Zone1 Science Can NOT Explain True Consciousness

[Blues Man]

Ok, how were the assembled to create life? RW can't answer apparently.

The fallacy your chasing is that just because we cannot explain some things ( a lot of things actually) then a god must be responsible.

You are presuming that humans actually have the capacity to know and understand everything and that is not necessarily true is it?

 

[Blues Man]

Mysteries re: the creation of life is not proof that God exists

You have proof God exists? Show it to me.

The best people can do is give you reasons they believe a god or gods exist.'

 

[scruffy]

Why did those elements do that? How did they create life? You can throw elements together all you want and they will not create life.

But they will.

Life is an inevitable outcome of the fundamental symmetries of the universe.

Because - when we're talking about DNA, one must realize that it's NOT the sequence that's being selected for, it's the shape of the resulting protein.

The question "what are all the DNA sequences that can create this shape" is a different question from "what is the probability of creating this sequence".

There is not just one way to create life, there are many. Ours happens to be left handed, all the biomolecules are l isomers - why? Who knows. There's no reason it has to be this way. At some point something evolved left handed and then everything else had to follow suit. Or maybe there was a more abundant supply of left handed source material. Or something.

Here's what happens in real life - there are 14 different ways a strand of RNA can wind around a ribosome. The same exact pair of molecules, can assume 14 different stable configurations, and in each case the winding will be different. You can have monomers, dimers, trimers, and 4-mers, all form naturally and spontaneously in water whenever the components are mixed.

Mathematically, you have one large molecule interacting with another, on the basis of shape, charge, and geometric flexibility. If you'd like a mind blower, read up on the self assembly of microtubules, and then ask yourself how they stay in one place. Vesicular transport is another good one, as is muscle contraction.

The point being, it is not sufficient to look at something and claim it's a species. Modern identification techniques involve things like the 16S rRNA sequence to identify and catalog species. People discussing this topic should be familiar with the basic mutation types.

Genomics explainer: types of genetic variants | Garvan Institute of Medical Research

www.garvan.org.au

 

[Leo123]

But they will.

Life is an inevitable outcome of the fundamental symmetries of the universe.

Because - when we're talking about DNA, one must realize that it's NOT the sequence that's being selected for, it's the shape of the resulting protein.

The question "what are all the DNA sequences that can create this shape" is a different question from "what is the probability of creating this sequence".

There is not just one way to create life, there are many. Ours happens to be left handed, all the biomolecules are l isomers - why? Who knows. There's no reason it has to be this way. At some point something evolved left handed and then everything else had to follow suit. Or maybe there was a more abundant supply of left handed source material. Or something.

Here's what happens in real life - there are 14 different ways a strand of RNA can wind around a ribosome. The same exact pair of molecules, can assume 14 different stable configurations, and in each case the winding will be different. You can have monomers, dimers, trimers, and 4-mers, all form naturally and spontaneously in water whenever the components are mixed.

Mathematically, you have one large molecule interacting with another, on the basis of shape, charge, and geometric flexibility. If you'd like a mind blower, read up on the self assembly of microtubules, and then ask yourself how they stay in one place. Vesicular transport is another good one, as is muscle contraction.

The point being, it is not sufficient to look at something and claim it's a species. Modern identification techniques involve things like the 16S rRNA sequence to identify and catalog species. People discussing this topic should be familiar with the basic mutation types.

Genomics explainer: types of genetic variants | Garvan Institute of Medical Research

www.garvan.org.au

You talk a lot about what molecules do but can’t explain why. You assume that’s the way it is. But why? I have read the same things you have. You can throw all that together but can’t create just one ribosome. You yourself said who knows why?

 

[Leo123]

The fallacy your chasing is that just because we cannot explain some things ( a lot of things actually) then a god must be responsible.

You are presuming that humans actually have the capacity to know and understand everything and that is not necessarily true is it?

No, I am saying that we cannot create life by mixing elements in a primordial pond. I never mentioned God.

 

[Leo123]

Mysteries re: the creation of life is not proof that God exists

You have proof God exists? Show it to me.

I never claimed what you are saying.

 

[Leo123]

I never claimed what you are saying.

Then why bother saying I have no proof of God?

 

[Leo123]

Back in the late 90s I used to play a computer strategy game called Alpha Centauri

Aside from being a fun game, it was filled with amazing “quotes” from its fictional characters about science and philosophy.

One quote from the “science faction” applies to this topic:

The substructure of the universe regresses infinitely towards smaller and smaller components. Behind atoms we find electrons, and behind electrons, quarks. Each layer unraveled reveals new secrets, but also new mysteries.

In other words, just because there’s always another unknown just beyond our grasp with each new discovery, that doesn’t “prove” intelligent design. All it proves is there’s more to be discovered. That’s the nature of the universe.

Conversely, there was a quote from the “religious faction”:

Beware, you who seek first and final principles, for you are trampling the garden of an angry God. And He awaits you just beyond the last theorem.

From a philosophical standpoint, the continued inability of scientific inquiries to explain the creation of life and/or an afterlife will always ensure religion is a facet of human culture, even if one we should have discarded it generations ago

There will always be something science “can’t explain”. Thus, there will always be humans who cling to religion to fill the gap.

So far, you are correct. We seem to keep finding more and more the deeper we go. However I don't discount anything. Intelligent design may be a factor and until we know things for certain I am not willing to throw it out or label it God. There is a reason we cannot create life and I would like to not close my mind to anything.

 

[Leo123]

The fallacy your chasing is that just because we cannot explain some things ( a lot of things actually) then a god must be responsible.

You are presuming that humans actually have the capacity to know and understand everything and that is not necessarily true is it?

You are presuming.

 

[scruffy]

You talk a lot about what molecules do but can’t explain why.

Already did.

Fundamental symmetries of nature.

"The laws of physics".

You assume that’s the way it is. But why?

Because I've done work in the laboratory and verified a lot of it with my own two eyes.

I have read the same things you have. You can throw all that together but can’t create just one ribosome.

Sure I can.

I'll even do you one better. I can create proteins. From aminoethyl glycine.

You yourself said who knows why?

Do you know about "partitions of zero"?

Zero, it turns out, can be divided into parts.

There are bunches of functions which when combined, always add up to 0 at every point.

Why is this important?

Conservation of energy. Which means, symmetry. You know about Emmy Noether? Check her out. Every symmetry has a conservation law associated with it. Noether's Throrem.

 

[scruffy]

No, I am saying that we cannot create life by mixing elements in a primordial pond. I never mentioned God.

But this thread is about consciousness.

My claim was (is): consciousness is a physical process, it involves an "unfolding of physical time".

The brain synthesizes an extra "dimension" that physical time is unfolded into.

 

[Leo123]

But this thread is about consciousness.

My claim was (is): consciousness is a physical process, it involves an "unfolding of physical time".

The brain synthesizes an extra "dimension" that physical time is unfolded into.

Consciousness is not a separate thing. We are consciousness. The 'process' is letting go of thinking to realize that.

 

[BreezeWood]

But this thread is about consciousness.

My claim was (is): consciousness is a physical process, it involves an "unfolding of physical time".

The brain synthesizes an extra "dimension" that physical time is unfolded into.

apples and oranges ....

the spiritual content of physiology in the above example transforms its physiology, including the cns (brain) from a land dweller to an avian being - from one creature to another, metaphysically not using physical properties of any sort for the exchange whatsoever. through programing.

 

[scruffy]

apples and oranges ....

View attachment 878282

the spiritual content of physiology in the above example transforms its physiology, including the cns (brain) from a land dweller to an avian being - from one creature to another, metaphysically not using physical properties of any sort for the exchange whatsoever. through programing.

No, you don't understand. I'm saying it requires direct physical support, at the level of fundamental symmetries.

The key to understanding it is criticality.

The problem statement is, you need to show how the "experience" of now, relates to the physical thing we call now (most people label it t=0 or some such thing). Your experience of now is a window, not a point. You need to show how that window comes into existence, and what it looks like in the limit, as dt => 0. (Because that's how you determine what kinds of information you can process with it).

So, imagine a heirarchy of electrical signaling in the brain. There is criticality at each level from ion channels to single neurons to local populations to the whole brain. The result is, the opening of a single ion channel can change the entire EEG.

But the concept of "in the limit" gets much more precise than just ion channels, we can talk about things like quantum tunneling in microtubules and such. Ultimately, it's the processing and storage of information with random and unreliable components, all the way down to the quantum level.

 

[Leo123]

No, you don't understand. I'm saying it requires direct physical support, at the level of fundamental symmetries.

The key to understanding it is criticality.

The problem statement is, you need to show how the "experience" of now, relates to the physical thing we call now (most people label it t=0 or some such thing). Your experience of now is a window, not a point. You need to show how that window comes into existence, and what it looks like in the limit, as dt => 0. (Because that's how you determine what kinds of information you can process with it).

So, imagine a heirarchy of electrical signaling in the brain. There is criticality at each level from ion channels to single neurons to local populations to the whole brain. The result is, the opening of a single ion channel can change the entire EEG.

But the concept of "in the limit" gets much more precise than just ion channels, we can talk about things like quantum tunneling in microtubules and such. Ultimately, it's the processing and storage of information with random and unreliable components, all the way down to the quantum level.

A true realization of 'now' is what I call being present. This state does not include thoughts of the past or future or other spurious thinking. Yet, presence IS always there. Notice it when you take a deep breath or, when asking oneself what one is going to think next. I do not know how you would translate that into your scientific theories though.

 

[Blues Man]

No, I am saying that we cannot create life by mixing elements in a primordial pond. I never mentioned God.

We haven't yet we may never be able to recreate the conditions either because there really is no way we can know and replicate those exact conditions.

 

[BreezeWood]

from one creature to another, metaphysically

I'm saying it requires direct physical support, at the level of fundamental symmetries.

there is no time delay ...

physiology is itself a metaphysical substance not native to planet earth - its origin has from the beginning the confluence of time, there is no delay only the physical properties that are irrelevant.

There is criticality at each level from ion channels to single neurons to local populations to the whole brain.

the cns is irrelevant - physiology is directed by its spiritual content is the reason there is not a delay as described.

 

[scruffy]

the cns is irrelevant - physiology is directed by its spiritual content is the reason there is not a delay as described.

You're still missing the point.

Something has to translate the allocentric physical view into the egocentric spiritual view, and vice versa.

The CNS is very necessary, without it there is no such translation.

 

[BreezeWood]

The CNS is very necessary, without it there is no such translation.

physical translation -

cns is physiology - the spiritual content of physiology is its real time component, cns is irrelevant for that purpose.

 

[scruffy]

physical translation -

cns is physiology - the spiritual content of physiology is its real time component, cns is irrelevant for that purpose.

lmao

Please show me a spirit without a CNS.

I'll wait