The Second Proof of God

[edthecynic]

Shades of grey would have one believe that Dolphins have built a technological civilization under the sea and sent probes to other planets in the solar system and have constructed telescopes to explore deep space.

He implied no such thing, so your Straw Man is an admission on your part that you cannot deny dolphins and whales are intelligent creatures with a language all their own.

And there are 'activists' who say they have recordings of 'plants screaming', too. Dogs bark, cats meow, birds chirp. Wow.

Your ignorance is showing.

 

[Picaro]

Shades of grey would have one believe that Dolphins have built a technological civilization under the sea and sent probes to other planets in the solar system and have constructed telescopes to explore deep space.

He implied no such thing, so your Straw Man is an admission on your part that you cannot deny dolphins and whales are intelligent creatures with a language all their own.

And there are 'activists' who say they have recordings of 'plants screaming', too. Dogs bark, cats meow, birds chirp. Wow.

Your ignorance is showing.

So, tell us all about what you and these fish talk about.

 

[Picaro]

Shades of grey would have one believe that Dolphins have built a technological civilization under the sea and sent probes to other planets in the solar system and have constructed telescopes to explore deep space.

He implied no such thing, so your Straw Man is an admission on your part that you cannot deny dolphins and whales are intelligent creatures with a language all their own.

And there are 'activists' who say they have recordings of 'plants screaming', too. Dogs bark, cats meow, birds chirp. Wow.

Your ignorance is showing.

So, tell us all about what you and these fish talk about.

Is it about sex? Is that why you're shy about telling us what you and these intelligent fish talk about all the time?

 

[ding]

Here is how intelligence emerged while following the laws of nature. First creatures had to leave the sea because ain't no one building a technological civilization under the sea. Then creatures had to develop locomotion because that is a requirement for intelligence. Then cold blooded creatures needed to evolve into warm blooded creatures so that a larger central nervous system could evolve as evidenced by the fact that the central nervous systems of every mammal species has gotten larger as it has evolved. That's just intelligence trying to get out. But the big break through was opposable thumbs as that allowed for spatial intelligence to develop. That was when our central nervous system exploded and intelligence emerged.

All of these things were controlled by natural processes through the laws of nature because intelligence is written into the laws of nature. It is the reason we search for intelligence in the universe.

But what about consciousness ? Intelligence is a matter of degree. But like life itself, consciousness is unique. Life developed once in the universe and the same applies to consciousness.
There is no problem in allowing evolution to develop intelligence. It serves an adaptive purpose. But consciousness? No.
And note these are two things humans can’t manufacture.

I am using them interchangeably to distinguish between the degree of consciousness. George Wald says i best...

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.

 

[edthecynic]

Shades of grey would have one believe that Dolphins have built a technological civilization under the sea and sent probes to other planets in the solar system and have constructed telescopes to explore deep space.

He implied no such thing, so your Straw Man is an admission on your part that you cannot deny dolphins and whales are intelligent creatures with a language all their own.

And there are 'activists' who say they have recordings of 'plants screaming', too. Dogs bark, cats meow, birds chirp. Wow.

Your ignorance is showing.

So, tell us all about what you and these fish talk about.

We talk about how ignorant you are!

 

[edthecynic]

Shades of grey would have one believe that Dolphins have built a technological civilization under the sea and sent probes to other planets in the solar system and have constructed telescopes to explore deep space.

He implied no such thing, so your Straw Man is an admission on your part that you cannot deny dolphins and whales are intelligent creatures with a language all their own.

And there are 'activists' who say they have recordings of 'plants screaming', too. Dogs bark, cats meow, birds chirp. Wow.

Your ignorance is showing.

So, tell us all about what you and these fish talk about.

Is it about sex? Is that why you're shy about telling us what you and these intelligent fish talk about all the time?

We also talk about your projecting.

 

[Picaro]

He implied no such thing, so your Straw Man is an admission on your part that you cannot deny dolphins and whales are intelligent creatures with a language all their own.

And there are 'activists' who say they have recordings of 'plants screaming', too. Dogs bark, cats meow, birds chirp. Wow.

Your ignorance is showing.

So, tell us all about what you and these fish talk about.

Is it about sex? Is that why you're shy about telling us what you and these intelligent fish talk about all the time?

We also talk about your projecting.

So, you do admit you talk to fish. Interesting.

 

[DOTR]

The third Law of Thermodynamics says thermal equilibrium is impossible, but you knew that already.
And since energy can neither be created nor destroyed it has always existed and will always exist in the same total quantity.

Would that be true if, as I have sometimes read, the physical laws our universe operates under did not exist prior to the Big Bang? (Assuming using the term "prior to" makes sense when time itself may not have existed)

You read wrong. The creation of space and time followed laws.

What do you think would have made the laws change?

Well, there is this from Stephen Hawking: "The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down." That seems to indicate that 'before' the Big Bang, at least some of the laws of physics did not apply. That only makes sense if space and time do not exist. The Beginning of TIme

“Laws of physics cannot be broken...except where we need them not to apply”

That does seem to be the way it works sometimes.

What we should admit, sometimes , is that we don’t know.

 

[Picaro]

Would that be true if, as I have sometimes read, the physical laws our universe operates under did not exist prior to the Big Bang? (Assuming using the term "prior to" makes sense when time itself may not have existed)

You read wrong. The creation of space and time followed laws.

What do you think would have made the laws change?

Well, there is this from Stephen Hawking: "The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down." That seems to indicate that 'before' the Big Bang, at least some of the laws of physics did not apply. That only makes sense if space and time do not exist. The Beginning of TIme

“Laws of physics cannot be broken...except where we need them not to apply”

That does seem to be the way it works sometimes.

What we should admit, sometimes , is that we don’t know.

And, this is the truth of real agnosticism, as defined by Huxley, the inventor of the word.

 

[DOTR]

How weird is life? Watch this kinesin protein walk. Not a schematic or explanatory representation. This is actually what it looks like as it hauls molecules around the cell.

 

[DOTR]

Here is how intelligence emerged while following the laws of nature. First creatures had to leave the sea because ain't no one building a technological civilization under the sea. Then creatures had to develop locomotion because that is a requirement for intelligence. Then cold blooded creatures needed to evolve into warm blooded creatures so that a larger central nervous system could evolve as evidenced by the fact that the central nervous systems of every mammal species has gotten larger as it has evolved. That's just intelligence trying to get out. But the big break through was opposable thumbs as that allowed for spatial intelligence to develop. That was when our central nervous system exploded and intelligence emerged.

All of these things were controlled by natural processes through the laws of nature because intelligence is written into the laws of nature. It is the reason we search for intelligence in the universe.

But what about consciousness ? Intelligence is a matter of degree. But like life itself, consciousness is unique. Life developed once in the universe and the same applies to consciousness.
There is no problem in allowing evolution to develop intelligence. It serves an adaptive purpose. But consciousness? No.
And note these are two things humans can’t manufacture.

I am using them interchangeably to distinguish between the degree of consciousness. George Wald says i best...

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.

Blindsight - Wikipedia

There is obviously both a mechanical and a conscious aspect to human vision. But is the conscious aspect there anywhere besides humans?
Consciousness is laid on top of intelligence. I think the reductionist or mechanistic view is wrong. Consciousness is mystical. A Computer can find cube roots quicker than me but it isn’t conscious.

 

[Picaro]

Here is how intelligence emerged while following the laws of nature. First creatures had to leave the sea because ain't no one building a technological civilization under the sea. Then creatures had to develop locomotion because that is a requirement for intelligence. Then cold blooded creatures needed to evolve into warm blooded creatures so that a larger central nervous system could evolve as evidenced by the fact that the central nervous systems of every mammal species has gotten larger as it has evolved. That's just intelligence trying to get out. But the big break through was opposable thumbs as that allowed for spatial intelligence to develop. That was when our central nervous system exploded and intelligence emerged.

All of these things were controlled by natural processes through the laws of nature because intelligence is written into the laws of nature. It is the reason we search for intelligence in the universe.

But what about consciousness ? Intelligence is a matter of degree. But like life itself, consciousness is unique. Life developed once in the universe and the same applies to consciousness.
There is no problem in allowing evolution to develop intelligence. It serves an adaptive purpose. But consciousness? No.
And note these are two things humans can’t manufacture.

I am using them interchangeably to distinguish between the degree of consciousness. George Wald says i best...

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.

Blindsight - Wikipedia

There is obviously both a mechanical and a conscious aspect to human vision. But is the conscious aspect there anywhere besides humans?
Consciousness is laid on top of intelligence. I think the reductionist or mechanistic view is wrong. Consciousness is mystical. A Computer can fine cube roots quicker than me but it isn’t conscious.

Computers have to be told what to do by humans; they don't invent mathematical theorems on their own. No computer would just invent the abstraction of cube roots on all by itself, and neither can artificial intelligence, which isn't genuine intelligence, just high speed collating processes. There is nothing 'rational' about mathematics. Computers are hard-wired already by abstract mathematical designs.

 

[ding]

Here is how intelligence emerged while following the laws of nature. First creatures had to leave the sea because ain't no one building a technological civilization under the sea. Then creatures had to develop locomotion because that is a requirement for intelligence. Then cold blooded creatures needed to evolve into warm blooded creatures so that a larger central nervous system could evolve as evidenced by the fact that the central nervous systems of every mammal species has gotten larger as it has evolved. That's just intelligence trying to get out. But the big break through was opposable thumbs as that allowed for spatial intelligence to develop. That was when our central nervous system exploded and intelligence emerged.

All of these things were controlled by natural processes through the laws of nature because intelligence is written into the laws of nature. It is the reason we search for intelligence in the universe.

But what about consciousness ? Intelligence is a matter of degree. But like life itself, consciousness is unique. Life developed once in the universe and the same applies to consciousness.
There is no problem in allowing evolution to develop intelligence. It serves an adaptive purpose. But consciousness? No.
And note these are two things humans can’t manufacture.

I am using them interchangeably to distinguish between the degree of consciousness. George Wald says i best...

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.

Blindsight - Wikipedia

There is obviously both a mechanical and a conscious aspect to human vision. But is the conscious aspect there anywhere besides humans?
Consciousness is laid on top of intelligence. I think the reductionist or mechanistic view is wrong. Consciousness is mystical. A Computer can fine cube roots quicker than me but it isn’t conscious.

I think there are varying degrees of consciousness, the highest of which is the capability to grasp the abstract.

 

[Taz]

I think there are varying degrees of consciousness, the highest of which is the capability to grasp the abstract.

You're state is called "unconscious".

 

[RWNJ]

Shades of grey would have one believe that Dolphins have built a technological civilization under the sea and sent probes to other planets in the solar system and have constructed telescopes to explore deep space.

He implied no such thing, so your Straw Man is an admission on your part that you cannot deny dolphins and whales are intelligent creatures with a language all their own.

And there are 'activists' who say they have recordings of 'plants screaming', too. Dogs bark, cats meow, birds chirp. Wow.

I really don't care if my baked potato screams. It taste delicious.

 

[Selivan]

There is no God
And the Devil, too, no
---------------------
Learn Physics and Math, love Women, eat right, grow children, respect older ones and do not fight.

 

[RWNJ]

There is no God
And the Devil, too, no
---------------------
Learn Physics and Math, love Women, eat right, grow children, respect older ones and do not fight.

No God? Prove it!

 

[ding]

There is no God
And the Devil, too, no
---------------------
Learn Physics and Math, love Women, eat right, grow children, respect older ones and do not fight.

I don't possess enough faith to believe what you do about God.