Joshthefirst: evolution of course. We can evolve a mind. All other answers are foolish and not to be taken seriously.

Goot goot ! You'll get there. Baby steps matter a lot.

Uyi Iredia:

That's what's called the hard problem of consciousness: how does one go from neurns moving to conscious experience ?

Very good question indeed. Again I could also ask what particular interest the moving neurons have in the phenomenon of consciousness.

Any particular motivation for their "co-operation" towards achieving the state of a conscious united being?

This again, should be dwelt upon.

Joshthefirst: evolution of course. We can evolve a mind. All other answers are foolish and not to be taken seriously.

No! You misunderstand!!

GOD!!! did it. Case closed. We can stop wondering now and go back to sleep.

Mr Troll: No! You misunderstand!!

GOD!!! did it. Case closed. We can stop wondering now and go back to sleep.

But really and truly, the questions remain - - - >

Deep Sight:

At some point in the history of the earth in its solar system, all the matter that existed were lifeless matter - such as the rock, as an example. There would be solid, liquid and gaseous matter, but all lifeless matter all the same. Somehow, over time, this lifeless matter is said to have combined, grown, evolved and coalesced in such a manner as to produce, not just life, but also the highest form of life known, the human brain.

Uyi Iredia:

That's what's called the hard problem of consciousness: how does one go from neurns moving to conscious experience ?

Deep Sight:

Very good question indeed. Again I could also ask what particular interest the moving neurons have in the phenomenon of consciousness.

Any particular motivation for their "co-operation" towards achieving the state of a conscious united being?

Deep Sight:

But really and truly, the questions remain - - - >

Yo man, this question has been trashed severally in other threads and i have no wish to start here all over again.

The simple fact is that we really don't know. If you say God did it, good for you but the scientific community will not stop trying to find out because of the God Of The Gaps.

Mr Troll: Yo man, this question has been trashed severally in other threads and i have no wish to start here all over again.

The simple fact is that we really don't know. If you say God did it, good for you but the scientific community will not stop trying to find out because of the God Of The Gaps.

I am not aware that this question has been addressed at any time anywhere by anyone. . . . .

Can you refer me?

Somewhat relevant. Not saying I agree, just another pov

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

popper:
Popper had his own sophisticated views on evolution that go much beyond what the frequently-quoted passages say.[41] In effect, Popper agreed with soe of the points of both creationists and naturalists, but alsox disagreed with both views on crucial aspects. Popper understood the universe as a creative entity that invents new things, including life, but without the necessity of something like a god, especially not one who is pulling strings from behind the curtain. He said that evolution must, as the creationists say, work in a goal-directed way[42] but disagreed with their view that it must necessarily be the hand of god that imposes these goals onto the stage of life.

Instead, he formulated the spearhead model of evolution, a version of genetic pluralism. According to this model, living organisms themselves have goals, and act according to these goals, each guided by a central control. In its most sophisticated form, this is the brain of humans, but controls also exist in much less sophisticated ways for species of lower complexity, such as the amoeba. This control organ plays a special role in evolution—it is the "spearhead of evolution". The goals bring the purpose into the world. Mutations in the genes that determine the structure of the control may then cause drastic changes in behaviour, preferences and goals, without having an impact on the organism's phenotype. Popper postulates that such purely behavioural changes are less likely to be lethal for the organism compared to drastic changes of the phenotype.[43]

Popper contrasts his views with the notion of the "hopeful monster" that has large phenotype mutations and calls it the "hopeful behavioural monster". After behaviour has changed radically, small but quick changes of the phenotype follow to make the organism fitter to its changed goals. This way it looks as if the phenotype were changing guided by some invisible hand, while it is merely natural selection working in combination with the new behaviour. For example, according to this hypothesis, the eating habits of the giraffe must have changed before its elongated neck evolved. Popper contrasted this view as evolution from within or active Darwinism (the organism actively trying to discover new ways of life and being on a quest for conquering new ecological niches),[44][45] with the naturalistic evolution from without (which has the picture of a hostile environment only trying to kill the mostly passive organism, or perhaps segregate some of its groups).

Mr Troll: PICTURE OF THE ROCK AND THE BRAIN.

At the very fundamental level, they are both made of the same ingredients(atoms etc)

it seems quite incredulous that both may once have been the same thing in the distant past but whatever we may want to fantasize, there is simply no evidence to suggest that the rock may have evolved while the brain was designed(with what? Same materials i guess).

Nevertheless, the brain is a wonder, just as it a wonder that we share 70% of our DNA with a slug yet we are so vastly different. . .

Mr Troll, you make me proud. Please keep on Trolling.

plaetton:

Mr Troll, you make me proud. Please keep on Trolling.

Am i supposed to jump up or cry?

Deep Sight:

I am not aware that this question has been addressed at any time anywhere by anyone. . . . .

Can you refer me?

Really? Lol. I'm not gonna do this with you. . .

Mr Troll: Really? Lol. I'm not gonna do this with you. . .

This statement is a trick, and an old tired one at that.

Feign shock and surprise over the fact that someone else is supposedly ignorant of an issue in order to avoid having to address it.

Please find a better trick.

plaetton:

Mr Troll, you make me proud. Please keep on Trolling.

I seem to recall you deploying similar escapist and laughable techniques when I opened the thread on questions about evolution.

Well, well, I can only say I am getting used to you.

End of the day, there appears scant difference between the techniques of religious fanatics and the technbiques of atheoistic fanatics.

"And the animals looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, but it had become impossible to tell the difference."

- George Orwell, Concluding Line in Animal Farm.

Deep Sight:

I seem to recall you deploying similar escapist and laughable techniques when I opened the thread on questions about evolution.

Well, well, I can only say I am getting used to you.

End of the day, there appears scant difference between the techniques of religious fanatics and the technbiques of atheoistic fanatics.

"And the animals looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, but it had become impossible to tell the difference."

- George Orwell, Concluding Line in Animal Farm.

I have no idea what you are talking about.
I might be wrong, but I am sensing a tinge of personal animosity towards my viewpoints,rather than the healthy objective robust arguments that I have grown to expect from you, Deepsight.
I have advised you before to stop going to church. It is messing with your great mind.

If you want to have a robust debate or discussion, as we normally do, then please take a short break from your Olympian heights, or cut short your vacation in the Alpha Omega Nebula Galaxy, come down and meet me right here in Terra-firma where most us advanced primates call home.

@Op

Now back to the topic.

Like logicboy reiterated earlier,"A picture is worth a thousand words".
So anyone has the freedom to pick any word or words most suitable to his or her subjective views.

Somehow, in the haste to attack my post , you conveniently forgot that we are talking about imagery, not substance.

Deep Sight:

This is true and correct, but I fail to see its relevance to this thread.

All of this could similarly be said on the question of whether anything around you actually exists at all or is all in your head: a mirage. A futile line of thinking, which, even where true, is meaningless for everyone, and profits no one anything.

I am simply interested in what may be deduced (in philosophic terms) from the pictures I posted.

I reiterate that subjective truths have no reliability and no validity unless they can be objectively verified through a variety of different processes.

For example, if a person says that a bar of iron looks heavier than a similar bar of gold, we can objectively verify whether that is true or not by simply weighing the two bars.
Numbers don't lie.
Numbers tell us truths about our objective realities.

So, all this nonsense about all existence collapsing into nothingness because of the unreliability of subjective perception is hogwash. This assertion seems to be the only escapism that is clearly evident here.

I do not see how imagery, no matter how sublime, can contain or transmit any objective truth about the existence or non-existence of god.
I repeat, the observer will only see(interpret) what he wants to or has been mentally conditioned to see in any imagery.

As a very good example,
Every once in a while we have the catholic wolrd abuzz with this or that image of Mary or Jesus on one thing or another.
That is what they want to see.

It is extremely silly and laughable to see an image of Mary or Jesus considering that no one knows what either of them may have looked like.

Very hilarious is the fact that the so-called imagery of Mary seem to conform to the modern western Idea of feminine beauty.
Imagery of Mary often show a tall, slim, curvy and with long hair female in her prime years.
No one has ever seen a short, fat, old or middle aged and wrinkled Mary.

No one has ever seen a short or pot bellied Jesus in any type of imagery. The Jesus often seen in Imagery looks like someone who worked out at the nearby gym in Jerusalem.lol

Yet, every catholic, from the flock to the clergy, all believe that images of Mary and Jesus seen across the world by devout catholics to be real.

This would be the classic example of a minds being hacked, influenced and molded to accept certain realities(usually illusionary) as truth.
What do you make of that?

plaetton:

I have no idea what you are talking about.
I might be wrong, but I am sensing a tinge of personal animosity towards my viewpoints,rather than the healthy objective robust arguments that I have grown to expect from you, Deepsight.
I have advised you before to stop going to church. It is messing with your great mind.

If you want to have a robust debate or discussion, as we normally do, then please take a short break from your Olympian heights, or cut short your vacation in the Alpha Omega Nebula Galaxy, come down and meet me right here in Terra-firma where I most us advanced primates call home.

using even flattery to try to enforce your views. I'm not surprised. You even made up a false claim to justify your twisted point of view before.

Joshthefirst: using even flattery to try to enforce your views. I'm not surprised. You even made up a false claim to justify your twisted point of view before.

Huh??

plaetton:

I have no idea what you are talking about.
I might be wrong, but I am sensing a tinge of personal animosity towards my viewpoints,rather than the healthy objective robust arguments that I have grown to expect from you, Deepsight.

Animosity? This can only be in your imagination. That i express my view that your response was meaningless does not connote any personal animosity. I really wonder where you would get that from.

I have detailed my reasons for saying so in several posts above. I neednt repeat myself. Address yourself to the points raised in rebuttal of yours. And no, your attempt above does not suffice. Its a complete non starter.

You need to show why a discussion cannot be had based on that which we see - simply on the grounds that all that we see is subjective. This principle really means that nothing can ever be discussed.

Finally, even if your thoughts are subjective, in my OP, it is exactly such subjective thoughts that I invite. So whats the problem giving your thoughts on an image?

@ Deep Sight

Sorry to derail your thread a bit.

First, I must thank you for returning to NL though stating why you returned, like you did when you left, to me, is not neccesary. I only wish to remind you that you raised a pertinent question on another thread where you began a discuss (not debate) with Mr Anony.

Pls I wish to remind you that you have unfinished business on that thread and it may be good you return to it.

Thank you.

https://www.nairaland.com/1341464/anony-deep-sight-verse-verse/7

Deep Sight:

Very good question indeed. Again I could also ask what particular interest the moving neurons have in the phenomenon of consciousness.

Any particular motivation for their "co-operation" towards achieving the state of a conscious united being?

This again, should be dwelt upon.

I will assume the materialist stance here. The atoms really don't have any motivation whatsoever for their cooperation. But their attributes within the brain is the result of many years of evolution as an ultimate consequence of physico-chemical laws. The expereience of consciousness has bothered some materialist so much so that some like Dennet think it's illusory. I don't think so. I know however that one's consciousness is nothing but the activity of neurons in a properly working brain without which consciousness is possible. This would make the hard problem of consciousness needless since it involves assuming consciousness as a thing seperate from the human brain were it isn't.

Deep Sight:

Animosity? This can only be in your imagination. That i express my view that your response was meaningless does not connote any personal animosity. I really wonder where you would get that from.

I have detailed my reasons for saying so in several posts above. I neednt repeat myself. Address yourself to the points raised in rebuttal of yours. And no, your attempt above does not suffice. Its a complete non starter.

You need to show why a discussion cannot be had based on that which we see - simply on the grounds that all that we see is subjective. This principle really means that nothing can ever be discussed.

Finally, even if your thoughts are subjective, in my OP, it is exactly such subjective thoughts that I invite. So whats the problem giving your thoughts on an image?

There is nothing wrong with having a discussion on things that we see on an image.


Its not just about the one's subjective thoughts on an image, it's about your implied (or attempts) connections between subjective thoughts and existence or non-existence of god.

That is where I came in: Specifically to point out that any subjective thoughts so derived cannot be a truthful and reliable arbiter of objective reality.
My point, and I repeat it for the third time, is that no matter what the individual thoughts or inferences from the visual images, they cannot be relevant to the issue of the existence or non-existence of god in the universe.
I hope you got it this time.

So my post is very very relevant to the op , even if it has taken your thread to directions that you may not have tele-guided it to go.
I think that may have been my crime, not the substance of my argument.

@ plaetton
https://www.nairaland.com/1495052/philosophy-reality

Deep Sight:

This statement is a trick, and an old tired one at that.

Feign shock and surprise over the fact that someone else is supposedly ignorant of an issue in order to avoid having to address it.

Please find a better trick.

Check the last 5 pages of your thread "Who The Hell Said The Big Bang And Evolution Explain Life?"

and also, do you remember the reason why you opened the thread?

Do you still think i'm being trickish?

plaetton:
My point, and I repeat it for the third time, is that no matter what the individual thoughts or inferences from the visual images, they cannot be relevant to the issue of the existence or non-existence of god in the universe.
I hope you got it this time.

As such, you say that we should not discuss objective reality based on anything that we see!

This is comical.

What then may we base any objective diacussion on. What we hear? What we smell? What we reason -- from what? Do not all our reasonings derive from what we sense with our senses. Does not all science derive from what we see and observe.

My friend, I think, with all due respect, that your comments are ill thought and would be better suited to a comedy session.

For they render all inquiry into everything meaningless. As I said, your comments may be said as a response to everything - even as a response to your own existence. They imply that even if I meet you in person, I cannot objectively know that you exist.

As I said, wasteful, and with due respect, utterly unserious and meaningless tittle tattle unworthy of any serious minded discussion.

Deep Sight:

As such, you say that we should not discuss obtective reality based on anything that we see.

This is comical.

What then may we base any objective diacussion on. What we hear? What we smell? What we reason -- from what? Do not all our reasonings derive from what we sense with our senses. Does not all science derive from what we see and observe.

My friend, I think, with all due respect, that your comments are ill thought and would be better suited to a comedy session.

For they render all inquiry into everything meaningless. As I said, your comments may be said as a response to everything - even as a response to your own existence. They imply that even if I meet you in person, I cannot objectively know that you exist.

As I said, wasteful, and withvdue respect, utterly unserious and meaningless tittle tattle unworthy of any serious minded discussion.

omo!
Egbami oooo!

See finishing abeg.

Deep Sight:

As such, you say that we should not discuss objective reality based on anything that we see!

This is comical.

What then may we base any objective diacussion on. What we hear? What we smell? What we reason -- from what? Do not all our reasonings derive from what we sense with our senses. Does not all science derive from what we see and observe.

My friend, I think, with all due respect, that your comments are ill thought and would be better suited to a comedy session.

For they render all inquiry into everything meaningless. As I said, your comments may be said as a response to everything - even as a response to your own existence. They imply that even if I meet you in person, I cannot objectively know that you exist.

As I said, wasteful, and with due respect, utterly unserious and meaningless tittle tattle unworthy of any serious minded discussion.

You are the one who is being comical.
Your comprehension skills show a marked decline.

I have said something 3 times and yet you deliberately( for cheap cheers from Joshthfirst perhaps) pretend not to know what I am pointing at.

You invited thoughts(in fact, you specifically asked readers to think deeply) on a couple of visual images, did you not?
You were inviting the reader's subjective inferences, were you not?
So where was the objectivity therein?

What any one sees objectively and what they infer subjectively from any visual image will differ from person to person.
Therefore, subjective truth should be seen as an oxymoron, unreliable, most especially regarding the existence or non-existence of god..
That was and is still my point.
C'mon man, how long will it take you to understand that?

Of course , you are free to discuss subjective or objective realities.
There is no crime in that, and I have made that point too.

I cannot challenge you about what is inside your head.

The error, which you are particularly fond of, is the attempt to forcefully superimpose your subjective reality into objective reality of others.
They hardly fit.
This is the problem with other thing called faith, and religion(and we can see how well that has served humankind.)
That is where you will be challenged.

^^^^
We have developed a system .
I think it is called, ehhm ehhm .... emperical science.
Yeah!
It is a trusted system that helps us in obtaining real objective, measurable and reliable truth about reality.
This system, ever since it came into common usage a few hundred years ago, has greatly proved it's pre-eminence over all others.

plaetton:

You are the one who is being comical.
Your comprehension skills show a marked decline.

I have said something 3 times and yet you deliberately( for cheap cheers from Joshthfirst perhaps) pretend not to know what I am pointing at.

You invited thoughts(in fact, you specifically asked readers to think deeply) on a couple of visual images, did you not?
You were inviting the reader's subjective inferences, were you not?
So where was the objectivity therein?

What any one sees objectively and what they infer subjectively from any visual image will differ from person to person.
Therefore, subjective truth should be seen as an oxymoron, unreliable, most especially regarding the existence or non-existence of god..
That was and is still my point.
C'mon man, how long will it take you to understand that?

Of course , you are free to discuss subjective or objective realities.
There is no crime in that, and I have made that point too.

I cannot challenge you about what is inside your head.

The error, which you are particularly fond of, is the attempt to forcefully superimpose your subjective reality into objective reality of others.
They hardly fit.
This is the problem with other thing called faith, and religion(and we can see how well that has served humankind.)
That is where you will be challenged.

The thing tire me. Just after my second reply to his post, i understood where all this was heading to. . .

plaetton:

I have no idea what you are talking about.
I might be wrong, but I am sensing a tinge of personal animosity towards my viewpoints,rather than the healthy objective robust arguments that I have grown to expect from you, Deepsight.
I have advised you before to stop going to church. It is messing with your great mind.

That singular obsession on your part of 'wanting' DeepSight to turn atheist is taking a toll on your rationality that your focuss and concentration toward a rational postulation is being affected.

Watched it men!

truthislight:

That singular obsession on your part of 'wanting' DeepSight to turn atheist is taking a toll on your rationality that your focuss and concentration toward a rational postulation is being affected.
Ok
Watched it men!

It is not possible to make someone an atheist.
Atheism is a realization that occurs at certain time in the lives of some individuals.
Even after the realization, it still takes a lot of courage to openly declare it.

I bet you that there are many many vocal theists on and off NL who are troubled by the enormous doubts they harbor about the existence of god.

You know them by the amount of intellectual gymnastics and sophistry they employ to prove the existence of the airy(more like fairy) skydaddy.

plaetton: ^^^^
We have developed a system .
I think it is called, ehhm ehhm .... emperical science.
Yeah!
It is a trusted system that helps us in obtaining real objective, measurable and reliable truth about reality

And the system relies entirely on that which is observed and seen: the same faculty of observation and sight which you say is not to be trusted as objective, since everything we see is subjective - this being the very ground on which you comically refuse to give your thoughts on simple images.

I have no time for this meaningless nonsense.

plaetton:
It is not possible to make someone an atheist.
Atheism is a realization that occurs at certain time in the lives of some individuals.
Even after the realization, it still takes a lot of courage to openly declare it.

I bet you that there are many many vocal theists on and off NL who are troubled by the enormous doubts they harbor about the existence of god.

You know them by the amount of intellectual gymnastics and sophistry they employ to prove the existence of the airy(more like fairy) skydaddy.

Atheism is a lack of depth and thought.

Deep Sight:

Atheism is a lack of depth and thought.

It isn't in fact. It dares to question the puzzle of existence without any lazy resort to divine power.