Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
One and Zero are binary representation
One is presence
Zero is absence
ionised hydrogen atoms and proton maybe?Where is your evidence that any two atoms are alike.
It's early days ...Hey, at least he didn't use quantum in his definition.
So "individual" is irrelevant to the definition of "consciousness", you say. Okay.If you go to the forest and cut a tree all the way through the trunk, the individual is the one whose top fell down.
But no matter how many you cut down it won't provide a better view of the forest.
It's infinitely malleable for the same reason that we never experience it ─ it's entirely imaginary.The homo omnisciencis consciousness is infinitely malleable because we don't even experience it at all.
And we believe according to the structure of our brain, our upbringing, education, experiences and so on. What has that got to do with consciousness?We experience thought which doesn't result from logic but rather from what we believe.
That's unclear. Assuming it's relevant to your definition of 'consciousness', what's an example?We build models of what we believe.
But in what sense is will 'free', according to you? I've already pointed out that our decisions are the result of our brain's evolved decision-making processes.One of the defining characteristics of consciousness is free will. It is simply irrelevant that experiment shows we act before we are aware of making a decision.
You didn't answer my question. Are you saying that amoebas, trees, &c are 'conscious'?Consciousness is bestowed by nature to every single individual allowing survival.
Are you merely saying that we are aware of our emotions? Sometimes we are, sometimes we aren't. But that doesn't affect our consciousness.Sadness, Loneliness, Happiness, Joy, etc etc etc.
Nature wants us to be happy and to learn to get along with others. It's good for the spirit and for procreation.
Not mine.Existence and nonexistence are the only qualities recognized by consciousness.
So they are two and they exist.This is just another of the many defining characteristics I've listed for consciousness.
So species can detect light and darkness right?The words zero and one are symbols to homo omnisciencis because all words are symbolic and abstract to our species.
Then you don't even believe that you and me are having a conversation.They all must be defined. But to consciousness they are definitional, axiomatic, and representative. But they are still just words and consciousness doesn't really use words to think.
Who or what is this 'Their'.Their thought (which they don't experience) follows the rules of grammar and uses representations we call "words". Their language and their consciousness are models of reality and words as used for communication or models are representative.
Ok , this is good.Consciousness exists in four dimensions where thought is in a single dimension.
How do you know what kind of knowledge have sparrows and what they think?This allows lowly sparrows with highly limited knowledge to effectively employ consciousness for the purposes of survival and procreation.
It makes for everyone.There is no such thing as survival of the fittest because nature doesn't make food for the fit or meat for cannon fodder.
So now we are back with humans and societies.This would be wasteful of resources like planned obsolescence. It takes a sick mind to offer garbage for sale in a world of want spinning down the tubes because of waste and greed. It takes a sick society to tolerate it.
I say we test this.Nature doesn't do this because economy rhymes with ecology.A minimum of resources create a maximum of life.
Not actually.Those least able to cope with their natures tend to be those first to die.
.....Consciousness, not fitness.
I don't need your help , thank you.I might be able to state this more simply but it's not worth the trouble to rephrase.
You have not made a coherent point with sound basis in science. Genesis is ancient mythical tribal text without provenance,Again you miss the point. Genesis is data. Everything that exists is a "1" and everything that doesn't is a "0". The story of the "tower of babel is more real than "species".
Human civilization evolved From Paleolithic to Neolithic to the Bronze Age., and written languages and trade evolved with agriculture. It is a simple fact that writing began about 3000 BCE as civilization evolved, No further explanation necessary.There's plenty of evidence. How do you explain that we know nothing before 2000 BC? How do you explAin that writing was invented in 3200 BC and history didn't start for 1200 years? The language mustta changed or people would remember it.
Your view reflects an intentional ignorance of science, and the above does not make sense,They would remember that once homo sapiens were an unstoppable force of nature but now we are just stumbled footed bumpkins speaking the babel. It's just this simple. All the evidence says there was a speciation event and now we are homo omnisciencis, hear us brag.
And we believe according to the structure of our brain, our upbringing, education, experiences and so on. What has that got to do with consciousness?
That's unclear. Assuming it's relevant to your definition of 'consciousness', what's an example?
You don’t understand the context of the conversation, all that I am saying is that based on how taxonomy currently works , there is nothing that prevents a non-fish evolving in to a fish……………….this is because “fish” is not a clade, but rather a generic term used to describe organism that we *subjectively* decided that are fish.No, you have repeated the “what-if” claims that it should…that evolution that any marine mammals (eg whales) should evolve into fish, eg selective pressures should make them grow gills.
i flat out told that evolution doesn’t go backwards, I repeatedly gave you some real-world of aquatic (and semi-aquatic) mammals, aquatic reptiles, and even aquatic birds, have never reverted to being fishes, none of them grew gills, nor fins.
I even told you flat out - with some examples - that all fishes lay their eggs in water, but semi-aquatic reptiles (eg crocodiles, turtles) and birds (eg penguins) all lay their eggs on dry land, while all fully aquatic mammals (porpoises, dolphins & whales) and semi-aquatic mammals (eg seals, otters, hippopotamuses, etc), all grow their embryos & foetuses in wombs prior to live birth.
You have claimed that you refuted @TagliatelliMonster , but you haven’t. All you have done, repeatedly the same fabricated scenarios, that haven’t happened.
No mammals have become fishes, none mammals have become fishes by being born with gills. Your supposed refutation is based on claims that are no more than some repeated unsubstantiated assumptions.
Assumptions are not evidence, so you haven’t refuted anyone.
the same is true with some fish.all (mammals) grow their embryos & foetuses in wombs prior to live birth.
starwmanflat out told that evolution doesn’t go backwards
But in what sense is will 'free', according to you? I've already pointed out that our decisions are the result of our brain's evolved decision-making processes.
And an answer was given “worms”That wasn't your claim, you said that there were examples of organisms moving from one category to another. That you have failed to produce.
You didn't answer my question. Are you saying that amoebas, trees, &c are 'conscious'?
Posting random videos is a lazy debate tactic………….I am not interestedI'm not the one speaking in the video.
Then you don't even believe that you and me are having a conversation.
Ok , this is good.
This actually makes sense.
But what for?
And this is not any experiment.
How do you know what kind of knowledge have sparrows and what they think?
The evolution of life on earth spans over 3.48 billion years.
I already told you.
Your post was ambiguous and I, along with several others, understood it quite differently from the rather state-the-obvious point you were apparently/supposedly making. Since I wasn't the only one confused by it, I'm rather confident in that the problem might have been with how you worded it.
Originally the word dinosaur was a flexible word used to describe all those ancient reptiles that appear in movie Jurassic Park, which included T-Rex, triceratops, pterodactyls, Pleasioraurus etc. ……….. but them (within the year 2,000 I think) someone decided to change the definition of dinosaurs (ruin our childhood) in to something that includes modern birds like chickens and excludes cool animals like pterodactyls………… but this are just words and definitions, this is just the way we happen to classify animals ……..
We have vast amounts archeological. paleontological evidence for a history of homo sapiens over 300,000 year,