Question on Intelligent Design

[Jose Fly]

Some us us acknowledge personal faith in our beliefs, we do not claim undeniable fact with such inherently speculative things,

Dawkins: Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact

and hence we do not consider ourselves intellectual superior to those with beliefs different than our own

It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane or wicked...

We are all taking our best guess, we are all interested in the truth, I assume everyone here is capable of critical thought, at the very least it makes for a more interesting substantive discussion!

Evolution is a fact because we see it happen, all the time, right before our eyes. It's so trivially easy to see a population evolve, BIO 101 students all over the world conduct simple experiments where they get to see it. We're both actively fighting the evolutionary process (antibacterial resistance) and exploiting it (domestication).

Dawkins is correct.....anyone who says that evolution doesn't happen must have something fundamentally wrong with them. They may as well say that erosion never happens.

 

[Polymath257]

Let me rephrase...

Let us omit looking at them.

Where does your consciousness end, and the actual Sun and moon (not memories of them) begin?

To put it another way: Where does your consciousness end and the outside world of 'things' begin?

Remember, 'my consciousness' is predicated on the notion of a self, or 'I' that is in possession of such a consciousness, a problem in itself, since self, or 'I' is that very consciousness. Remember our baby, who has no sense of self until around 13 months? Until then, his, or hers, is just consciousness, without any 'my' consciousness attached.

My consciousness is in my head. I have memories and images of the sun and moon, but the actual sun and moon are not inside my head, so they are not *in* my consciousness.

Technically, I don't even see the actual sun and moon. Instead, I see the light from them. This is easily seen by looking at the moon in a mirror. Clearly, I am not looking at the moon because I am not looking even in the correct direction. But I *am* looking at the light that originated from the moon and was reflected from the mirror.

The actual moon is about 238,000 miles away and the sun is about 93 million miles away.

A baby before developing a sense of self has a neural network that responds to stimulti and has been formed with genetic directions to be prone to associate those stimuli. The baby brain is also genetically coed to respond more to 'faces' with two eyes, a nose and a mouth in about the correct positions. The consciousness in this case is still in the body, but before the sense of self, that brain doesn't recognize it as it's own body.

 

[godnotgod]

My consciousness is in my head. I have memories and images of the sun and moon, but the actual sun and moon are not inside my head, so they are not *in* my consciousness.

And yet, you claim 'your consciousness' is in your head. Tell me how it is that your physical head contains non-physical consciousness, and where does this non-physical consciousness end and the outside world begin?

A baby before developing a sense of self has a neural network that responds to stimulti and has been formed with genetic directions to be prone to associate those stimuli. The baby brain is also genetically coed to respond more to 'faces' with two eyes, a nose and a mouth in about the correct positions. The consciousness in this case is still in the body, but before the sense of self, that brain doesn't recognize it as it's own body.

The point I am making is that there is indeed a period in which there is no sense of self, but there is of consciousness. IOW, consciousness is the default state, upon which a self is constructed by both society and consciousness.

 

[Polymath257]

And yet, you claim 'your consciousness' is in your head. Tell me how it is that your physical head contains non-physical consciousness, and where does this non-physical consciousness end and the outside world begin?

Consciousness is a physical process that happens in the brain.

The point I am making is that there is indeed a period in which there is no sense of self, but there is of consciousness. IOW, consciousness is the default state, upon which a self is constructed by both society and consciousness.

Consciousness is a default for networks of sufficient complexity and structure.

 

[shawn001]

Some us us acknowledge personal faith in our beliefs, we do not claim undeniable fact with such inherently speculative things,

Dawkins: Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact

and hence we do not consider ourselves intellectual superior to those with beliefs different than our own

It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane or wicked...

We are all taking our best guess, we are all interested in the truth, I assume everyone here is capable of critical thought, at the very least it makes for a more interesting substantive discussion!

Nothing speculative about it, its ay beyond a hypothesis. I don't now if those are exact quotes from Dawkins and he shouldn't name call that is wrong. But in regards to evolution, it was basically a done deal in the late 1800's by Darwin and many others. It's now 2017 and some people still disregard the massive amount of evidence. It's not because of the science, so what is the holdup?


Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?
It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously...


"However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.

Evolution Resources from the National Academies


DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right
Molecular biologist Sean Carroll shows how evolution happens, one snippet of DNA at a time

"One of the great triumphs of modern evolutionary science, evo devo addresses many of the key questions that were unanswerable when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, and Carroll has become a leader in this nascent field. Now a professor of molecular biology and genetics at the University of Wisconsin, he continues to decode the genes that control life’s physical forms and to explore how mutations in those genes drive evolutionary change. "

"It has been 150 years since Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution in On the Origin of Species, yet in some ways the concept of evolution seems more controversial than ever today. Why do you think that is?
It is a cultural issue, not a scientific one. On the science side our confidence grows yearly because we see independent lines of evidence converge. What we’ve learned from the fossil record is confirmed by the DNA record and confirmed again by embryology. But people have been raised to disbelieve evolution and to hold other ideas more precious than this knowledge. At the same time, we routinely rely on DNA to convict and exonerate criminals. We rely on DNA science for things like paternity. We rely on DNA science in the clinic to weigh our disease risks or maybe even to look at prognoses for things like cancer. DNA science surrounds us, but in this one realm we seem unwilling to accept its facts. Juries are willing to put people to death based upon the variations in DNA, but they’re not willing to understand the mechanism that creates that variation and shapes what makes humans different from other things. It’s a blindness. I think this is a phase that we’ll eventually get through. Other countries have come to peace with DNA. I don’t know how many decades or centuries it’s going to take us."

DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right | DiscoverMagazine.com

 

[shawn001]

When you are asleep, or inside a dwelling, you do not see the Sun or moon, but you are conscious. Where does your consciousness leave off, and the Sun and moon begin?

Are you having difficulty understanding the question?

How many times do I have to answer this silly question of yours?

I have already answered it numerous times, you just don't get it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Nothing speculative about it, its ay beyond a hypothesis. I don't now if those are exact quotes from Dawkins and he shouldn't name call that is wrong. But in regards to evolution, it was basically a done deal in the late 1800's by Darwin and many others. It's now 2017 and some people still disregard the massive amount of evidence. It's not because of the science, so what is the holdup?

Thanks for the responses-- not sure I have time to cover everything right now but..

Yes evolution was a done deal in academia in the late 1800's, so was classical physics and phrenology- canals on Mars were being 'confirmed' by many scientists also..

science has come a long way since then!

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?
It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously...


"However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.

Evolution Resources from the National Academies

As above, classical physics was considered such a well established, factual basis for all physical reality, that it's laws were declared literally 'immutable' And this was a theory far more directly observable, testable, repeatable, i.e. scientific than evolution. The bones of Piltdown man were declared to belong together 'without question'. While the primeval atom was mocked and rejected as 'religious pseudo-science' 'inherently unscientific' and 'big bang'


So I am less interested in whether a theory is currently labelled 'fact' or even 'scientific' by academia, I am much more interested in whether or not it's actually true
[science] such wholesale returns of conjecture, out of such a trifling investment of fact' (Mark Twain)



apples still fall from trees, but this superficial observation cannot be extrapolated out to account for all physical reality as once believed..

Similarly genetic apples fall not far from their genetic trees, and I understand the temptation of the same extrapolation- especially 150 years ago when evolution was a perfectly logical extension of the Victorian age model of physics and reality in general

Like classical physics, evolution is an entirely intuitive, comprehensive, elegant theory for explaining observed reality, and this is also the downfall of both. The simplest explanation is the most tempting, but reality shows no regard for Occam's razor!

There is no experiment that shows that the design of a single cell can morph into a human being through millions of lucky mistakes. That is entirely and inherently speculative, no matter how tempting an extrapolation. And the more we learn about DNA and information systems, the more problematic this is looking

This converges with both the fossil record and direct experimentation on fruit flies, bacteria, dogs etc, which shows evidence of a limited and essential capacity for variation, adaptation, not macro evolution, which has remained in the realm of artistic impression since it's conception.

DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right
Molecular biologist Sean Carroll shows how evolution happens, one snippet of DNA at a time

"One of the great triumphs of modern evolutionary science, evo devo addresses many of the key questions that were unanswerable when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, and Carroll has become a leader in this nascent field. Now a professor of molecular biology and genetics at the University of Wisconsin, he continues to decode the genes that control life’s physical forms and to explore how mutations in those genes drive evolutionary change. "

"It has been 150 years since Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution in On the Origin of Species, yet in some ways the concept of evolution seems more controversial than ever today. Why do you think that is?
It is a cultural issue, not a scientific one. On the science side our confidence grows yearly because we see independent lines of evidence converge. What we’ve learned from the fossil record is confirmed by the DNA record and confirmed again by embryology. But people have been raised to disbelieve evolution and to hold other ideas more precious than this knowledge. At the same time, we routinely rely on DNA to convict and exonerate criminals. We rely on DNA science for things like paternity. We rely on DNA science in the clinic to weigh our disease risks or maybe even to look at prognoses for things like cancer. DNA science surrounds us, but in this one realm we seem unwilling to accept its facts. Juries are willing to put people to death based upon the variations in DNA, but they’re not willing to understand the mechanism that creates that variation and shapes what makes humans different from other things. It’s a blindness. I think this is a phase that we’ll eventually get through. Other countries have come to peace with DNA. I don’t know how many decades or centuries it’s going to take us."

DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right | DiscoverMagazine.com

 

[Polymath257]

Thanks for the responses-- not sure I have time to cover everything right now but..

Yes evolution was a done deal in academia in the late 1800's, so was classical physics and phrenology- canals on Mars were being 'confirmed' by many scientists also..

science has come a long way since then!

Mars is an incredibly difficult object to observe from ground-based telescopes. This is especially true for those scopes available in the 1800's. So, the 'canals' were always tentative and based on the eyesight of a few observers.

Phrenology is a more interesting case, I agree. I suggest reading Gould's book 'The Mismeasure of Man' for this one.

I will deal with classical physics after the next paragraph..

As above, classical physics was considered such a well established, factual basis for all physical reality, that it's laws were declared literally 'immutable' And this was a theory far more directly observable, testable, repeatable, i.e. scientific than evolution.

And what replaced classical physics didn't overturn its conclusions *in those areas it was already verified*. In fact, while classical physics is 'false', it is still used as an incredibly good approximation, to the extent that it is used for essentially every spaceflight.

What those theories that overturned classical physics did was to add a few decimal places in the already tested aspects and changed it in what, at that time, were extreme cases.

The bones of Piltdown man were declared to belong together 'without question'.

Not in the 1800's, it wasn't. And also those designations were by the fraudster.

While the primeval atom was mocked and rejected as 'religious pseudo-science' 'inherently unscientific' and 'big bang'

Again, not in the 1800's it wasn't. And even when it was first presented (early 1900's), many physicists accepted it as a reasonable hypothesis and worked with it. The evidence in favor of the Big Bang wasn't really conclusive until the 1960's when the cosmivc background radiation was discovered.

So I am less interested in whether a theory is currently labelled 'fact' or even 'scientific' by academia, I am much more interested in whether or not it's actually true
[science] such wholesale returns of conjecture, out of such a trifling investment of fact' (Mark Twain)

OK, even though classical physics was overturned, the conclusions that the planets orbit the sun was not. Buildings are still built using classical physics because it is a very good approximation.

And this is a good example of how science tends to work: it gets better and better approximations over time as we get better and better data.

So, even in the early 1800's, before Charles Darwin, it was clear that the older 'theory' that species were static and that the Earth was young was flawed. Darwin proposed a mechanism for how species change over time and that basic theory fits the data quite well. Later, in the 1950's and 1960's, the information about genetics and how DNA works allowed an *extension* to the basic theory, showing Darwin's ideas to be a good initial approximation, and filled in details (such as genetics) that Darwin did not know about. Even later, in the 1970's, it was pointed out that species change does not *have* to be at a regular tempo and that Punctuated Equilibrium is closer to the fossil evidence in many (but not all) cases. With the rise of computers, it became easier to model different assumptions concerning mutation rate and how environments affect survival and it was discovered that most systems with reproduction, mutation, and selection will automatically produce highly complex 'ecosystems' and such PuncEq phenomena as seen by Gould and others.

So, the analogy with classical physics is actually a good one: the older theory has been extended and modified somewhat to accommodate new information and data. But the basics (that planets orbit the sun, that species change over geological time) have been upheld. And, in both cases, the older thoeries (Aristotelian dynamics, and Biblical flood stories) have been discarded and are known to not even be good approximations.

This converges with both the fossil record and direct experimentation on fruit flies, bacteria, dogs etc, which shows evidence of a limited and essential capacity for variation, not macro evolution

And this is just false from both the fossil record and from a theoretical understanding derived from modeling systems with reproduction, mutation, and selection. While selection changes the average in a population, mutation re-establishes the variance around that new average, allowing for further change.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Mars is an incredibly difficult object to observe from ground-based telescopes. This is especially true for those scopes available in the 1800's. So, the 'canals' were always tentative and based on the eyesight of a few observers.

Phrenology is a more interesting case, I agree. I suggest reading Gould's book 'The Mismeasure of Man' for this one.

I will deal with classical physics after the next paragraph..



And what replaced classical physics didn't overturn its conclusions *in those areas it was already verified*. In fact, while classical physics is 'false', it is still used as an incredibly good approximation, to the extent that it is used for essentially every spaceflight.

What those theories that overturned classical physics did was to add a few decimal places in the already tested aspects and changed it in what, at that time, were extreme cases.

I did manage to take a photo of a Martian ice cap, but yes- it's a tiny disk compared with Jupiter, Saturn- I don't know how people could be so sure of what they saw, but this does demonstrate the power of peer pressure review!

I think we generally agree here, the direct, observable, practical, effect of classical physics still works, but they cannot be extrapolated to account for everything in physics- included themselves

i.e. scales matter, inherently so- because there are different supporting layers of information- in life/ DNA also. Which is why micro adaptation to macro evolution, does not logically follow any better than apples falling from trees follows to the formation of galaxies

Not in the 1800's, it wasn't. And also those designations were by the fraudster.

yes this was a little later, but it that designation was independent:

in 1921, Henry Fairfield Osborn, President of the American Museum of Natural History, examined the Piltdown and Sheffield Park finds and declared that the jaw and skull belonged together "without question"

Again, not in the 1800's it wasn't. And even when it was first presented (early 1900's), many physicists accepted it as a reasonable hypothesis and worked with it. The evidence in favor of the Big Bang wasn't really conclusive until the 1960's when the cosmivc background radiation was discovered.

well right, these mistakes are not limited to the 19th C. Scientists are still human beings, institutions still naturally tend to coalesce around their favorite conclusions

OK, even though classical physics was overturned, the conclusions that the planets orbit the sun was not. Buildings are still built using classical physics because it is a very good approximation.

And this is a good example of how science tends to work: it gets better and better approximations over time as we get better and better data.

Likewise, everything that is directly observable, testable, scientific about natural history remains, the fossils, the DNA evidence, just the erroneous extrapolations would be overturned, the idea that every change was blundered upon by simple laws and blind luck instead of specific instructions, just like physics

science tends to progress yes, scientists not always, Hoyle refuse to accept the BB to his dying day, Planck noted that academic science doesn't progress by changing scientists minds, you have to wait for them to die and new ones to grow up and accept the new science

So, even in the early 1800's, before Charles Darwin, it was clear that the older 'theory' that species were static and that the Earth was young was flawed. Darwin proposed a mechanism for how species change over time and that basic theory fits the data quite well. Later, in the 1950's and 1960's, the information about genetics and how DNA works allowed an *extension* to the basic theory, showing Darwin's ideas to be a good initial approximation, and filled in details (such as genetics) that Darwin did not know about. Even later, in the 1970's, it was pointed out that species change does not *have* to be at a regular tempo and that Punctuated Equilibrium is closer to the fossil evidence in many (but not all) cases. With the rise of computers, it became easier to model different assumptions concerning mutation rate and how environments affect survival and it was discovered that most systems with reproduction, mutation, and selection will automatically produce highly complex 'ecosystems' and such PuncEq phenomena as seen by Gould and others.

So, the analogy with classical physics is actually a good one: the older theory has been extended and modified somewhat to accommodate new information and data. But the basics (that planets orbit the sun, that species change over geological time) have been upheld. And, in both cases, the older thoeries (Aristotelian dynamics, and Biblical flood stories) have been discarded and are known to not even be good approximations.

The fundamental premise of classical physics, was that a handful of simple immutable laws + lots of time and space to randomly bump around in, could eventually produce all the wonders of the physical world.
Concepts of deeper, hidden, unpredictable guiding forces, specifying and pre-determining exactly how matter would organize itself- was fanciful/ religious pseudoscience..

Darwin's theory was a perfect extension of this Victorian model, and I think it fails for precisely the same reason as classical physics, it's just too simple to account for all observations, without those guiding instructions that physic needed.

in other words, I agree with Darwin's larger premise, that we should expect life to develop by the same general mechanism that physics did, only we know this to be something fundamentally different now..:

information driven, not chance driven

And this is just false from both the fossil record and from a theoretical understanding derived from modeling systems with reproduction, mutation, and selection. While selection changes the average in a population, mutation re-establishes the variance around that new average, allowing for further change.

Theoretical, yes, empirical no. Again, changing a single cell to a man, driven by random changes all the way, is not an experiment we can repeat and observe, it cannot be simulated in a computer, and we cannot find the fossil evidence of all the theoretical transitions.

Of course there are many reasons can be argued for why all this is impossible, but 'the dog ate my homework' does not a passing grade make!

must run for now but I appreciate the civil discourse!

 

[Polymath257]

I did manage to take a photo of a Martian ice cap, but yes- it's a tiny disk compared with Jupiter, Saturn- I don't know how people could be so sure of what they saw, but this does demonstrate the power of peer pressure review!

The current form of peer review is rather different than what existed in 1900.

I think we generally agree here, the direct, observable, practical, effect of classical physics still works, but they cannot be extrapolated to account for everything in physics- included themselves

Yes, it is usually good to be skeptical of those who claim a theory of everything.

i.e. scales matter, inherently so- because there are different supporting layers of information- in life/ DNA also. Which is why micro adaptation to macro evolution, does not logically follow any better than apples falling from trees follows to the formation of galaxies

But apples from trees *does* generalize to the formation of galaxies. Newtonian gravity works well in both if you consider the contribution of dark matter. Relativistic effects don't really appear until you get to universal expansion.

yes this was a little later, but it that designation was independent:

in 1921, Henry Fairfield Osborn, President of the American Museum of Natural History, examined the Piltdown and Sheffield Park finds and declared that the jaw and skull belonged together "without question"

And it is usually good to be skeptical of a single person's opinion. When more information was discovered, the PIltdown hoax was revealed by the scientists and not by those who doubted evolution.

well right, these mistakes are not limited to the 19th C. Scientists are still human beings, institutions still naturally tend to coalesce around their favorite conclusions

Yes, which is why it generally takes time to fully thresh out the details. But, with evolution, those details have been threshed out and by many different people who studied the subject. Your objections fail.

Likewise, everything that is directly observable, testable, scientific about natural history remains, the fossils, the DNA evidence, just the erroneous extrapolations would be overturned, the idea that every change was blundered upon by simple laws and blind luck instead of specific instructions, just like physics

science tends to progress yes, scientists not always, Hoyle refuse to accept the BB to his dying day, Planck noted that academic science doesn't progress by changing scientists minds, you have to wait for them to die and new ones to grow up and accept the new science

Yes, and culture and politics grow even slower. We are still debating, culturally, the questions resolved by science 150 years ago.

The fundamental premise of classical physics, was that a handful of simple immutable laws + lots of time and space to randomly bump around in, could eventually produce all the wonders of the physical world.
Concepts of deeper, hidden, unpredictable guiding forces, specifying and pre-determining exactly how matter would organize itself- was fanciful/ religious pseudoscience..

Actually, no. It was good science and it explained everything explore at that time. It was only when the heat capacities of various gases didn't agree with classical statistical physics that the first hint of non-classical effects were seen. The Michelson-Morley experiment showed other flaws.

Darwin's theory was a perfect extension of this Victorian model, and I think it fails for precisely the same reason as classical physics, it's just too simple to account for all observations, without those guiding instructions that physic needed.

Yes. In particular, his understanding of genetics was very crude. But after the rise of the 'Modern Synthesis' in the 1950's, that aspect was resolved.

in other words, I agree with Darwin's larger premise, that we should expect life to develop by the same general mechanism that physics did, only we know this to be something fundamentally different now..:

information driven, not chance driven

Yes, that is what genetics is.

Theoretical

, yes, empirical no. Again, changing a single cell to a man, driven by random changes all the way, is not an experiment we can repeat and observe, it cannot be simulated in a computer, and we cannot find the fossil evidence of all the theoretical transitions.

We don't need to find all the transitions to know that this basic viewpoint works quite well. We know many of the stages involved, even with modern analogs of those stages. Whether the stages were 'random' is a matter for much more detailed analysis. But I have seen studies of local transitions, say within the dinosauria, that show that the changes agree with a random mutation along with a non-random natural selection.

Of course there are many reasons can be argued for why all this is impossible, but 'the dog ate my homework' does not a passing grade make!

must run for now but I appreciate the civil discourse!

As do I.

 

[Bird123]

I hold the view if there is ANY evidence of what created the Big Bang's origin's I would like to see it. Time as far as we know stops and perhaps doesn't exist.

With that said it regards to design and a designer, why did said designer make a universe that goes from the most order to the least order and in the process we evolved? Which goes back to your house analogy in reverse.

As I see it, the universe was designed for only one thing---Education. It does seem to work remarkable well.

 

[Bird123]

Yes. We are all bias. That is why believers see a creator and others do not.

Think about the logic in it. If someone came to me and said "there is a man name Zelu living on Mars with his Jeep looking up at the stars", I'd say "Um okay..." I would not believe him giving the bias (my knowledge of how I interpret the world) it does not make sense. If a thousand people believe this, wrote down what Zelu said, and so forth, that does not make the claim any more true. If people see miracles that Mars exist when they have a dream, that does not tell me the claim is true. None of these things tell me a claim is true regardless if thousands of people believe in it and it's written on marble or gold.

Likewise with the creator.

I wasn't raised knowing there is a creator. I literally did not hear and understand it at all until five years ago today. My childhood had nothing to do with that.

So, if someone came up to me if I hadn't met my Catholic friend and said "god exists he is the creator" that's the same as telling me Zelu exists on mars.

"But thousands of people believe in him... .people have seen him... and so forth."

That does not make the claim anymore true and it doesn't make the claim worth my investigating. I have no interest to this day of figuring out there is a creator. It's not in my noggin.

So what you are telling me is your belief based on your bias (which is healthy) and what you know from your experiences. Truth? Yours yes, The Truth, no.

That and are you open to possibilities that anything can be true even the fact god may not exist at all? Are you open to everything you believe is an illusion?

These are possibilities. If they are not true to you, how would you be open to them unless you're like me and see things in multiple perspectives.



If I were a blank slate (had no bias), that would not make sense. I would see things as they are not as we, as humans, define them to be. Nature isn't intelligent. That's not even a word I'd identify with nature but with humans. A house just means a building in which one finds shelter. A home or place of rest. If I knew nothing of this, I would value the home itself not wonder who built it. That wouldn't be in my frame of reference if I were in the cold and needed a place to stay.



What is wrong with random?

To nature, everything works as it should. It looks random to us and it's not. It just is. Once you define it, it's a human label and concept. It doesn't reflect reality just what we observe of it from the knowledge we already know and our personal biases.

Life is random. That's something many people can't handle. It's annoying you plan something and all of the sudden, something goes wrong when you've been planning all week for it to be right. Life isn't planned. We can't limit life like that.



Operating systems are built by humans. Human brains have the tendency to find connection and relationship with things, ideas, etc so they know what to expect. It's for safety and protection among other things.

Why would you want to know about the designer? If the designer was millions of miles away and I only had the assumption that there is an designer, why would I break my back over learning about the designer as if the building is the designer herself?



"The universe is nothing but..." it's more than that. We don't have to belittle the universe because there is no creator. If anything, we see life as sacred as it is not how we want it to be. It helps people, yes. That does not make it true in life just to the people who need that comfort that there is a builder rather than just appreciating the building and the warmth that building provides.



It's not an assumption. It's a fact. God is not an entity. The definition of god to abrahamics does not coincide how reality works. It's from humans. There is nothing wrong with that.

I just wish someone can have a good conversation with me about god coming from him being defined by humans. People either put down god because they don't believe in him or they elevate god as if believing in him is better than believing in anything else. Two sides of the coin.

Just wish I had a conversation of how god works. A good book on that, Why do We Believe in God(s)? . It's not an evolution book. It goes through the psychological and cultural reasons why people believe in gods and how it makes sense to their well being.





Why do you need answers? Why not just live in the spirit and die in the spirit?

I'm already exhausted trying to write the answers to my exam, trying to make up questions as if they have some key to the answers of life is silly. There is no answers to life.

That is my experience. When I found out my experiences come from me, how I think, and how I interpret the world, when I experience spirits, hear my grandmothers speak to me, and act in the spirit, I know the origin of my belief and how it benefits me and others. I can utilize this without needing faith because the knowledge is all I need. I don't need to ask questions because the answers are right here.



That is why it's false to assume that anyone who says god does not exist is wrong. Based on my conclusions, knowledge, and experience I know god does not exist. I know the spirit of christ does. I know my grandmothers and family in spirit do. I know when you die your spirit will exist.

God, an entity, doesn't work that way. That, and god of abraham doesn't have the monopoly over other creators and god(s) in each respective religions that believe in god(s).

When I speak of God, it is not the God of any religion or of any belief. I have found no religion that really understands God. On the other hand, there are people who do know things.

You are not an illusion. Is it possible that I might find out later you are? I'll stay open for that possibility. Until then, I have direct evidence you exist in some form. Through our communications, I am discovering you.

Truth. There is your truth, my truth and the Real Truth. Are my truths true or just beliefs? I do have beliefs that I am investigating. As far as my truth, this is how I work truth. If I step off the roof of a high rise building, it doesn't matter what my beliefs are. Math. Truth adds up and does not vary. Truth must be constantly questioned for being truth.

I understand what you are saying about the jeep on mars. Burden of proof lies with the one seeking the knowledge. If you seek to know whether there is a jeep on mars, you should work on discovering that answer. So many people think burden of proof lies with those making the claim. If that were true, one would not really care about the truth. One would only want to be convinced in order to believe. Personally, I am not out for beliefs.

You speak of one being not bias, just living and enjoying what is, not having to learn or discover anything. The system is geared toward learning and growing as people. We are meant to learn, make judgment calls, act then learn through the results. Try to do absolutely nothing. That is a valid experiment to undergo. See the results.

You are right about mankind, making labels and defining everything. It gets worse. Mankind is also controlling in nature. The advice I always give people is listen to the advice of others but walk your own path. Life's lessons are best learned that way.

We each have a journey call Life. We learn through the parameters of our lives and through our interactions with others. Is there any mention of Beliefs in that? Life isn't about the beliefs. Loose them if you choose. Don't worry in the least. Do as you really want. Live freely then see what you discover along the way. As I see it, your journey has never depended of anyone. Let any worry go. Be who you must! It's a part of the plan!

I know you said that you do not know God. AS I see it, you already do know God but just do not realize it. That's OK. You will remember when the time comes. Just like stepping off that high rise, it does not matter what you believe nor does any of your choices or actions. It's all going to be Glorious. God is Unconditional Love. There has never ever been conditions. The Math does add up!

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Truth. There is your truth, my truth and the Real Truth. Are my truths true or just beliefs? I do have beliefs that I am investigating. As far as my truth, this is how I work truth. If I step off the roof of a high rise building, it doesn't matter what my beliefs are. Math. Truth adds up and does not vary. Truth must be constantly questioned for being truth.

I agree there is your truth and my truth. I also believe it ends there. Anyone who says they have the real truth has a belief or an opinion. The " I " and the "We" forms an opinion or statement about one's view or what they believe is a fact.

Real truth is universal. Mathematics is universal. Two and two will always equal four no matter what part of the world you go to and what language one speaks. In other words, two things on either side put together while always double.

God does not work that way as mathematics. For example, how I define god and how you define god are completely different. It is our truth but neither my definition nor your definition is the real truth unless it is a universal fact not an opinion or personal belief. It has to be apparent in life even if we don't realize it. It also has to be able to be tested and experienced the same way as every other person regardless if our expressions of these experiences differ dramatically. God as a universal truth cannot depend on traditions. The bible is a book of traditions. Given it has rules, it has morals of behavior, and it has how to practice that behavior it is the definition of a religion. Whether one abuses that definition is up to them. Universally (according to our dictionary which is bias in itself) it's defined as a foundation for a religion.

If monotheism and biblical god is correct, there can only be one god not many nor can there be incarnations. Since each theist religion's criteria is different for determining what comes from god and what is a god and what is not, monotheism is an illusion. Unless everyone who believes in god have a universal definition of him (a fact), when you say "only one" it becomes your own opinion.

To those who are polytheist and believe in many gods have a closer view of life because many gods and incarnations can be interpret as creators for different aspects of life. Once you make diversity based on one foundation, that's more communism or political. It's a power or ego thing "I'm right; this is the Real truth" rather than saying that we all have "real truth" and live with each other by that diversity or polytheistic nature, if one will.

I agree, truth (or to me fact) does not vary. I also feel facts do not contradict each other. Two and two doesn't equal four and five at the same time. So, either there are multiple truths, which I believe there are-but they are called beliefs and opinions not facts-or there can be one answer which it would be silly to say in this diverse world that there is only one. There are many ways to get the answer four. Two and two is just one of them.

I understand what you are saying about the jeep on mars. Burden of proof lies with the one seeking the knowledge. If you seek to know whether there is a jeep on mars, you should work on discovering that answer. So many people think burden of proof lies with those making the claim. If that were true, one would not really care about the truth. One would only want to be convinced in order to believe. Personally, I am not out for beliefs.

Thank you.

That is the thing. Why would one want to seek to know the answer if there is a jeep on mars? Unless they feel it will help them in some way to bend over backwards and find the answer. If that be the case, I should find if there is an invisible lump of million dollars in front of me that I cannot see. Even though that would be nice if it were in front of me, unfortunately, I know it is not. Yet, what you're saying is I can still question to see if it is there.

What is the logic in doing so outside of curiosity, philosophizing, or maybe entertaining one's imagination?

Beliefs are just convictions that you hold true. Facts are universal and are true regardless of what you believe. Values are what you consider important.

Both the former and the latter refers to you and you only. That is why it's a belief. It's yours to claim not mine or anyone else's. The problem with many God of Abraham religions is that they feel their belief (or however they name their view of the world) is a fact and applicable for everyone and everything. Making a claim that god created the world does not make it true. We only know what we know and nothing more.

Even facts can be subject to belief. Maybe we think that two and two equals four but in real life, we haven't discovered that there is a way for it to equal five. Would that be helpful to entertain that possibility?

You speak of one being not bias, just living and enjoying what is, not having to learn or discover anything. The system is geared toward learning and growing as people. We are meant to learn, make judgment calls, act then learn through the results. Try to do absolutely nothing. That is a valid experiment to undergo. See the results.

We are all bias. The reason I know there is no god is because of what I learn and I'm still learning. The difference is, the more I learn, the more I realize I know nothing. We learn to advance ourselves to be better people not (in my view) to learn the answers to questions people call "the big ones". I never questioned my purpose or anything like that. No destination.

Everything goes in a cycle. Creativity and openness is my spirituality and connection from this life in flesh and life in spirit in the next as well. Any destination or "resurrection to heaven" does not make sense. Why recycle if everything will one day will cease to exist. Or how would the same plant continue to grow once it died if life had a destination rather than being a circle of life?

In my view, you can't "learn" god. You experience god. You can't read him in the bible or any book. You experience god through your actions and devotion to life, to yourself, others, and your environment. If I were christian, I would live the bible. Reading it is fine, but actually living it in a devotional lifestyle is more fulfilling. Though, again, in my view I'd consider it a fact but that's only in my view. Since it's not a universal view, belief is more appropriate word. Nothing wrong with that.

You are right about mankind, making labels and defining everything. It gets worse. Mankind is also controlling in nature. The advice I always give people is listen to the advice of others but walk your own path. Life's lessons are best learned that way.

True. I know people who keep their head in the bible rather than learn the bible through living. It's "read the bible and then live" as if living is an supplement to knowledge. It should be the other way around.

It's not bad to label, depend on a book, or any idol to live. I just find it contradictory to say "don't worship idols" and at the same token "make sure you read your bible. That is the Word of god" not realizing the Word is a person not a book.

We each have a journey call Life. We learn through the parameters of our lives and through our interactions with others. Is there any mention of Beliefs in that? Life isn't about the beliefs. Loose them if you choose. Don't worry in the least. Do as you really want. Live freely then see what you discover along the way. As I see it, your journey has never depended of anyone. Let any worry go. Be who you must! It's a part of the plan!

I disagree. Life is about beliefs and values. It's about things we hold true from how we are raised, what connects with us, and our passions. It is also what we feel is important and what we base our decisions on. The former being beliefs and the latter values.

It's funny earlier this morning I was reading about beliefs vs values and why it's important to have values to make important decisions.

I don't see what is wrong with having beliefs.

I know you said that you do not know God. AS I see it, you already do know God but just do not realize it. That's OK. You will remember when the time comes. Just like stepping off that high rise, it does not matter what you believe nor does any of your choices or actions. It's all going to be Glorious. God is Unconditional Love. There has never ever been conditions. The Math does add up!

I do know god through the sacraments of christ. In other words, I understand what christ taught about god through the spirit of christ in his sacraments.

God of abraham is an easy topic and being to understand when taking into consideration the history, culture, and psychology behind people who believe it. One you have people that devalue tradition, throw away deeds as part of salvation, and keep say god is a being without knowing its nature, then that's where I go clueless. It sounds new age. Christianity wasn't like that in Jesus' day. No "believe in your heart" and that's it. Believing in christ means service to god as brothers and sisters in christ. The acts a christian does are through the sacraments of christ.

If christianity wasn't about human sacrifice and abstract concepts as jesus is god and heaven, I'd probably still be christian. Though, I'd still have to define god in the way I understand it. Which makes me not in sync with the body because I don't agree with the bible regardless of how I define god.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The current form of peer review is rather different than what existed in 1900.



Yes, it is usually good to be skeptical of those who claim a theory of everything.



But apples from trees *does* generalize to the formation of galaxies. Newtonian gravity works well in both if you consider the contribution of dark matter. Relativistic effects don't really appear until you get to universal expansion.

Yes we can superficially observe classical forces at work
but quantum fluctuation and black holes are integral to galaxy formation, the subatomic physics in stars that make the galaxy visible at all, cannot be described by Newtonian laws.
The larger point being; that this is not merely a quirk of physics, but inherent to any nested hierarchical information system- be it physics, DNA, or the software running this forum.
The end results cannot account for themselves by their own processes, they are necessarily underwritten by further instructions

Yes, which is why it generally takes time to fully thresh out the details. But, with evolution, those details have been threshed out and by many different people who studied the subject. Your objections fail.

Likewise for classical physic, only for longer and more conclusively. It's difficult to progress beyond a theory for those who already declare it 'immutable' or 'undeniable fact' or 'religious pseudoscience' as Hoyle called the Big Bang, or call anyone who holds any other belief 'insane'!

Part of the emotional attachment for steady state and classical physics was a certain perceived 'God refuting' quality, creation events and mysterious guiding powers were theoretically banished. But this ideological barrier is far greater for evolution. It's no coincidence that George Lemaitre and Max Planck were skeptics of atheism- and of course did NOT represent the overwhelming academic consensus. There is an inherent contradiction between science; the method and the science; the poll of academic opinion

Yes, and culture and politics grow even slower. We are still debating, culturally, the questions resolved by science 150 years ago.


Actually, no. It was good science and it explained everything explore at that time. It was only when the heat capacities of various gases didn't agree with classical statistical physics that the first hint of non-classical effects were seen. The Michelson-Morley experiment showed other flaws.


Yes. In particular, his understanding of genetics was very crude. But after the rise of the 'Modern Synthesis' in the 1950's, that aspect was resolved.

Yes, that is what genetics is.


We don't need to find all the transitions to know that this basic viewpoint works quite well. We know many of the stages involved, even with modern analogs of those stages. Whether the stages were 'random' is a matter for much more detailed analysis. But I have seen studies of local transitions, say within the dinosauria, that show that the changes agree with a random mutation along with a non-random natural selection.


As do I.

Evolutionary change accounting for all the diversity of life, driven by a random process- it's entirely theoretical, remotely extrapolated

DNA of course decays within a very short period in geological history,

Setting aside the artistic impressions, the assumptions, joining dots and filling gaps with speculative theories..

If we dig into the past for physical evidence, and in the record we see similarities, shared traits, with some sudden appearances, large gaps, long periods of stasis where little changed at all. But a general trend towards more complexity and sophistication over time

what does all this suggest to you?

 

[Polymath257]

Yes we can superficially observe classical forces at work
but quantum fluctuation and black holes are integral to galaxy formation, the subatomic physics in stars that make the galaxy visible at all, cannot be described by Newtonian laws.

True. And it was generally acknowledged that the way the sun worked was not understood. Other galaxies were not even known about.

The larger point being; that this is not merely a quirk of physics, but inherent to any nested hierarchical information system- be it physics, DNA, or the software running this forum.

Yes, any system showing complex dynamics.

The end results cannot account for themselves by their own processes, they are necessarily underwritten by further instructions

That seems like a non-sequitur. None of the theories are attempting to 'account for themselves'. Nor are the old theories 'further instructions' that are underwritten by the new ones.

Likewise for classical physic, only for longer and more conclusively. It's difficult to progress beyond a theory for those who already declare it 'immutable' or 'undeniable fact' or 'religious pseudoscience' as Hoyle called the Big Bang, or call anyone who holds any other belief 'insane'!

And yet, Gammow, Bethe, and others did exactly this. This is part of the dynamics of how science is done. Often it gets rather heated. And that is especially true when there isn't sufficient evidence. At the time of Hoyle and Bethe, it was not at all clear whether the BB of the SST would be the 'winner' or if a different description would come along. At that time, it was known that the universe is expanding. The details were simply not known yet. Notice that that basic conclusion hasn't been discarded.

Part of the emotional attachment for steady state and classical physics was a certain perceived 'God refuting' quality, creation events and mysterious guiding powers were theoretically banished. But this ideological barrier is far greater for evolution. It's no coincidence that George Lemaitre and Max Planck were skeptics of atheism- and of course did NOT represent the overwhelming academic consensus. There is an inherent contradiction between science; the method and the science; the poll of academic opinion

Why you think LeMaitre and Planck were not well-respected is beyond me. Both did very, very preliminary theoretical work in their areas and didn't do much past that. It took Bohr, Einstein, Schrodinger, DeBroglie, Dirac, Gamow, Bethe, and many others to push past the basics to give a full-bodied theory. And yes, because neither LeMaitre nor Planck did much in that development, the fields progressed past their contributions.

Evolutionary change accounting for all the diversity of life, driven by a random process- it's entirely theoretical, remotely extrapolated

DNA of course decays within a very short period in geological history,

Setting aside the artistic impressions, the assumptions, joining dots and filling gaps with speculative theories..

If we dig into the past for physical evidence, and in the record we see similarities, shared traits, with some sudden appearances, large gaps, long periods of stasis where little changed at all. But a general trend towards more complexity and sophistication over time

what does all this suggest to you?

This isn't a very good description of what is actually seen.

First, when there are 'sudden appearances', it tends to be of a variety of very similar species. While there are long periods of relative stasis, there are changes during those periods, just far less than the times where radiation of new species is seen. In particular, after the radiative stage, the different lines tend to separate into distinctly different groupings. So, in the initial radiation of carnivores, we later see distinct felids, canids, ursines, etc. Each of these smaller groups then develops a great deal of diversity.

So, what we actually see is 'sudden' appearances of groups of similar species with each leading to later groups that are similar, but showing their own diversity (many different types of cats, for example). This happens in hierarchical fashion across the different levels of classification. So, early land animals were all fairly similar, but some lines diversified, leading to a 'sudden' appearance of new characteristics. There are gaps, typically because we cannot find strata of the required time period at the required location. When such are found, though, the gaps tend to be filled, often with a lot of very similar species.

Now, what does this suggest?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

True. And it was generally acknowledged that the way the sun worked was not understood. Other galaxies were not even known about.



Yes, any system showing complex dynamics.




That seems like a non-sequitur. None of the theories are attempting to 'account for themselves'. Nor are the old theories 'further instructions' that are underwritten by the new ones.




And yet, Gammow, Bethe, and others did exactly this. This is part of the dynamics of how science is done. Often it gets rather heated. And that is especially true when there isn't sufficient evidence. At the time of Hoyle and Bethe, it was not at all clear whether the BB of the SST would be the 'winner' or if a different description would come along. At that time, it was known that the universe is expanding. The details were simply not known yet. Notice that that basic conclusion hasn't been discarded.



Why you think LeMaitre and Planck were not well-respected is beyond me. Both did very, very preliminary theoretical work in their areas and didn't do much past that. It took Bohr, Einstein, Schrodinger, DeBroglie, Dirac, Gamow, Bethe, and many others to push past the basics to give a full-bodied theory. And yes, because neither LeMaitre nor Planck did much in that development, the fields progressed past their contributions.

I don't want to rehash old ground, but several atheists like Hoyle rejected the whole concept of a beginning to the universe on explicitly ideological grounds, they were uncomfortable with the implications, their complaint not mine, even citing his priesthood has an ad hominem mark against him.

I've nothing against science- it's the preconclusions of many atheist/materialist 'scientists' that have sent us barking up the wrong tree for decades. The deeper problem: It's very difficult to separate a belief from science, when a person refuses to acknowledge that it's even a belief

The larger point: a theory being declared 'a done deal' as shawn put it, is hardly convincing, especially for a 150 year old theory!, more of a red flag that those making the declaration are passionately opposed to alternative explanations

This isn't a very good description of what is actually seen.

First, when there are 'sudden appearances', it tends to be of a variety of very similar species. While there are long periods of relative stasis, there are changes during those periods, just far less than the times where radiation of new species is seen. In particular, after the radiative stage, the different lines tend to separate into distinctly different groupings. So, in the initial radiation of carnivores, we later see distinct felids, canids, ursines, etc. Each of these smaller groups then develops a great deal of diversity.

So, what we actually see is 'sudden' appearances of groups of similar species with each leading to later groups that are similar, but showing their own diversity (many different types of cats, for example). This happens in hierarchical fashion across the different levels of classification. So, early land animals were all fairly similar, but some lines diversified, leading to a 'sudden' appearance of new characteristics. There are gaps, typically because we cannot find strata of the required time period at the required location. When such are found, though, the gaps tend to be filled, often with a lot of very similar species.

Now, what does this suggest?

fine; I can see the sudden appearances of many similar general body plans, sure
and the stasis is relative yes, with some slight changes along the way,
And a diversification - creating a hierarchy of similar forms- with new characteristics appearing

And for what ever reason, there are some gaps that are not filled, we can speculate why not, but I'm sticking the evidence at face value here

I asked first! what does this suggest, let alone prove to you about the fundamental mechanism driving all this? and why exactly? I'm genuinely curious to know your logic here

 

[Polymath257]

fine; I can see the sudden appearances of many similar general body plans, sure
and the stasis is relative yes, with some slight changes along the way,
And a diversification - creating a hierarchy of similar forms- with new characteristics appearing

And for what ever reason, there are some gaps that are not filled, we can speculate why not, but I'm sticking the evidence at face value here

I asked first! what does this suggest, let alone prove to you about the fundamental mechanism driving all this? and why exactly? I'm genuinely curious to know your logic here

Well, it shows that species do change over time, with diversification happening fairly rapidly and then stabilizing in specific environments. So evolution, being the change of species over geological time, is solid. Since the new species in radiative times are always similar to older species, it seems clear to me that the changes happen in the course of reproduction over many generations and that the new species are not simply a totally new 'design', but rather a modification off of previously existing patterns. This *is* macro-evolution.

Now, the question is one of mechanisms. Since it is impossible to directly detect such mechanisms in the fossil record, we have to resort to either lab work or modeling. The lab work shows that most species have a much larger amount of genetic variety than anyone expected 50 years ago. We have also seen small-scale changes in the genetics produced by environmental changes. We have even seen the development of new species that are reproductively isolated from their precursors. This is 'micro-evolution'.

So the question is whether the small-scale changes we can see over short periods of time can be linked to the large scale changes we see in the fossil record. This is where modeling comes in, especially computer modeling.

What we find is that systems that have reproduction, mutation, and selection very generally produce complex 'eco-systems' that change over time in the ways we see in the fossil record: radiations when the environment changes with longer periods of relative stasis. This is true for a very wide range of various parameters (including reproduction rate, mutation rate, degree of selection, selection criteria, etc).

At the very least, this shows that the mechanisms we see in the lab are consistent with the types of changes we see in the fossil record. That forms the link between micro-evolution and macro-evolution (remember both are known to happen, the question is one of mechanisms).

Now, there are certainly questions about the relative contribution of such mechanisms as genetic drift, gene transfer across species, etc. And I expect that the answers will depend on the specifics of each different case. This is what is seen in the models. And this is an area of active investigation.

You can also ask whether the record is compatible with directed evolution. This is a harder question to answer given the nature of the evidence. But, at least in the lines where we have detailed evidence, the variations do appear to be random and not directed towards a specific end: sizes change in more of a brownian motion effect rather than a straight line.

 

[godnotgod]

Consciousness is a physical process that happens in the brain.

Consciousness is a default for networks of sufficient complexity and structure.

At which point does the transition from 'physical processes' to consciousness occur? Do you think we can create a conscious brain with a sense of self in the lab?

 

[godnotgod]

How many times do I have to answer this silly question of yours?

I have already answered it numerous times, you just don't get it.

I understand perfectly what you are saying, but you have not answered it.

You are conscious. Does this conscious state stop at your skull?

I already provided both a video and a scientific paper on the experiment which proves that the brain can function on a non-local level, that it's consciousness goes beyond the skull. Did you see that?

 

[Polymath257]

At which point does the transition from 'physical processes' to consciousness occur? Do you think we can create a conscious brain with a sense of self in the lab?

Currently? No. Eventually? Almost certainly.