1. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    01 Jan '06 22:38
    In the ID thread 'Chess Express' posted these statements (italics) in response to my questions / statements in a previous post (bold).

    The important thing here for you is to prove that the way the world is is as a result of god. We both know you cannot do that scientifically, and TOE is the most parsimonious argument.

    Quantum mechanics may one day do this, or at least come close.

    Explain to us what evidence you have of design that CANNOT be explained by evolutionary theory.

    Consciousness. As I have stated before it is impossible to mix chemicals in a lab and produce consciousness.


    Thoughts anyone?
  2. Milky way
    Joined
    23 Oct '05
    Moves
    7083
    01 Jan '06 22:43
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    In the ID thread 'Chess Express' posted these statements (italics) in response to my questions / statements in a previous post ([b]bold).

    The important thing here for you is to prove that the way the world is is as a result of god. We both know you cannot do that scientifically, and TOE is the most parsimonious argument.

    Quan ...[text shortened]... t is impossible to mix chemicals in a lab and produce consciousness.


    Thoughts anyone?[/b]
    What's the question, or discusion point?
  3. Joined
    12 Jun '05
    Moves
    14671
    01 Jan '06 22:43
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    In the ID thread 'Chess Express' posted these statements (italics) in response to my questions / statements in a previous post ([b]bold).

    The important thing here for you is to prove that the way the world is is as a result of god. We both know you cannot do that scientifically, and TOE is the most parsimonious argument.

    Quan ...[text shortened]... t is impossible to mix chemicals in a lab and produce consciousness.


    Thoughts anyone?[/b]
    An initial thought - the fact we cannot make it does not mean it is not physical, or more specifically DEPENDENT on the physical.

    It is also necessary to ask what we mean by consciousness, i.e. is it something we ascribe based on reactions, behaviour, etc., or is it supposed to have a qualitative, "private" aspect?
  4. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    01 Jan '06 22:50
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    In the ID thread 'Chess Express' posted these statements (italics) in response to my questions / statements in a previous post ([b]bold).

    The important thing here for you is to prove that the way the world is is as a result of god. We both know you cannot do that scientifically, and TOE is the most parsimonious argument.

    Quan ...[text shortened]... t is impossible to mix chemicals in a lab and produce consciousness.


    Thoughts anyone?[/b]
    "Consciousness. As I have stated before it is impossible to mix chemicals in a lab and produce consciousness."


    Evolution does not work by 'mixing chemicals in a lab'. It does not, as pointed out by aardvarkhome, work on human time scales. It works over 4,000,000,000 years. It favours complexity, provided that complexity is biologically useful. It favours simplicity, when complexity has no biological relevance.

    You have failed in any thread, as far as I am aware, to prove that conciousness is NOT a biological property. As has been pointed out by Nemesio on several occassion, we can take conciousness away by damaging the brain - which suggests that brain physiology / biochemistry is absolutely critical for conciousness. As far as I am concerned, without a brain you cannot have conciousness - brain functions are critical.
  5. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    01 Jan '06 22:52
    Originally posted by Silver Slayer
    What's the question, or discusion point?
    Well, the discussion point as far as I am concerned is 'Is conciousness a proof of god or simply a biological phenomenon?'
  6. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    01 Jan '06 22:53
    I doubt quantum physics could verify intelligent design. In fact i am certain many of the implications of it would prove otherwise.

    And as for conciousness, if conciousness is not the result of myriads of chemicals, why is that when you interfere with these chemicals, remove some of these chemicals or add more chemicals, conciousness is severerly subverted or lost.

    And as for Intelligent design, its just not science. The one important thing about science is that it limits its assumtpions in order to arrive closer to a truth (although this can never be achieved). Intelligent design does not conform to science because it requires the existence of a designer, which is a massive assumption and antithetical to scienctific objectiveness and indifference. That doesn't mean ID is wrong. Its just not scientific. if you accept ID as scientific then the theologies must also be scientific as well. Which is absurd.

    If ID is correct this designer was certainly no gucci.
  7. Standard membertelerion
    True X X Xian
    The Lord's Army
    Joined
    18 Jul '04
    Moves
    8353
    01 Jan '06 22:54
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    In the ID thread 'Chess Express' posted these statements (italics) in response to my questions / statements in a previous post ([b]bold).

    The important thing here for you is to prove that the way the world is is as a result of god. We both know you cannot do that scientifically, and TOE is the most parsimonious argument.

    Quan ...[text shortened]... t is impossible to mix chemicals in a lab and produce consciousness.


    Thoughts anyone?[/b]
    To explain his first point, Chesstrain will have to first explain how we can identify the handiwork of god from the data. Then he'll have to show how QM can achieve this. I'm not holding my breath.

    As for the second point, I'm expecting some cripe from answersingenesis.com, ICR, or Kent Hovind or some other equally disreptuble propaganda site. We'll see if he even gets around to telling us what consciousness is from a scientific standpoint.
  8. Joined
    17 Jun '05
    Moves
    9211
    01 Jan '06 22:55
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    Consciousness. As I have stated before it is impossible to mix chemicals in a lab and produce consciousness.
    There are more factors to include then just chemicals for example electric pulses and I think hypothetically you could create it but it would be immensely hard and time consuming also not that useful when done and not going to happen for a few hundred years if it would be done. Apart from chemicals and electric impulses you would need inputs and flows. Also I think it will one day be possible to create non biological consciousness and this would be a lot easier then biological.

    This may sound impossible but consider all the things that have been thought of as impossible in the past and now have been done.
  9. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    01 Jan '06 22:59
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    "Consciousness. As I have stated before it is impossible to mix chemicals in a lab and produce consciousness."


    Evolution does not work by 'mixing chemicals in a lab'. It does not, as pointed out by aardvarkhome, work on human time scales. It works over 4,000,000,000 years. It favours complexity, provided that complexity is biologically useful. ...[text shortened]... I am concerned, without a brain you cannot have conciousness - brain functions are critical.
    Evolution is completely indifferent to complexity or simplicity. Whatever allows an organism to continue, it will continue. Hence, variations will acculumate if they have a beneficial or neutral result and the organism becomes complex. It is a fallacy to believe evolution will eventuate in complex life forms.
  10. Joined
    17 Jun '05
    Moves
    9211
    01 Jan '06 23:01
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    Evolution is completely indifferent to complexity or simplicity. Whatever allows an organism to continue, it will continue. Hence, variations will acculumate if they have a beneficial or neutral result and the organism becomes complex. It is a fallacy to believe evolution will eventuate in complex life forms.
    There are a lot of situations that favour complexity but then again there are situations that favour simplicity therefore both occur.
  11. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    01 Jan '06 23:04
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    Evolution is completely indifferent to complexity or simplicity. Whatever allows an organism to continue, it will continue. Hence, variations will acculumate if they have a beneficial or neutral result and the organism becomes complex. It is a fallacy to believe evolution will eventuate in complex life forms.
    I agree, however you'll note that I never stated it would lead in any 'direction' either complex or simple unless there was some biological reason or benefit for it.
  12. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    01 Jan '06 23:05
    Originally posted by Will Everitt
    There are a lot of situations that favour complexity but then again there are situations that favour simplicity therefore both occur.
    Evolution doesn't favour the complexity, and you have to recognise it is highly improbable one simple organism will mutate into a complex one, so that evolution could select one or the other. Then you have to define complexity and simplicity for the organism. In nature they don't exist.
  13. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    01 Jan '06 23:05
    Originally posted by Will Everitt
    There are more factors to include then just chemicals for example electric pulses and I think hypothetically you could create it but it would be immensely hard and time consuming also not that useful when done and not going to happen for a few hundred years if it would be done. Apart from chemicals and electric impulses you would need inputs and flows. ...[text shortened]... sider all the things that have been thought of as impossible in the past and now have been done.
    Well, AI certainly has potential. In 100 years time I think 'thinking machines' will be a reality - we will have created conciousness, or at the least something indistinguishable from conciousness. What will our religious contingent have to say about that?
  14. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    01 Jan '06 23:06
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    I agree, however you'll note that I never stated it would lead in any 'direction' either complex or simple unless there was some biological reason or benefit for it.
    Just pointing that out. However we are in the spirituality section.
  15. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    01 Jan '06 23:09
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    Well, AI certainly has potential. In 100 years time I think 'thinking machines' will be a reality - we will have created conciousness, or at the least something indistinguishable from conciousness. What will our religious contingent have to say about that?
    I'm not sure when modern computer, progressing at the rate they are now, could suddenly be conscious. And if conciousness can't be pinpointed exactly, does it exist at all?
    I'm not even sure what consciousness is. Our brains are comparable to computers (albeit highly more complex). By conscious do we mean intelligent?
Back to Top