice versa; and also in the philosophical or religious or ideological conclusions that different people try to deduce from what is the truth of the word 'belief', while making a false presentation of that belief as if it were a 'fact'. Such false presentations are usually strategies of abusing the name of science, in favor of moral and social values ​​(or anti-moral and anti-social) or in favor of various interests, foreign in themselves to science.
    By the way, until you come to object "to the way the world is run and especially when it is attributed to God..." I think it is worth considering the way and form in which materialism, the one who murdered God and decreed his death and seeks to inherit him - led the world to the most terrible catastrophes, through beliefs presented fraudulently as 'facts' (see response 44 section 3).
    It turns out that even if 'God' of the type you are talking about does not exist from an ontological point of view, it is a moral and existential necessity to invent him and to behave in noble ways, and in this context to insist that we are his creatures, and precisely in his image and likeness. In my opinion, for the sake of such a regulative God, even a 'secular' person should make an effort and seriously examine the question of whether the materialistic concept provides a real answer to fundamental questions, such as the question of whether it is possible that the phenomenon of life is devoid of supernatural involvement.

  105. mere:
    I just noticed that the last question I addressed to Shimon is a question of permutations:
    Should one argue against the screamer or against the murderer?

  106. Eddie:
    I do not insist on talking about evolution and evolution was brought up in my words as an example of a theory.
    I argued that no theory "derives" facts and you take one word - take it out of context and make a mess out of it.
    Science does not turn to any side ways and does not refer to the formation of life in any "faithful" way.
    He continues to research - and I emphasized this - either by making progress on the issue of creating life in the laboratory, by refining the models of chemistry, or by "processual" or "algorithmic" speculations such as the one I gave as an example.
    No one passionately defends any theory and none of your claims hold water. The scientific approach does use Ockham's razor and as long as no creator has been observed or a natural process has been proposed in which the creator was created, science does not see the need to include such a creator in its considerations and it is good that it is so because as mentioned - otherwise we would still remain with the beliefs of the past and attribute the movement of the stars to the creator as well.
    It must be understood that the fact that no observation was found or an explanation was offered as mentioned above receives a different validity from the fact that billions of people want this with all their hearts and many were willing to sacrifice their lives in order for one of the above to be found.
    Many are even more willing to make false claims against those who do not accept the dictates of their religion.

    The motive is not relevant in clarifying the truth but our discussion is hardly about the truth.
    I did not vote for a single moment on any specific claim. I just said that science is looking for the reasons within the laws of nature and that a specific answer has not yet been found.
    I didn't make this up. I simply described reality as it is.
    The discussion started with your claim - which is also general even though it unjustly tried to base itself on any calculations - a claim that basically says that there is no basis for searching for the source of life in nature.
    come on!
    After all, man has two options in total - either to look for the source in nature or not to look at all.
    The meaning of your claim is that there should be no search at all and, as mentioned, it is not part of the search for the truth or any search.

    Therefore, the claim that you repeat and stick to me as if I were passionately defending some factual claim is without any basis.
    Unlike you - I'm still looking.
    This failure to distinguish between a search and a claim characterizes your entire reference throughout the discussion.
    None of the scientists adheres to any claim in any way and does not take any way to "protect" anything. All of them are just searching and this is in clear contrast to the creation believers who do not do this. This is also the reason why it is justified to call the latter "believers" and the former not, even though they occasionally have beliefs from different beliefs. It is like the difference between a liar and someone who occasionally makes a mistake by not telling the truth.

    The evidence you cited from your own words in relation to the debate about the abuse of faith indicates exactly what I have been claiming all along.
    When you write "I can't help myself" you unwittingly reveal the important role that motivation has for you. You know you should have held back but the urge is growing.
    As mentioned - the intention of that creature is not the search for the truth but persuasion at any cost. That's exactly what I claimed.

    I don't know if every belief can be abused.
    I myself said that there are secular beliefs that have been used and abused so that by repeating and pointing out this fact you are not adding anything, but can the belief in the correctness of the axioms of logic be abused? wonder
    Distortion is another matter, but if a person does not distinguish the difference between the claim he believes in and the distorted claim, then his problems started even before someone tried to abuse his belief.
    Be that as it may, when it comes to religious belief there is no need for distortion. The abuse is part of the essence.

    Regarding my proposal to my father - it stands.
    This is a course of action that I think would be appropriate in some cases regardless of the ontological argument.
    If I were the editor, I would also present the ontological argument like this, but my father can really decide for himself.
    All this, of course, on the condition that someone bothers and offers him an article on the subject.

    Shimon ben David:
    The validity of evolution is beyond any reasonable doubt and its existence can be proven in a real mathematical way. Therefore it is not of little validity.
    The only question that has a place is whether evolution is the vision of everything and that is what the debate revolved around.
    In particular, the most difficult question is the question of the origin of life and a less difficult question that is still legitimate is the question of whether additional forces beyond evolution are at work in the development of life and its diversification.
    All the things that are a question are still under discussion in the scientific community and all the debate about them does not stem from any belief of the scientists but from the religious attempts to impose their belief on science. Without this attempted coercion there would not have been any debate and the search would have continued without rest.
    Contrary to you, my opinion is that the motive for the founding of the religions is an illegitimate motive whose entire purpose is to control people and that the fact that all monotheistic religions command man to kill a person who has not harmed him and does not threaten him is not at all insignificant. Is the commandment to kill easier in your eyes than pointing out the existence of this commandment in religion? Will you also come to the person who screams when they slaughter him with claims about his screams instead of directing your claims to the murderer?

  107. If you allow me - I propose to summarize the discussion by saying that according to everyone creation is incomprehensible. The religious side calls for a solution - God, and the secular side calls it evolution.
    The religious should explain the connection between God the Creator and God who runs the world, and give instructions on how to behave. In my opinion, the reservation about the way the world is run, especially when it is attributed to a benevolent God, is very understandable and worthy of explanation.
    The secular should recognize the limited validity of evolution, and that its main contribution is the attempt to continue exploring the world and hope for a continuous improvement in our understanding of it. Any reference beyond that also expresses faith and nothing more.
    I think that referring to religion as if an essential part of it pertains to the fact that it obliges the believer to kill in its name those who do not harm us, descends too low and it would be better if it did not exist. Perhaps, in continuation of the previous proposals, a forum will be opened here on the topic of morals or morals?

  108. Michael:
    In my last words I did not refer to the topic of evolution at all, but you insist on referring them to this topic. On one of the previous occasions in which I responded, I clarified that the question of the creation of life is different in the ways I mentioned, from the above question. In any case, this is not the question that we initially and mainly asked for here.
    As in the example above, I see that you are building in my words - claims and understandings, 'explanations', 'failures' and 'confusions' that are not found in my words. You also involve irrelevant issues in the discussion (all kinds of accounting of claims about the nature of religions, the nature and existence of God, claims that can or cannot be exploited) and attribute to me 'motives' that are supposed to be, in your opinion, the heart of the discussion and argument.
    With such a strategy, you seek to avoid a discussion and a poignant and true discussion of my simple claim that I have repeated several times, a claim that you cannot because you have no answer for it, and that the spontaneous 'natural' creation of life is not proven as a 'fact' but is in the nature of a 'belief', depending on the situation Current knowledge. This - by the way - is also according to your method, the apostate in the reliability of the existing probability calculation methods, and it is the giver; After all, in the absence of proof of practical feasibility there is nothing to talk about proving a 'fact'. It is very little wisdom to assume what is requested and demand evidence to contradict it, i.e. to assume that it is a 'fact' and then to claim that there is no reliable probabilistic calculation that refutes it. Factual claims must be proven, and the burden of proof and the burden of persuasion rests on the shoulders of the one claiming the 'fact', not on the shoulders of those who claim to him that some 'fact' exists, in particular when the latter makes claims about the impossibility of the claimed 'fact'.
    This is what happens to humans when they encounter an impassable roadblock on the main road that they once thought was occupied by them: they turn to side roads, curved roads, roads that give a sense of progress in the planned direction. Until it is proven that they necessarily miss the mark - time will pass, and until then either the dog will die or the sparrow will die.
    I do not believe that the question of motive is relevant, and certainly not necessary for the discussion and decision on the question I posed in my first response to the discussion. But according to your opinion, in this matter you should follow the custom of 'scrutinize yourself first'...if the question of motive is really relevant and necessary, you should first ask yourself seriously: what is my motive for defending such a decisive, unequivocal position (which for now at least - ) Is it so problematic in its decisiveness and unequivocalness? Why shouldn't I honestly state that this is a belief, indeed a belief that is important to me, insofar as it establishes and serves values ​​that I personally see as just and worthy, values ​​that in my view are justified to fight for on a religious level (not the 'religious' level, God forbid)?
    I have certain hypotheses regarding your motives - and the values ​​involved in them (and yes, I agree with some of them and some - I don't, but that's not the point), and the discussion of them goes far beyond the scientific context. I am also true to my method of not involving matters irrelevant to the body and the essence of the matter. As I said before, this is not the method of those who are aware that their position is strong and justified, and it does not need assistance from different or sided materials.

    Regarding the idea of ​​an 'article' that you brought up previously:
    Mr. Blizovsky is a skilled editor, and probably the value of truth in the presentation of scientific knowledge and the freedom of expression of opinion are recognized and accepted by him. As such, it is his presumption that he wishes to present to the readership a variety of opinions, even those that are not personally acceptable to him, provided that they are relevant to scientific matters, presented at the required level and in the proper form, and may promote opinion. In my opinion, any article that meets the above criteria can come through the site's gates, even the normal way, and of course everyone - and of course this includes the editor - can express an opinion regarding the article, at any stage. I have no doubt that in this way the matter will increase and knowledge will increase.
    The argument according to Adams can be presented as it is, since the argument being modal - there is no better than the source, with the addition of explanations as they came from the same source. An article about the ontological argument in general cannot be summed up in one take, - a series of several takes is needed here, in light of the complexity and diversity of the matter. I am ready to send my own material, which could be a basis for such a series.

    post Scriptum.
    Since you insist, as a source of great spoils, on repeating the 'logical fallacy' claim that you supposedly found in my words, I will quote my words on the matter as follows:

    Reply 44:
    "3. Regardless of 'religion', I cannot refrain from commenting on your interesting statement that 'beliefs that are not misused can only be secular':

    Take into account that communism was (and is) a 'secular faith' (-and it also had its own 'science'). In the 19th century he...

    Reply 56:
    "In this regard, I wanted to present a 'weighty answer' to your all-encompassing and definitive statement that 'only secular faith cannot be abused'..."

    Your eyes see that from the beginning I did not speak towards your statement, but I asked to 'comment' 'in context' and therefore I only offered you to 'take it into account' and all this for the purpose of a 'weight answer'."

    On the sidelines, I say that in my opinion any faith can be abused - even 'secular faith'. There is no secular faith that cannot be exploited, just as there is no religious faith that cannot be exploited, since there is nothing essential in this or that faith that serves as a barrier against abuse. Each faith draws a source of authority strong enough to know from its believers, and advocates this or that fundamental value, so that in this or another self-interested constellation it may be misused, while making one or another distortion in its content or form. In practice, history proves that beliefs - both religious and secular - have indeed been misused. The peaks of evil were reached in the 20th century, and precisely by secular beliefs.

  109. Eddie:
    Let's start with the fact that I don't know what a theory that derives from a fact is.
    If I try to guess what you mean I guess you mean a theory from which something about the world can be deduced with absolute certainty.
    If this is the meaning you meant, then in my opinion there is simply no such thing and to attribute to me the claim that the theory of evolution derives from a fact is to attribute to me something that I have never said and to the best of my knowledge has not been said by any scientist in relation to any theory.
    As you know - cracking the secrets of nature has not yet been completed and the question is whether we continue to search or not.
    The attitude of scientists is to keep looking.
    The god of the gaps approach simply puts God in the gaps and says you can stop looking.
    Needless to say, had we taken this approach in the past we would still be in the Middle Ages.
    It is possible to return to this approach and remain stuck where we are.
    We currently do not have enough knowledge to reliably calculate the probability of many chemical reactions occurring before our eyes.
    Some will conclude from this that these reactions cannot exist. Of course, he will remind me of the man who visits the zoo, sees a giraffe and says "What? An animal with such a long neck? It is not possible! There is no life like this!"
    Those who understand that this behavior is stupid also understand that it does not make sense to limit ourselves in thinking about chemical reactions until we know how to calculate all their probabilities and that it is possible to investigate on two levels - one - the level of basic chemistry and quantum theory which may - one day - allow us to calculate probabilities of chemical reactions and the second is The level of speculation and experimentation.
    It is of course also possible to conduct rough probability calculations regarding a certain chemical speculation, but, beyond the fact that these are rough and unreliable calculations - none of the probability calculations conducted on the subject of the formation of life has ever referred to any specific chemical process, so what is this if not charlatanism?
    On the one hand, it is hard to blame those charlatans - after all, no one proposed a definite chemical process that they could do the calculation for.
    On the other hand - the phrase "and the educated at that time will remain silent" is well known and in a more popular language - do not try to jump over the navel.

    You keep saying that it is faith versus faith and you oblige me to repeat what I said all the time.
    All theories are ultimately "beliefs" but while the scientific beliefs called theories are those that are based on findings and put themselves to a constant test against the facts, then all other beliefs are just beliefs and all that stands behind them is stubbornness.

    The question of the motive is very relevant and I explained why.
    Without a motive of the kind that drives you, you would not prefer "no explanation" to an explanation.
    In the best case, you would formulate the claim of creation in a scientific way that allows testing by experiment, you would try to point to some kind of evidence for the existence of the Creator and you would try to deal with the question which is of course much more difficult than all your defiant questions towards other scientific theories - the question "How on earth can the formation of such Almighty Creator?".
    That's why I claim that the motive is actually everything, as far as you are concerned, and this motive not only blocks your personal path in the search for the truth - it also makes you preach to others to abandon the search.

    In the response where I stated that there was a logical fallacy or a cynical use, they were.
    The fact that you tried to change their purpose in response to my argument does not change what you said before.
    The words were said in response to my claim that "beliefs that are not misused are necessarily secular" and those who agree with this claim have no reason to respond to it and certainly no reason to respond to it the way you responded.
    In the later response you said that you did not try to deal with my above argument and beyond the fact that I don't think it is true, the question immediately arises of what you did try to deal with in the examples you gave.

    I repeat my proposal regarding the ontological argument.

  110. Correction of major errors and omissions:
    In section 1 towards the end: instead of: "Even under planned and controlled laboratory conditions success was recorded in the creation of a living cell" CEL: "Even under planned and controlled laboratory conditions no success was recorded in the creation of a living cell."
    In section 3: the "E" in the "logical fallacy" should be omitted.

  111. Michael Shalom,

    I would like to summarize and focus my position:
    Those who claim that life began with a certain chemophysical process, should point to such a process, and come up with evidence for it. Obviously, a primary requirement is the practical feasibility of the particular process. If it is not in the power of the claimant to point to such a specific process, he must at least point to various possibilities of life-creating processes, and since we are dealing with possibilities - he must also point to the practical feasibility of each of the various possibilities.
    During the last decades, various possibilities of life-creating processes have been raised. Beyond the logical and theoretical chemophysical competence of each of them, it is required that each of them, in order to be admissible as a possible fact - demonstrate practical feasibility. All the theory and the practical feasibility voucher on the side.
    Therefore, in order for us in principle to accept any claim regarding a chemophysical creation process, it is necessary for each such claim to show its probability, paying attention to the components that make up the process and are intertwined in it, and to prove that its feasibility is practical. And we still won't be able to say that it is a 'fact' until we weigh it against other theories.
    Every chemophysical process must meet a minimum threshold of feasibility, so that we can say it may have actually happened. This is the threshold of practical feasibility.
    If every possible theory does not prove practical feasibility, then we do not have any chemophysical process that we can at a given time imagine, that we can accept as 'acceptable' for this matter, and determine that it does create life or even that it is possible that it creates life.
    If we do not have any such process, then the position that life was created by some spontaneous chemophysical process is a 'belief', not a 'fact'.

    There is no theory about any process of creating life - which presents a probability that crosses the threshold of practical feasibility. Even under planned and controlled laboratory conditions, success in the creation of a living cell was recorded.

    Therefore, according to everything we know, as of today this is exactly the situation in the question of the spontaneous creation of life - zero possibility. Whoever claims such a creation - as of today, claims it in the name of faith, and not as a fact. It is possible that in the future the situation will be different. But as long as this does not happen - we are discussing the present only, and this is the situation that must be taken into account.

    In my opinion, your claim that you do not know a probabilistic calculation that is not charlatan in this context - does not stand as a defiance against the claim that this is not a 'fact' but a mere 'belief'. And what do you think: if the theory is not able to show acceptability - because then it has no value as a theory that derives 'fact'. And if every probabilistic calculation is charlatan - then again the theory has no value as a theory that derives a 'fact'.

    I will add that it is possible that the very fact that there is life can be explained by various assumptions outside of the chemophysical world as it is known to us today (including supernatural assumptions of various kinds), but they too will be in the status of 'beliefs' (and not 'facts') until Let one of them be proven in a plausible way, if ever.
    Therefore, in this matter the situation is a rhombus: belief versus belief, and every claimant must recognize that he does not possess a claim to factual truth, but rather a tenant of a more or less subjective belief. The matter is very simple, and no attempts at evasion will help here, even if for the purpose of the matter a variety of 'religious' claims are mobilized (both by secular people and by religious people, among those who buy from the Holy Scriptures and among those who buy from the website 'Freedom' for example) In the well-known arsenal of battered claims. In my opinion, in the context of this matter, there is no need and no point in entering into an 'inter-religious' polemic of any kind, as the claim I made above can be understood from the reality of existing scientific knowledge and ignorance. The question of the exploitation or non-exploitation of this or that argument is also not relevant for the purpose of determining the truth value of the claim I made.

    In my opinion, the question of the 'motive' is also not relevant to the topic, that is, the truth value of a claim from the claims regarding the spontaneous formation of life. When we search for the scientific or ideological truth, we must behave like the people of society according to John Rawls: in front of us is spread a 'veil of ignorance' and we know nothing beyond what is relevant for a rational decision.
    [By the way, even in the world of law, the question of motive is not the determining question for the issue of responsibility (what is decisive is the existence of the actus reus + mens rea -, and in relation to 'absolute crimes - the actus reus only, as long as it is accompanied by the element of volition) and it becomes relevant only for the issue of severity the punishment].
    And in our case - surely each of us has 'motives'. I assume that you, Michael, have certain motives that drive you to champion a certain materialistic view of reality, and they also determine your approach to the question of the creation of life and dozens and hundreds of other positions in the various areas of life, each of which has its own truth value. I, for example, can express positions of agreement with some of them, and also different or opposing positions regarding the other part, but I do not want and I am not allowed to accept or reject your positions based on your motives alone. My reference to them must be derived from a factual examination of their truth value, and as far as possible in a sufficiently informed and reasoned way, and in any case of dispute - out of an attempt to convince and not out of a desire to argue or argue or out of sheer whimsy or self-interest. As intelligent people, the value of truth and the search for truth must guide us beyond any other consideration.
    I believe that at least this position is shared by you as well, and in this matter at least we are mutual. Otherwise we won't be able to have a truly intelligent conversation.

    If you look at the simplicity of my words, you will understand that there was not the 'logical fallacy' that you claim. I also explained the matter in my previous response, and I am surprised that you are repeating it and changing it.

    If you read carefully the simplicity of my words, you will understand that I did not, God forbid, discredit science for the purpose of discussing fundamental questions such as the question you chose to raise (the existence of God). On the contrary. Therefore, I believe that the powers of human reason include more than scientific faculties and methods, and I believe that fundamental issues deserve to be discussed and decided in the broadest intellectual spectrum, usually within the framework of the philosophical discussion, in which science has a very respectable place, although the decision is not an exclusive function of its statements . In this context I suggested you review the ontological argument according to Adams' construction. - This argument is logical analytic - an argument that does not need external statements, not even scientific statements (or moral statements, for that matter) - unlike other arguments such as the teleological, cosmological argument and dozens of other arguments (some of which are also strange, we must say) that all need external statements, Usually scientific at one level or another.
    By the way, as everyone knows, this topic is vast and complex like no other. Even the basic issue, which is the concept of God, is an extremely convoluted issue, and has a direct impact not only on the relevance of this or that God, but also on the scope of the arguments. After all, the Aristotelian concept is not similar to the Platonic one, the Neoplatonic one to the biblical one, the theistic to the pantheistic or even the panentheistic, etc.; And even when it is defined according to the principled classification - let's say Aristotelian - it is quite significant if the concept is of the type that Einstein is talking about (a kind of Aristotelian god who does not usually play dice) or of the type that an ignorant person is talking about (this god does play dice, and Einstein is not allowed to tell him how to play them...) . In any case, the arguments vary in their adaptation to the concept, as well as the relevance of science to them (and this I mainly wanted to emphasize).

    May it only be good for all of us.

  112. Pine:
    Not necessarily.
    I think, for example, that Eddie's article on the ontological proof of God's existence could be an interesting topic for discussion because it is important that thinking people know the topic and the arguments for or against it.
    I - of course - would like to present as many arguments against him as possible, but I am unable to do so if there is no article.
    On the other hand - it is impossible to publish such an article officially because honest people will take advantage of the fact that the article was published on the science website to present it as something accepted by science.
    The solution I propose allows the debate without giving the goshpanka.
    Another solution that was once tried is to publish the article along with a review section but I think that technically the suggestion I made here is easier to do because there is no need to find a specific person to write the review.

  113. And call it "things that a person with judgment and a little common sense would not publish on a scientific website"? 🙂

  114. Pine:
    You probably did not understand what I meant.
    There is already a separate category called "free comments"
    It is worthless because it has no focus and therefore - after all the cursers have had their say - it has been abandoned.
    Any fruitcake can still comment there but none of us will read it.
    What I offer is more focused and controlled.
    The idea is that whoever wants to publish an article will contact my father (this happens even today anyway).
    Today my father decides whether to publish or not.
    I offer my father another option of action which he will take at his discretion when he decides that the article is not worthy of a Gushpanka but there is a demand for a discussion about it.

  115. Michael,
    I don't think the last idea is successful, at least not in the full format you suggested. Because then every fruit cake, as they say, will raise his nonsense for discussion (as if they don't do it now for every scientific article or under the guise of "I don't represent a religion" - yes of course....).
    Maybe you can put a separate category on the site, not as part of the main page where there are links to serious articles. But there will be some sub-heading called "your opinions" or something like that. Among ourselves we will call it the "nonsense section" where they can let off steam, and maybe it will be a substitute for their responses to the articles and instead of these responses we will receive responses that are really related to the article.

    Basically, I know there is something like that on the site, but unfortunately they prefer to perpetuate their opinions as responses to scientific articles in the hope that it will give more validity to their words or that they will be able to divert/incite people's opinions from the "abomination" written in the article.

  116. Eddie:
    I responded for the first time to your words that were said in response 21:
    "I don't know a probability calculation in the order of more than a power of minus tens"
    I said that on this subject I do not know of a probabilistic calculation that is not charlatan and I still hold this position.
    You, on the other hand, despite not being able to point to any non-charlatan calculation, continue to believe in the result of the charlatan calculation.
    The facts teach us that there is life and the question before us is how it was created.
    You are trying to invalidate all manifestations of the claim that were created naturally and therefore - although you did not say this explicitly - you are trying to drag the reader to the conclusion that the only possibility is that of a supernatural creation.
    My comments probably also referred to the hidden statement that you were careful not to say explicitly, but you also made sure to transmit between the lines.
    That is why I explained - and I repeat and explain - that the claim that the creation of life requires life is not an explanation for the origin of life.
    In my opinion - a person who asks for an explanation for a phenomenon will not prefer "no explanation" to an explanation if he has no special reason for it.
    I assumed - and still assume - that your reason is religious belief.
    This, in my opinion, is the motive for your claims, and even though a motive is not a reason (and therefore you did not bring it up in the discussion consisting of reasons), I found it appropriate to deal with it as well because if someone makes any statements when his motives are not necessarily reasons, then if I want to convince him I must attack both the motives that are not reasons and the connection between the motives for statements.
    I attacked the connection between the motives and the statements by arguing that defending a God who only created the first living cell anyway does not defend a religion that claims he created all animals separately (and in particular Eve from a human rib).
    I attacked the motive itself following your words that "any belief can be respected as long as it does not claim to be a fact, especially when it is expressed or misused by interested parties, etc."
    I didn't address the syntactical error I spotted in this sentence just now and I assumed (and I still assume) that you meant that faith should be respected when it *isn't* abused and not the other way around.
    I claimed - and I still claim - that when a belief is religious then by definition it is misused and therefore - according to the criteria you set I am not required to respect it.
    I really do not respect the religions that all take advantage of people's tendency to believe unsubstantiated claims and accept them as a motive for actions, many of which are immoral in my opinion.
    "Disrespectful" is actually a very mild expression. I am disgusted by the phenomenon and horrified by its results.
    I mentioned that my main problem is with religion - more than with faith - and in this sense there is no difference between a religion that believes in God and a religion that believes in a superior race.
    I did not see your attempt to attack the "secular" religions as part of the arguments you raised against my words as a fair attempt because I have never defended these religions (and the above attempt creates a false representation as if I defended them). This attempt is at best a logical fallacy and at worst a cynical use of a false claim.
    Let me clarify this again:
    If you did not notice that I claimed that "faith that is not abused can only be secular" it cannot be concluded that I claim that secular faith is never abused, then you have failed in a logical fallacy.
    If you noticed this, then you used things cynically.

    Another confusion that seems to me to be making between things I said and things I didn't say is the confusion between my claim that there is life on Earth is a fact and a claim I did not make regarding the way of their formation.
    I never described any way of formation as a "fact" (and in fact I did not describe any way of formation in this discussion).
    I only stated that the only explanations we have are explanations arising from the laws of nature, that we have no other explanation, and that the attempt to claim that in order for life to be created life is necessary does not constitute an explanation.
    The claim that they still haven't created a living cell (for how long? The ten years we are allowed to do this?! I remind you that people tried to fly for much longer and in the end succeeded and in my opinion there is a chance - even if not a certainty - that even we will see the formation of synthetic life) does not prove anything. It also does not detract from the validity of descriptions that have not yet - what to do - have not reached the molecular level - of scenarios that have been put forward as possible within the framework of speculations about the formation of life. Of course, when it comes to processes that have not yet been described at the molecular level, there is no point in talking about probability - what's more, as I demonstrated - even knowledge of the molecular level still does not allow this with the level of ability we currently have to describe a mathematical model of chemistry.
    (A sample script can be read In this link).

    I added the reference to the statement of all the academic institutions and to the statistics regarding faith as a response to the insinuation that I am failing in the interpretation of the facts or logic or something.
    Since these were insinuations that are not supported by facts - all I could do in response is to point out that this type of accusation can be leveled at all academic institutions and all scientists. I was hoping that those who did not find a contradiction in your reasoning (because you did not give reasons) would at least find in them the fact that the "failures" you allude to in me can be blamed on the vast majority of scientists - which I hope detracts from the credibility of your implicit and unreasoned claim.
    In my opinion, the only way the human race has in its attempt to understand the world is through the scientific method (and I invite you to present another way and some achievement achieved in understanding the world in this way) and therefore your disqualification of scientists as having authority on the question of whether there is a God or not is not justified. The question of whether there is a God or at least the question of whether there is a God who intervenes in the world is by definition a scientific question (and if we go back to religion for a moment then the question of whether the factual claims presented in the holy books are true is a decided scientific question).

    Regarding the continued email correspondence about the ontological proof - I do not want to publish my address here but I see no reason not to hold the discussion itself above the pages of this website.

    Here's an interesting idea:
    When there is an article that is not in the scientific consensus and someone wants to publish it, but you don't want him to receive a citation as a "thing" that was published on the science website, you can use the following method:
    You will create an "article" that is entirely a title (which will naturally point to the central question that the proposed article is trying to solve).
    The proposer of the article will write the article as the first response (which you will make sure to publish along with the title) and whoever responds will respond.

  117. Correction of errors and omissions:

    In section 7, I related to my last response:
    After "the reference to the statement on evolution" CEL: "the statement..."

    In section 9 Sipa to my last response:
    Ch'l" in the Anthology from Parmenides..." and not in the "Ontology...".

  118. Michael:

    I am replying to you late. You responded to three responses, and I understand that you expressed your position completely, as far as the framework even allows. And now I want to address them, as follows:
    1. One should say 'I don't know', but one should also, and this is the main thing, realize that in a state of not knowing - the position taken in practice, if indeed a position is taken in practice, is 'belief'. In our case, if I understand you correctly, you claim 'I don't know' regarding the question of the formation of life, but at the same time, it seems to me, you are taking a position (there is no spontaneous formation which is a function of a process external to the physicochemical world), and if I understand you correctly - You do not point out that this is a 'belief', but jump in and present it as a 'fact'.
    2. In my understanding, according to everything we know and according to all the speculations we are able to build based on this knowledge, under the conditions of an unconditional, supervised and controlled system, as is claimed to have happened on our globe since its creation, the possibility of spontaneous creation of life as we know it, in the chemophysical processes As far as we know, it is - from a practical point of view - zero. In my opinion, there is no rejection of this claim, and it is not a case that there is no rejection in your hand either. By the way, even under conditional, supervised and controlled laboratory conditions - no success in creating a single living cell has been recorded to date!
    With this claim from the beginning I did not enter into the issue of 'creation' by a supernatural force, which you identify as 'God', nor did I see the need to enter into it. You pushed for this, and in this a comprehensive sub-parshath that may be supposed, in your opinion, to give justification to the 'belief' you hold, and give it the status of a kind of 'fact'. I referred to the concept of God not in the context of an entity that has an ontological existence and has a creative function, but as a purely regulative concept, in the cultural context and consciousness of humanity in the Western world at least, a concept that is supposed to promote the positive moral tendency, to one extent or another. In this regard, I wanted to present a 'weighty answer' to your all-encompassing and conclusive statement that 'only secular faith cannot be abused' - that is, the 'other side (actually, the third and fourth) of the equation' that every intelligent and educated person, including you in particular, should immediately see and he Because "secular faith can bring, and indeed has brought, the greatest disasters on humanity". I didn't want to deal with your very statement, because the issue is philosophical in essence and this site has no place, and the response sheet will even be shortened. So that it is not understood otherwise, I do not agree with your statement (for the sake of honesty, it should be said that 'religious' beliefs have also brought disasters to humanity, although on a much smaller scale than those caused by secular beliefs), but this, as mentioned, is an issue in itself.
    Therefore, in any case, there is no place for your claim regarding 'logical fallacy' and 'cynical usage', and I think you could understand this from my words, about which you claimed what you claimed.
    3. I am not a commissar of religion nor a messenger of God on earth, and please do not try to make me one. If you look properly, you will see that from the beginning, and also in the end, I did not claim (and see the sum of my claims in section 1 and the beginning of 2 above) in the name of any 'religion' nor did I enter into the question of 'creation' by a supernatural force - at all. These are issues that stand on their own, and this is not their place. By the way, regarding your hypothesis regarding the same God that I do not 'want to gloat about', who is supposedly the 'God of religions' - I tell you in complete honesty that the image of my divine concept is unique, and I also believe that every educated, thinking and honest person - should have his own unique image regarding The basic value of truth that he advocates, even when this value has the currency of accepted language. This also applies to the concept of 'God'.
    4. Your position regarding belief in logic and sensory input alone, is of course legitimate, and it is possible that it is held, in these and other forms, by many, many of the leaders of human thought. Philosophically, I allow myself to say that this is not (and was not, and probably will not be) the only possible position, and the issue is open to cultural deliberation - of course while maintaining the rules of intellectual honesty.
    5. I agree that science in itself does not command anyone from a nation. The problem is that science has interpreters and there are spokesmen and there are guardians, and these often speak from the inclinations of their souls and their various and peculiar calculations, and 'command' science their subjective opinions...
    6. In my opinion, the powers of human reason include more than the faculty and the scientific method, although undoubtedly the scientific method and the specific sciences are of great weight in the pursuit of truth. The way to any truth that can be human truth - depends on the integrative use of all the powers of reason, no less. Any truth that makes selective use of reason is a relative truth and is limited in every respect.
    7. The reference to the statement on the topic of evolution is certainly a position of many and good ones. The question is a question of findings and a true and poignant judgment. Consensus at one level or another is not enough to establish scientific truth. And there have already been positions of consensus in the history of science that turned out to be fundamentally wrong (take, for example, the popular opinion at the end of the 19th century regarding the absoluteness of classical physics, which even the Michelson Morley experiment could not achieve, until Einstein arrived).
    8. The reference to the survey of those who believe in 'God' among the scientists obviously has no persuasive power. The subject is a wide-ranging philosophical one, and most scientists, including the senior ones (and of course this also includes the 'believers' among the scientists...) are, to put it mildly, not very professional philosophers. Science in itself, and scientists in general, have something to contribute to the discussion, but science and certainly not scientists have a special, superior or decisive status in this matter.
    9. By the way, since you brought up 'God' as a topic for discussion, and logic appeals to you, I refer you to a modal proof of the 'ontological argument' for the existence of God, a proof written by the philosopher Adams nearly 40 years ago, after he formulated the argument in its own constructive formulation. Personally, I hold this proof as a master move. I will point out that as far as I know (and I follow the issue and try to be up to date), the modal proof has not been disproved, despite many efforts by those who 'feel' that 'something is wrong' with the ontological argument but at the end of the day are unable to really put their finger on the flaw Concrete in it, at least not in the constructive way that Adams formulated it.
    The proof in the Hebrew version can be found in the ontology 'From Parmenides to Contemporary Thinkers', vol. 178, pp. 158-XNUMX. Helpful reading.
    If you want, I can email you a lecture I prepared on the subject of the ontological argument.
    10. I enjoyed the discussion. Thanks.

  119. Please, Noam, start implementing your ideas and keep the objects of your research alive and breathing with dignity.
    Before that, read your written words: black on white, which are really your own and see where the reactions come from according to your humiliating and humiliating language.
    Hugin doesn't start with you.
    let her

  120. Hugin

    You have a rare combination of mental laziness, self-inflation and a foul mouth, which I have to admit is quite rare. A little scientific research on the subject could have been fascinating 🙂

  121. In 10 years there will be no solution for the fools who speculate that something will happen in 10 years that they have long since forgotten to check its correctness

  122. Noam, do you always repeat yourself like a broken-brained record?
    Leave Lahugin quietly.
    The conversation was not with you, and 'wanting to understand' was neither you nor for you.
    In 10 years, if they find life on Mars, it will finally be you - as a fragment of you that will be sent on a whim, like a rocket there 🙂

  123. Hugin wants to understand,

    You wrote: "In the name of science, in the name of God, in the name of God, in the name of interest: everything is the same."

    Your statements indicate severe mental laziness. Instead of investing some effort, and understanding, at least in principle, the differences between the various schools of thought, you declare that everything is the same, thus making your life incredibly easy and empty. Look, no one has to accept one school of thought or another as better, but ignoring the differences is just nonsense. The differences are abysmal, New Age, religion, voodoo, tarot, crystals, etc. are different from science in the most fundamental way possible. I am convinced that you have the ability to try a little harder and understand these changes, even after a deep computer you will prefer the New Age over science

  124. Eddie:
    And as for the spontaneous formation - no one said they know how it happened but there are several scenarios that seem plausible and since no one watched the process we will probably never know which scenario is the one that really happened.
    However - we have evidence that it happened on Earth.
    Saying that God did it is indeed possible, but as I explained - it is not an explanation if you do not explain God or provide independent evidence for his existence. As long as you don't do this, then by introducing God, you desecrate the name of the word "explanation" and only add confusion

  125. Eddie:
    And regarding evolution (your collection of irrelevant claims again distracted me from it) - well the entire scientific community accepts it.

    The vast majority of scientists also do not believe in God:

    Maybe you think they're all religious fanatics, but I don't think so.

    The theory of evolution is very well established and I will not repeat here the thousands of confirmations you received because I have no doubt that you know them and ignore them on purpose.

  126. Eddie:
    I'm sorry that you didn't understand that the answer I gave you was serious.
    Every scientist (including me) will answer every question "I don't know" if it is clear to him that an answer with a 100 percent probability is expected of him.
    Therefore, the whole matter of the supplier is not relevant to our conversation. The question is only what is reasonable and what is not reasonable, what explains and what does not explain, what is based and what is not based.
    I will not address your comments regarding my understanding of religion and regarding my being or not being a spiritual person or a philosopher.
    These comments are intended to hurt and are in contradiction to your request that I take things in proportion (because there is no proportion suitable for gratuitous defamation).

    I hope you don't disagree with my definition of the word "explanation".
    If you disagree with her - we have nothing to talk about.

    I hope you do not disagree with my claim that the God of religions is not the God whose existence you want me to deny. Enough wars have been waged by the most senior representatives of all religions to make it clear to any reasonable person that religion does not go well with the delegation of authority from God to the laws of nature.
    You can argue that the Pope did not know what Christianity is and that no important rabbi understands what Judaism is, but that would be simply ridiculous.

    I hope you do not disagree with my claim that science does not command anyone from a nation.
    If you disagree with that we have nothing to talk about.

    I hope you understand that the examples you gave (Nazism and Marxism) are not in contradiction to my argument.
    After all, I claimed that beliefs that are not abused can only be secular, but under no circumstances did I claim that no secular faith is not abused. Do you really not understand the logical fallacy in drawing this conclusion from my words?! Or did you notice and just cynically use the claim you knew was wrong as a demagogic device?
    I repeat and emphasize: Beliefs that are not misused can only be secular beliefs, and this is because every religious belief is part of a religion and religion is a system of rules of behavior that derives unlimited authority from the faith and thus misuses the faith.

    I will add and say that I am against any belief beyond the belief in the laws of logic and the input of the senses (which are necessary beliefs) and this also includes the secular beliefs (for example the whole New Age issue).
    I am also against the "secular" religions such as Nazism and Marxism (I called them secular religions because they are religions, on the one hand, and do not refer to God, on the other hand, but they are religions for all intents and purposes in that they are a rigid system of rules of behavior that come from a "higher authority" and are accepted without critical thought ).
    Therefore - by the way - Nazism and Marxism, being the foundation of religion, are actually religious beliefs.

    All kinds of people define the words "religious" and "secular" in different ways.
    It doesn't interest me.
    There are many ways to be secular and I do not support all of them.
    The point is that I do think that the only way to get closer to understanding the world as well as the only way to be truly honest is through adopting the scientific method and rejecting all beliefs except those I have defined as necessary.
    This way is a secular way.
    It does not legitimize all secular ways, but it does exclude all religious ways.

  127. 'So that's how Anatha was in proportion' - IDF take her in proportion.' It's because I'm tired...

  128. Michael,

    I will admit that I was expecting a substantive response to what was said in response 33, and I was disappointed. I am writing you my response precisely because I consider intelligent and educated people like you, and not because I underestimate you and your likeness. So like that in the right proportions, please.

    Indeed, we should do our best to understand the world.
    Therefore, we must adhere to the measure of truth.
    Therefore, we must equip ourselves with a necessary degree of skepticism, and we must not be stuck in certain beliefs, and certainly we must not see them as facts or absolute truths. We are obliged, for the sake of the truth, to simply say 'I don't know' when we have no alternative knowledge, and not to hold on to the altar horn of a fanatical belief or one arising from self-interest. When there is no explanation - one must recognize that there is no explanation, and not make accusations against those who point out that there is no explanation, claiming that he is 'explaining' something on the basis of what is 'not an explanation'.
    It's not always comfortable, sometimes it's very uncomfortable, but that's what honesty requires.

    This is the foundation of all true human wisdom, and of course it is the foundation of every rational science and every rational person.

    In the case we are discussing, there is no 'explanation', - there is only belief, and I don't even want to talk about the fantasies of charlatans. As far as we know today, there is no practical possibility for the spontaneous creation of a 'first' living cell. clear and smooth. Maybe in the future...some miracle will happen (even 'unbelieving' people tend to believe in such 'miracles', if they are of the desired kind...) and human knowledge will point in a different direction. But we live in the 'present' for now, and it's quite frustrating, from the aspect of our discussion. What to do.

    The only way out in this situation is to simply admit it, and say 'I don't know' the solution to this puzzle.

    not nice? - Not bad! When you are put in front of a wall of claims for which you have no real answer, it is better to admit (not to the maximum possible, you can only settle for the minimum required) and withdraw. It must be remembered that when you bang your head against a wall there are only two options: either the wall breaks, or the head breaks. Usually - it's the head. not haram?
    And it is much more respectable than to evade by sailing into issues that are not relevant to the issue, to distract attention from the essence of the issue, to throw sand and blur, and also to make up and treat a collection of claims - pointless in themselves - aimed at the body of a person and not at the body of a matter. This is a tactic of losers, a tactic of the weak, a tactic of fanatics and desperate fanatics - not a tactic of the heroes who rule in their spirit or who know that justice is with them.

    Really not suitable for a talented person like you...

    2. I have a certain view about your knowledge and understanding of what you understand as 'religion', but that's fine, it could be that the shortness of the response is responsible for the completeness and quality of the formulation in the response. In addition, after all - the era of cluster people has passed since Leibniz, and you are a scientist commenting on a scientific website, not philosophical or theological, and that's not the topic either.

    3. Regardless of 'religion', I cannot refrain from commenting on your interesting statement that 'beliefs that are not misused can only be secular':

    Take into account that communism was (and is) a 'secular faith' (-and it also had its own 'science'). In the 19th century he was quite innocent and usually portrayed as harmless. Its true face, or should we say its potential for destruction - began to be revealed in a distinct way about 100 years ago, and reached a peak of vileness during the days of Stalin. The horrific results of this secular belief are known to all. Isn't this a case of 'secular faith misused (as you say)', at best?

    Also take into account that Nazism was also a 'secular faith' that took advantage of another secular faith that was based, among other things, on... 'Darwinism', a secular faith (I do not feel bad about the question of the validity of its foundations) that seems quite innocent. There is no need to expand on the terrible results that resulted from the 'exploitation'.

    The equal side between these beliefs is their distinct materialistic basis, and in any case the fact that any divine essence or attribute of God or reality is denied by them completely. Another equal side is that these beliefs, strictly secular, have brought upon humanity the most catastrophic acts of murder and killing ever since, without any comparison with any other human-made catastrophe (including religious persecutions of all kinds). This is what happened when they murdered God and threw his body from the world of humanity, using the lenses of a flat, simplistic, rude, violent and murderous materialism, while releasing the predatory animal in man, whose concept of divinity and morality have so far been a barrier to him.
    So if we talk about 'abuse of faith', then it is first and foremost a secular faith - and any additional words are unnecessary.

    May we all be well.

  129. Pine:
    Besides the style and quality of the content, there are a few more tricks that I can tell you about in a private correspondence.
    You are welcome to contact my father or Roy by email and direct them to this response in which I authorize them to give you my email address

  130. Michael,
    May I know how you manage to distinguish all Mugin's costumes?
    If she is indeed behind all these nicknames then she has descended to levels I have never seen before. She even sometimes, if indeed she is, to increase her nonsense claims, plays being two people who support each other's opinion.

    Mugin, if that's you, how come you're not ashamed that you've degraded to this?

    And I thought you said you wanted to "level up" and disappear from the site and instead you ended up playing people. What you failed to achieve thanks to yourself and thanks to your claims, you are trying to achieve by using lies and manipulation. Do you think that if people see that the claims you are trying to convey are made many times and by a large number of "different" people, they will increase the degree of correctness of your words or be convinced?
    Nonsense in large quantities is still nonsense, only now you can choke on them.

  131. Michael.
    Your expressions are irrelevant.
    Not the obscene nicknames you give people either.
    As far as I'm concerned, we're done at this stage.

  132. Want to understand:
    You lied again.
    I understand, I understand too.
    Your question about the number of degrees you decided to ignore in your last comment demonstrates this well.
    As I predicted - you still don't understand, even though you got a good explanation.
    Religion itself tells people how to behave.
    Science does not.
    The fact that there are people who take advantage of the stupidity of others is a well-known phenomenon (and without it the religions would not have been founded), but science cannot be blamed for it (that is - it is possible - you do it - but it is an act of fraud)

  133. Michael: Again you got excited without understanding.
    You cannot deny the facts that science has captured many parts of the world's population as looking for shepherds of their own kind, reinforcing theories in all areas of life that serve their convenience.
    In the name of science, in the name of God, in the name of God, in the name of interest: everything is the same.
    You have nothing to be angry about either my questions or my responses since you do: "want to understand" and are asking if indeed you also want to understand.
    In any case: discretion is given to all the owners of the ends and their grazing flock.
    If I am indeed ridiculous you are no different from me.
    But I look in my mirror, and I am not in denial of the facts.

  134. Want to understand:
    You don't want to understand at all - you want to attack and all means are kosher in your eyes, including pretending to "want to understand".
    She is frozen just like you are frozen - unable to change.
    Do you know the phrase "freeze on his feet"? At how many degrees Celsius does someone who freezes while still alive freeze? Knows what? If you don't know in degrees Celsius then I agree that you answer in Kelvin or Fahrenheit - I will already know how to do the translation.
    The laws of science do not tell anyone how to behave.
    It is clear that knowing the facts affects their actions, but it is not related at all.
    I guess knowing the laws of science affects you too and you don't try to stop a speeding train with your body.
    There is a difference between a person who acts according to his judgment while taking the laws of science into account and a person who murders someone else because God told him to.
    I know you don't see the difference but I just want others to see how ridiculous you are.

  135. At how many degrees Celsius is it frozen :)? Who freezes it? There are those for whom every law is moving, dynamic, changing and causal as I have asked endlessly.
    Don't the laws of science tell such and others how to conduct themselves? Aren't there new laws of science influencing the masses?
    What is the difference?

  136. Because the laws of science do not tell us how to behave. They just tell us how the world works.
    Nor are they presented as laws with unlimited validity imposed on us by an almighty authority, but as conclusions of human beings like us - those who can make mistakes.
    That's why science changes and religion is frozen.

  137. Michael = So why why do the laws of science not allow us to think secular-free?
    What is the difference?

  138. Eddie:
    We do our best to understand the world.
    "To understand the world" means "to find an explanation for what is happening in it" and the statement "it is so because God willed it so" is not an explanation because it bases the "understanding" on belief in the existence of something that is not binding without it.
    After all, an explanation is supposed to explain incomprehensible things by things that are more understandable (when "understandable" for that matter are things that we have witnessed through our senses and logic).
    Right now we have only one theory competing for the role of explanation for life because your theory, as mentioned, is no explanation at all.
    She is not interested either - not even you!
    This sounds like a pretentious claim, but I will explain my intention:
    The only reason why you defend God is because you want to defend religion.
    A God who only created the first cell and disappeared since then is not the God described in religion so all this debate does not protect him.
    Besides - there is no religion that does not abuse faith.
    The word "religion" is derived from the Persian language and means "law".
    That's why there are also the expressions "according to religion and religion" and (not on us) "one religion - to die."
    Religion invented God as a source of authority for the system of laws and this is an abuse from the start.
    Factually it is also clear that the religious laws contradict the private sense of morality of each person who gives himself an account for his actions (and why would I kill someone who has done me no harm? Just because "God said so"?)
    Therefore there is a kind of contradiction in your last paragraph because beliefs that are not abused can only be secular.

  139. Michael,

    Without ignoring the differences of opinion, in my opinion - what is clear is that the whole issue of spontaneous formation is speculative enough to understand that it is impossible to talk about definitive basic 'facts'. In order for any theoretical possibility in the physicochemical world to ever come true and become a fact, it is required that it pass a certain threshold of feasibility, however minimal it may be (otherwise, for example, we can imagine a macroscopic body that is in superposition).- And it is not at all clear that this requirement is met in the issue we discussed. Therefore, any belief in the existence of a 'fact' in the above issue is, for now at least, only belief.

    Personally, it seems to me that other fields in the life sciences, which are close to the above-mentioned issue, are speculative to the extent that prevents far-reaching inferences - factual and otherwise - (I do not mean the very phenomenon of evolution in certain ranges - which is a proven fact. I mean hypotheses and claims that pretend to explain principles, mechanisms action and philosophical meanings of those evolutionary phenomena that are proven). Here too, in my opinion, quite a few 'beliefs' are involved, although it is clear to me, even from a previous discussion in our participation, that the issue is more controversial and there is no chance that you will agree with me on this matter.

    In any case, as far as 'belief' is concerned, there is no difference between a 'religious' belief and a 'secular' belief, any belief can be respected, as long as it does not pretend to be a 'fact', especially when it is expressed or misused by interested parties and/or fanatics and /or charlatans, like that Prof. Smith.

    good week.

  140. Avi Blizovsky: They may not have investigated the principles of the religion in depth enough and that is why there are "changes".

  141. Eddie:
    I absolutely agree with you that the claim that we will discover life on Mars within 10 years is charlatan.
    I'm not saying we won't find out, but I have no doubt that those who claim so don't know it's so and can't even calculate the probability of the event.
    But I also claim that all the formulas they invented to calculate the probability of the formation of life are gibberish.
    After all, we still know almost nothing about the probability of chemical events. Only recently an article was published here ( ) in which quite a bit of confusion was revealed in understanding the chemical processes that make life possible and surprises of the kind that scientists still come across every day. So how can someone build a probabilistic model for the matter?

    Regarding the story of the 50 years - all I did was point out the mathematical mistake you made.
    I did not take any position regarding the facts and bothered to point that out.
    The actual numbers certainly depend on the position of the solar system in relation to the central plane of the galaxy and other things. As mentioned - I did not try to delve into the factual numbers.

  142. Michael,
    Charlatans are among the people who spread false beliefs that speak of the discovery of extraterrestrial life 'within 10 years', or of the existence of earth-like planets that contain sufficient conditions for the formation of life (as we know it) on the order of millions or billions. And this is said mainly about respectable stakeholders whose newspapers (respectable in themselves) quote them like Buddhist mantras, without the required sense of criticism.
    I don't know what a 'serious model' is for you. There are all kinds of models, and that's all there is. Even if we assume that some of the presenters are 'charlatans' as you say (and I do not agree that all or even most of them are), what is important is the range of estimates, especially regarding question 2 that I raised in response 21; And the maximum estimates are in orders of magnitude of a power of minus a few tens. I do not refer to the minimalist estimates as an estimate of a power of minus 162, say.
    I do not accept that there is a 'fact' of the spontaneous formation of a living cell (or even of the existence of another planet offering conditions for life). A fact needs at least reasonable, plausible evidence. In the meantime there is no fact/s, there are only extreme speculations - 'belief', come and admit it. Admittedly, it is difficult to argue with beliefs and believers, we all know that, but the truth must be told anyway, even though it must be accepted that in a liberal society that 'believes' in all kinds of religions (secular, in this case) a lot of money and scientific energies are wasted on unjustified directions, what can be done .

    As for the probability of a critical event for the planet: in relation to the nature of the issue, even a 1% probability is reasonable (and I admit that my wording was not successful at this point... I got a little carried away. But - ). In any case, the probability should increase to 100% in a period of 5000 years, and this has not happened, as far as we know very well. By the way, I read a few months ago in Hidan about a study from which it emerged that such a catastrophe should happen every 35 million years, as far as I can remember. I am not familiar with the material that Yael Petar relied on, but the estimates she quoted seem to me - intuitively, and also according to the simple calculation I made above - to be grossly exaggerated.

    Yael Peter,

    Thanks for the reference.

  143. Ami Bachar:
    People who smoked for 120 years lived a very long time.
    In light of this, I wish you that you will indeed eat the kove in 100 years 🙂

    There is no serious model that allows the calculation of the probabilities you asked for.
    Whoever claims to present such a model is a charlatan.
    Factually, it turns out that there is a chance, but no one knows how high it is.

    Regarding your interpretation of Yael's words, without going into the facts I did not bother to check - your account is what is called "on the bank".
    If the chance is 50 percent every fifty years, that means that on average (even if you don't take any other consideration into account) - in one of a hundred successive periods of 5000 years (that is, XNUMX years) a large asteroid hits the Earth (contrary to your interpretation that somehow concludes that this happens every fifty years)

  144. Eddie,

    The estimates I'm talking about are taken from the book Parallel Worlds by Michio Kaku (Professor of Theoretical Physics at City University in New York). The episode dealt, among other things, with the survival of humanity in the future while presenting the theory of the five stages of the universe by Adams and Llewellyn from the University of Chicago, which is popular among scientists.

  145. Frogs from the point of view of religion of course, and after that to say that it was also delicious...

  146. my father

    In response 16 you wrote:
    "A so-called religion that wants to survive must be flexible..."

    Connoisseur formulation.

    I would put it this way:
    "The so-called religion that wants to survive must eat frogs that science feeds it non-stop..."

  147. She said one percent every ten thousand years. Those who are familiar with compound interest will find exactly when they approach one hundred percent, but let's take a simple calculation and multiply 10,000 by one hundred and get a million years. I think this is a pessimistic assessment.

  148. Ami Bachar,
    Where did you come to this conclusion regarding Yael Petar's words?
    She didn't say how long. There may be a fatal impact 10,000 years, and we are now nearing the end of that 10,000 year period (example). She did not mean that every 50 years there is a fatal injury.

  149. Ami Bachar,

    You believe 'that there is life almost everywhere'. It's nice to believe, and it's especially nice to believe that there is life almost everywhere else ("at a certain point we will turn a stone and a firecracker and thunder, it will be there" - what fun!), but I wonder what this belief is based on. But if Prof. Smith does not explain what his belief "that in 10 years we will find life outside the earth" is based on - then why am I wondering about others. On the other hand, noting that the same Prof. Smith is a clear stakeholder in space operations and other projects close to their desk, and therefore it is difficult to demand from him claims that we would demand from every believer to prove his words, after all, it is impossible for just decent people like you to be exempted for nothing.
    That's why in the meantime I ask you - could it be that life, as we know it on our globe - is a one-time phenomenon?
    Anyway, have you given your opinion on what the probability is that -
    1. Ideal or even sufficient conditions will be created for the creation of life in the sense we know, elsewhere,
    2. In practice, will one living cell be formed spontaneously (even on our sphere)?
    Regarding 1 - there are different and different speculations, and a variety of opinions.
    Regarding 2 - I don't know of a probability calculation on the order of more than a power of minus a few tens. Do you know any actual probability?

    Does anyone know any actual probability of this? I would love to hear and understand.

    Liel Petar:
    Regarding the justifications for the space operations, as you presented them in response 12: Is it correct to understand that if the probability of a critical hit ('global damage') of a large asteroid is 1% in the next 50 years, then it is quite likely to assume that such a hit did occur in the past every 50 years , on average, and it is very likely that it happened during recorded history - several times, at least?
    In any case, I would love to know where the estimated customers you are talking about come from.

  150. On a flight to Mars, the Earth's magnetic field will not protect the astronauts. And they will die of cancer.

  151. Guard,

    There are many religious physicists and there are also religious astrophysicists and they find a way to bridge religion and science.
    We do not know whether God created or not, but in any case the article does not pretend to solve this question.

  152. The questions about a man on Mars are currently irrelevant in my opinion. Whether they send astronauts or not - this has no answer or excessive impact on future settlement. The real interest would be to find life forms. This is the goal at the moment and that is where we are looking. I believe there is life on Mars. I believe there is life almost everywhere and maybe even on our moon. Finding them is just a matter of financial investment and persistence.

    By the way, the forms of life in Antarctica are not primitive at all. There is a wide variety of microorganisms and even much more developed invertebrates. The term primitive is very misleading and inappropriate in scientific writing. Maybe here on a popular science site it's fine, but those involved in the craft know that's not how things look.

    As someone who has been doing a lot of soil microbiology in the last year, I am very excited about every bit of information that is given to us from the Red Planet. I believe it is teeming with life (at least microbially) like the blue star. As for the questions of danger and lack of familiarity with dangerous bacteria - there really is none: we do not know more than one percent of the forms of microorganisms on our planet. We have no idea what the rate of mutations that are created in different bacteria under environmental conditions. So by all means the matter applies, if it applies at all, to the earth as well. Especially when it comes to extraterrestrial life systems that have not had any contact with a human or similar and that there is no real reason for them to have pathogenic mechanisms towards him (this is possible and possible but the probability is very low in my opinion).

    And what if we don't find life on Mars? Even after 100 years of frantic searches? First I eat my hat. Second - it must be sown with genetically engineered cyanobacteria that will withstand the cold and produce oxygen in large quantities. Even if this "star" is not able to hold its own oxygen for too long, it is definitely an excellent startup for a future intelligent settlement while making intelligent use of the local resources.

    Greetings friends,
    Ami Bachar

  153. Shumer Shabbat, when there was the story about the stone from Mars in 1996
    Rabbi Lau was interviewed on the radio and he was asked if the discovery of microbes on Mars would cause him to lose his faith and he claimed no, and raised the bar for meeting intelligent beings, which he claimed could not develop elsewhere.
    A so-called religion that wants to survive must be flexible and include within it things that are allegedly against it.

  154. in S
    Abomination!! Remove the article immediately.
    Only God is the creator of life on earth!!

  155. A person,

    The problem is that space flight takes a long time and you need to equip the shuttle with energy that is enough for several years. That's a lot of energy that needs to be compressed in a relatively small space. That's why the vehicle was so modest. It's a good idea to send flyers flying back and forth with samples from all sorts of places, but you have to think about whether it's feasible and not wasteful in terms of energy.

  156. Kenny,
    Man's pursuit of other stars is not just entertainment for the sake of it. If civilization wants to survive it must start preparing itself to move to other planets and maybe even other galaxies.
    There are many threats facing us - in the future, the sun will grow 40% of its current size and that means it will reach Earth and swallow it.
    The chance of a large asteroid impact that will cause worldwide damage is 1 in 100 in the next fifty years. And a 100 percent chance in the next million years.
    There is no question about the fact that Israel will not always be a safe place to live, the question is how we will move, and where.

    Interesting question, such evolutionary changes require thousands upon thousands of years of evolution. With the help of artificial means the adaptation may be faster.

  157. For all those concerned about the problem of gravity on Mars.
    It will be possible to attach iron weights to the settlers.
    On the legs, on the waist, those who want also on the neck, and thus solve the weight problem, like divers do, to balance their weight in the water.
    If any of the Martians would like to go up to the roof of the building
    for some arrangement, for example to repair the solar boiler,
    All he has to do is, temporarily remove his personal weight belt and lightly jump to the roof.

  158. A vehicle of the type you are talking about sounds really bulky to me and is only able to cover a very limited area, similar to the Regevs that are there today, in my opinion the vehicle itself, which will include all the ovens and the experimental laboratories, should be able to send small aircraft that will fly to distant places and bring samples from them to the main vehicle where the tests will be carried out, interesting If they thought about such an option.

  159. The solution is to create an artificial gravity facility where the astronauts will stay. It can be a temporary solution (for several hours a day) that will slow down the process or a permanent solution that will be provided throughout the journey.
    I am asking another question here, whether the human body can adapt to environmental conditions such as in space without undergoing evolution.
    In my opinion, yes.

  160. The spread of a branch of humanity to Mars is a very difficult task, but in the end I believe it will happen, by Terraforming Mars on the one hand and genetic engineering of humans who will be more adapted to the Martian environment on the other hand, and of course lots and lots of technologies, and there will also be many failures and disasters On the road to success I have no doubt that primitive life exists in several other places in the universe, but there is almost no intelligent life, we are the only intelligent ones in the universe or almost the only ones in the universe.

  161. Hi Oren,

    I read Red Mars almost ten years ago. Definitely an interesting book, but I didn't notice that it dealt with health issues (on the other hand, it was ten years ago, and I must have managed to forget large parts of the book).

    As for muscle and bone atrophy, the reason for this is not inaction or dysfunction (because they no longer need to support the body's weight). In experiments conducted in tissue engineering in space, it turns out that simple cartilage grows less well in space as a result of the total lack of gravity, which leads to a poorer organization of the cartilage molecules in space, and less production of extracellular matrix. I find it very hard to believe that taking vitamins and daily exercise will eliminate the effect of lack of gravity on the cells.

    Regarding the immune system and blood volume -

    Shabbat Shalom,



    my new blog - Another science

  162. Roy,
    I suggest you read the book (which is partly science fiction-and partly real science, mostly real science) by Kim Stanley Robinson, Red Mars (there are 2 more sequels but this is the most interesting from a science point of view). The author researched the topic of colonizing Mars for 15 years before writing the book, and even received praise from NASA.

    If you read, you will see that the main problem is not the gravity that makes it easier to sit down (hard work, lighter equipment, less energy is required) and, as I wrote, the problem of calcium depletion can be overcome with regular training. In addition, getting used to the gravity of Mars is much easier compared to the gravitational adaptation that the astronauts do on the space station every day before returning to Earth (the gravity is 3 times greater).
    The processes of muscle and bone degeneration can be corrected with the help of daily training and taking vitamins when necessary. Regarding the immune system and blood volume, I have not heard of it. Where did you get it from? (asks out of genuine curiosity)

    Without atmosphere and ozone there is no radiation protection and the weather is harsh. The sands that migrate there and are made of grains of such a small diameter that they penetrate every protective suit and equipment.

  163. Pine,

    It sounds to me like gravity is actually the most difficult problem. It is possible to make buildings that block the cosmic radiation, heat the building to deal with the cold climate and grow food in special sealed greenhouses. Only with gravity we have no way to deal, and the harmful effects of weak gravity on the body are known. It is not just a matter of calcium depletion in the bones, but also a weakening of the immune system, a decrease in the total blood volume in the body, increased degeneration of the cartilage and more. Besides, you also have to think about how the astronauts will fare after the ~three-year journey in space, when they land on Mars. Although it has less gravity than the Earth, it is still large enough to weigh them down. According to what I was told, some of the astronauts who return to Earth, have to use a wheelchair for the first few weeks here.

    Anyway, I'd love to have a link to an article that claims life expectancy will increase due to low gravity. So far, all the evidence I've come across points in the opposite direction.

    Shabbat Shalom,



    my new blog - Another science

  164. Fish diseases = fish diseases*
    Bacteria that grow = bacteria that grow*

    Sorry, the time and the fact that sometimes I get carried away with the writing and don't notice the mistakes (in addition to a crappy wireless keyboard that sometimes decides to skip one letter or another)

  165. In terms of gravity it might even work in favor of those "settlers". The gravity there is about a third of that of the Earth, and it is even expected that life expectancy will increase because of this. On the other hand, a person who lives there for several months if he wants to return to Earth will have to go through training so that he does not feel the "burden" of gravity here (astronauts on the space station Exercise every day because of this - to prevent calcium depletion in the bones).
    In addition, if this is a bacterium that originates entirely from Mars, the chance that it will affect us or any animal on Earth is small. For the same reason that fish diseases are almost never transmitted to humans - incompatibility. Obviously, over the years the chance will increase, we do not yet know what the DNA looks like Theirs. Of course, it is possible that this is a bacterium originating from the Earth that has mutated in the high radiation conditions on Mars, and that is dangerous. But just as dangerous as bacteria growing on the International Space Station. It is already known that bacteria grown on the old Russian space station - Mir - underwent various mutations due to the exposure to radiation and a different atmosphere, and we have survived it so far.

    In short, there are other reasons to worry about life on Mars. Mainly for settlers and it's not gravity. Radiation, weather (sandstorms that cover almost the entire planet in certain periods), micrometer sand grains that get into everything and can cause health problems and also damage to equipment (clogging, electrostatic disturbances, etc.). You need to create a stable atmosphere, grow food and more...

  166. Are hazards taken into account? Maybe all kinds of bacteria that we don't even know can be brought to Earth?
    This curiosity can still kill us in the end...

    How could humans live on Mars? After all, the gravity is different there. Man is not able to last there, he is simply not built for it.

  167. So there is no point in sending spacecraft to Mars.
    Let him give me the budgets for these projects, and I will supply him with worms of any kind he asks for.

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.