03 Aug 15
Originally posted by checkbaiter1 John 5:19
We know that we are of God, and the [b]whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.
NKJV
If the whole world is under the influence of the wicked one (Satan) then the bible or more precisely, Jesus Christ, is our only hope.[/b]Checkbaiter, that would be true if ALL humans agreed on what was in the Bible......that is, that Jesus is the only way to God.
But.......most humans cannot agree on anything, including this doctrine. There is something very, very wrong here checkbaiter. Something is wrong with blindly believing in the Bible, and believing that humans are stupid somehow, if they pose reasonable questions regarding the Bible.
The Bible does NOT make sense. Period. None of it!!!!
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
03 Aug 15
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd I in turn think your demand for a single 'thinking atom' is ridiculous in the extreme.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are the one committed to scientifically proving consciousness is a brain state of a physical nature. The scientific way to prove it would be to reduce the electrical chemical neuron activity more and more to locate what matter or energy is causing thinking.
It seems to me that you admitting a thinking atom is ridiculous is a concession or on the road to one that finding that deconstructed physical activity is absurd.
My computer can add numbers. That I hope is undeniable. The process by which it does so is well understood. It is an entirely physical process even though it is acting on information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A physical brain state is not identical to a mental state.
Because electrodes can be attached to the brain, send a charge, and a memory arises in one's mind may show A causes B. That is a cause and effect.
A causing B is not the same thing as A IS B.
A brain state causing a mental state is a cause and effect.
Fire causes smoke. Fire is not smoke.
All that is true for fire is not true for smoke and visa versa.
The law of identity holds that if something anything can be said to be true for A which is not also true for B then A and B are not the same thing.
Set a rubber tire on fire.
The flame is bright luminous yellow and orange. The smoke the fire causes is dark black. Something can be true of the fire which is not true of the smoke. The identity of one - the fire is not the identity of the other - the smoke. But they do stand in a cause and effect relationship.
You are confused if you think because an electric charge to some area of the brain causes a mental state then the electrical charge IS the mental state.
My challenge for you: which of the elements in my computer does the adding? Which atom is the 'chief adder'? Show me the physics book that talks about atoms being able to add.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The numbers which are being added are abstract objects.
The actual number 150 is not a material object but an immaterial and abstract object.
You mind, my mind, the programmer's mind, the engineer's mind with the user's mind possess the abstract objects of the numbers. The numbers are in our minds.
The computer has a designing mind behind it.
Man - in both his material and immaterial make up also has a designing Mind of God behind.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
03 Aug 15
4 edits
twhitehead,
As we are made in God's image we too can CREATE.
We are just not as original as God.
Can't do it? Then explain why your demands do not apply equally well to addition in computers.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The computer does not have self awareness or first person introspection. It is not alive. It has no soul. It has no mind, emotion or will. It is not conscious. It is useful. It is not a living being with mental states.
Science fiction has some stories about computers that are conscious. Real life knows nothing of that.
Next I want you to show me which water molecule makes the Zambezi river a river.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Zambezi river is also not capable of 1rst person introspection and awareness. Do you think the Zambezi river is self aware, has an ego, has emotions, a conscience ?
A computer is not a conscious living self aware person.
The Zambesi is not a conscious living self aware person.
I really don't have to go into the physics of either.
me: According to you the scientific method should be able to locate which one of the water molecules is a little more riverish than the rest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We can accumulate trillions of H2O molecules to create a river.
We cannot accumulate trillions of molecules to create a self aware and conscious mind capable of first person introspection.
And having a child doesn't count.
That is not mainly due to YOUR know-how. That is due to your Creator's know-how.
me: Anything preventing Evolution from one day causing a Supreme Being Mind to emerge and thereby causing your Atheism to have to be given up?
tw: That depends I suppose on what you mean by 'a supreme being mind'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The kind that you don't like is what I mean.
That is one having supreme authority and power.
I mean the kind your Atheism lacks belief in.
If your Evolution is so totally awesome to turn non-thinking, non-conscious material into a thinking and conscious life what could it do given more time ? How do you know that your process could not cause to emerge a final supreme thinking, supreme conscious being - the kind you say you lack belief in ?
I certainly think biological evolution may lead to minds far superior to ours, although I think evolution of machines will get there first. I am less inclined to call any such mind a 'supreme being' or 'god' and thus I would be unlikely to call myself a theist should I meet one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It sounds like you have more confidence in a designing mind than in a mindless process. Interesting.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
03 Aug 15
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadLet me ask you this. Suppose a team of six brain surgeons studied you to the point of knowing more about the way your brain works than you could ever know. I mean they are total experts on every neuron and every synapses, electrical / chemical transfer in your entire brain. They are total experts on you physically.
And I in turn think your demand for a single 'thinking atom' is ridiculous in the extreme.
Isn't there something that they could NEVER know ?
That is they could NEVER know what it is like to BE YOU.
True ?
They don't have access to your CONSCIOUSNESS.
Only you have access to that.
The sum total of all the billions of events of your brain states they could know. They could never know what it was like to be you.
Only you know that because it is your immaterial soul - your immaterial consciousness.
03 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonshipNo. I believe our brains are information based. Nevertheless they work via physical processes. My computer too is information based. When it adds numbers, the numbers being added are information and not 'purely electrical'. Nevertheless the process of adding is an electrical one.
So according to your view that sense of being morally wronged by me is an electrical - chemical event dealing with matter only. Is that your view?
Can you isolate the combination of atoms which constitute "fair" treatment as opposed to "dishonest" treatment?
I cannot actually do so, but it is theoretically possible, just as it is possible to identify in a computer the combination of charges that indicate the number 15698 rather than the number 34297. There is a dualism in that information is not matter, but matter does transmit information and the information is wholly dependent on the matter for its representation and activity.
You however are claiming that information is independent of matter, but you also seem to be claiming that a particular type of information (the mind) is a special type of information. Your arguments should be applicable to any information but you seem to think they only apply to the mind. You need to explain why they only apply to the mind.
03 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonshipI don't think you have answered my questions. Let me try again.
The numbers which are being added are abstract objects.
The actual number 150 is not a material object but an immaterial and abstract object.
You mind, my mind, the programmer's mind, the engineer's mind with the user's mind possess the abstract objects of the numbers. The numbers are in our minds.
The computer has a designing mind behind it.
Man - in both his material and immaterial make up also has a designing Mind of God behind.
1. Do you accept that a computer can add?
2. Do you think you could potentially find the main atom that does the adding?
3. Do computers have souls?
4. Why do your arguments not apply to computers?
03 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonshipTrue. (although I just have to point out once again that 'brain surgeon' is the wrong occupation for knowing how the brain works.)
Let me ask you this. Suppose a team of six brain surgeons studied you to the point of knowing more about the way your brain works than you could ever know. I mean they are total experts on every neuron and every synapses, electrical / chemical transfer in your entire brain. They are total experts on you physically.
Isn't there something that they could NEVER know ?
That is they could NEVER know what it is like to BE YOU.
True ?
They don't have access to your CONSCIOUSNESS.
They may have access to my conciousness, but that is not the same thing as being able to be my conciousness. Your conclusions do not follow from your question.
I can figure out how my computer adds numbers, but I can never experience what it is like to be my computer adding numbers. But that doesn't somehow mean my computer has a special 'adder' that is independent of the computer. It is just a limitation of my brain in experiencing what it sees.
Only you know that because it is your immaterial soul - your immaterial consciousness.
No. Only I know that because only I experience it. Observing something and experiencing it are not the same thing. We can know how water boils. We cannot experience it. Does that mean water has a soul? No.
03 Aug 15
Originally posted by chaney3
Checkbaiter, that would be true if ALL humans agreed on what was in the Bible......that is, that Jesus is the only way to God.
But.......most humans cannot agree on anything, including this doctrine. There is something very, very wrong here checkbaiter. Something is wrong with blindly believing in the Bible, and believing that humans are stupid somehow, ...[text shortened]... onable questions regarding the Bible.
The Bible does NOT make sense. Period. None of it!!!!
For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
(1 Corinthians 1:18 NASB)
But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
(1 Corinthians 2:14 NASB)
03 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonshipThen you need to explain why you don't have to. Merely stating that you don't have to simply doesn't cut it.
A computer is not a conscious living self aware person.
The Zambesi is not a conscious living self aware person.
I really don't have to go into the physics of either.
We can accumulate trillions of H2O molecules to create a river.
We cannot accumulate trillions of molecules to create a self aware and conscious mind capable of first person introspection.
So you claim. But it remains just an unproven claim. You claim that if you can accumulate molecules to do something then it is possible to identify the main molecule. Therefore you should either be able to identify the main 'river molecule' or conceede that your argument is wrong.
The kind that you don't like is what I mean.
That is one having supreme authority and power.
I mean the kind your Atheism lacks belief in.
Then no, I do not think it would be possible for such a mind to arise via evolution.
How do you know that your process could not cause to emerge a final supreme thinking, supreme conscious being - the kind you say you lack belief in ?
I think it would violate the laws of physics.
It sounds like you have more confidence in a designing mind than in a mindless process. Interesting.
No actually, that is not what I said.
I actually think computers will start to evolve in a mindless process.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
03 Aug 15
4 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo. I believe our brains are information based. Nevertheless they work via physical processes. My computer too is information based. When it adds numbers, the numbers being added are information and not 'purely electrical'. Nevertheless the process of adding is an electrical one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It sounds like you wish to establish that what your soul does is just like what your computer does.
Does your computer have Desires ?
Does your computer have Beliefs ?
Does your computer have Thoughts ?
Does all the information processing in your PC cause it to have its own thoughts, beliefs and desires ?
How about imagination ?
Does your PC information processing create in it its own imagination ?
Does your PC's processing ability cause it to have Free Will ? Can your PC be morally accountable to for purposely intending to produce an erroneous outcome ? Do it feel shame at wronging ?
Does it feel elated at being complimented ?
Does your PC have Emotions ?
me:
Can you isolate the combination of atoms which constitute "fair" treatment as opposed to "dishonest" treatment?
tw: I cannot actually do so, but it is theoretically possible, just as it is possible to identify in a computer the combination of charges that indicate the number 15698 rather than the number 34297.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By reducing yourself to only a physical information processing machine you are undercutting your own humanity. I would count it as devaluing your own humanity.
The belief that all moral truth can be reduced to information processing is not much different from the old belief of alchemy - that gold could be derived from lead. The more fringe alchemists were superstitiously putting all their hope in unlocking a chemical transformation that would turn lead into gold. You are placing all your trust that physical information processing in brain cells will enable us to examine an abstraction - moral truth.
You're very much like a 21 Century Information alchemist.
Contributions to modern chemistry and medicine were made by the alchemists. But they also had their more fringe superstitious advocates devoted to magic, religion, mythology and spirituality.
There is a dualism in that information is not matter, but matter does transmit information and the information is wholly dependent on the matter for its representation and activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information was put into the computer by minds.
There is information in the DNA of biological organisms too. But you don't want to believe a Divine Mind is responsible for that information. Rather you believe a mindless and purposeless process is responsible for that tremendous information storage scheme and processing.
You however are claiming that information is independent of matter, but you also seem to be claiming that a particular type of information (the mind) is a special type of information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure I go along with that analysis in all respects.
All the information we know in the world came from minds.
If you reduce the mind itself as being just information, what mind is responsible for it (if it is to be taken our minds are JUST information) ?
And it THAT creating mind or minds is also just information, what mind or minds is responsible for that ? You get an infinite regress - IE. information responsible for information responsible for information responsible for information ... on back infinitely.
That's not logical. It is not as logical as an uncreated and eternal all powerful God who is responsible for all minds. He would be responsible for human minds which are responsible for the information processing of a computer.
I think an Ultimate mentality "where the buck stops" requires less of a blind leap of "faith" in an infinite regress of minds (information).
That is assuming for argument's sake for the moment that our minds are just information.
03 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonshipAs far as your arguments are concerned, yes. None of your demands for a 'thinking atom' actually depend on the property 'thinking'. Thus your demands should apply equally well to what a computer does. You have failed to give any reasons why your arguments do not apply equally well to computers.
It sounds like you wish to establish that what your soul does is just like what your computer does.
By reducing yourself to only a physical information processing machine you are undercutting your own humanity.
No, I don't think so.
I would count it as devaluing your own humanity.
Count it however you like, it won't make your arguments any more valid.
The belief that all moral truth can be reduced to information processing is not much different from the old belief of alchemy - that gold could be derived from lead.
And gold can be derived from lead. Just not via chemistry. You on the other hand must be claiming that the quarks in a gold atom have a 'chief gold quark' that has the most 'goldness' of all the quarks and makes the atom able to be gold.
The more fringe alchemists were superstitiously putting all their hope in unlocking a chemical transformation that would turn lead into gold.
There was nothing 'fringe' about them, nor was there anything superstitious about it. They simply didn't yet understand the chemistry to know that there were different atoms involved. But studying it more, the field of chemistry developed. Yes, many alchemists and early chemists did believe in the supernatural and some thought it was involved in chemistry, but ultimately science has found out how it all works. It seems to me that you are arguing against yourself here.
The information was put into the computer by minds.
Not only is that not always true (my computer can, and often does, work on data from sources other than minds), but it is not relevant to what I was saying.
There is information in the DNA of biological organisms too. But you don't want to believe a Divine Mind is responsible for that information.
It is not a question of wanting or not wanting. I don't believe it. Why you think it relevant to mention that, is not clear.
All the information we know in the world came from minds.
Blatantly untrue, or you have a different definition for 'information' than I do.
Please define 'information'.
My understanding of the word includes just about everything in the universe. The position of any single atom is 'information'. The shape of a galaxy is information. When I see something then information about objects is transmitted to my eye as information in light.
Wikipedia would seem to disagree with me and disagree with you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information
As it regards data, the information's existence is not necessarily coupled to an observer (it exists beyond an event horizon, for example), while in the case of knowledge, the information requires a cognitive observer.
Maybe you are confusing 'information' with 'knowledge'?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
03 Aug 15
5 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadme: We can accumulate trillions of H2O molecules to create a river. We cannot accumulate trillions of molecules to create a self aware and conscious mind capable of first person introspection.
tw: So you claim.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rivers have been made by collecting or channeling a lot of water.
Try it in your kitchen and I bet you'll get a small river.
A self aware, conscious, mentally introspective 1rst person mind has not been created yet by assembling cells. I'm intrigued by the story of Frankenstein as much as anyone else. But it is science FICTION.
I think I understand you to be saying theoretically it should be possible - someday. Your imagining android human beings. That's also the stuff of Science Fiction.
Say something about this "continuity" problem you referred to before in the case of a river. Explain that as it relates to the concept of a immaterial soul.
But it remains just an unproven claim.
------------------------------------------------------
What I think I claimed was that the scientific method of identifying how thinking is being done by the brain (if a mental state is identical to a brain state) would be to locate the particle/s either alone or in combination that are providing that phenomenon.
This is not at all unreasonable as an approach. If you think thinking is reducible to a electrical chemical synapse in the matter of brain tissue, you need to deconstruct that event. You need to pull out the particles enabling thinking to take place.
I realize it has not been done yet. In the world of Science, which you champion so much, that is the approach that should be undertaken.
AND I said, keep looking at the atom colliders at CERN. If we cannot YET find the thinking paricle maybe it will turn up there.
That is Scientific research into the matter (the MATTER). Do you disagree with that scientific approach ?
In the case of a RIVER ... we can be sure the H2O molecule is the culprit. That is assuming it is a river of water. No, ONE single H2O molecule is not the whole river. But it is the basic particle in huge numbers which is causing the RIVER to come into existence.
Do you disagree with that ?
Are you saying collecting a lot of water cannot be done to produce a river ?
Are you saying a conscious self aware mind has been assembled ?
The Panama Canal proves that the former can be done.
Would you document for us where the latter has been accomplished ?
You claim that if you can accumulate molecules to do something then it is possible to identify the main molecule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case of a WATER river, the H2O molecule is the main factor.
Therefore you should either be able to identify the main 'river molecule' or conceede that your argument is wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The argument is correct. You have a river of water. You can identify the main molecular construct which causes that to happen.
There is nothing to concede about that.
The H2O molecule is the contributing one which is causing the river to come into existence. You need many of them.
Of course some other things are contributing like gravity, temperature, and even some elector-magnetic activity too.
Particle wise the H2O molecule is the thing making it a river of water.
Now turn to the effect of a thinking mind.
How do you scientifically detect the cause without reducing the matter / energy down, down, down until you find WHAT molecule or particle to the THOUGHT is like H2O to the RIVER.
Otherwise you could believe like me that the thinking is done by an immaterial soul though some activity in the brain indicates it is going on.
03 Aug 15
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipThe key word there being 'yet'. You have no argument that demonstrates that it is impossible.
A self aware, conscious, mentally introspective 1rst person mind has not been created yet by assembling cells.
As for your 'river in the kitchen' argument. I must point out that we know how the sun works, but nobody is going to be making a new sun any time soon. But the fact that it can't be done or hasn't been done in your kitchen is not evidence that it is impossible.
What I think I claimed was that the scientific method of identifying how thinking is being done by the brain (if a mental state is identical to a brain state) would be to locate the particle/s either alone or in combination that are providing that phenomenon.
No. That is not what you said. I said that that was possible but you instead demanded that it be broken down into a single atom or molecule that was mainly responsible for the activity. You rejected the possibility of it being in combination.
This is not at all unreasonable as an approach.
No, not unreasonable at all. Odd that you never actually took that approach until now. You tried very hard to demand something quite different.
If you think thinking is reducible to a electrical chemical synapse in the matter of brain tissue, you need to deconstruct that event. You need to pull out the particles enabling thinking to take place.
Yes. And?
I realize it has not been done yet.
A significant amount of it has been done. Probably a lot more than you realise. And there is nothing whatsoever in the discoveries so far that indicate it will be impossible to completely understand the processes. It may be harder logistically to actually map out the full thought processes of a living human being without killing him, but that is mere logistics.
AND I said, keep looking at the atom colliders at CERN. If we cannot YET find the thinking paricle maybe it will turn up there.
And then you suddenly go off into stupidity. Why should there be a 'thinking particle'? Stop being ridiculous.
That is Scientific research into the matter (the MATTER). Do you disagree with that scientific approach ?
Yes. It is stupid and I think you know that.
In the case of a RIVER ... we can be sure the H2O molecule is the culprit. That is assuming it is a river of water. No, ONE single H2O molecule is not the whole river. But it is the basic particle in huge numbers which is causing the RIVER to come into existence.
Do you disagree with that ?
I agree. So why don't you go to CERN to learn about rivers?
Would you document for us where the latter has been accomplished ?
I have never claimed that it has been accomplished. But nether has making stars been accomplished.
In the case of a WATER river, the H2O molecule is the main factor.
Is it the hydrogen or the oxygen? And which quark in particular?
The argument is correct. You have a river of water. You can identify the main molecular construct which causes that to happen.
There is nothing to concede about that.
There is. You have conceded that it is not a particular molecule, but a whole bunch of them. You have conceded that it is not a single atom but rather a construct.
You need many of them.
You have conceded that many are required.
Of course some other things are contributing like gravity, temperature, and even some elector-magnetic activity too.
You have conceded that there is more too it than just water molecules.
Now turn to the effect of a thinking mind.
How do you scientifically detect the cause without reducing the matter / energy down, down, down until you find WHAT molecule or particle to the THOUGHT is like H2O to the RIVER
I think you can find out what molecules are present in the human mind. They are all required. Your demand that there be only one, or one special one, is ridiculous and unwarranted. That you think CERN is going to help is just plain stupid.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
03 Aug 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe key word there being 'yet'. You have no argument that demonstrates that it is impossible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may certainly have a faith in Scientism that it cannot fail to happen. I have confidence in the second coming of Christ.
Nothing stops you from having faith in some kind of omnipotence of humans in their use of discovering knowledge of the physical world.
As for your 'river in the kitchen' argument. I must point out that we know how the sun works, but nobody is going to be making a new sun any time soon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Making a small stream or river is relatively simple.
Nothing stops you from having something like religious "faith" in the omnipotence of Scientism that men will make stars and androids someday.
I am going chiefly now on this definition of Scientism:
the uncritical application of scientific or quasi-scientific methods to inappropriate fields of study or investigation.
But the fact that it can't be done or hasn't been done in your kitchen is not evidence that it is impossible.
The making of a river is very possible.
I think uncritical and idealistic extrapolating upon that that we are omnipotent and can create conscious minds is your Scientism, your secular religion.
In the case of deconstructing brain states to get down to the real thinking going on, I at least indicated where we could look - to CERN for previously unknown thinking particles or thinking reactions from subatomic events.
me:
What I think I claimed was that the scientific method of identifying how thinking is being done by the brain (if a mental state is identical to a brain state) would be to locate the particle/s either alone or in combination that are providing that phenomenon.
tw: No. That is not what you said. I said that that was possible but you instead demanded that it be broken down into a single atom or molecule that was mainly responsible for the activity. You rejected the possibility of it being in combination.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. all told, that sounds like a false charge. I remember carefully not excluding that a combination might be the thing to look for. If I didn't say it in the first post, I said it before now.
The key is to identify the thinking activity by reducing the chemistry and electrical events. This is getting repetitive so I am soon going to give more attention to other aspects of the exchange.
skip ...
me: If you think thinking is reducible to a electrical chemical synapse in the matter of brain tissue, you need to deconstruct that event. You need to pull out the particles enabling thinking to take place.
jw: Yes. And?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And? And you'll find that physical brain states are not mental brain states. But there is some close correlation.
More and more we are going to be told from some idealistic quarters, that our selves are just our brains. Some enthused neurologists are going to increase claims that an EKG machine with its electrodes is identifying memories.
They are showing only that mental states are being correlated with brain states. They are showing some cause and effect is going on. Idealistic extrapolation will argue that the SOUL is therefore just the activity read off by the EKG read outs showing activity in various parts of the brain.
Do you want someone to point to some needle squiggles on a EKG readout and tell you that that is your identity, your soul, your person ? Maybe you do. But I would tell them that that is not ME.
It shows some activity going on in the physical brain as I am undergoing some immaterial mind states.
I can pray to God and some EKG may show some electrical chemical activity in a certain region in my brain. Something is going on there. Its a idealistic leap to say "That physical activity there, is your spirituality."
I wouldn't belief that any more than if they showed some EKG activity in your brain and said "That, is your confidence in Science."
I realize it has not been done yet.
A significant amount of it has been done. Probably a lot more than you realise. And there is nothing whatsoever in the discoveries so far that indicate it will be impossible to completely understand the processes. It may be harder logistically to actually map out the full thought processes of a living human being without killing him, but that is mere logistics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The soul cannot only think. The soul can think about itself thinking.
The soul cannot only desire. The soul can desire to have desires.
You need to stop and consider that that is suppose to look like on an EKG chart. In a computer we could see the result of a recursive routine - that is a section of logic that can call itself. It makes another copy. It makes as many copies as it needs to execute the calling of itself in a recursive manner.
Do you think if you think ABOUT your thinking some EKG chart will show that ? There were limits to what the old alchemists could do. Why should we find it hard to understand there are limits to our detection of mind states by tracing brain states ?
skip some repetitive things ...
me: Do you disagree with that ?
tw: I agree. So why don't you go to CERN to learn about rivers?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggested to you, the one suggesting the consciousness of people is basically the chemical electric activity upon the brain cell neurons, that YOU should go to CERN to see if they uncover "THINKING" going on in some subatomic realm.
With a river, we don't have to go much lower in level than H2O. The water molecule is the culprit.
skip ...
I have never claimed that it has been accomplished. But nether has making stars been accomplished.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the thinking self aware of consciousness is much more of a challenge then the making of a star. You can create plasma by putting a fire in a mircowave oven, so I am told. The sun's substance is plasma, a fourth state of matter beyond solid, liquid and gas.
I could whip up some plasma (so I'm told) by putting a lighted match in a turned on microwave. I never tried it.
Assembling a self aware conscious ego ?
You don't believe me that I like science research just as much as you do. Whereas you say there are probably NO limits, I say there are limits.
Is it the hydrogen or the oxygen? And which quark in particular?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not a physicist. But in the case of a water river, I don't think going lower than the water molecule to quarks, leptons, etc. is really necessary. To unpack the H2O further might call for going deeper.
You have conceded that it is not a particular molecule, but a whole bunch of them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay. I see what you mean. And by the same token, the whole bunch of thinking particles even if very minute in that activity, collected should equate to a conscious mind.
What to a single H2O molecule to a water river is a subcomponent to mental consciousness ?
I maintain that the river problem is one realm and the consciousness problem is in another realm. Your idealism believes the same scientific exploration of matter and energy should make them the same kind of challenge.
You have conceded that it is not a single atom but rather a construct.
You need many of them.
You have conceded that many are required.
Of course some other things are contributing like gravity, temperature, and even some elector-magnetic activity too.
You have conceded that there is more too it than just water molecules.
Your demand that there be only one, or one special one, is ridiculous and unwarranted. That you think CERN is going to help is just plain stupid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you are reacting to the difference between the two issues with ridicule and some hostility. This is not terribly impressive.
04 Aug 15
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke"As an aside, we may not have a soul, but we do have a David Soul: (So 'Don't give up on us, baby.)" GD, God won't "give up on us".....
To be honest, a brain dead vegetable doesn't sound very appetizing. I will though try it in a casserole this evening and let you know how it goes.
As an aside, we may not have a soul, but we do have a David Soul: (So 'Don't give up on us, baby.)