God:the early answer to a problem?

[fusion4577]

My opinion is that god and gods where created to explain why everything happens. that they are a early form of scieance. but then it was built in with scieance and it hasn't left. The god theroy has been proven wrong many times by scieance, but it is a tradition now.

[lightgigantic]

what are the examples of god's existence being proved wrong by science?

[fusion4577]

The big bang theory, cloning, areas of scieance that have discussion on reproduction and the creation of man and matter

[lightgigantic]

The big bang theory, cloning, areas of scieance that have discussion on reproduction and the creation of man and matter
if abiogenesis remains a theoretical term and life is only seen to come from life, it's not clear how these arguments help your case

[spidergoat]

The mechanism of life is clearly not a mystical process, but one that involves blind and unconscious chemical reactions. You don't need to see abiogenesis happen to know that.

[fusion4577]

let's call a little theory of mine the "chance"
by chance an organic life fom was made on a planet in the remains of a supernova far away. it was bactrea. it multiplyed, and eventuly a comet blew up the planet and it was part of big enough chunks of rock that haddevolped thin thin layer of amostphere. it survived, and so on so forth
and besides, even if the bible has the "answers" it could be a false one to.

[fusion4577]

the bible and most religons are not open enough for new thought to aprove of these new discoveries, scieance is flexible enough to do so. :cool:

[spidergoat]

I agree. Religion is an early form of science. It was a best guess given that they didn't know about genetics, microorganisms, lightning, diseases, mental illness, and many other things we now know.

[lightgigantic]

The mechanism of life is clearly not a mystical process, but one that involves blind and unconscious chemical reactions. You don't need to see abiogenesis happen to know that.
if there is no experiment or phenomena observed of blind and unconscious chemicals coming together to form life, it's not clear what you are seeing exactly.

[fusion4577]

scieance can look into the formation a bit more, religon is more fixed

[lightgigantic]

the bible and most religons are not open enough for new thought to aprove of these new discoveries, scieance is flexible enough to do so. :cool:
others, even scientists, disagree

Prof. J. Weizenbaum

As many have observed, modern science has become a religion, at least for Western man. Like other religions, it has a priesthood, roughly organized on hierarchical lines. It has temples, shrines, and rituals and it has a body of canons. And. like other religions, it has its own mythology. One myth in particular states that if, say, by experiment a scientific theory is confronted in reality with a single contradiction, one piece of discontinuing evidence, then that theory is automatically set aside and a new theory that takes the contradiction into account is adopted. This is not the way science actually works.

In fact, some people have the same type of very deep faith in modern science that others do in their respective religions. This faith in science, grounded in its own dogma, leads to a defense of scientific theories far beyond the time any disconfirming evidence is unearthed. Moreover, disconfirming evidence is generally not incorporated into the body of science in an open-minded way but by an elaboration of the already existing edifice (as, for example, by adding epicycles) and generally in a way in which the resulting structure of science and its procedures excludes the possibility of putting the enterprise itself in jeopardy. In other words, modem science has made itself immune to falsification in any terms the true believer will admit into argument.

Perhaps modern science's most devastating effect is that it leads its believers to think it to be the only legitimate source of knowledge about the world. Being a high priest, if not a bishop, in the cathedral of modern science— my university, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology —I can testify that a great many of what we sometimes like to call "the MIT family," faculty and students, believe that there is indeed no legitimate source of knowledge about the world other than modern science. This is as mistaken a belief as the belief that one cannot gain legitimate knowledge from anything other than religion. Both are equally false.

[lightgigantic]

scieance can look into the formation a bit more, religon is more fixed
science (or more correctly, empiricism) works exclusively with the senses
that is the basis for its credibility

the moment you make a claim that is outside of sense perception in the name of science (like life arose out of unconscious chemicals for instance), you discard the credibility

[spidergoat]

It also works on making deductions and inferences from observation.

[lightgigantic]

It also works on making deductions and inferences from observation.
yes
technically they are called "theories" until such time as they can be practically shown to be true

It could just as easily be "Abiogenesis: the early answer to a problem?"

[SnakeLord]

and life is only seen to come from life

Kindly define 'life'. Thanks.

[lightgigantic]

Kindly define 'life'. Thanks.
go visit an open casket funeral and see if you can spot any differences between the person in the casket and the people in the aisles

[SnakeLord]

go visit an open casket funeral and see if you can spot any differences between the person in the casket and the people in the aisles

I've asked my friends but none of them are willing to die so that I can check. Any chance you can give me a brief list?

[wartsNAM]

yes
technically they are called "theories" until such time as they can be practically shown to be true

It could just as easily be "Abiogenesis: the early answer to a problem?"

It seems like you regard scientific theories as a "best guess." Maybe you don't but in case you do I just want to say that scientific theories, especially old, heavily peer reviewed and tested ones are on essentially the same level as fact. They are an attempt to unify known facts and through this make predictions. In the case of the theory of evolution many many predictions have been made and have been proven correct. A good theory is not strong because of the evidence it has supporting it, it is strong because of the lack of evidence against it. Sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying :D

[lightgigantic]

I've asked my friends but none of them are willing to die so that I can check. Any chance you can give me a brief list?

never encountered a dead bug before?

[lightgigantic]

It seems like you regard scientific theories as a "best guess." Maybe you don't but in case you do I just want to say that scientific theories, especially old, heavily peer reviewed and tested ones are on essentially the same level as fact. They are an attempt to unify known facts and through this make predictions. In the case of the theory of evolution many many predictions have been made and have been proven correct. A good theory is not strong because of the evidence it has supporting it, it is strong because of the lack of evidence against it. Sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying :D
thankyou for your kind response
Science prides itself on "getting the job done". In this reagard we are talking about abiogenesis.

Is abiogenesis falsifiable?
peer reviewed?
been the basis of any solid predictions?

[SnakeLord]

never encountered a dead bug before?

Any chance you could give me a brief list? I want to see how you define life, not go crawling around the garden looking for beetles. Am I asking for too much?

[Yorda]

I agree. Religion is an early form of science. It was a best guess given that they didn't know about genetics, microorganisms, lightning, diseases, mental illness, and many other things we now know.

god (mind) causes everything and science (observation) explains how he does it.

The mechanism of life is clearly not a mystical process, but one that involves blind and unconscious chemical reactions.

if they were unconscious they would not do anything because consciousness causes will which is the only reason to do anything.

[lightgigantic]

Any chance you could give me a brief list? I want to see how you define life, not go crawling around the garden looking for beetles. Am I asking for too much?
no need to go to the garden - you can probably find a few things in your house
just get something that is dead and something that is alive and observe them for a week.
Maybe you can submit your observations to new scientist and become famous and rich
:p

[SnakeLord]

Or.. you could just define it for me because I have asked for your definition, not mine. Am I asking too much of you? Are you unable to define it? Please try, it is important.

[lightgigantic]

Or.. you could just define it for me because I have asked for your definition, not mine. Am I asking too much of you? Are you unable to define it? Please try, it is important.
Unless you have a totally whacky definition, there's probably no difference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death)

[SnakeLord]

I might have a totally whacky definition, that's why I asked you to define life. Why have you linked me to someone elses definition of death?

Please, in your own words..

[lightgigantic]

I might have a totally whacky definition, that's why I asked you to define life. Why have you linked me to someone elses definition of death?

Please, in your own words..

sorry

I guess I don't have anything radical to offer on the subject

:shrug:

[fusion4577]

life is a well debated subject. overall, we could say it is to find out why we are here. then some are happy with toreproduce. it is a self discovery thing, like buddah.

[SnakeLord]

I guess I don't have anything radical to offer on the subject


I haven't asked for anything radical. I haven't asked that you donate a kidney, I have simply asked for your definition of life.. What's the difficulty lg? :shrug:

Please.. whenever you're ready.

[lightgigantic]

I haven't asked for anything radical. I haven't asked that you donate a kidney, I have simply asked for your definition of life.. What's the difficulty lg? :shrug:

Please.. whenever you're ready.
once again, it's not like I have to be a mad artist and stick my signature on everything.
I don't find any problems with the standard definitions of the state of death.
Do you?

[Enmos]

once again, it's not like I have to be a mad artist and stick my signature on everything.
I don't find any problems with the standard definitions of the state of death.
Do you?

He is asking for your definition of LIFE, not death..

[lightgigantic]

He is asking for your definition of LIFE, not death..
the easiest way to check whether something has life is to check whether it is dead
I mean, that's generally what they do
:shrug:

[Enmos]

the easiest way to check whether something has life is to check whether it is dead
I mean, that's generally what they do
:shrug:

What nonsense.. you mean a wooden chair has life ?

He asked you to define life because he wanted to see whether you would include artificial life or any other non-organic life in your definition, I think.

[lightgigantic]

What nonsense.. you mean a wooden chair has life ?
I would have thought that a wooden chair would qualify as dead
:confused:

He asked you to define life because he wanted to see whether you included artificial life or any other non-organic life in your definition, I think.
artificial life is named artificial for very good reasons
it is always in a state of death (or lack of consciousness)

not sure what other non-organic examples you are a alluding too

[Enmos]

I would have thought that a wooden chair would qualify as dead
:confused:
That's my point. In your 'definition' you say that anything that is dead has life :shrug:
"the easiest way to check whether something has life is to check whether it is dead"

artificial life is named artificial for very good reasons
it is always in a state of death
While it is artificial, it is still life is it not ?

not sure what other non-organic examples you are a alluding too
I was just leaving room for any unforeseen examples lol

[lightgigantic]

That's my point. In your 'definition' you say that anything that is dead has life :shrug:
if it passes the test (ie it is seen to be dead) why would it have life?



While it is artificial, it is still life is it not ?
why would you say that?
In what way does artificial life circumvent the criteria for death?

[Enmos]

if it passes the test (ie it is seen to be dead) why would it have life?
Hey, you said it not me..
Do you disagree with your own statement ?
the easiest way to check whether something has life is to check whether it is dead
I mean, that's generally what they do
:shrug:


why would you say that?
In what way does artificial life circumvent the criteria for death?
As far as I know life is not defined by it's ability to die.

If something meets all the criteria of life, it is life.
Anything that meets the following criteria is considered to be life:
-Homeostasis
-Organization
-Metabolism
-Growth
-Adaptation
-Response to stimuli
-Reproduction

'Artificial' merely means that it has no biological basis.

[lightgigantic]

Emnos

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if it passes the test (ie it is seen to be dead) why would it have life?
”
Hey, you said it not me..
Do you disagree with your own statement ?
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the easiest way to check whether something has life is to check whether it is dead
I mean, that's generally what they do
so if you sneak up on an unsuspecting chair to determine whether it is dead, and it turns out to be true, what would your conclusion be (compared to, say, sneaking up on a healthy cat)?

”

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
why would you say that?
In what way does artificial life circumvent the criteria for death?
”
As far as I know life is not defined by it's ability to die.

If something meets all the criteria of life, it is life.
Anything that meets the following criteria is considered to be life:
-Homeostasis
-Organization
-Metabolism
-Growth
-Adaptation
-Response to stimuli
-Reproduction

'Artificial' merely means that it has no biological basis.
IOW life has a biological basis, despite whatever is dreamed up in the name of AI, since even AI owes it's existence to a biological necessity (ie the brain of the designer who has to constantly debug and repair it)

[Enmos]

Emnos
so if you sneak up on an unsuspecting chair to determine whether it is dead, and it turns out to be true, what would your conclusion be (compared to, say, sneaking up on a healthy cat)?
You seem confused..
You asserted that dead things have life, not me. And I never agreed with you on that either.

Regarding life there are three states as far as I'm concerned:
- alive, currently living
- dead, once alive but not anymore
- inanimate, something that has never been alive and never will be alive. (Edit: perhaps needing the addition 'in it's current form')

IOW life has a biological basis, despite whatever is dreamed up in the name of AI, since even AI owes it's existence to a biological necessity (ie the brain of the designer who has to constantly debug and repair it)
Perhaps, if you look at it that way.
That doesn't however negate the fact that it's life though.

[SnakeLord]

Lg.. you could have avoided all of that if you just answered the question that was asked of you :( I didn't ask you to chop a limb off, I don't understand your problem. Enmos managed it and the question wasn't even asked of him. Your turn.

Please..

[lightgigantic]

You seem confused..
You asserted that dead things have life, not me. And I never agreed with you on that either.

Regarding life there are three states as far as I'm concerned:
- alive, currently living
- dead, once alive but not anymore
- inanimate, something that has never been alive and never will be alive. (Edit: perhaps needing the addition 'in it's current form')
what is the distinction between a dead thing and an inanimate thing (apart from the apriori knowledge that the dead thing was previously alive)?


Perhaps, if you look at it that way.
That doesn't however negate the fact that it's life though.
why would it be categorized as life?
It is simply a processing tool, and doesn't have any greater significance than any other tool utilized by living beings

[lightgigantic]

Lg.. you could have avoided all of that if you just answered the question that was asked of you :( I didn't ask you to chop a limb off, I don't understand your problem. Enmos managed it and the question wasn't even asked of him. Your turn.

Please..
once again, I don't have anything radical to offer
:shrug:

[Enmos]

what is the distinction between a dead thing and an inanimate thing (apart from the apriori knowledge that the dead thing was previously alive)?
The distinction is that a dead object, in contrast with an inanimate object, has all the 'machinery' needed to sustain life.
To clarify the edit:
- inanimate, something that has never been alive and never will be alive. (Edit: perhaps needing the addition 'in it's current form')"
This was done for such 'objects' as oil for instance. Or bones etc.

why would it be categorized as life?
It is simply a processing tool, and doesn't have any greater significance than any other tool utilized by living beings
I admit it is controversial, but artificial life does meet all the criteria.
Processing tool ? I think you misunderstand what I mean with artificial life..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_life

[SnakeLord]

once again, I don't have anything radical to offer


For the final time, I am not asking for anything radical.

Maybe a further question should be: cowardice or inability?

[lightgigantic]

Emnos

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
what is the distinction between a dead thing and an inanimate thing (apart from the apriori knowledge that the dead thing was previously alive)?
”
The distinction is that a dead object, in contrast with an inanimate object, has all the 'machinery' needed to sustain life.
if the inert machinery cannot be re-invested with life, what is the ultimate distinction?

To clarify the edit:
“
Originally Posted by Enmos(post 39)
- inanimate, something that has never been alive and never will be alive. (Edit: perhaps needing the addition 'in it's current form')"
”
This was done for such 'objects' as oil for instance. Or bones etc.
will a dead body ever be alive again?
(no post dated cheques in the name of sci-fi please ;) )

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
why would it be categorized as life?
It is simply a processing tool, and doesn't have any greater significance than any other tool utilized by living beings
”
I admit it is controversial, but artificial life does meet all the criteria.
Processing tool ? I think you misunderstand what I mean with artificial life..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_life
actually it depends on how we understand intelligence

Thus a computer has no point of view on questions of right and wrong.
Whatever choices it seems capable of making are actually pre-deliberated by
a conscious programmer. With superhuman speed a computer blindly follows
the schemata of those deliberations when so commanded by a conscious user.
The user inputs choices that the computer mechanically processes to logical
conclusions. But only the user sees those conclusions to be "correct",
"better", "hopeful" or "wrong"; the machine, seeing nothing, makes no
value-judgements.
-Transcendental Personalism S.Swami

[Enmos]

Emnos

if the inert machinery cannot be re-invested with life, what is the ultimate distinction?
You are taking it too far.. i said 'regarding life'.
Do you really want to end up with a "What is real" sort of thread ? ;)

will a dead body ever be alive again?
(no post dated cheques in the name of sci-fi please ;) )
The word 'again' cannot be applied to an inanimate object in this context, that's a difference.
Dead bodies can be resurrected.. it all depends on how you define death.
I don't really see how this is relevant though.

actually it depends on how we understand intelligence

Thus a computer has no point of view on questions of right and wrong.
Whatever choices it seems capable of making are actually pre-deliberated by
a conscious programmer. With superhuman speed a computer blindly follows
the schemata of those deliberations when so commanded by a conscious user.
The user inputs choices that the computer mechanically processes to logical
conclusions. But only the user sees those conclusions to be "correct",
"better", "hopeful" or "wrong"; the machine, seeing nothing, makes no
value-judgements.
-Transcendental Personalism S.Swami
Intelligence is no criteria for life. Do you think a beetle knows right from wrong ?

[lightgigantic]

You are taking it too far.. i said 'regarding life'.
Do you really want to end up with a "What is real" sort of thread ? ;)
I thought it was quite straight forward
in what ways does a dead thing behave differently from an inanimate thing?


The word 'again' cannot be applied to an inanimate object in this context, that's a difference.
and it also cannot be applied to dead things either

Dead bodies can be resurrected..
it all depends on how you define death.
I don't really see how this is relevant though.
a dead thing behaves strictly according to physical laws (particularly in regard to decomposition)
while a living thing also has many issues of accordance with physical laws, they are also conscious, which despite theorizing to the contrary, remains unapproachable by current understandings of physical laws



Intelligence is no criteria for life. Do you think a beetle knows right from wrong ?
you don't think it knows the difference between a bad situation and a good one?

[Enmos]

I thought it was quite straight forward
in what ways does a dead thing behave differently from an inanimate thing?

In no way. You are missing the point completely though.

and it also cannot be applied to dead things either

a dead thing behaves strictly according to physical laws (particularly in regard to decomposition)
while a living thing also has many issues of accordance with physical laws, they are also conscious, which despite theorizing to the contrary, remains unapproachable by current understandings of physical laws
I know this is childish.. but what about Jesus ? lol :p
Certain bacteria can be frozen for millennia and come to live when they are warmed up.


you don't think it knows the difference between a bad situation and a good one?
Artificial life can tell a good situation from a bad one as well.

[lightgigantic]

In no way. You are missing the point completely though.
what's the point?


Certain bacteria can be frozen for millennia and come to live when they are warmed up.
why do they have to be frozen?
why can't they simply be dead?


Artificial life can tell a good situation from a bad one as well.
not according to the AI system

.... only the user sees those conclusions to be "correct",
"better", "hopeful" or "wrong"; the machine, seeing nothing, makes no
value-judgements.

[Enmos]

what's the point?
This heading towards the thread I mentioned. Maybe you should continue there.

why do they have to be frozen?
why can't they simply be dead?
Cos they'd rot ?

not according to the AI system

.... only the user sees those conclusions to be "correct",
"better", "hopeful" or "wrong"; the machine, seeing nothing, makes no
value-judgements.
Such is life.. words make this confusing.
Beetles don't make value judgments either.


This is going nowhere.
Originally this was about the definition of life. And Snake asking you to give yours, or at least one you think is correct.
I think you should give yours and let Snake ask his question.
I'm off to bed now..
Have fun :)

[Jozen-Bo]

Science has proven its own limits. It can take us only so far.
How can science prove the God doesn't exist to me when all I see is God?

Jozen

[Nikelodeon]

Perhaps it can prove you are nuts?

[Jozen-Bo]

Legally I think not.

Freedom of Religion is so COOL!!!!

[Crunchy Cat]

Science has proven its own limits. It can take us only so far.

It's only as limited as the technology and thought of people are, as far as we know.


How can science prove the God doesn't exist to me when all I see is God?

Jozen

For a specific 'God' (like the Christian one) that's a piece of cake... and it's mostly logic that can disprove it's existence. For a generic idea of 'God' it can't because there is no falsifiable detail, but (and this is a big but) that absence of falsifiable detail makes the idea no more credible or probable than any other lacking falsifiable detail.

What science can do is understand why all you see is 'God'. It's a human psychological phenomena called anthropomprhization. To put it bluntly, humans superimpose human qualities on non-human things and phenomena (or vice versa). Bugs bunny, father time, mother nature, the grim reaper, etc... you get the point. 'God' is anthropomorphization of reality and here is an article that goes into detail on anthropomorphism:

http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl05ab.shtml

[Jozen-Bo]

What a fun answer that was.

From the stand point you give I do agree.

From my own perspective, its a little different. Would a God need science to do anything...or could God use Magic??? The rules of reality are not fixed. They are mutating...many of our world"s super top notch Russian Scientist have observed this. We are at a point where the very observation of an experiment affects the results.

What seems more advanced...some beings relying on their much needed equipment to get what they desire or beings who could manifest anything by simply desiring it?

[Crunchy Cat]

What a fun answer that was.

From the stand point you give I do agree.

Glad you enjoyed it :).


From my own perspective, its a little different. Would a God need science to do anything...or could God use Magic???

Did you mean would 'God' need reality do do anything? Science is just a process... look, think, test, validate, repeat. Consequently, what is magic? Is there any evidence such a thing exists? Reality is quite non-magical. It is consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory.


The rules of reality are not fixed. They are mutating...many of our world"s super top notch Russian Scientist have observed this. We are at a point where the very observation of an experiment affects the results.

I think you might be referring to a wave function collapse. Yes any unit that can accept information from a superposition can result in a collapse; however, there is no fundamental rule of reality that is mutating. The evolution of a wave function is probability.


What seems more advanced...some beings relying on their much needed equipment to get what they desire or beings who could manifest anything by simply desiring it?

It depends on what definition of 'advanced' we're using really. A better question might be which one has demonstrable evidence? Truth is the conformity of a concept or notion in the mind to actual reality. Evidence, on the other hand, is a demonstration that a given reality is valid.

[Jozen-Bo]

Your logic is strong. Good answers!!!

Have you ever heard of a torsion field???

[spidergoat]

Science has proven its own limits. It can take us only so far.
How can science prove the God doesn't exist to me when all I see is God?

Jozen

If you want to call the laws of nature God, and everything in it God, then even an atheist can agree to that definition. However, God more commonly refers to something supernatural.

[Crunchy Cat]

Your logic is strong. Good answers!!!

Must be the vitamins :thankyou:.


Have you ever heard of a torsion field???

As in the hypothetical non-Riemanian manifold with both bosonic and fermionic coordinates? Nope, never heard of it :).

[lightgigantic]

Emnos

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
what's the point?
”
This heading towards the thread I mentioned. Maybe you should continue there.
not sure why issues of being conscious or dead are inherently related to issues of reality, unless your head has seriously been done in by some philosophical discussion of late

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
why do they have to be frozen?
why can't they simply be dead?
”
Cos they'd rot ?
fancy that


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
not according to the AI system

.... only the user sees those conclusions to be "correct",
"better", "hopeful" or "wrong"; the machine, seeing nothing, makes no
value-judgements.
”
Such is life.. words make this confusing.
Beetles don't make value judgments either.
just try 5 cabbages in a acre of parsley and see how many cabbage moths appreciate the value of cabbage as opposed to parsley
:p

[Jozen-Bo]

Crunchy Cat...you are very funny...in a good way!!

This hypethical Torsion feild that I haven't heard of either is very interesting.
If some of the information I came accross is correct...then the laws of reality are definetely mutating. If thats the case change is everywhere and we are not trapped by the boring laws that some scientist would provide us with...such as all the limits they state are absolutely impossible. There was a time when all the leading minds where teasing the wright brothers for building an Airplane...I bet the Wirght Brothers where the last ones to have the laugh, though. Tesla was never taking seriously by the scientific community publicly. Privately his work has build locked away and billions of dollars have been spent trying to figure out his inventions, by entities with a vast interest in becoming even more powerful then they already are.

I wouldn't bother to talk about the possibility if I didn't see it. And I do!!
I see directly that things are changing at the core level. Call it good eye sight! Torsion feild or not...thats what I see. I don't think you are capable of believing this though, becasue I wouldn't. Seeing is believing! What a fun Universe!!!

[Enmos]

Emnos

not sure why issues of being conscious or dead are inherently related to issues of reality, unless your head has seriously been done in by some philosophical discussion of late
It is related to reality, and you want to make the discussion objective. That thread deals with exactly that..
Since we are already some what of topic with this I don't want to continue in that direction.

just try 5 cabbages in a acre of parsley and see how many cabbage moths appreciate the value of cabbage as opposed to parsley
:p
So would artificial life appreciate a virtual cabbage. DNA is programming.

[lightgigantic]

So would artificial life appreciate a virtual cabbage. DNA is programming.
perhaps
but programming is not DNA

Whatever choices it seems capable of making are actually pre-deliberated by
a conscious programmer. With superhuman speed a computer blindly follows
the schemata of those deliberations when so commanded by a conscious user.
The user inputs choices that the computer mechanically processes to logical
conclusions. But only the user sees those conclusions to be "correct",
"better", "hopeful" or "wrong"; the machine, seeing nothing, makes no
value-judgements.

what would it mean for artificial life to make a "wrong move"?

[Enmos]

perhaps
but programming is not DNA

Whatever choices it seems capable of making are actually pre-deliberated by
a conscious programmer. With superhuman speed a computer blindly follows
the schemata of those deliberations when so commanded by a conscious user.
The user inputs choices that the computer mechanically processes to logical
conclusions. But only the user sees those conclusions to be "correct",
"better", "hopeful" or "wrong"; the machine, seeing nothing, makes no
value-judgements.

what would it mean for artificial life to make a "wrong move"?

They have virtual DNA.

What would it mean for biological life to make a "wrong move" ?

[lightgigantic]

They have virtual DNA.

What would it mean for biological life to make a "wrong move" ?
sorry
I meant to say DNA is not life (or cosnciousness)
there is a big difference between life and the chemical pathways of information that life utilizes.
To make a wrong move requires consciousness, which is specifically what AI lacks, namely because it has no point of view.


To restate the argument, a person is aware of a menu of possible
movements, and has the willful independence to choose from that menu a
move he intuits to be best under the circumstances. Though it moves, a
cloud lacks awareness, independence and intuition. True, a computer does a
better job than a cloud of *appearing* to be aware--as seen in May 1997 in
New York, where IBM's Deep Blue 2 computer defeated grandmaster Gary
Kasparov in a chess competition. (Actually it was only a technical defeat,
as Kasparov won the first game and quit the match in the second.) As
*New Scientist* (p. 28) noted a month later, Deep Blue

cannot tell chess sense from nonsense, and it is blind
to what a chess position or chess game is all about. ...
Forget artificial intelligence. Deep Blue is a product
of human intelligence to modern computing technologies.

-transcendnetal personalism S.swami

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy Cat...you are very funny...in a good way!!

This hypethical Torsion feild that I haven't heard of either is very interesting.

:p



If some of the information I came accross is correct...then the laws of reality are definetely mutating.

The basic postulates of these torsion field speculations are full of contradictions and scientifically nonsensical statements. That in combination with the scientific observation that the laws of reality are not mutating invalidates the idea.



If thats the case change is everywhere and we are not trapped by the boring laws that some scientist would provide us with...such as all the limits they state are absolutely impossible.

Everyone wishes magic was real because it would be fun. It's just not the case and our desire for something to be true has zero bearing on if something is actually true.



There was a time when all the leading minds where teasing the wright brothers for building an Airplane...I bet the Wirght Brothers where the last ones to have the laugh, though. Tesla was never taking seriously by the scientific community publicly. Privately his work has build locked away and billions of dollars have been spent trying to figure out his inventions, by entities with a vast interest in becoming even more powerful then they already are.

I think the connection of the anaology is really a stretch.



I wouldn't bother to talk about the possibility if I didn't see it. And I do!!
I see directly that things are changing at the core level. Call it good eye sight! Torsion feild or not...thats what I see. I don't think you are capable of believing this though, becasue I wouldn't. Seeing is believing! What a fun Universe!!!

People like to talk about unbound possibilities and don't like it when existing knowledge makes those possibilities impossible. Knowledge of 'what is' often demolishes 'what I want it to be'. You can't beat truth no matter how creative and strong your desires are :).

[SnakeLord]

will a dead body ever be alive again?


That depends on how you define life. If you define it I can answer your question.

[lightgigantic]

That depends on how you define life.
it also depends on how you define death too
;)

[SnakeLord]

it also depends on how you define death too


O...k, that can be defined too. Now can you kindly define life? :shrug:

[lightgigantic]

O...k, that can be defined too. Now can you kindly define life? :shrug:
consciousness

[Enmos]

sorry
I meant to say DNA is not life (or cosnciousness)
there is a big difference between life and the chemical pathways of information that life utilizes.
Says who ?

To make a wrong move requires consciousness, which is specifically what AI lacks, namely because it has no point of view.

Again, says who ? :shrug:

[Enmos]

consciousness

Is an aspect of life, not life itself.

[lightgigantic]

Is an aspect of life, not life itself.
can you indicate life without consciousness?

[lightgigantic]

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
sorry
I meant to say DNA is not life (or cosnciousness)
there is a big difference between life and the chemical pathways of information that life utilizes.
”
Says who ?
DNA has not been shown to exhibit any scope for application or existence outside of the life forms that utilize it.
Kind of a car, despite being in full mechanical order, has no scope for moving unless fired up by a conscious operator


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
To make a wrong move requires consciousness, which is specifically what AI lacks, namely because it has no point of view.
”
Again, says who ?
says the author of the new scientist article for a start

The notion of AI having a point of view is perhaps something explored in sci-fi, but not science

[Enmos]

can you indicate life without consciousness?

Elaborate on consciousness please. Do bacteria have consciousness ?

[lightgigantic]

Elaborate on consciousness please. Do bacteria have consciousness ?
bacteria certainly fit the bill

[Enmos]

“

DNA has not been shown to exhibit any scope for application or existence outside of the life forms that utilize it.
Kind of a car, despite being in full mechanical order, has no scope for moving unless fired up by a conscious operator
Or a computer of course...
And I can say the same for consciousness..

says the author of the new scientist article for a start

The notion of AI having a point of view is perhaps something explored in sci-fi, but not science
Why do you need consciousness to make a wrong move ?
It may take consciousness to know you did..

[Enmos]

bacteria certainly fit the bill

Plants ?

[lightgigantic]

Plants ?
certainly

[lightgigantic]

Or a computer of course...
except of course that computer also requires an operator to make its calculations meaningful or even operational

And I can say the same for consciousness..
if you could indicate a functioning mechanistic model for consciousness, yes


Why do you need consciousness to make a wrong move ?
It may take consciousness to know you did..
without consciousness you could possibly talk of making a move (like a chess computer for example) but not a wrong move

[Enmos]

certainly

Could you give me your definition of 'consciousness' please ?

[SnakeLord]

consciousness

Thanks, that wasn't so painful was it?

can you indicate life without consciousness?

The mush you find when you crack open a cocoon.

[lightgigantic]

Could you give me your definition of 'consciousness' please ?
simplest explanation is a definition of death, since the presence of death necessitates the absence of consciousness.

[lightgigantic]

The mush you find when you crack open a cocoon.
why do you say it is not conscious?

[Enmos]

except of course that computer also requires an operator to make its calculations meaningful or even operational
Not quite, computers can learn for themselves all they need is a basic programming (-> DNA, if you will).
http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2005/022305/Humanoid_robots_walk_naturally_022305.html
http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/learningrobots.html

if you could indicate a functioning mechanistic model for consciousness, yes
I don't have to:
Consciousness has not been shown to exhibit any scope for application or existence outside of the life forms that utilize it.

without consciousness you could possibly talk of making a move (like a chess computer for example) but not a wrong move
Why do you need consciousness to make a wrong move ?

Do bacteria talk about making a wrong move ?

[Enmos]

simplest explanation is a definition of death, since the presence of death necessitates the absence of consciousness.

If my tv breaks, does that tell me how it works ?

[lightgigantic]

If my tv breaks, does that tell me how it works ?
it does tell you what it means to have a functional tv however

[Enmos]

it does tell you what it means to have a functional tv however

So if someone dies it tells you what it means to be alive ?
Then what does it mean ?

[lightgigantic]

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
except of course that computer also requires an operator to make its calculations meaningful or even operational
”
Not quite, computers can learn for themselves all they need is a basic programming (-> DNA, if you will).
http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2005/0...ly_022305.html
http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/learningrobots.html
are these computers happy to be learning new things?
Or is it the computer programmers who are happy?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if you could indicate a functioning mechanistic model for consciousness, yes
”
I don't have to:
Consciousness has not been shown to exhibit any scope for application or existence outside of the life forms that utilize it.
you jump the gun
consciousness has not been shown (mechanistically speaking) full stop.

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
without consciousness you could possibly talk of making a move (like a chess computer for example) but not a wrong move
”
Why do you need consciousness to make a wrong move ?
because consciousness also includes a sense of self ("I")

Do bacteria talk about making a wrong move ?
they certainly exhibit a different sense of self when they are alive (as opposed to when they are dead)

[SnakeLord]

why do you say it is not conscious?

What [valid] definition of consciousness do you claim it falls under?

[Enmos]

Now can you kindly define life? :shrug:

consciousness

Could you give me your definition of 'consciousness' please ?

simplest explanation is a definition of death, since the presence of death necessitates the absence of consciousness.

So the simplest definition of life is a definition of death... :confused:

[lightgigantic]

So if someone dies it tells you what it means to be alive ?
certainly

Then what does it mean ?
it means you can indicate an opposite state of being by introducing its absence.
For instance you can indicate light by dimming it
You can indicate warmth by turning off the heater - etc etc

[lightgigantic]

So the simplest definition of life is a definition of death... :confused:
the simplest, yes
much like the simplest definition of heat would involve turning off the heater

[Enmos]

are these computers happy to be learning new things?
Or is it the computer programmers who are happy?
Are bacteria happy ? Are plants ?

you jump the gun
consciousness has not been shown (mechanistically speaking) full stop.
Yet you use it to define life..

because consciousness also includes a sense of self ("I")
Why do you need a sense of self to make a wrong move ?

they certainly exhibit a different sense of self when they are alive (as opposed to when they are dead)
Certainly ? Bacteria have an ego ? That is news to me... link ?

[Enmos]

certainly


it means you can indicate an opposite state of being by introducing its absence.
For instance you can indicate light by dimming it
You can indicate warmth by turning off the heater - etc etc

What is the definition of light ?

[lightgigantic]

What [valid] definition of consciousness do you claim it falls under?
its existence cannot be sufficiently detailed by mechanistic/inorganic analysis

IOW reducing a mashed up cocoon to its bare material elements does not grant a result identical to reducing a still living mashed up cocoon to its bare elements (the living one can proceed to give rise to a metamorphised moth whereas the dead cocoon will not give rise to anything like that in a million years)

[Enmos]

the simplest, yes
much like the simplest definition of heat would involve turning off the heater

Sigh... somehow I hoped for a scientific definition, not some local explanation.

[lightgigantic]

What is the definition of light ?

once again, the easiest way to explain it would be to turn off the light

[SnakeLord]

much like the simplest definition of heat would involve turning off the heater

Umm... classic bullshit :bugeye:

its existence cannot be sufficiently detailed by mechanistic/inorganic analysis

Under what [valid] definition of consciousness do you claim it falls?

[lightgigantic]

Sigh... somehow I hoped for a scientific definition, not some local explanation.
consciousness is the very thing we are seeing with - defining it in a local way is probably the only option available, at least for one in conditioned life

[Enmos]

what is the distinction between a dead thing and an inanimate thing (apart from the apriori knowledge that the dead thing was previously alive)?

]if the inert machinery cannot be re-invested with life, what is the ultimate distinction?

So the simplest definition of life is a definition of non live...

In other words, if a see a rock and examine it I will know the essence of life.

It seems insufficient somehow..

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

much like the simplest definition of heat would involve turning off the heater
”
Umm... classic bullshit
you disagree that it is not simple?
or do you disagree that it doesn't define heat?
:D

“
its existence cannot be sufficiently detailed by mechanistic/inorganic analysis
”
Under what [valid] definition of consciousness do you claim it falls under?
Valid?
Valid to who?
(its certainly valid to a living person - lol)

[Enmos]

once again, the easiest way to explain it would be to turn off the light

I asked for a definition, not some local explanation..

This is a definition of light:
"Also called luminous energy, radiant energy. electromagnetic radiation to which the organs of sight react, ranging in wavelength from about 400 to 700 nm and propagated at a speed of 186,282 mi./sec (299,972 km/sec), considered variously as a wave, corpuscular, or quantum phenomenon."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/light

[lightgigantic]

So the simplest definition of life is a definition of non live...

In other words, if a see a rock and examine it I will know the essence of life.


only if you had previously encountered the rock in a living state

[Enmos]

consciousness is the very thing we are seeing with - defining it in a local way is probably the only option available, at least for one in conditioned life

Defining it as an opposite of death tells me nothing at all about it, plus it's just plain wrong.

[Enmos]

only if you had previously encountered the rock in a living state

No, you said there is no difference between dead and inanimate matter.
What you thus said is that life is the opposite of non life. Which is rather obvious and completely useless as a definition.

[lightgigantic]

I asked for a definition, not some local explanation..

This is a definition of light:
"Also called luminous energy, radiant energy. electromagnetic radiation to which the organs of sight react, ranging in wavelength from about 400 to 700 nm and propagated at a speed of 186,282 mi./sec (299,972 km/sec), considered variously as a wave, corpuscular, or quantum phenomenon."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/light
(that's the simplest defintion? Probably wouldn't work on a bunch of 6 year olds)

Of course the problem at hand here is that light can be indicated as a separate issue from our consciousness - in other words our ability to see (in the sense of being conscious) is not dependent on light, so it can be reduced in a variety of mechanistic ways.
Now how do you propose to see what you are seeing with?
:scratchin:
surely not by any reductionist methods that one could indicate light by
(yes it is a complex topic, thus the simplest definition of consciousness is to define it by death, since the absence of consciousness clearly indicates the significance of its presence)

[Enmos]

Me: What is the definition of 'eating' ?
LG: The opposite of 'not eating'.

:bugeye:

[lightgigantic]

No, you said there is no difference between dead and inanimate matter.

sure
they both behave in the same way

however contrasting the living and dead examples of a particular specimen clearly indicates the nature of life

What you thus said is that life is the opposite of non life. Which is rather obvious and completely useless as a definition.
Once again, the survey starts to become dynamic when you encounter a living specimen.
Otherwise it is just like turning off the light switch in a room that is already dark.

[Enmos]

(that's the simplest defintion? Probably wouldn't work on a bunch of 6 year olds)
Did I ever ask for the simplest definition ?
6 year olds ? :confused:

Of course the problem at hand here is that light can be indicated as a separate issue from our consciousness - in other words our ability to see (in the sense of being conscious) is not dependent on light, so it can be reduced in a variety of mechanistic ways.
Now how do you propose to see what you are seeing with?
:scratchin:
surely not by any reductionist methods that one could indicate light by
(yes it is a complex topic, thus the simplest definition of consciousness is to define it by death, since the absence of consciousness clearly indicates the significance of its presence)

What are you on about ? Having fun ? :bugeye:

[Enmos]

sure
they both behave in the same way

however contrasting the living and dead examples of a particular specimen clearly indicates the nature of life


Once again, the survey starts to become dynamic when you encounter a living specimen.
Otherwise it is just like turning off the light switch in a room that is already dark.

:wallbang:

Are you acting like this on purpose ?

[lightgigantic]

Me: What is the definition of 'eating' ?
LG: The opposite of 'not eating'.

:bugeye:
if you changed the dualistic options to something a bit more particular, like "nourishment" and "starvation", it would certainly work as a simple definition (meaning only fools would not have a clear idea what the use of the word "nourishment" and "starvation" implies - provided they weren't in a perpetual state of starvation beforehand)

[Enmos]

if you changed the dualistic options to something a bit more particular, like "nourishment" and "starvation", it would certainly work as a simple definition (meaning only fools would not have a clear idea what the use of the word "nourishment" and "starvation" implies - provided they weren't in a perpetual state of starvation beforehand)

This is how you define things then ?

[lightgigantic]

:wallbang:

Are you acting like this on purpose ?
the only way I can see this causing problems is if one was totally clueless what constituted a dead and living specimen.

Since the very nature of investigation requires consciousness (award winning posthumous scientists tend to only get awards for their previous body of research), we have some intrinsic knowledge on the subject already.

All that is required is the introduction of its absence to offer a clear picture of what consciousness entails.

[lightgigantic]

Did I ever ask for the simplest definition ?
6 year olds ? :confused:
when working with the simplest definition, its best to work with them as your target audience



What are you on about ? Having fun ? :bugeye:
o-k
back to the simple definition then ....

[lightgigantic]

This is how you define things then ?
its only one method, but a method most suitable given the topic of discussion

[Enmos]

the only way I can see this causing problems is if one was totally clueless what constituted a dead and living specimen.

Since the very nature of investigation requires consciousness (award winning posthumous scientists tend to only get awards for their previous body of research), we have some intrinsic knowledge on the subject already.

All that is required is the introduction of its absence to offer a clear picture of what consciousness entails.

Like being unconscious ?

Your definition is horribly incomplete.

Your definition: Life is the opposite of non life.

Commonly accepted definition: the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

Edit: I need a break from this stuff..

[SnakeLord]

you disagree that it is not simple?
or do you disagree that it doesn't define heat?

Things are not recognised by their opposites, they are recognised by change to a base rate. So for instance you have a man that lives in a freezer which is constantly -30. To make this man recognise heat you claim the best method is to turn the freezer down to -60. This does not aid the man in recognising heat but in recognising the cold. It will also confuse him mightily if you explain that heat is used to cook food and he then for some strange reason has trouble making dinner by putting the hamburger in the freezer.

The easiest and appropriate way to explain heat is to turn the heating on, (or up if it's already on).

Valid?
Valid to who?

Dictionary valid.

(its certainly valid to a living person - lol)

Only if using the fallacious argument that anything that is conscious is alive therefore everything that is alive must be conscious.

[lightgigantic]

Things are not recognised by their opposites, they are recognised by change to a base rate.
so does an opposite reduce the base rate or make it constant

So for instance you have a man that lives in a freezer which is constantly -30. To make this man recognise heat you claim the best method is to turn the freezer down to -60.
actually I have experience of something like this
I was with an inspection crew that was going around in freezer yards constantly in about 5 degrees. They also had smaller one's maintained at about -10. After a few moments in one of those, the outside one's felt like the caribbean

This does not aid the man in recognising heat but in recognising the cold.
so when he can contrast the two experiences, what prevents him from understanding heat exactly?

It will also confuse him mightily if you explain that heat is used to cook food and he then for some strange reason has trouble making dinner by putting the hamburger in the freezer.
well I guess illustrating the nature of heat used for cooking would require something else, much like illustrating the nature of heat used for smelting iron would require something more than an electric stove

The easiest and appropriate way to explain heat is to turn the heating on, (or up if it's already on).
that's simply another alternative
it doesn't invalidate the existing one



Dictionary valid.
it certainly is a valid explanation
unfortunately it doesn't invalidate the already existing explanation
so I guess that means you are full of classic bullshit



Only if using the fallacious argument that anything that is conscious is alive therefore everything that is alive must be conscious.
why is that fallacious?
can you indicate the sun without sunlight or sunlight without a sun?

(IOW can you indicate an energy source that doesn't have energy or an energy that doesn't have a source)
(Please don't mention exploded stars :rolleyes:)

[lightgigantic]

Emnos
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the only way I can see this causing problems is if one was totally clueless what constituted a dead and living specimen.

Since the very nature of investigation requires consciousness (award winning posthumous scientists tend to only get awards for their previous body of research), we have some intrinsic knowledge on the subject already.

All that is required is the introduction of its absence to offer a clear picture of what consciousness entails.
”
Like being unconscious ?
being permanently or irrevocably unconscious offers a good insight into the significance of death

Your definition is horribly incomplete.
of course there are other details bit it is sufficient for it to be clearly indicated.
In light of our discussions, I would have thought it would be quite clear how life is indicated

Your definition: Life is the opposite of non life.

Commonly accepted definition: the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
interesting how it opens up with what you have been trying to beat me over the head with for the past hundred posts
:rolleyes:

Edit: I need a break from this stuff..
yes, there definitely is more to life
:D

[Enmos]

why is that fallacious?
can you indicate the sun without sunlight or sunlight without a sun?

(IOW can you indicate an energy source that doesn't have energy or an energy that doesn't have a source)
(Please don't mention exploded stars :rolleyes:)

All wines contain alcohol, does that mean that everything that contains alcohol is wine ?

[Enmos]

Emnos

being permanently or irrevocably unconscious offers a good insight into the significance of death


of course there are other details bit it is sufficient for it to be clearly indicated.
In light of our discussions, I would have thought it would be quite clear how life is indicated

interesting how it opens up with what you have been trying to beat me over the head with for the past hundred posts
:rolleyes:


yes, there definitely is more to life
:D

Opens up, yes... do you honestly not see that your definition is flawed ?

[lightgigantic]

All wines contain alcohol, does that mean that everything that contains alcohol is wine ?
No because I can indicate some types of alcohol that are not wine.
All suns emanate sunlight.
Can you indicate any sunlight that doesn't owe it's origin to a sun?

[lightgigantic]

Opens up, yes... do you honestly not see that your definition is flawed ?
I never said it was the complete definition
I said it was the simplest one.

If you can't come to terms with the simplest one, why on earth do you think that warrants moving onto to something a bit more complex?

[Enmos]

No because I can indicate some types of alcohol that are not wine.
All suns emanate sunlight.
Can you indicate any sunlight that doesn't owe it's origin to a sun?

Your comparison would be honest if you would call it for what it is, 'light'.

What you are saying is akin to this:

All wines contain wine-alcohol, so everything that contains wine-alcohol is wine.

[lightgigantic]

Your comparison would be honest if you would call it for what it is, 'light'.

What you are saying is akin to this:

All wines contain wine-alcohol, so everything that contains wine-alcohol is wine.
well if you can indicate consciousness outside of life, be my guest, but in the meantime consciousness is seen to be a contingent quality of life just as sunlight is seen to be a contingent quality of the sun

[Enmos]

well if you can indicate consciousness outside of life, be my guest, but in the meantime consciousness is seen to be a contingent quality of life just as sunlight is seen to be a contingent quality of the sun

Light, not sunlight.

[Enmos]

being permanently or irrevocably unconscious offers a good insight into the significance of death

So are you saying that such a person is not alive ?

[lightgigantic]

But not the other way around.
sure
what makes you think otherwise?

[lightgigantic]

So are you saying that such a person is not alive ?
if they are like that permanently and irrevocably, yes

[Enmos]

sure
what makes you think otherwise?

I misread...

Of course sunlight is a contingent quality of the sun.

To make an honest statement you have to use light, not sunlight. See my wine-alcohol explanation.

[Enmos]

if they are like that permanently and irrevocably, yes

:eek:

[lightgigantic]

Light, not sunlight.
Its not clear what problems the wine-alcohol statement has. I mean if you can indicate any other sort of consciousness that is not contingent to life, be my guest, but I suspect that will also require you offering some sort of definition of life, which was an option that you guys were not particularly in favour of going ahead with.

[lightgigantic]

I misread...

Of course sunlight is a contingent quality of the sun.

To make an honest statement you have to use light, not sunlight. See my wine-alcohol explanation.
once again, if you can indicate any type of consciousness outside of that possessed by life, be my guest, but you will probably also require some definition of consciousness to boot

[Enmos]

Its not clear what problems the wine-alcohol statement has. I mean if you can indicate any other sort of consciousness that is not contingent to life, be my guest, but I suspect that will also require you offering some sort of definition of life, which was an option that you guys were not particularly in favour of going ahead with.

WTF !! :mad:

I'm done here.

[lightgigantic]

WTF !! :mad:

I'm done here.
whats the problem?
If wine-alcohol has a problem because other types of alcohol can be indicated, why does consciousness suffer the same problem when you are unable/unwilling to tenure any alternative source for consciousness?

[SnakeLord]

so does an opposite reduce the base rate or make it constant

There isn't an opposite of the base rate, merely changes to it. You even recognised this in your post 112:

"meaning only fools would not have a clear idea what the use of the word "nourishment" and "starvation" implies - provided they weren't in a perpetual state of starvation beforehand"

The fact that this persons base state is starvation means he would not recognise starvation if there is no negative change. If you stuff him full of food he will recognise nourishment in as much as it relates to that base. The reason of course is that 'starvation' means different things to different people dependant upon where their base is. A person that eats 10 main meals per day would probably consider 5 main meals a day as starvation. If you fed him 20 meals per day he would be no closer to understanding starvation.

actually I have experience of something like this
I was with an inspection crew that was going around in freezer yards constantly in about 5 degrees. They also had smaller one's maintained at about -10. After a few moments in one of those, the outside one's felt like the caribbean

What you're saying is that you recognised a change to your base rate of -5. You didn't recognise 'heat' because heat was nowhere in the equation unless you're using some damn dodgy meaning of the word heat which, given that it's you we're talking about, is more than likely.

so when he can contrast the two experiences, what prevents him from understanding heat exactly?

When there has been both a positive and negative change to the base.. nothing. But going in one direction from the base and then back to the base provides nothing but a change one way from the base.

well I guess illustrating the nature of heat used for cooking would require something else

According to your argument it would be best done by not cooking. You do claim the best way is to show the opposite remember?

it certainly is a valid explanation

"its existence cannot be sufficiently detailed by mechanistic/inorganic analysis" is a valid definition of consciousness? Give me a dictionary definition of consciousness that cocoon mush would fall under.


why is that fallacious?
can you indicate the sun without sunlight or sunlight without a sun?

You've made an error. Let me correct it for you in the context of what you said:

Every sun gives off light so therefore everything that gives off light is a sun.

In another way: Every bee has wings therefore everything with wings is a bee.

Basically your argument makes the presupposition that everything that is alive is conscious and in order to establish that you say that it must be conscious because it's alive, (yes, you incorrectly defined life as consciousness). It's a circular argument.

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

so does an opposite reduce the base rate or make it constant
”
There isn't an opposite of the base rate, merely changes to it. You even recognised this in your post 112:

"meaning only fools would not have a clear idea what the use of the word "nourishment" and "starvation" implies - provided they weren't in a perpetual state of starvation beforehand"

The fact that this persons base state is starvation means he would not recognise starvation if there is no change. If you stuff him full of food he will recognise nourishment in as much as it relates to that base. The reason of course is that 'starvation' means different things to different people dependant upon where their base is. A person that eats 10 main meals per day would probably consider 5 main meals a day as starvation. If you fed him 20 meals per day he would be no closer to understanding starvation.
actually I was meaning starvation in the sense of not eating at all
IOW if a person is not eating, you can't indicate to them the nature of not eating since they are already doing that
:shrug:

“
actually I have experience of something like this
I was with an inspection crew that was going around in freezer yards constantly in about 5 degrees. They also had smaller one's maintained at about -10. After a few moments in one of those, the outside one's felt like the caribbean
”
What you're saying is that you recognised a change to your base rate of -5. You didn't recognise 'heat' because heat was nowhere in the equation unless you're using some damn dodgy meaning of the word heat which, given that it's you we're talking about, is more than likely.
erm - after entering the -10 freezer, I did feel warmer.
No matter what names you call me, you can't change that
:shrug:

“
so when he can contrast the two experiences, what prevents him from understanding heat exactly?
”
When there has been both a positive and negative change to the base.. nothing. But going in one direction from the base and then back to the base provides nothing but a change one way from the base.
if that was the case, a person would never be able to acclimatize to any changes in their environment

“
well I guess illustrating the nature of heat used for cooking would require something else
”
According to your argument it would be best done by not cooking. You do claim the best way is to show the opposite remember?
Once again, I never advocated it was the only suitable option for definition for all circumstances.
I just indicated how it could be a valid one in a particular circumstance.

“
it certainly is a valid explanation
”
"its existence cannot be sufficiently detailed by mechanistic/inorganic analysis" is a valid definition of consciousness? Give me a dictionary definition of consciousness that cocoon mush would fall under.
sure
compare it to cocoon mush that is totally bereft of the possibility of giving rise to a moth and get back to us with the results
;)

“
why is that fallacious?
can you indicate the sun without sunlight or sunlight without a sun?
”
You've made an error. Let me correct it for you in the context of what you said:

Every sun gives off light so therefore everything that gives off light is a sun.
if you want to correct my errors please don't re-invent my language - I used the word "sunlight" for very good reasons

if you want to argue that there are different types of consciousness (some not dependent on life) just like there are different types of light (some not dependent on the sun) then feel free to indicate them.
Be warned that you may require to offer a definition of consciousness, which for some reason you were totally reluctant to offer

[SnakeLord]

actually I was meaning starvation in the sense of not eating at all

As stated, everyone has a different base. To the man that eats 10 meals a day starvation would be slightly more than nothing.

erm - after entering the -10 freezer, I did feel warmer.

You felt warmer after entering the colder freezer? :bugeye: O...k. However, feeling less cold than you were a moment ago does not equate to knowledge of "heat".

Once again, I never advocated it was the only suitable option for definition for all circumstances.

But you did say it was the easiest method. In saying, the easiest way to understand cooking is to not cook.

compare it to cocoon mush that is totally bereft of the possibility of giving rise to a moth and get back to us with the results

The same presupposition all over again.

if you want to correct my errors please don't re-invent my language - I used the word "sunlight" for very good reasons

Yes but your sunlight statement was inaccurate so I corrected it. It's about the presupposition and the following circular nature. That was not present in your sunlight statement but is present in your consciousness one and that is easily seen with your claim that "life=consciousness".

if you want to argue that there are different types of consciousness (some not dependent on life)

What are you talking about lol? You state that all life is conscious and try to support that by saying it's conscious because it's alive. When you're called on it you waffle on with this weird nonsense, oh and this nonsense:

Be warned that you may require to offer a definition of consciousness, which for some reason you were totally reluctant to offer

Dude, let's get this straight.. I had to ask you around 20 times to define life. When you finally got the guts you defined life as consciousness (which is wrong but nm). You were then asked by Enmos to define consciousness which you then defined as life, (you worded it not-death which is the same thing). Your entire argument is one gigantic circle of nonsense. Now, I have not been reluctant to offer anything, I have simply not been asked. Ask me to define consciousness and I will. So, in summary.. if anyone can be accused of being "totally reluctant" it is you that wasted 3 pages with non-answers.

What, given [valid] definition of consciousness does cocoon mush fall under?

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

actually I was meaning starvation in the sense of not eating at all
”
As stated, everyone has a different base. To the man that eats 10 meals a day starvation would be slightly more than nothing.
once again, upping the ante on a person who is not eating doesn't amount to much

“
erm - after entering the -10 freezer, I did feel warmer.
”
You felt warmer after entering the colder freezer? O...k. However, feeling less cold than you were a moment ago does not equate to knowledge of "heat".
once again, I did come to appreciate the warmth of the standard freezer.
There was even one guy working who got around in a pair of pants and a t-shirt. Perhaps you should have gone there and explained to him how he wasn't feeling warm.
:shrug:

“
Once again, I never advocated it was the only suitable option for definition for all circumstances.
”
But you did say it was the easiest method. In saying, the easiest way to understand cooking is to not cook.
easiest in a certain circumstance
it still appears to remain valid, despite you trying to tell me that my experiences and the experiences of others in cool rooms is not valid ....


“
if you want to correct my errors please don't re-invent my language - I used the word "sunlight" for very good reasons
”
Yes but your sunlight statement was inaccurate so I corrected it.
sunlight is not unique?

It's about the presupposition and the following circular nature. That was not present in your sunlight statement but is present in your consciousness one and that is easily seen with your claim that "life=consciousness".
once again
rather than reinvent my language, just indicate a conscious source that is not based on life, then you can justify changing the word 'sunlight' to 'light'

“
if you want to argue that there are different types of consciousness (some not dependent on life)
”
What are you talking about lol? You state that all life is conscious and try to support that by saying it's conscious because it's alive. When you're called on it you waffle on with this weird nonsense, oh and this nonsense:
you state that 'sunlight' is not accurate because there are other varieties of light that come from the sun.
I'm just asking you to deliver the goods of your poetic license by indicating what other forms of consciousness you have in mind, since you seem to be feeling that attributing consciousness to life doesn't cater for all varieties of consciousness

“
Be warned that you may require to offer a definition of consciousness, which for some reason you were totally reluctant to offer
”
Dude, let's get this straight.. I had to ask you around 20 times to define life.
to which I offered - find a dead thing, compare it to a live thing, and get back to us with the results

When you finally got the guts you defined life as consciousness (which is wrong but nm)
did you come to a different conclusion from your results?

. You were then asked by Enmos to define consciousness which you then defined as life, (you worded it not-death which is the same thing).
actually it was that consciousness is a symptom of life

Your entire argument is one gigantic circle of nonsense. Now, I have not been reluctant to offer anything, I have simply not been asked. Ask me to define consciousness and I will. So, in summary.. if anyone can be accused of being "totally reluctant" it is you that wasted 3 pages with non-answers.
on the contrary you are trying to write off the sunlight to the sun/consciousness to life analogy by declaring there are other varieties of light. If you don't want to carry that through and indicate other varieties of consciousness, why are your queries valid?
Why must I use 'light' instead of 'sunlight'?

What, given [valid] definition of consciousness does cocoon mush fall under?
once again, compare it to cocoon mush that has no scope for metamorphism and get back to us with the results already
:shrug:

[SnakeLord]

rather than reinvent my language, just indicate a conscious source that is not based on life

A loaded statement that works on the very same presupposition that all life must be conscious. The question is also fallacious. That dead things aren't conscious does not in any way argue that all living things are. Of course it is always going to be an issue when you define life as consciousness and you define consciousness as not-dead. Enjoy your circular argument, I really don't have the patience.

to which I offered - find a dead thing, compare it to a live thing, and get back to us with the results

But that does not take into account living things that aren't conscious unless you've already made the presupposition that everything living is conscious which is exactly why your entire argument is circular. Needless to add, that dead things are not conscious is not an argument that all living things are. If you think it is then you're not ready for serious discussion or you have some seriously warped definition of "life", (oh look, you do).

did you come to a different conclusion from your results?

No, there are various forms of life that are not conscious. Studying the dead was of no relevance to that.

I'll have to join Enmos, you're clueless.

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

rather than reinvent my language, just indicate a conscious source that is not based on life
”
A loaded statement that works on the very same presupposition that all life must be conscious. The question is also fallacious. That dead things aren't conscious does not in any way argue that all living things are. Of course it is always going to be an issue when you define life as consciousness and you define consciousness as not-dead. Enjoy your circular argument, I really don't have the patience.
once again, if you want to take this point of discussion further, simply indicate a conscious source that is not based on life.
As it stands though, contrasting a dead bug with a living bug is a simple way to indicate the nature of consciousness

“
to which I offered - find a dead thing, compare it to a live thing, and get back to us with the results
”
But that does not take into account living things that aren't conscious unless you've already made the presupposition that everything living is conscious which is exactly why your entire argument is circular.
then indicate a living thing that is not conscious and perhaps we can go a little further with these definitions

Needless to add, that dead things are not conscious is not an argument that all living things are. If you think it is then you're not ready for serious discussion or you have some seriously warped definition of "life", (oh look, you do).
“
did you come to a different conclusion from your results?
”
No, there are various forms of life that are not conscious. Studying the dead was of no relevance to that.

I'll have to join Enmos, you're clueless.
actually if you look at the definition emnos offered

Commonly accepted definition: the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

you can see that it introduces the same concept that I began on.
If you can't fathom the simplest definition of consciousness, why on earth do you think the situation demands more complex defintions?

[Exiled]

The big bang theory, cloning, areas of scieance that have discussion on reproduction and the creation of man and matter

There is an overwhelming amount of variables to consider the big bang theory a “fact”, that’s why it’s called “the big bang theory”. Even if it would be “fact”, how does that prove that there is no super natural being?


I curious as to how cloning would disprove God? This may be an interesting subject that I have yet to be enlightened on. Anyone care to explain further?

[SnakeLord]

once again, if you want to take this point of discussion further, simply indicate a conscious source that is not based on life.

Your argument again presupposes that because the dead are not conscious that all life must be. The argument is fallacious. So yes, you can example living organisms that are conscious and dead ones that are not, it is not an argument that all living organisms are. That you cannot understand that fact hints at a serious problem on your part.

contrasting a dead bug with a living bug is a simple way to indicate the nature of consciousness

Incorrect. A dead bug versus a living bug indicates the nature of life, of which "consciousness" is not actually a given definition. That you pretend it is so doesn't change the fact.

then indicate a living thing that is not conscious and perhaps we can go a little further with these definitions

Mycoplasma genitalium, cocoon mush, a blastocyst

But wait, according to the fallacious lg definition of consciousness, these things aren't even alive, and if someone says they are alive then they must be conscious, hence the circular argument.

actually if you look at the definition emnos offered

I have noticed than when your idiocy is pointed out as the idiocy that it is you blame it on someone else. It's the thing with you witnessed in thread after thread after thread. From myself and Enmos here, Ice Aura in the other thread, to Myles and Tiassa and so on and so forth that all recognise that you cannot answer questions and when you do they are either irrelevant or just fallacious.

Let's get it straight lg, you were asked for your definition of life, (edit: and that took 20 posts), your definition of consciousness, (that is still technically wanting. The best we got was not-dead). That you provide a definition completely against the actual definition is your own fault. That you then try and defend an already faulty position is your own fault. "But you said a fish becomes a bird"... no, they never did.. it was purely your inaccuracy that led to your inaccurate conclusions. That you didn't listen when they pointed out your error is your own fault.

No lg, "life" does not mean consciousness. That dead things are not conscious does not mean all living things are unless you have a warped definition of consciousness and life, which you do given your own statements, (consciousness=not death life=consciousness). But wait, it's not you.. it's everyone else.

If you can't fathom the simplest definition of consciousness,

Wait... does "simplest" mean 'actual' or 'lg version'?

[scorpius]

what are the examples of god's existence being proved wrong by science?

http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/evangelical_ath/einstein_emc2.htm
:D

[lightgigantic]

http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/evangelical_ath/einstein_emc2.htm
:D

from link
Everything, 100% of all there is, is either energy, or mass

explain consciousness in terms of either energy or mass (preferably in terms accountable by science as opposed to science fiction)

;)

[Exiled]

http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/evangelical_ath/einstein_emc2.htm
:D

Interesting website, but in order for it to be valid, they have to put God in a box.

[Exiled]

http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/evangelical_ath/einstein_emc2.htm
:D

More then that, this is an attack on the Christian God, how does this disprove God in general?