CDZ Three unanswered yet interesting questions pertaining to life

[RWS]

You are basing that on what YOU think is in our best interests...

Remember, God is perfect, and His ways are not our ways.
There is no "universal human" ideal of what is in our best interests.....

Flawed !!!

I don't want to get into that argument with you, because it will lead nowhere, and make us both very pissed!

You are a nice person, and I am glad I have gotten the chance to converse with you.

I don't want to convert you. I will argue endlessly that "god" is not an entity that cares about us, or should be worshiped. And I will argue about the creation of the notion of "god". Where "god" actually came from...

But I actually started that thread already... Search Sumer

But I am actually a very spiritual person. I do believe in something outside of ourselves that we can't grasp yet. Maybe it's quantum physics and "spooky interactions at a distance", but there's a lot that we still need to learn. Before we start killing others based on a "Santa Claus" belief that we learned from our parents from birth.

 

[sealybobo]

ok I was smokin with my butthole of a friend and we got to talking about this stuff... this is my theory about it...

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away... there was this HUGE, like, explosion! Or something like that! It was really loud and big and probably disturbed a lot of things... And people were like, "whoah.... ". Well today, because there were no people back then. But then this thing got really hot, and got really big really fast.... hehe kinda like me when i read national geographic... and it GREW and started to make like these little particles and stuff all around it! And everything started like, revolving around things. They would crash sometimes and like, make new things! Unlike my butthole friend who crashes and destroys things... what a dunghole... Anyway... so like the stuff was spinning around in space and stuff, and things would like "coalesce" (i learned that word today), and dude... things started to happen! That's when life started man... it wasn't on Earth...

Life, is like, the universe and stuff...

It is like waaaay more intricate than our dna... (i learned that word today too)

so, you know, if stuff like the universe life can happen, why are we special?

That may just be how you understood what he was telling you. Let's hear your theory. Go

 

[RWS]

lol! Are you serious?

That was me, btw... jus sayin...

 

[sealybobo]

You are basing that on what YOU think is in our best interests...

Remember, God is perfect, and His ways are not our ways.
There is no "universal human" ideal of what is in our best interests.....

Flawed !!!

I don't want to get into that argument with you, because it will lead nowhere, and make us both very pissed!

You are a nice person, and I am glad I have gotten the chance to converse with you.

I don't want to convert you. I will argue endlessly that "god" is not an entity that cares about us, or should be worshiped. And I will argue about the creation of the notion of "god". Where "god" actually came from...

But I actually started that thread already... Search Sumer

But I am actually a very spiritual person. I do believe in something outside of ourselves that we can't grasp yet. Maybe it's quantum physics and "spooky interactions at a distance", but there's a lot that we still need to learn. Before we start killing others based on a "Santa Claus" belief that we learned from our parents from birth.

Athiests and agnostics are certainly not evil for not believing. And maybe there is an eternal creator who created and rules over the eternal cosmos but is not believing there is really the greatest of sins? Of course not. Only a religion would say it was.

This is what agnostics and athiests have in common. We both call bs on all religions. That's what an agnostic says to the Jesus Mohammad and moses stories. Not buying it. Other than that it's just a maybe

 

[Bonzi]

I wish we could talk at a round table and discuss this in person.. oh well...
I need to go soon....

 

[Iceweasel]

You could have put it in religion and ethics. There's no answer for the first two. The third one is easy. Evolution. Humans are the smartest mammals. If dogs were smarter they would be just as bad.

Actually there's a theory about the second, but for that theory it such a rare occurance it has only happens once, at least on this planet

Theories aren't facts.

 

[sealybobo]

I think you mistake intelligence for computation. Our tech has the ability to surpass us in specific tasks using parameters we define for it and acting according to a ruleset that we give it. Our tech has no ability to do anything given no terms to define...it doesn't have an ability (and isn't close to the ability) to seek out information that it wasn't specifically programmed to do or learn new tasks it was never designed for.

A simple example is our basic calculator. Other than maybe a few basic problems we have memorized or can easily compute ourselves (like 3 + 8 or 10 x 21) we, generally, are no match for even this basic tool when it comes to a bit more complex problems (like 18,203 x 4,384). But I don't think anybody is going to say that the basic calculator as being intelligent or being close to intelligent. Similarly, our tech has exponentially grown in its ability to compute...the google search engine is probably one of our greatest examples of being able to take a wide variety of input variables (your search string), run that against its vast database of websites, and generate favorable results. It even has the ability to "learn" what things you tend to search for the most and attempt to generate results closer to what it perceives you are looking for. However, by absolutely no definition would anybody say that the google search engine is intelligent. It is doing a complex computational job and has been programmed to try and personalize itself and generate better results, but the google search engine isn't going to all of a sudden learn to play chess. It isn't going to generate it's own opinion on our current political landscape. It isn't going to reprogram itself in order to become a self-driving car program (like we can change career fields).

We have wondrous computational tech and our tech's ability to do things is growing exponentially. Don't mistake our tech's computational ability, however, for being close to intellect.

I was referring to artificial INTELLIGENCE. Operative word there being intelligence. Big difference between computation and intelligence

Like I said, we aren't even close. If you want to point towards a modern example of something close to self-thinking and intelligent, then please feel free to fill me in. Maybe I've missed something as I don't follow tech as closely as I used to. Just remember that you shouldn't confuse the ability to do complex tasks with intelligence...as it is, in every single case I am aware of, simply a matter of complex computational output versus given inputs.

This is a wildly off topic conversation that started with another wildly off topic post that I made a response to. I don't even know why I'm still discussing it...but we are within reach of creating an AI within the next 15 or so years. Meaning that outside of probably being much smarter than us, we will have a very hard time disproving that it is not as conscious as you or I. The only thing we have over computers currently, is that we can process many multiple things at the same time, while computers still do one thing at a time, but they do it very quickly. What happens when we start to develop quantum computing more? We have already developed it, its capabilities are currently comparable to the touring device, but that will certainly change. Have I made my point clear enough about the disparities between animal vs human intelligence?

Again, I'll point to the fact that you watch too many sci-fi movies. I just pointed out that we have the ability to decide what to learn and the ability to learn things outside our original scope or purpose (you can go from being a farmer to being in business administration to being a police officer...you have the ability to do whatever you want, whereas a computer has ZERO ability to change its original programming or design intent). You speak about quantum computing like it is a reality...news flash...it isn't, it's only being researched there are zero quantum systems up and running in the market, so you don't know what it will bring if anything when it does arrive. Also, the fact that you believe that we would create an AI that would be more intelligent than us (at least at the beginning) rather than something more similar to a small child or basic beast is absurd and kinda speaks to the fact that you are putting yourself in some sort of hyper-realistic world that we don't currently live in. This isn't the Matrix, this is real life. If you were to say that we were a minimum of 50-100 years out from true AI then I could accept that as at least an optimistic assessment rather than an unrealistic one. I mean we have been dreaming of flying cars since the 50's doesn't make it any more real. There are complex issues we aren't even beginning to understand when it comes to constructing an AI.

As far as your OP, I've already given my answer...random chance. Attempting to assign reason or meaning when we currently have no evidence to support such theories may be popular (I mean Zeus worked for explaining and giving reason to lightening for hundreds of years) but that doesn't make it any more true.

What you are describing is computation. We have that now. Artificial intelligence is a whole different level that goes past simple programming within certain parameters. And if it just mere sci-fi material, than why is there a huge global race to be the first to create it?

Secondly just because you cannot buy a quantum computer on the market does not mean it doesn't exist. I can't buy a self driving car on the market, not yet at least.

Do we program in its desires? What if it's like lex luthor? What if everyone has a slave robot and they all kill us? We are a parasite on this planet and the only creature capable of taking them out. Wouldn't a smart creature do that?

 

[edthecynic]

Why are there no animals in "between" stages of evolution?

Are you sure?
How about an egg laying mammal?

 

[sealybobo]

I wish we could talk at a round table and discuss this in person.. oh well...
I need to go soon....

Your cute baby blues won't work on me

 

[Bonzi]

I wish we could talk at a round table and discuss this in person.. oh well...
I need to go soon....

Your cute baby blues won't work on me

Yes they would - you could see into my soul.....

 

[sealybobo]

Why are there no animals in "between" stages of evolution?

Are you sure?
How about an egg laying mammal?

We can even create a new breed of fox or dog right in front of her eyes.

Bonzi, you need to watch both cosmos series. They will answer a lot of your questions. Better than us

 

[RWS]

I wish we could talk at a round table and discuss this in person.. oh well...
I need to go soon....

A round table? Those are the worst! People get beheaded and stuff when they lack a religion...

But it's ok... we both want good things for humans and all life on the planet. We don't disagree on that. That's all that matters!

 

[Bonzi]

Why are there no animals in "between" stages of evolution?

Are you sure?
How about an egg laying mammal?

We can even create a new breed of fox or dog right in front of her eyes.

Bonzi, you need to watch both cosmos series. They will answer a lot of your questions. Better than us

that was not me that said that
unlike atheists, I look at all sides.

 

[Bonzi]

my head is worthy of beheading

 

[Iceweasel]

Random chance that life forms on its' own and not only survives but lives on to multiply and change into endless life forms with a drive for survival so intense it can be found in extremely inhospitable places? I can't muster up that level of faith.

Considering how large the universe is and the fact that we have absolutely no indication that there is intelligent life anywhere but here.

Yeah, I'd say it makes perfect sense. Just because you happen to be one of the few living beings that can think doesn't automatically mean that there was reason or meaning behind your existence. Assuming that there was purpose behind something because it has occurred is a pretty well known fallacy of human thinking.

I didn't say there was a meaning nor do you know what all else out there can think at our level or beyond. The assumptions are all yours.

Animals do think though. They have emotions as well. They dream. Not all that different than humans.

I didn't make any assumptions. Read the text. I stated that "we have absolutely no indication that there is intelligent life anywhere but here." Now, if that is an incorrect statement then please reference me the hard data defining the intelligent life forms we have been able to observe that are not on this planet.

I also stated that "doesn't automatically mean that there was a reason or meaning behind your existence." This was in reference to my original statement of random chance and your retort that my conclusion was "a level of faith." Specifically I originally assigned no meaning or reason to our existence and you sought to dispute that claim. By doing so you infer that we do have reason or meaning in our existence. Thereby your statement "I didn't say there was a meaning" is noted as being positively false. When somebody actually states that there is no meaning and you dispute that claim, you are actually arguing the opposite, or, in this case, arguing for meaning.

At least follow your own argument and logic chain please.

Your inability to follow the words aren't my shortcoming. That won't work. You made assumptions that I corrected. Since you're too busy being a gas bag and forgot what you said:

"Considering how large the universe is and the fact that we have absolutely no indication that there is intelligent life anywhere but here.

Yeah, I'd say it makes perfect sense. Just because you happen to be one of the few living beings that can think doesn't automatically mean that there was reason or meaning behind your existence. Assuming that there was purpose behind something because it has occurred is a pretty well known fallacy of human thinking."

...so the fallacy, errors and assumptions were all yours. I said nothing about the meaning of life and didn't even address the possibility we might be alone, or not. Apparently you have no clue what logic is and try to make up for your shortcomings with even more noise. That won't work. Neither will your amateurish spin.

You said it was random chance, I explained why it would be incredible and why I can't muster that level of faith. Believing it is faith, there's no science to back it up. If that bothers you it's too bad, not my problem.

 

[sealybobo]

I wish we could talk at a round table and discuss this in person.. oh well...
I need to go soon....

A round table? Those are the worst! People get beheaded and stuff when they lack a religion...

But it's ok... we both want good things for humans and all life on the planet. We don't disagree on that. That's all that matters!

Now if we can get Isis AL queda the Taliban and boka raham on board. I don't like any story that isn't true but let's focus first on the most insane of all the stories.

 

[sealybobo]

Why are there no animals in "between" stages of evolution?

Are you sure?
How about an egg laying mammal?

We can even create a new breed of fox or dog right in front of her eyes.

Bonzi, you need to watch both cosmos series. They will answer a lot of your questions. Better than us

that was not me that said that
unlike atheists, I look at all sides.

I look at both sides. I just decided which side I believe.

In a lot of ways we are all agnostic. No? You sure? Really?

 

[Iceweasel]

As far as your OP, I've already given my answer...random chance. Attempting to assign reason or meaning when we currently have no evidence to support such theories may be popular (I mean Zeus worked for explaining and giving reason to lightening for hundreds of years) but that doesn't make it any more true.

...which requires a HIGH degree of faith. Too much for most folks. You are a deeply faithful believer indeed. Dismissing other faiths doesn't change it.

 

[jillian]

I get this might not necassarily belong in CDZ, but since I can't stand any of the other forums, this is where I'm posting it. I hope that this becomes a fun conversation

First question: How did chemicals from lifeless reactions, turn into life?

Second: How did the early simple, single cell prokaryotic forms of life that had reached their available energy threshold, jumped to a higher energy threshold and turn into a eukaryotic form. A much more complex cell, that becomes the building block for complex life.

Finally: How did the jump happen from standard animal intelligence to human consciousness? Sure there are some smart animals out there, but they do not hold a candle to human intelligence.

if this is yet another proselytizing thread, it probably belongs in the myriad of discussions in the religion section where people who believe certain things try to pretend they can convince people who do not believe in those things and have not asked to be preached to, that they *should* believe in those things.

all the while, substituting "faith" which has no evidence, for fact.

it's not that i don't respect your belief. t's that everyone believes they are correct in their beliefs or lack thereof.

hence the idea that you are right and everyone else is wrong has at its foundation an arrogance that is truly off-putting to anyone but those who share your belief set.

 

[jillian]

As far as your OP, I've already given my answer...random chance. Attempting to assign reason or meaning when we currently have no evidence to support such theories may be popular (I mean Zeus worked for explaining and giving reason to lightening for hundreds of years) but that doesn't make it any more true.

...which requires a HIGH degree of faith. Too much for most folks. You are a deeply faithful believer indeed. Dismissing other faiths doesn't change it.

no dismissing something because there is no evidence is not "faith". i know that theocrats like saying that. but the reality is that it is a LACK of faith.... no matter how many times you say otherwise doesn't change things.