Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[ppp]

That doesn't mean anything to me. How does the word "natural" explain anything?

That question is dishonest. You appeal to a god. You don't care about explanations.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But we can see consciousness naturally arising. What makes you think that science cannot show that? They already have done so. Perhaps you are using some strange definition of "conscious".

Arising out of what, non-awareness or just more basic/less evolved universal awareness?

 

[gnostic]

The ancient Astronomers were also Astrologists. Although they used mythological explanations for the objects and movement of objects in the heavens, they could nevertheless accurately predict the behaviors of the heavens; comets, eclipses and the future position of stars and planets. For example, although some might attribute the movement of the Sun to Helios, they could nevertheless correlate the annual movement of the Sun. Theory still works the same way. Theory is a just place holder, while the observations, plotting of data, and the formation of a correlation, allows repeat pattern to emerge. How did superstitious people build the pyramids. This needed applied science based on superstition placeholders. If inspiration is attributed to the gods, and you become inspired, if that works, it still works.

The Alchemist invented many modern chemistry lab practices still used today; distillation and extraction, using a mystical approach to chemicals as their placeholder. They invented high proof booze. Applied science makes use of pure science and applies it to new areas. The ancients didi good applied science, that used mythological placeholders for theory, combined with careful observation and documentation.

I look at the modern theory of evolution as being based on a modern superstition placeholder. How do black boxes manufacture the positive change needed for evolution? Why are will still in the dark about this? If we combine that with "natural selection"; Mother Nature, that seems like modern math magic and old time superstitions, being used as a placeholder for sound observational correlations. This is science based on an ancient tradition. This may be why Atheism and Evolution; pot, work so hard to call religion; kettle, black.

The modern science approach; Age of Reason, required logic and data but no more superstition placeholders. Black box evolution falls short of logic, and is a placeholder for the good data that appears to correlate to the placeholder. The black box; dice and cards approach is like modern variation of a God, who is semi-conscious; drunk, and where he passes out, a change occurs. Mother Nature; natural selection, decides whether she will take him in and sober him up, or leave him in the gutter. But on any good day, Mother Nature brings him home and sobers him up. But it is not too long before the Atheist God goes on another drinking binge, needed for change. Is the goddess, called Mother Nature ,conscious when she makes selection, or has she also had a few? Even a broken watch gets it right twice a day.

I can accept the correlation of evolution, since the data was gathered in earnest. But the superstitious place holder is where I depart. My approach was use the age of enlightenment and reason standards to find a reasonable and logical explanation for the same data. This involves water and entropy. Water is the most studied substance in all of science and entropy is one of the fews laws in science; beyond a theory placeholder. I am able to avoid modern superstition. But at the same time, I understand the placeholder nature of superstition still allows science to go forward, albeit, is a drunk walk type of way in the mystical land of Casinos; subjective.

Wow!

That reply have whole lot of misunderstanding, as well as misinformation and misrepresentation.

Superstition would only apply to belief in supernatural entities (eg personifications of natural phenomena with supernatural beings like gods, spirits, angels, demons, fairies, etc) and supernatural events (eg events that naturally happened with good lucks or bad lucks, etc).

There are no spirits or deities in Evolution. And understanding Evolution, is very much similar to understanding the processes of genetic variations and genetics…meaning you cannot understand Evolution without reproduction & genetics.

There are nothing supernatural, about reproduction and genetics, and certainly nothing supernatural in genetic variations, that occur in among immediate groupings (eg parent organism(s) reproducing child organism(s)), or among larger populations, which in this case, may involved diversities that leads to more notable changes in traits or characteristics.

Evolution required changes in time, but not as “time” in period of seconds, minutes, days or years, etc, rather that “time” be measured in generations. Even among phyla to species of bacteria, such as pathogenic bacteria, that affected host organisms with ailment or disease, these don’t become resistant or immune to antibiotics in just two or few generations.

For example. In a single day, from a single individual bacteria can reproduce via binary fission (the parent cell would divide itself into 2 daughter cells with identical genes), and have as many as 160 generations, that by the end of single day (hypothetical example of 9-minute per generation), the population from that single day of more than 1.46x10^48 individual bacteria (calculation, the number always double, for each generation, hence 2^160 will give that number).

So can you imagine to the numbers of generations or the numbers in the population, if it took 3 month or even 6 whole months to become immune to the antibiotics? My calculator cannot even handle the population size for 3 months (overflow error, crashing at 2^1024).

Each individual pathogenic bacteria may have short lifespan (individually), but the population growth are rapid, as in exponential.

Anyway, how bacteria that have mutated to become resistant or immune to specific antibiotic, is factual and natural example of Evolution, requiring no superstitions.

That you think Evolution is based on superstition, is just you misrepresenting the definition of superstition, and misrepresenting the science behind evolutionary processes. What you are doing, is typical example of what every creationists do, using gross misrepresentation, and by underhandedly putting the evolutionary biology to the same level of religions that do use superstitions.

 

[gnostic]

Arising out of what, non-awareness or just more basic/less evolved universal awareness?

As I keep telling you, animals that are conscious, require some sort of nervous systems, whether it be central nervous systems (CNS) plus the peripheral nervous systems (PNS), eg nerves to tissues, like the skins and muscles, where the sensory perceptions come from senses of touch, pain or temperature.

While others (especially some numbers of invertebrates) may have nerve ring plus nerve ganglia (eg star fishes), or even more basic system, nerve nets. These may full or limited consciousness.

The only animals that I know of, that have no nerves are sponges and placozoans (there may be others that I don’t know of).

I know that you are thinking that the universe is conscious, and that you equate the universe with “God”, but that’s just your personal pantheistic belief. You have no evidence of the former (universe is conscious), and you are using equivocation (logical fallacy) for the later.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ok, for all atheistic inclined members, I know this video runs over an hour, but do yourselves a favor, and watch it right through, even if you do it in increments over time. and you will discover why it is you are atheists. The education system has biased your natural brain function to favor the left hemisphere and therefore you do not apprehend the full picture of reality.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

As I keep telling you, animals that are conscious, require some sort of nervous systems, whether it be central nervous systems (CNS) plus the peripheral nervous systems (PNS), eg nerves to tissues, like the skins and muscles, where the sensory perceptions come from senses of touch, pain or temperature.

While others (especially some numbers of invertebrates) may have nerve ring plus nerve ganglia (eg star fishes), or even more basic system, nerve nets. These may full or limited consciousness.

The only animals that I know of, that have no nerves are sponges and placozoans (there may be others that I don’t know of).

But you totally are ignoring my question, what is the precursor of animal consciousness?
And please watch the video above?

 

[gnostic]

Ok, for all atheistic inclined members, I know this video runs over an hour, but do yourselves a favor, and watch it right through, even if you do it in increments over time. and you will discover why it is you are atheists. The education system has biased your natural brain function to favor the left hemisphere and therefore you do not apprehend the full picture of reality.

I am talking about science, not atheism or agnosticism. Btw, I am agnostic, not atheist.

it has nothing to do with atheism (or agnosticism). It has to do what theory can be tested, and your claims cannot be tested, let alone verified.

Sciences, particularly in biology and in medicine, have tested consciousness of animals, not atheism, as the word atheist isn’t the same thing as scientist. Atheism only deal with question of any deity‘s existence, and nothing else, so an atheist either lack a belief in any deity, or ath may disbelieve in any deity. Atheism isn’t about the study of nature, as it isn’t science.

That's another equivocation - you conflating atheism with natural sciences.

You are as bad as any creationists, using various logical fallacies to justify your absurd claims.

you are the only pantheist I know of, but are other pantheists just as disingenuous and illogical as you?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am talking about science, not atheism or agnosticism. Btw, I am agnostic, not atheist.

it has nothing to do with atheism (or agnosticism). It has to do what theory can be tested, and your claims cannot be tested, let alone verified.

Sciences, particularly in biology and in medicine, have tested consciousness of animals, not atheism, as the word atheist isn’t the same thing as scientist. Atheism only deal with question of any deity‘s existence, and nothing else, so an atheist either lack a belief in any deity, or ath may disbelieve in any deity. Atheism isn’t about the study of nature, as it isn’t science.

That's another equivocation - you conflating atheism with natural sciences.

You are as bad as any creationists, using various logical fallacies to justify your absurd claims.

you are the only pantheist I know of, but are other pantheists just as disingenuous and illogical as you?

Ok, forget the word atheism, let's go with science, if you are into science, you are using the left hemisphere predominately, whether you are reading about it, or doing it, so watch the video please, it will be profoundly enlightening for you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Arising out of what, non-awareness or just more basic/less evolved universal awareness?

We can see all sorts of awareness in life to the point where people are debating about where an organism is aware or not. That is what we would expect to see in an emergent process. There is no clear: This organism is aware and everyone below it is not aware.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That doesn't mean anything to me. How does the word "natural" explain anything?

It doesn't and it was not meant to be an explanation. It is merely a statement of what is observed. If you want an explanation that would be much longer.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

We can see all sorts of awareness in life to the point where people are debating about where an organism is aware or not. That is what we would expect to see in an emergent process. There is no clear: This organism is aware and everyone below it is not aware.

Ok, so it is emergent process all the way down, absolute non-awareness does not exist?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, so it is emergent process all the way down, absolute non-awareness does not exist?

Why argue that way? I did not say that or imply that. Here is your problem. You are the one trying to claim that awareness is some sort of absolute. That means that before you even start you need a working definition of "awareness" and you do not seem to have one. Then we can go on to step two once you do that.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why argue that way? I did not say that or imply that. Here is your problem. You are the one trying to claim that awareness is some sort of absolute. That means that before you even start you need a working definition of "awareness" and you do not seem to have one. Then we can go on to step two once you do that.

Only indirectly as a matter of logic, unless you can prove to me that awareness arose out of a non-aware essence at some earlier stage of the emergent awareness process.

 

[YoursTrue]

Only indirectly as a matter of logic, unless you can prove to me that awareness arose out of a non-aware essence at some earlier stage of the emergent awareness process.

somehow that first cell or whatever scientists say it might have been developed consciousness. And people want to talk about magic?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only indirectly as a matter of logic, unless you can prove to me that awareness arose out of a non-aware essence at some earlier stage of the emergent awareness process.

You have the burden of proof backwards.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You have the burden of proof backwards.

Oh c'mon, that's silly. it is evolutionary science making the claim about emergent awareness, the onus is therefore on them to explain the first step in the process, if there was one?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

somehow that first cell or whatever scientists say it might have been developed consciousness. And people want to talk about magic?

Yes, that would be a magic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh c'mon, that's silly. it is evolutionary science making the claim about emergent awareness, the onus is therefore on them to explain the first step in the process, if there was one?

They have done that. Your inability to understand it makes it a "You" problem. If you are willing to try to learn I may be able to help. I cannot make you understand.

 

[gnostic]

Ok, for all atheistic inclined members, I know this video runs over an hour, but do yourselves a favor, and watch it right through, even if you do it in increments over time. and you will discover why it is you are atheists. The education system has biased your natural brain function to favor the left hemisphere and therefore you do not apprehend the full picture of reality.

But you totally are ignoring my question, what is the precursor of animal consciousness?
And please watch the video above?

Ok, forget the word atheism, let's go with science, if you are into science, you are using the left hemisphere predominately, whether you are reading about it, or doing it, so watch the video please, it will be profoundly enlightening for you.

You have been talking about "conscious" and about "consciousness", as in being aware or awareness. That's different from thinking, learning or understanding.

Biologists, in particular neuroscience, have mapped out the brain functions as to what control what, what process what, and so on, especially those organs or tissues of nerves that provide senses to human, as well as other animals.

And as I am not a biologist or neurologist, I am only focusing on consciousness in general, as to which living organisms are conscious, and which are not.

What I have learned is that all vertebrates are conscious. As humans are tetrapod vertebrates, humans have something in common with other tetrapod vertebrates that provide then awareness through their senses, namely nervous systems:

• Central Nervous System (eg brain & spinal cord)
• and the sensory receptors, nerves in the tissues and organs that provided senses.

What the different parts (cortices, hence sensory cortex) of the brains do, is process those sensory information that the sensory receptors have picked up.

For invertebrates, many have nervous systems (eg brains) as well as sensory functions, but there are others that don't, instead their nervous systems would be either nerve rings or nerve nets, which provided either full or limited consciousness.

Then there are plants, fungi, protists, bacteria & archaea that have no consciousness at all, but they are alive or they have potential to reproduce. So consciousness play no part for these living organisms.

Those are the fact, biological facts.

What you have, are not facts, but your own personal opinion, belief, worldview, or whatever you want to call it.

You can meditate & still your mind, all you want, none of that provide any insight about the natural world, let alone about the Universe.

So if humans are conscious because of their nervous systems, then why would there need to be a "precursor"?

If you think there is a precursor, that's what you are claiming, then it is up to either show evidence or demonstrate it. Something that you cannot do, except to conceptualise. Your concept of conscious is nothing more than just opinions. The Universe being conscious is one of those opinions you have.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

They have done that. Your inability to understand it makes it a "You" problem. If you are willing to try to learn I may be able to help. I cannot make you understand.

Well then, show me their explanation of the first stage of emergent awareness?