Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

"Where does consciousness come from" is not being asked in the right context, because 'where' indicates a location. All location is relative to other location. It does not truly exist. Consciousness is everywhere if you assume locations do exist, and nowhere when you realize that 'location' is a false doctrine.

edit on 30-5-2013 by HarryTZ because: (no reason given)

Is my glass of whiskey conscious? If so, how can you evidence this claim.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


www.samharris.org...

This is an article by Sam Harris a neuroscientist who has some harsh words for those who know nothing about this field of science yet make their money off of selling books and presentations about NDE bull****. In my opinion those people are liars who only want your money.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by HarryTZ

 

From the article:

consciousness can operate beyond the brain, body, and the present, as hundreds of experiments and millions of testimonials affirm. Consciousness cannot, therefore, be identical with the brain.

He bases his entire article on this single sentence. What does he cite for this monumental statement... nothing. These people are taking you on a ride with nothing to support it.

Heres some material to get you started... its called neuroscience...

www.slideserve.com...

edit on 30-5-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)

www.youtube.com...

I'll take a look at your link.

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by Barcs

 

And yet out of all my questions you just cherry pick the insignificant difference between hypothesis an theory which is nothing but semantics.

It is not semantics, they have different definitions, and different applications in science. It is you attempting to diminish the value/accuracy of science by even suggesting they are the same. They are not, end of story.

I agree with rigorous testing, show me some. As i said inference is the same methodology Darwin applied, an inference to known causes in effect in the here and now. Without inference we would be without the majority of modern science.

Yes, and when Darwin first proposed the idea, it was a hypothesis. Since those days, it has been confirmed over and over again, and the process of modern synthesis has been proven and shown to be measurable. Theories have been tested, hypotheses are in the process of being tested or pending testing. It's not complicated.

Acording to your wiki quote evolutionary biology is still a hypothesis then, Scientific hypothesis must also present the null hypothesis that would falsify it.

www.talkorigins.org... - to this day, not a single evolution denier has even responded to this link and I've been doing this for years

Evolution HAS been rigorously tested. Evolution could be falsified easily if a human fossil were to show up mixed with a dinosaur fossil and dated to the same time period. Every fossil find could falsify evolution, but out of the millions we have found, this discrepancy or anything like it has never happened. Genetics could have falsified it as well, but funny enough, scientists found it pointed in the same exact direction as the fossils. Arguing against common descent at this point in time, is silly. The facts are all outlined, genetic mutations are confirmed, natural selection is confirmed and there isn't a single rival theory.

I am a empiricist. You misrepresent my position. Your dismisall of other scientific disciplines is evidence of your fundamentalist view. I base my conclusions on experimental evidence. Under this definition your view is still just another hypothesis consisting of nothing but just so stories devoid of empirical evidence to support the conclusion. Whatever that is.

What view are you referring to? The view that ID doesn't have objective evidence or the view that evolution does? You can falsify that view easily by posting the tangible physical evidence of creator or creation process or posting tangible physical evidence that supports an alternative theory to evolution. I posted the facts and evidence behind evolution. Appeals to the unknown or to complexity are subjective at best. I don't know why every time I mention this, you immediately think I'm arguing the opposing viewpoint as fact. When it comes to ID, there are no objective facts involved.

Show me the empirical evidence for the multiverse.
Show me the empirical evidence for all the things I listed.
Show me the empirical evidence producing consciousness.
Especially show me the empirical evidence for the mechanisms producing semiosis and show me how unguided natural forces can produce digital code empirically.
Show me the empirical evidence for the emergence of even one novel protein.
Yes your hypothesis fails to acount for the very fundamental properties of life and the modern synthesis.

Why do I have to show evidence for any of that? I'm not making claims about it. You are just throwing terms around with no backing or context. Please explain in detail how any of that objectively proves ID or falsifies evolution without appealing to the unknown or complexity. Good luck with that. And what is MY hypothesis? You keep mentioning it but I don't even know what it is. There is objective evidence behind evolution. There is no objective evidence behind ID. For accusing me of misrepresenting your view, you sure have done exactly that. My points hold true, since I have posted the evidence, and while you have posted people's opinions or metaphoric comparisons.

...more...

reply to post by HarryTZ


So he told her and her family where the number was.... and simply hoped that none of them would tell her or that she wouldn't look.

This is why you need a set of standards when you do experiments. Some Yokel of a doctor can create a flawed experiment and people carry it around on a pedestal and claim its science.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

Dear MichaelPMaccabee,

Prime example of moving the goal posts.

- God created the Universe.
- There might be more than one Universe.
- WHAT CREATED ALL OF THE UNIVERSES????
- Wait for it...
- Must be God.
- Right on cue.

Since you called it a "prime example," it attracted my attention. I may be missing something, but it doesn't seem like even a good example. Allow me to translate.

Priest: God created everything we can see or detect.
Physicist: Science has shown there are other stars.
Priest: God created everything we can see or detect.
Physicist: Science has shown there are other planents, some of which might contain life.
Priest: God created everything we can see or detect.
Physicist: Science has shown there is a universe with bazillions of stars and planets.
Priest: God created everything we can see or detect.
Physicist: Science now thinks there might be a bazillion universes, which we can't observe, but may exist.
Priest: God created everything we can see or detect.

I'm not entirely sure it's the religious who are moving the goal posts.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by HarryTZ

 

So he told her and her family where the number was.... and simply hoped that none of them would tell her or that she wouldn't look.

This is why you need a set of standards when you do experiments. Some Yokel of a doctor can create a flawed experiment and people carry it around on a pedestal and claim its science.

Okay, I give you that. They could have set it up a lot better. But there are so many studies out there which really annihilate any doubt about local consciousness. Just do a quick Google search.

Quantum mechanics put materialism to rest almost a hundred years ago. What is the material mechanism for entanglement? What is the materialistic mechanism for all the things I mentioned.

What mechanism prevents entanglement? You need to do a better job outlining your case because you just say "materialistic explanation". What does that even mean? What is materialism, a strict view that everything arose naturally? Please explain in detail what your argument actually is and how entanglement goes against a natural universe. The paper itself mentions nothing like that. This is yet another case of you drawing an unrealistic conclusion from a paper that has nothing to do with your premise.

I only wish to discuss science, except everytime I do the response is not scientific but a philosophical position. You would say theology has no place in science. Yet it is the materialists who keep dragging it into the picture.

Where have I used philosophy or theology as a logical argument? You are the one who is lumping 2 very separate concepts in science together as one, generalizing scientific theories, and drawing hasty conclusions from experiments that have nothing to do with it in the least and your best argument is an appeal to the unknown. Your argument is essentially, "You can't explain XYZ!!! Therefor my side is right!" Sorry, that's not how it works with logic. If we don't know, we don't know. Ignorance isn't evidence toward either side. Can YOU explain it?

Straw man, I am not saying all or nothing. Science does not deal in absolute proofs. Even the basic laws of geometry rely on things that are obviously true but can't be proven. We can only show they are reasonable and in fact absolutely necessary. As Kurt Godel clearly demonstrated with his incompleteness theory.

How is that a straw man? You just throw words and phrases around without context. It's getting bothersome. Please break down my straw man and show me how it is a false definition set up to be debunked. You lumped 2 scientific concepts together as one, and I showed you clearly that it was wrong. You are grasping at straws trying to recover from that point, but you can't, because facts speak otherwise. Again, you are appealing to the unknown saying there are no absolute proofs. How does this show evolution to be false or ID to be true? You are just attacking the foundation of science, but science is a reliable method of fact gathering, whether you like it or not. You're just grinding the wheels and going nowhere.

I read down further to see you claiming that computer software is the same as physical DNA when it is not. That is NOT objective evidence of intelligent design. You are assuming it was designed. And once again you use an appeal to complexity with a quote mine about machines in cells. No, biology IS NOT becoming information science because of a few quotes about how cell function is SIMILAR to software. You keep on drawing those conclusions from articles that have nothing to do with it. Just because software can be created to replicate genetics and represent it, doesn't mean it was designed. While they may use IS alongside genetics, it doesn't turn biology or genetics into an information science. I can't believe you'd even suggest that. Computer software can mimic reality, but that doesn't mean that concepts in software suddenly apply to the physical world. You cannot prove your case without multiple appeals and fallacies. 'Appears to be like a digital code' does not equal 'IS a digital code'. I don't think I can break it down any clearer than that.

How on earth can particles be entangled without co-existing in time? How can bucky balls be subject to quantum effects? What material force can account for entanglement and quantum teleportation. These things are real not theoretical

I don't know. Please explain what it has to do with a creator or creation process. Thanks. Appealing to the unknown is NOT an argument and you just keep on doing it. "You can't explain it, so I am right!" Nope. Logic does not work that way. The explaining needs to be done by you.

reply to post by HarryTZ


I have Harry, All I find is very poor examples which are obviously flawed such as the ones you provided.

Why don't you read articles from people like Sam Harris who are actual neuroscientists who spent years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to understand this topic?

I would love for there to be an afterlife.... should I live long enough I intend to create one.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Dear MichaelPMaccabee,

Prime example of moving the goal posts.

- God created the Universe.
- There might be more than one Universe.
- WHAT CREATED ALL OF THE UNIVERSES????
- Wait for it...
- Must be God.
- Right on cue.

Since you called it a "prime example," it attracted my attention. I may be missing something, but it doesn't seem like even a good example. Allow me to translate.

Priest: God created everything we can see or detect.
Physicist: Science has shown there are other stars.
Priest: God created everything we can see or detect.
Physicist: Science has shown there are other planents, some of which might contain life.
Priest: God created everything we can see or detect.
Physicist: Science has shown there is a universe with bazillions of stars and planets.
Priest: God created everything we can see or detect.
Physicist: Science now thinks there might be a bazillion universes, which we can't observe, but may exist.
Priest: God created everything we can see or detect.

I'm not entirely sure it's the religious who are moving the goal posts.

With respect,
Charles1952

Actually, you are just reiterating the latest religious philosophy.

Priests have been changing the how of God's creation since the concept of God was created.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


Yes, however the mystical view -- the true view -- has remained completely unchanged for thousands of years. All religions are just misconceptions of mysticism.

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Yes, however the mystical view -- the true view -- has remained completely unchanged for thousands of years. All religions are just misconceptions of mysticism.

Mysticism comes out of religion, not the other way around.

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by Barcs
Here we go again with the appeals to ignorance. We don't know what caused the universe, yet. Any assumptions past that are guesses and nothing more. We know that everything was very close together originally and then it spread out. Fine tune argument is old as dirt and the goalposts have been constantly moved with it as we learn more and more about how things work. We are tuned to the universal forces, they are not tuned to us. 99.999% of the universe is instantly lethal to life. If the forces were different, there might be a different type of life that arises. Stop appealing to the unknown as evidence. The forces are what they are. Maybe one day we'll understand exactly what causes each one. For now, why is it so difficult for people to say "I don't know"?

How is this not an appeal to the unknown? I count six, plus denial and some unsubstantiated claims as well. I am not appealing to the unknown, I am inferring from what is known.
You came in late, see my posts on page 15. And to get back on subject.

I'm leaving my quote up top because you are full of it. The ONE statement I made that was even close was "If the forces were different, there might be a different type of life that arises", which was an IF / MIGHT statement. It is not a definitive statement of anything, nor did I claim it was proof of anything. You need to look up your fallacies. Appealing to the unknown is an appeal to ignorance where you claim that you are right because I can't prove you wrong. Referencing things we do not know, does not disprove or prove anything in regards to ID. Not a single one of those quotes you posted has anything to do with an intelligent first cause. You shouldn't use so many red herrings and quote mines in your arguments. Quality over quantity.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Yes, however the mystical view -- the true view -- has remained completely unchanged for thousands of years. All religions are just misconceptions of mysticism.

Mysticism comes out of religion, not the other way around.

I am afraid you simply do not know what you're talking about. Mysticism -- unbridled spirituality -- has been around far longer than any organized religion.

Originally posted by HarryTZ

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Yes, however the mystical view -- the true view -- has remained completely unchanged for thousands of years. All religions are just misconceptions of mysticism.

Mysticism comes out of religion, not the other way around.

I am afraid you simply do not know what you're talking about. Mysticism -- unbridled spirituality -- has been around far longer than any organized religion.

Whatever, I don't care to argue the point.

So magic has been around longer than religion. What exactly is your point?

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


...who said anything about magic...

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


It obviously an appeal to popularity, another logical fallacy.

Mysticism exists, therefore god.