My God, Your God, or No God...Oh, God...

[azanon]

Got  a lady friend amigo?

:

Or maybe he's talking about that other sin: spilling your seed.

If that's going to damn me, i might as well just go now. Been doing that since i was 14.

 

[Michael]

Specifically, if the bible says you'll be thrown in the lake of fire, occam's razor would say that the bible was really talking about a lake of fire.

I agree.

...our modern understanding of science would literally crumble...

Scientists change their theories all the time. Life goes on.

 

[azanon]

Scientists change their theories all the time.  Life goes on.

No they don't.   Congradulations on just demonstrating you dont know what a theory is.

A theory is knocking on the door of being a law.  One something reaches the level of a theory, it has gone through massive scrutany to get to that point.  It is highly uncommon for a scientific theory to be later rejected.

But the theory of Evolution and Darwining thinking/process was so paramount in science, it completely regeared and reformed the basis of scientific thought. This is no "aside" theory. It is now the foundation and cornerstone of modern science today.

Perhaps you were thinking of hypothesis?   

 

[JB]

I believe i saw occam's razor mentioned once earlier in this thread. For a recap, the most likely explanation is usually the correct one.

That must be anazon's razor, and I don't think anyone would argue with it. Occam's Razor was correctly stated my wab --
"one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything."
It means that the simplist explaination is the best.

 

[azanon]

Thanks for the clarification.   i'm glad to see that changes the premise of my point by exactly zero.

Occam's razor would support the simpliest explanation is the most likely one.   And on the contrary, there are plenty that argue with logical reasoning. Have you not been following this thread?

 

[greg]

OK, I've got the ultimate occam's razor question: What is consciousness? Where do you think it came from? (From quarks or gluons rubbing together?) Does it even exist? At what point in evolution did it appear? How did it arrive from matter? Is it like gravity? You can't see it, but you can see the objects it moves/deals with?

I'll be back. I will go somewhere with this, but I need some friction to start. Keep it simple enough so as to include all the possibilities, please. Thank you.

--Greg

 

[REWahoo]

What is consciousness?

--Greg

I'll have to give this one some thought and get back to you...

REW

 

[wabmester]

What is consciousness?  Where do you think it came from?  (From quarks or gluons rubbing together?)  Does it even exist?  At what point in evolution did it appear?  How did it arrive from matter?   Is it like gravity?  You can't see it, but you can see the objects it moves/deals with?

I have a related question: why do we think consciousness is so special? If it's defined as self-awareness + volition, then I'm pretty sure my dogs possess this quality. They make choices, and sometimes they'll stick their tails between their legs when they get caught.

This is just one of the many emergent properties of complex neural systems. As a fun experiment, you can create very simple systems that appear to have volition. For example, build a little robot, include a light sensor, and wire it up to turn into the light. You'll observe its behavior, and you may say "how cute, it likes light." Now, multiply that by 100 billion neurons, and you get even cooler stuff like "consciousness."

 

[sgeeeee]

. . .What is consciousness? 

I don't know. How do you define it?

Where do you think it came from?  (From quarks or gluons rubbing together?)  Does it even exist?  At what point in evolution did it appear?  How did it arrive from matter?   Is it like gravity?  You can't see it, but you can see the objects it moves/deals with? 

If I don't know what it is or how you define it, how can I possibly answer questions about it?

 

[Zipper]

What is consciousness?

I don't know?

Ask your cat or dog?

.....or a goldfish?

...or a snake?

..or an ant?

.or a worm?

an amoeba?

 

[Arin38]

I thought the Matrix movies (all 3) clearly explained consciousness. Why would this need to be debated at this point?

 

[wabmester]

Ask your cat or dog?
[... or] an amoeba?

I asked my ameoba, and she just looked at me funny and then split.

 

[greg]

This is definitely going tobe harder than I thought .

--Greg

 

[greg]

What is consciousness?

I don't know?

Ask your cat or dog?

.....or a goldfish?

...or a snake?

..or an ant?

.or a worm?

an amoeba?

I need you to use words. Pointing (at animals) doesn't count until I say it counts . It is invisible, isn't it? That's a start. Perhaps, supernatural? Or did you do a Zen thingy on me?

--Greg

 

[laurence]

I believe i saw occam's razor mentioned once earlier in this thread. For a recap, the most likely explanation is usually the correct one. Specifically, if the bible says you'll be thrown in the lake of fire, occam's razor would say that the bible was really talking about a lake of fire. Sure, you can have alternative explanations, but you know from the outset, using occam's razor, they will inherently be less likely to be true. But you are entitled to an opinion, and like all my christain friends, i encourage you to "keep the hope alive!"!

What's ironic, is i actually consider myself the simpleton. I'm an agnostic, not an atheist. It is you that has the answers to life figured out because you know for sure all these things about God and such since you proclaim he is alive. Me, being the simple and humble man, admits I dont know whether God is alive or not, because neither I nor anyone else has proven it one way or the other yet.

The atheist is just as arrogant as you are, in that he proclaims God doesn't exist when he cannot prove it. Again, i dont mean to offend you by saying you're arrogant, but how could you not be, if you say you know for sure God exists, yet cannot prove it?

Yes, i'm aware 80% of the USA have identified themselves in national polls as "christain", so that definitely puts me in a minority. Then again, it was once a general consensus that the world was flat, too.

I know several people that claim to be scientists, many of which happen to have the actual respective degrees, that arn't scientsts (IMO if you insist). Anyone that rejects darwinian process and the theory of evolution is not a scientist in my opinion. Again, the very foundation of modern science today is structured from darwinian thinking and process, and its is the #1 guidance for how a real scientist would carry out original research. If one rejects this, it is extremely difficult for me to even knowledge said person as a scientist. Many science professors, especially the ones holding the higher degrees like Ph.D's, would agree with me on this.

(sigh) but I already finished explaining we aren't creationists/intelligent designers etc. We don't believe science and faith are in conflict, see the reference to 6 days to create the earth as metaphorical etc. I would ask you kindly to please try not to revise/define what I believe, you are totally free to disagree with what I actually said.

What did I say that was arrogant? If somebody says "I think there's more than meets the eye", they are arrogant? More irony as you state they only claim to be scientists and you will withhold a verdict until you finish your peer review. I'm sorry if I offended you azanon, you seem pretty wrapped around the axle on this one and I have tried (and failed) to meet you half way on this before. If I did something in particular, please let me know, and I'll try to refrain from doing it again. If you are just looking to spar, that's fine too.

 

[greg]

I have a related question: why do we think consciousness is so special? If it's defined as self-awareness + volition, then I'm pretty sure my dogs possess this quality. They make choices, and sometimes they'll stick their tails between their legs when they get caught.

This is just one of the many emergent properties of complex neural systems. As a fun experiment, you can create very simple systems that appear to have volition. For example, build a little robot, include a light sensor, and wire it up to turn into the light. You'll observe its behavior, and you may say "how cute, it likes light." Now, multiply that by 100 billion neurons, and you get even cooler stuff like "consciousness."

Thanks for the questions. From your second paragraph I get the feeling we are not talking about my original question. I feel like things are creeping in that don't belong there as yet. Please tell me if I'm wrong:

I believe in your basic definition of 'self awareness" you are including everything that may or may not be included in the mind, such as thoughts, perceptions, and movements. I'm looking for a basic definition of consciousness devoid any extrainious objects. (BTW, numerous philosophy pieces have been written about whether consciousness can exist without an object. No real agreement has been reached in modern philosophy, to my mind.) A workable definition used in the legal realm is "witness"--a sort of observer of events who is not allowed to add spin ("Just the facts, Ma'am.")

Why do I think consciousness is so important/special? One reason for this importance is that I think in the medical profession the permanent loss of consciousness is evidence of death. It must be important to someone. No? Taking it away must mean something to someone. On a daily basis, we I sometimes say things like "You know, DW, that guy sounds like he's only half conscious. Let's buy our used car 4x4 truck with racing strips, big engine, and power windows somewhere else." We use the term all the time. It's important to me.

--Greg

 

[wabmester]

Why do I think consciousness is so important/special?  One reason for this importance is that I think in the medical profession the permanent loss of consciousness is evidence of death.

Now we're getting somewhere. We were using different definitions, but now you've answered your own question. Your consciousness is the lack of brain-death. Or, if you prefer, the presence of brain activity. So, by that definition, consciousness is not a special feature of humans. Some people think that the definition I was using (self-awareness, volition) is special to humans.

So, you want to know how the first brain evolved? I have no idea, but brains basically serve two purposes: sensory processing and motor control. So, if you really want to go back to the origin of consciousness, we need to go back to the evolution of the first motor function (probably a flagellum) and first sensor (probably a chemoreceptor). Is that were you want to go with this?

 

[Danny]

How does the saying go?

I hope to someday be the man my dog thinks I am....

I think Lily has more awareness than I...she stares at me with this penetrating gaze until I go get the biscuit...stares at the leash and the door...she realizes that I 'm not easy to communicate with so she works with me at my level...

 

[greg]

Now we're getting somewhere. We were using different definitions, but now you've answered your own question. Your consciousness is the lack of brain-death. Or, if you prefer, the presence of brain activity. So, by that definition, consciousness is not a special feature of humans. Some people think that the definition I was using (self-awareness, volition) is special to humans.

So, you want to know how the first brain evolved? I have no idea, but brains basically serve two purposes: sensory processing and motor control. So, if you really want to go back to the origin of consciousness, we need to go back to the evolution of the first motor function (probably a flagellum) and first sensor (probably a chemoreceptor). Is that were you want to go with this?

No, I actually want to go further back--but not just yet.

I agree. Consciouness is not a special (isolated) feature of humans. I think dogs have consciousness. I think that even plants may have consciousness also (they react to the sun, don't they, sometimes tracking it with their flowers faces? This indicates some form of intelligence, doesn't it? But maybe not? I'll think about it.)

I do believe humans have a higher order of intelligence than flowers. The old, standard definition says that people are special because they are rational--they intermediate their instincts with something. Oftentimes that intermediation is refered to as thought.

For argument's and Occam's sake, I would like to define that intermediation gap as simplistically existing between words and their bearers. For example, when I say the word "cucumber," you hear or see the word and imagine a large, unvinegared pickle in your mind (or perhaps you see a large vinegared one in mine . ) Humans understand the distinction between the word and the bearer.

My guess is that dogs and such don't have that ability to intermediate as much. They hear 'treat' or 'sit' and instinctively sit. Primarily stimulus-response. Like a computer machine built by some greater power such as a man-programmer.

You put a great deal more in your sentences above, I know. I'll come back to it all, I hope. Later. Thank you.

--Greg

 

[JB]

And on the contrary, there are plenty that argue with logical reasoning. Have you not been following this thread?

I think it's mistaken to apply logical reasoning to religion. Christianity is governed by faith, not logic. Faith has no place in science.

I am interested in seeing where Apocalypse is heading.

 

[sgeeeee]

. . . I am interested in seeing where Apocalypse is heading.

Yeah, but I probably only have another 40 or so years in retirement before I'm dead. I'm not sure that's going to be enough time at the rate he's going.

 

[brewer12345]

How does the saying go?

I hope to someday be the man my dog thinks I am....

I think Lily has more awareness than I...she stares at me with this penetrating gaze until I go get the biscuit...stares at the leash and the door...she realizes that I 'm not easy to communicate with so she works with me at my level...

Heh, someday I hope to be a gentle, sweet, good and open-hearted as any of the dogs I have owned.

 

[greg]

Yeah, but I probably only have another 40 or so years in retirement before I'm dead. I'm not sure that's going to be enough time at the rate he's going.

Don't forget, I said I could prattle on after I drop dead. In that event, I have a meeting place for us. You'll just have to wait, I'm just not sure I can make it forty years so that we both arrive at the same time. But I'll try.

--Greg

 

[greg]

I am not going to claim something as a truth on the basis of faith or belief, because i believe to do so is, by definition, illogical and irrational.

Azanon: I think what you really mean by faith is 'faith in God.' Because faith, in general, is all over you like a wet blanket. As an example: In your youth, when you were in the back seat of a car with a young lady and a bottle of wine, you had faith something good would happen at some point. No? On the other hand, the young lady had faith that when she said 'no' you would stop doing whatever it was you were doing or thinking about doing. Two different types of faith meeting in the back seat--and mixed with a little wine. Certainly an inter-denominational activity going on. :.

Scientists use/have faith: They postulate a theory and then have faith that the evidence shows it to be true. You have a weak sort of faith about many things at any point in time: faith that the road to work is still there (unless you live in California where you might slow down as you go around a corner in case the road disappeared from a mud slide), faith the wall behind your computer screen will stay fixed and not crumble, etc.

Merk scientists mucked with their science for an advantage. They ignored evidence about Vioxx and failed to publish it. That's why 'objectivity' is so important in science and on the witness stand. Those Merk scientists fiddled with their evidence--not a good thing.

A dog's world: I've been thinking again, oops. I think a big difference between dog consciousness and human consciousness is one of more emergent ( ) awareness. I think a dog is aware of sensory stimulation and such stuff as treats, hats, girl dogs, etc. But humans are aware that they are aware of sensory stimulation and/or thoughts. The dog may think "Yep, if I bark, then the dummy over there will let me out, yup."--me-owner-door-desire to pee, all together at the same time, time to bark. People have thoughts and then think about those thoughts--kind of objectively--as things still in the self but separate from them too. To be weighed and considered--not to be acted on just because they (the thoughts) are there. This awareness of awareness may only be in humans--a key emergent quality of consciousness or awareness. This seems to me to definitely be a trait or characteristic of human consciousness, or no? Thanks for any responses, in advance.

--Greg

 

[sgeeeee]

I believe in lots of things. Each time I take a step, I believe the ground won't disappear beneath my foot and leave me hurtling toward the center of the earth. Change "believe" to "have faith" and I don't have a problem with that. But don't mistake that faith for a religious faith. This is a common, but invalid, argument technique. Words have multiple meanings. Sometimes those meaning differences are subtle. You can't simply build an argument with the word "faith", then switch the context and draw conclusions.

As a scientist, my beliefs (faith) must always be doubted and I must be willing and ready to abandon them if facts refute the underlying theory or if a more compelling or more elegant theory describes the data with greater accuracy. In fact, as a scientist, I should doubt all theory and observation, should test all of them, should search for alternate hypothesis.

Certainly some scientists fail, but those that do not fail are the ones that advance science and build our knowledge. Scientists who approach their work with a drive to prove their hypothesis and build a case for, rather than to test honestly and completely, are overuled eventually by a scientific community that will not tolerate stagnation of knowledge. In science, your beliefs (your faith if you insist) will be tested -- if not by you then by others. And if you cling to your theories and try to keep them even when the facts do not support you, you become discredited.

I don't want to attack anyone's religious faith. Everyone is entitled to their own personal spiritual beliefs -- as long as they keep them personal. But there is a significant difference between religious faith and science. The difference is fundamental. Those who have religious faith shouldn't try to reconcile that faith with science. And those that pursue science should not expect to disprove what people hold on faith.