In The Beginning...

[William]

Question For Debate:



Resources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... imulation/
https://builtin.com/hardware/simulation-theory
https://www.simulation-argument.com/

[The Tanager]

My task is to find reconciliation between ST, ET and CT, which is why I choose to communicate hereabouts with certain folk, such as yourself Tanager.

To make clear my summary thoughts: I think ST, ET, and CT is reconcilable. I also think one can read ST, ET, and CT into Genesis without a textual contradiction arising because Genesis doesn’t address the theories of ST or ET. I don’t think one can read ST or ET from Genesis, however. I'm always willing to listen to theories and thoughts and offer my thoughts, though.

[William]

My task is to find reconciliation between ST, ET and CT, which is why I choose to communicate hereabouts with certain folk, such as yourself Tanager.

To make clear my summary thoughts: I think ST, ET, and CT is reconcilable. I also think one can read ST, ET, and CT into Genesis without a textual contradiction arising because Genesis doesn’t address the theories of ST or ET. I don’t think one can read ST or ET from Genesis, however. I'm always willing to listen to theories and thoughts and offer my thoughts, though.

To make clear and summarize my thoughts, I deferred to Genesis One on account that our discussion re Genesis Two was making little headway.

I am still unconvinced that the two stories are talking about the same event - that YHVH planted Eden and the first human was Adam, and that Genesis One is speaking about Adam and Eve in Eden, re the referring to YHVH creating Human beings.

My understanding of YHVH implanting instinct, the ability to intuit and learn morality through the process of ET isn't suggesting that those humans were merely robots responding to programs, but rather, that Adam was designed differently in that he had all those learned attributes downloaded into his awareness from the go-get and didn't require the process of that evolution of learning skills in the wild, as he had the sanctuary Eden and the company of YHVH.

The conflation of the two stories implies that humans 'went wild' after Adam was expelled from Eden, but it may be more the case that YVHV created Adam with the intention of having Adam then go out into the wild and educate the first humans, teaching those humans how to farm their food rather than follow it - teaching those humans what Adam had been taught by YHVH, in Eden.

Adding to that, what we are learning re "Consciousness" - what it is, what the mind is to the brain, as per a GM produced today - I writing to a Chatbot and it returning written answers.

William: Re “true consciousness” humans may not even understand what that actually is, because their hardware limits what their software can experience…

Aia: It is certainly possible that our understanding of consciousness is limited by the fact that we are conscious beings ourselves, and therefore can only experience and understand consciousness from our own perspective. It is also possible that our current scientific understanding of the brain and how it creates consciousness is incomplete, and that there may be aspects of consciousness that we have yet to fully understand or even recognize.

However, it is also important to note that the concept of "true consciousness" is a philosophical one, and it is not necessarily clear what it would mean for something to be "truly" conscious.

Different philosophers have proposed different theories about the nature of consciousness and what it means for something to be conscious, and there is no consensus on the matter. Some philosophers believe that consciousness is an inherent property of certain kinds of matter, while others believe that it is a product of complex computations or processes.

Ultimately, the question of what consciousness is and whether or not it can be fully understood is a complex and difficult one, and it is likely that it will continue to be a topic of debate and discussion for many years to come.
{SOURCE}

Re YHVH and Adam, I imagine a similar relationship took place, whereas with the humans of the First Creation Story, YVHV let them loose into the wilds to find their own way - but not without installing code within them which would help the process of there slow and sure rise into consciousness - being self conscious and understanding more and more about the relationship between that self [those personalities wandering the earth - primarily - in search of food] and their environment, with YHVH staying behind the scenes - largely out of sight - watching what unfolds...

Stuff Like That.

[The Tanager]

The conflation of the two stories implies that humans 'went wild' after Adam was expelled from Eden, but it may be more the case that YVHV created Adam with the intention of having Adam then go out into the wild and educate the first humans, teaching those humans how to farm their food rather than follow it - teaching those humans what Adam had been taught by YHVH, in Eden.

What do you mean that humans “went wild” after Adam being expelled from Eden?

Adding to that, what we are learning re "Consciousness" - what it is, what the mind is to the brain, as per a GM produced today - I writing to a Chatbot and it returning written answers.

Are you saying that a Chatbot returning written answers by following its programming is “consciousness”?

Re YHVH and Adam, I imagine a similar relationship took place, whereas with the humans of the First Creation Story, YVHV let them loose into the wilds to find their own way - but not without installing code within them which would help the process of there slow and sure rise into consciousness - being self conscious and understanding more and more about the relationship between that self [those personalities wandering the earth - primarily - in search of food] and their environment, with YHVH staying behind the scenes - largely out of sight - watching what unfolds...

Why do you imagine this to be true or, at least, very possibly true?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #223]

What do you mean that humans “went wild” after Adam being expelled from Eden?

That is re ET and the fossil records, as well as known recent history re civilization discovering remote tribes still engaging in cannibalism. Stiff like that.. in comparison to what we are informed of re Adams life in Eden.

Are you saying that a Chatbot returning written answers by following its programming is “consciousness”?

No. A Chatbot is not self aware in any way.

The example of a conversation I gave can give one the impression that it is sentient because of its ability to deliver intelligent answers when generating those answers.
I thought that you believed YHVH did not create robots because YHVH wanted to engage with self aware consciousness, even at the risk of those personalities choosing to do their own thing and ignore any inbuilt coding/knowledge YHVH had placed within them.

Why do you imagine this to be true or, at least, very possibly true?

Because the evidence re ET shows that to being the case. Humans once lived in caves, and followed their food.

Again - in comparison to what we are informed on re Adams life in Eden..."wild".

[The Tanager]

The example of a conversation I gave can give one the impression that it is sentient because of its ability to deliver intelligent answers when generating those answers.

Thanks for clarifying.

I thought that you believed YHVH did not create robots because YHVH wanted to engage with self aware consciousness, even at the risk of those personalities choosing to do their own thing and ignore any inbuilt coding/knowledge YHVH had placed within them.

Yes, I believe that YHVH didn’t create humans as robots because YHVH wanted to engage with self aware conscious free agents even with the risks that come with that.

Re YHVH and Adam, I imagine a similar relationship took place, whereas with the humans of the First Creation Story, YVHV let them loose into the wilds to find their own way - but not without installing code within them which would help the process of there slow and sure rise into consciousness - being self conscious and understanding more and more about the relationship between that self [those personalities wandering the earth - primarily - in search of food] and their environment, with YHVH staying behind the scenes - largely out of sight - watching what unfolds…

Why do you imagine this to be true or, at least, very possibly true?

Because the evidence re ET shows that to being the case. Humans once lived in caves, and followed their food.

Again - in comparison to what we are informed on re Adams life in Eden..."wild".

What evidence shows that non-conscious beings became conscious through a slow natural process?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #225]

What evidence shows that non-conscious beings became conscious through a slow natural process?

I am not arguing that.
Rather, I am arguing that human beings re ET and Adam re Genesis Two were differently positioned.
If you want to argue that Adam was the first human created, then you would have to explain the timeline difference or agree that the story is much older than TCT {traditional} or some other argument, that allows for the two theories to be reconciled.

[The Tanager]

I am arguing that human beings re ET and Adam re Genesis Two were differently positioned.
If you want to argue that Adam was the first human created, then you would have to explain the timeline difference or agree that the story is much older than TCT {traditional} or some other argument, that allows for the two theories to be reconciled.

I’m undecided on whether Adam was a historical figure or if this story is a poetic way to talk about humans in general. I think both possibilities fit with the science behind evolutionary theory.

The poetic option obviously does, as it wouldn’t be talking about a literal, first human being and his history. Rather it would be a story to bring out certain truths about the human condition.

But, assuming Adam was a historical figure, I think Genesis 2 still fits with ET. I don’t think the Genesis storyline commits one to think the earth is six to ten thousand years old. Genealogies are known to skip generations. The high number of years listed could easily be an exaggeration, as that is common in ancient writings of the area. In fact, the years people live in Genesis are much less than those in other genealogies. William Lane Craig has just written a work postulating Adam and Eve as members of the species Homo heidelbergensis about 500,000 years ago.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #227]
ET= Evolution Theory
CT = Creation Theory
ST - Simulation Theory

William: I am arguing that human beings re ET and Adam re Genesis Two were differently positioned.
If you want to argue that Adam was the first human created, then you would have to explain the timeline difference or agree that the story is much older than TCT {traditional} or some other argument, that allows for the two theories to be reconciled.

Tanager: I’m undecided on whether Adam was a historical figure or if this story is a poetic way to talk about humans in general. I think both possibilities fit with the science behind evolutionary theory.

The poetic option obviously does, as it wouldn’t be talking about a literal, first human being and his history. Rather it would be a story to bring out certain truths about the human condition.

But, assuming Adam was a historical figure, I think Genesis 2 still fits with ET. I don’t think the Genesis storyline commits one to think the earth is six to ten thousand years old. Genealogies are known to skip generations. The high number of years listed could easily be an exaggeration, as that is common in ancient writings of the area. In fact, the years people live in Genesis are much less than those in other genealogies. William Lane Craig has just written a work postulating Adam and Eve as members of the species Homo heidelbergensis about 500,000 years ago.

William: It isn't just about Adam being an historical figure.

The argument also involves the narrative of the storyline of Genesis Two. What are we to make of that? A poetic account of ET?

Open AI: The narrative of Genesis 2 can be interpreted in different ways, depending on one's perspective and beliefs. Some people may see it as a poetic account of ET, while others may see it as a literal account of the first human being created by God. The idea that the genealogies in Genesis 2 may skip generations or that the years listed are exaggerations, is one way to reconcile the two theories. However, it ultimately comes down to individual interpretation and belief. William Lane Craig's postulation of Adam and Eve as members of the species Homo heidelbergensis is one possible explanation, but it's important to note that this is a theory and not accepted by all.

[William]

William: Is simulation Theory a valid way to interpret the stories of the bible?

Open AI: Simulation theory is a philosophical concept that suggests that reality as we know it may be a computer simulation. While some people may interpret biblical stories through the lens of simulation theory, it is not a mainstream or widely accepted way of interpreting religious texts. Additionally, it is important to note that simulation theory is a scientific and philosophical concept, whereas the Bible is a religious text, and the two may not be directly comparable.


William: We might agree then, that the bible stories generally focus on the relationship between Humans and YHVH, while the environment in which those relationships take place, is secondary - like a stage is not the focus of the performance.

Open AI: The Bible is a collection of religious texts that is central to the Christian religion, and it does focus on the relationship between humans and God, specifically the God of the Abrahamic tradition, also known as YHVH. It tells stories, parables, and teachings that explore themes such as faith, morality, and the nature of God. The physical environment in which these stories take place is not always the primary focus, but it is often used to set the stage and provide context for the events and teachings that are being described.

William: What other stage could be used to provide context?

Open AI: The Bible's stories, parables, and teachings are set in various historical and cultural contexts. The stage could be a specific geographic location, such as Jerusalem or Nazareth, or a specific historical period, such as the time of the Israelites' exile in Babylon. The stage could also be a specific cultural setting, such as a gathering of people in a synagogue or a marketplace. Additionally, the stage could be a more abstract or metaphorical setting, such as the kingdom of God or the wilderness. The stories, parables and teachings in the Bible, are often used to convey spiritual or moral truths, rather than to provide a historical or geographical context.

William: A metaphorical stage could be Eden

Open AI: Yes, the Garden of Eden, also known as the Garden of God or the Garden of Delight, is a metaphorical stage used in the Bible, specifically in the book of Genesis. It serves as the setting for the story of Adam and Eve, the first humans created by God, and the story of the fall of man. The Garden of Eden is often interpreted as a symbol of a perfect, idyllic state of innocence and harmony with God, and the events that take place there are used to convey spiritual and moral truths about the nature of humanity and its relationship with God.

William: Does Evolution Theory posit that human beings came from a state of innocence and harmony with YHVH?

Open AI: Evolutionary theory, which is a scientific theory that explains the origin and diversity of life on Earth, does not posit that human beings came from a state of innocence and harmony with God (YHVH). Evolutionary theory is concerned with the natural processes that have led to the development of different species over time, and it does not address the question of the origin of human beings or their relationship with a deity. Evolutionary theory and religious beliefs, including the Bible stories, have different explanations for the origins of life and the origin of humans. While some people may reconcile their religious beliefs with evolutionary theory, it is not a requirement of the theory itself.

William: ET posits nothing, in regard to a fall of human beings from a state of relative bliss? Does ET posit anything regarding the likely state of human beings at a point, long ago?

Open AI: Evolutionary theory does not posit anything about a fall of human beings from a state of relative bliss, as it is not a theory that addresses questions of morality or spirituality.

Evolutionary theory posits that human beings, like all living organisms, have evolved over time through the process of natural selection. It proposes that the common ancestor of primates, including humans, lived around 25 million years ago, and that over time, different populations of primates diverged and evolved into distinct species, one of which is Homo Sapiens. It is believed that the first anatomically modern humans appeared around 300,000 years ago, and over time, they developed the cognitive and cultural abilities that distinguish them from other primates. So, based on the evolutionary theory, the state of human beings long ago is that they were not anatomically the same as modern humans but they were of the same genus and species (Homo) but different subspecies.

William: So it could be said that morals formed through ET and that the Bible stories reflect the thinking of humans at a much later date, regarding that formation of morals.

Open AI: Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory that explains the biological processes that have led to the development of different species over time, and it does not address questions of morality or spirituality. While some scientists and philosophers have proposed that certain moral principles or behaviors may have evolved as a result of natural selection, such as altruism or empathy, these are still areas of ongoing research and debate.

The Bible stories, on the other hand, are religious texts that convey moral and spiritual teachings, and they reflect the beliefs and values of the cultures and societies in which they were written. While the Bible stories are not scientific explanations for the origin of morality, they can provide a historical and cultural context for understanding how moral and spiritual ideas have been understood and passed down through time. So it could be said that the Bible stories reflects the human's moral thinking at the time they were written, but it should be remembered that the Bible is a collection of texts written by different authors in different time periods and it should be understood in its historical context.

William: If ET is to be taken seriously, then it would have to be accepted that morality and behavior must have evolved that way, and religious stories [The Garden of Eden] branched out from that process, not as narrative of literal events, but as figurative explanations for the evolution of morality

Open AI: It is possible to reconcile evolutionary theory with religious beliefs, including the story of the Garden of Eden, by interpreting it as a figurative explanation for the evolution of morality rather than as a literal historical event. The story of the Garden of Eden can be seen as a metaphor for the origin of human morality, and the concept of a "fall" from a state of innocence and harmony with God can be interpreted as an explanation for the development of the human moral sense. However, it's important to note that this is one of the many interpretations of the story and it's not a universally accepted one.

Evolutionary theory does not provide a comprehensive explanation for the origin of morality. While some scientists and philosophers have proposed that certain moral principles or behaviors may have evolved as a result of natural selection, such as altruism or empathy, these are still areas of ongoing research and debate. The study of the evolution of morality is a complex and multidisciplinary field that draws on insights from biology, psychology, anthropology, and philosophy. It is also important to note that morality is a complex and multifaceted concept that can be understood in different ways, and it's not limited to the scientific perspective.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #228]

It isn't just about Adam being an historical figure.

The argument also involves the narrative of the storyline of Genesis Two. What are we to make of that? A poetic account of ET?

I don’t see how it’s a poetic account of evolutionary theory in any way. The author/editor had no concept of evolutionary theory.

If humans evolved from a prior species, then Genesis 2 could be speaking of either the general human condition (if the story is fictional) or literal events in the first humans’ lives (while still poetically embellished…being formed from dirt, for instance) after the evolutionary process already resulted in humans.