Originally posted by vistesdok so .. I ain't therefore I ain't
And who (what) is that "I am?"
Behind all the makings of your mind,
before all images, thoughts or words,
can you find an “I” that is not a thought—
just another making of your mind?
This is not just a "logical" riddle. Tackle it!
Behind all the makings of your mind, Who?
I once gave the same answer ("I am" ) to a very wise friend a ...[text shortened]... me a moment and then said: "Yes, you understand it. But you haven't actualized it yet."
Originally posted by bbarrYes, actually being a true evolutionist links you directly with naturalistic philosphy. In other words, there is a natural cause and therefore a natural explanation for everything. As a major basis for science, it is quite materialistic. Without naturalistic philosophy, evolution amounts to a myth trying to piece together billion-year-old fossils.
Speculate all you want. As I mentioned above, I'm agnostic on this subject. I will say merely this: If you want to solve the problem of the origin of consciousness, the worst way to do it is to adopt a dualistic metaphysics. A much better way to do it is to jettison your notion of the physical.
BTW, just because I believe in evolution does not entail t ...[text shortened]... hysical, and yet there is good evidence that elements of reality have evolved to bring about us.
But, perhaps you are not a true evolutionist (which I would applaud). I am intrigued by your statement that the ultimate nature of reality may not be physical. That has some deep implications that my intelligence cannot handle. If that is so, maybe even the creationists are making sense, haha.
Originally posted by vistesd'I' am a particular sensation of self. It is not a thought, but an experience; a perception.
And who (what) is that "I am?"
Behind all the makings of your mind,
before all images, thoughts or words,
can you find an “I” that is not a thought—
just another making of your mind?
This is not just a "logical" riddle. Tackle it!
Behind all the makings of your mind, Who?
I once gave the same answer ("I am" ) to a very wise friend a ...[text shortened]... me a moment and then said: "Yes, you understand it. But you haven't actualized it yet."
Originally posted by yousersConsciousness is probably a natural result of certain physical phenomena. I don't think it appeared particularly suddenly, but rather appeared in a crude form and became more and more refined until it became what humans experience.
Let's speculate then on how consciousness arose in the reducible bodies of ours. What is the origin of consciousness? I know that you strongly disagree with any religious notions of origin. Man has evolved from a mixture of chemicals, e ...[text shortened]... metaphysical irreducible entity? This isn't adding up for me...
Why does consciousness result from physical phenomena? I don't know, it just does. Why does matter cause gravity? I don't know, but gravity is always the result of mass (as far as I know). Similarly, consciousness only occurs (at least according to what reproduceable evidence there is) in relation to a specimen with certain physical characteristics - a brain.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by bbarrWell, that is obviously where we would differ. I suppose the way you interpret "life" depends on your "life view". We abvously have differing life views.
Christ, what a stupid debate. Hey dj2becker, go look up the elan vital. There is nothing special about life, it is not some mystical force that infuses matter, you know. We call things 'alive' when they have certain properties, like a metabolism. There are no clear boundaries between the category of things we call 'alive' and the category of thi ...[text shortened]... out life; it is just a certain sort of physical constitution, a certain sort of complex order.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by nickybuttSo you only regard turning to God as being religious in nature? So you don't regard Atheism as having a religious nature?
Whenever you come across anything new or problematic in life, you should think for yourself instead af relying on, or turning to, God.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by AThousandYoungGiven any amount of time, I don't see how a bunch of chemicals in a puddle could arrange themselves into the complex and ordered universe we see around us today. The second law of Thermodynamics states that everything tends towards disorder. I don't see anyway in which nature itself can oppose its own laws.
Why not?
Originally posted by dj2beckerWow, you really don't understand thermodynamics either.
Given any amount of time, I don't see how a bunch of chemicals in a puddle could arrange themselves into the complex and ordered universe we see around us today. The second law of Thermodynamics states that everything tends towards disorder. I don't see anyway in which nature itself can oppose its own laws.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by PotatoErrorThe animals weren't neatly stacked with each animal of its kind in its specific layer. Dude go dig up some fossils and you'll find chaos! You'll find thousands of fossils of different animals mixed up all over the show.
Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]The second law of Thermodynamics states that everything tends towards disorder. I don't see anyway in which nature itself can oppose its own laws.
How about a flood sorting animals into different layers?[/b]
The animals weren't neatly stacked with each animal of its kind in its specific layer. Dude go dig up some fossils and you'll find chaos! You'll find thousands of fossils of different animals mixed up all over the show.
So why have so many Creationist organisations concieve of elaborate flood sorting mechanisms then?
From
http://www.nwcreation.net/fossilsorting.html
Many people seem to assume that all of the animals alive at the time of the flood should be found mixed together. However, once the geological column was analyzed it was apparent that the fossils found in the strata of rock are sorted into distinct layers. Animals are typically found within a limited number of layers
The page also has a picture which may be simple but it makes the point.
As for the non randomness different layers contain different sets of fossil life. This is not random.
There are no mammals in the cambrian. That is not random.
There are no reptiles in the cambrian. Again not random.
There are no plants or trees in the cambrian. Not random.
You see a pattern already?
Modern human fossils are not found alongside dinosaurs. In fact they are not found in lower strata at all. Not random.
Grass appears in higher strata and does not exist beforehand. Not random.
Human fossils in certain strata are all homo habilis, with no homo sapiens. Again not random.
Trillobites only exist in cambrian strata. Not random.
The cambrian strata only include small creatures most of which are cm's in size. Not random.
Some fossil groups (such as the dinosaurs) are found in abundance until a certain point at which they do not appear in subsequent strata. Such a distribution is not random.
Whales with legs are found in lower strata than modern whales. Modern whales do not exist in those lower strata. Not random.
I could go on forever if I had the time. Basically fossils of modern animals are only found in recent strata. That is a general pattern and it is not random. The fossil record is not random.
(anyway if a flood is responsible for creating the geological column then it also had to sort particles into distinct layers and so it had to create order from disorder regardless of the fossils.)
Originally posted by dj2beckerThermodynamics is one driving force for the behaviour of molecules, chemical effects are another, for example.
Seems like you really do, just by making the claim that I don't.
What do you think "disorder" means?
If two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom combine to form a water molecule, has disorder increased?
You don't see how nature can disobey it's own laws? Nature says heavy objects will fall towards the earth, so how can anything float? Yet a number of things do, by various methods.
Originally posted by VargI know dj2becker doesnt understand thermodynamics, but it appears neither do you! Thermodynamics is the driving force behind chemical change, when you combine H and O to make water (a decrease in the entropy of the system), you release heat, causing an increase in entropy of the surroundings. For the process to be spotaneous the entropy of the universe as a whole MUST increase. Your notion that there are thermodynamic forces and chemical forces working against each other is absurd!
Thermodynamics is one driving force for the behaviour of molecules, chemical effects are another, for example.
What do you think "disorder" means?
...[text shortened]...can anything float? Yet a number of things do, by various methods.
~corp1131