Question on Intelligent Design

[godnotgod]

Currently? No. Eventually? Almost certainly.

So at which point do electro-chemical processes become consciousness?

 

[Polymath257]

So at which point do electro-chemical processes become consciousness?

I don't know. I don't have a good enough definition of 'conscious' to be able to know, for example, whether a planarium is conscious. So there is, at the very least, a definitional aspect that needs to be resolved.

What is clear is that the complexity of the system is one aspect leading to consciousness. It also looks like the time-aspect of interaction and storage of information from sensory data are important.

So, while I would certainly NOT say that a bacterium is conscious, I *would* say that most mammals are. Where that division happens may well depend on definitions.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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'.

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

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

In all the above I was referring to an automobile junk yard, and the record it leaves

Obviously it's a trap in the context of our conversation, and I had to rather push you into it!

but it's not meant as a 'gotcha', but to demonstrate an important point of evidence:

that all of these characteristics described in the fossil record, and so often used to strongly imply Darwinian processes, apply equally well to both natural and automotive history, and hence suggest nothing whatsoever *in and of themselves* about any unguided process. In fact the only unambiguous examples of how this sort of specific pattern is created, are all by a process of predetermined design, intelligent in this case, specifying and implementing every single design change (as opposed to random chance), ....with the best designs being naturally, inevitably, favored to survive and be reproduced.

So we know it works with design, that I think we can more safely call 'fact'

whether it can work without?, relying 100% and being entirely driven by pure, blind, luck instead of design? it's certainly an interesting theory, not impossible, nr easy to prove, but at the very least it's hardly a safe enough assumption to label 'fact' as we can for the former method.

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.

So we agree on a few things, if we define evolution as simply change in the makeup of life on Earth over time, I agree with you, then again so does Genesis.. including animal life arriving first in the ocean, and humans arriving last- lucky guess or not, I'm not arguing for Genesis, just that it's a very wide open definition, and not what is generally taught/ understood as 'evolution'

We also agree on micro adaptation, it's really impossible to avoid, our own children are slightly different and slightly more adapted to certain tasks- nobody debates this either.

We also agree I think that the crux of the matter lies in the information systems involved, the math is the most objective evidence

So we have some common ground, and I think it's the actual empirical scientific ground


But I certainly disagree with the characterization of computer models somehow validating .. that a single cell design can become that of a human being, driven with only purely random changes and no design goal to adhere to. No more than the random interaction of classical laws could ever accidentally create a great fusion reactor producing all the chemistry needed for life

But this was Dawkins' attempt


We again use our computer monkey, but with a crucial difference in its program. It again begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters, just as before ... it duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error – 'mutation' – in the copying. The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.

By repeating the procedure, a randomly generated sequence of 28 letters and spaces will be gradually changed each generation. The sequences progress through each generation:

Generation 01: WDLTMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P [2]
Generation 02: WDLTMNLT DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P
Generation 10: MDLDMNLS ITJISWHRZREZ MECS P
Generation 20: MELDINLS IT ISWPRKE Z WECSEL
Generation 30: METHINGS IT ISWLIKE B WECSEL
Generation 40: METHINKS IT IS LIKE I WEASEL
Generation 43: METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL

Which demonstrates the same principle as every other model (simulation to be more accurate) That you have to provide the information entirely predetermining the end result from the get go, in order to have a guide for the 'random' mutations.

And of course in physical /lab experiments- fruit flies, bacteria, dogs, we confirm the limits on adaptation, flies remain flies, dogs remain dogs, and suffer extreme health problems when pushed to the limits of their body plan's capacity for adaptation

 

[godnotgod]

I don't know. I don't have a good enough definition of 'conscious' to be able to know, for example, whether a planarium is conscious. So there is, at the very least, a definitional aspect that needs to be resolved.

What is clear is that the complexity of the system is one aspect leading to consciousness. It also looks like the time-aspect of interaction and storage of information from sensory data are important.

So, while I would certainly NOT say that a bacterium is conscious, I *would* say that most mammals are. Where that division happens may well depend on definitions.

So for all you know, you may have it backwards: consciousness may have come first, being the matrix out of which our Universe emerged. The real question is why it emerged and why it did in the way that it did.

If you don't actually know how this is accomplished, how can you defend 'Emergent Theory" at all, which, in reality, is only a hypothesis.

Again, how does the fact of complexity of an electro-chemical system (ie; critical mass) make the leap of faith required to create consciousness? I fail to see how that is clear. Mostly, scientists get around this question by simply stating that the brain is consciousness itself. But that makes the problem even worse.

Physicist Freeman Dyson says that even atoms are conscious, and make conscious decisions:

“It is remarkable that mind enters into our awareness of nature on two separate levels. At the highest level, the level of human consciousness, our minds are somehow directly aware of the complicated flow of electrical and chemical patterns in our brains. At the lowest level, the level of single atoms and electrons, the mind of an observer is again involved in the description of events. Between lies the level of molecular biology, where mechanical models are adequate and mind appears to be irrelevant. But I, as a physicist, cannot help suspecting that there is a logical connection between the two ways in which mind appears in my universe. I cannot help thinking that our awareness of our own brains has something to do with the process which we call "observation" in atomic physics. That is to say, I think our consciousness is not just a passive epiphenomenon carried along by the chemical events in our brains, but is an active agent forcing the molecular complexes to make choices between one quantum state and another. In other words, mind is already inherent in every electron, and the processes of human consciousness differ only in degree but not in kind from the processes of choice between quantum states which we call "chance" when they are made by electrons.”

― Freeman Dyson

 

[VioletVortex]

Intelligent design is in fact an excuse to put a non-scientific idea in the guise of science so it can be taught in schools. It is not a theory in itself. The actual theory is creationism.

I believe in evolution, however I do not think that all species evolved from a common ancestor. I think that it is much more complicated than that. I think that DNA itself has Occult origins, but I associate myself more with those who understand evolution than those who don't.

 

[Jose Fly]

In all the above I was referring to an automobile junk yard, and the record it leaves

Obviously it's a trap in the context of our conversation, and I had to rather push you into it!

but it's not meant as a 'gotcha', but to demonstrate an important point of evidence:

that all of these characteristics described in the fossil record, and so often used to strongly imply Darwinian processes, apply equally well to both natural and automotive history, and hence suggest nothing whatsoever *in and of themselves* about any unguided process. In fact the only unambiguous examples of how this sort of specific pattern is created, are all by a process of predetermined design, intelligent in this case, specifying and implementing every single design change (as opposed to random chance), ....with the best designs being naturally, inevitably, favored to survive and be reproduced.

Fundamentalists/creationists sure are odd characters. The last time Guy attempted this argument, I pointed out the obvious....the underlying assumption behind the argument--same patterns = same processes--is demonstrably false, thereby making the argument nothing more than a false analogy fallacy. We know for a fact that the patterns in automobile junkyards are the result of H. sapiens and their manufacturing processes. It's something any of us can go witness first-hand. Conversely, we know for a fact that the patterns in the fossil record are not the result of H. sapiens and their manufacturing processes, and are instead the result of natural biological processes.

So how did Guy respond when I pointed this out? Did he consider the point and post a thoughtful reply? Did he explain why I was wrong and why his analogy is actually correct? Nope. He simply walked away and ignored it all, and now here he is repeating the exact same fallacious argument, as if our previous exchange never even happened.

The consistency with which creationists exhibit this sort of behavior is a very good indication of the fundamental dishonesty inherent in creationism. If it were an honest enterprise, its advocates wouldn't have to stoop to this sort of thing over and over again.

 

[godnotgod]

Intelligent design is in fact an excuse to put a non-scientific idea in the guise of science so it can be taught in schools. It is not a theory in itself. The actual theory is creationism.
.

Exactly, a very sneaky move by the creationists resulting in the Dover Board of Education trial, in which Dr. Kenneth Miller, a molecular biologist, brilliantly destroys the Intelligent Design argument. This clip just shows the core of Miller's proof, but how the creationists went about disguising Creationism as Intelligent Design is proven in an award winning Nova YouTube video,(below) in case you are interested in knowing.

 

[godnotgod]

 

[Bird123]

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.



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?



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.



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.



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 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.

Intelligence exists far beyond that of mankind. Everything comes down to Math even all the emotions and feelings people try to understand. It all adds up.

You are right that God can not be discovered in a book. It is all about Living and Experiencing.

 

[Valjean]

Intelligent design is in fact an excuse to put a non-scientific idea in the guise of science so it can be taught in schools. It is not a theory in itself. The actual theory is creationism.

I agree with your first statement, but take issue with creationism being a theory. As I understand it, creationism and ID are synonyms. Wasn't an early edition of Of Pandas and People, which arguably began the legal debate, found with "creationism" in place of "Intelligent Design," indicating the original term had been replaced by the more palatable ID in later editions? -- indicating that they were interchangeable?

I believe in evolution, however I do not think that all species evolved from a common ancestor. I think that it is much more complicated than that.

This is possible. If ~86% of living species have not yet been described [Wiki], I'd expect almost none of the original biota to have been examined. that said, everything examined thus far has had the same nucleic acid signature and appears related.
What evidence do you have for a polyphyletic origin?

I think that DNA itself has Occult origins, but I associate myself more with those who understand evolution than those who don't.

Now you've lost me. Occult origins? Can you expand on that?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Intelligence exists far beyond that of mankind. Everything comes down to Math even all the emotions and feelings people try to understand. It all adds up.

You are right that God can not be discovered in a book. It is all about Living and Experiencing.

How does intelligence go beyond mankind? Intelligence is a "mankind" concept. Without man, there is no intelligence (unless there is another definition of the world-hence the OP).

I never saw an issue with mankind and why GOA religions belittle mankind so much. I am part of humanity, and when I see words like "beyond", we are "limited" and "man-made traditions" I cringe.

How do you experience god when you limit your experiences to only those you feel are "spiritual" but belittle the emotions (how they say "don't depend on your feelings") and physical experiences as if these two have nothing to do with your spirituality.

GOA religions limit the experience of "god" or spirituality, in my opinion. Go beyond any definition of god written in a book, then you'll understand how your feelings, culture, thoughts are also involved in your spirituality and not just your spirit and heart and other abstract words that mean nothing in and of themselves.

 

[godnotgod]

I agree with your first statement, but take issue with creationism being a theory. As I understand it, creationism and ID are synonyms. Wasn't an early edition of Of Pandas and People, which arguably began the legal debate, found with "creationism" in place of "Intelligent Design," indicating the original term had been replaced by the more palatable ID in later editions? -- indicating that they were interchangeable?

Actually, what happened, is amongst tons of manuscripts that were subpoenaed by the court in the Dover trial, a preliminary manuscript defining Intelligent Design was found to contain the wording 'Creationist (or 'Creator') Design'. The authors realized this implied a creator-god, and changed the name to 'Intelligent Design' to indicate an 'intelligent agent' of creation. This was one of the smoking guns that clinched the trial in favor of the evolutionists. The entire story is in the second video I posted a few posts back and is worth watching. A landmark case, just as the Scopes Monkey Trial was prior to the Dover trial.

A scientific 'theory' is not the same as a theory in common usage. In science, it is a body of knowledge that, whenever new information is found, the new info fits into the current body of knowledge. For all practical purposes, a scientific theory is fact, whereas theory in common usage is definitely not yet fact.

 

[godnotgod]

Intelligence exists far beyond that of mankind. Everything comes down to Math even all the emotions and feelings people try to understand. It all adds up.

Mostly, man's mind is limited mind, simply because he is conditioned. In reality, man actually does possess the potential for a super-conscious state. But a radical transformation must first occur in order for this to be the case. We call this transformation 'Enlightenment'.

I would disagree that math is the source of all. Math is still only a description of Reality, but not Reality itself. Man attempts to define Reality in terms of conceptual descriptions because that is how the rational mind works: it creates models of Reality and then attempts to make Reality fit the model, and that includes mathematics. Nice, neat, comfortable, predictable, and always subject to sabotage by the next paradigm lurking just around the next bend. IOW we have the cart ahead of the horse; what we should be doing is to see the models in terms of Reality, and not the other way around. That is what Enlightenment does, and what Quantum Physics has already done to a certain degree.

I would say that the source of all is 0, that is to say, Nothing. It is the most allowing condition, allowing for Everything to be.

 

[godnotgod]

Intelligence exists far beyond that of mankind.....It is all about Living and Experiencing.

heh..heh...If you were trully 'living and experiencing', you would realize that the greatest intelligence possible is right there...right inside you all the time, as intimate as your very next breath.

 

[Polymath257]

So for all you know, you may have it backwards: consciousness may have come first, being the matrix out of which our Universe emerged. The real question is why it emerged and why it did in the way that it did.

On the contrary, the fact that stars and planets, galaxies and nebula are not conscious directly shows otherwise. Consciousness clearly didn't develop until after life got started. And, like I said, we don't say that one-celled creatures are conscious......So, consciousness didn't develop (at least locally) until less than a billion years ago).

I

f you don't actually know how this is accomplished, how can you defend 'Emergent Theory" at all, which, in reality, is only a hypothesis.

But it is a hypothesis strongly supported by the facts in evidence. Like I said, part of the difficulty is even having a specific enough definition of the term 'conscious' so that we know what to test for. So, for example, are wasps conscious? How about sharks? How about earthworms? Clams?

For me, it is pretty clear that clams are not conscious. I am less sure about wasps, given how 'programmed' they are.

Again, how does the fact of complexity of an electro-chemical system (ie; critical mass) make the leap of faith required to create consciousness? I fail to see how that is clear. Mostly, scientists get around this question by simply stating that the brain is consciousness itself. But that makes the problem even worse.

Well, what does it mean to be conscious? To be aware of surroundings and of self? Or just of surroundings? How good of a 'picture' of the surroundings is required?

Again, definitions are crucial here and sorely lacking. Why do we say a computer is NOT conscious? Say, a control computer in a production plant?

 

[Bird123]

How does intelligence go beyond mankind? Intelligence is a "mankind" concept. Without man, there is no intelligence (unless there is another definition of the world-hence the OP).

I never saw an issue with mankind and why GOA religions belittle mankind so much. I am part of humanity, and when I see words like "beyond", we are "limited" and "man-made traditions" I cringe.

How do you experience god when you limit your experiences to only those you feel are "spiritual" but belittle the emotions (how they say "don't depend on your feelings") and physical experiences as if these two have nothing to do with your spirituality.

GOA religions limit the experience of "god" or spirituality, in my opinion. Go beyond any definition of god written in a book, then you'll understand how your feelings, culture, thoughts are also involved in your spirituality and not just your spirit and heart and other abstract words that mean nothing in and of themselves.

Everyone concentrates on the emotional half of God. Let's never forget God has an intellectual half as well. We are but mere ants. I have direct experience to this. Only the Ego will say that mankind is the only intelligence.

As I see it, we are all children of God. That makes everyone special. Each is learning and at their own stage of understanding. Once lessons are learned, many choices are no longer viable choices. There are many choices being made in the world I can not make. Does that make those who make those choices bad? It makes them students who have not learned yet, no more. Yet, I am learning lessons others have already learned. Multilevel classrooms work that way. There is really no need to hate.

Are people limited? Yes, in many many ways. People place so many limits on themselves. Further, mankind's controlling nature attempts to control it all. How many times have you heard what God can and can not do? People tell you God hates and has wrath which I know is not true through experience. In truth, mankind carries such a narrow view, I work on mine everyday, This narrow view prevents the discovery of so very much.

If you see mankind as the only intelligence or the definition of intelligence, you surely have a limited view.

There is order to chaos. With enough knowledge even chaos and random chance can be ordered. It is the same thing with feelings and emotions. It all does come down to Math once you reach a certain level.

AS I see it, since all the physics add up perfectly so does the human factor. There are many more variables with people which makes true understanding much more complex. The result: You might look at this world and see a mess. I look at this world and see a Masterpiece. What is the Real difference? Understanding.

Many people run their lives through feelings. Their emotions rule their actions. I have learned it is best to lead with intelligence. Thinking is required. If not careful one can get lost in a sea of emotions. It is never fun to be lost. Isn't it almost always better to Think then act rather than simply reacted emotionally? I think so.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hmm

Everyone concentrates on the emotional half of God. Let's never forget God has an intellectual half as well. We are but mere ants. I have direct experience to this. Only the Ego will say that mankind is the only intelligence.

I see it differently. We are intelligent human beings and when we see ourselves (with or without god) and who we are, we leave the ego and live our values. While we may have limitations on how to do this-maybe we don't have discipline or maybe finances are keeping us in a rut--and the motivation to do the how, with or without god, the ego will fade and we will be who we are to ourselves and/or our community.

I learned this really from reflection, meditation, and prayer. In different views and practices I've gone through so far in my life, I really got different perspectives of how people live their values and even more so not saying "this is right and that is wrong." This is without god, though.

As I see it, we are all children of God. That makes everyone special. Each is learning and at their own stage of understanding. Once lessons are learned, many choices are no longer viable choices. There are many choices being made in the world I can not make. Does that make those who make those choices bad? It makes them students who have not learned yet, no more. Yet, I am learning lessons others have already learned. Multilevel classrooms work that way. There is really no need to hate.

Let me ask, though. I don't see humans as special any more than I do a Zebra or a Philodendron plant. To me, seeing us as special is ego compared to the huge universe we are not even one percent a part of.

If you did not believe in god, why would you not consider yourself special?

If you do consider yourself special, if you didn't believe in god, what is your basis in comparison? What logic in the universe that would make humanity special than anything else outside the world and beyond?

I ask this because not everyone believes in god. God isn't universal. So, if what you are saying is true, it can be explained without belief in god and referring to him.

Are people limited? Yes, in many many ways. People place so many limits on themselves. Further, mankind's controlling nature attempts to control it all. How many times have you heard what God can and can not do? People tell you God hates and has wrath which I know is not true through experience. In truth, mankind carries such a narrow view, I work on mine everyday, This narrow view prevents the discovery of so very much.

That is the key "people place limits on themselves." People are not limited in an of themselves because we do exactly what we are "supposed" to do as humans. Our bodies can only do but so much for a reason. We are born, live, age, and pass away. Wanting to live forever is one of many ways people want to be limitless. Yet, that's how our bodies and minds function. That's basically cheating nature to say something is timeless and linear with some sort of destination that if true, should be apparent for all people to know not just the religious.

The bible does teach god does not take light of sin. He killed people because of sin. It may be an over exaggeration to say he is wrath; and, the point is still the same. If he wasn't, why would he, in christian view, need to bring someone to save believers? Maybe you're deciding to see the nice side of him. That's okay. I mean, I can see the nice side of my parent but that doesn't mean my parent doesn't have an angry side if I acted up.

If you see mankind as the only intelligence or the definition of intelligence, you surely have a limited view.

That is the reason for the OP. The word intelligence (the word itself) is used for human beings. Once you use it for intelligent design or intelligent universe, you lose me. It's metaphysics talk. Spiritualist use it but then we use "god of our own understanding" as well.

It's not limited, it's ignorance. I honestly don't know what you guys mean by anything other than the human mind being intelligent.

There is order to chaos. With enough knowledge even chaos and random chance can be ordered. It is the same thing with feelings and emotions. It all does come down to Math once you reach a certain level.

That's an oxymoron. Nothing wrong with chaos. That's how the whole world works. When someone develop cancer, that is part of how the body works. If it were designed and no chaos, our bodies wouldn't develop diseases on its own. Seizures are the same way. If everything was designed, then no one would have seizures. I have epilepsy, and I know 100 percent daily that seizures cannot be predicted nor is there order to them. (I wish I can set it on my monthly calendar.)

Feelings like seizures (since they both have to do with neurons in the brain) are unpredictable too. I have seizures in the right temporal lobe and frontal lobe. These (the temporal lobe) affect my emotions. Even when I don't have actual seizures, I still have emotional roller coasters that are normal for the body in and of itself but, because it disrupts my life, that is the only reason why it's treaded with medication. If it didn't harm my life and disrupt it, there'd be no reason to treat seizures since they aren't harmless in and of themselves (the ones I have).

Yet, it's choas. Nothing wrong with that.

Let me ask, why do you need order in chaos?

AS I see it, since all the physics add up perfectly so does the human factor. There are many more variables with people which makes true understanding much more complex. The result: You might look at this world and see a mess. I look at this world and see a Masterpiece. What is the Real difference? Understanding.

We have different perspectives, yes. If we take ourselves out of the picture, it's a mess. Life does what it does and if seizures occur in life it doesn't skip a beat nor is there anyone there to diagnose them. Yet, when we see life as a masterpiece (or see heaven or god or so have you) anyhing as perfect, then we take out the reality of life-unpredicability and death--and make it how we want it to be. Nothing wrong with that. Every religion has their view of what they want life to be today and/or in the afterlife.

Just I find it in GOA religions somewhat odd to have these concepts depended on a spirit or being that was not once a human or anything living.

Many people run their lives through feelings. Their emotions rule their actions. I have learned it is best to lead with intelligence. Thinking is required. If not careful one can get lost in a sea of emotions. It is never fun to be lost. Isn't it almost always better to Think then act rather than simply reacted emotionally? I think so.

True. I wish I had the advantage of controlling my feelings through thought as many can; but, mine is medical.

However, if I turned the tables, my not being able to control my emotions is just part of life just as people who can. No "order" we are just in different boats going different directions. Just some people think they are getting to a destination by hoping for land to appear. Others know they are in the middle of the atlantic and there is no land near by so they stopped st and enjoy the scenery and let nature take its course.

Both cases are fine just the former takes too much energy and thinking. People bend over backwards trying to figure if god exist. I never done that. When I found out what god was, it just clicked and never went back to the idea of god sense.

Shrugs.

 

[godnotgod]

On the contrary, the fact that stars and planets, galaxies and nebula are not conscious directly shows otherwise. Consciousness clearly didn't develop until after life got started. And, like I said, we don't say that one-celled creatures are conscious......So, consciousness didn't develop (at least locally) until less than a billion years ago).

You don't actually know that The Universe is not conscious. Because you are caught in a subject/object framework, you see yourself as conscious, but not the rest of the Universe.

But it is a hypothesis strongly supported by the facts in evidence. Like I said, part of the difficulty is even having a specific enough definition of the term 'conscious' so that we know what to test for. So, for example, are wasps conscious? How about sharks? How about earthworms? Clams?

For me, it is pretty clear that clams are not conscious. I am less sure about wasps, given how 'programmed' they are.

Science cannot know what the true nature of consciousness actually is, because consciousness is not based upon Reason, Logic, or Analysis, the tools of science. Consciousness is beyond the rational mind, even though the rational mind is a function of consciousness.

It is not so much that things are conscious, but that consciousness is manifesting itself as those things, indeed, as The Universe itself.

Well, what does it mean to be conscious? To be aware of surroundings and of self? Or just of surroundings? How good of a 'picture' of the surroundings is required?

Again, definitions are crucial here and sorely lacking. Why do we say a computer is NOT conscious? Say, a control computer in a production plant?

What does it mean to be conscious? You, a conscious being, are asking the question. Do you understand why?

"My conclusion is that consciousness is not a thing or substance, but is a nonlocal phenomenon. Nonlocal is merely a fancy word for infinite. If something is nonlocal, it is not localized to specific points in space, such as brains or bodies, or to specific points in time, such as the present."

Why Consciousness is Not the Brain | SuperConsciousness Magazine

 

[shawn001]

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?

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

Then you must not understand my answer to the question "perfectly."

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

My consciousness state does not stop at my skull, nor start there, which is bone.

I have read and watched everything you have posted.

"both a video and a scientific paper on the experiment which proves that the brain can function on..."

At least that time you didn't use the mind.

I think you might want to pull your electrons back closer to your atoms, so it all doesn't fly apart and I think a few people here's "universal consciousness" would agree.

 

[Bird123]

Mostly, man's mind is limited mind, simply because he is conditioned. In reality, man actually does possess the potential for a super-conscious state. But a radical transformation must first occur in order for this to be the case. We call this transformation 'Enlightenment'.

I would disagree that math is the source of all. Math is still only a description of Reality, but not Reality itself. Man attempts to define Reality in terms of conceptual descriptions because that is how the rational mind works: it creates models of Reality and then attempts to make Reality fit the model, and that includes mathematics. Nice, neat, comfortable, predictable, and always subject to sabotage by the next paradigm lurking just around the next bend. IOW we have the cart ahead of the horse; what we should be doing is to see the models in terms of Reality, and not the other way around. That is what Enlightenment does, and what Quantum Physics has already done to a certain degree.

I would say that the source of all is 0, that is to say, Nothing. It is the most allowing condition, allowing for Everything to be.

You misunderstand me. Math is not the source. Everything fits mathematically. Things like emotions, random chance and even quantum physics all add completely when one has knowledge at a certain level.

The Source is far from nothing.