The Debate of God.

[apophenia]

I've implied that cause and effect are the basis for the emergence of awareness. There are things that can be done to the mouse trap to make it more "alive". When you have something with the complexity of a cell is when we really see the difference. Wherever you want to draw the line between non-animate matter and life is up to you but the foundation is based on simple cause and effect and gets much more complex when you add electronic data transfer a
nd chemical reactions. If all existence is just based off of simpler elements then our awareness amounts to the emergence of a complex system based on simple principles of what energy and matter can do.

I think you have just expressed the most significant error if contemporary scientific philosophy

It is an error motivated by two things.
The first is the understandable desire to sever any connection between science and theology/mysticism.

The second is the hubris which is as strong a factor for philosophers of science as it is for followers of religion. For humans generally there is a powerful desire for certainty which makes fools of us all.

There is no scientific argument to prove anything about awareness. It is an unknown, simply not in our equations.

What this debate does prove is that being/awareness is so out of reach if scientific argument that it is reduced to being merely a better mousetrap !

 

[idav]

Isn't remarkable ?

Wow

If you multiply nothing a trillion times over what do you get ?
Nothing.

So, what is the something you propose is being multiplied to get conscious awareness if existence ?

Matter and energy isn't nothing. It contains the building blocks for everything we see including something as complex as ourselves. Obviously it would not be easy to replicate consciousness which is a bit different from awareness in itself. Awareness is part of consciousness but consciousness also requires at least short term memory and ability to recall. Perceiving(Seeing or hearing) something isn't the same as remembering it and recalling it.

 

[outhouse]

big deal. Adherents if the current scientific paradigm have a blind spot about this.

then maybe it doesnt exist

 

[Tiberius]

I've implied that cause and effect are the basis for the emergence of awareness.

And that is a very tiny piece in a much larger puzzle, certainly not worthy of the importance you place on it.

There are things that can be done to the mouse trap to make it more "alive".

Why do you put "alive" in quote marks? Because you know that the analogy doesn't hold up?

When you have something with the complexity of a cell is when we really see the difference. Wherever you want to draw the line between non-animate matter and life is up to you but the foundation is based on simple cause and effect and gets much more complex when you add electronic data transfer and chemical reactions. If all existence is just based off of simpler elements then our awareness amounts to the emergence of a complex system based on simple principles of what energy and matter can do.

Do you have a problem with that?

Bottom line is that the ability to react to a stimulus is nowhere near enough to determine awareness.

A cliff can react to the erosive power of waves by collapsing. That does not mean that the cliff is aware.

Let me put it another way...

I can take a number of living things, say a dog, a cat, a horse and a person. I can push each one out of a plane, and they will all fall straight down. But that doesn't mean that the ability to fall is some property of life. I can then push a rock out of the plane and it will fall in the same way as the living things. But that doesn't mean that the rock is alive.

Likewise, many things are able to do something when a particular thing happens. That doesn't mean that they are aware.

 

[idav]

What this debate does prove is that being/awareness is so out of reach if scientific argument that it is reduced to being merely a better mousetrap !

I'm not trying to insert anything more into matter than should already be there. There are much better examples of reaction to stimuli that are more complex than a mouse trap. Science would say it is just forms of matter and energy in verious combinations. Science does not say that matter requires some breath of spirit or life to get matter to come "alive". It would already be there if something extra were necessary. It would all boil down to cause and effect, action and reaction so forth. A computer and software are perfect examples of our ability to have machines sense it's environment and respond appropriately.

 

[idav]

And that is a very tiny piece in a much larger puzzle, certainly not worthy of the importance you place on it.



Why do you put "alive" in quote marks? Because you know that the analogy doesn't hold up?



Do you have a problem with that?

Bottom line is that the ability to react to a stimulus is nowhere near enough to determine awareness.

A cliff can react to the erosive power of waves by collapsing. That does not mean that the cliff is aware.

Let me put it another way...

I can take a number of living things, say a dog, a cat, a horse and a person. I can push each one out of a plane, and they will all fall straight down. But that doesn't mean that the ability to fall is some property of life. I can then push a rock out of the plane and it will fall in the same way as the living things. But that doesn't mean that the rock is alive.

Likewise, many things are able to do something when a particular thing happens. That doesn't mean that they are aware.

All you need is matter and energy. Cause and effect is what happens when we are aware of anything. Our brain is a chemical system, just chemical reactions. Life doesn't need anything more to be aware and we can already mimic it with machinery but with computers I think we are doing more than just mimicking. Self awareness is just a loopback system which is what gives us what we have via the cerebral cortex. Of course there is something a bit more remarkable about humans but surely we can get to the level of less complicated animals.

 

[apophenia]

So far noone has really considered the possibility that awareness is a fundamental like gravity or strong and weak forces in the atom.

Obviously there is a relationship of brain structure and awareness.

But perhaps complex systems such as a biological organism modify awareness into forms - consciousness.

Point is, we don't know.
Emergent behaviour is still just behaviour. As described, there is no accounting for awareness of self within it, so it does not further the argument.

 

[outhouse]

So far noone has really considered the possibility that awareness is a fundamental like gravity or strong and weak forces in the atom.

because it doesnt make a lick of sense

But perhaps complex systems such as a biological organism modify awareness into forms - consciousness.

No

Point is, we don't know.

yes we do and your heading into imagination

 

[Prophet]

Outhouse:

Is it possible for you to make a point without being insulting?

 

[apophenia]

For the theory that awareness is emergent behaviour to fly, you need to :

Define the difference between awareness and reaction ; like chemical or mechanical reaction

Be able to define the level of complexity at which it emerges.

Be able to test for its existence.

Otherwise its a flying spaghetti monster. LOL

 

[cablescavenger]

i am a muslim and believe that God exists however i don't need to argue that he exists, because by convincing you that he exists won't make God any more real than he is, there are about 6 billion people who believe in God. if your questions are honest and sincere i'd like to hear them.

6 billion people can be wrong :flirt:

 

[outhouse]

Outhouse:

Is it possible for you to make a point without being insulting?

thats not insulting at all.

if he is not making sense because of his imaginitive position, hes not making sense.


he has a unsupported idea and has admitted it.

nothing insulting at all.

 

[Prophet]

Hi outhouse:

I've a few questions.

Do you find that belittling your opponent and his ideas with harsh or condescending language gives strength to yourself and your own ideas?

Also, do you find stating your opinion as fact to be a valid means for winning debates?

 

[apophenia]

thats not insulting at all.

if he is not making sense because of his imaginitive position, hes not making sense.


he has a unsupported idea and has admitted it.

nothing insulting at all.

Actually by general social standards you are choosing to be insulting, but I have no problem with that.

But you need a bit more than just that for your response to be credible and interesting to read.

I'm giving you good material to work with ! Get on board ! LOL

 

[outhouse]

Actually by general social standards you are choosing to be insulting, but I have no problem with that.

But you need a bit more than just that for your response to be credible and interesting to read.

I'm giving you good material to work with ! Get on board ! LOL

i do apologize if it sounded insulting.

your just going out into a area on a personal trail in ones mind with no backing by anyone else.

I just dont see anything beyond imagination at this point

 

[outhouse]

Hi outhouse:

I've a few questions.

Do you find that belittling your opponent and his ideas with harsh or condescending language gives strength to yourself and your own ideas?

Also, do you find stating your opinion as fact to be a valid means for winning debates?

there is no winning a debate online.

there is only presenting facts and or knowledge on a subject.


I dont belittle unless asked for it, But I can be condescending if one os posting something as fact and they are dead wrong.


There are subjects I will speak from a point of certainty "IF" I have done the homeowrk someone is lacking

 

[idav]

So far noone has really considered the possibility that awareness is a fundamental like gravity or strong and weak forces in the atom.

I've considered it but that is like trying to say their is spirit in everything but it isn't necessary for what has emerged.

Emergent behaviour is still just behaviour. As described, there is no accounting for awareness of self within it, so it does not further the argument.

There is accounting for awareness of self but as far as tests go we seem to be better at doing than even our chimp cousins. Expecting to test for self awareness is way far off, as I mentioned before I was not talking about AI. Just simple basic awareness within the animal kingdom where they got to the point of reacting to surroundings. It is very easy to test how plants and animals react and we can even pinpoint the functionality of the cells and chemical reactions bringing about change. We can easily track the emergence of self through biology and evolution.

 

[apophenia]

I've considered it but that is like trying to say their is spirit in everything but it isn't necessary for what has emerged.

Seems we just see this very differently.

As far as I'm concerned our current science has explanations for the evolution of complex behaviours, but not even the beginning of an explanation for being-awareness, and the whole 'emergent behaviour' thing is just scientific 'sleight-of-hand' which says nothing about awareness.

But I think we have reached the end of that for the Time Being.

On the subject of the Time Being, I notice you call yourself a pantheist. I guess what I am talking about is heading more in the direction of pandeism.

Why do you call yourself a pantheist if you think bigbang/abiogenesis/evolution has it all covered ?

 

[Prophet]

there is no winning a debate online.

there is only presenting facts and or knowledge on a subject.


I dont belittle unless asked for it, But I can be condescending if one os posting something as fact and they are dead wrong.


There are subjects I will speak from a point of certainty "IF" I have done the homeowrk someone is lacking

I'm fairly certain I did not ask your rationale for using abusive language. What I asked was whether this type of language strengthens you or your ideas. Your evasiveness here tells me that you know that using abusive language does nothing for the actual strength of your ideas and you aren't keen on admitting it.

 

[idav]

On the subject of the Time Being, I notice you call yourself a pantheist. I guess what I am talking about is heading more in the direction of pandeism.

Why do you call yourself a pantheist if you think bigbang/abiogenesis/evolution has it all covered ?

There are some pantheists that bring in a spiritual aspect but they would put spirit into matter like what you had implied. Similarly you can insert spirit through Panentheism where they say there is an agent outside of the universe.

The type of pantheism I subscribe to is more of a monist physicalist so naturally I believe that the answers are in the things we are able to observe. You are correct that we don't have all the answers yet but we have a good handle on at least what we are able to observe. My own personal speculation can't go much further than what science can provide.