Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[Ben Dhyan]

Sorry, but that looks like pure nonsense.

Tells everyone more about your mind than the Phd in theoretical nuclear physics author.

 

[gnostic]

How many times do I have to tell you that I understand the biology, my question is, since you believe that sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, etc., have no consciousness, then no matter how they could come together, there could never be consciousness. But there is, so that means there is some intrinsic awareness in all things.

This is total BS.

I have given you my answers, based on what we know about biology. Life operate on cellular levels, and only animals are conscious.

Cells are made with whole bunch of molecules, hence of atoms and even smaller subatomic particles. Neurons are cells, and we have nerve tissues that make up our nervous systems, including the brain and spinal cord that processed all the stimuli. That biology.

Sure an atom by itself, is not capable of awareness, but I am not talking about individual atoms or individual particles.

But you want to talk about "pure consciousness" and "intrinsic awareness of all things", which are the total woo BS.

You can believe what you want to believe, but I preferred fact and I have answered your questions based on those biological facts.

The nonsensical concept of transcendent consciousness - that's your personal belief, not mine.

If I have answered you the best I can, then it is not my problem that you don't like my answers, but you will have to live with the answers that I have given. I am not going to answer your questions based on your personal preferences.

You know this is debate forum and debate thread. There are no rules that we have to agree with each other. You don't like my answers; and I don't have to believe what you believe in. Hence, we can agree that we disagree.

So stop repeating the same stupid questions, when I have already answer them. You don't like my answers, then, TOUGH!

As I said, I am not here to give you answers that you like. We disagreed...live with it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This is total BS.

I have given you my answers, based on what we know about biology. Life operate on cellular levels, and only animals are conscious.

Cells are made with whole bunch of molecules, hence of atoms and even smaller subatomic particles. Neurons are cells, and we have nerve tissues that make up our nervous systems, including the brain and spinal cord that processed all the stimuli. That biology.

Sure an atom by itself, is not capable of awareness, but I am not talking about individual atoms or individual particles.

But you want to talk about "pure consciousness" and "intrinsic awareness of all things", which are the total woo BS.

You can believe what you want to believe, but I preferred fact and I have answered your questions based on those biological facts.

The nonsensical concept of transcendent consciousness - that's your personal belief, not mine.

If I have answered you the best I can, then it is not my problem that you don't like my answers, but you will have to live with the answers that I have given. I am not going to answer your questions based on your personal preferences.

You know this is debate forum and debate thread. There are no rules that we have to agree with each other. You don't like my answers; and I don't have to believe what you believe in. Hence, we can agree that we disagree.

So stop repeating the same stupid questions, when I have already answer them. You don't like my answers, then, TOUGH!

As I said, I am not here to give you answers that you like. We disagreed...live with it.

Consciousness from non-consciousness is not possible, there is intrinsic consciousness in all of nature. Left-hemisphere oriented scientists are just not yet aware of the nature's awareness.

 

[gnostic]

Tells everyone more about your mind than the Phd in theoretical nuclear physics author.

Whatever Ronald Bryan's qualification is, what Bryan proposing about "consciousness", isn't theoretical, it is parapscyhology.

We have both been members of RF for awhile, and I have come across have been many concepts of consciousness that have been mixed with particle physics and quantum physics, like the guy from India some years ago, whose name I cannot remember, proposing similar things.

EVERY SINGLE CONCEPTS proposed by these so-called physicists, have failed to test & verify their concepts with regards to consciousness, HENCE, EACH ONES (of those concepts) ARE NOT SCIENCE.

You do realise that a theoretical model, is only proposals, like a hypothesis. It doesn't make their proposals, "true", until it has been thoroughly and rigorously tested, hence such model required observational evidence, experiment & data, to test them.

If it repeatedly failed to be tested, then it isn't even a theoretical model, it is just an unfalsifiable concept, a pseudoscience, but in this case, parapsychology, junk psychology.

 

[YoursTrue]

They all have consciousness & awareness, because THEIR BIOLOGY ALL HAVE

​

CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEMS​

& SENSORY NERVOUS SYSTEMS.​

How many times must I say it, before you bloody get it?

Man, are you daft!

In mammals, including humans, they have the following Sensory Nervous Systems that connect their sensory receptors to the portions of the brains that process the sensory stimuli:

SOMATOSENSORY SYSTEM:​

Receptors:​

• mechanoreceptors that provide sense of touch;
• thermoreceptors that detect temperature;
• nociceptors that sense pains & damages

Somatosensory Cortex: the cortex that processes the stimuli from each of those above receptors.​

​

VISUAL SYSTEM:​

Receptors: photoreceptors are the nerves within the eyes that provide vision, detect colours.​

Visual Cortex​

​

AUDITORY SYSTEM:​

Receptors: the mechanoreceptors of the ears that detect sound pressures in the medium (eg air), that include the eardrums and the inner ear’s cochlea that turns those pressures into electrochemical signals​

Auditory Cortex: the cortex that processed the electrochemical signals into sounds.​

​

OLFACTORY SYSTEM:​

Receptors: the chemoreceptors that (within the nose) that detect gases that have smells.​

Olfactory cortices: several parts of the brains, including the primary olfactory cortex that processed stimuli of gases​

​

GUSTATORY SYSTEM:​

Receptors: the chemoreceptors - the taste buds in the tongue that detect stimuli or sensation of food or liquid​

Gustatory Cortex: portions of the brain that processed taste from the mouth and tongue.​

​

VESTIBULAR SYSTEM:​

Receptors: the mechanoreceptors that are detected & coordinated the motions of one’s body, with the inner ear’s 3 semicircular canals & the vestibule that provide the sense of balance; the vestibular system also coordinates with the eyes; the canals and vestibule has liquid within, so when the liquid are imbalanced, person may experiences dizziness or vertigo & nausea.​

Vestibular Cortex: the cortex that processes the signals from the ear’s canals & vestibules.​

All of these sensory systems are what provide consciousness to a person; it is built into their biology, as long as he or she alive.

The question is why do you insist on talking about "non consciousness" or "non awareness"?

I have repeatedly talk about the biology of conscious organisms, most particular on human consciousness, based on what we can understand their biology. There are no single precursor, their consciousness are builtin their sensory nervous systems, I am content to leave it at that.

You want more, except that I have already given you my answers. I am fed up with you repeating the same stupid questions, as if I have not answer them. Stop repeating the damn non-awareness BS!

I can only imagine that some might imagine these 'links,' so to speak, from one body part to another regarding consciousness, came about by -- mutation...chance that "worked." Or didn't work. But are there.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Whatever Ronald Bryan's qualification is, what Bryan proposing about "consciousness", isn't theoretical, it is parapscyhology.

We have both been members of RF for awhile, and I have come across have been many concepts of consciousness that have been mixed with particle physics and quantum physics, like the guy from India some years ago, whose name I cannot remember, proposing similar things.

EVERY SINGLE CONCEPTS proposed by these so-called physicists, have failed to test & verify their concepts with regards to consciousness, HENCE, EACH ONES (of those concepts) ARE NOT SCIENCE.

You do realise that a theoretical model, is only proposals, like a hypothesis. It doesn't make their proposals, "true", until it has been thoroughly and rigorously tested, hence such model required observational evidence, experiment & data, to test them.

If it repeatedly failed to be tested, then it isn't even a theoretical model, it is just an unfalsifiable concept, a pseudoscience, but in this case, parapsychology, junk psychology.

You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. It amuses me how atheists baulk at anything that indicates there is more to existence than the parts, have you heard the saying, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts? You want to see a part perform to believe, rather than see the performance of the whole.

So be it, that is your left-hemispheric part conditioning, you will not understand the whole until your mind is opened to the whole.

 

[Pogo]

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

No,physical properties and reactions occur, but not everything is just the sum of its parts, as a supposedly right brain you should recognize this, we left brainers do.

It is also not a binary on off situation as you seem to think, again we left brainers are capable of dealing with ambiguity and continua.

 

[Pogo]

Because if there was no precursor to a human being, they just appeared on the scene, how?

You really think that that is what anyone is saying?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No,physical properties and reactions occur, but not everything is just the sum of its parts, as a supposedly right brain you should recognize this, we left brainers do.

It is also not a binary on off situation as you seem to think, again we left brainers are capable of dealing with ambiguity and continua.

Just a correction left brainers see the sum of the parts. balanced left-right brainers see the whole which is greater than the sum of the parts.

 

[Pogo]

Consciousness from non-consciousness is not possible, there is intrinsic consciousness in all of nature. Left-hemisphere oriented scientists are just not yet aware of the nature's awareness.

That is an undemonstrated assertion, unfortunately you don't understand the concept of evidence and so do not understand why no-one just accepts your assertion.
\
First, you will need to define consciousness such that we can even discuss it, your personal definition appears to be just that, personal and not what anyone else here understands by that collection of letters.
When you have done that, then we can address the issue of where it came from.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You really think that that is what anyone is saying?

The implication of, yes. From where did consciousness come?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That is an undemonstrated assertion, unfortunately you don't understand the concept of evidence and so do not understand why no-one just accepts your assertion.
\
First, you will need to define consciousness such that we can even discuss it, your personal definition appears to be just that, personal and not what anyone else here understands by that collection of letters.
When you have done that, then we can address the issue of where it came from.

You are an atheist, you don't use your right hemisphere, you can't apprehend reality as a whole.

 

[Pogo]

The implication of, yes. From where did consciousness come?

Our Central Nervous Systems, it is an emergent property like wetness from Hydrogen and Oxygen.

Emergent Properties​

The general notion of emergence is meant to conjoin these twin characteristics of dependence and autonomy. It mediates between extreme forms of dualism, which reject the micro-dependence of some entities, and reductionism, which rejects macro-autonomy.

some of us are better at negotiating these ideas than others.

 

[Pogo]

You are an atheist, you don't use your right hemisphere, you can't apprehend reality as a whole.

This is just comical, your overextrapolation of concepts makes you the poster child for that which you project others to be doing.

You rather miss the point that the best scientists are the ones who are not limited by your left brain paradigm of Ridgid thinking while the worst philosophers are entirely convinced that they must be correct in what they think.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Our Central Nervous Systems, it is an emergent property like wetness from Hydrogen and Oxygen.

Emergent Properties​

The general notion of emergence is meant to conjoin these twin characteristics of dependence and autonomy. It mediates between extreme forms of dualism, which reject the micro-dependence of some entities, and reductionism, which rejects macro-autonomy.

some of us are better at negotiating these ideas than others.

Left brainers stop at the emergent property, left -right balanced seek to know from where the emergent property emerged, and from where did that emerge, and from where did that emerge, etc. until the whole is apprehended.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This is just comical, your overextrapolation of concepts makes you the poster child for that which you project others to be doing.

You rather miss the point that the best scientists are the ones who are not limited by your left brain paradigm of Ridgid thinking while the worst philosophers are entirely convinced that they must be correct in what they think.

Sorry, but Atheism is not comical, it is a sad state.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It may come as a surprise, I was addressing a man, and he understood and answered.

Please, no more BS.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How many times do I have to tell you that I understand the biology, my question is, since you believe that sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, etc., have no consciousness, then no matter how they could come together, there could never be consciousness. But there is, so that means there is some intrinsic awareness in all things.

Claiming that you understand biology and the showing that you do not by the questions that you ask is a rather silly thing to do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tells everyone more about your mind than the Phd in theoretical nuclear physics author.

Yeah, that does not really help you. He appears to have written hardly anything and he may have had a degree, but he did not seem to do to much with it.

 

[gnostic]

Sorry, but Atheism is not comical, it is a sad state.

There you go again, with the "atheism".

It has nothing to do with atheism.

What's really sad is you, being incapable to distinguish between what is atheism and what is science.

Atheism have no position regarding to any animal biology or consciousness. You still using strawman arguments and you are still equating atheism with strawman. You are tiresome.

What this recent discussion have been, has to do with your personal belief and the science behind consciousness (anatomy & physiology of the brain and sensory nervous systems).

You want to ignore the sciences, that's fine, as no one would expect you to accept the biological and medical sciences regarding to consciousness & awareness. That's your choice.

It is also your choice to believe the religion you follow.

But you acting like a creationist, where you want to mix science & religion together, through disingenuous tactics, of redefining terms with your own baseless meanings, to exhaustively repeating the same questions already answered.