GENIUS FORUMS

Is anyone here into Robert Anton Wilson? What are your thoughts about him?

I always thought he's ideas on topics like E-Prime and conspiracy was interesting.



Robert Anton Wilson - Wikipedia


Toward Understanding E-Prime


RAW on YouTube

Yeah, RAW is where its at. E-prime is cool; takes out the "to be" in order better facilitate text. Look into "Prometheus Rising." Covers his Eight Circuit Consciousness model rather well. Tripped out stuff.

Only the insane is absolutely certain.
- Robert Anton Wilson, The Illuminatus Trilogy

The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. - Mark Twain

RAW was radical, there's no doubt. Whether or not he will one day be conservative, is an interesting question.

I've heard of him. I skimmed at least one book years ago. Now, having watched 40 minutes or so of interviews on You Tube while browsing the Wiki and E Prime links, I'll say that for me he doesn't impress. The E Prime idea is kinda cool, though.

What exactly don't you like about him, Carl. *pissed off expression*

I find his theory about conspiracies somewhat lacking, and his manner flip. To his credit, he says the conspiracy subject was thrust upon him by others, and that it is not his field. Maybe you could say what you think is his strength.

I like his open mindedness to the paranormal, other dimensions, spirits, immortality, his views on conspiracy, and his favoring polytheism over monotheism and atheism.

He compares atheism to the belief that randomly splattering various paint colors over a blank wall for billions of years will eventually produce a Mona Lisa. Absurd, right? Yes, Atheists are absurd.

He criticizes monotheism because it is so reminiscent of the paranoid conspiracy theories of their being one grand ultimate conspiracy. He sees no evidence of this, and thinks that, much like our societies are shaped by a multitude of competing secret powers, the universe itself is created by a multitude of conflicting extra-dimensional entities.

Loki wrote:He compares atheism to the belief that randomly splattering various paint colors over a blank wall for billions of years will eventually produce a Mona Lisa. Absurd, right? Yes, Atheists are absurd.

The fact that you say this means exactly one thing: you are a clueless git. If Wilson thinks that, so is he.

vicdan wrote:

Loki wrote:He compares atheism to the belief that randomly splattering various paint colors over a blank wall for billions of years will eventually produce a Mona Lisa. Absurd, right? Yes, Atheists are absurd.

The fact that you say this means exactly one thing: you are a clueless git. If Wilson thinks that, so is he.

Agreed. He sounds very deluded.

-

You can't always take any one particular thing RAW said seriously.

Anyway, I enjoyed the Illuminatus! trilogy.

vicdan wrote:

Loki wrote:He compares atheism to the belief that randomly splattering various paint colors over a blank wall for billions of years will eventually produce a Mona Lisa. Absurd, right? Yes, Atheists are absurd.

The fact that you say this means exactly one thing: you are a clueless git. If Wilson thinks that, so is he.

You have just proven yourself to be the clueless git. My example above demonstrates the absurdity of atheism perfectly.

Loki wrote:You have just proven yourself to be the clueless git.

"I know you are, but what am I"? Is this what passes for argument among you kids these days?

My example above demonstrates the absurdity of atheism perfectly.

Only to someone who is absolutely clueless about science, kiddo. I guess you are yet another scientifically illiterate ignoramus. You are probably functionally innumerate, too.

Get a fucking science education. No scientific theory proposes that the observed complexity of life arose by random chance. This is a common creationist strawman though, advanced by a people who couldn't tell a doughnut from two holes int he ground.

vicdan wrote: Get a fucking science education. No scientific theory proposes that the observed complexity of life arose by random chance.

Yes it does. Darwinian evolution by natural selection involves 'random variation.' Without random variation, there is no evolution.

Looks like your the one without a grasp of science.

Loki wrote:Yes it does. Darwinian evolution by natural selection involves 'random variation.' Without random variation, there is no evolution.

No fucking kidding, dude. The point is that it involves a combination -- iterative combination -- of random mutation and selection. If course it involves randomness; but the whole 'Mona Lisa from paint splatters/airplane from junkyard' bullshit assumes that it involves nothing but randomness, and that was exactly the explicit assumption in the Mona Lisa analogy -- the paint was described as splattering randomly, with no selection iteration process at all.

Looks like your the one without a grasp of science.

[LOL] Kiddo, I forgot more about science than you will ever know -- and believe you me, there's very little I forgot about science.

Furthermore, if you knew that evolution involves a combination of natural selection and random mutation, then your use of the analogy, and your affirmation of its supposedly devastating implications for atheism, is completely unforgivable, because then it's worse than ignorant -- it's intellectually dishonest.

vicdan wrote:

Loki wrote:Yes it does. Darwinian evolution by natural selection involves 'random variation.' Without random variation, there is no evolution.

No fucking kidding, dude. The point is that it involves a combination -- iterative combination -- of random mutation and selection. If course it involves randomness; but the whole 'Mona Lisa from paint splatters/airplane from junkyard' bullshit assumes that it involves nothing but randomness, and that was exactly the explicit assumption in the Mona Lisa analogy -- the paint was described as splattering randomly, with no selection iteration process at all.

How can selection occur without lifeforms that have biases toward certain things?

You see my point, don't you? If we go with Atheism, there is the necessary belief that prior to lifeforms, there were no selectors. And if there were no selectors, then how did lifeforms arrive?

Furthermore, if you knew that evolution involves a combination of natural selection and random mutation

Ok, evolution may involve that, but PRIOR to the emergence of lifeforms, how the fuck did selection occur? It couldn't have. Well, unless we introduce spirits, or intelligences which exist in higher dimensions.

Loki wrote:How can selection occur without lifeforms that have biases toward certain things?

You see my point, don't you? If we go with Atheism, there is the necessary belief that prior to lifeforms, there were no selectors. And if there were no selectors, then how did lifeforms arrive?

Who came first, the chicken or the egg? Golly, this imponderable problem must mean chickens couldn't have evolved!

Idiot.

Ok, evolution may involve that, but PRIOR to the emergence of lifeforms, how the fuck did selection occur? It couldn't have.

of course not. prior to life, there was nothing to select iteretatively. However, the most primitive 'life' would be basically a strand of RNA, and that could appear by random chance.

You do know that evolution is not invoked to explain abiogenesis, right? Evolution explains how life changes, not how life emerged originally.

Well, unless we introduce spirits, or intelligences which exist in higher dimensions.

or scientifically illiterate, intellectually dishonest, and philosophically void idiots like you.

You don't even fucking understand that introducing spirits or extra-dimentional creators or what have you doesn't solve the problem. It simply gives the problem a fanciful label, but those postulated entities are in fact far harder to explain than that for explaining which they were invoked. In logic, this is a form of begging the question -- using a premise at least as problematic and questionable as the conclusion it is intended to support.

The leap from 'naturalistic world' to 'spirits!' is a much bigger one than from 'a cloud of hot gas and lightning bolts' to 'RNA strands'. Ergo, you are an idiot. Apropos. Vis a vis!

You might as well go all in, and invent Bozo the Extradimentional Chainsaw Clown. You know, to explain abiogenesis. It will have about as much coherence as your spirits or extradimensional intelligences.

Vicdan, you are too much in your head and not enough in your heart.

I refuse to engage with your abusive persona.

Anways, I have more lofty things to attend to.

I'm off to my first ayahuasca session, lead by a shaman and a indigo physicist. I plan to do some drumming, have mystical visions, make telepathic connections, and contact my spirit guide. (try not to envy my courageous dive into the paranormal)

Toodles, asshole.

Loki wrote:Vicdan, you are too much in your head and not enough in your heart.

[LOL] The spinning begins.

So am I, as an atheist, too rational, or not rational enough? make up a lie and stick to it.

I refuse to engage with your abusive persona.

of course you do. if you engaged me, i would force you to confront your delusions, and you treasure them greatly.

Anways, I have more lofty things to attend to.

Like making up bullshit lies about atheism and evolution?

I'm off to my first ayahuasca session, lead by a shaman and a indigo physicist.

I prefer my physicists flesh-colored, but i guess to each his own. :)

You NewAgers are so funny. Someone with a science degree throws you a bone, and POOF! he is an evolved being! You are so desperate for the approval of scientists, it's cringe-inducing.

I plan to do some drumming, have mystical visions, make telepathic connections, and contact my spirit guide. (try not to envy my courageous dive into the paranormal)

Envy? kiddo, been there, done that, tracked down some delusions of my own. Go enjoy your self-deception.

vicdan wrote:

Loki wrote:

Ok, evolution may involve that, but PRIOR to the emergence of lifeforms, how the fuck did selection occur? It couldn't have.

of course not. prior to life, there was nothing to select iteretatively. However, the most primitive 'life' would be basically a strand of RNA, and that could appear by random chance.

If there was such a thing as random chance. I seriously doubt any theory of abiogenisis will include "it just happened out of nowhere" in its formulations.

Dan Rowden wrote:If there was such a thing as random chance. I seriously doubt any theory of abiogenisis will include "it just happened out of nowhere" in its formulations.

Educate yourself.

The current best explanations of abiogenesis generally involve random generation of organics, e.g. as in the Miller-Urey Experiment:

The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Urey–Miller experiment)[2] was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical evolution. Specifically, the experiment tested Soviet scientist Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life, it was conducted in 1952[1] and published in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago.[3][4][5]

Re-analysis published in October 2008[6] of material from the experiments showed 22 amino acids rather than 5 were created in one apparatus.[7] In particular, the experiment that was thought to simulate a volcanic eruption was examined. These new results provide stronger evidence that biological molecules can form from simple reactants.

Wikipedia has the rundown.

vicdan wrote:However, the most primitive 'life' would be basically a strand of RNA, and that could appear by random chance.

Dan Rowden wrote:If there was such a thing as random chance. I seriously doubt any theory of abiogenisis will include "it just happened out of nowhere" in its formulations.

Educate yourself.

It's not even by random chance then. From the link:

the formation of biological polymers [dvr: including RNA] from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random.

The further development of life forms is more tricky to know if it needs some probability figure or was fully determined with only random fluctuations causing the selection parameters.

At the moment, since we have no idea how probable life is, it's virtually impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities to any of the steps to life except the first two (monomers to polymers p=1.0, formation of catalytic polymers p=1.0). For the replicating polymers to hypercycle transition, the probability may well be 1.0 if Kauffman is right about catalytic closure and his phase transition models, but this requires real chemistry and more detailed modelling to confirm. For the hypercycle->protobiont transition, the probability here is dependent on theoretical concepts still being developed, and is unknown.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:It's not even by random chance then. From the link:

the formation of biological polymers [dvr: including RNA] from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random.

The laws aren't random, but there's a whole lot of randomness involved -- in the initial formation of organic monomers, and in the specific pattern of their polymerization. As is commonly the case, the outcome was most likely a combination of deterministic and random factors. Similarly, the laws of quantum mechanics aren't random, but the outcomes of quantum events have random aspect to them.

And, contrary to Dan's doubts, there is indeed such a thing as random chance.

vicdan wrote:The laws aren't random, but there's a whole lot of randomness involved -- in the initial formation of organic monomers, and in the specific pattern of their polymerization.

But this was about your remark about how the most primitive 'life', which you deemed RNA, could appear by chance. This is not the same discussion as how any pre-RNA appears, or even perhaps metabolism, or the Earth, or the Earth-Sun distance or properties of hydrogen. It's specifically about how what you call "the most primitive life" developed from "non-life" and not how the whole complex of circumstances came into being. An arbitrary boundary is drawn. This is why Dan remarked that one cannot say "it just happened out of nowhere".

The chance of these monomers appearing on early Earth is yet unknown, it's not even known if there's a probability attached at all or if the prebiotic synthesis of nucleotides into RNA is not too simplified and idealized as mechanism.

Critics like Robert Shapiro have lined out the problems with 'slam-dunk' formation of RNA in the 'real' world.

As is commonly the case, the outcome was most likely a combination of deterministic and random factors.

How likely? What is the chance it was determined by random factors :?)

And, contrary to Dan's doubts, there is indeed such a thing as random chance.

Could you define "random chance" for me here? To me this seems merely describing a pattern of distribution in time or space or both. From that perspective there's nothing that can be caused completely by "random chance", it's more that some things manifest as distribution.