We all had one

@secondson said
Seriously? Come now, don't you think that is all just speculation?

Isn't it?

Back at you sir. Isn't religion merely speculation by finite entities?

@secondson said
Where's that verse in the Bible? 🤔

"And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.…"


Edit:......with a bang.

@rajk999 said
Here is one from the bible:

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. (John 21:25 KJV)

What that passage says is that anyone who thinks the bible is a complete source of information for every topic under the sun is a damn fool.

Further evidence that you're off your rocker.

That is by far the grossest misinterpretation and application of a single verse as I think I have ever heard.

You should be embarrassed to no end.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Back at you sir. Isn't religion merely speculation by finite entities?

Religion yes, but all scripture is given by inspiration of God.

Evolution is man's point of view based on theoretical speculation.

Big difference. Where is this going? Only where we've been before. 🤔

@ghost-of-a-duke said
"And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.…"


Edit:......with a bang.

You saw it!! Is that what that verse means? You know that because you were there?

Sorry to inform you sir, but there's more to what that verse is saying than "bang". Although it must have been a bang on the darkness I would think. Sort of how when one receives the light of truth and it's effect on the darkness relative to the enlightenment of one's soul upon the realization that Jesus lives.

🙂

@secondson said
Religion yes, but all scripture is given by inspiration of God.

Evolution is man's point of view based on theoretical speculation.

Big difference. Where is this going? Only where we've been before. 🤔

Believing scripture is the word of God is also a point of view, and to be frank, on far shakier ground than evolution.

@secondson said
Religion yes, but all scripture is given by inspiration of God.

Evolution is man's point of view based on theoretical speculation.

Big difference. Where is this going? Only where we've been before. 🤔

But....If the god who does the inspiring doesn't exist then it renders the scripture (which is only a posh word for people writing stuff down, the Daily Telegraph is also scripture, and who believes that? ) meaningless, and the existence of gods can't be proved, which is why it's called 'faith.'

The study of evolution is based on observable scientific evidence; the fossil record, carbon dating, the study of DNA, and so on. I prefer to go with the science.

By the by, DNA is amazing stuff, by studying a persons' DNA it is now possible to find out not only where they come from, geographically, but whether they are likely to have a good or bad sense of direction, a good or bad sense of balance, and so on. You can send for a kit and send a spit sample off, and three or so weeks later back comes on - line analysis. Next time I'm in the UK I'm going to get that done....I shall spit. But anyway, I digress.

So, we are bipolar in our views on life, the universe and everything, but at least we now know that we both roll our own cigarettes; common ground, let's build on that.

@petewxyz said
Was there always consciousness or did that have a beginning?

It takes you into difficult areas if you work with your parallel between foetal development and stages of evolution since of course the moment at which conscious life arrives in the individual human being might be separated from the arrival of the physical substance of new life for some, but not for others.

Consciousness is the one that does your head in. My dog is 'conscious' in as much as she knows what tastes good (most things seem to taste good to her), but this could be said to be sensory, and a survival thing. What she can't do (as far as I know) is wonder whether there's a god, and the big one is that she is not aware of herself. The existence of self awareness keeps me awake nights, I'm aware that I'm sitting here writing this at 3.23 am Indo - time, I'm aware of my own understanding and the limits thereof. I think therefore I am, and how did that all start?
Postscript; my dog is called Lottie, and she can at least retrieve sticks. Talk to her about the meaning of life, however, and you get nowhere.

@indonesia-phil said
Consciousness is the one that does your head in. My dog is 'conscious' in as much as she knows what tastes good (most things seem to taste good to her), but this could be said to be sensory, and a survival thing. What she can't do (as far as I know) is wonder whether there's a god, and the big one is that she is not aware of herself. The existence of self awareness kee ...[text shortened]... e can at least retrieve sticks. Talk to her about the meaning of life, however, and you get nowhere.

I take your point, but it runs into difficulties in certain circumstances. It is possible for somebody's dementia to progress to a point where they no longer have self awareness. Do they no longer have conscious life? From a physical perspective the parts of brain subservient to consciousness that allow conscious self to achieve things like self awareness can be removed without consciousness being gone e.g. the place where you store the memories (knowledge and information) that you need to reference for self awareness. Is conscious life the potential to use information or must it be connected to the information to exist?

@petewxyz said
I take your point, but it runs into difficulties in certain circumstances. It is possible for somebody's dementia to progress to a point where they no longer have self awareness. Do they no longer have conscious life? From a physical perspective the parts of brain subservient to consciousness that allow conscious self to achieve things like self awareness can be removed with ...[text shortened]... conscious life the potential to use information or must it be connected to the information to exist?

Well, the centre of consciousness and intellect is in the brain*, so if something goes wrong with the brain, or it ceases to function properly as in the case of dementia, then the state of awareness and consciousness is changed. One may still be 'conscious', but one is no longer conscious of being conscious, (one cannot say 'Oh look, I've got dementia' as one would be aware of breaking a leg, for example) this being the 'magic trick', and something unique to human beans. How can a collection of nerves, neurons or whatever have evolved to allow this higher state of consciousness and being to exist, to the point where we can not only just 'do things', but be aware of the consequences of that which we are about to do? In other words, from whence comes our 'conscience'. A dog will catch and eat a rabbit without empathy or thought for said rabbit, whereas some of us have rendered our evolved canine teeth and meat - digesting guts redundant by becoming vegetarian. We are able to 'put ourselves in the place' of another person or animal, and adjust our own moral compass accordingly. Clever stuff, but how it happened is one of the big mysteries, at least to me, being one of little brain.

* I have in the past been accused of having my brains in my balls, but let us not further complicate the issue....

@indonesia-phil said
Well, the centre of consciousness and intellect is in the brain*, so if something goes wrong with the brain, or it ceases to function properly as in the case of dementia, then the state of awareness and consciousness is changed. One may still be 'conscious', but one is no longer conscious of being conscious, (one cannot say 'Oh look, I've got dementia' as one would be ...[text shortened]... e past been accused of having my brains in my balls, but let us not further complicate the issue....

If your into this (or anybody else is) there is a book that brilliantly summarises the search for the seat of consciousness within the brain. Although it is written by somebody who is at the cutting edge of functional neuroanatomy it is very accessible to people from any background and a fantastic read.

If you stop thinking about the brain but start to think of it as a community of many interconnected areas you start to get more questions than answers. Much of the brain is crudely like a computer. A fantastic piece of kit but it just sits on the desk doing nothing unless you bring your consciousness along to interact with it. The more you find the computer like function of the different areas of the brain the more you are thwarted in your search for the consciousness itself.

You perhaps end up with something that is a dynamic pattern within the flow of electrochemical information changing in location at incredibly speed as of course we know information can as it speeds around the world, but it starts to be a peculiar property of the matter that perhaps doesn't require any one part of the organ at all. The extent of its freedom from any anatomical structure takes you into interesting ideas.

Some of this is my reaction to the book 'Consciousness' by Christoph Koch who was a professor at California Institute of Technology and mentored in his development by Francis Crick of DNA fame. He obviously puts it way better than I can!

Edit: he doesn't actually cover consciousness within the testicles though.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Believing scripture is the word of God is also a point of view, and to be frank, on far shakier ground than evolution.

Two opposing points of view. The one has it that matter/energy has always existed in some form, and the current state of the existence of the universe is the result of a process called, or named, evolution, arrived at by scientific investigation.

The other point of view has it that all matter/energy came into existence, before there was anything, at a point in time called "in the beginning", and was created, with that view seen and understood by the revelation of the creator.

I find it fascinating that such a dilemma should exist.

What makes it so fascinating to me, based on the definition of both points of view as I described them, is that there is no room for equivocation or compromise between the two.

Therefore only one is the correct view. If so, then arises the matter of the question of eternal consequences relative to which view one holds to.

That, to my way of thinking, makes the discussion of the origins of the universe that much more fascinating and interesting.

@secondson said
Two opposing points of view. The one has it that matter/energy has always existed in some form, and the current state of the existence of the universe is the result of a process called, or named, evolution, arrived at by scientific investigation.

The other point of view has it that all matter/energy came into existence, before there was anything, at a point in time calle ...[text shortened]... ing, makes the discussion of the origins of the universe that much more fascinating and interesting.

I agree that only one of those views is true. It is also the case that only one of us will ever get to know they were correct (and it won't be me).