thehomer:


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"?

The next sentence makes the phrase useless. In that sentence, you clearly said natural laws describes events AFTER the singularity. If you think natural laws could apply to the singularity then say so.

thehomer:

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

Yeah. And the A and AU REPRESENTS an amino acid as the phrase I quoted stated. Which makes your previous assertions to the contrary wrong. Did you miss out that part ?

thehomer:

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.

Okay then. If you believe that the genetic code follows natural laws. State the natural laws it follows and how it follows them.

thehomer:

Just go to bed. You're confused.

I'll just leave you to your foolishness here. If you think my statement is wrong give a good reason.

thehomer:

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.

What argument doesn't involve assertions In fact, aren't premises themselves assertions one may believe or doubt.

thehomer:

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

I'm not confused. The sarcasm in my earlier answer was lost on you. Hardly surprising, since your brain's all mush.

thehomer:


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?

This is circular reasoning at its worst. Merely asserting there's no good reason to believe in a thing isn't a good reason to doubt it. If no one believes dragons are in their backyards it's because no one has seen dragons. That's a good reason.

Lol.
Just sitting by the sidelines and amusing myself, loling @ " I believe, therefore it has to be the truth" syndrome.

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

Yes, except that there was God so there couldn't have been nothingness.

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

I didn't expect that you would have better reasons for choosing it. I was trying to show you that claiming "order in our universe comes from God" remains untrue if existing universes must have some order by default and we have no means of measuring how much order any universe has in order to tell whether there is a regular or irregular amount of order in that universe.

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.

It does require you to know that the origin of physical laws is different from the origin of your genetic code, and you cannot know that if you don't know what exactly the origin of the physical laws is.

I don't know what laws genetic code follows, if any. My argument is that you have not shown sufficient basis to sustain your claim that genetic code is different in origin from every other thing we find in nature.

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.

Dude, how can you tell that one universe which faded out of existence is the same as another existing universe? Your claim could support the argument that our own universe is in a flux.

No. Consciousness involves knowledge.

You'd also agree that consciousness cannot be hot, despite the fact that heat is not merely the absence of cold but a distinct property which matter can possess.

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

Death can be viewed as a transition, like water transitions from solid to liquid.

The mind of God, not man.

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

Human consciousness should be able to recreate matter, then.

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.

We're not looking at the mechanism. We're looking at whether it is possible in principle. It is possible in principle if matter can be reconfigured into anything other than more matter.

@Bolded. I was wondering when you'd come out and say that matter is also not the result of natural processes. It makes your genetic code argument neater.

In your last sentence we're venturing into the complexity argument, which wasn't part of your OP.

I have been following this tooic for days, and it seems like this argument is leading no where

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.

no it hasn't. certainly not always. abi do you want me to dig up posts where you made certain harebrained assertions? eg, where you claim our friends, the taxi drivers, increase in brain size is due to spirits sending down special beams as opposed to, you know, their brain size increasing in that area as a result of their using that part of their brains more? similar to muscle mass increase from regular exercise? or have you forgotten?

actually, this very op has repeatedly asserted 'mind' exists without matter. he makes the claim, and very boldly in the op, that the material 'cannot explain consciousness', something you no doubt support. no?

considering this, how ai would exist without spirit power escapes me. mayhaps you can clarify? if spirit power is not necessary, then what is the point of the soul? why the requirement that mind be responsible for the creation of the material if mind itself requires the material?

or, are you suggesting that these scientists are going to piss all over known natural laws and create a.....spirit?

or what? are you going to assert there are different types of 'mind'? based on what? an a$$pull? after you're shown working ai you're going to claim there's another sort of intelligence that works using...magic?

also, since when where you quoting me again, oh great creator of the merry go round?

Ah Jesu Christi. Amadioha. Ifa. Shango. Ogun.
Papa must sha hold pikin hand. . . .

wiegraf:

considering this, how ai would exist without spirit power escapes me.

That is why it is called "artificial," dear Mr. hare-brain, you for whom English is clearly poison.
Computers today may be called a form of same, and are not asserted to have souls or spirits.

mayhaps you can clarify? if spirit power is not necessary, then what is the point of the soul?

For self conscious existence of a living being.

why the requirement that mind be responsible for the creation of the material if mind itself requires the material?

Mind has never required the material. The material is merely a temporary - and very temporary - vehicle for the interpolation of mind into physical realms: which themselves are a creation of Mind.

or, are you suggesting that these scientists are going to piss all over known natural laws and create a.....spirit?

If the time comes that they are able to create the sort of biological tool that mind utilizes, that is not inconceivable. Bear in mind though, (no pun intended), that they accomplish same with mind.

or what? are you going to assert there are different types of 'mind'? based on what? an a$$pull? after you're shown working ai you're going to claim there's another sort of intelligence that works using...magic?

The only people that subscribe to magic of the sort that you lot accuse others of, are people such as yourself who insist that the great cosmos and all that it bears simply just "poofed" into existence abracadabra. You are the ones subscribing to such dreamland nonsense. We rather logically insist that it has a logical and intelligent precursor.

plaetton:


AllNaijaBlogger,
You are heading in the right direction, but many many ways to go. You need to purge your mind of the falsehoods and frauds perpetuated by the yahweist.

There was no one God.
There is were many many Gods (or beings or whatever you choose to call them).

Yahweh was just one among about 600 or so of them present in the Earth at that time.
Yahweh was even a junior God in the Canaanite pantheon.

Even the ancient hebrews served and wirshipped other Gods. Its all there in the bible.

So the idea that Yahweh is the Creator of the universe is the biggest crock of Bullshyte ever served.
This where mankind has perpetually decieved.
This is where truth should start.

Its rather amazing that for one who derides religion so much, you are choosing to start your search for truth by sifting through Canaanite gods and their rankings. This is most impressive, isn't it - for a so called skeptic.

Why don't you, as I have always urged you, turn to the pure philosophical and spiritual question of an ultimate origin: address that at its level?

Why are you perpetually unable to do this?

You say that the search for truth should start from correcting mis-impressions about the rankings of canaanite deities - and yet you scorn the existence of the ONE TRANSCENDENT GOD as a belief in the tooth-fairy.

With this garbled twisted mindset, how am I supposed to believe you do not require the attention of the very same psychiatrists you oft accuse me of needing?

Can you see yasef?

plaetton:
^^^
Lol.

You have to understand that apart from having to flog you for bad thinking patterns, I also want you to learn and grow.
You Won't do that by getting a pat on the back from Depardo, the master Chef of wordsalads.

Learn and grow? Lol. By arguing through tooth-fairies?

That's your "master-class?"
What sort of Barney class are you running mate?

DeepSight:


Its rather amazing that for one who derides religion so much, you are choosing to start your search for truth by sifting through Canaanite gods and their rankings. This is most impressive, isn't it - for a so called skeptic.

Why don't you, as I have always urged you, turn to the pure philosophical and spiritual question of an ultimate origin: address that at its level?

Why are you perpetually unable to do this?

You say that the search for truth should start from correcting mis-impressions about the rankings of canaanite deities - and yet you scorn the existence of the ONE TRANSCENDENT GOD as a belief in the tooth-fairy.

With this garbled twisted mindset, how am I supposed to believe you do not require the attention of the very same psychiatrists you oft accuse me of needing?

Can you see yasef?

Lol.
I am less concerned about the rankings of Canaanite deities. My point was that we reboot our search for the truthful history of humanity by trying understand the real experiences that these ancient peoples from Canaan, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Africa were trying to communicate to us.


Secondly, I have never been averse to the persuit of matters considered spiritual. Infact, I have spent considerable time devoted to such persuit,.. until such a time that I came to the conclusion that so-called spirituality and religion are of the same mindset.
They are both grounded on self-centeredness, and dabble in things that are not real, fantasies, so to speak,..not too different from childhood fantasies about Toothfairies and coins under the pillow.

Thereafter, I chose to ground my worldview on terra firma, on reality, on real human issues.

My personal philosophy is that I don't deserve eternal life, or paradise in a crystal palace, if I don't understand this very life and add whatever tiny value I can to its evolution.
In that Regard, I cannot be happy, aloof in my spiritual mumbo jumbo, if my neighbor or my fellow citizens suffer one type of oppression or another.
I cannot close my eyes or look away, while my landscape is continually laid desolate.

Religion, the LETHAL MYTHOLOGIES of foreign religions are mentally debillitating generations of my citizens.
There is an urgent imperative to Push Back and Roll Back LETHAL MYTHOLOGIES.

In case you haven't figured it out yet, that is what I Attempt to do here. It is the very very least that I can do.

Back to spiritual persuit and the questions of existence, well, I have long thrown my lot with the scientific system of inquiry.
I suggest you do the same too.

There is no question of existence that science cannot probe and offer a satisfactory answer, now or in the future.

Scientific system of inquiry remains by far the most reliable arbiter of reality.

Is that Muskeeto I see in the background?

plaetton:


Lol.
I am less concerned about the rankings of Canaanite deities. My point was that we reboot our search for the truthful history of humanity by trying understand the real experiences that these ancient peoples from Canaan, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Africa were trying to communicate to us.


Secondly, I have never been aversive to the persuit of matters considered spiritual. Infact, I have spent considerable time devoted to such persuit,.. until such a time that I came to the conclusion that so-called spirituality and religion are of the same mindset.
They are both grounded on self-centeredness, and dabble in things that are not real, fantasies, so to speak,..not too different from childhood fantasies about Toothfairies and coins under the pillow.

Thereafter, I chose to ground my worldview on terra firma, on reality, on real human issues.

My personal philosophy is that I don't deserve eternal life, or paradise in a crystal palace, if I don't understand this very life and add whatever tiny value I can to its evolution.

In that Regard, I cannot be happy, aloof in my spiritual mumbo jumbo, if my neighbor or my fellow citizens suffer one type of oppression or another.
I cannot close my eyes or look away, while my landscape is continually laid desolate.

Religion, the LETHAL MYTHOLOGIES of foreign religions are mentally debillitating generations of my citizens.
There is an urgent imperative to Push Back and Roll Back LETHAL MYTHOLOGIES.

In case you haven't figured it out yet, that is what I Attempt to do here. It is the very very least that I can do.

Back to spiritual persuit and the questions of existence, well, I have long thrown my lot with the scientific system of inquiry.
I suggest you do the same too.

There is no question of existence that science cannot probe and offer a satisfactory answer, now or in the future.

Scientific system of inquiry remains by far the most reliable arbiter of reality.

All of this I long know to be true of your views and who you are and that is fine, save that the statement in red in the above is terribly wrong because science deals with the physical, whereas non physical things, elements and planes do exist.

In addition, you do not need to reflect carefully to see that that statement of yours is an omniscient statement. It is a statement that can only be made by one who is omniscient. I therefore today christen you Plaetton the omniscient.

In the blue bold, you have actually touched upon a little of that which you are here to do in this earthlife before proceeding to the next. But we shall discuss that much later when you awaken a little.

Also, you need to stop comparing the theo-philosophical question of the existence of God to toothfairies. It makes you appear unserious or simply illiterate in philosophical matters.

Or worse, just shallow.
And you are not shallow, Plaetton.

DeepSight:
Ah Jesu Christi. Amadioha. Ifa. Shango. Ogun.
Papa must sha hold pikin hand. . . .



That is why it is called "artificial," dear Mr. hare-brain, you for whom English is clearly poison.
Computers today may be called a form of same, and are not asserted to have souls or spirits.



For self conscious existence of a living being.



Mind has never required the material. The material is merely a temporary - and very temporary - vehicle for the interpolation of mind into physical realms: which themselves are a creation of Mind.



If the time comes that they are able to create the sort of biological tool that mind utilizes, that is not inconceivable. Bear in mind though, (no pun intended), that they accomplish same with mind.



The only people that subscribe to magic of the sort that you lot accuse others of, are people such as yourself who insist that the great cosmos and all that it bears simply just "poofed" into existence abracadabra. You are the ones subscribing to such dreamland nonsense. We rather logically insist that it has a logical and intelligent precursor.

Let me ask you again.

If mind is the overlord of matter, different and Independent of matter, how come physical, geometrical and mathematically configured molecules of matter affect mind in profound and measurable ways?
In fact, a depletion of seratonin in the neurons often lead to the denial and disentanglement of the self and mind, and often result in suicidal tendencies.

Dopamine molecules, on the other hand, provide CONSCIOUS FEELINGS of euphoria and sense of wellbeing.
How come?
Are feelings not simple products of chemical reactions?
Why are you rather averse to simple scientific explanations?

plaetton:


Let me ask you again.

If mind is the overlord of matter, different and Independent of matter, how come physical, geometrical and mathematically configure molecules of matter affect mind in profound and measurable ways?
In fact, a depletion of seratonin in the neurons often lead to the denial and disentanglement of the self, and suicide?

Dopamine molecules, on the other hand, provide CONSCIOUS FEELINGS of euphoria and sense of wellbeing.
How come?
Are feelings not simple products of chemical reactions?
Why are you rather aversive to simple scientific explanations?

These are elementary.

The simple answer to your question is that those chemical interactions build the physical support for mind in the physical realm. Therefore, in the physical realm, such interactions affect the apprehension of mind in the physical realm.

Mind is always there. These material elements are simply like a tool for the deployment of mind into the physical.
If the material tools are dismantled or incorrectly assembled, mind cannot deploy or cannot properly deploy into the physical.

Let me give you an example: computer hardware and software.

Take the software to be mind, and the hardware to be matter.
If the hardware is not correctly assembled, the software cannot properly deploy.

But the software exists as information regardless of the hardware.

In fact, even if you destroy the hardware completely, the software - the information - still exists - no?

Capisce?

^^^ Even water can carry thoughts. What am I saying, thats going too crude. Thoughtwaves can carry thoughts from one mind to another.
I dont know if the relevance of this to your question hits you.

DeepSight:
^^^ Even water can carry thoughts. What am I saying, thats going too crude. Thoughtwaves can carry thoughts from one mind to another.
I dont know if the relevance of this to your question hits you.

This buttresses my point that, in the quantum arena, there is little that distinguishes physical and non physical. All can be understood by simply looking at energy, vibrations and frequency. That is the universe in a nutshell.

Mind is considered non physical only because it is a waveform. As a a waveform, it must conform to mathematical laws. That makes it measurable, malleable and even capable of being artificially simulated.

And all this can be understood, or at the least, investigated via the scientific system.

plaetton:

This buttresses my point that, in the quantum arena, there is little that distinguishes physical and non physical. All can be understood by simply looking at energy, vibrations and frequency. That is the universe in a nutshell.

What do you understand about quantuum physics that enables you so so glibly attribute any phenomena that you do not understand to quantum effects?

I want you to answer me very specifically on this question.

I say this because: and I want you to take this point most seriously and be honest about it:

1. Is it not true that quantum physics is as yet an emerging field barely understood at all - and even hardly properly defined in terms of implications as yet?

2. If (1) above is true, then do you not agree that you are committing the exact same sin you accuse religionists of when they attribute phenomena they cannot understand to God - "God did it"?

For is it not true that you do not know if things like thoughts are carried at all in any quantum way - and yet, for all phenomena you do not understand, you are happy to simply interpolate a field of study of which next to nothing is known as yet?

Is this not exactly what you are doing?

How is this different from the God-did-it fellows, tell me?

For, in answer to any possible question I may throw you, and for which you do not know the answer but wish to deny a spiritual or Divine answer, you would of course simply say - "The Quantum Arena Did it!"

The same quantum arena of which you know exactly nothing.

Diddly Squat. Jack. Zilch. Nada.

Mind is considered non physical only because it is a waveform. As a a waveform, it must conform to mathematical laws. That makes it measurable, malleable and even capable of being artificially simulated.

Mind is not a waveform. Mind emits and transmits through waves.

And all this can be understood, or at the least, investigated via the scientific system.

Only the physical manifestations of mind can be so assessed.
Unless of course you will extend the definition of science into the meta-physical.

And that is tenable for there are meta-physical sciences, which I zm not sure you would admit of, but which are real sciences too.

Mind is metaphysical.

DeepSight:


What do you understand about quantuum physics that enables you so so glibly attribute any phenomena that you do not understand to quantum effects?

I want you to answer me very specifically on this question.

I say this because: and I want you to take this point most seriously and be honest about it:

1. Is it not true that quantum physics is as yet an emerging field barely understood at all - and even hardly properly defined in terms of implications as yet?

2. If (1) above is true, then do you not agree that you are committing the exact same sin you accuse religionists of when they attribute phenomena they cannot understand to God - "God did it"?

For is it not true that you do not know if things like thoughts are carried at all in any quantum way - and yet, for all phenomena you do not understand, you are happy to simply interpolate a field of study of which next to nothing is known as yet?

Is this not exactly what you are doing?

How is this different from the God-did-it fellows, tell me?

For, in answer to any possible question I may throw you, and for which you do not know the answer but wish to deny a spiritual or Divine answer, you would of course simply say - "The Quantum Arena Did it!"

The same quantum arena of which you know exactly nothing.

Diddly Squat. Jack. Zilch. Nada.



Mind is not a waveform. Mind emits and transmits through waves.



Only the physical manifestations of mind can be so assessed.
Unless of course you will extend the definition of science into the meta-physical.

And that is tenable for there are meta-physical sciences, which I zm not sure you would admit of, but which are real sciences too.

Mind is metaphysical.

Lol.
First of all, you Say mind is metaphysical. And you are OK with that, huh?
Sounds good to your ears, huh? OK.

I Say mind is quantum physical.
Are you also OK with that?

Now, tell me the difference, if there are any.

No, I do not resort to quantum physics when all fail.
But I point out, and urge you to pay attention to developments in the field of quantum physics.
Yes, we have barely scratched the surface in this new field of knowledge. That is the more reason we should pay special attention and look towards learning and resolving some of the most vexatious issues of existence.
Unlike you and your accolytes, I do not pontificate, but merely point to new discoveries, new theories, science based theories that should rightly replace old superstitions.

Like I reminded someone yesterday, there is no excuse for ignorance in this information age.

plaetton:

Lol.
First of all, you Say mind is metaphysical. And you are OK with that, huh?
Sounds good to your ears, huh? OK.

I Say mind is quantum physical.
Are you also OK with that?

Now, tell me the difference, if there are any.

The difference is that I know the meaning of metaphysical and experience my being as such every waking moment of my life.
You cannot say that you know your being as quantum-physical or experience your being as such.

No, I do not resort to quantum physics when all fail.
But I point out, and urge you to pay attention to developments in the field of quantum physics.
Yes, we have barely scratched the surface in this new field of knowledge. That is the more reason we should pay special attention and look towards learning and resolving some of the most vexatious issues of existence.
Unlike you and your accolytes, I do not pontificate, but merely point to new discoveries, new theories, science based theories that should rightly replace old superstitions.

If this is the case then how dare you raise the quantum arena at all in answer to my question on thoughts?
Does this not show you up to be simply "name-dropping" something that sounds more intellectual and scientific to your ears even when you confess you have no clue if it has anything whatsoever to do with the question at hand?

This is worse than what the religionists do: its also hypocritical, pretentious and seeks to ape the Jones in a laughable manner since you confess you have no clue as to whether or not it is relevant to the question!

Like I reminded someone yesterday, there is no excuse for ignorance in this information age.

I don't even know what you are saying here.
As far as I am concerned, you have just been shown up again.

A simple question on thoughts and minds and you refer to the Quantum Arena. . . . of which you say you know nothing!

Plaetton. . . . . . . I despair for you. You are a blind man seeking to lead the blind.

^^^ I am sure you are confused about the difference between the physical nature of the brain and that which it produces. . . .

http://physics.about.com/od/QuantumConsciousness/f/IsConsciousnessQuantum.htm

Nothing here, and in a zillion other writings on same - and nothing in your suggestion answers my simple question on thoughts.

Talk later. Have to go now.

Kay17:


This statement above is one created out of experience. It is observed from human interaction with the environment. It then extrapolated to apply to the Universe. Don't you see this as a limit and a flaw in your theistic arguments?

UyiIredia:


It is. No arguments doesn't have its flaws.

Then why do we have to go further and continue with GODdidIT?! The fundamental premise you rely on, is inductive and incapable of applying to the Universe.

DeepSight:


The difference is that I know the meaning of metaphysical and experience my being as such every waking moment of my life.
You cannot say that you know your being as quantum-physical or experience your being as such.



If this is the case then how dare you raise the quantum arena at all in answer to my question on thoughts?
Does this not show you up to be simply "name-dropping" something that sounds more intellectual and scientific to your ears even when you confess you have no clue if it has anything whatsoever to do with the question at hand?

This is worse than what the religionists do: its also hypocritical, pretentious and seeks to ape the Jones in a laughable manner since you confess you have no clue as to whether or not it is relevant to the question!



I don't even know what you are saying here.
As far as I am concerned, you have just been shown up again.

A simple question on thoughts and minds and you refer to the Quantum Arena. . . . of which you say you know nothing!

Plaetton. . . . . . . I despair for you. You are a blind man seeking to lead the blind.

Quantum physics is not a magic circus. We understand the basic framework. Quantum particles are also the basic framework of matter, life and existence.
That Much we know.
The experimentally observed phenomenom whereby observation itself seem to affect the behavior of quantum particles is an indication that Mind itself, either has quantum mechanical properties, or, is itself, a product of quantum mechanics.

So, my mention of "quantum arena" in reference to the workings of the mind, was well grounded.

DeepSight:


All of this I long know to be true of your views and who you are and that is fine, save that the statement in red in the above is terribly wrong because science deals with the physical, whereas non physical things, elements and planes do exist.

In addition, you do not need to reflect carefully to see that that statement of yours is an omniscient statement. It is a statement that can only be made by one who is omniscient. I therefore today christen you Plaetton the omniscient.

In the blue bold, you have actually touched upon a little of that which you are here to do in this earthlife before proceeding to the next. But we shall discuss that much later when you awaken a little.

Also, you need to stop comparing the theo-philosophical question of the existence of God to toothfairies. It makes you appear unserious or simply illiterate in philosophical matters.

Or worse, just shallow.
And you are not shallow, Plaetton.

Your attempt in creating a dichotomy between the physical and nonphysical AND then alluding the physical to science is disingenuous. Of course you would go along and define the physical to mean "that which is restricted within time and space" while leaving out information, ideas, behaviours outside the realm of physical. Besides Plaetton and I do not accept this dichotomy.

DeepSight:


What do you understand about quantuum physics that enables you so so glibly attribute any phenomena that you do not understand to quantum effects?

I want you to answer me very specifically on this question.

I say this because: and I want you to take this point most seriously and be honest about it:

1. Is it not true that quantum physics is as yet an emerging field barely understood at all - and even hardly properly defined in terms of implications as yet?

2. If (1) above is true, then do you not agree that you are committing the exact same sin you accuse religionists of when they attribute phenomena they cannot understand to God - "God did it"?

For is it not true that you do not know if things like thoughts are carried at all in any quantum way - and yet, for all phenomena you do not understand, you are happy to simply interpolate a field of study of which next to nothing is known as yet?

Is this not exactly what you are doing?

How is this different from the God-did-it fellows, tell me?

For, in answer to any possible question I may throw you, and for which you do not know the answer but wish to deny a spiritual or Divine answer, you would of course simply say - "The Quantum Arena Did it!"

The same quantum arena of which you know exactly nothing.

Diddly Squat. Jack. Zilch. Nada.

Clearly we do not possess doctoral and postdoctoral degrees in quantum sciences, what is important is the fundamentals and the questions and conclusions we can gather from it. Science unlike religions, supposes provisional truths, that is the truth is always the limits of our knowledge. As our knowledge grows, so also our image of truth changes. This is fundamental in understanding science and hence science can tolerate contradictions. It can shapeshift successfully to accept new truths.

This is not the same with monotheist religions, a contradiction is intolerable. The truths in these religions are absolute.

Mind is not a waveform. Mind emits and transmits through waves.

Only the physical manifestations of mind can be so assessed.
Unless of course you will extend the definition of science into the meta-physical.

And that is tenable for there are meta-physical sciences, which I zm not sure you would admit of, but which are real sciences too.

Mind is metaphysical.

Is this self evident? No! Can you prove this given that the mind is metaphysical? NO! So what bearing are you coming from?! Besides what makes metaphysical sciences science?

undercat:


Yes, except that there was God so there couldn't have been nothingness.

Not if by nothingness we mean the absence of the material universe.

undercat:
I didn't expect that you would have better reasons for choosing it. I was trying to show you that claiming "order in our universe comes from God" remains untrue if existing universes must have some order by default and we have no means of measuring how much order any universe has in order to tell whether there is a regular or irregular amount of order in that universe.

Wrong. The more consistent a given universe is with its laws the more regular its order can be said to be. I would expect random universes to be far less regular, since there's no one or no cause that ensures it follows its laws consistently.

undercat:
It does require you to know that the origin of physical laws is different from the origin of your genetic code, and you cannot know that if you don't know what exactly the origin of the physical laws is.

Why is it so ? It doesn't make sense to have to know the origin of nature and its laws to know an entirely different genetic code.

undercat:
I don't know what laws genetic code follows, if any. My argument is that you have not shown sufficient basis to sustain your claim that genetic code is different in origin from every other thing we find in nature.

And you are yet to rebut my first premise that the natural processes (and laws) don't
account for the genetic code. You can't give me a natural law that the genetic code follows and yet you still have the audacity to say that my claim lacks a sufficient basis.

undercat:
Dude, how can you tell that one universe which faded out of existence is the same as another existing universe? Your claim could support the argument that our own universe is in a flux.

I'm not going to push it. You are free to believe or disbelieve what you want.

undercat:
You'd also agree that consciousness cannot be hot, despite the fact that heat is not merely the absence of cold but a distinct property which matter can possess.

Is this even a point ?

undercat:
Death can be viewed as a transition, like water transitions from solid to liquid.

This doesn't make matter any more conscious since it isn't.

undercat:
Human consciousness should be able to recreate matter, then.

Even when I've told you that humans themselves rae contingent on matter. Even though its clear that humans can only work within the ambits of natural law in a material world they met. And even though its clear we created new configurations of matter from elements to compounds.

undercat:
We're not looking at the mechanism. We're looking at whether it is possible in principle. It is possible in principle if matter can be reconfigured into anything other than more matter.

It isn't. If matter can only be reconfigured into new material forms then it's impossible for it to be fashioned into an immaterial consciousness.

undercat:
@Bolded. I was wondering when you'd come out and say that matter is also not the result of natural processes. It makes your genetic code argument neater.

I actually meant that natural processes couldn't make material forms humans make such as clothes, phones, cars etc. But there's no problem, I do believe God made matter.

undercat:
In your last sentence we're venturing into the complexity argument, which wasn't part of your OP.

It doesn't have to be. It's meant to make my arguments more poignant.

DeepSight:
Ah Jesu Christi. Amadioha. Ifa. Shango. Ogun.
Papa must sha hold pikin hand. . . .



That is why it is called "artificial," dear Mr. hare-brain, you for whom English is clearly poison.
Computers today may be called a form of same, and are not asserted to have souls or spirits.

the (should be obvious) point here, ser 'deep' sight, is if computers work the same way, then on what grounds whatsoever do you invoke the tooth fairy?

you're shown machines that work the same way yet you still go out of your way to invoke spirit power? curious

if you're still having problems then here -

you tell me there are little men in my eyeballs whispering to my brain, and they are responsible for my sight. I show a telescope, lense and whatnot and point out no, a mechanism similar to that is responsible, perfectly natural. you then continue to insist little men are responsible. 'look at all those floaters', you tell me, 'it must be their poo poo being accidentally reported!'

despite how it may seem this example represents the folly quite well actually, as if I were to point out that even if indulged, those little men must regardless have eyes similar to a telescope, which they would then use to see then report back to my brain, you'll then tell me 'nah. they use magic to see!'. just as you claim that your oneness infinitum can exist without any material components because....well, just because.

see?


for crying out loud, on what basis do you invoke supernatural explanations when perfectly natural and particularly logical ones exist?

hope that helps....

For self conscious existence of a living being.

err, once again, because?

Mind has never required the material. The material is merely a temporary - and very temporary - vehicle for the interpolation of mind into physical realms: which themselves are a creation of Mind.

reading your software/hardware example to plaetton seems to show where you remain monumentally confused or are indulging in some sort of casuistry or the other. you seem to be using the abstract and consciousness, or 'Mind' (for some reason spelled with a capital letter), interchangeably. they are NOT the same thing

and despite that yes, even the abstract, let alone 'mind', does depend on the material, as it can in no way manifest without the material. material is the basis for everything that manifests. without it the abstract is, essentially, nothing. can the reverse be stated? no, not really.

at the very best, and depending on context, one could posit that the abstract and the material have always existed simultaneously. claiming consciousness has always existed or manifested, on the other hand, and existed without any matter at that, is clearly ridiculous. it borders on being demented, really

If the time comes that they are able to create the sort of biological tool that mind utilizes, that is not inconceivable. Bear in mind though, (no pun intended), that they accomplish same with mind.

dear me. what mind? where is this magical being? so I build a biological tool, show you all it's workings, how it makes its calculations that lead to its being conscious, and you still assert a tooth fairy somewhere is responsible?! simply because it's biological? and see above as to just how useful or possible 'mind' is on its own

there is no difference between this your thinking and say claims that we couldn't be or descend from apes because we're somehow special, this even after being shown how evolution works.

and stop abusing the definition of mind

The only people that subscribe to magic of the sort that you lot accuse others of, are people such as yourself who insist that the great cosmos and all that it bears simply just "poofed" into existence abracadabra. You are the ones subscribing to such dreamland nonsense. We rather logically insist that it has a logical and intelligent precursor.

I see. logical and intelligent precursor, one more 'sophisticated' than us I warrant, that just poofed itself into existence instead, is surely more logical...

I also note the use of the word 'great' to describe the universe. can your Mind see just how drenched in subjective that is? definitely indicates what your motivation for all this is. how so special all this is for you. specially designed and perfect.... to and for you

and sticking with the word 'great', your supposed creator, oh once again, is he not supposedly even greater?

this is why you should stick with FSM, he doesn't fill your head nonsense unlike jesus, amadohia and all the others you mention

@ Wiegraf.

Arrgh.

Later.

plaetton:


Quantum physics is not a magic circus. We understand the basic framework. Quantum particles are also the basic framework of matter, life and existence.
That Much we know.
The experimentally observed phenomenom whereby observation itself seem to affect the behavior of quantum particles is an indication that Mind itself, either has quantum mechanical properties, or, is itself, a product of quantum mechanics.

So, my mention of "quantum arena" in reference to the workings of the mind, was well grounded.

It really emerges you have yet to grapple with the simple question I asked you.

And you still don't seem to grasp the relevance or irrelevance of your own introduction of quantum issues into the matter.
I have to run for now, but will surely do a deep dive later.

But before I return please, please, please and please answer me these two questions which are at the heart of our discussion:

1. Are thoughts physical things
2. Are ideas physical things

STUDENTS GUIDE: THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER THEY ARE PRODUCED BY PHYSICAL THINGS. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THOUGHTS AND IDEAS THEMSELVES ARE PHYSICAL IN NATURE.

Considering your escapist nature, maybe you should first answer if thoughts and ideas exist at all, before answering the questions above.
Danke!

UyiIredia:


The next sentence makes the phrase useless. In that sentence, you clearly said natural laws describes events AFTER the singularity. If you think natural laws could apply to the singularity then say so.

Look just go back to school and learn English. It is starting to look like you want me to teach you English. Look up the meaning of "current" and try to understand how it was used in various forms in those sentences.

UyiIredia:

Yeah. And the A and AU REPRESENTS an amino acid as the phrase I quoted stated. Which makes your previous assertions to the contrary wrong. Did you miss out that part ?

No they do not represent an amino acid, they are "translated" into amino acids when proteins are being synthesized. Please can you state what was wrong and why it was wrong?

UyiIredia:

Okay then. If you believe that the genetic code follows natural laws. State the natural laws it follows and how it follows them.

It follows laws of chemical bonding i.e covalent and hydrogen bonding among others. Now what is the name of the thing that isn't physical? Do you agree that the table is a human abstraction?

UyiIredia:

I'll just leave you to your foolishness here. If you think my statement is wrong give a good reason.

I've given you many good reasons but in your stupid ignorance, you're unable to appreciate them. It is like casting pearls before swine.

UyiIredia:

What argument doesn't involve assertions In fact, aren't premises themselves assertions one may believe or doubt.

Present the premises and the conclusions.

UyiIredia:

I'm not confused. The sarcasm in my earlier answer was lost on you. Hardly surprising, since your brain's all mush.

Sarcasm? I pointed out brains weren't oceans and you were amazed.

UyiIredia:


This is circular reasoning at its worst. Merely asserting there's no good reason to believe in a thing isn't a good reason to doubt it. If no one believes dragons are in their backyards it's because no one has seen dragons. That's a good reason.

Isn't the fact that no one has seen dragons a good reason not to believe that there is a dragon in their backyard? Or is that "too circular" for you?

DeepSight:
^^^ Even water can carry thoughts. What am I saying, thats going too crude. Thoughtwaves can carry thoughts from one mind to another.
I dont know if the relevance of this to your question hits you.

Huh? What evidence do you have of these "thoughtwaves"? Or are you just making stuff up? Water can carry thoughts? Please can I have some of what you're smoking?

DeepSight:


It really emerges you have yet to grapple with the simple question I asked you.

And you still don't seem to grasp the relevance or irrelevance of your own introduction of quantum issues into the matter.
I have to run for now, but will surely do a deep dive later.

But before I return please, please, please and please answer me these two questions which are at the heart of our discussion:

1. Are thoughts physical things
2. Are ideas physical things

STUDENTS GUIDE: THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER THEY ARE PRODUCED BY PHYSICAL THINGS. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THOUGHTS AND IDEAS THEMSELVES ARE PHYSICAL IN NATURE.

Considering your escapist nature, maybe you should first answer if thoughts and ideas exist at all, before answering the questions above.
Danke!

The answer is YES and NO. And that answer is not a contradiction, considering, as is well known, that photons, for one example, can be seen and demonstrated as either physical particles or non physical waveforms, depending from perspective one chooses to observe it. This is story of reality. Perspective .
Intuitively, we would classify thoughts and ideas as non physical things or attributes. But, and please pay special attention , when we take a second look at them from a quantum mechanical perspective, then lines become blurry. We begin to see measurable and predictable properties of thoughts and ideas.
So, my friend, this is particularly why I reiterate that we pay special attention in the area of quantum mechanics ,to help us demystify the nature and possible origins of your so-called non physical reality, your metaphysical reality, which amusingly, you are already so SURE about.

I have tried in the past to lay down the basic ideas of how the neural network of our brain generate and fire off neural impulses, and how the sum of neural interactions produce consciousness, and how consciousness recognizes itself via mirror neurons, and how it mirrors and tries to validate itself via empathy neurons.
There no one center of consciousness or mind. Every single quanta of interactive information independently contributes to , but does not control the consciousness.
An good analogy would be the stock market, lets say the New York or London stock exchange, where millions of individual buyers and seller, with different individual intentions, aggregate their collective consciousness for price discovery, buying and selling stocks as their individual needs warrant. But at any point in time, the stock market index( the collective consciousness of the market ) gyrates up and down as a true reflection of the flux and dynamics of millions of traders pooling their consciousness into one giant pool called the MARKET.
As a result of this dynamic flux, the Stock market and stock indices become a reliable indicator, no, arbiter of buying and selling trends, the economic needs, economic anxieties, in short barometer and predictor of economic activities and health of any nation.

This is how the brain and mind interface. In this analogy, the individual traders are the quanta of interactive information (from neural impulses ), and the stock market index is the ensuing CONCSIOUSNESS that is the end product of agglomerated interactive information(the quanta ).
This is science, Deepsight, and this is the way that universe operates. The lesser mirrors the larger, and the larger mirrors the lesser , all the work of one (in this case the ALMIGHTY ELECTRON ).

If you can please take some to study the basics of quantum mechanics, and that the human brain indeed exhibits quantum mechanical properties, then you would much better appreciate the Mind and it works and how it generates ideas.