Question for Atheists...

[anna.]

I don't.
I may use it according to the (perceived) use in a conversation but it often comes to the conclusion that there is no common or even consistent use.

The only case with some consistency is in medicine but they talk about "being conscious" (awake and reacting to stimuli), not consciousness.
Psychology has its own usage of conscious and unconscious thought.
Philosophers are all over the place.
A good test if someone knows what they are talking about is to ask which animals have consciousness and why they think so.

I'll stick with psychology for this. Have you heard of the "hard problem of consciousness?"

 

[Bird123]

That is flawed self-cented thinking. You are appealing to consequences unwanted by us as evidence that there was a intent to the sun being there. If the sun were to disappear in a poof of physics, then we would freeze to death. We would hate it, but our feels are not evidence that someone elses feels were responsible for the sun being there in the first place.


It functions adequately to your goal of being being alive. Again. Your feels are not evidence. Function is neither design, nor purpose.

None. And I am amused that you are calling the Sun, "complex".


The sun is hydrogen, heat and gravity. It's about the most unsophisticated thing you could have chosen,

Voyager's Golden Records
Digital radio signals

It doesn't matter how you feel. The sun's purpose will be realized if it were gone.

Is hydrogen really the only element in the sun?

Anything with mass has gravity. On the other hand, the amount of gravity from the sun has purpose as well.

Heat? Yes, heat and light serve great purpose in many ways.

Complex? There is more to really understanding the sun than your simple view. Maybe, after great study, mankind will copy the Intelligence of the sun in order to harness clean energy instead of the fossil fuels used today.

Yes, radio signals last a while. On the other hand, how long before the signal weakens and it is unreadable? Further, if one does not possess the digital code, the translation factor indeed will create a problem. Digital radio signals are poor communication. On the other hand, it is better than nothing.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[ppp]

It doesn't matter how you feel. The sun's purpose will be realized if it were gone.

I am not depending on my feelings. But thanks for your ersazt concern. The sun's function would be realized if it were gone. Only function is required. Purpose is not.

Is hydrogen really the only element in the sun?

A star only needs is hydrogen and gravity to begin. The sun is young enough to have had some aditional elements at its inception, but those are hardly necessary. The most you might argue is that the additional trace elements might have affected its formation in minor ways. But that wuld be true of any of the other 100 billion Population I G class stars in the Milky way.

Complex? There is more to really understanding the sun than your simple view.

Thank you for the stock super-villain riff.

Yes, radio signals last a while. On the other hand, how long before the signal weakens and it is unreadable? Further, if one does not possess the digital code, the translation factor indeed will create a problem. Digital radio signals are poor communication. On the other hand, it is better than nothing.

Why do you respond when you havent a clue? At least do some research.

 

[Heyo]

I'll stick with psychology for this. Have you heard of the "hard problem of consciousness?"

Yes, and I usually answer with "the hard problem of consciousness is that nobody knows what that even is".
And qualia is not a problem for me as it is totally subjective, a toy of sophistication for philosophers.
I'd prefer that scientists of all relevant disciplines (neurology, psychology, linguistics, CS, anthropology) get together and find a common definition and don't invite the philosophers.

(I don't hate philosophers or philosophy but in this special case they have only been in the way of a solution.)

 

[Bird123]

Sorry, but it was you that said the purpose of the sun was to provide energy for life on Earth. Are you pulling away from that claim?

If *that* is the purpose, then the sun is making about 6 billion times as much energy as it requires for its purpose. And I would call that incredibly wasteful and thereby bad design.

or, are you suggesting the sun has a different purpose?

Only if you can demonstrate that it was designed at all. Otherwise, it is simply doing as it does.

And what is the *objective* evidence for a purpose to the sun?

Well, the easiest person to fool is yourself. It might behoove you to ask if you have really discovered anything as opposed to convincing your self of something. There is a HUGE difference.


I'm sure it is clear to you, but how much testing of your hypotheses have you actually done? How much of the actual work of discovery have you done?

OK, I understand now why they are thinking the sun is not efficient. You cleared it up. Thanks.

The question should be asked: Is there reason now or in the future for the sun's design? First, how much mass is being consumed every year through the fusion process? In order to have energy for billions of years, size is important. Temperatures must be at a certain level in order to continue the fusion process. Extra size and heat are necessary design to insure longevity.

Mankind has the technology now to get all our energy needs from the sun. God has placed the clean energy clearly in view just like birds flying. The choice is ours.

Say you wanted to visit Saturn. When you get to Saturn, it sure is nice having light to see Saturn. How much extra energy is needed to supply ample lighting for exploration?

The sun supplies a gravity well for all the planets in order they do not wander off. A wandering Earth would not be a good design.

Mars is close and one day will be Tera-formed. It will need energy too. Large, Massive Jupiter protects the Earth through it's high gravity attracting things away from Earth. Design?

How much are you missing?

Ebb and Flow of knowledge. If you were to build a world of life and a solar system of planets all with purpose, what would it include? It's all here. Look for purpose. It stares us all in the face.

So often, people want answers, yet the knowledge and wisdom is in the journey to Discover those answers.

Fool myself? It starts by studying all around and putting the puzzle together. If God exists, God can be found. God can be found! Do not discount an interaction with God. Sure, people can imagine things, however no one has the capability to duplicate an interaction with God. Hang onto your hat and prepare to peddle as fast as you can. Intelligence does exist far beyond that of mankind. Look at all around you. Intelligence exists all around at multiple levels and multiple views.

Free choice is an important part of God's system. One can choose to be blind. This will never be me for this hungry student thirsts for more and more knowledge. My journey continues.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Bird123]

I didn’t call you a religion, so you misinterpreted something I said.


I seek truth. And there are no gods to be found. Sorry. Whatever you think you found is not via fact and sound thinking. Most likely you adopted religious behavior from those around you.



You haven’t posted anything that suggests you have discovered some profound truth. I’d say what you write is quite superficial and pointless.


Because you clearly have no sound advice and I’m not broken. You assume I am broken because I don’t agree with your religious beliefs. You seem to suffer from excessive ego and judgment of others. You are similar to a number of other theists on this board.

No gods are known to exist and you offer no evidence or explanation that any do. You make you many fatal assumptions. So your statements and questions are irrelevant.

Did I really say you were broken? Read it again!!!

Why do you see what I say as superficial and pointless? It's because you are not seeking God nor knowledge of God. Why not? Like religion, you think you already have the answers. Don't you realize that there is always more to Discover even about God? On the other hand, your belief that God does not exist prevents you from even looking beyond that belief. You are choosing that limit for yourself. Why? Of course, I have found few people who actually want to find God at all. That's OK. That's free choice.

If you search for God, how will you know it's God? You already know God whether you know you know now or not. I point for people to study God's actions to develop a certain level of understanding. Without a certain level of understanding, most would simply be confused with a true interaction with God. God will never intimidate anyone's choices. Combine that with a person's limited understanding, leading to confusion and what purpose would be in a visit? Not much.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Bird123]

You started out saying the sun was to provide energy for the earth/life. It's already been pointed out why it's a bad design for that because most of its energy output doesn't go towards fulfilling its purpose. Now you're switched to some vague idea of "total purpose".

Basically, you're doing exactly what I described as the opposite of a search for the truth. You've started with the conclusion and now you're desperately trying to make the facts fit. Somebody who genuinely wants the truth, starts with the facts (evidence) and draws a conclusion from them.


It's not clearly designed at all. We understand the natural processes that formed it and we know that it's a pretty common type of star. You have provided no evidence or reasoning at all to even suggest that it might have been designed.


I see no evidence that you are discovering anything (or 'Discovering', for that matter).


Yet it looks for all the world like you're just blindly accepting the conclusions handed to you by others.

Interesting? If I am blindly accepting conclusions handed to me by others, who are these others???
If you say religion, have I not said that I have found no religion that really understands God at all?

It is not I who is desperate.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Bird123]

I am not depending on my feelings. But thanks for your ersazt concern. The sun's function would be realized if it were gone. Only function is required. Purpose is not.

A star only needs is hydrogen and gravity to begin. The sun is young enough to have had some aditional elements at its inception, but those are hardly necessary. The most you might argue is that the additional trace elements might have affected its formation in minor ways. But that wuld be true of any of the other 100 billion Population I G class stars in the Milky way.


Thank you for the stock super-villain riff.


Why do you respond when you havent a clue? At least do some research.

Stock super villain riff?????

There is so much you do not understand.

You have all my Love and Kindness!!

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[ppp]

You have all my Love and Kindness!!

Cool! Bring me fresh baked oatmeal raisin walnut cookies. And ginger-tumeric kombucha.

 

[anna.]

Yes, and I usually answer with "the hard problem of consciousness is that nobody knows what that even is".

Since scientists don't know the answer to the hard problem, it seems reasonable that the average non-scientist doesn't know it either and this includes not having the tools to prove that the hard problem doesn't exist.

Yet it remains the hard problem around which my texts danced, saying something to the effect that 'we know more about the soft problem so let's talk about that and set the hard problem aside for another day.' I could pull them out and give you some quotes verbatim if you like.

 

[Heyo]

Since scientists don't know the answer to the hard problem, it seems reasonable that the average non-scientist doesn't know it either and this includes not having the tools to prove that the hard problem doesn't exist.

Yet it remains the hard problem around which my texts danced, saying something to the effect that 'we know more about the soft problem so let's talk about that and set the hard problem aside for another day.' I could pull them out and give you some quotes verbatim if you like.

Do you have a proposition for a scientific definition of consciousness? One that can answer whether an animal (or AI) has consciousness or not?

 

[anna.]

Do you have a proposition for a scientific definition of consciousness? One that can answer whether an animal (or AI) has consciousness or not?

Why do you think I would? Neuroscientists have differing opinions on humans, let alone whether an animal has a level of consciousness vs instincual situational assessment/awareness (which would bring in different parts of the brain involved in automatic response). Why would I know more than neuroscience knows to this point? Moreover, they know they don't know.

 

[Audie]

Since scientists don't know the answer to the hard problem, it seems reasonable that the average non-scientist doesn't know it either and this includes not having the tools to prove that the hard problem doesn't exist.

Yet it remains the hard problem around which my texts danced, saying something to the effect that 'we know more about the soft problem so let's talk about that and set the hard problem aside for another day.' I could pull them out and give you some quotes verbatim if you like.

I'd love to see what your text(s) said.
Esp the dance part.

Especially if there is something about proving
something doesn't exist.

 

[Heyo]

Why do you think I would? Neuroscientists have differing opinions on humans, let alone whether an animal has a level of consciousness vs instincual situational assessment/awareness (which would bring in different parts of the brain involved in automatic response). Why would I know more than neuroscience knows to this point? Moreover, they know they don't know.

Hofstadter/Dennett have written a book "The minds I" which contemplates ideas around the question but even they don't propose an answer. But they raise some good questions.

 

[anna.]

Hofstadter/Dennett have written a book "The minds I" which contemplates ideas around the question but even they don't propose an answer. But they raise some good questions.

Again, though, why do you expect an answer from me when you know even neuroscience can't answer? How do we move this conversation forward?

 

[anna.]

I'd love to see what your text(s) said.
Esp the dance part.

Especially if there is something about proving
something doesn't exist.

Okay, will be back later today with citations.

 

[Audie]

Okay, will be back later today with citations.

Cool

 

[Polymath257]

OK, I understand now why they are thinking the sun is not efficient. You cleared it up. Thanks.

The question should be asked: Is there reason now or in the future for the sun's design? First, how much mass is being consumed every year through the fusion process? In order to have energy for billions of years, size is important. Temperatures must be at a certain level in order to continue the fusion process. Extra size and heat are necessary design to insure longevity.

Sure, if you want to supply energy using a star as a fusion reactor and if the laws of physics are as they currently are, and if you want to supply energy for billions of years to have a planet where liquid water can exist, then you should have a star of types type F, G, K.

But, considering that there is billions of such stars in our galaxy alone, is it not reasonable to say that if there is a purpose, they should ALL share the same purpose (they have the same structures and properties)? So any purpose the sun has should *at least* be shared with all other type G2 stars, right?

Now, given that many, if not most of those stars have no planets at all, the purpose cannot be to supply energy to planets, and so cannot be to support life. That says that any support for life is a side-effect even *if* there is a purpose.

Mankind has the technology now to get all our energy needs from the sun. God has placed the clean energy clearly in view just like birds flying. The choice is ours.

Well, your statement that we can currently supply all of our energy needs through solar power is simply false for a number of reasons.

Say you wanted to visit Saturn. When you get to Saturn, it sure is nice having light to see Saturn. How much extra energy is needed to supply ample lighting for exploration?

The total energy absorbed by all the planets and moons in our solar system is still a minuscule fraction of the total output of the sun. Well over 99.9999% of the energy from the sun just goes off into space, never to do anything else.

The sun supplies a gravity well for all the planets in order they do not wander off. A wandering Earth would not be a good design.

That depends on the goal, doesn't it? Why do you assume that life is a goal? And, as I pointed out before, any star similar to our sun would have the same gravity well and same energy output. Given all the shared properties, it looks like such stars, if they have a purpose, were mass produced and so have the same purpose. Since most do not have planets at all, that purpose cannot be simply to provide a gravity well for planets.

Mars is close and one day will be Tera-formed. It will need energy too. Large, Massive Jupiter protects the Earth through it's high gravity attracting things away from Earth. Design?

Why would you assume design? As opposed simply function?

How much are you missing?

Ebb and Flow of knowledge. If you were to build a world of life and a solar system of planets all with purpose, what would it include? It's all here. Look for purpose. It stares us all in the face.

Only if you assume purpose to begin with. Now ask (first* whether there is a purpose at all and how you cold tell.

So often, people want answers, yet the knowledge and wisdom is in the journey to Discover those answers.

Fool myself? It starts by studying all around and putting the puzzle together. If God exists, God can be found. God can be found!

Note that key word: **if**.

Do not discount an interaction with God. Sure, people can imagine things, however no one has the capability to duplicate an interaction with God.

How do you know that? How do you know such 'interaction' could not be duplicated artificially?

Hang onto your hat and prepare to peddle as fast as you can. Intelligence does exist far beyond that of mankind.

Proof?

Look at all around you. Intelligence exists all around at multiple levels and multiple views.

Proof? Objective evidence?

Free choice is an important part of God's system. One can choose to be blind. This will never be me for this hungry student thirsts for more and more knowledge. My journey continues.

So don't assume your conclusion before you start.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Polymath257]

I'll stick with psychology for this. Have you heard of the "hard problem of consciousness?"

I've never quite grasped what is supposed to be 'hard' about it (in the philosophical sense). Sure, it is *difficult* technically, but 'hard' in the sense of Chalmers? I don't see it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I've never quite grasped what is supposed to be 'hard' about it (in the philosophical sense). Sure, it is *difficult* technically, but 'hard' in the sense of Chalmers? I don't see it.

Forget physical for a moment and go for words as signs, with meaning and a referent. The problem is that some words don't have an objective referent and there is no objective knowledge possible for them, yet you can learn how they work and describe with knowledge how they work.
The problem in epistemology is that there are 2 versions of emprical and as a joke the following happens a lot, even for you.
The bold one is not something you can see as see. Rather the verb see as you use it means understand as not seeing but cogntiviely grasp.
That is the har problem in the end. Not all words or sentences have objective referents, yet we understand them and can use them.