plaetton: No

Why no ? I described it in materialistic terms.

plaetton: ??
Are living systems themselves not physical objects themselves?
Put it this way, matter interacts at various levels to give rise to an infinite variety of micro and macro systems, living things included.
Metabolism, whether in plant or animal, is simple energy conversion process.

Is energy material or immaterial ?

Uyi Iredia:

Why no ? I described it in materialistic terms.



Is energy material or immaterial ?

It depends on whether you are for wave or particle theory.

But I have stated earlier that matter is simply condensed energy.
Therefore, both are inter-convertable.

E = MC2 sums it all up.

plaetton:

It depends on whether you are for wave or particle theory.

You are evading the question. Theories are immaterial. Waves are a form of energy.

plaetton:
But I have stated earlier that matter is simply condensed energy.
Therefore, both are inter-convertable.

If matter is condensed energy it can't convert. You assert it converts, what makes that so ?

Prediction: You'll refer to equilibriums in states of matter which makes it convert. Yet, equilibriums are immaterial.

plaetton:
E = MC2 sums it all up.

In Einstein's mind, not mine. That equation doesn't tell what energy is.

Uyi Iredia:

You are evading the question. Theories are immaterial. Waves are a form of energy.



If matter is condensed energy it can't convert. You assert it converts, what makes that so ?

Prediction: You'll refer to equilibriums in states of matter which makes it convert. Yet, equilibriums are immaterial.



In Einstein's mind, not mine. That equation doesn't tell what energy is.

Is it me or is it you?.
I have great difficulty understanding your language this evening.

plaetton:

Is it me or is it you?.
I have great difficulty understanding your language this evening.

Am I writing Chinese or using mathematical symbols ? No. Yet you don't understand me. Lemme sum up my impression of your arguments thus far:

You believe that consciouness is merely the interaction of energy and material systems. A conscious, intelligent God is needless since energy which gives rise to matter is non-contingent. This energy existed in an unstable state and in achieving stable configurations gave rise to the universe and in the long run, life on earth.

My argument is:
That energy is a term coined to define what is immaterial. It is an abstract. You can't point a thing and say it is energy. You can only point to materials (atomic particles, books, magnets, ions) which exhibit energy. You cannot state where this energy is from but you clearly percieve that matter affect other matter (e.g light photons affect metals to eject electrons). This (immaterial) capacity to act is conserved in that all objects possess this capacity (it can't be created nor destroyed, ergo it necessarily exists). You CONVENIENTLY ignore that there is nothing about so-called matter that makes it act, that the only observed instance of material things simulating intelligence (as in robots) intelligence is required and events in themselves have not been seen to arise in consciousness. We must perforce infer intelligence (immaterial intelligence) is the substance of all reality.

Uyi Iredia:

Am I writing Chinese or using mathematical symbols ? No. Yet you don't understand me. Lemme sum up my impression of your arguments thus far:

You believe that consciouness is merely the interaction of energy and material systems. A conscious, intelligent God is needless since energy which gives rise to matter is non-contingent. This energy existed in an unstable state and in achieving stable configurations gave rise to the universe and in the long run, life on earth.

My argument is:
That energy is a term coined to define what is immaterial. It is an abstract. You can't point a thing and say it is energy. You can only point to materials (atomic particles, books, magnets, ions) which exhibit energy. You cannot state where this energy is from but you clearly percieve that matter affect other matter (e.g light photons affect metals to eject electrons). This (immaterial) capacity to act is conserved in that all objects possess this capacity (it can't be created nor destroyed, ergo it necessarily exists). You CONVENIENTLY ignore that there is nothing about so-called matter that makes it act, that the only observed instance of material things simulating intelligence (as in robots) intelligence is required and events in themselves have not been seen to arise in consciousness. We must perforce infer intelligence (immaterial intelligence) is the substance of all reality.

Energy is hardly an abstract. Energy can be felt, stored, measured and calibrated. Examples are heat, photons, UV, Sound, and other the many other forms of electromagnetic energy that are clearly detectable and measurable.

As for where energy comes from, well, it is the only thing that we can say is self-existent, since it neither be created nor destroyed in the universe.
Every piece of matter emanate from the condensation of energy. Energy and matter have been converting and reconverting into one another since the big ban.g.

Like I said before, what makes energy act is that it is system trying to regain its equilibrium, its order( a state of zero motion).
The big ban.g created chaos, and it is trying to annul the chaos. like I also said before, it is like a live mathematical equation trying desperately solve and balance itself.

All motion in universe, whether celestial, atomic or sub-atomic, are propelled by this desperate and ceaseless quest for balance and equilibrium.

Everything is in motion within motions. We hardly notice that every second the Earth is swirling around itself very 24 hrs, while at the same time swirling around our sun in a journey that takes it 365 days.
What most don't know is that outside of this motion , our sun is also carrying us on a celestial journey around the galactic centre, a journey that takes 250 million years to complete.

It is probable, and generally theorized that all these motions within motions create unique fields of energy that act upon and affect matter in ways we are yet to fully understand.

Uyi Iredia:


You believe that consciouness is merely the interaction of energy and material systems. A conscious, intelligent God is needless since energy which gives rise to matter is non-contingent. This energy existed in an unstable state and in achieving stable configurations gave rise to the universe and in the long run, life on earth.

For the bolded, my argument is the opposite. That the primordial energy existed in a state of equilibrium, zero motion,undifferentiated, in potential, until something,(don't ask me what) disturbed the balance.
That was the inflection point.
The system automatically moved to restore that balance, and then the energy went into motion and spread out. Later, part of it condensed to form the particles of matter.
E = MC2
E= energy , M = Mass(matter) , C2 = Speed of light squared (motion)

It can't get any simpler than that.

Uyi Iredia:

You CONVENIENTLY ignore that there is nothing about so-called matter that makes it act, that the only observed instance of material things simulating intelligence (as in robots) intelligence is required and events in themselves have not been seen to arise in consciousness.

Matter is energy, and is always in motion.
Nuclear power makes that abundantly clear. No external impetus needed.

The bolded is incorrect.
Like I wrote earlier, the ability of primordial RNA , a chain of complex molecules to self-replicate is a clear sign of rudimentary intelligence. By repeating this replication so often, a rudimentary database, a memory,a base code is gradually developed and stored in an even more complex molecule.

In other words, the primordial organic molecules synthesize a more complex molecule to store it's replicating data. This is the precursor to the DNA.
If this is not intelligence, then I don't know what is.

Over billions of years of growth and complexity, the storage molecule, the data centre, becomes the command and control centre from which all replication instructions emanate.
You know what they say," knowledge is power".
The DNA becomes the boss, the intelligent boss, because it has the billion years of accumulated replication data.

Now can you conceptualize how the evolution of consciousness and intelligence and what you term intelligent design might have come about through a series of evolutionary accidents?

No matter how factual or speculative these notions are, the two important questions always worth asking are:

Are these processes possible?
If yes, then are they probable?
To me , the answer is an unequivical, YES!

No God required.

it has nothing to do with evolution.
it's an individual thing..its about the connection with one's inner self
and the voice we hear "talking to ourselves" is actually us communicating with God.

plaetton:

E = MC2 sums it all up.

lol that's my cue to bounce

Actually, impetus is needed to allow radioactive elements be used as nuclear power. Uranium is enriched and stored in a system of check and vontrols to unleash its energy. Funny thing is only living things feel, store, measure and calibrate energy. Not dead things. Since you say matter is condensed energy. Does that mean energy is matter ? Free-thought demands I ask you what disturbed energy into making itself into matter. Indeed, I see the earth rotating while wondering why it doesn't free-fall thru space. Our experiebce in this world tells us that when levitation occurs a magnetic material is required. Any magnetic material under the earth perhaps. And if it's there, resting on what ?

*Kails*:
it has nothing to do with evolution.
it's an individual thing..its about the connection with one's inner self
and the voice we hear "talking to ourselves" is actually us communicating with God.

If thehomer were to answer you he would say: Why do you think talking to yourself is communicating with God ?

plaetton:

Energy is hardly an abstract. Energy can be felt, stored, measured and calibrated. Examples are heat, photons, UV, Sound, and other the many other forms of electromagnetic energy that are clearly detectable and measurable.

Okay. Yet energy is said to be indirectly observed capacity for materials to do work. Heat involves electrons, photons involve virtual particles, UV involves electrons, sound involves air molecules.

plaetton:
As for where energy comes from, well, it is the only thing that we can say is self-existent, since it neither be created nor destroyed in the universe.

Okay. Since energy can be felt, stored and calibrated. Storing, feeling and calibrating can never be destroyed, huh ?

plaetton:
Every piece of matter emanate from the condensation of energy. Energy and matter have been converting and reconverting into one another since the big ban.g.

You keep talking about condensation of energy. But the concept of condensation came with gases joining to be liquids. Is energy gas or at least, a particle ?

plaetton:
Like I said before, what makes energy act is that it is system trying to regain its equilibrium, its order( a state of zero motion).

Okay. Just keep in mind zero motion means zero mechanical energy. Also keep in mind that apart from potential energy all energy involves motion.

plaetton:
The big ban.g created chaos, and it is trying to annul the chaos. like I also said before, it is like a live mathematical equation trying desperately solve and balance itself.

I see. So it's similar to a running process in a computer. A mathematical equation solving itself. Interesting. Just keep in mind computers involve computer engineers and mathematical equations involve mathematicians.

plaetton:
All motion in universe, whether celestial, atomic or sub-atomic, are propelled by this desperate and ceaseless quest for balance and equilibrium.

Ironic isn't it. Because t'is balance you've called (zero motion or not moving) is what causes motion (like that of light 3 x 10^ I can, in all seriousness agree. Why, I would differ is you fail to see what (I think) it implies.

plaetton:
Everything is in motion within motions. We hardly notice that every second the Earth is swirling around itself very 24 hrs, while at the same time swirling around our sun in a journey that takes it 365 days.

Indeed. If one looks at the earth as if it were a small atom one'll realize that in a context motion may not be percieved. The way within a car everything appears stable whilst the car is moving.

plaetton:
What most don't know is that outside of this motion , our sun is also carrying us on a celestial journey around the galactic centre, a journey that takes 250 million years to complete.

Imagine this: any sufficient force say a black hole near the sun could veer the earth of course. Do you agree ?

plaetton:
It is probable, and generally theorized that all these motions within motions create unique fields of energy that act upon and affect matter in ways we are yet to fully understand.

But YOU said energy can't be created or destroyed. Now you say it is probable that fields of energy are made. Fields of energy are regions in which energy acts. You may say you mean the region but you forget that energy necessarily acts in regions.

plaetton:
For the bolded, my argument is the opposite. That the primordial energy existed in a state of equilibrium, zero motion,undifferentiated, in potential, until something,(don't ask me what) disturbed the balance.
That was the inflection point.
The system automatically moved to restore that balance, and then the energy went into motion and spread out. Later, part of it condensed to form the particles of matter.
E = MC2
E= energy , M = Mass(matter) , C2 = Speed of light squared (motion)

Just admit that zero-energy had the impegus vital to result in matter.

It can't get any simpler than that.

plaetton:
Matter is energy, and is always in motion.
Nuclear power makes that abundantly clear. No external impetus needed.

I have said impetus is needed. If your theory is correct we won't need to push cars.

plaetton:
The bolded is incorrect.
Like I wrote earlier, the ability of primordial RNA , a chain of complex molecules to self-replicate is a clear sign of rudimentary intelligence. By repeating this replication so often, a rudimentary database, a memory,a base code is gradually developed and stored in an even more complex molecule.

Note the idealism, the anthropormorphism which bedevils materialists as in the bolded. You know theists or deists can take that statement to mean you effectively proved God.

plaetton:
In other words, the primordial organic molecules synthesize a more complex molecule to store it's replicating data. This is the precursor to the DNA.
If this is not intelligence, then I don't know what is.

It's as if the molecules know what they are doing. Are they self-aware ?

plaetton:
Over billions of years of growth and complexity, the storage molecule, the data centre, becomes the command and control centre from which all replication instructions emanate.
You know what they say," knowledge is power".
The DNA becomes the boss, the intelligent boss, because it has the billion years of accumulated replication data.

Yes. You forget that data (matter) without controls and command (matter which specify how data operate) centres are useless. If DNA is intelligent, I don't see why corpses can't be intelligent because it has DNA.

plaetton:
Now can you conceptualize how the evolution of consciousness and intelligence and what you term intelligent design might have come about through a series of evolutionary accidents?

I can and I find it amazing. It's like lateral inversion seen in mirrors. People like me reason from intelligence to matter to life. You reason from matter to life to intelligence. Interesting really ?

plaetton:
No matter how factual or speculative these notions are, the two important questions always worth asking are:

Are these processes possible?
If yes, then are they probable?
To me , the answer is an unequivical, YES!

Possible and probable mean the same thing. But just because a thing is possible doesn't mean it will happen. I could possibly die now. That doesn't mean I will die.

plaetton:
No God required.

.

Jesus said 'the poor you shall have with you always'. I say 'the atheists you shall have with you always'. After all you wrote you conclude: no God. Interesting !

Uyi Iredia:

If thehomer were to answer you he would say: Why do you think talking to yourself is communicating with God ?

simply because according to atheists there is no God and what we do is just by chance...

so by that logic there would be no purpose for the subconscious mind/thoughts or the "inner voice".

but since we have both one can only assume that there is an external power or something beyond us that is hearing it all.


hopefully you get what i am saying beecause im too tired to get too deep today.
i'll explain later on.

Lemme assume the stance of an atheist.

*Kails*:


simply because according to atheists there is no God and what we do is just by chance...

Okay.

*Kails*:
so by that logic there would be no purpose for the subconscious mind/thoughts or the "inner voice"

.

Actually, they would defend themselves by saying that we find our own purpose and/or that the inner voice is a mental phenom that science will explain. plaetton appears to have the interesting idea that energy will necessarily result in consciousness as it tries to find zero-state equilibrium from inequilibrium. I fear you may not get what I just said.

*Kails*:
but since we have both one can only assume that there is an external power or something beyond us that is hearing it all.

On what do you base this assumption ? Do you empirically verify it ? U probably need to see a doctor.

*Kails*:
hopefully you get what i am saying beecause im too tired to get too deep today.
i'll explain later on.

I feel ya

plaetton, I'm awaiting your reply on this thread.

BUMP !

For those who continue to argue that life is simply too complex, too intricate, and too purposeful to have independently arisen by evolutionary chance, I ask again for a definitive answer as to whether the Earth is alive or not.

The earth doesn't reproduce or grow according to a code as seen in all living things, hence it isn't alive; unless you are using the word 'alive' in a different sense.

[quote author=Uyi Iredia]The earth doesn't reproduce or grow according to a code as seen in all living things, hence it isn't alive; unless you are using the word 'alive' in a different sense.[/quote

What? The Earth doesn't reproduce or grow?
Please rethink your answer.

plaetton:
What? The Earth doesn't reproduce or grow?
Please rethink your answer.

Does the earth reproduce and grow according to a code, as seen in living things ?

Uyi Iredia:

Does the earth reproduce and grow according to a code, as seen in living things ?

I dont know what you mean by code, but in many ways the earth reproduces. Infact, the facundity of the earth is the basis of most or all pagan belief systems, philosophies, poetry and songs.

Scientifically speaking, yes indeed.
All planets in our solar system have moons that they carry around them. Since these moons are thought to be spin-offs from the mother planets, it safe to say that moons are offprings of their parent planets.
With that in mind, we can say that the earth has indeed reproduced it's own kind.

But more obvious is the fact that the earth births billions of living units, plant and animal very single day. If you doubt that, drop a seed into a soil and come back a few weeks later.

A non-living planet would not be capable of birthing, nurturing or sustaining life.

plaetton:

I dont know what you mean by code, but in many ways the earth reproduces. Infact, the facundity of the earth is the basis of most or all pagan belief systems, philosophies, poetry and songs.

Scientifically speaking, yes indeed.
All planets in our solar system have moons that they carry around them. Since these moons are thought to be spin-offs from the mother planets, it safe to say that moons are offprings of their parent planets.
With that in mind, we can say that the earth has indeed reproduced it's own kind.

But more obvious is the fact that the earth births billions of living units, plant and animal very single day. If you doubt that, drop a seed into a soil and come back a few weeks later.

A non-living planet would not be capable of birthing, nurturing or sustaining life.

In living things every unit is made from a set of DNA sequence which CODE for a protein. The earth doesn't work like that. The earth's fecundity is obviously due to life on it. Saying the earth has reproduced after its kind is metaphoric since that requires another planet similar to Earth being made from this Earth. Of course, you metaphorize the Fact that all living things co-opt elements of the earth and are sustained in the Earth to reproduction in animals from a parent's body.

Lots of Bullshyt and pseudoscience on this thread

Logicboy03: Lots of Bullshyt and pseudoscience on this thread

Says the dude who kills logic. Care to validate your claims.

@Deepsight:

Big yawn!

plaetton: @Deepsight:

Big yawn!

My deepest apologies. I have had a very difficult and busy time of recent. I must also confess to you that I have put off my full response to the question of consciousness, because contemplating the issue carefully almost drove me to the fringes of sanity. It was far far far far too profound.

However, the thoughts I came in contact with during my contemplation are leading me to a major change in my views. I feel that I may at this point make a major shift from the concept of a non-personal, non interventionist God. My contemplations on this matter have led me to greater conviction on the very obvious existence of God, and, most likely, a definite, conscious, cognizant and personal God, contrary to my views hitherto.

Have no doubt: you will never know the extent to which this thread has affected me: it just may perhaps be the thread to have had the biggest impact on me during my sojourn on Nairaland.

My hesitation to write, springs from the depth of the thoughts on consciousness that arose within me. I hate to say this here, lest you think me melodramatic; but in all truth, the thoughts have caused me sleepless nights and great confusion, such that I had to take some time off.

Nevertheless, you have my word, I shall respond this week.

Deep Sight:

My deepest apologies. I have had a very difficult and busy time of recent. I must also confess to you that I have put off my full response to the question of consciousness, because contemplating the issue carefully almost drove me to the fringes of sanity. It was far far far far too profound.

However, the thoughts I came in contact with during my contemplation are leading me to a major change in my views. I feel that I may at this point make a major shift from the concept of a non-personal, non interventionist God. My contemplations on this matter have led me to greater conviction on the very obvious existence of God, and, most likely, a definite, conscious, cognizant and personal God, contrary to my views hitherto.

Have no doubt: you will never know the extent to which this thread has affected me: it just may perhaps be the thread to have had the biggest impact on me during my sojourn on Nairaland.

My hesitation to write, springs from the depth of the thoughts on consciousness that arose within me. I hate to say this here, lest you think me melodramatic; but in all truth, the thoughts have caused me sleepless nights and great confusion, such that I had to take some time off.

Nevertheless, you have my word, I shall respond this week.

This indeed very interesting, and in no small measure, I feel good to have contributed in any small way to this mini epiphany of yours.

But as always , I would appreciate your thoughts , your new chain of thoughts, no matter how distant from mine, so that, as always, I may see the issue from a vantage point so far obscured by my own cloud of bias.

I too , though ever so sceptical, might want to partake of the boon of a new spiritual awakening. lol

However, I have great reservations that the revert to the belief in a conscious personal god might, as it always does, be antithetical to your quest for understanding and meaning in an infinite universe.

" It is much better to start from a position of doubt and then work towards certainty, than to start from a position of certainty and then face doubts along the way".

Deep Sight:

My deepest apologies. I have had a very difficult and busy time of recent. I must also confess to you that I have put off my full response to the question of consciousness, because contemplating the issue carefully almost drove me to the fringes of sanity. It was far far far far too profound.

However, the thoughts I came in contact with during my contemplation are leading me to a major change in my views. I feel that I may at this point make a major shift from the concept of a non-personal, non interventionist God. My contemplations on this matter have led me to greater conviction on the very obvious existence of God, and, most likely, a definite, conscious, cognizant and personal God, contrary to my views hitherto.

Have no doubt: you will never know the extent to which this thread has affected me: it just may perhaps be the thread to have had the biggest impact on me during my sojourn on Nairaland.

My hesitation to write, springs from the depth of the thoughts on consciousness that arose within me. I hate to say this here, lest you think me melodramatic; but in all truth, the thoughts have caused me sleepless nights and great confusion, such that I had to take some time off.

Nevertheless, you have my word, I shall respond this week.

Without meaning to flatter, I say "Perfect !" In fact, I was wondering where to place God when plaetton mentioned energy is never created and destroyed. The position I now hold (in which a personal God is very possible, though not explicit in the manner insinuated especially by Christians) draws from an essay I wrote towards the time I was about rejecting Christianity. I think I'll post essays and make comments on my books I read. To be candid, Planck's quote is one that expresses my core concept of God

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.
- Max Planck

This mind could, at least in theory, be personal, but I understand it in a manner different from Christianity because I no longer see rituals such as prayer, praise etc as compulsory.

plaetton:

This indeed very interesting, and in no small measure, I feel good to have contributed in any small way to this mini epiphany of yours.

But as always , I would appreciate your thoughts , your new chain of thoughts, no matter how distant from mine, so that, as always, I may see the issue from a vantage point so far obscured by my own cloud of bias.

I too , though ever so sceptical, might want to partake of the boon of a new spiritual awakening. lol

However, I have great reservations that the revert to the belief in a conscious personal god might, as it always does, be antithetical to your quest for understanding and meaning in an infinite universe.

" It is much better to start from a position of doubt and then work towards certainty, than to start from a position of certainty and then face doubts along the way".

Does it not strike you as strange that you did not always exist? That you only came to be born at a specific point in time in recent history. That you will die in not too distant history. The width and span of your consciousness. What does it all mean to you. And in the things that matter to you, where do you locate the impetus of evolution in deriving those things that a conscious living man regards as important to his time one earth, ere he departs.

Does the fact that you will have physical remains, not seem strange to you.

The fact that every part of you that is visible to other people today will remain visible to them in a dead form when you die. And yet, you are no longer there.

Do these things seem strange to you.

In your corner of eternity do you not recognize the fact that there could be, might be, may be, infinite corners of reality, of eternity. Whence your corner. Whence did it derive with its patterns.

Where does your past go? What do your memories mean?

What sort of being is at play here. Where is the man in the body that dies? What is the brain doing, and for what and for whom. For itself, as an independent creature?

Hmmmm. I cant start. I will, as I said, try and write during the week, but think on these few thoughts please.

Deep Sight:

Does it not strike you as strange that you did not always exist? That you only came to be born at a specific point in time in recent history. That you will die in not too distant history. The width and span of your consciousness. What does it all mean to you. And in the things that matter to you, where do you locate the impetus of evolution in deriving those things that a conscious living man regards as important to his time one earth, ere he departs.

Does the fact that you will have physical remains, not seem strange to you.

The fact that every part of you that is visible to other people today will remain visible to them in a dead form when you die. And yet, you are no longer there.

Do these things seem strange to you.

In your corner of eternity do you not recognize the fact that there could be, might be, may be, infinite corners of reality, of eternity. Whence your corner. Whence did it derive with its patterns.

Where does your past go? What do your memories mean?

What sort of being is at play here. Where is the man in the body that dies? What is the brain doing, and for what and for whom. For itself, as an independent creature?

Hmmmm. I cant start. I will, as I said, try and write during the week, but think on these few thoughts please.

These are profound questions, not easy to contemplate, let alone answer.

But, to me, again all I see is the ceaseless interaction of energy.

Rather than see an individual life, thoughts and experiences, I see one seamless tapestry of energy evolving, with each individual life, each individual experience, each individual creation contributing, even if minutely, to this grand tapestry.

Just as we imagine, create and experience and progress/evolve, I personally do not see any reasons why a chain of organic molecules could not have, albeit rudimentarily, done same to gradually evolve to what we now call life.

My position is that when energy is present, interactions occur, and when interactions occur, changes will occur.
And lastly, that when changes occur consistently over a period of time, a complex self-regulating mechanism can evolve .

We have all been witnesses to the evolution of computing power over the last 40yrs.
What is obvious is that the more sillicon chips we can pack into waffers, the faster the computing power, the more memory. The faster the computer and the more the memory, the more complex tasks the computer can perform.
So with silicon chips arranged in more complex configurations for energy flow, they are able to use the binary codes of 1s and 0s to create two dimensional realities that mimic and even as surreal to our natural realities.

Why are these silicon devices called logic devises, after all they are inanimate? Because silicon is naturally-occuring
crystal that allows the flow of energy in peculiar ways.

Now let me ask you. What do you think is the limit of computing speed?
Is there a time that computer chips can no longer go any faster?
Imagine if future computers are a thousand times faster than today's fastest computer, do you think that at some point, consciousness might just emerge at a certain threshold of computing power?
I certainly do.
And for me, the ceaseless interaction of energy for the last 14 billion years or so, may have, at a certain critical threshold, resulted in the emergence of consciousness, first rudimentary, then growing in complexity, perhaps a universal consciousness, which thereafter has been directing the course of evolution of the universe.

Deep Sight:

Does it not strike you as strange that you did not always exist? That you only came to be born at a specific point in time in recent history. That you will die in not too distant history. The width and span of your consciousness. What does it all mean to you. And in the things that matter to you, where do you locate the impetus of evolution in deriving those things that a conscious living man regards as important to his time one earth, ere he departs.

Does the fact that you will have physical remains, not seem strange to you.

The fact that every part of you that is visible to other people today will remain visible to them in a dead form when you die. And yet, you are no longer there.

Do these things seem strange to you.

In your corner of eternity do you not recognize the fact that there could be, might be, may be, infinite corners of reality, of eternity. Whence your corner. Whence did it derive with its patterns.

Where does your past go? What do your memories mean?

What sort of being is at play here. Where is the man in the body that dies? What is the brain doing, and for what and for whom. For itself, as an independent creature?

Hmmmm. I cant start. I will, as I said, try and write during the week, but think on these few thoughts please.

there is a spirit in man. There is a God. To know God, study jesus. He is God himself. He revealed God! Hallelujah! Read about jesus and see Gods love. Ask the God you've rejected all this while to teach you as you read the bible. Jesus is love. Jesus is lord! There is power in his name!

^^^ Please answer the following questions. A simple yes or no will suffice and we will take it from there ?

Is it only a conscious and intelligent person that can intuit consciousness or unconsciousness ?

Is energy and its interactions conscious ?

Can consciousness arise from unconsciousness ?

I await your answers.

Chibuebem: there is a spirit in man. There is a God. To know God, study jesus. He is God himself. He revealed God! Hallelujah! Read about jesus and see Gods love. Ask the God you've rejected all this while to teach you as you read the bible. Jesus is love. Jesus is lord! There is power in his name!

The same way there is power in the names of Einstein, Gandhi, Krishna etc.