- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Seekingtruth
Quote “Aliens” would fall under the same criteria if they existed first.
So “supernatural elements” are also contingent on actually existing. Do you have any evidence for that hypothesis? In the meantime we have a completely consistent explanation that does only depend on natural effects. You seek to complicate it with irrelevant religious ideology.Quote 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
Exactly. So what is the scientific “theory of abiogenesis” which you were mocking earlier? You mock that which does not exist, just like me!Quote Do you understand the complexity of a single cell?
Is that your explanation for why you think a cell must undergo metabolism?Quote Sorry I read what I could but couldn't find anything on “Budding of micelles” having a replicating gene
OK then. I guess you will have to carry on that search.Stu: 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 I'm sure he was referring to the original “single cell”
That is not what ‘he’ wrote.Quote 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)
Did you think of that strawman yourself, or did you copy it from a creationist website?Stu: In what way do you think [artificial selection] is more efficient?
Quote You are kidding right?
No of course not. Artificial selection often produces organisms that are not fit for survival. For example pedigree cats that have hair too long for them to care for in the wild or varieties of grapes that do not produce seeds.Quote Even I have heard this used to “prove” relationships in the “tree” of ancestors
Well you can forget about that. There is more than enough evidence in the DNA to ‘prove’ common ancestry. When I say that, I mean the evidence is so overwhelming that only a jackass would dispute it. Endogenous Retroviruses are the most damning of all those pieces of evidence.Quote I did not write it, but I know Radiometric dating assumes a constant level of radiation is absorbed by living things from forever
Not sure that your reply makes any sense. Take K-Ar dating as an example. An igneous rock can be dated back to the time it was last molten simply by measuring the ratio of Ar-40 to K-40 present in the sample. The argon produced in the radioactive decay can only have accumulated in the solid rock, so by finding the ratio of the two and knowing the amounts of other, stable potassium isotopes and the half-life of K-40, you can easily calculate the time since the rock was molten. Radiocarbon, while it only applies to relatively young samples, has been calibrated by counting tree rings of bristlecone pine trees. Also read Wikipedia on isochron dating for modern techniques.Quote Why? the “Christian” schools I know of teach it as what we believe, not as a “scientific fact”
That is not what your author wrote though. Read it again. Why should science be required to have high standards while religious education tells stories with a straight face that have no evidence to support them whatever? The Exodus that didn’t happen and the Flood that didn’t happen spring to mind. Does RE present those as mythology or history? You can bet it is the latter.Stu: …so therefore they have nothing to do with science, which ONLY deals with the deniable.
Quote My turn, HUH!
Well there you go. Do you understand my point that science only deals with the deniable?Stuart
Quote (seekingtruth @ Dec. 12 2009,15:06) great video on the complexity of a cell Sorry I don't know how to post it here
Wm
Regarding complexity: the video doesn't even begin to hint at just how complex the workings of a cell are, in particular it did not even get into one explanation of a biochemical system such as the Krebs cycle.Regarding the appeal to a designer, no science was presented to support the assertion, and no statistics concerning scientists' beliefs were presented. Actually it was all lies made up to appeal to the ignorant and gullible. The one attempt at credibility for this argument ended in tears for the creationists (not that they have any shame) when every one of their examples of “irreducible complexity” turned out to be the result of adaptation of a simpler system.
Have you got any actual evidence? You know, actual facts that disprove the Darwinian model? Or is it all religious make-believe about what scientists think? Even if every scientist in the world turned into a lying creationist tomorrow, that would not disprove Darwin.
Stuart
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 12 2009,09:19) 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?
Stu,Did you miss my direct questions (at the end of the quote above)?
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 15 2009,09:54) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 12 2009,09:19) 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?
Stu,Did you miss my direct questions (at the end of the quote above)?
No I did not miss it.Stuart
From the opening post:
Quote 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. I am simply trying to establish that the probable explanation for consciousness goes beyond a simple physical explanation. The first step is to define consciousness. I have claimed that it does not appear to be definable in physical terms. As a person who claims that “natural selection explains it”, I imagine that you should be able define consciousness in terms of the physical attributes necessary for the natural selection process.
Can you?
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 16 2009,10:17) From the opening post: Quote 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. I am simply trying to establish that the probable explanation for consciousness goes beyond a simple physical explanation. The first step is to define consciousness. I have claimed that it does not appear to be definable in physical terms. As a person who claims that “natural selection explains it”, I imagine that you should be able define consciousness in terms of the physical attributes necessary for the natural selection process.
Can you?
I already did that in quite a lot of detail, then you charged in with your lame nonsense that went:Quote 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. I defined consciousness (using a dictionary), then you just said it can't be defined, without explaining why, and stated that it cannot be described in physical terms when I had just finished that physical explanation. You have just asserted the stuff you recon over the top of what I wrote, rather than explaining WHY it is not possible to define / explain / whatever consciousness.
Hence my asking you what on earth you think the point of the thread is? Is it just for you to shout your assertions and ignore others' ideas?
How about you:
Give me the parts of the definition you think are missing?
Actually ask some of the 'more questions it raises than answers'?
Do more than just state what your superstitious brain recons?Stuart
Quote Give me the parts of the definition you think are missing? What are all the functions necessary for consciousness to work (or be present)? In other words, what specific elements make consciousness different from the kind of information processing that millions of computers perform on a daily basis? Are these elements physical or abstract in nature?
Quote Actually ask some of the 'more questions it raises than answers'? What is awareness (as related to the definition of consciousness)?
What are feelings (as related to the definition of consciousness)?
What are thoughts (as related to the definition of consciousness)?Quote Do more than just state what your superstitious brain recons? “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 … 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?“
WIT
Obviously we are capable of a recursive thinking process, one that develops metacognition. That process revisits itself, so to speak, so often that the result is what we perceive as awareness, a sense of us knowing that we know things.
Feelings are emotional responses to stimuli that are mostly produced, as I understand in the primitive areas of the brain as instinctual responses to survival or reproduction situations (not necessarily obviously so) and I would guess that there is some interpretation of them done by the neocortex too.
Is there any essential difference between 'thoughts' and 'awareness'?
Yes we are learning computers. No we do not understand the level of complexity achieved and the illusion of free will that results from the high degree of recursion that happens, or the fact that we are able to have a degree of choice of activity which then in turn affects the connections within the brain. That does not mean that this is too complex a thing to understand, it is just that complexity results from repetition of a relatively simple process (not that I would want to trivialise the nature of brain biochemistry, but the principles are understandable in straightforward terms). I would also not want to suggest that everything is worked out, but it is certain that invoking gods is not going to make it any clearer what is going on. By the way, natural selection has produced complexity by repetition of a fairly simple process too.
If you want to inject magic in there go ahead. I will not be showing any interest because the purpose of of you doing that is to awe the gullible into believing silly unsubstantiated religious assertions about the universe which will be of absolutely no use in determining the nature of what we call consciousness.
Now tell me how this abuses the religious sentiments you hold dear that cannot be breached by mere facts.
Stuart
Quote Obviously we are capable of a recursive thinking process, one that develops metacognition. Let's stop right there.
So what you are saying is that a recursive thinking process is necessary for metacognition which in turn is the precursor for “awareness” or “knowing”.
Great. I understand what a recursive process is, but what is “thinking”? For example, does my computer “think”?
First of all, I am discussing consciousness in general – human or otherwise. Secondly, I am interested in delineating mechanical processes from non-mechanical processes. Computers are obviously an example of the former. I am interested in whether or not you can define 'thinking' in the same way. Can you?
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 17 2009,14:41) First of all, I am discussing consciousness in general – human or otherwise. Secondly, I am interested in delineating mechanical processes from non-mechanical processes. Computers are obviously an example of the former. I am interested in whether or not you can define 'thinking' in the same way. Can you?
Well firstly I am discussing human consciousness. So maybe you can tell me what computers have to do with that.Secondly, you have not outlined any 'non-mechanical process' of consicousness that you might have in mind, so I have no idea what you mean.
Stuart
Fair enough Stu.
Have a look at this from Webster's dictionary:
spirit: the immaterial intelligent or sentient part of a person.
Or, since you are more loyal to the queen's English, take a look at this from Oxford's:
spirit: a person’s non-physical being, composed of their character and emotions
So, if I were to define consciousness in a non-mechanical way, I would define it as the ongoing expression of one's spirit.
Objections?
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 16 2009,07:04) Stu, Have you chosen not to answer my questions, or are you still formulating an answer?
Sounds like he has made a conscious decision not to answer.
Yet he rules out any kind of consciousness in the processes that brought about the universe.Double standard.
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 17 2009,15:37) So maybe you can tell me what computers have to do with that.
Here is one for a start.Conscious humans cannot make a better machine for thinking than dead nothing.
That is what you would have us subscribe to Stu.
It is for such reasons that it is written, “the fool says in his heart that there is not God”.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 18 2009,13:44) Fair enough Stu. Have a look at this from Webster's dictionary:
spirit: the immaterial intelligent or sentient part of a person.
Or, since you are more loyal to the queen's English, take a look at this from Oxford's:
spirit: a person’s non-physical being, composed of their character and emotions
So, if I were to define consciousness in a non-mechanical way, I would define it as the ongoing expression of one's spirit.
Objections?
These are metaphorical terms invented by people who had no means of determining the biochemistry and mathematical processes of the human brain. You may as well ask me to comment on how the removal of Adam's rib to make Eve fits into the scientific model of evolution by natural selection.Emotions are electrochemical events and character is the set of responses to various situations that have by repetition or genetic effect become typical for that person.
Where in there can you see room to insert your version of voodoo?
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Dec. 18 2009,14:00) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 17 2009,15:37) So maybe you can tell me what computers have to do with that.
Here is one for a start.Conscious humans cannot make a better machine for thinking than dead nothing.
That is what you would have us subscribe to Stu.
It is for such reasons that it is written, “the fool says in his heart that there is not God”.
Why should humans be able to do better than natural selection?Are you saying that our perception of consciousness proves the existence of your god? How exactly do you link those logically?
Why does it not prove the existence of Shiva?
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Dec. 18 2009,13:57) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 16 2009,07:04) Stu, Have you chosen not to answer my questions, or are you still formulating an answer?
Sounds like he has made a conscious decision not to answer.
Yet he rules out any kind of consciousness in the processes that brought about the universe.Double standard.
You rule out any kind of process that brought into existence the creator that you allege made the universe.Double standard.
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
