I said:
Evolutionists say plant life "consciously decided"to metabolized the brain. _
I should NOT have said consciously decided! Evolutionists don't believe in consciousness right?
I should have said; evolutionists theory is causation from the solar cycle(sunlight and weather)
And the applied laws of Physics. Pushed the elements of the Earths crust around until they "fused" together. Providing them with inert means of memory through the process of logical
Algorithms. To which they were able to build algae and other simple plants until they could grow out of the sea. Then adapt to Earths air environment. Thus enabling them to produce
RNA. Then behold a COMET lands on earth bringing DNA. And the rest just followed suit?
Is THIS what the JINGYS and the FRUITLOOPS believe as the truth of evolution?
PLEASE help show me where I have it wrong!!!
I am not bashing!!! I only wish to understand your factual point of view!!
When I offer creative discussion. You elude with negative remarks and links to someone else's speculations and ideas. As if all the answers are out there and I can pick them up like a handful of sand.
". . . as I understand Watson, responses are based on "experience" gleaned off the web."
I think it is fundamental to this discussion to fully appreciate that no one, Watson included, can glean "experience" from a 3rd party (the web, or anywhere else). Experience is and always will be first-person, subjective phenomenon.
DESCRIPTIONS, symbolic representations, and various quantitative maps of first-person subjective phenomenon posit experience as a "thing" or noun, so to speak, and our discursive minds can crunch the symbolic data of these descriptions, which are one step removed from experience itself. This underscores the stubborn fact that once the subjective is objectified, it is no longer subjective - it is a report about, rather than a direct experience of, subjective reality. Conversely, probing matter for raw awareness (NOT processing) is like studying an oak floor for "dancing," even though dancing arises directly of said wood.
That much said, there is no duality between the objective and subjective, meaning neither exists independent from the other, in some absolute way. This is a vastly counterintuitive insight that will never come to you through discursive reasoning, which can imagine material reality existing totally independent of and absolutely apart from consciousness.
Tied to this seemingly obvious state of reality is the likewise obvious notion that material creates the subjective, which is dualism of a kind.
I AGREE!
God said that He could SEE us before He formed the Earth. And that He can SEE into all time. This gives me a sense that everything's already been done. When I look back on my past. I recognize that my path was almost always being steered by outside forces. And of all my physical experiences the only thing that I was truly in control of, was my attitude. And what I projected back to the ones involved with my experience. Basically was I positive or negative in reaction. But more importantly was I exuding LOVE or HATE ?
That makes no sense because any choice you made about your attitude changes the future. If you had a choice then there is no way that even God would know the outcome until you made that choice. If he knew the future then you had no choice because your destiny was already decided.
If there is free will then there is no way to predict the future.
I should have said; evolutionists theory is causation from the solar cycle(sunlight and weather)
And the applied laws of Physics. Pushed the elements of the Earths crust around until they "fused" together. Providing them with inert means of memory through the process of logical
Algorithms. To which they were able to build algae and other simple plants until they could grow out of the sea. Then adapt to Earths air environment. Thus enabling them to produce
RNA. Then behold a COMET lands on earth bringing DNA. And the rest just followed suit?
That is all gibberish that has little or nothing to do with evolution. Who the heck is the "they" and "them" in all of that?
Learn at least a little about evolution before deciding if it's hogwash or not.
That much said, there is no duality between the objective and subjective, meaning neither exists independent from the other, in some absolute way. This is a vastly counterintuitive insight that will never come to you through discursive reasoning, which can imagine material reality existing totally independent of and absolutely apart from consciousness.
I think you've overstated it... I'd say that there is a hypothesis that a duality exists between objective and subjective, and that hypothesis can be tested.
Where that hypothesis fails, one has to consider the assumptions that lead to that hypothesis.
For an experimental physicist, that hypothesis is an important test of the data, and failing to pass that test complicates the interpretation of the data as empirical evidence.
Largo stated;
" DESCRIPTIONS, symbolic representations, and various quantitative maps of first-person subjective phenomenon posit experience as a "thing" or noun, so to speak,"
I would posit; That our thoughts and emotions become material or "noun" when we speak using sound.
"Scientifically" sound carries forever. And God said 5000 years ago he records every word from our mouth. I believe it!!
Heh, nope, nothing not already being far better articulated by others here. I'm just not that militant about it all; find it all rather humorous at this point. And as always, whatever gets you thru the night.
Doesn't your use of the word "reaction" signal there is little choice?
Not at all. When confronted by an experience one perfectly reasonable reaction would be to not react at all.
You really think there is an infinite number of choices that can be made? By you? By anyone? By a rich or poor person, by a catholic or protestant, by a female or male, by an Indian or Japanese, by a primitive in New Guinea or a sophisticate in New York City? Can one become another by choice?
Yes, I really think there are virtually an infinite number of choices to be made given any particular experience anyone might be confronted with. We are, each of us, who we are both by circumstance (things out of our control such as parents, the culture we are born into, the out-of-control bus hurtling toward us or the meteor about to take out Manhattan)and our very individual choices we make when confronted by experience. Yes, we are all different (though certain sets from your example above aren't necessarily mutually exclusive) but the fact that we are different doesn't mean that we have fewer choices when presented with experience, just different choices.
Perhaps you really want to say that there's a little bit of both choice and reaction? Maybe it's not choice OR reaction; maybe it's not choice AND reaction, maybe it's NEITHER not-choice NOR not-reaction? (Tricky, no?)
I think that there is both choice and reaction. The Universe is a dance with everything and everyone as our partner. The way in which we move (choice) will change the dynamic of the dance floor creating experience for others to make choices on how they will move which changes the dynamic of the dance floor creating experience for myself and/or others to choose how to move. .. .. .
What I imagine you might be pointing to is Bell's Theorem and multiple universes--where each and every decision splits reality into a diverging parallel universe. If all decisions lead to parallel universes, then doesn't that also indicate a lack of control and rigid causalities?
I'm not familiar with Bell's Theorem or diverging parallel universes. I don't think that any decision results in the splitting of reality into a diverging parallel universe. What I think is pretty simple, actually. I think that we make choices to presented experiences which brings on new experiences leading to further choices. We are, at any given moment, the result of both all of our previous choices and experiences. I don't think that there are parallel universes for each of our choices coexisting out there. Those possible avenues were shut down when that road wasn't taken.
Each and every polarity (like good and evil, like choice and determinism, like light and dark, like life and death) indicates an indescribable unity that cannot be captured by concepts, words, or symbols. There are things that transcend our intelligence. It's our intelligence that separates and parses reality into opposing dualities, and then attempts to choose one over another. Those are not choices that can be made. They are impossible.
Or maybe those polarities are nothing more than the construct of an inquisitive, playful intelligence and as such no choice needs to be made. Or did you just say that??
If he (God) knew the future then you had no choice because your destiny was already decided.
That's not true.
If you want to stick your finger in the running fan then I'll tell you not to do it since I already know the out come, you'll fuk up your finger.
But you have free will and choice to not listen and stick your finger in it to find out for yourself since you're still a child or stupid adult.
So I'll turn the power off without you knowing that and say go ahead stick it there while it's still spinning to keep you from whacking your whole finger off but some pain will still beget you.
You're pain is your karma for being stupid and not listening and the pain is your destiny.
Only God can change destiny.
This a crude layman's example how God gives you choice and free will and always strictly honors it ......
Ed, I believe that animals etc. have consciousness. I think they are sentient. I don't think they have the kind or level of intelligence that we have. As for what humans Really Are, I don't know. I think everything is a form or manifestation of consciousness.
As for Largo's complaint about "experience" gleaned off the web, do you want to want to amend that word choice? I mean, I get (I think) what you're getting at--patterns associated with human meaning--but would you argue that the interpretation of the patterns is what Watson "is doing?"
Or maybe those polarities are nothing more than the construct of an inquisitive, playful intelligence and as such no choice needs to be made. Or did you just say that??
I'll grant you that infinite choice exists theoretically for everyone. How about if we agree that almost everyone avoids exercising their options? Would you agree what most people actually "do" seems to be within their character?
I think this continues to relate to Ed's point of view: humans are what humans do. (Apologies for putting words in Ed's mouth; I know it's unsanitary.)
Max Delbrück expected molecular biology to develop along different lines than it did, but he and Roger Penrose may turn out to be right about physics at smaller scales than chemical reactions being needed to understand how living things are organized and how they function.
A funny thing that happens when I read about consciousness:
People give examples of systems that are clearly mechanical to show that, although it quacks like a duck, it may not be a duck. I always think, "Maybe that 'mechanical process' is what is going on in my brain. How would I know?" Especially with Cleverbot, the software that passes the Turing test by sorting through a large table of what humans answered when they were asked a similar question; I'm almost sure I do the same.
right about physics at smaller scales than chemical reactions being needed to understand how living things are organized and how they function.
smaller scales mean higher energy, not a good thing for life... and anyway, we now know about genomes guiding the production of molecules essential for metabolism, which is an required attribute for life.
but this is an endpoint, a very successful one, and not the only one, probably. The question is how do we define life such that we gain insight into it abiotic origins?
Messages 11521 - 11540 of total 15863 in this topic
Let us know!