09 Jun 10
Originally posted by lauseyto lausey
If you read my last post again, I specifically said it didn't suddenly appear. It evolved over millions of years. From very simple processing abilities to very advanced computational power. It doesn't just "switch on", it gradually became more sophisticated.
Consciousness is an term used to describe a combination of mental abilities. Can be described as be ...[text shortened]... dn't just suddenly appear, it evolved over a long period of time, like intelligence.
i did read your last post, but i am saying, if intelligence evolved, it has to have a starting point,...just like if a lizard is going to evolve, then the lizard would be something else, before it was a lizard to evolve from.
so like the lizard, what did the evolving intelligence start out as, in other words what was the intelligence, before it was intelligence?
cheers vishvahetu
09 Jun 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuA rather less complex phenomenon - but related nevertheless, I think - called instinct. I reckon 'reaction to one's environment' could have been the forerunner to 'deduction about one's environment'.
what was the intelligence, before it was intelligence?
09 Jun 10
Originally posted by FMFto FMF
A rather less complex phenomenon - but related nevertheless, I think - called instinct. I reckon 'reaction to one's environment' could have been the forerunner to 'deduction about one's environment'.
no no no no, your sratching for an answer, but intelligence is eternal, along with god, and without intelligence or the god principle, nothing happens.
as for darwinism, its all goobly gook as well, the darwiniuns say that from nothing we have everything, thats just nonsense
cheers vishvahetu
09 Jun 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuEdit: "The atoms are the building blocks of the material energy, and they group together to form objects by their vibrational capacity, and when the atoms vibrate at their particular frequencys the objects remain stable.
to black beetle
you ask me to name a singe thing that is activated by this god/force, well you for a start.
and as for lausey, he was being smug, by claiming he was not knowing what i was saying, thats why i answered thus.
The atoms are the building blocks of the material energy, and they group together to form objects by their vibrational capaci ...[text shortened]... t because i dish it out as it i, then its hard to swallow, but i mean well.
cheers vishvahetu
so this frequency or vibration or activity, is enabled by the intelligent god/force within."
No. You attempt to promote the idea that the wavefunction is indeed a physical entity instead of merely a mathematical description of it. And you try to comment about the position wavefunction whilst you ignore the momentum wavefunction and whilst you ignore furthermore the Fourier Transform and its implications. In fact, the more precisely you determine the position of a particle the less precisely you know the momentum and vice versa, and at the same time you forget that prior to your various determinations both the position and the momentum lack of actual physical reality -and therefore you can merely actualise to a greater precision either the position or the momentum of this pair.
Therefore, in the double slit experiment, since all we know is the description of the way a mathematical entity (position wavefunction - momentum wavefunction) is changing and nothing more, you can never know neither what is really going on nor can you be sure whether there is anything real going on at all. But still you pretend that you know, and you attribute this “knowledge” to a direct revelation to you from your “god”!
Furthermore, since the sole way to explain the double slit experiment is to accept that the “particles” change into a “wave” and therefore they squeeze through both slits and thus they interfere with themselves in the other side, your precious “particles” are non existent and thus the “matter” (you named them building blocks of material energy) that you conceive by means of your mind is merely a projection of your own mind.
edit: “you ask me to name a singe thing that is activated by this god/force, well you for a start"
Prove it.
edit: “I dont want to know anything about the false christian god, thankyou very much! Its you yourself, who is putting ME on some higher level, but i think not, that i am above anyone, and i think that because i dish it out as it i, then its hard to swallow, but i mean well.”
I ‘m not a Christian, I ‘m an atheist. You said earlier that you were a Christian, but when I see you describing the Christian “god” the way you do it at this forum I understand you were never a Christian.
If you do not think that you are not above anyone, then try harder and behave accordingly.
Finally, nothing of whatever you said until now I consider “hard to swallow”. Whatever you said is merely vague and unexamined and thus to me it is as solid as fresh air. If you really "mean well", kindly please try to be specific and bring up points material to your view😵
09 Jun 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuSo you don't understand neither Darwinism not Quantum Darwinism; it seems to me that the sole "not goobly gook" is in your opinion the pure ...wisdom that flaws from the unsurmountable Walsch’s revelation😵
to FMF
no no no no, your sratching for an answer, but intelligence is eternal, along with god, and without intelligence or the god principle, nothing happens.
as for darwinism, its all goobly gook as well, the darwiniuns say that from nothing we have everything, thats just nonsense
cheers vishvahetu
09 Jun 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuYou explained nothing. You merely exposed your ignorance regarding your own nature, and this ignorance is projected multiplied at your theory of reality. Also you exposed your lack of the efficient scientific back up that is always necessary in order to ease a person to clarify scientifically and philosophical justified theses.
to black beetle
i have exsplained clearly the situation, but since you are a negator of everything, i can proceed no further with you, good luck with all your one hand clapping phylosophy.
You said you travelled four times in India. Which is the specific ashram or gurukul that you visited for instruction and who are the persons that you consider your teachers?
😵
09 Jun 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuAnd of course I do encourage you to believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who said it, no matter if Buddha or Jesus or Vyasa or Krishna or whoever have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and with your own common sense😵
to black beetle
i have exsplained clearly the situation, but since you are a negator of everything, i can proceed no further with you, good luck with all your one hand clapping phylosophy.
09 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by vishvahetuIntelligence is processing information using a very complex set of rules, so you are basically asking when a simple set of rules become complex set of rules. There isn't any specific cross over point, as "simple" and "complex" are subjective. Therefore, when someone/something becomes intelligent is also subjective.
to lausey
i did read your last post, but i am saying, if intelligence evolved, it has to have a starting point,...just like if a lizard is going to evolve, then the lizard would be something else, before it was a lizard to evolve from.
so like the lizard, what did the evolving intelligence start out as, in other words what was the intelligence, before it was intelligence?
cheers vishvahetu
As a very basic example, in chess, when does the opening become the middle game, and then become the end game?
Another example, you see a green light which is gradually increasing frequency in the electromagnetic spectrum and changing to blue light. At what frequency does it actually change from green light to blue light? There is a point that some will say green and some will say blue and that will happen over a range of frequencies.
From another evolutionary perspective (although you don't appear to agree with evolution, there is actually overwhelming evidence to support it). When did Homo erectus become Homo sapians? It is such a very slow process that even the boundary is very spread out.
Similar to the Sorites paradox. When you have a heap of sand and keep removing grains, how many grains are left when you can say it is no longer a heap of sand?
09 Jun 10
Originally posted by black beetleto black beetle
You explained nothing. You merely exposed your ignorance regarding your own nature, and this ignorance is projected multiplied at your theory of reality. Also you exposed your lack of the efficient scientific back up that is always necessary in order to ease a person to clarify scientifically and philosophical justified theses.
You said you travelled ...[text shortened]... ul that you visited for instruction and who are the persons that you consider your teachers?
😵
i have hurt your feelings in some way, because you are lashing out with your crude verbage.
And this is what a person resorts to, when they have nothing of any substance to add to the conversation
I would suggest you go back to your Buddist temple, and amuse yourself with your one hand clapping games.
cheers vishva
09 Jun 10
1 edit
Hey i've thought of a brand new GOD PROVER !
Here it goes :
- An almighty being that we would call God would be perfect.
- Being perfect, he would have ALL the qualities
- Having all qualities, he must have the first one : the quality of existence
- So God exists.
GOD PROVEN
Refute that Mr Kant !
And think about that : all those clever scientists and "thinkers" that want to refute God's existence are pretty much faillible, they admit it themselves.
God, being perfect, is by nature infaillible.
So, who's refuted?
God is as hard to refute as the Traxler Gambit !
09 Jun 10
Originally posted by shorbockThis is not a good proof. Perhaps it was meant as a joke, but if not...
Hey i've thought of a brand new GOD PROVER !
Here it goes :
- An almighty being that we would call God would be perfect.
- Being perfect, he would have ALL the qualities
- Having all qualities, he must have the first one : the quality of existence
- So God exists.
GOD PROVEN
Refute that Mr Kant !
And think about that : all those clever sci ...[text shortened]... ture infaillible.
So, who's refuted?
God is as hard to refute as the Traxler Gambit !
We start here:
" - An almighty being that we would call God would be perfect."
Why would he be perfect? If this is not clear above any doubt, then the rest of the 'proof' is without meaning.
Further: Is this an attempt to prove that there is a god, any god? Because you just tried to prove that an Indian god called (don't remember, doesn't matter) exist. Was that your intention?
09 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnaswell by definition, God is that which nothing greater is possible !
This is not a good proof. Perhaps it was meant as a joke, but if not...
We start here:
" - An almighty being that we would call God would be perfect."
Why would he be perfect? If this is not clear above any doubt, then the rest of the 'proof' is without meaning.
Further: Is this an attempt to prove that there is a god, any god? Because you just ...[text shortened]... that an Indian god called (don't remember, doesn't matter) exist. Was that your intention?
Even if you think he does not exist, you have to admit that God, as it is defined, would be the "perfect being"
It is proved beyond any doubt that what people call "God" is a perfect being, wether it exists or not.
Try again (good luck)
hint 1 : maybe i haven't thought that up by myself and my mention of Kant was not fortuitous
hint 2 : the last line of my previous post !
hint 3 : read any of my other posts on this forum
09 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by shorbockIf you call it a proof, and not a joke, then you have to be so stringent that not even I find any flaw in it.
well by definition, God is that which nothing greater is possible !
Even if you think he does not exist, you have to admit that God, as it is defined, would be the "perfect being"
It is proved beyond any doubt that what people call "God" is a perfect being, wether it exists or not.
Try again (good luck)
hint 1 : maybe i haven't thought that up by m ...[text shortened]... 2 : the last line of my previous post !
hint 3 : read any of my other posts on this forum
You say 'by definition'. I don't see the definition. It's just a statement that in itself needs to be proven. If you fail with this, then the whole proof has failed.
Again, if you introduce 'by definition', why don't you make the proof as simple as possible: "By definition god exists! QED". However, that's is not a proof either.
You seem that you are serious about this attempt of proving that god exists.
Why are you so eager to prove the existance of god? Do you lack faith?
Don't attempt to try to prove religious things with scientific methods. You will fail. Science and religion cannot mix.
09 Jun 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuChild of a noble family vishvahetu, you did not hurt my feelings in any way. Now listen to me without distraction;
to black beetle
i have hurt your feelings in some way, because you are lashing out with your crude verbage.
And this is what a person resorts to, when they have nothing of any substance to add to the conversation
I would suggest you go back to your Buddist temple, and amuse yourself with your one hand clapping games.
cheers vishva
You are one of my Eastern brothers and I am fortunate to meet you here so that I may attain my Perfected Nature and fulfil the wishes of sentient beings by means of letting the karmic misadventure swiftly transformed into compassion. Happy thoughts arising from within, may you find freedom through generosity;
Child of a noble family vishvahetu, with whom I have previous karmic connection, get to know now that aggression and malice are mirror-like. Awareness and Clarity have no other source than a hostile mind filled with anger and enmity. So look now into your attitude and find there the strength of Diamond Being, detached from appearances and purified in shunyata;
Child of a noble family vishvahetu, with whom I have previous karmic connection, get to know that pride and vain complacency are awareness of sameness, thus primal purity in meditative composure cannot be found except in an ambitious mind that believes itself supreme. Look into natural purity and find there the Fountain of Jewels. Get to know that detached from the state of shunyata, light-form is pure;
Child of a noble family vishvahetu, with whom I have previous karmic connection, get to know that desire and covetousness are discriminating awareness, thus get to know that you can find fine sensory distinction in no other place than a mind hungering for beautiful things and wanting the whole world. Look into the intrinsic freshness of your desire and see there the Boundless Light;
Child of a noble family vishvahetu, with whom I have previous karmic connection, get to know that envy and alienation are all-accomplishing awareness, thus get to know that efficiency and success have no other source than a bigoted mind too quick to judge. So do look behind jealous thoughts and find there immediate success, for detached from crass envy and subtle resentments whatever occurs is pure;
Child of a noble family vishvahetu, with whom I have previous karmic connection, know that ignorance and stupidity are awareness of dynamic space, thus get to know that there is no other way to hold fast to the path than through ignorance and a dense understanding. So look into ignorance and find there the dynamic visionary emanation, for detached from hypnotic states whatever arises is pure;
Child of a noble family vishvahetu, with whom I have previous karmic
connection, I wish you to be filled with undivided faith by means of your own evaluation of the mind;
May All Beings Be Happy
😵