02 Jan 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAnd your proof? Or are you going to stand there and make these baseless assertions with your usual lack of any referenced peer reviewed material.
Your assertion that it (consciousness) is nothing more than myriad chemicals, leads to the conclusion that the same could be replicated.
My objection is the chemicals emitted by conscious thought are merely readings of the thing, not the thing itself.
02 Jan 06
Originally posted by Silver SlayerIt all wouldn't be such a big matter if we could only explain the origins of matter.
Even if it is just a biological phenomemon surely it is caused by something. May be that in itsself is proof of God?!
Who created the first intelligence? What are the basis for intelligence? Those two questions should lead to a deeper thinking than: "God always existed and he created us and gave us self-awareness". Shouldn't it?
02 Jan 06
Originally posted by stockenarnt they bassically the same question, 'Who or how were we created?'
It all wouldn't be such a big matter if we could only explain the origins of matter.
Who created the first intelligence? What are the basis for intelligence? Those two questions should lead to a deeper thinking than: "God always existed and he created us and gave us self-awareness". Shouldn't it?
02 Jan 06
Originally posted by Silver SlayerWho created the first intelligence? What are the basis for intelligence?
arnt they bassically the same question, 'Who or how were we created?'
The first question asks who created intelligence. Thereby indicating that intelligence were created (as any theist believes). The second asks what the basis for intelligence is. The second question is far more interesting. It is free-minded, and allows for the possibility of intelligence with or without a God. The second question could therefore come to invalidate the first. So, I'll change it to one question:
What's the basis for intelligence?
If we can only answer this simple question, it should be clear that intelligence (conciousness and everything) may have been created by a God and may not have been created by a God. Very clear, isn't it?
02 Jan 06
Originally posted by stockenIf it wasnt created by God, how did it get here? A big bang and evolution?, I dont think so. People may have changed ''evolved'' over the years, but to me it is ludicrous to say we evolved from bacteria or what ever!
Who created the first intelligence? What are the basis for intelligence?
The first question asks who created intelligence. Thereby indicating that intelligence were created (as any theist believes). The second asks what the basis for intelligence is. The second question is far more interesting. It is free-minded, and allows for the possibility of intellig ...[text shortened]... may have been created by a God and may not have been created by a God. Very clear, isn't it?
02 Jan 06
Originally posted by Silver SlayerNo, no, you're missing the point. We didn't evolve from bacteria, because then, where did bacteria come from? If we were created by a God, where did God come from? The question is too big to answer, so try and answer this instead: "What is the basis of intelligence (conciousness)?" Based on your answer to that question, you can ask yourself if intelligence really needed intelligence to be created.
If it wasnt created by God, how did it get here? A big bang and evolution?, I dont think so. People may have changed ''evolved'' over the years, but to me it is ludicrous to say we evolved from bacteria or what ever!
02 Jan 06
From scott:
It favours complexity, provided that complexity is biologically useful. It favours simplicity, when complexity has no biological relevance.
From Conrau:
It is incorrect to use the word 'favour' but it is easier to understand.
Oh, I get it now: you scientist-types are just using language of accomodation for us low-brow folk.
By its very name, survival of the fittest infers becoming more fit, that the name of the game is: the fitter, the better.
In your transparency, anything come to mind which does not fit the mold, so to speak?
02 Jan 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBH"Survival of the fittest" is a catch-phrase--useful for journalists and detractors. It's not an evolutionary slogan.
By its very name, survival of the fittest infers becoming more fit, that the name of the game is: the fitter, the better.
In your transparency, anything come to mind which does not fit the mold, so to speak?
Anyhow, "Fit" simply means "good at (something)"--a lion is no fitter than a flea. The superlative "fittest" implies some sort of hierarchy, a top dog--what is the hierarchy of moss?
02 Jan 06
Originally posted by Silver SlayerFor everyone's information: SS's technique here is known as the "argument from personal incredulity."
If it wasnt created by God, how did it get here? A big bang and evolution?, I dont think so. People may have changed ''evolved'' over the years, but to me it is ludicrous to say we evolved from bacteria or what ever!
02 Jan 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThings become "fitter" for a given environment, Freaky. If the environment never changed then organisms would be moving toward a goal in some sense. However, because environments are changing and the process of natural selection is imposed by the environment, the standard for fitness is moving. Much of what was "fit" in North America during our most recent ice age would not be "fit" in the same location today.
From scott:
[b]It favours complexity, provided that complexity is biologically useful. It favours simplicity, when complexity has no biological relevance.
From Conrau:
It is incorrect to use the word 'favour' but it is easier to understand.
Oh, I get it now: you scientist-types are just using language of accomodation for us low-brow folk.
B ...[text shortened]... better.
In your transparency, anything come to mind which does not fit the mold, so to speak?[/b]
02 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionThings become "fitter" for a given environment, Freaky.
Indeed. However, my rant is against the wildly impercise language being used by those purporting themselves to be representative of science.
The conclusions drawn, i.e., consciousness = chemical reactions, etc., 'evolve' out of this quagmire of impercision.
02 Jan 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell Freaky, what can I say. English just really isn't very good! Not the fault of science though. We do our best, but until another language is dreamed up that is more science-y then we're going to be stuck using words like 'favour' and 'fittest'. Now whilst both of these do have evolutionary definitions it's not perfect. Ce la ve....
[b]Things become "fitter" for a given environment, Freaky.
Indeed. However, my rant is against the wildly impercise language being used by those purporting themselves to be representative of science.
The conclusions drawn, i.e., consciousness = chemical reactions, etc., 'evolve' out of this quagmire of impercision.[/b]
02 Jan 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYes, there is often some anthropomorphism when we describe non-human natural processes. I agree that it is imprecise to say that evolution favors any particular organism. An environment or a specific sort of change in environment may favor some trait over a different trait.
[b]Things become "fitter" for a given environment, Freaky.
Indeed. However, my rant is against the wildly impercise language being used by those purporting themselves to be representative of science.
The conclusions drawn, i.e., consciousness = chemical reactions, etc., 'evolve' out of this quagmire of impercision.[/b]
I don't know if it's really imprecise to say that consciousness is the complex interaction of electrical pulses, chemicals, and brain matter since no one here is too sure exactly what consciousness is. So far I think everyone has presented their hypothesis as such and has only tried to defend why they suspect what they do. At this point in my understanding, I would also guess that consciousness is a solely the product of the above ingredients. I certainly could be persuaded differently though.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
02 Jan 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOf course consciousness can be replicated. Its probably extremely difficult though. If as scottishinnz said 'consciousness is awareness' (scottishinnz was a little more precise, so forgive). Then consciousness can be seen as an interaction with chemicals in the brain and chemicals outside of the brain.
Your assertion that it (consciousness) is nothing more than myriad chemicals, leads to the conclusion that the same could be replicated.
My objection is the chemicals emitted by conscious thought are merely readings of the thing, not the thing itself.
Your objection however is completely metaphysical and implies (or so it seems) the existence of soemthing (thought, consciousness, soul) that transcends the laws of the physical universe (by emitting chemicals). This seems similar to the theory of vitalism (that organic compounds and organisms contain a vital orce i.e. god), which was funnily enough disproved 200 years ago.