Uyi Iredia:

I properly defined evolution and listed its mechanisms. Note that. That said I can't state (in adequate detail) how species were created. The reason is that this happened in the past and as such what I would present are speculations. What I can confidently say (and the evolutionist would agree) is that creation of organisms would involve the organisation of elements into complex structures. The strength of design is in its null hypothesis (I consider its positive case to be quite weak). This null hypothesis is that: natural phenomena have never been observed to make the kind of (functionally specified) complexity found in living things.
Sure natural phenomena produce complexity as in ocean waves, diamonds, snowflakes, stalactites etc but NEVER a system involving a functional interrelation of parts. Now to the positive case, you are aware Intelligent Design proponents theorize that life was designed. The basis is in the observed fact that humans design systems complex in a manner similar to life and incorporate novelties found in Nature in their technologies (e.g Philip Emagiali's supercomputer was inspired by the efficiency of a bee's honeycomb structure). The problem in the inference from that to design is the fact that intelligence is a product of DNA. This makes it appear circular to me. ID people don't see this, evolutionists imply this but I haven't seen a case where this is clearly stated (save in a certain exchange on Perry Marshall's blog). In any case, I can still ignore evolutionary claims on the sttength of the null hypothesis.

I don't know the earth's age. I have not read sufficiently on that to form a conclusion. However, from what I've read from old-earth deniers I'm skeptical of an old age. I no longer believe in YEC ages either. Bottom line: I haven't reached a conclusion on the earth's age. I think there is evident change in the universe. Stars form and die, comets come and go, planets are deviating from their orbit, albeit slightly. We also see this in Nature, new variations in species, earthquakes etc. You ask about the agents and processes of such change but I wonder how to tackle the question. Are asking me how such changes occur because if that's the case I don't know how its accomplished in all cases I stated (save for planet orbits, earthquakes and variation in species). Should I continue ?

I think in any case positions will be stated. That's inevitable.

Kay 17: WHAT is Consciousness?

An awareness of self/ sense of selfhood. An intuitive truth; likened to a mirror. All conscious experiences flow and are understood through channel of the self. Inspite of the fact, that Consciousness is possibly shared by many, it is strictly a property of the individual; revolves around the idea of self and cannot be isolated from such individual. Because it would lose all sense and meaning.

Constructing an abstract of collective Consciousness in my belief, must also revolve round a collective self, just as Spinoza's God.

plaetton: @Deepsight:

Hey man, your attention is needed on this thread.

When you say that some forms of evolution exists, we need you to explain what you mean.

I would also like your views on the age of the universe, the earth, your views on whether the universe is static or changing, and if changing, the agency and the processes for such changes.

Deep Sight: It would be pure madness, for anyone to think that human consciousness, the quality of thought, sentience, purpose and sapience which we have, and particularly our ability to grasp abstract concepts, is an accident of evolution, arising, contrived and put together so intricately by mindless matter.

Madness, pure madness.

I will elaborate later today.

Deep Sight:
Okay, I will be posting some more still. However I have not closed my mind. God may be thought by some to be the universe itself, or all conscious life, all sorts of permutations of what God may be. But God IS.

Later. I need a small stout right now to cool my head.

What say you, we share a beer one of these days and chat it all through face to face. . . .sightdeep@gmail.com

plaetton:
Ha hah ha.

plaetton: Pure madness indeed.
May I remind you that every great idea starts out as great heresies and rantings of mad men.

plaetton: But am surprised that you are, more or less, closing your mind to whatever new ideas or new knowledge that might be advanced. Are you not being dogmatic in this case?.
If You are a true seeker, you should be willing to evaluate every new knowledge or new idea on its merit.

plaetton: Now based on your above wrap, we can agree that god is generic term to bridge a foggy gap in our knowledge, to neatly tie up and harmonize our imagination.
Anyway, we have a long way to go on this discussion and we can't assume god to be a fact. For now, let's treat god as idea yet to be proven.

plaetton: I will be coming from the position that the universe and the elements that make up the universe are self existent and therefore does not need a god, or purpose.

Uyi Iredia:

*Sigh*



Electromagnetism & Gravity didn't start out that way. Some heresies (e.g gnosticism) stay that way.

Uyi Iredia:

I would certainly hope this doesn't apply to you. But the subject of opening and closing one's mind to ideas must be in the light of reason and observations. Note that, it coukd be said you are dogmatic in supposing DeepSight's idea wrong and yours right.

Uyi Iredia:

Aha ! So the theist and deist argument fails because a complex creator requires a more complex creator while your complex creator (the universe) remains exempt from this rule. It is (like the Christian God) self-extant but purposeless; just that_apart from much-touted evolutionary history_[b purpose has never been seen to arise from things without purpose.

Deep Sight:
Okay, I will be posting some more still. However I have not closed my mind. God may be thought by some to be the universe itself, or all conscious life, all sorts of permutations of what God may be. But God IS.

Later. I need a small stout right now to cool my head.

What say you, we share a beer one of these days and chat it all through face to face. . . .sightdeep@gmail.com

plaetton:

Electromagnetism and electromagnetic waves were certainly treated as heresies. The first people to propose an all-pervading essence they called the " Ether" were ridiculed and persecuted for their ideas.

plaetton: I have not asserted that Deepsight's idea are wrong, not yet anyway,. I am merely saying that it should be treated as an idea, and not as fact, for now.

plaetton: Well, I have never called the universe a creator. Infact, I don't really like that term and I try to avoid using it. Creator and creation are words that have little or no meaning in my universe.

Correction on the bolded. There is no purpose. What you have are perceptions of purpose. What exists and what you perceive are hardly the same. I will dwell on that later.

Uyi Iredia:


Indeed. Let me help you better understand my thoughts. The universe is known to exist. We want to account for how this is possible. Theists and Deists say a self-existent being made the universe. You state this needs a more complex creator and hence requires a cause. We ask for your explanation. You say it is self-existent. Question: Why does causality apply to our posited being and not apply to the universe ?

Uyi Iredia:


Purpose doesn't exist as a concrete object. Purpose (like time and chance) is a mental construct (hence abstract). Mental constructs are used to describe our world. If purpose doesn't exist we wouldn't be talking about it.This springs from the fact that mental constructs are defined into existence. I think it contradictory you say perception of purpose exist but not purpose. You can't percieve what doesn't exist.

plaetton:

Isn't it more likely that you are speaking of self-awareness rather than consciousness?

Is consciousness the same as life?. Are all living things conscious?
Is the earth alive, if yes, can we say that she is conscious?

Deep Sight: Permit me to start with some thing I said on this forum some years ago -

Now let us hang back a second and contextualize this:

We find ourselves in this world, living, thinking, feeling, intelligent beings. We see the world and universe about us. We are aware that we were not always here: that we were born - and we are aware that we will not always be here: that we die.

In truth perhaps it may be said that this is about all we can be absolutely certain of.

However we are typically born in one or more already existing religious worldviews – wherein we are taught a vast array of already existing and accepted “religious truths.” The vast majority of us end up accepting the Religion and Worldview of their birth and family as the one for ourselves. Some stray however.

Opening proposition: Having found ourselves in the natural world, it makes sense to look at the natural world about us in our search for truth. This natural world, is what I will call “The book of Life.”

Proposition Number One: Having found ourselves in the world: and having seen clearly that mankind is not perfect, we should not presume any of the “religious truths” that we have met within the world to be necessarily true or correct or perfect – but should rather seek to genuinely find that which is the truth about our existence in this world. Here I am not saying that one should reject the religion of one’s birth: but only that each human being owes it to himself to question himself, make inquiries, and search deeply for truth. It may well be that such a search will lead back to the religion of one’s birth but nonetheless –

A sincere self-examination and personal search for truth should always be undertaken by everybody. This is the first proposition.

Proposition Number Two: In the individual’s search for truth, the individual must ask himself which things he can honestly say that he knows within his mind to be true and which things he has merely accepted by an assumption. The individual having observed the nature of mankind must be keenly aware that history is replete with deceit: and that not everything that is reported to have happened can necessarily be believed to have happened, and vice versa. Most importantly, I think, the individual has to ask himself – in the context of his existence - which supposed truths are relevant and which are irrelevant?

Basically the individual is urged to accept as truth that which his mind knows for sure to be true – not necessarily because he has merely been told that such is true. He is urged also to sift the wheat from the Chaff by determining that which, even if true: is irrelevant to his existence as opposed to that which is both true and relevant to his existence. This is the second proposition.

Proposition Number Three: Now the Search for Truth proceeds. What can the individual say that he knows for sure? The very first question: the eternal question in the search for truth has been – where did all this (the world) come from? What is the source of all things?

Without much ado: and without the need for any advanced argument the Individual by common sense can agree within his mind that the world about him must have a source just as everything he observes has a source, a process for its existence. The Individual can apprehend that given the vastness of the world about him, and the incredible nature of its natural wonders, its creatures, its plants, and its natural beauty: that the source is a meaningful source: and that the source is of great capability and potential.

Expressed in the many different languages of mankind this source is what mankind throughout history have intuitively referred to as “God” – the maker of all things. This is the third proposition.

Proposition Number Four After the thought – “God created all things” – the next logical thought is “for what purpose?” – basically the quest of the individual to determine the purpose of his existence – and contextualize this with the purpose of all existence. Implicit in this already, for the discerning is a recognition that the individual bears a need to understand his existence in the context of all existence – and this implies that he has a need – he is compelled towards – blending with – or harmonizing with his environment and all existence.

The Individual can thus both logically and intuitively grasp that the purpose of existence - and his existence – is harmony. This is the fourth proposition.

Initial Summation: Beyond these, I am not sure that there is much else that the individual can honestly claim that he knows for certain. Everything else there is to be known, which is relevant to the individual’s existence, I believe are inferences and intuitive perceptions from the foregoing basic truths. I can only say for now that the advanced and exact knowledge of supposed celestial spiritual happenings which are contained within the many religions - in my humble opinion – cannot really be said to be known for sure by anybody, and are thus largely assumed beliefs – and not steady and certain truth. This is the basis for my claim to that which I believe I may rationally and intuitively know for certain; namely that there is a source – God and that the purpose of the source is harmony.

I will build on the foregoing in discussing Consciousness and what it implies for the existence of God and evolution in my further posts.

Without much ado: and without the need for any advanced argument the Individual by common sense can agree within his mind that the world about him must have a source just as everything he observes has a source, a process for its existence.

Expressed in the many different languages of mankind this source is what mankind throughout history have intuitively referred to as “God” – the maker of all things

Deep Sight:

*****I still dey come. I still dey far away. Make you wait till I reach where I dey gooooo. . . . . ***



Growth. Natural growth and natural change. I will elaborate on this when I come to my main post.



For this question, again, please permit me to reach into the past. It is long but every word is ever worthwhile. Mostly words from justcool -

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Did someone suggest the universe is a closed system? I think the reverse is far more logical. I had said in a previous thread:

Here I reproduce what Justcool wrote in red:

"Some people claim that the energy in the universe was created by the big slam! Nothing could be more unscientific!! Because science has observed that Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it only changes forms. And since science is confined only to the physical; it logically follows that in the physical world energy cannot be created or destroyed. Thus the source of the energy in the physical world was not created in the physical world; therefore there must be another dimension from where this energy comes i.e. where this energy is created."

Now you stated that - "that energy can neither be created or destroyed in a closed system."

This has one direct implication: that if the universe is a closed system, energy could not be created in it: to wit: there would never have arisen any energy therein. What this tranposes into logically is that there would have been no energy and no universe.

It therefore means that the very existence of energy herein presupposes an open system: or at the very least at the the commencement, an entrance or reception of energy. It logically could not be otherwise.

This rationally leads to the affirmation that the source of energy could not itself be this universe, or the matter from which this universe expanded.

This is firm reasoning: and it speaks for itself.

And Justcool had written -

Science acknowledges the big slam as an event that gave rise to the formation of the universe in its present state. Contrary to popular opinions, science never said that the Big slam created the universe in terms of creating the materials that make up the universe. Just as on can say the freezing of water gave rise to the formation of ice blocks; this does not mean that the water was created by the freezing. The freezing is an event which caused the water to change its state; you can also say that the freezing state of water or frozen water is a state of the water. Water can exist in many states- liquid, solid, gas and etc. Actually matter can exist in four states: (1) Plasma state, (2) Solid state, (3) Liquid state, (4) Gaseous state. The change of state or stage does not imply the creation of a new substance(matter) but rather it is the same substance or matter, only that the molecules are rearranged. Thus it is the rearrangement of matter or the atoms of the substance that gives rive to a change of state. In Solids for example, the atoms are closely compacted atoms while in liquids the atoms loosely compacted atoms and in gasses the atoms are even more loosely compacted and etc. Also difference in temperature and entropy gives rise to this change of state or rearrangement of the atoms. Plasma state, for example, can only exist at extremely hot temperatures; while solids only can exist in a certain range of temperatures, gasses can only exist in certain range of temperatures, and liquids can only exist in only a certain range of temperatures.

The big slam or the stage that caused the big slam is the plasma state of all the matter in the universe. At this stage it is so hot, extremely and unimaginably hot that the whole universe and all the forces of nature(gravity, electromagnetic forces and etc) are united into one. Indeed the whole universe is condensed or contracted into an object even smaller than an atom; it is so hot that not even gases can exist. Every thing is united and contracted to an object smaller than the smallest nucleus. This is the primordial seed!! In time the temperature gets so hot and the universe contracts to a point unimaginable small and when it reaches the maximum point of contraction it exploded! This explosion is the big slam. Once this explosion occurred, the temperature reduced due to less contraction, and the universe then formed into hot gases or nebulae. Every explosion releases energy or pressure; this pressure caused the hot gas to move further apart and away from the center of explosion. As the gasses moved further away, temperature is reduced and consequently it got to a stage where the temperature is so reduced that dense nebulae can arise, and then consequently from the nebulae liquids and solids can form. As things cooled down, what we call laws or forces (which are nothing but intricate behavior of matter), can now arise. Thus gravity comes into play and many other forces; as the nebulae grow bigger they begin to attract. This is gravity or gravitational potential at work. Soon due to gravity suns, planets asteroids and etc resulted. And consequently groped themselves into solar systems; big bodies like our sun are able to exercise an attraction on smaller bodies and consequently capture them in its orbit. This is our solar systems were formed.

The pressure resulted from the big band is still pushing everything away. Thus the solar systems are moving away from each other; the universe is expanding. Science knows this; but does not know for sure where this expansion will lead. It is my perception that this expansion will continue till the solar systems are so far apart that the initial pressure that arose from the big band slackens. Then gravity will counter the expansion; the universe will start contracting. The contraction will continue; and as it contracts, due to friction, it will become hotter and hotter. Also the bodies will become bigger and bigger, consequently having ever greater attraction towards each other. Based on the law of Gravitational potential which states that “The rate at which two bodies attract each other is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square root of their distance” the bigger the bodies get(their masses) the more they pull each others and the closer the get to each other, the more they pull each other. Soon the universe will collapse, crash or contract into one hot spot. The extreme heat will contract the universe once again into a small invincible(to the physical eye) spot. The universe will return to being a primordial seed, which after a certain degree of heat and contraction will explode again into another big slam.

This circle of explosion, expansion, contraction, and collapse will continue. The big slam is the beginning of the explosion stage and not the creator of the universe. It is the same energy that passes through these four states; it heats up to become plasma, only to explode cool down to condense and become matter. Just like the same lake of water can freeze and condense into solid ice during winter; it also evaporates as gasses during hot summer.

People encounter problems when they try to separate scientific energy from matter as being totally different things. Scientifically speaking, matter is condescend energy or matter is made up of energy. If one understands this, then he/she would stop saying things like “matter can be destroyed during nuclear reaction.” Matter can never be created or destroyed by man or any natural process. Matter only changes state; matter can change its state to plasma state where it becomes pure energy.

Just like a cup of water cannot by itself change from liquid to solid(ice) or to gas without an external force, be it change in the external temperature or other forces; the physical universe cannot be going through these changes or stages without external force acting on it. The pressure from the planes above the physical plane is the external force that is perpetually acting on the universe, keeping it in motion. Behind everything lies the “will” of the creator who set creation in motion and maintains it with ever new power annually.

Everything material passes through the four stages of (1) birth or blossoming, (2) ripeness or maturity, (3) over-ripeness or old age, and (4) decay or death. Our physical bodies, our houses, our cars, the earth, our solar system and even the entire material universe. The stage of death or decay is where the object is dissolved to its original components or constituents which will re-unite in another way to be born again. Thus after death or decay comes stage (1) birth again. This is the eternal circle of everything that is material.

The big slam could be likened to stage (1)Birth of the universe, not birth or creation of the substance that make up the universe. At the point when the solar systems are formed could be likened to stage (2) ripeness. At a stage in its expansion, it goes into stage (3) over-ripeness; then when its contracting it is in stage(4) decay which will lead its death which is a point where everything has retuned to the primordial seed. Then once again it will be born—another big slam.

Thehomer then asked why is a God needed if the universe keeps cycling.

Justcool's response -

(1) The Big slam is not the creation or the universe, in that it is not the creation of matter and energy that make up the universe.
(2) Science doesn’t actually say that the universe was created by the Big slam. Science only says that the universe in its present state started by the Big slam, while acknowledging that before the Big slam the energy and matter that cooled down to become the universe existed in a different form. Science also speculates that other universes might have existed before the present universe.
(3) Although science is not sure where the current expanding universe may lead; many have come up with many speculations. I offered my perception of where the universe is headed to, based on my knowledge of the Laws of creation which are express nothing but the will of God.


Putting all these together you see how ridiculous it sounds when people say that the universe (the energy and matter in the physical world) was created by the Big slam.

I introduced God into it because the cyclic movement could not have started by itself and perpetually maintain itself in order; such would violet the law of thermodynamics.

A liquid cup of water, in isolation of every external force, will remain a liquid cup of water. It cannot by itself, and without any external force change from liquid to ice; or from liquid to gas. Only external forces, like change in the temperature of the environment can cause these changes in the liquid cup of water.

Fishes living inside the lake that is perpetually changing state, from liquid to ice; if such fishes were men, they would know that there is something else beside the lake. Something that they cannot see, yet they see its effects in the environment, the lake. They would figure out there is a source of power(heat) outside of the lake, which causes it to change state. And this power is the sun which sends rays carrying heat, thereby warming the lake; and during winter when these rays are hardly felt, the lake freezes.

The lake could be likened to the universe; the fishes could be likened to us; the sun could be likened to God who through the pressure of His power keeps everything in motion.

This is a coarse analogy though; it faintly reflects the relationship between God, His Power and the universe.


I think all of this is very topical indeed.

It was a very rich thread -

https://www.nairaland.com/570326/linear-chance

plaetton:
I think you are mistaking me for Deepsight. That a creator of a complex system also needs a creator is just simple logic. However, claiming that the unknown creator is uncreated or self-existent has been Deepsight's position, not mine. I simply ask that if the creator can be self-existent, then why can't the[b] known[/b] universe itself be self existent as well?

plaetton: Purpose is not like time and chance. We do not create time. Time is a duration of consciousness. Chance is in an agent of change which happens over time.

Purpose , on the other hand , is wholly created in the mind. It does not exist until we mentally create it.
In the not too distant past, thunderstorms, hurricanes, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions had clearly defined purposes: They were seen as the wrathful manifestations of angry deities who needed one form of appeasement or another. Many people, even on this forum, still strongly believe so.

But today, we know that these climatic events occur when the right conditions, when the right set of climatic variables reach certain critical thresholds.
There is no purpose.

Likewise, we look at the stars and we think we see beauty and order, until we see the harsh coldness of space or until a rogue comet smashes into us for an extinction level calamity.

Uyi Iredia:

I am not mistaking you for DeepSight. You assert that a Creator (God) needs another creator and this is simple logic, why. Note you didn't answer my question. Please reply it. A simple reply (to your question) is that: the notion of a creator is not discarded in your argument it is simply made less obvious. I will elaborate more on this. To be candid though this question made me think, in fact I've been thinking about it for some time now.



Saying time is a duration of consciousness all the more validates my point it is a mental construct because this 'duration' (which also means time - specifically a length of time) and consciousness are mental events. Your definition of time seems to me like 'the (length of) time of what we use to define time'. I don't think you realize what you imply when you say chance is an agent of change. You are treating chance as it is an object (e.g a ball or chair) yet chance and change are mental constructs to describe it (e.g the ball is small, the chair is faulty). You can't point to 'Mr small' or 'mrs faulty'. These are used to describe objects. Consider the following definitions of chance:

a. The unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems to have no assignable cause.
b. A force assumed to cause events that cannot be foreseen or controlled; luck: Chance will determine the outcome.
2. The likelihood of something happening; possibility or probability. Often used in the plural: Chances are good that you will win. Is there any chance of rain?
3. An accidental or unpredictable event.
4. A favorable set of circumstances; an opportunity: a chance to escape.
5. A risk or hazard; a gamble: took a chance that the ice would hold me.
6. Games A raffle or lottery ticket.
7. Baseball An opportunity to make a putout or an assist that counts as an error if unsuccessful.

Apart from definition no. 6 all definitions of chance don't refer to an actual object (that can be empirically verified) it refers to . . . (yes !) a mental construct used to define (define is also a mental construct) To furthermore avoid misunderstanding I'll take 2 definitions and logically show they are not physical objects. Take definition 1b (an 'assumed' force that causes unforeseen events) Assumption is a mental construct. We can't empirically verify this force (it is assumed) worse yet, it is for events that haven't occured. The example used in that definition describes chance in the manner you do - as if it were a physical object capable of acting. Take definition 3 (chance is an accidental or unpredictable event) 'accidental' and 'unpredictable' are adjectives (a mental construct) that describe events (blanket term for verifiable motion of physical objects).

It is contradictory to say there are clearly defined purposes for tornadoes etc and say there is no purpose. Note, purpose is a mental construct by this I mean it exists in terms of our intellectual capacity to concieve it. It is not a concrete object. *goes off to cogitate some more*

Deep Sight:
^^^ Do you agree that for anything to exist at all, something or the other must be self-existent?

Kay 17: ^^

1.) A much better description of "God" seems to be a total sum of existence, rather than a maker per se. Because they (other entities that exist other than God) appear to share the same substance as "God" and they are merely a different form from God.

2.) And lastly, is there any readily available purpose for the Universe as a knife or a hammer?

Richfella:

I don't have all the answers yet, but I will address the above from my current understanding.



1.) That would be very correct (how I hate to use that term).

'God' is already a very misused term. When someone mentions the word God, the very first image that springs to mind is that of a malevolent, capricious deity who sits up there, somewhere in the firmaments.


We can substitute the word God with Being, The One Substance, The One Life, The One Consciousness.

God is ALL there is. She is infinite, and every-thing is made out of it. We are all individuated aspects of him.

The Chinese philosopher Laozi called everything in the material world the "10,000 Things" - meaning that everything is the manifestation of One-Thing.

Every atom in your body was once part of a star. You and the Universe are one.



2.) Yes. This might sound ridiculous to you but everything in the physical universe is not 'real'. We are in a simulation and God is having fun.

The Hindus have a nice little word for this, they call it Lila; the play of forms.

We are all under an illusion too. The Buddhists call this Maya; the veil of illusion. The person who you think is you is not you.


There is no Kay17. There is no You! The person who you think you are, the ego, is an imposter pretending to be you. A construct of the mind which is itself an instrument.


The person who you think you are is just a collection of thoughts and memories. You are awareness, you are consciousness.

Richfella:

I don't have all the answers yet, but I will address the above from my current understanding.



1.) That would be very correct (how I hate to use that term).

'God' is already a very misused term. When someone mentions the word God, the very first image that springs to mind is that of a malevolent, capricious deity who sits up there, somewhere in the firmaments.


We can substitute the word God with Being, The One Substance, The One Life, The One Consciousness.

God is ALL there is. She is infinite, and every-thing is made out of it. We are all individuated aspects of him.

The Chinese philosopher Laozi called everything in the material world the "10,000 Things" - meaning that everything is the manifestation of One-Thing.

Every atom in your body was once part of a star. You and the Universe are one.



2.) Yes. This might sound ridiculous to you but everything in the physical universe is not 'real'. We are in a simulation and God is having fun.

The Hindus have a nice little word for this, they call it Lila; the play of forms.

We are all under an illusion too. The Buddhists call this Maya; the veil of illusion. The person who you think is you is not you.


There is no Kay17. There is no You! The person who you think you are, the ego, is an imposter pretending to be you. A construct of the mind which is itself an instrument.


The person who you think you are is just a collection of thoughts and memories. You are awareness, you are consciousness.

plaetton:

Very interesting.
All this would seem to validate my atheistic viewpoint that there no god, no creator, and no apparent purpose for US in the universe.
Do you agree?.

plaetton: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50137982n

This is sunday's episode of 60 minutes weekly program.
In this episode, we have a breakthrough technology whereby electrodes are implanted in the brain, connected to a robotic arm, and then the robotic arm is controlled by simple thoughts.
This is a demonstration that thoughts, an aspect of consciousness, are electrical impulses that not only flow through neurons, but can now be adapted to flow through electrical wires.
They are now working on the wireless form of this this breakthrough technology. Imagine!

We do know that energy, in whatever form, can be converted and reconverted to one form or the other. In other words, if thought waves (or consciousness) can be converted, like in this case, to electrical impulses to control a device, then same electrical impulses may also be used to generate thought waves or consciousness.

I am going to use this to bolster my position that the interaction, flux, and coagulation of electrical impulses, can, under the right environment, generate consciousness, or a facsimile thereof.

14 billions yrs of ceaseless interaction of energy is more than sufficient time for such a chance event to occur.

I am still building my position, so will get to that later.

plaetton:
Sometimes I wonder if you take time to read my posts.

plaetton: First, your question is simply the reverse of the very questions I have always been asking the advocates of the uncaused, self-existent god.

plaetton: Secondly, the question is somewhat irrelevant to me because I have seldom taken dogmatic positions on the questions of origin of the universe, rather, I put relevant questions to those who claim to have figured it out.
But to answer it, the universe is made of elements and particles which are themselves, in the final analysis, condensed energy. We all know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Therefore, energy, the basic component of the universe, can be said to be self-existent.

plaetton: Thirdly,
When I said that chance was an agent of change, I did not consult a dictionary for an academic definition. I simply used those terms in the context of our current discussion on evolution and change. Systems undergo changes over time, and chance events are the agents of such changes.

plaetton: Again, I did not say that there are clearly defined purposes for tornadoes etc. No. What I said is that in the not too distant past,these natural occurances that often firghtened humankind and brought great calamities were SEEN to be the PURPOSEFUL handworks of angry gods. I am sure you understand that.