- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Elsewhere Stu wrote the following:
Quote It looks to me like you are trying to portray consciousness as something magical and incomprehensible, when really it is not. He also wrote:
Quote [Consciousness] is explained by natural selection, the central principle of the fact of evolution. From my own research, it appears that Stu is way off-base. Consciousness certainly has not been explained in terms of the physical world, (i.e. chemical or mechanical processes). It seems to go beyond the ability of scientists to measure or explain.
The “Holy” Wikipedia says:
Quote There have been scientific attempts to explain subjective aspects of consciousness, which is related to the binding problem in neuroscience. Many eminent theorists, including Francis Crick and Roger Penrose, have worked in this field. Nevertheless, even as sophisticated accounts are given, it is unclear if such theories address the hard problem. Patricia Smith Churchland has famously remarked about Penrose's theories that “Pixie dust in the synapses is about as explanatorily powerful as quantum coherence in the microtubules.” It further reports:
Quote Some philosophers, such as [famous atheist] Daniel Dennett, oppose the idea that there is a hard problem. These theorists argue that once we really come to understand what consciousness is, we will realize that the hard problem is an illusion. To paraphrase Dennett, “we don't know what the answer is but we are pretty sure that it's not that difficult a problem”. In other words: Have faith (that there is a rational scientific solution).
In short, I disagree with Stu. I think that the “hard problem” of consciousness points towards a spiritual realm beyond the capability science to explain. Dennett could be right, but his assertion is no more valid than mine. I suppose that we shall both find out in due time.
So, in other words, you have decided that consciousness MUST be a difficult thing because you need to justify your assertion that consciousness is intimately related to a supernatural world that you have decided needs to be incomprehensible.
Stuart
No, I have observed that a complete material explanation for consciousness is not available and does not appear to be forthcoming anytime soon. From there, I have supposed that the reason for this is that the explanation (as to how consciousness is generated) is partly supernatural. I readily admit that my supposition is unprovable, but that's kind of the point. My statement can, however, be easily disproved by the advancement of science in this area. I just don't think that will happen.
But, getting back to what you said previously, how does natural selection explain consciousness from your point of view?
Stu,
So, in other words, you have decided that consciousness MUST NOT be a difficult thing because you need to justify your assertion that consciousness is NOT intimately related to a supernatural world that you have decided does NOT exist.Did I get that right?
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 11 2009,09:44) No, I have observed that a complete material explanation for consciousness is not available and does not appear to be forthcoming anytime soon. From there, I have supposed that the reason for this is that the explanation (as to how consciousness is generated) is partly supernatural. I readily admit that my supposition is unprovable, but that's kind of the point. My statement can, however, be easily disproved by the advancement of science in this area. I just don't think that will happen. But, getting back to what you said previously, how does natural selection explain consciousness from your point of view?
A complete material explanation for gravity and mass is not available and does not appear immediately available either. Would you like to proclaim that to be in the realm of the supernatural too? Essentially what you are doing is throwing your hands up in the air, stating that since you can't explain it you will use this moment of confusion that you think you have generated to lever in a mention of your god. In doing that you have only added questions and answered none.Of course you are entitled to what you recon. Every Joe Bloggs on the planet is entitled to speculate wildly from a position of ignorance, as long as he has no responsibility to professional standards in the field, in this case psychology.
Consciousness is, according to my Oxford Concise, 1the state of being conscious (awake and aware of one's surroundings and identity, aware of, intentional, knowing) 2 awareness, perception 3 the totality of a person's thoughts, feelings and sensations, or of a class of these (moral consciousness).
So let me speculate without medical training. Here is what I recon:
First off, It can be thought of simply in terms of our ancestry. The undisputed explanation for our origins is evolution by natural selection. That is how the rest of the human body came to exist. You would have to be making a special exemption for the biochemistry that results in our perceptions of consciousness. Who is proposing such an exception, one that appeals to magic instead of biochemical adaptations? There is no evidence for such a view.
Secondly, some of those perceptions of consciousness may not be of themselves advantageous, but could be byproducts of other aspects of having a big brain that do benefit our survival.
The ONLY scientific model for the appearance of consciousness is natural selection.
Stuart
Quote (seekingtruth @ Dec. 11 2009,09:53) Stu,
So, in other words, you have decided that consciousness MUST NOT be a difficult thing because you need to justify your assertion that consciousness is NOT intimately related to a supernatural world that you have decided does NOT exist.Did I get that right?
I believe that the simplest explanation is the best one. I cannot see how a supernatural explanation can be the simplest explanation. I have never seen anything that credibly links the words 'supernatural' and 'explanation', so I think it is a non-starter. I am happy to be corrected with evidence. Do you have any?Stuart
This text gives some general descriptions of the recursive circuits in the brain that allow “messages about messages” to increase awareness about one's thinking to the point where it becomes what we might experience as awareness.
No gods needed so far!
Stuart
Here the Good Book describes the biochemical nature of the transmission of neural messages. Relating it to the initial thrust of what I claimed about simplicity, I agree that this does not LOOK simple, but the principles on which it is based are comprehensible, transferable ideas.
Still no gods. Not that they will ever help us to explain anyway.
Stuart
Evolution happens because a random advantageous change in the genome is retained by the enhanced survival and reproductive abilities of its owner. There is no question that identity, self-awareness and in fact each aspect of this thing we call consciousness are advantageous.
Evolutionary psychology is a controversial topic because it involves a lot of speculation, and indeed the exact historical circumstances in which traits of consciousness were FIRST advantageous is likely only ever going to be speculative. It becomes obvious when you consider the attitude so many humans display towards those who are deficient in one of them that they ARE advantagous. Those without these kinds of adaptations are less likely to be chosen as a mate or bonded to a group, so they have become essential qualities: those with self-awareness and a strong sense of identity may simply have appeared as more worthy breeding partners; a developed sense of identity may have helped to bind groups of humans into tribes who looked after one anothers' interests, thus aiding survival (and consequently the population filled with these successful genes). The point about sexual selection should be fairly obvious by observation of humans alive today.
I think there is enough here to justify that consciousness is not incomprehensibly complex, and is in no way explained by the actions of Imaginary Sky Friends. Indeed, if anyone can show how invocations of gods explains ANYTHING I would be interested to hear it!
Stuart
Stu,
You have a very appropriate avatar (eyes covered).Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.Theses
Initially, the Earth was a lifeless planet.
There is life on Earth now.
At some time in the past, life either originated on Earth, or came to Earth from outer space.
Regardless of where or when life originated, it had to originate sometime, somewhere, somehow.
Life either originated by purely natural processes, or else some supernatural element must have been involved.
Science, as defined by the American public school system, excludes supernatural explanations.
Science depends upon the “Scientific Method” for determining truth.
The Scientific Method involves testing hypotheses using repeatable experiments.
If there is a scientific explanation for the origin of life, it must depend entirely on natural, repeatable processes.
If life originated by a natural process under certain specific conditions, it should be possible to create life again under the same conditions.
For more than 50 years scientists have tried to find conditions that produce life, without success.
Fifty years of failed attempts to create life have raised more questions than answers about how life could have originated naturally.
Living things have been observed to die from natural processes, which can be repeated in a laboratory.
Life has never been observed to originate through any natural process.
“Abiogenesis” is the belief that life can originate from non-living substances through purely natural processes.
The theory of evolution depends upon abiogenesis as the starting point.
If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of evolution is false.
The American public school system teaches that somehow the first living cell formed naturally and reproduced.
There is no known way in which the first living cell could have formed naturally.
The first living cell would have needed some mechanism for metabolism.
There is no known natural process by which metabolism could originate in a lifeless cell.
The first living cell would have to grow and reproduce for life to continue past the first cell’s death.
Growth and reproduction require cell division.
Cell division is a complex process.
There is no known natural process by which cell division could originate by chance.
According to the theory of evolution, single-celled life forms evolved into multi-cellular life forms.
Multi-cellular life forms consist of an assembly of cells that have different functions.
There is no scientific explanation for how a single cell could or would naturally change function.
Single-celled organisms have a membrane which allows the cell to exchange some substances (“nutrients” and “waste”, for lack of better terms) with the environment.
Not all cells in larger multi-cellular organisms are in contact with the external environment.
Larger multi-cellular organisms need some method for the interior cells to exchange nutrients and waste with the external environment.
Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including teeth, saliva, throat, stomach, and intestines) for absorbing nutrients from the environment.
Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, intestines, heart, arteries, and veins) for distributing nutrients and oxygen to interior cells.
Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, heart, arteries, veins, kidneys, and bladder) for removing waste from interior cells.
There is no satisfactory explanation how complex systems such as these could have originated by any natural process.
According to the theory of evolution, an invertebrate life-form evolved into the first vertebrate life-form.
Vertebrates have, by definition, a spine containing a nervous system.
The nervous system detects stimuli and reacts to them.
There is no satisfactory explanation for how the simplest nervous system could have originated by any natural process.
According to the theory of evolution, some of the first vertebrates were fish, which have eyes and a brain connected by a nervous system.
There is no satisfactory explanation how optical elements (typically including a lens, an iris and light sensors) could have assembled themselves by any natural process.
There is no satisfactory explanation how image processing algorithms could have originated in a fish brain by any natural process.
If the theory of evolution is true, then every characteristic of every living thing must be the result of a random mutation.
Mutations have been observed that increase or decrease the size of some portion (or portions) of a living organism.
Mutations have been observed that change the shape of a living organism.
Mutations have been observed that duplicate existing features (cows with two heads, flies with extra wings, etc.).
No mutation has ever been observed that provides a new function (sight, hearing, smell, lactation, etc.) in a living organism that did not previously have that function.
Cross-breeding and genetic engineering can transfer existing functionality from one living organism to another.
Cross-breeding cannot explain the origin of any new functionality in the first place.
Artificial selection enhances desired characteristics by removing genetic traits that inhibit the desired characteristics.
Artificial selection is more efficient than natural selection.
There are limits to the amount of change that can be produced by artificial selection.
Mutation and artificial selection have not been demonstrated to be sufficient to bring about new life forms from existing ones.
Similarity of features is not definite proof of common ancestry.
Similarity of features is often observed in objects designed by man.
The fact that one individual was born later than another individual died is not proof that the later individual is a biological descendant of the earlier one, especially if they are of different species.
Many different human evolutionary trees have been proposed.
There is disagreement about hominid lineage because the “evidence” is meager and highly speculative.
Darwin was correct when he said, “Any variation which is not inherited is unimportant for us.” 2
Acquired characteristics are not inherited because they do not cause any change in the DNA.
Explanations for how apelike creatures evolved into humans are fanciful speculations without experimental confirmation.
There is no evidence to suggest that offspring of animals that eat cooked food are smarter than offspring of the same species that eat raw food.
There is no evidence to suggest that mental exercises performed by parents will increase the brain size of their children.
There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will increase the brain size of their children.
There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will make it easier for their children to stand upright.
Sedimentary layers are formed in modern times by such things as floods, mudslides, and sandstorms.
The fossils in sedimentary layers formed in modern times contain the kinds of things living in that location.
The concept of geologic ages is based upon the evolutionary assumption that the kinds of fossils buried in sedimentary layers are determined by time rather than location.
All sedimentary layers formed in modern times are of the same geologic age, despite the fact that they contain different kinds of fossils.
Radiometric dating depends upon assumptions that cannot be verified about the initial concentrations of elements.
Radiometric datin
g of rocks brought back from the Moon is not a reliable method of determining the age of the Earth.
“Dark matter” and “dark energy” were postulated to explain why astronomical measurements don’t match predictions of the Big Bang theory.
When measurements don’t agree with theoretical predictions, it is generally because the theory was wrong.
“We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we don’t know how it could possibly have happened, but it must have happened somehow!” is never a satisfactory scientific explanation.
Public schools should not teach any fanciful speculation that is inconsistent with experimentally verified laws as if it were true.Seekingtruth the material on the website you quote is really poor in quality, and contradictory. They are just trying to borrow the respectability of science to lend their own religious views some credibility, but it is mostly lies and strawmen.
Quote Life either originated by purely natural processes, or else some supernatural element must have been involved.
Why just those two? Why not aliens?Quote If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of evolution is false.
This is an outright lie. There is no scientific theory of abiogenesis! You cannot just claim that ‘theory’ is being used in the sense of a theory, because in the first part of the sentence the same word is used to describe something that IS a scientific theory.Quote The first living cell would have needed some mechanism for metabolism.
Why?Quote There is no known natural process by which cell division could originate by chance.
There is. Budding of micelles containing a replicating molecule.Quote There is no scientific explanation for how a single cell could or would naturally change function.
Just one example: the mitochondria in every one of our cells have their own DNA, they were originally independently-existing cells. This one example of endosymbiosis shows that this statement is a lie. There are so many ways of disproving the statement it would take me days, and stretch my biology well beyond capacity!Quote There is no satisfactory explanation how complex [organ] systems [and combinations of systems] such as these could have originated by any natural process. There is no satisfactory explanation for how the simplest nervous system could have originated by any natural process.
To the lying creationist, no scientific explanation is ‘satisfactory’, except the ones that do not contradict Genesis. What a bunch of lying low-life they are.Quote If the theory of evolution is true, then every characteristic of every living thing must be the result of a random mutation. Mutations have been observed that increase or decrease the size of some portion (or portions) of a living organism. Mutations have been observed that change the shape of a living organism.
Mutations have been observed that duplicate existing features (cows with two heads, flies with extra wings, etc.). No mutation has ever been observed that provides a new function (sight, hearing, smell, lactation, etc.) in a living organism that did not previously have that function.
The last bit is the lie here: no single mutation should ever be expected to produce any of those listed functions. The evolution of sight did not involve one mutation that suddenly produced two fully-functioning eyes!Quote Artificial selection is more efficient than natural selection.
In what way do you think it is more efficient?Quote Similarity of features is not definite proof of common ancestry.
There is no such thing as definite proof in science. This statement really shows you that the writers of the website are only out to steal the respectability of science by trying to associate the word ‘science’ with their lame lies. They do not actually understand what science is, or how it gets us the best quality of information we have. They are just leeches.Quote Similarity of features is often observed in objects designed by man.
Yes, so what?Quote The fact that one individual was born later than another individual died is not proof that the later individual is a biological descendant of the earlier one, especially if they are of different species.
Who is saying it is?Quote Explanations for how apelike creatures evolved into humans are fanciful speculations without experimental confirmation.
And yet Genesis provides unambiguous evidence for every verse? Now we can add ‘hypocrite’ to the list of adjectives that apply to the writer.Quote There is no evidence to suggest that offspring of animals that eat cooked food are smarter than offspring of the same species that eat raw food. There is no evidence to suggest that mental exercises performed by parents will increase the brain size of their children. There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will increase the brain size of their children.
There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will make it easier for their children to stand upright.
Huh?Quote Radiometric dating depends upon assumptions that cannot be verified about the initial concentrations of elements.
Would you like to explain exactly what you mean by this?Quote Radiometric dating of rocks brought back from the Moon is not a reliable method of determining the age of the Earth.
Is that because the results contradict Genesis?Quote Public schools should not teach any fanciful speculation that is inconsistent with experimentally verified laws as if it were true. True. That rather leaves religion education in trouble, doesn’t it!
I’ll leave the last word with the authors:
Quote Seventy-five Theses We hold these truths to be undeniable.
…so therefore they have nothing to do with science, which ONLY deals with the deniable.
Stuart
Stu,
I think that you are skipping too quickly past the definition of consciousness, as that is a huge chunk of the problem as I see it. The definition that you quoted brings up more questions than it answers. Unlike mass or gravity, consciousness can not be described in physical terms, and therefore does not appear to be (in my opinion) highly linked to the physical world.
For example, the Oxford definition speaks of “awareness”. Well what is “awareness”? It speaks of “knowing”, “feelings”, “thoughts”, etc., but none of these things are physical concepts. They are abstractions that help us to describe non-physical things. I think that you have to first demonstrate that consciousness is indeed physical before you can pre-suppose that there is a physical explanation for it.
In that vein, one might be tempted to define consciousness as activity in the brain, but that would be misleading. While brain activity may indicate consciousness, it doesn't define it. The brain is the 'where' not the 'how'.
To illustrate what I mean, try to imagine a person who works in the area of artificial intelligence trying to create consciousness in a machine by simply replicating brain activity. It would be a fruitless endeavor. To actually accomplish anything, such a person would need to know how consciousness works, i.e. what functions are necessary for conscious thought.
I am not just throwing my hands up because the answers seem difficult. I am suggesting that the answers to these kinds of questions seem non-physical. How does one feel? How does one know? How does one become self-aware? We can get computers to crunch more data than we can possibly contain in our heads, but how do we get a computer to “think for itself” and choose it's own path?
I don't think that the answer lies in describing the physical process of neurotransmission. Do you?
From the book you referenced above, it is said that Daniel Dennett believes “consciousness is an illusion”. That seems like the most honest materialistic opinion as it boils consciousness down to nothing more than a complicated chain of physical causes and physical effects, (i.e. a strictly biological process). I take this view to imply that we are not conscious in the sense that we think that we are. We are really just highly complex biological machines simply reacting to our environment as programmed. We do not “think for ourselves”. We think as we are programmed to think, just like any other computer. Is that your view?
Conscience is made up of 2 words.
'con' is a latin word meaning 'with'. Spanish uses this word.
'science' means 'knowledge'.Humans have a conscience, meaning that we have built in knowledge.
It's a bit like the bios of a computer.Even without any recorded data, humans have knowledge.
As we develop, our conscience guides us in life.Our conscience agrees with the commandments of God.
It is written in scripture that the law is written in our hearts because we all know it is wrong to murder, steal, etc.Evolutionists like anyone can explain anything given enough imagination. But those poor fellows a blind to the beautiful truth that we are wonderfully made.
God gave us a number of witnesses that he exists.
There is creation itself and all the wonderful design we can observe. There is conscience, and there is the written law. Finally we have the gospel, which separates believers from unbelievers. The highest understanding of God is revelation.
All of us have at least one of these witnesses and no man has an excuse for being ignorant of God.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 12 2009,09:20) I think that you are skipping too quickly past the definition of consciousness, as that is a huge chunk of the problem as I see it. The definition that you quoted brings up more questions than it answers. Unlike mass or gravity, consciousness can not be described in physical terms, and therefore does not appear to be (in my opinion) highly linked to the physical world.
This paragraph makes the rest of your post, and in fact the whole thread redundant. Why did you bother starting it if you already have an undeniable world of magic that just MUST have its finger in the pie?If you can't define it then what is the point in discussing it?
And I though you might have been serious.
Lame beyond belief.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Dec. 12 2009,09:32) Conscience is made up of 2 words.
'con' is a latin word meaning 'with'. Spanish uses this word.
'science' means 'knowledge'.Humans have a conscience, meaning that we have built in knowledge.
It's a bit like the bios of a computer.Even without any recorded data, humans have knowledge.
As we develop, our conscience guides us in life.Our conscience agrees with the commandments of God.
It is written in scripture that the law is written in our hearts because we all know it is wrong to murder, steal, etc.Evolutionists like anyone can explain anything given enough imagination. But those poor fellows a blind to the beautiful truth that we are wonderfully made.
God gave us a number of witnesses that he exists.
There is creation itself and all the wonderful design we can observe. There is conscience, and there is the written law. Finally we have the gospel, which separates believers from unbelievers. The highest understanding of God is revelation.
All of us have at least one of these witnesses and no man has an excuse for being ignorant of God.
When you have a contribution to make, let us know.Stuart
Seekingtruth the material on the website you quote is really poor in quality, and contradictory. They are just trying to borrow the respectability of science to lend their own religious views some credibility, but it is mostly lies and strawmen.
In your expert opinionQuote Life either originated by purely natural processes, or else some supernatural element must have been involved.
Why just those two? Why not aliens?“Aliens” would fall under the same criteria if they existed first.
Quote If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of evolution is false.
This is an outright lie. There is no scientific theory of abiogenesis! You cannot just claim that ‘theory’ is being used in the sense of a theory, because in the first part of the sentence the same word is used to describe something that IS a scientific theory.Is that right
Theory -A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
abiogenesis – a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter
Quote The first living cell would have needed some mechanism for metabolism.
Why?Do you understand the complexity of a single cell?
Quote There is no known natural process by which cell division could originate by chance.
There is. Budding of micelles containing a replicating molecule.Sorry I read what I could but couldn't find anything on “Budding of micelles” having a replicating gene
Quote There is no scientific explanation for how a single cell could or would naturally change function.
Just one example: the mitochondria in every one of our cells have their own DNA, they were originally independently-existing cells. This one example of endosymbiosis shows that this statement is a lie. There are so many ways of disproving the statement it would take me days, and stretch my biology well beyond capacity!I'm sure he was referring to the original “single cell”
Quote There is no satisfactory explanation how complex [organ] systems [and combinations of systems] such as these could have originated by any natural process. There is no satisfactory explanation for how the simplest nervous system could have originated by any natural process.
To the lying creationist, no scientific explanation is ‘satisfactory’, except the ones that do not contradict Genesis. What a bunch of lying low-life they are.Low life am I, well I guess the best defense is a good offense
Quote If the theory of evolution is true, then every characteristic of every living thing must be the result of a random mutation. Mutations have been observed that increase or decrease the size of some portion (or portions) of a living organism. Mutations have been observed that change the shape of a living organism.
Mutations have been observed that duplicate existing features (cows with two heads, flies with extra wings, etc.). No mutation has ever been observed that provides a new function (sight, hearing, smell, lactation, etc.) in a living organism that did not previously have that function.
The last bit is the lie here: no single mutation should ever be expected to produce any of those listed functions. The evolution of sight did not involve one mutation that suddenly produced two fully-functioning eyes!But it was good for us that “natural selection” chose these creatures hampered by dragging all those nonfunctional appendages around un til they did function (great foresight)
Quote Artificial selection is more efficient than natural selection.
In what way do you think it is more efficient?You are kidding right?
Quote Similarity of features is not definite proof of common ancestry.
There is no such thing as definite proof in science. This statement really shows you that the writers of the website are only out to steal the respectability of science by trying to associate the word ‘science’ with their lame lies. They do not actually understand what science is, or how it gets us the best quality of information we have. They are just leeches.leeches huh… well maybe he will “evolve” into a real jackass some day… oops we got too many of those already.
Quote Similarity of features is often observed in objects designed by man.
Yes, so what?Even I have heard this used to “prove” relationships in the “tree” of ancestors
Quote The fact that one individual was born later than another individual died is not proof that the later individual is a biological descendant of the earlier one, especially if they are of different species.
Who is saying it is?See above
Quote Explanations for how apelike creatures evolved into humans are fanciful speculations without experimental confirmation.
And yet Genesis provides unambiguous evidence for every verse? Now we can add ‘hypocrite’ to the list of adjectives that apply to the writer.This is a statement on how a belief system that supposedly is based on facts and any theory not in conflict with the facts is a valid theory, discounts out of hand creation although it cannot be proven wrong by scientific methods
Quot
eThere is no evidence to suggest that offspring of animals that eat cooked food are smarter than offspring of the same species that eat raw food. There is no evidence to suggest that mental exercises performed by parents will increase the brain size of their children. There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will increase the brain size of their children.
There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will make it easier for their children to stand upright.
Huh?different “scientific theories” I've hear only one of them
Quote Radiometric dating depends upon assumptions that cannot be verified about the initial concentrations of elements.
Would you like to explain exactly what you mean by this?
I did not write it, but I know Radiometric dating assumes a constant level of radiation is absorbed by living things from foreverQuote Radiometric dating of rocks brought back from the Moon is not a reliable method of determining the age of the Earth.
Is that because the results contradict Genesis?Possibly, but is the statement true as we have different “theories” on the moons origin
Quote Public schools should not teach any fanciful speculation that is inconsistent with experimentally verified laws as if it were true. True. That rather leaves religion education in trouble, doesn’t it!
Why? the “Christian” schools I know of teach it as what we believe, not as a “scientific fact”
I’ll leave the last word with the authors:
Quote Seventy-five Theses We hold these truths to be undeniable.
…so therefore they have nothing to do with science, which ONLY deals with the deniable.
My turn, HUH!
StuartIt seems the best you can offer is a ranting of liar! liar! and other insults
My opinion – Wm
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 12 2009,09:41) When you have a contribution to make, let us know. Stuart
You need to be able to comprehend a contribution first in order to recognise it. So yes I understand your comment given the circumstances.
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 12 2009,04:40) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 12 2009,09:20) I think that you are skipping too quickly past the definition of consciousness, as that is a huge chunk of the problem as I see it. The definition that you quoted brings up more questions than it answers. Unlike mass or gravity, consciousness can not be described in physical terms, and therefore does not appear to be (in my opinion) highly linked to the physical world.
This paragraph makes the rest of your post, and in fact the whole thread redundant. Why did you bother starting it if you already have an undeniable world of magic that just MUST have its finger in the pie?If you can't define it then what is the point in discussing it?
And I though you might have been serious.
Lame beyond belief.
Stuart
With what part of the quoted paragraph do you disagree? Or better yet, can you define consciousness in physical terms?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
