Stephen Hawking: God NOT Needed For Creation

David whom?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A hamster is falsifiable. God is not.
Now, if you claim a winged and supernatural creator hamster, that is unfalsifiable and you could well claim that as your 'spiritual belief.'
It is still quite common in China that dragons are believed in, revered and worshipped.
You do not seem to understand the difference between falsifiable and non-falsifiable.

No, I think that the problem is that you don't know what you are talking about.

Well shucks... I guess when confronted with your Appeal to Authority fallacy, this non genius is shamed by the one whom avoids Private Hacks and seems to discuss the state of consciousness with every University Doctor and Philosopher the world over...

But let me make the attempt anyway...

Take a spider and subject it, during the act of building its web, to a sudden blast of cold (Usually from air run over dry ice) so that the spinnerets cease to function.
The spider will continue to go through all of the motions of building the web even though it is no longer producing silk.

This is an example of Programmed Behavior.

It is not aware (or conscious) of its actions, it is merely following its programming like a little robot.

These traits are still a large part of behavior in higher mammals, such as ourselves. If someone jumps out from behind a corner at you and yells, "BOO!", your eyes automatically widen. You move away from the sudden movement, you may make a scream. All programmed behavior. You are not consciously aware of widening your eyes, it's an automated reaction.

The programmed behavior aspect of our brains is Often called "our Lizard Brain." Although I'm not sure who coined the term, Carl Sagan used it frequently in his Cosmos series. I still hear it quite often...

So, now that we've established what programmed behavior entails; What if (As with a computer program) you develop a program that has self correction?
We are just beginning to work with low level complexity in computer programming that mimics this behavior.
Instead of just following the basic program, the code also now includes alter-programs that cause the initial program to be questioned. A>B, except that A>C when factor X, factor Y, or factor Z are present.
This adds levels of complexity.
We can test where the levels of complexity rest in a variety of animals in the lab.
The Iguana. The cat. The dog. The chimpanzee.
All these stages of development are layered within the human brain.
ALL developments, no matter how outdated, still get used and are still present within the brain, because our evolutionary development does not get rid of developments so much as add new developments on top of the old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdala
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medula_oblongata
and a quick shoot midway:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain#Development

Now, we must separate the word "consciousness" from the popular culture definitions that equate it to a spiritual state.
If a persons definition of "consciousness" includes the common popular culture addition of a Soul, Spirit or divine substance- OF COURSE experts in the field will have difficulty related to the common laymen how consciousness can be described. Especially when many experts in the field are confronted with religious debates if they try to properly answer the question; it's far easy to shun it with a quick "Oh, I don't really know on that one (I'm not gonna touch this hot topic!)" So your claim that you asked your Non Private (not greedy capitalist dogs!) doctors is a pitiful claim, at best. Those people are VERY busy people and don't have time to stop what they are doing and give you a 6 year education in a quick soundbite and risk you trying to debate philosophy with them halfway through it.
It's as if you ask about Relativity or Quantum Mechanics and expect an understandable soundbite for an answer.
It's just not so easy-- One must have a good Education In the Field to understand many of the underlying basis and concepts.
I can no better provide that quick soundbite than your doctor can. You need to STUDY, RESEARCH and hit the freaking Books.
Removing the claims of spirituality from the concept of consciousness simplifies the definition slightly, since one no longer needs to deal with the non-falsifiable. That spiritual concept separates conscious awareness from the physical state of the brain, treating it as some ethereal separate entity. Strange... considering the change in consciousness and awareness brought on by damage to the physical state... Most spiritualists tend to ignore that bit...

What we are left with is the product of the physical brain.
Although extremely more complex than a billiard table, we are still a product of cause and effect. The difference between programing and awareness being the cross check programs between them that allow the greater program to cross check and reference itself.
This is lacking in insects (mostly), subtle to slight in lizards, more profound in cats and dogs, highly evolved in chimpanzees and still, more highly evolved in humans.

Similar to the question, "What is the meaning of life?" The fallacy being the starting assumption that there IS a meaning to life. A complex question is a question that implicitly assumes something to be true by its construction, even if that which is presumed true has not been established. This often is the case in the consciousness question- it presumes a state to be true without it being established and presents it as the basis of the request for definition. It is quite likely that this is the underlying problem as to why people have difficulty answering a question that requires fundamental education to support it- to people that are paying more attention to their preconceptions than trying to understand the answer.

You might want to think about that when you sarcastically call someone a genius just because they had the audacity to state they have a better understanding of something than you do. It's quite possible that they do- perhaps you are just bitter of it.

But acting like a self righteous ass about it is not very motivational to the person who was demanded answers that are actually unwanted when they clash with your preconceptions or might actually require you to do some research and work for yourself.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

well, not quite exactly.

seriously?

and who exactly does this?

and what exactly does this have to do with anything?

actually, they had plenty of time to discuss these things with me. my appointments typically ran several hours--and they were actually paying me, for purposes of research.

how is this relevant? and who expects an "understandable soundbite" for a response? in your case, i would settle for "understandable": you seem incapable of comprehending the question, given the logorrheic drivel above.

which you obviously do not have.

advice you ought to have heeded, lest you wouldn't have made the idiotic claim regarding these supposed "experts" who know precisely what consciousness is.

fuck, i get annoyed with folks around here who seem to glean (far too) much of their info (in this area) from dennett--i strongly get the impression that you've not even encountered dennett. ornstein? tart?

pardon, but what the fuck are you going on about? what does this have to do with my simple query?

well, you're certainly amusing.

again, i have absolutely no idea as to what you're going on about.

tata, idiot.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

well, let's make it easier for you--"soundbites" acceptable--and go back to hughlings jackson: the simple focalized event causes no "alteration" or "impairment" to consciousness. the complex focalized causes partial impairment (or alteration). and many (but not all) generalized can cause full "loss" of consciousness. how precisely are these states distinguished and delineated?

 

True.

But I think that is due to a personal failing on your part. You don't even understand when related articles are relevant. What you're doing is called "obfuscating" and "Cherry picking."

And returned in kind. Take care.

 

Oh, like Terri Schiavo?
Gage?

And why are you citing Hughlings Jackson? There IS such a thing as Recent Discovery, Medical advancement etc.

In Jacksons day, they were not yet even adjusting electro-shock therapy. Are you SERIOUSLY trying to cite a man that died a hundred years ago when much of our advancement in understanding took place in the past two decades?

Jeez, why not cite Plato and start a new Philosophy thread, instead?

 

and are you really this thick? have you ever interacted with me prior to this? (no.) so how would you know?

that said, i do recall reading a thread in which you participated some months back, and had quite a time, er, articulating your stance on abortion. and from what i recall, while not agreeing with your stance necessarily, i did not find it especially unreasonable. however, i believe that some else had to articulate your stance for you, as you could not do so adequately in, what, a dozen or so pages?

anyhows, back to your "better understanding." you might wish to do a tad bit of research--well, a simple google search for "consciousness" will suffice--before making a claim such as this:

you'll find that your claim to understanding, on the behalf of others, isn't quite so thorough as you seem to think.

 

uh, because hughlings jackson was the first to distinguish the focalized from the generalized.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

perhaps you should make a "sticky" advising people NOT to cite darwin, eh? you know, 'cuz it's old and whatnots.

 

uh, no--not like terri schiavo or phineas gage. do i really need to simplify the question for you?

 

Well, that's fine and good, but he's not one to quote on the CURRENT topic.

That is like citing Kepler on planetary motion- today. He was a brilliant man, but he's now outdated.

No.

Darwin can be cited when it's relevant, but Darwin would not (normally by a thinking and knowledgeable person) be cited when discussing alleles.

If you knew the topic at hand, this would be obvious to you.

I already simplified it all for you and you obfuscated and cherry picked- Resorting to Ad Hom when you couldn't intellectually come up with better.

Frankly, I'd rather you go get some books instead. Or perhaps you'd rather go get paid by your "Non capitalist dog" for him to chit chat with you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"I chit chat with my doctor, so now I hold the knowledge of a medical degree..." It's beautiful.

 

Should a Moderator fission this off topic side argument on Consciousness to a new thread and move all relevant posts there?

 

and why is that? (and where did i quote?)

are you suggesting that the specific distinction he drew is not relevant to a discussion of your claim that "we know what consciousness is and what it is not"?

and what did schiavo and gage have to do with my question?

 

Saying 'quote' was a misuse on my part. I meant to say "cite" as I had previously.

I'm suggesting that the distinction he drew is relevant, but not current.

Let's clear something here: definitions can be tricky of two people discussing something are not on the same page. We do not FULLY understand Evolution, but we still know what it is and what it isn't. We do not FULLY understand genetics, but we can still say we know what is genetic influence and what is not.
If you are thinking that I claimed that scientifically, it's well understood FULLY what is consciousness- that is inaccurate. The distintinction I am making is similar to Evolution or genetics- we have enough understanding to gauge the premise even if the highly complex details are not yet all worked out. Same applies to Quantum Mechanics (In some ways, although that's a tricky example and not the best one to use). This is why the arguments you called 'irrelevant drivel' above ARE relevant and why I said you demonstrated a lack of understanding.
Misconceptions are a LARGE part of a lack of general definition and that is why I pointed out the common misconception of spirituality involved in consciousness- even if you do not partake IN that misconception. Because when you ask others in the know about consciousness, they are accustomed to having to deal with the non-falsifiable debate and often shun the argument. That Is Relevant to your claims of where you got your 'knowledge.'
Perhaps you would be better off asking your doctors to join the forum and discuss the topic with me. That way, I get what they said from the horses mouth- and without your snippy attitude being flung at me in the process like an angry monkey flinging poo.

Schiavo and Gage were examples I used in basically mocking the premise. It's not news what severe damage does to consciousness.

 

That's a really amazing coincidence. I was sure the problem is that you don't know how to think, never mind talk about anything.

 

Possibly. I will let my posts speak for themselves and others can make up their own damned minds as to whether or not I can think clearly.

As far as talking: I've long admitted that I am not an educator. I'm not adept at expressing myself clearly, although I try my hardest. Perhaps it's just not a natural talent.

But I am good enough at it that a calm and rational person can understand me easily enough, even if I'm no expert at perfect communication.

 

Well, it's probably just as well you're an expert at philosophy and cosmology then.

 

Do you have any meaningful input you can post rather than rather absurd personal attacks?

I'm not expert at Philosophy and I am Not Discussing Philosophy in this thread.
Let me repeat that: I Am Not Discussing Philosophy In This Thread.

The fact that you do not understand that I was discussing science, not philosophy, speaks volumes.

So I had the audacity to raise a hand and say, "Hey, I know something on this topic..." and offer my input. That is what discussion forums are for. It's what these threads are for. It's the whole point... And Here You Are Acting As Though That Is Wrong!

It's a far likelier explanation that you are emotionally bothered by the fact that I offered to reduce consciousness to simple terms since the 'mysterious' quality of the concept is essential to a Believer.

Do you honestly think that your childish insults are going to mean anything to me when I understand quite well that you're just angry and bitter? When compared with the hypocrisy in which you use whatever argument you can apply even when you thoroughly contradict yourself?

Save it Arfa. You're not impressing anyone except yourself.

 

There are a number of people in this thread that need to overcome their own ego long enough to Think Critically.

 

ok, this i find reasonable; however, there does still remain some uncertainty even with respect to stating whether a being is simply conscious or not conscious (or "somewhere in between"--not exactly, but... )--even with a continuously video- and eeg-monitored human subject.

and that is why i brought up hughling jackson's distinction: with h.j. comes the first acknowledgment of neuro complications which either do not affect, partially impair, or fully render the patient unconscious--but, even with the assistance of modern diagnostic tools (eegs, etc.) a clear distinction cannot always be made. the patient's consciousness may or may not be affected not only during an epileptic event (or other neurological event), but also pre-ictal and inter-ictal.

and then there are those (myself included) whose eeg's often suggest epileptiform activity a great deal of the time (i.e. as i'm simply going about my daily business): is consciousness altered or impaired here? perhaps it should be, but it certainly doesn't seem to be--and much of the time, no one can say with any certainty. (incidentally, that particular idiosyncrasy is why they like to use me as a research subject).

and even with the continuous monitoring, eeg's sometimes do not register events which they seemingly ought to (or vice versa). this may or may not have something to do with the particular focal placement of the electrodes.

with respect to neurologists specifically, you might be surprised to learn just how many actually incorporate "non-scientific" notions and concepts into their own understanding of mind and consciousness. whether they actually believe such, or rather are making use of such things as heuristics, is not entirely clear to me. the notion most frequently borrowed, from my experience, seems to be that of the sanskrit prana (breath, "life force," etc.)