 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)big ...and 358 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614125 Today 4 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Reality" is a dogmatic position that must be defended. Reality is whatever I can get away with. Science as "reality" is horseshit, as science is a METHOD, not a collection of knowledge. And as Hume pointed out, science is shit, as science cannot predict what will happen in the future; it can only comment on what has been observed to have happened in the past. To attempt to say what (necessarily) WILL happen based on PAST observations is unscientific, as science is based on empiricism, NOT dogmatic presuppositions. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that last paragraph almost lulled me to sleep, i mean that in the best possible way |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If we do discover God, we will study it just like we study plants or animals though. There would no longer be any differentiation between science and religion. This is why I don't understand why theists, who are sure God exists, separate the two. ! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Reality" is a dogmatic position that must be defended. "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The errors of the bible could always be explained as human rather than divine, if someone wanted to defend it. It was written by humans and not God, after all. Good points all around though and I agree more or less with what you've said here; I just don't want people like virginpusher lumped in with the kind of people you mention. Theists and religious believers are a diverse group. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ultimately conciousness is an evolutionary step - just like giraffes and their long necks - conciousness / intelligence is just another step in evolution. however that is the scientific view of it, as a whole - but its a very important aspect of it - its simply a byproduct of evolution - that being said - if you examine exactly what conciousness is - there are an infinite number of nuances and characteristics that could be discussed - so essentially it is by definition a separating of what it is trying to observe. that is the act of consiousness - its examination of reality - it is separate from it. a lot of religions have a life/conscious concept - they call it "spark of the supreme being" or something - science has a definition of consiousness - the biological one is at the top of this post - in an abstract sense both are correct - religion's definition is a little problematic but its hold true on a abstract level - thus conciousness is the ability to observe, in a fundamentally objective sense, and its nature is a byproduct of evolution. a real life pandora's box. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
RARRARARRAARRAAARRRR <3 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Read "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time" by Mark Hammond,it gives some good insights into the nature of God and the fact that he/she/it probably doesn't exist, it's one of the best and most eye opening books I've ever read |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
read "The Bible" by several people. It gives some good insights into the nature of God and the fact that he/she/it probably exists. I've ever read. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Note that change in frequency can include genes completely lost or new genes introduced. " "All you need is a chemical that can copy itself, make mistakes, and pass on the mistakes to its copies. I'm not sure what you mean by "mathematically equivalent". The problems with this are too numerous to discuss here. Please look here. Mrgypusm, thanks for addressing my initial question. So for you, conciousness reduces to matter/energy. We will just have to disagree on that one. I'll leave with this final point. You are able to read this message due to the fact that it was translated from english, into binary code, into fiber optic signals, back into binary code, then back to english. Translation can only be possible if the meaning(information content) exists independently of the medium(matter) through which it's carried. It is a seprate entity. Furthermore the meaning of that message is beyond scientific explanation. BTW, fleetmouse, you're right. There isn't any flame war. However, your attititue in some of your posts made me feel that this whole discussion was veering toward that direction. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
By here, I mean here. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, by definition its a separation, but everything is a product of matter in an abstract sense - even what you think |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"The Bible" is based on myth and hearsay "The curious incident" is based on fact, science and logic, go figure. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
We will just have to disagree on that one. Why do you disagree? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
fuck all religion |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That paper is criticizing abiogenesis, not evolution. While abiogenesis is admittedly not as well understood as we would like, evolution certainly is. It's just like Dawkins said in the article I linked - creationists love ignorance because it gives them somewhere convenient to stick God - in the gaps between our areas of knowledge. (I suspect abiogenesis is much better understood than I realize but it takes years or sometimes decades for frontier science to trickle down to lay people like me, so I'm in no position to say much about it) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I refuse to believe in paradoxes. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
By the way, getting back to the original post in this thread, I think asking whether consciousness is a "product" of matter is like asking if falling is a product of rain. "Consciousness" is not a thing even though it's a noun in the English language. It's a name for a process that occurs in some living things. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
These threads never make people happy. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That paper criticizes abiogenesis AND the only plausible mechanism by which undirected evolution could precede. Both require new information weather it's created from scratch or added to the existing genome. As for arguing from ignorance, the exact opposite is true for theists. We know from experience that intelligence is necessary to produce the type of information found in the structure of life forms. We have never seen any natural process that can mimic this. In fact, the very idea is untestable since our own intelligence would ruin the experiment. These gaps in knowledge you speak of are not gaps at all. They are indicators that nature does not have the creative power you claim it has. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Thank you for that. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
When abiogenesis is explained even to your satisfaction, you will have to retreat to cosmology. And when cosmology is explained even to your satisfaction, there will be nothing mysterious to blame God for except your socks disappearing in the dryer. As for information increase, |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That explanation lies outside the bounds of your athiestic worldview. As for your post, it talks of information in the quantifiable sense. Information increase in size is mostly irrelivant. It's the content and meaning that matters. For instance, I could add random letters throughout this paragraph. That would increase the information size of the message yet it would degrade the information content. I does no good to increase the size of a message if it's meaning is lost in the process. The relavance of this to evolution was shown in the previous article I posted. Maybe this one will clear things up a bit. The sections on Biological form and Information and Novel Genes and Protiens are pretty good. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
sorry for the misunderstanding. you see, you've been a complete dick to me in the past for no reason (in my opinion), for example calling me a "prick" without provocation. in light of that maybe you can see why i thought you were just being a dick again. it's obvious i'm not completely serious, i was just goofing around; i think you're the one who needs to lighten up... anyway, no hard feelings, friends 4 ever, etc... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Before I could even consider giving thought to that whole bunch of nonsense, you'd have to tell me what "Information" is and why this means it requires "intelligent design". |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That explanation lies outside the bounds of your athiestic worldview. What is an atheistic worldview, and why should it circumscribe the scope of my thinking? As for your post, it talks of information in the quantifiable sense. Information increase in size is mostly irrelivant. It's the content and meaning that matters. Exactly. Now that we've established how genetic information can quantifiably increase because of mechanisms like gene duplication etc., shall we move on to discussing how natural selection works to preserve favorable changes and discard unfavorable ones? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'd advise you to read that 'bunch of nonsense' as it contains the answers your looking for. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Central to their concern is what they see as the inadequacy of the variation of genetic traits as a source of new form and structure. Have you heard of Hox genes? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
--Was a quote from the article you linked to. Basically the guy makes some un-informed assumptions and then look at the conclusion. Two whole sentences. I can further reduce it to: "Yeah, so therefor intelligent design is the best answer." Even though he throws around with 'causal power' 'causal power' without addressing what he's talking about. And how the fuck do you jump to such a conclusion when it's completely absent from reality. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
BTW, did you read this bit? # Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000). # RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002) # Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
again from article: Studies in the methodology and philosophy of science have shown that many scientific theories, particularly in the historical sciences, are formulated and justified as inferences to the best explanation (Lipton 1991:32-88, Brush 1989:1124-1129, Sober 2000:44). LOL, and how does this guy reach his conclusion? Oh, sorry, I guess it's not actually a formulated and justified inference to the best explanation. It's a BIASED inference to the best explanation. This is what they oxymoronically call 'Christian Science'. You begin with the conclusion, then pick data to build an argument for it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
This is what they oxymoronically call 'Christian Science'. You begin with the conclusion, then pick data to build an argument for it. "When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data." - Henry Morris (Institute for Creation Research) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I define the athiest worldview as one which simply assumes that all things are physical(matter/energy/space/time) whose behavior can be described by math. This implies that there is no fundimental diffrence between thought/information/knowledge and matter/energy/space/time. This renders the very idea of observation either impossible or unknowable. And yet it's through observation that we get knowledge of the physical world in the first place. It's self destructive. Also, it looks like you completely misunderstood my point on quantifiable increase of genetic information. Quantifiable increace is not a good thing. I illustrated this right below the sentence you quoted. Please read the article I posted for a better understanding. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Also, it looks like you completely misunderstood my point on quantifiable increase of genetic information. Quantifiable increace is not a good thing. I illustrated this right below the sentence you quoted. Please read the article I posted for a better understanding. You'll notice I'm not just making vague assertions and linking to articles - I'm supporting my argument by summarizing things in my own words for your benefit. Do you think you can do the same? Can you summarize the last one you linked in a few sentences? Because I'm starting to think you haven't even read the articles you're citing. Increase in information is a bad thing most of the time because it represents a mutation, and mutations are almost always harmful. But what percentage of the time do they have to be beneficial in order for evolution to occur? Greater than zero. Natural selection weeds out what doesn't work and passes on what does. There's no invisible hand guiding mutation. There doesn't have to be. Are you deliberately ignoring the examples I've posted where genetic information increase led to beneficial adaptations? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I define the athiest worldview as one which simply assumes that all things are physical(matter/energy/space/time) whose behavior can be described by math. An atheist is a person who does not believe in gods. What you're describing is a caricature of a scientist just before his robot monster destroys him and his island fortress explodes. This implies that there is no fundimental diffrence between thought/information/knowledge and matter/energy/space/time. All of those things are terms that humans invented to describe the world around them. It makes me a little nervous when you mash them all together like that into big wobbly marshmallow-sentences that sound like L. Ron Hubbard wrote them. This renders the very idea of observation either impossible or unknowable. Why? And yet it's through observation that we get knowledge of the physical world in the first place. It's self destructive. You mean the "no fundamental difference" point of view is self destructive? Well maybe - I'm not even sure what it means. It sounds like new age nonsense or bong talk or something. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
This renders the very idea of observation either impossible or unknowable. Yeah, why? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
how do you know that the bible is based on myth and hearsay? Do you even know who wrote the different parts of the bible and how they came to know what they were writing? ..and you should be a bit more careful about what you call facts... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It's making me happy... discussion = good |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The concept of an all-encompassing consciousness is a long ways away from being successfully rationalized through the scientific method. This does not mean, however, that we should put all our eggs in one basket. Shit takes time, and we'll be long dead by the time it is figured out. Even if it is too complex an idea to ever fully comprehend, we still shouldn't assume that it is the work of a sentient power. That type of thinking severly limits the potential of the human experience. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Religion requires a leap of faith whatever you believe in, if a belief is proved to be true then it would cease being a belief and would then be a fact. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"You'll notice I'm not just making vague assertions and linking to articles" Really? Vague asertation 1. "What you're describing is a caricature of a scientist just before his robot monster destroys him and his island fortress explodes." Vague assertation 2. "It makes me a little nervous when you mash them all together like that into big wobbly marshmallow-sentences that sound like L. Ron Hubbard wrote them." Vugue assertation 3. "You mean the "no fundamental difference" point of view is self destructive? Well maybe - I'm not even sure what it means. It sounds like new age nonsense or bong talk or something." "Can you summarize the last one you linked in a few sentences?" You want me to summarize a 34-page article in two sentences? I’ll do it in one: Neo-Darwinism fails as a mechanism of evolution when you consider the amount of time available and amount of information it needs to generate. "But what percentage of the time do they have to be beneficial in order for evolution to occur? Greater than zero. Natural selection weeds out what doesn't work and passes on what does." Yes, the chance of beneficial mutations occurring is greater than zero. So is the chance of me phasing through my chair. Or the chance of winning on a roulette wheel a thousand times in a row. Conceivability and probability are far apart. '"Consciousness" is not a thing even though it's a noun in the English language. It's a name for a process that occurs in some living things.' Actually I find this to be an interesting idea. Could you explain it further? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm an athiest but I pray |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
atheist now a days simple acept that they are simple human minds and cant not grasp reality, so they simple dont ask if there is a god.. they assume that they have no power over sight enought to ask ou think about such |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i believe that an understanding of the nature of consciousness itself, or 'enlightenment', is the ultimate spiritual goal. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't think that that contributed anything. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Oh wait, that didn't either. Dammit. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it proves that atheists are simple stupid. they are simple people who never simple thought about god because they dont ask about god. they simple know they are atheists who simple never heard of god. simple |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No. You just describe 'agnostic'. Look 'atheist' up in the dictionary. The definition is still the same- no god. (fucknob) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
all an atheist believes in is that there is no being who is outside the relm of human conciousness - namely god or a god - a being who really super human - if there is such a being it is enmeshed in the same chaos as everything else in the universe. nihilism, is a much more exceptable belief system in my opinion. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
