Existence of god

[spidergoat]

Information and design.

jan.

Evolution shows how the appearance of design can come about through non-intelligent processes. And a computer can process information without consciousness. Any other ideas?

 

[Fork]

One what?

Being.

 

[spidergoat]

Being.

So, there exists a being, therefore there exists a being? That's not even an argument, you are simply asserting something.

 

[gmilam]

Being.

Fork off.

 

[Fork]

Fork off.

Lol. Funny. Because of your pathetic little ignorance. I admit that my name is a little simple, but that shouldn't detract from my words.

 

[Jan Ardena]

1. Evolution shows how the appearance of design can come about through non-intelligent processes.

2. And a computer can process information without consciousness. Any other ideas?

1. So what?

2. Can a computer ever come into being without consciousness?

jan.

 

[quinnsong]

IMO, what we call "gods" or more generically "spiritual beings" are nothing more than Potentials, which in turn are nothing more than physical or metaphysical latencies, which may become reality.

Another words anything is a possibility. Hmmm I can get with that!

 

[spidergoat]

1. So what?

2. Can a computer ever come into being without consciousness?

jan.

1. So... design isn't evidence of consciousness.
2. Yes! Look up cellular automata.

 

[Jan Ardena]

spidergoat,

1. So... design isn't evidence of consciousness.

2. Yes! Look up cellular automata.

1. Design is evidence of consciousness. You need to show that it isn't.

2. Provide evidence of a computer having built itself, without the aid of consciousness.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

spidergoat,



1. Design is evidence of consciousness. You need to show that it isn't.

2. Provide evidence of a computer having built itself, without the aid of consciousness.

jan.

1. No it isn't. Evolution is an example. Design can be the result of eroding away variations that don't "work".
2. I did. These cellular automata are the result of simple rules or algorithms, and some of them are capable of calculations. In fact, physics itself is a computational engine. When I drop a ball, gravity calculates the rate of acceleration, air resistance, how high the ball will bounce, etc...

 

[elte]

I wouldn't call it design except metaphorically.

 

[spidergoat]

I wouldn't call it design except metaphorically.

It's not precise to say that living things were designed, that's right, but it is a way complex forms come about. Even people that design things are now using evolutionary algorithms, much as nature does.

 

[Jan Ardena]

1. No it isn't. Evolution is an example. Design can be the result of eroding away variations that don't "work".
2. I did. These cellular automata are the result of simple rules or algorithms, and some of them are capable of calculations. In fact, physics itself is a computational engine. When I drop a ball, gravity calculates the rate of acceleration, air resistance, how high the ball will bounce, etc...

1. Design IS evidence of consciousnesss, what ur talking about are random processes which affect the landscape which WE can interpret as design.

de·sign [dih-zahyn] Show IPA ,
verb (used with object)
1.
to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), especially to plan the form and structure of: to design a new bridge.
2.
to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully.
3.
to intend for a definite purpose: a scholarship designed for foreign students.
4.
to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan: The prisoner designed an intricate escape.
5.
to assign in thought or intention; purpose: He designed to be a doctor.

2. Here, let me bring you crashing down to earth.

A computer cannot build itself from scratch, without the aid of consciousness at some point Even if in the future computers could perform such a task
it would be due to consciousness.

jan.

 

[Write4U]

Another words anything is a possibility. Hmmm I can get with that!

In relativity, movement is continuous, causally determinate and well defined, while in quantum mechanics it is discontinuous, not causally determinate and not well defined. Each theory is committed to its own notions of essentially static and fragmentary modes of existence (relativity to that of separate events, connectable by signals, and quantum mechanics to a well-defined quantum state). One thus sees that a new kind of theory is needed which drops these basic commitments and at most recovers some essential features of the older theories as abstract forms derived from a deeper reality in which what prevails in unbroken wholeness. (David Bohm, On Quantum Mechanics, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980)

Bohm's "Wholeness and the Implicate Order", has an elegant unifying theory where meta-physical dynamics (Potentials) express themselves in reality as the Explicate, but are fundamentally connected to the wavelike function of the entire universe as a continuous whole. The Holomovement of the universe.

Now if you also qualify this "condition" as implacable, I can get with that also. I like the notion of inevitability much better than that of an alien intelligence.

 

[spidergoat]

1. Design IS evidence of consciousnesss, what ur talking about are random processes which affect the landscape which WE can interpret as design.

Evolution is a natural process whereby many designs are generated at random, and the ones that don't work die before they reproduce. That natural selection is not random. The result is a "design" that works, with no intervention by any intelligence.

2. Here, let me bring you crashing down to earth.

A computer cannot build itself from scratch, without the aid of consciousness at some point Even if in the future computers could perform such a task
it would be due to consciousness.

jan.

Of course it can. Physical objects themselves are computers. When water boils, that is a computer calculating the boiling point of that water. Your confusion comes from not knowing what a computer is. Bacteria aren't intelligent, but they contain computers that measure variables in the environment, and cause the cell to react accordingly.

 

[Write4U]

Evolution is a natural process whereby many designs are generated at random, and the ones that don't work die before they reproduce. That natural selection is not random. The result is a "design" that works, with no intervention by any intelligence.

Of course it can. Physical objects themselves are computers. When water boils, that is a computer calculating the boiling point of that water. Your confusion comes from not knowing what a computer is. Bacteria aren't intelligent, but they contain computers that measure variables in the environment, and cause the cell to react accordingly.

A perfect example is the "slime mold", a brainless blob of single celled protists, a true mindless intelligence.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=brainless-slime-molds

 

[Jan Ardena]

spidergoat,

Evolution is a natural process whereby many designs are generated at random, and the ones that don't work die before they reproduce. That natural selection is not random. The result is a "design" that works, with no intervention by any intelligence.

Did you miss the definition of ''design'' I gave? Here it is again.

de·sign...

1. to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), especially to plan the form and structure of: to design a new bridge.
2. to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully.
3. to intend for a definite purpose: a scholarship designed for foreign students.
4. to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan: The prisoner designed an intricate escape.
5. to assign in thought or intention; purpose: He designed to be a doctor.

Of course it can. Physical objects themselves are computers. When water boils, that is a computer calculating the boiling point of that water. Your confusion comes from not knowing what a computer is. Bacteria aren't intelligent, but they contain computers that measure variables in the environment, and cause the cell to react accordingly.

For starters, physical objects don't build themselves from scratch.
Regarding ''physical objects themselves are computers'', can you provide links.

compter...
An electronic device for storing and processing data, typically in binary form, according to instructions given to it in a variable program.
A person who makes calculations, esp. with a calculating machine.

Are you sure bacteria aren't intelligent?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

A perfect example is the "slime mold", a brainless blob of single celled protists, a true mindless intelligence.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=brainless-slime-molds

Why ''mindless''?

A mind (pron.: /ˈmaɪnd/) is the complex of cognitive faculties that enables consciousness, perception, thinking, and judgement—a characteristic of humans, but which also may apply to other life forms....

wiki

Remember back in the day what was thought of the cell?
Don't be quick to jump to conclusions.

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

Did you miss the definition of ''design'' I gave? Here it is again.

I think you are arguing cross purpose.
Spidergoat is arguing that nothing other than living creatures displays consciousness.
You are arguing that anything built or designed is evidence of consciousness.
The crossing of positions is due to the ambiguous phrase "evidence of consciousness in..."
You say that the is evidence of consciousness in anything designed...
The design is evidence of consciousness.
Not in the designed object itself.
But in the designer.
Spidergoat is saying that there is only evidence for consciousness actually being in/part of living matter etc.

For starters, physical objects don't build themselves from scratch.

Unless you know how the universe began, this claim is limited to merely the inner workings of the universe, but not the universe itself.
It also depends on what you mean by "from scratch"...
Energy does pop in and out of existence all the time...
And there is an energy / matter equivalence.
Some even argue they are the same thing, one merely a concentration of the other.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The crossing of positions is due to the ambiguous phrase "evidence of consciousness in..."
You say that the is evidence of consciousness in anything designed...
The design is evidence of consciousness.
Not in the designed object itself.
But in the designer.

I see your point. Maybe I should have stated specifically ''due to conscious agents''.

Spidergoat is saying that there is only evidence for consciousness actually being in/part of living matter etc.

The point which prompted a response from spidergoat actually acknowledged this point (to some degree)...

I propose that pure consciousness transcends matter, as it acts completely different. I don't know of anything in nature that we can say possess consciousness (apart from living beings), or on the way to it. It's the one thing that can contradict, harness, and to some degree, control nature. I believe that consciousness is symptomatic of sipirit.

...so I'm not sure (if you're correct) why spidergoat would challenge me on something we agree upon. :shrug:

For starters, physical objects don't build themselves from scratch.

Unless you know how the universe began, this claim is limited to merely the inner workings of the universe, but not the universe itself.
It also depends on what you mean by "from scratch"...
Energy does pop in and out of existence all the time...
And there is an energy / matter equivalence.
Some even argue they are the same thing, one merely a concentration of the other.

I don't know how the universe began, and unless someone was there, nobody does. But there are ideas/theories, the most popular one being ''the big bang theory''. This means all energy, time, and space came into being at the same time. Now if these are all there is, it begs a couple of questions. What was the cause of this explosion? What was before the BB?

Can you imagine ''nothing''? No time, no space, no energy, no mind, complete nothingness.
Personally I can't do that. I always imagine it to be a blank space, which of course doesn't count because that is something.
If we can't even imagine nothing (i'll assume you can't), then how can we postulate that something can come from ''nothing''?

My question is: How can anything build itself, and happen to have some real purpose in the universe, without some kind of plan?

Welcome to Sciforums!

jan.