Originally posted by scottishinnzSo you're saying I have not actually earned scorn, but that it is proper that I receive it anyway. Just like a child doesn't earn its parents love, but it is good and proper to give a child love. Likewise, if someone expresses a belief you don't share, it is important to heap scorn upon them.
Sorry, but it's you who are making unsubstantiated comments. Why can we study the material world, but not consciousness? What is the fundamental difference? As for you programming your computer to write out "I am conscious", that clearly isn't consciousness. Computer consciousness can be easily tested for - ever heard of the Turing test? As ...[text shortened]... nally have done nothing to deserve scorn. I just don't suffer proverbial fools gladly.
Well, there are potential interesting discussions that could take place, and I really hate that all seems to devolve into a battle of insults. I don't plan on joining a battle of insults, but if you enjoy that, well better that you heap it upon a grown man such as myself than to someone with a fragile ego.
Also, you don't suffer proverbial fools gladly. I have to ask what you expect to get out of reading this thread? You are obviously here voluntarily and you have to expected someone to take a different side to the debate.
As far as the Turing test, sure I first heard of that back when I was studying Artificial Intelligence in grad school. I respectfully disagree that passing the Turing test demonstrates conciousness. I don't even know why one would think that. I've written my own Natural Language processing programs that perform in some limited domains, but being on the inside, I can assure you there is nothing to it different from any old dumb computer program. If conciousness can emerge in digital computers, would you speculate that a PC is more concious if it is running a complex program than when it is just running an infinite loop?
As far as an "emergent property", this is not a new idea to me. I am sure a lot of human behaviour and tendencies are emergent properties, but the idea that conciousness emerges from chemical reactions, no matter how complex is exactly what I've been saying sounds less plausible than the idea that there is a spiritual world. If you are aware of studies that demonstrate conciousness, I'd be interested in reading about them. Perhaps you can add an article to the wikipedia.
I recall back in the 80s a Murphy's Law poster that had the following:
"Tell a man there are 200 billion stars in the universe and he'll believe you, but tell him there's wet paint on a bench and he'll have to touch it to make sure."
I always thought this was funny, because whatever the latest claim for number of stars in the universe, I'm sure there is nice science behind it. But intuitively we all know the difference between things that are easy to know and those that are very difficult to know and a claim to know the number of stars in the universe is such that even the greatest minds working together don't likely know. I may not be an astronomer, but I do know that such numbers should not be given with great confidence.
You began this reply by saying that I was making unsubstantiated claims. But then you claimed that conciousness was an emergent property without substantiation. That's fine with me because this is just a lighthearted discussion. But you have to admit this is a lot like saying there are 200 billion (or trillion) stars in the universe. My intuition is telling me that such a thing is very hard to know. It is not sufficient to say that a lot of smart people have this opinion. I'd want to know how they know. I am not criticizing you for not citing a source in your earlier post, since after all this is a voluntary discussion forum for entertainment and people can always ask for more information if something seems questionable. But I would now like to request a reference to a study on how conciousness can emerge.
I am sure if you start with an axiom in your world-view that there is no spiritual world, then conciousness being an emergent property is the only reasonable hypothesis left. Since we'd have to accept that conciousness emerges from complex chemical and electrical processes, of course even our pancreas must have some degree of conciousness of its own.
I mentioned that mathemeticians can prove you cannot trisect an angle with a straight edge and a compass. The do this by looking at inherant limits in the basic operations. The proof itself is not super complicated, but once the proof is made, you are not left doubting. It doesn't matter how complex of an operation is constructed with a straight edge and a compass, it can never produce a mechanism to trisect a general angle.
I don't guess chemical reactions are quite as cut and dried, but based on what I do know about chemical reactions, I say that for me, it is more plausible to believe in a spiritual world than to believe that conciousness emerges from chemicals. I am only talking about conciousness, not general intelligence or problem solving abilities. I may be very smart, or very dumb, but only my own conciousness is something that seems like it cannot emerge from chemicals.
I would rather not receive insults for this, but if you must, feel free.
1 edit
Originally posted by techsouthPerhaps you would enjoy reading Julian Jaynes book, "The origin of consciousness in the break-down of the bicameral mind". It will expand upon some of the things I have touched upon. Really, believing that the "mind" or "consciousness" is somehow separate from the physical brain and does not have a physical basis is not scientific, has no basis in fact (i.e. can only ever be opinion) and is pretty much on the same level as believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden.
So you're saying I have not actually earned scorn, but that it is proper that I receive it anyway. Just like a child doesn't earn its parents love, but it is good and proper to give a child love. Likewise, if someone expresses a belief you don't share, it is important to heap scorn upon them.
Well, there are potential interesting discussions th I would rather not receive insults for this, but if you must, feel free.
Edit - as for the Turing test but see,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Turing_Test
Originally posted by kmax87yes it can, but it can't explain the god without the god theory, in other words god created world thorough evolution
Do we need an explanation for the origins of life? Is it reasonable to question the validity of evolution on the basis of an inadequate explanation of the origins of life?
Originally posted by jammerAny new material? You just keep spouting the same crap over and over again. Obviously you are jealous that you don't have the necessary IQ to think up an original come back.
Take notes students!
This will be on the final exam and if you get this one wrong you fail Biology 101.
those that can .. do. those that can't .. teach.
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87This btw applies equally well to either a belief in Intelligent Design where God creates everything, or a belief in origins based on random permutations of inorganic chemicals that combine under the right conditions to start life. That randomness could produce hierarchies of order and complexity that would make life possible, is at the core of a conundrum that becomes more and more fantastic a proposition to accept, the further you examine the implausibility of inorganic chemicals randomly arranging to form amino acids and then proteins that then align as DNA, which requires rNA for its makeup, which is itself produced by the DNA it orders. That last little gordian knot of complexity I will leave for the statisticians but if you feel you can explain DNA and rNA randomly coming into existence, then for an encore please explain how the energy currency of the body, ATP, developed.
Just because you can't prove something scientifically, does not necessarily mean that it doesn't or cannot exist.
In the end your science will also be reduced to a faith based system, where much has to be accepted without proof other than being the only option available, as we who are now in existence, having evidently evolved to this point in time, could not have arrived here in any other way, seeing that the God explanation makes no scientific explanation after all.
Originally posted by kmax87Stop trying to do a "kellyjay" and claim that science is faith. It just ain't so.
This btw applies equally well to either a belief in Intelligent Design where God creates everything, or a belief in origins based on random permutations of inorganic chemicals that combine under the right conditions to start life. That randomness could produce hierarchies of order and complexity that would make life possible, is at the core of a conundrum tha ...[text shortened]... ere in any other way, seeing that the God explanation makes no scientific explanation after all.
As for the production of complex organic molecules, well, their not too hard. For example;
http://web99.arc.nasa.gov/~astrochm/pr.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/amino_acids_020327.html
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/spitzer-20051220.html
And, did you know, even individual amino acids have some enzymatic function. Likewise, so can Zinc in the replication of DNA and RNA.
Originally posted by scottishinnzI'm not sure what a 'kellyjay' does but if you say so.
Stop trying to do a "kellyjay" and claim that science is faith. It just ain't so.
As for the production of complex organic molecules, well, their not too hard. For example;
http://web99.arc.nasa.gov/~astrochm/pr.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/amino_acids_020327.html
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/s ...[text shortened]... acids have some enzymatic function. Likewise, so can Zinc in the replication of DNA and RNA.
The three web sites you posted(which all contain the same info that a link in the first one pointed to ) all pretty much report on the same experiment which suggest ultimately that life on earth could have been jumpstarted by the formation of amino acids in interstellar clouds and arrived on earth via meteorites. Funnily enough the medium on earth in which many of the complex sequences of RNA are purported to have been assembled on and that shows a lot of promise for some researchers seems to be the very clay that Genesis mentions as being the medium that God chose to create man from. As Shultz would say very interesting.....
From my humble perspective amino acids in a water based primordial soup ( given that you can overcome the problem of chirality) do not give rise to proteins. Basic chemistry says that proteins are water soluble. When amino acids combine to form proteins water is liberated from the reaction. How are you supposed to concentrate amino acids into a higher organisational structure in the very medium that tends to dissociate it?
Originally posted by kmax87"given that you can overcome the problem of chirality"
I'm not sure what a 'kellyjay' does but if you say so.
The three web sites you posted(which all contain the same info that a link in the first one pointed to ) all pretty much report on the same experiment which suggest ultimately that life on earth could have been jumpstarted by the formation of amino acids in interstellar clouds and arrived on earth via ...[text shortened]... acids into a higher organisational structure in the very medium that tends to dissociate it?
This asymmetry in biology may be a feature of fundamental physics, because it turns out that the "natural" L-amino acids are slightly more stable than their "unnatural" D mirror images, due to the weak force.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/question.htm
Originally posted by kmax87Binding to clay particles. Or a rock surface. Or those ubiquitous lipids that'd have been around. And the environment was a reducing one.
From my humble perspective amino acids in a water based primordial soup ( given that you can overcome the problem of chirality) do not give rise to proteins. Basic chemistry says that proteins are water soluble. When amino acids combine to form proteins water is liberated from the reaction. How are you supposed to concentrate amino acids into a higher organisational structure in the very medium that tends to dissociate it?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungFrom an overall perspective of how incredibly complex the purportedly 'simple' cell actually is, chirality seems the least of anyones problems when coming up with postulates as to how a nano factory manages to assemble itself, based on speculative reasoning on the probability of its least complex elements ordering themselves into the regulatory hierarchies that make for a living organism. As I mentioned earlier, how are you supposed to concentrate amino acids into a higher organizational structure in the very medium that tends to dissociate it?
"given that you can overcome the problem of chirality"
This asymmetry in biology may be a feature of fundamental physics, because it turns out that the "natural" L-amino acids are slightly more stable than their "unnatural" D mirror images, due to the weak force.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/question.htm
Furthermore the random chance explanation is a bit like expecting a building to assemble itself with only the most primary and rudimentary of its structural elements present, without the aid of tools such as rivet guns, saws, hammers, as well as an array of tradespeople to wield them. In every respect of this analogy there are comparable tools within a cell that assemble the constituent building blocks into recognizable elements that make for a functioning cell.
What the analogy does not include is that the cell throws in an infinitely greater order of magnitude of difficulty into its own chicken/egg conundrum of which came first(in this case DNA or RNA), in that the cells replicating functions and its production line techniques require not only all the complex molecules to be present at once, all neatly contained to even provide a glimmer of hope to function, they also require assembly machines within that structure to control the specificity of how the basic building blocks will be 'manufactured'.
To critique science as being belief based is probably unfair as science only relies on principles and procedures which systematically set out guidelines for scientists to explore the unknown. Unfortunately much like the way organized religions tend to give Christianity a bad name, the overreaching of particular scientists in certain branches of science is probably the reason why people often get the impression that science to some degree also involves a faith based approach to knowledge. In order to make sense of that which is absolutely unknown scientists are forced to make generalized initial assumptions to which they will usually apply all the rigors of their discipline to verify the veracity of any given proposed theory.
Unfortunately, what should be presented to the public as highly speculative theorizing, with only the slightest thread of circumstantial evidence as proof for justification often by a process of referral takes on the imprimatur of scientific authority such that the general public are subject to the grand sweeping claims of theories which at their core are actually so laughable, one wonders as to how anyone could seriously entertain their relevance, while all the while the assumptions and simplifications that chart the origins of a "line in the sand", "stab in the dark", start point, actually become subtly transformed into being a litany and dogma of scientific consensus that becomes the impenetrable logic of an obfuscatory delusion that masquerades as knowledge and provable experimental fact.