thehomer:


It was physical.

If it was physical then how can it be said the natural laws break down at the singularity ?

thehomer:
Sure they do. But that can also occur naturally. Unless you think your God is simply an intelligent person, then you've still not made a proper argument.

No, order can arise naturally and in specific conditions. And nature certainly can't and doesn't prescribe rules to be followed. Only intelligent beings can do that.

thehomer:
Once again, you've confused several things. ASCII and Morse are generally symbolic representations of human text. The genetic code is a representation of physical nucleotides that act and interact in a physical way following laws of physics, chemistry and biology. This is the same error you've made over and over again.

I have said that the physical mediums of codes follow natural laws so you've said nothing new. The genetic code isn't a representation of nucleotides. It's the rule that shows which sequence of nucleobases represent amino acids. Likewise, in ASCII and Morse codes determine which given sequence of electric signals represent a symbol.

thehomer:
I've already told you why genes follow natural laws and that computers don't act in a supernatural manner.

You have failed woefully in that regard.

thehomer:
If you're making an argument from analogy using human intelligence, then you have to conclude with humans or something very much like humans. The genetic code is a human symbol representing the physical nucleotides. What is God? How many people is it?

I don't have to conclude with humans. And I've told you why one can't use humans. Put simply they are part of life that we seek to account for. Aliens would also need to be accounted for and there are only 2 options, either life was created by God or it arose through natural means.

thehomer:
And they feel it because of its physical nature.

It's silly to say hunger is immaterial then say it has a physical nature. Maybe you meant to say it has a physical cause.

thehomer:
Can you fully explain consciousness from your point of view and be actually correct? Humbly accepting limitations in our knowledge isn't willful ignorance. A materialistic viewpoint is what makes science work. Your supernaturalistic viewpoint is actually worse than useless.

Yes. Consciousness makes sense in (and is the very basis of) an idealistic framework. I don't think you humbly accept limitations, I think you prefer to remain ignorant than admit to being wrong.

Materialism fails with regard to science since matter by itself is incapable of knowledge. What opens the door to knowledge is consciousness and that is what idealists have always maintained is truly important.

thehomer:
Again, begs what question? Can you actually phrase this question? Those of us who don't believe in the supernatural don't explain consciousness as a new compound. I don't know we ever will but simply asserting God did it is even worse.

Why is God worse ? The question of material activity in the brains causing consciousness as a by-product when in all other contexts it doesn't.

UyiIredia:
Before God created the universe.

God created chaos before creating order?

Yes.

So what is God needed for if a so called random universe can have order all by itself?

Again, natural processes treat things as is. If rain falls on a book it won't know what it represents it will only wet it.

Yes yes. I'm asking what is unusual about that.

Unnecessary. Since the universe we are in follows natural laws.

But there cannot be a lawless universe in the first place.

No, what I've said is that because mind observes and imagines and matter can do neither, mind is greater.

It is better to concieve and percieve than not. This should be self-evident as much as the fact that knowledge is better than ignorance, and as such the conclusion that mind is greater than matter is not subjective. To mindless matter, nothing exists and so ignorance lingers. To the mind, existence is known and so knowledge begins.

This is just a means of avoiding the conclusion I've made. Without the mind we wouldn't know cancer exists, and without the mind we won't be able to find its cure. Reality can only be known through the mind, matter is ignorant of reality. And that makes the mind greater.

Ignorance belongs to the mind.

Your conclusion is tenuous, there is nothing to avoid. Whether mind is greater or lesser than matter can not have any bearing on the mind - matter gap unless you can show that things pack more explanatory power or manage to become real simply because we find them great.

People have already claimed that God must exist simply because they find a universe with God greater than one without, but we are where we are. Such a line of argument (ascribing ontological clout to "greatness" won't do much for you here.

UyiIredia:


If it was physical then how can it be said the natural laws break down at the singularity ?

The same way we say Newton's laws break down at relativistic speeds.

UyiIredia:

No, order can arise naturally and in specific conditions. And nature certainly can't and doesn't prescribe rules to be followed. Only intelligent beings can do that.

Really? Well according to the rules of nature, you cannot swim in the sun. Go ahead and break that rule.

UyiIredia:

I have said that the physical mediums of codes follow natural laws so you've said nothing new. The genetic code isn't a representation of nucleotides. It's the rule that shows which sequence of nucleobases represent amino acids. Likewise, in ASCII and Morse codes determine which given sequence of electric signals represent a symbol.

Can you not see that in your poorly phrased way, you're saying what I've said? The base sequence is something physical, the amino acids are physical. The code is a human symbolization of those physical relationships. The codons A, T, G, C, U represent physical molecules.

UyiIredia:

You have failed woefully in that regard.

No you've failed to understand the basics of elementary biology.

UyiIredia:

I don't have to conclude with humans. And I've told you why one can't use humans. Put simply they are part of life that we seek to account for. Aliens would also need to be accounted for and there are only 2 options, either life was created by God or it arose through natural means.

Then you don't know how to make an argument. It would be clearer for you if you put it in a syllogistic format. Go ahead and do that in three or four steps. While you're trying to do that, you'll realize your error.

UyiIredia:

It's silly to say hunger is immaterial then say it has a physical nature. Maybe you meant to say it has a physical cause.

No I meant to say what I said. What would you say is the nature of hunger?

UyiIredia:

Yes. Consciousness makes sense in (and is the very basis of) an idealistic framework. I don't think you humbly accept limitations, I think you prefer to remain ignorant than admit to being wrong.

Please go ahead and explain consciousness. Since I'm ignorant and you have knowledge, I'll await your explanation.

UyiIredia:

Materialism fails with regard to science since matter by itself is incapable of knowledge. What opens the door to knowledge is consciousness and that is what idealists have always maintained is truly important.

You can maintain whatever you want as being truly important. Please can you give your supernatural explanation of the scientific method? And present examples of scientific discoveries based on that idea?

UyiIredia:

Why is God worse ?

It is an empty assertion. A form of argument from ignorance and it posits an entity that hasn't been shown to be present.

UyiIredia:

The question of material activity in the brains causing consciousness as a by-product when in all other contexts it doesn't.

What other context? Humans have brains and exhibit conscioiusness, other animals with complex neurological systems also seem to have various degrees of consciousness so what context are you talking about?

thehomer:


The same way we say Newton's laws break down at relativistic speeds.

This is a poor answer. Other laws describe what happen in that instance. Again, why do natural laws break down at the singularity if it's physical ?

thehomer:
Really? Well according to the rules of nature, you cannot swim in the sun. Go ahead and break that rule.

Did nature make that rule or did you infer that rule from nature ?

thehomer:
Can you not see that in your poorly phrased way, you're saying what I've said? The base sequence is something physical, the amino acids are physical. The code is a human symbolization of those physical relationships. The codons A, T, G, C, U represent physical molecules.

More ignorance. Of course, the nucleobases and amino acids are physical. What isn't physical is the sequence of the former representing the latter. Natural laws don't describe that relationship, no more than they describe how words represent concepts or objects.

thehomer:
No you've failed to understand the basics of elementary biology.

Wrong again. You confuse codes with their physical medium.

thehomer:
Then you don't know how to make an argument. It would be clearer for you if you put it in a syllogistic format. Go ahead and do that in three or four steps. While you're trying to do that, you'll realize your error.

I'll just leave you to your foolishness here. Let the reader note that I explained that humans are part of living things that need be explained, and so can't be the cause in contention, and that aliens only shifts the puzzle backwards, their existence too will have to be explained.

thehomer:
No I meant to say what I said. What would you say is the nature of hunger?

You have stated hunger is immaterial. Then you say it has a physical nature, which contradicts what you said earlier. This is stupid.

thehomer:
Please go ahead and explain consciousness. Since I'm ignorant and you have knowledge, I'll await your explanation.


You can maintain whatever you want as being truly important. Please can you give your supernatural explanation of the scientific method? And present examples of scientific discoveries based on that idea?

The scientific method is a product of the mind. That is more consonant with idealism (which regards mind as fundamental to reality) than materialism (which precludes existence outside the material universe).

thehomer:
It is an empty assertion. A form of argument from ignorance and it posits an entity that hasn't been shown to be present.

The entity doesn't have to be shown to be known, no more than dark matter is. God is not simply asserted, God is the only valid inference from the facts stated (ie order in the universe, genetic code in lifeforms and consciousness).

thehomer:
What other context? Humans have brains and exhibit conscioiusness, other animals with complex neurological systems also seem to have various degrees of consciousness so what context are you talking about?

Other chemical reactions outside the brains of various organisms.

UyiIredia:


This is a poor answer. Other laws describe what happen in that instance. Again, why do natural laws break down at the singularity if it's physical ?

That is the actual answer. Yes other laws do that but as I said, that is how we can say our current knowledge of natural laws bread down at the singularity. Let me make it clearer. Natural laws are currently used to describe events occurring after the singularity i.e after the universe has expanded to a certain size.

UyiIredia:

Did nature make that rule or did you infer that rule from nature ?

It is a rule of nature whether inferred or not. Go ahead and break it.

UyiIredia:

More ignorance. Of course, the nucleobases and amino acids are physical. What isn't physical is the sequence of the former representing the latter. Natural laws don't describe that relationship, no more than they describe how words represent concepts or objects.

The sequence isn't physical? The amino acids are the results of that sequence. Aren't amino acids physical anymore? You seriously need to first take the time to read the Wikipedia article on the genetic code or just read a biology text book. You'll notice that so far, your God hasn't been useful in presenting these explanations.

UyiIredia:

Wrong again. You confuse codes with their physical medium.

How have I done this?

UyiIredia:

I'll just leave you to your foolishness here. Let the reader note that I explained that humans are part of living things that need be explained, and so can't be the cause in contention, and that aliens only shifts the puzzle backwards, their existence too will have to be explained.

This is another stupid response. I've told you why your so-called explanation is fallacious and therefore useless. You can resolve this yourself by properly laying out your argument in a syllogistic form. If you can't do it or are afraid to, simply say so. Doing that will help you resolve your ignorant stupidity.

UyiIredia:

You have stated hunger is immaterial. Then you say it has a physical nature, which contradicts what you said earlier. This is stupid.

What is the contradiction you fool?

UyiIredia:

The scientific method is a product of the mind. That is more consonant with idealism (which regards mind as fundamental to reality) than materialism (which precludes existence outside the material universe).

Please give your supernatural explanation of the scientific method and present examples of scientific discoveries based on that idea.

UyiIredia:

The entity doesn't have to be shown to be known, no more than dark matter is. God is not simply asserted, God is the only valid inference from the facts stated (ie order in the universe, genetic code in lifeforms and consciousness).

If the entity isn't known, then you're making a fallacious argument from ignorance. Please make valid arguments for what you're calling the stated facts. i.e make your arguments for order in the universe, genetic code in lifeforms and consciousness.

UyiIredia:

Other chemical reactions outside the brains of various organisms.

Why should those chemical reactions be conscious? Are they brains too? Chemical reactions occur in the oceans. Is the ocean a brain such that it should be conscious? These are the sorts of silly and flippant responses that rapidly bore me.

undercat:


God created chaos before creating order?

God created an orderly universe with a tendency towards chaos.

undercat:

So what is God needed for if a so called random universe can have order all by itself?

It would have order to a far lesser degree than our universe, especially since it's random.

undercat:

Yes yes. I'm asking what is unusual about that.

Natural processes can't know that a given material is a symbol. It therefore makes natural origins for the genetic code impossible since genes refer to amino acids other than itself.

undercat:

But there cannot be a lawless universe in the first place.

I disagree. There could be.

undercat:

Ignorance belongs to the mind.

No. Even the mind can know its ignorance. For instance, I know that I don't know what undercat looks like. But matter is absolutely ignorant since it's mindless.

undercat:

Your conclusion is tenuous, there is nothing to avoid. Whether mind is greater or lesser than matter can not have any bearing on the mind - matter gap unless you can show that things pack more explanatory power or manage to become real simply because we find them great.

People have already claimed that God must exist simply because they find a universe with God greater than one without, but we are where we are. Such a line of argument (ascribing ontological clout to "greatness" won't do much for you here.

Things can become real because we concieve of them. For example, I can think of a building not existent and make it real when I build it. This is what I'm trying to get across that mind can not only percieve what exists, it can also concieve new things formerly non-existent into existence.

I would expect a universe without God to have no conscious beings since consciousness is not a property of matter. However, once we posit a God we can not only explain the existence of matter (since minds can concieve of new forms of matter) but the existence of consciousness is not a problem.

thehomer:


That is the actual answer. Yes other laws do that but as I said, that is how we can say our current knowledge of natural laws bread down at the singularity. Let me make it clearer. Natural laws are currently used to describe events occurring after the singularity i.e after the universe has expanded to a certain size.

So you have a physical system, the singularity, and natural laws don't apply to it. That's absurd.

thehomer:
It is a rule of nature whether inferred or not. Go ahead and break it.

Nature itself can't change its rules. Intelligent beings can change their rules.

thehomer:
The sequence isn't physical? The amino acids are the results of that sequence. Aren't amino acids physical anymore? You seriously need to first take the time to read the Wikipedia article on the genetic code or just read a biology text book. You'll notice that so far, your God hasn't been useful in presenting these explanations.

No, the mapping of a sequence of nucleobases to amino acids isn't physical.

thehomer:
How have I done this?

By referring to, in the case of genetic codes, genes and amino acids which are physical.

The amino acids and genes are physical and follow. Genes REPRESENTING amino acids isn't physical, and natural laws can't describe which gene represents an amino acid. Likewise, the electrical signals (representing 0's and 1's) and symbols used for ASCII codes in computers are physical. But the REPRESENTATION of symbols with electrical signals isn't physical and natural laws don't prescribe which electrical signal represents a symbol, humans do.

thehomer:
What is the contradiction you fool?

You can't see how saying hunger is immaterial and saying it has a physical nature contradicts ! You are being idiotic.

thehomer:
Please give your supernatural explanation of the scientific method and present examples of scientific discoveries based on that idea.

SMH. By the way, does the scientific method follow natural laws or not ?

thehomer:
If the entity isn't known, then you're making a fallacious argument from ignorance. Please make valid arguments for what you're calling the stated facts. i.e make your arguments for order in the universe, genetic code in lifeforms and consciousness.

The entity is known though not shown. No one argues from ignorance but what we do know. I don't need to argue about the universe's order, genetic codes and consciousness. Any well-educated person should know about those, an slowpoke would know the last one but then maybe you aren't as smart.

thehomer:
Why should those chemical reactions be conscious? Are they brains too? Chemical reactions occur in the oceans. Is the ocean a brain such that it should be conscious? These are the sorts of silly and flippant responses that rapidly bore me.

Good. And if no consciousness results from those chemical reactions why should brains be any different ? Why are brains exceptions to the rule ?

UyiIredia:
God created an orderly universe with a tendency towards chaos.

Then it is not correct to say that creation of order out of chaos obtains at a universal level, as you claimed.

It would have order to a far lesser degree than our universe, especially since it's random.

How do you measure the degree of disorder? For example, on a scale of 1 to 10 with one being the least ordered and 10 being the most, where would you place our universe?

Natural processes can't know that a given material is a symbol. It therefore makes natural origins for the genetic code impossible since genes refer to amino acids other than itself.

This statement is only true if we assume that the genetic code, which we have found in nature, is not natural. I think you are arguing from incredulity.

I disagree. There could be.

I'd like to know how

No. Even the mind can know its ignorance. For instance, I know that I don't know what undercat looks like. But matter is absolutely ignorant since it's mindless.

undercat looks like any other cat.

Matter cannot be ignorant. To say that it can is to make a category error. I remember you saying that mass and momentum cannot meaningfully be applied to consciousness. The error you imagined is the sort you're making here.

Things can become real because we concieve of them. For example, I can think of a building not existent and make it real when I build it. This is what I'm trying to get across that mind can not only percieve what exists, it can also concieve new things formerly non-existent into existence.

I would expect a universe without God to have no conscious beings since consciousness is not a property of matter. However, once we posit a God we can not only explain the existence of matter (since minds can concieve of new forms of matter) but the existence of consciousness is not a problem.

We have not moved forward. When you say consciousness is not a property of matter, you speak for yourself.

A building is merely a reconfiguration of existing matter. What we need is an example of a mind bringing matter itself into existence. Barring this, the existence of matter would be a problem in such a world.

UyiIredia:


So you have a physical system, the singularity, and natural laws don't apply to it. That's absurd.

Who says natural laws don't apply?

UyiIredia:

Nature itself can't change its rules. Intelligent beings can change their rules.

Ask your God to break it for you then. Just let us know when that is happening.

UyiIredia:

No, the mapping of a sequence of nucleobases to amino acids isn't physical.

Please explain.

UyiIredia:

By referring to, in the case of genetic codes, genes and amino acids which are physical.

The amino acids and genes are physical and follow. Genes REPRESENTING amino acids isn't physical, and natural laws can't describe which gene represents an amino acid. Likewise, the electrical signals (representing 0's and 1's) and symbols used for ASCII codes in computers are physical. But the REPRESENTATION of symbols with electrical signals isn't physical and natural laws don't prescribe which electrical signal represents a symbol, humans do.

You're misusing several terms and therefore creating a word salad. This is why I asked you to first try to read these things up before you continue because you're already in way over your head.

Genes transfer heritable traits they don't represent amino acids. Sequences of codons are translated to amino acids in a physical process. I really don't understand why you're so confused about something so clear and simple. ASCII is a form of representation of common characters. What does the sequence of your codon represent?

UyiIredia:

You can't see how saying hunger is immaterial and saying it has a physical nature contradicts ! You are being idiotic.

No I can't see it you fool. Please explain what the contradiction is.

UyiIredia:

SMH. By the way, does the scientific method follow natural laws or not ?

Don't shake your head. The scientific method is based on methodological naturalism. Please give your supernatural explanation of the scientific method and present examples of scientific discoveries based on that idea.

UyiIredia:

The entity is known though not shown. No one argues from ignorance but what we do know. I don't need to argue about the universe's order, genetic codes and consciousness. Any well-educated person should know about those, an slowpoke would know the last one but then maybe you aren't as smart.

You're making the argument from ignorance. I've already shown you how you're doing that. Oh? You don't need to make an argument because "everyone should know your arguments"? As usual you're trying to hide your ignorance but I won't let you. Assume that I'm an ignorant slowpoke and present your argument since you're so smart. In your stupidity, you'll be unable to make your argument.

UyiIredia:

Good. And if no consciousness results from those chemical reactions why should brains be any different ? Why are brains exceptions to the rule ?

Because brains aren't oceans.

What do machines dream of? New images released by Google give us one potential answer: hypnotic landscapes of buildings, fountains and bridges merging into one.
Thepictures, whichveer frombeautiful toterrifying, were created by the company’s image recognition neural network , whichhas been “taught” to identifyfeatures such as buildings, animals and objectsin photographs.
Theywere created by feeding a picture into the network, asking it to recognise a feature of it, and modify the picture toemphasise the feature it recognises. Thatmodifiedpicture is then fed back into the network, whichis again tasked torecognise features and emphasise them, and so on. Eventually, the feedbackloopmodifies the picture beyond all recognition.
At a low level, the neural network mightbetasked merely to detectthe edges on an image. In that case, the picture becomespainterly, an effect that will beinstantly familiarto anyone whohas experience playing aboutwithphotoshopfilters:
Butif the neural networkis tasked withfinding a more complex feature – suchas animals – in an image, it ends up generating a much more disturbing hallucination:
Ultimately, the software can even run on an image whichis nothing more than random noise, generating features that are entirely of its own imagination.
Here’s what happens if you task a networkfocused on finding building features withfinding and enhancing them in a featureless image:
Thepicturesare stunning, butthey’re more than justfor show. Neural networks are a common feature of machine learning: ratherthan explicitly programmea computerso that it knows how torecognise an image, the company feeds it images and lets it piecetogether the key features itself.
Butthat can result in software that is ratheropaque. It’s difficult toknow what features the software is examining, and whichit has overlooked. For instance, asking the networktodiscoverdumbbellsin a picture of random noise reveals it thinks that a dumbbellhas to have a musculararm gripping it:
Thesolutionmight betofeed it more images of dumbbellssitting on the ground, until it understands that the arm isn’t an intrinsicpart of the dumbbell.
“One of the challenges of neural networks is understanding what exactly goes on ateach layer. We know that aftertraining, each layer progressively extractshigher and higher-level features of the image, until the final layer essentially makes a decision on what the image shows. For example, the first layer may look for edges or corners. Intermediate layers interpretthe basicfeatures to look for overall shapes or components, suchas a dooror a leaf. Thefinal few layers assemble those into complete interpretations– these neurons activate in response to verycomplex things suchas entirebuildingsor trees,” explain the Google engineers on the company’s researchblog.
“One way to visualise what goes on is toturn the networkupsidedown and ask it to enhance an input image in sucha way as toelicit a particular interpretation,” they add. “Say you want toknow what sort of image would result in ‘banana’. Start withan image full of random noise, then gradually tweak the image towards what the neural net considers a banana.”
Theimage recognition software has already made it into consumer products.Google’s new photoservice, Google Photos, features the optionto searchimages withtext: entering “dog”, for instance, will pullout every image Google can find whichhas a dog in it (and occasionally images with other quadrupedalmammals, as well).
So there youhave it: Androids don’t justdream of electricsheep; they also dream of mesmerising, multicoloured landscapes.

here, image 'dreamed up' by the 'neural' network



more here
www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/18/google-image-recognition-neural-network-androids-dream-electric-sheep

look familiar?

mayhap when ai is created our friends will claim the machines have souls...

thehomer:


Is it really? Which God and what feature of this God is obvious to you that should also be obvious to me?

God is the ultimate creator of the universe. The fact that the universe shows evidence of design makes it obvious that the universe has a creator. Uyi has done quite a good job highlighting some of them.

Then you've not been paying attention. The fact that there's no good reason to believe your God is out there is a very good reason to doubt his existence.

This seems to me to be quite a dubious claim since you seem to be basing the existence of God on whether you think the reasons are good enough to your subjective mind which even you have no way of knowing if it is working properly and feeding you correct information.

...or perhaps you really mean to say that there are no objectively good reasons to believe in God. In which case you will have to tell us what you think a good reason will look like.

Coming from someone who is unable to present and defend his reasons for believing in the particular God he believes in is just ridiculous. It is also wearisome trying to have a discussion with someone who doesn't know how to speak about whether or not something is obvious.

For you to claim even before hearing my case that I am unable to defend my reasons for believing in God shows me that you are already close-minded to whatever it is that I want to say and hence continued conversation with you is futile.

thehomer:

No I can't see it you fool. Please explain what the contradiction is.

Since to you there is no contradiction when you claim that hunger is immaterial and yet has a physical nature. Can you please tell us some of the physical properties of immaterial hunger.

@Uyi Iredia. I must say that I have enjoyed your exchange with thehomer so far. I think your points have been made however I doubt thehomer will stop giving incoherent replies.

It seems to me that he has acknowledged the points of the argument but he is going to keep pretending not to understand you and trying to retort with answers and questions designed to blunt the argument rather than enhance the discussion.

For instance even when faced with an obvious contradiction and corrected severally he keeps repeating "what contradiction?" pretending not to understand in the hope of wearying you and furthermore blunting the force of the initial point by excessive repetition.

wiegraf:


here, image 'dreamed up' by the 'neural' network



more here
www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/18/google-image-recognition-neural-network-androids-dream-electric-sheep

look familiar?

mayhap when ai is created our friends will claim the machines have souls...

Yes and our point is and has always been that consciousness or intelligence of any sort cannot be created by random undesigned natural events. An intelligent mind must necessarily be involved.

The fact that that the creation of AI (if it eventually happens) will be and could only have been a result of the work of an intelligent mind makes the case for a Creator stronger and the case for an origin from random undesigned events much more unlikely.

thehomer:


Who says natural laws don't apply?

You said natural laws break down at the singularity, and that singularity is physical. Clearly, its absurd to have a physical thing following no natural laws.

thehomer:
Ask your God to break it for you then. Just let us know when that is happening.

Once again, I'll leave you to your foolishness here. Let it be noted that I started out making the point here that intelligent beings prescribe rules a material system can follow.

thehomer:
Please explain.

Within the context of a cell, genes represent amino acids. That representation isn't physical and natural laws are blind to it, hence chemical processes in the cell treat genes and amino acids solely based on their physical properties.

thehomer:
You're misusing several terms and therefore creating a word salad. This is why I asked you to first try to read these things up before you continue because you're already in way over your head.

Given that you asked for an explanation you aren't in a position to state this.

thehomer:
Genes transfer heritable traits they don't represent amino acids. Sequences of codons are translated to amino acids in a physical process. I really don't understand why you're so confused about something so clear and simple. ASCII is a form of representation of common characters. What does the sequence of your codon represent?

Genes represent amino acids, this is confirmed in the genetic code table where the amino acids various genes represent are stated. All codes must be translated via a physical process but that hardly makes codes physical or explainable by natural laws.





To further bolster my point here's the definition of the genetic code from Wikipedia:

The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded within genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins by living cells.

The rules aren't physical.

thehomer:
Don't shake your head. The scientific method is based on methodological naturalism. Please give your supernatural explanation of the scientific method and present examples of scientific discoveries based on that idea.

This doesn't answer whether the scientific method follows natural laws.

thehomer:
You're making the argument from ignorance. I've already shown you how you're doing that. Oh? You don't need to make an argument because "everyone should know your arguments"? As usual you're trying to hide your ignorance but I won't let you. Assume that I'm an ignorant slowpoke and present your argument since you're so smart. In your stupidity, you'll be unable to make your argument.

Isn't it my arguments that led us to this point ? If I have to make them again or explain how things like consciousness are facts you are an imb€cil€.

thehomer:
Because brains aren't oceans.

A very good answer.

undercat:


Then it is not correct to say that creation of order out of chaos obtains at a universal level, as you claimed.

Why ? Insofar God created order were there was none I think I'm still correct. Another way of looking at it would say that the state of nothingness before God created the world was chaos. Classical Greek religion held this belief.

undercat:
How do you measure the degree of disorder? For example, on a scale of 1 to 10 with one being the least ordered and 10 being the most, where would you place our universe?

7

undercat:
This statement is only true if we assume that the genetic code, which we have found in nature, is not natural. I think you are arguing from incredulity.

I think you are being wilfully ignorant at this point. I didn't get any objection from you when I said nature can't recognize symbols and used the example of rain wetting a book (obviously without knowing what its contents are). I extend this argument to the genetic code and this is what I get.

The genetic code as a part of nature is natural, but its origins can't be explained by natural processes. To rebut my point you can either deny the fact that genes symbolize something else (amino acids) within a cell OR you can tell me how natural processes can discern when a given material represents something else.

undercat:
I'd like to know how

It can exist in a state of flux as I said earlier. Or it could flip from one state to another (say in one instance Earth's gravity is 9.8 ms-2 and in another instance Earths gravity is much higher ceteris paribus).

undercat:
undercat looks like any other cat.

Matter cannot be ignorant. To say that it can is to make a category error. I remember you saying that mass and momentum cannot meaningfully be applied to consciousness. The error you imagined is the sort you're making here.

No, undercat is a human and I don't know how you look.

Ignorance is not a property anymore than cold or death are. Like death (lack of life) and cold (lack of heat), ignorance is the LACK OF a property, knowledge. Since matter lacks the ability to know anything, matter is ignorant. That is not a category error.

undercat:
We have not moved forward. When you say consciousness is not a property of matter, you speak for yourself.

Then we should just end this debate. Keep in mind though that conscious beings can think and can see, hear, smell, taste and touch. If matter is conscious, it should have those attributes.

undercat:
A building is merely a reconfiguration of existing matter. What we need is an example of a mind bringing matter itself into existence. Barring this, the existence of matter would be a problem in such a world.

That configuration of matter didn't exist before. New elements and compounds are reconfigurations of existing matter, they also didn't exist before. No physical being can bring matter into existence since they themselves are subject to matter and existed after matter. I think you are setting the bar higher to avoid the obvious conclusion.

Given the fact that new material forms can be concieved and the fact the mind is absolutely necessary for one to know there is matter, then implicit in mind is the idea of matter and as such idealism doesn't face the same problem as materialism.

MrAnony1:

Yes and our point is and has always been that consciousness or intelligence of any sort cannot be created by random undesigned natural events. An intelligent mind must necessarily be involved.

The fact that that the creation of AI (if it eventually happens) will be and could only have been a result of the work of an intelligent mind makes the case for a Creator stronger and the case for an origin from random undesigned events much more unlikely.

Good point. It is always both funny and tragic to me when I see such folly. An atheist or evolutionist points to an intelligently designed process to show that exquisite systems arise naturally. In fact, such designed processes, for the most part, don't even bother to simulate natural processes, they are designed from top to bottom.

MrAnony1:
@Uyi Iredia. I must say that I have enjoyed your exchange with thehomer so far. I think your points have been made however I doubt thehomer will stop giving incoherent replies.

Cool ! I'm not surprised, I've seen thehomer's idiocy played out in various manners, on many threads in this forum.

MrAnony1:
It seems to me that he has acknowledged the points of the argument but he is going to keep pretending not to understand you and trying to retort with answers and questions designed to blunt the argument rather than enhance the discussion.

I agree he's blunting the argument especially as regards to consciousness and the genetic code. I'm not sure he understands the argument, maybe he does, maybe he doesn't.

MrAnony1:
For instance even when faced with an obvious contradiction and corrected severally he keeps repeating "what contradiction?" pretending not to understand in the hope of wearying you and furthermore blunting the force of the initial point by excessive repetition.

Yeah. His $tupidity there was mind blowing. Hunger is immaterial and has a physical nature. Lol ! Classic homer $tupidit¥.

UyiIredia:

The genetic code as a part of nature is natural, but its origins can't be explained by natural processes.

Interesting.

MrAnony1:

God is the ultimate creator of the universe. The fact that the universe shows evidence of design makes it obvious that the universe has a creator. Uyi has done quite a good job highlighting some of them.

What evidence are you referring to?

MrAnony1:

This seems to me to be quite a dubious claim since you seem to be basing the existence of God on whether you think the reasons are good enough to your subjective mind which even you have no way of knowing if it is working properly and feeding you correct information.

Science and philosophy have given us many ways of knowing whether or not your God is out there. If you wish to make some strange argument, please make the actual argument.

MrAnony1:

...or perhaps you really mean to say that there are no objectively good reasons to believe in God. In which case you will have to tell us what you think a good reason will look like.

A good reason for not believing in your God is the fact that there is no good reason to believe he is out there.

MrAnony1:

For you to claim even before hearing my case that I am unable to defend my reasons for believing in God shows me that you are already close-minded to whatever it is that I want to say and hence continued conversation with you is futile.

If you're able to defend your reason, please go ahead and do that rather than moaning before you begin.

MrAnony1:

Since to you there is no contradiction when you claim that hunger is immaterial and yet has a physical nature. Can you please tell us some of the physical properties of immaterial hunger.

Hunger pangs.

Please point out the contradiction.

UyiIredia:


You said natural laws break down at the singularity, and that singularity is physical. Clearly, its absurd to have a physical thing following no natural laws.

Please can you show me where I said natural laws break down at the singularity? You're mistaking our limited knowledge for the actual limit of the natural realm. This is the hubris I've come to expect from religious people.

UyiIredia:

Once again, I'll leave you to your foolishness here. Let it be noted that I started out making the point here that intelligent beings prescribe rules a material system can follow.

Actually, I simply exposed your stupidity. That is why you're flailing once more.

UyiIredia:

Within the context of a cell, genes represent amino acids. That representation isn't physical and natural laws are blind to it, hence chemical processes in the cell treat genes and amino acids solely based on their physical properties.

Wrong again. Genes do not represent amino acids. Genes are different from amino acids. You say chemical process affect genes and affect amino acids so what is the non-physical thing you're talking about? What is its name?

UyiIredia:

Given that you asked for an explanation you aren't in a position to state this.

I am because I actually know what the terms mean and you're misusing them. Misusing those terms makes it impossible for you to actually communicate with those terms.

UyiIredia:

Genes represent amino acids, this is confirmed in the genetic code table where the amino acids various genes represent are stated. All codes must be translated via a physical process but that hardly makes codes physical or explainable by natural laws.

Again, genes are physical structures. Amino acids are other physical structures. Some more physical structures link them together yet you're saying something here isn't physical. What is the name of the thing that isn't physical in this set up? You do realize that the "genetic code table" you're referring to is the human symbolization of physical molecules.

UyiIredia:

To further bolster my point here's the definition of the genetic code from Wikipedia:

The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded within genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins by living cells.

The rules aren't physical.

Who says they aren't?

UyiIredia:

This doesn't answer whether the scientific method follows natural laws.

It doesn't because that is a malformed question based on confusion of terms.

UyiIredia:

Isn't it my arguments that led us to this point ? If I have to make them again or explain how things like consciousness are facts you are an imb€cil€.

This is why I keep pointing out that you're a stupid fool. You made several assertions not arguments. I asked you to express a certain argument as a syllogism. You still failed at that yet you continue moaning. If you like, you can link me to where you made actual arguments not mere assertions.

UyiIredia:

A very good answer.

I know. I presented that answer.

UyiIredia:


Good point. It is always both funny and tragic to me when I see such folly. An atheist or evolutionist points to an intelligently designed process to show that exquisite systems arise naturally. In fact, such designed processes, for the most part, don't even bother to simulate natural processes, they are designed from top to bottom.

Yeah yeah so you assert.

UyiIredia:


Cool ! I'm not surprised, I've seen thehomer's idiocy played out in various manners, on many threads in this forum.

Is that so. Please can you present five examples with links and say what you thought was idiotic?

UyiIredia:

I agree he's blunting the argument especially as regards to consciousness and the genetic code. I'm not sure he understands the argument, maybe he does, maybe he doesn't.

There's no argument yet. If you have any arguments, please make them.

UyiIredia:

Yeah. His $tupidity there was mind blowing. Hunger is immaterial and has a physical nature. Lol ! Classic homer $tupidit¥.

Would you say hunger is material or immaterial? Would you say it has a physical or non-physical nature? Let's see your real stupidity.

thehomer:


Please can you show me where I said natural laws break down at the singularity? You're mistaking our limited knowledge for the actual limit of the natural realm. This is the hubris I've come to expect from religious people.

". . . we can say our current knowledge of
natural laws bread down at the singularity. Let me make it clearer. Natural laws are currently used to describe events
occurring after the singularity i.e after the universe has
expanded to a certain size."

Your words.

thehomer:

Wrong again. Genes do not represent amino acids. Genes are different from amino acids. You say chemical process affect genes and affect amino acids so what is the non-physical thing you're talking about? What is its name?

"For example, the codon "AAU" [represents the amino acid
asparagine, and "UGU" and "UGC" represent cysteine"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=Genetic_code

I made a mistake. Genes don't represent amino acids. Codons do. Genes do code for proteins though.

thehomer:

Again, genes are physical structures. Amino acids are other physical structures. Some more physical structures link them together yet you're saying something here isn't physical. What is the name of the thing that isn't physical in this set up? You do realize that the "genetic code table" you're referring to is the human symbolization of physical molecules.

No. The molecules involved have their names. The genetic code shows the relationship between the molecules. Specifically, which codons represent an amino acid. The relationship as shown in the genetic code table is not physical. Genes aren't linked to proteins. In fact, where genes are read and where proteins are made as a result happen in different regions of a cell.

thehomer:

Who says they aren't?

I do. In fact, rules aren't physical. They are conceptual.

thehomer:

This is why I keep pointing out that you're a stupid fool. You made several assertions not arguments. I asked you to express a certain argument as a syllogism. You still failed at that yet you continue moaning. If you like, you can link me to where you made actual arguments not mere assertions.

I made arguments in the OP. Arguments you responded to that got us to this point.

thehomer:

I know. I presented that answer.

It was a silly answer that avoided the question.

thehomer:


A good reason for not believing in your God is the fact that there is no good reason to believe he is out there.

Saved. Another example of your idiocy. Turns out I didn't need to search after all.

UyiIredia:
Why ? Insofar God created order were there was none I think I'm still correct. Another way of looking at it would say that the state of nothingness before God created the world was chaos. Classical Greek religion held this belief.

God was chaos then, since God was the only state before creation.

7

In essence, there is a degree of order above which God is required and you have pegged it at 7. how do you measure order and why is 7 the magic number?

I think you are being wilfully ignorant at this point. I didn't get any objection from you when I said nature can't recognize symbols and used the example of rain wetting a book (obviously without knowing what its contents are). I extend this argument to the genetic code and this is what I get.

The genetic code as a part of nature is natural, but its origins can't be explained by natural processes. To rebut my point you can either deny the fact that genes symbolize something else (amino acids) within a cell OR you can tell me how natural processes can discern when a given material represents something else.

I was not satisfied with your criteria for distinguishing between natural and unnatural processes. If you could give your natural explanation for the origin of physical laws I'd definitely take your claim that there is no natural explanation for the origin of genetic code more seriously.

It can exist in a state of flux as I said earlier. Or it could flip from one state to another (say in one instance Earth's gravity is 9.8 ms-2 and in another instance Earths gravity is much higher ceteris paribus).

Any given universe can't be in flux.

The continued existence of any given universe means that it obeys the laws telling it to continue it's existence.

No, undercat is a human and I don't know how you look.

Ignorance is not a property anymore than cold or death are. Like death (lack of life) and cold (lack of heat), ignorance is the LACK OF a property, knowledge. Since matter lacks the ability to know anything, matter is ignorant. That is not a category error.

Is consciousness hot?

Then we should just end this debate. Keep in mind though that conscious beings can think and can see, hear, smell, taste and touch. If matter is conscious, it should have those attributes.

Perhaps we should. Human beings are matter and they are conscious.

That configuration of matter didn't exist before. New elements and compounds are reconfigurations of existing matter, they also didn't exist before. No physical being can bring matter into existence since they themselves are subject to matter and existed after matter. I think you are setting the bar higher to avoid the obvious conclusion.

Given the fact that new material forms can be concieved and the fact the mind is absolutely necessary for one to know there is matter, then implicit in mind is the idea of matter and as such idealism doesn't face the same problem as materialism.

The bar is as high as it should be. Your claim is that the mind created matter.

Consciousness, being a non physical thing not subject to matter, should be able to bring matter into existence.

Any reconfiguration of matter is based on existing matter. If you claim that matter can be reconfigured to create a totally novel thing then you open the door to matter being reconfigured into your immaterial consciousness, by accident.

New material forms are only conceived from earlier material forms.

UyiIredia:


Saved. Another example of your idiocy. Turns out I didn't need to search after all.

Remove the log of wood in your own eyes-

UyiIredia:


The genetic code as a part of nature is natural, but its origins can't be explained by natural processes.

A very contradictory and fallacious statement. If something is part of nature, why wouldn't it have a natural explanation? Why wouldnt it arrive from natural processes?


I am on your side (A christian/theist) but please, refrain from insults that do not add to the discussion.

UyiIredia:


". . . we can say our current knowledge of
natural laws bread down at the singularity. Let me make it clearer. Natural laws are currently used to describe events
occurring after the singularity i.e after the universe has
expanded to a certain size."

Your words.

Are you this stupid or are you just an illiterate? Couldn't you read the preceding phrase before what you put in bold? The part that goes "our current knowledge of"?

UyiIredia:

"For example, the codon "AAU" [represents the amino acid
asparagine, and "UGU" and "UGC" represent cysteine"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=Genetic_code

I made a mistake. Genes don't represent amino acids. Codons do. Genes do code for proteins though.

Of course you made a mistake. Codons are physical molecules. the "A" in AAU is a physical molecule.

UyiIredia:

No. The molecules involved have their names. The genetic code shows the relationship between the molecules. Specifically, which codons represent an amino acid. The relationship as shown in the genetic code table is not physical. Genes aren't linked to proteins. In fact, where genes are read and where proteins are made as a result happen in different regions of a cell.

What is the name of the thing that isn't physical? The table is a human abstraction using symbols to represent physical molecules. That is what you seem to find so difficult to understand and that is why you're not qualified to even begin to try to make an argument based on genes. You're too ignorant about the topic at hand.

UyiIredia:

I do. In fact, rules aren't physical. They are conceptual.

Just go to bed. You're confused.

UyiIredia:

I made arguments in the OP. Arguments you responded to that got us to this point.

You did not make arguments, you made assertions. If you think you made arguments, please present the premises and conclusions of your so-called arguments.

UyiIredia:

It was a silly answer that avoided the question.

A very good answer is a silly answer. Your confusion knows no bounds.

UyiIredia:


Saved. Another example of your idiocy. Turns out I didn't need to search after all.

This is why I say you're a proper ignoramus. If there isn't a good reason to believe there is a dragon in my backyard, isn't that a good reason not to believe there is a dragon in my backyard? Or has English become too difficult for you again?

undercat:


God was chaos then, since God was the only state before creation.

I disagree. The state of nothingness is what I said was chaos.

undercat:
In essence, there is a degree of order above which God is required and you have pegged it at 7. how do you measure order and why is 7 the magic number?

I simply chose it, if you have a reason for disagreeing state it.

undercat:
I was not satisfied with your criteria for distinguishing between natural and unnatural processes. If you could give your natural explanation for the origin of physical laws I'd definitely take your claim that there is no natural explanation for the origin of genetic code more seriously.

My argument doesn't require that I explain the origin of physical laws. Let me query your position. If the genetic code follows natural laws then you should have no problems telling me the natural laws it follows. Could you please state examples.

undercat:
Any given universe can't be in flux.

The continued existence of any given universe means that it obeys the laws telling it to continue it's existence.

A random universe can very well be in a state of flux. In fact, existing in a state of flux is known to occur in quantum physics.

undercat:
Is consciousness hot?

No. Consciousness involves knowledge.

undercat:
Perhaps we should. Human beings are matter and they are conscious.

Till they become corpses. Then it becomes most clear that matter isn't conscious.

undercat:
The bar is as high as it should be. Your claim is that the mind created matter.

The mind of God, not man.

undercat:
Consciousness, being a non physical thing not subject to matter, should be able to bring matter into existence.

In humans, consciousness is subject to matter and matter precedes its existence so human consciousness couldn't have made matter.

undercat:
Any reconfiguration of matter is based on existing matter. If you claim that matter can be reconfigured to create a totally novel thing then you open the door to matter being reconfigured into your immaterial consciousness, by accident.

New material forms are only conceived from earlier material forms.

How can matter be reconfigured to immaterial consciousness ? That doesn't make sense. And natural processes couldn't have made such material forms. I find it funny no one would venture to suppose that artificial constructs like houses, computers or paints can arise naturally; and yet these are far less complex than the tiniest lifeform and moreover aren't conscious.

AllNaijaBlogger:



Remove the log of wood in your own eyes-

You mean your eyes. I see clearly.

AllNaijaBlogger:
A very contradictory and fallacious statement. If something is part of nature, why wouldn't it have a natural explanation? Why wouldnt it arrive from natural processes?

Because it could have a supernatural causes. Miracles happen within nature, that doesn't make them natural. In fact, one can extend this to artificial products which are ALWAYS made from natural substances. And yet their origins are not due to natural processes. In fact, take nature in its entirety, do you believe natural processes made nature, or God did ?

AllNaijaBlogger:

I am on your side (A christian/theist) but please, refrain from insults that do not add to the discussion.

Some insults are well-deserved.