American beliefs in Evolution

[DBT]

Definitions are not enough. Superman can be defined in terms of his powers, but that doesn't make him real.

-_-

You miss the point, of any of it.

I don't think so. Your claim has been - basically - that computers have consciousness, that individual neurons are conscious and function on the principle of belief, that they form beliefs and act on them.

You have tried to support these extraordinary claims using semantic arguments that don't actually prove the proposition.

A lot os things can be defined and their attributes described, but this semantic shuffle does not prove that whatever is being defined or described actually exists, be it God, gods, angels, demons, conscious computers or neurons with beliefs.

The things I define are absolutely real, and absolutely as I describe, even if you object to the words I use to describe them.

Your definitions are real, but they fail because you merely impose consciousness on what is essentially functionality. Function does not equate to consciousness. There are countless systems that are complex yet unconscious. Most of the workings of the brain are unconscious, where only some of the information being processed is brought to consciousness.

quote
“The information we perceive in our consciousness is not created by conscious thought,” Morsella said in a statement accompanying the release of the paper. “Nor is it reacted to by conscious processes. Consciousness is the middle-man and it doesn’t do as much work as you think.”

There are deep evolutionary reasons for things to work that way. Humans, like all animals, operate as parsimoniously as possible; if we could be run entirely by our reflexes and instincts with no conscious thought at all, we would. There’s a reason you don’t stop to contemplate whether you should pull your hand off a hot stove, and instead simply do it. Consciousness in that case would just slow things down.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What does it mean to be conscious - in layman's terms? Sagan opined that at least all living things are conscious, only varying in degree. Maybe he's right, depending on the definition. Maybe organisms like humans are more conscious than organisms like trees but what is consciousness? It certainly isn't something disembodied, it's physical and ought to be quantifiable. How is consciousness quantified, again, in layman's terms. I don't know.

In the movie Avatar we see alleged consciousness on a global scale based on interconnectedness. Big whoop. If consciousness is electrical connectedness what does that mean exactly? Are the electrical lines servicing my home conscious?

 

[Elixir]

I prefer to view consciousness as agency. And everything, “living” or not, that can be described or perceived as a “thing” has agency. This reduces consciousness to a spectrum, and renders the term only meaningful within a context.

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't think so. Your claim has been - basically - that computers have consciousness, that individual neurons are conscious and function on the principle of belief, that they form beliefs and act on them

You continue using words in silly ways, without understanding what they mean.

You keep referring to what could be coined as "platonic Consciousness", in the same ridiculous manner as your nonsensical "platonic Free will".

The thing is, "consciousness", like freedom, is always always always ALWAYS going to have to be in relation to some "target of consciousness". When you just say "consciousness" without having any clue "of what consciousness are you referring", you refer to exactly nothing, just spewing sophistry and hot air.

It's better to ask, I think, what special things are humans conscious OF that other things may not be so conscious OF, and how that linkage happens.

Obviously a computer is conscious of sum total of linear displacement on the wheel or sensor of the mouse.

Is it conscious of "why it is set up that way?" Hell no it isn't.

When you say "is it conscious like people" you create an undefined target. It's like trying to actually operate on a NULL pointer: It's not going to work out the way you want it.

 

[Elixir]

It's better to ask, I think, what special things are humans conscious OF that other things may not be so conscious OF, and how that linkage happens.

That. (If the question is worth addressing at all). What an entity is conscious of and what it is responsive to, are inseparable.

 

[steve_bank]

I think awareness and being conscious is a slippery slope.

There are certain plants that can communicate the presence of a pathogen through root systems.

I think consciousness has to be prefixed as human consciousness.

Are atoms aware and conscious? If so industrial chemistry that forces atoms to combine must surely be forced labor. Atoms need a union.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think consciousness has to be prefixed as human consciousness.

Consciousness can be prefixed to apply to whatever entity.

 

[bilby]

Are atoms aware and conscious? If so industrial chemistry that forces atoms to combine must surely be forced labor. Atoms need a union.

Only electrically neutral atoms are unionised.

 

[steve_bank]

I don't 'believe' in TOE as a matter of faith. One of the Christian augments
that have appeared on the forum is religion and science are the same, both are faith based.

Oddly enough to your statement I quoted above, a lot of atheist arguments have then been comparably sneaky, when their arguments portray the false illusion of being opposites. Apparently it's "science versus creationism".

I mean to state the obvious. Many scientists who were theists or deists have contributed to science through their pioneering discoveries.

I consider it the best fit to all the accumulated scientific and physical history and evidence of life on the planet. It can not be tested in the sense of testing Newton's Laws, but parts of it can be. Mutation and natural selection can be seen on a small scale.

On a small scale, yes indeed.
On a small scale, we as intelligent, conscious and creative entities can 'create' small scale things like small scale god's.

The accumulated evidence does not support alternative explanations, like Christian creationism and a 4,000 year old Earth.

I've often pondered on the 'not so young' earth, and 'not so old' earth.
Perhaps applying the 'Goldilocks principal' of 'just about right' is a compromise between the young and old earth proponents .

As I like to say, atheists can be just as ideological as theists. The difference is atheists don't generally impose on others and claim a superiority as Christians do.

That there is a Goldilocks zone roughly from Earth to Mars does not mean a creator or designer. As with evolution is what is with no meaning or intent.

Extinction scale asteroid strikes are created by gpd, or are they just the way reality is?

 

[Jarhyn]

I think consciousness has to be prefixed as human consciousness.

Consciousness can be prefixed to apply to whatever entity.

And so is a massive "no true Scotsman" or "special plea".

 

[Learner]

I don't 'believe' in TOE as a matter of faith[....] religion and science are the same, both are faith based.

Oddly enough to your statement I quoted above, [.....].

I mean to state the obvious. Many scientists who were theists or deists have contributed to science through their pioneering discoveries.

I consider it the best fit to all [.... ]Mutation and natural selection can be seen on a small scale.

On a small scale, yes indeed.
On a small scale, we as intelligent, conscious and creative entities can 'create' small scale things like small scale god's.

The accumulated evidence does not support alternative explanations, like Christian creationism and a 4,000 year old Earth.

I've often pondered on the 'not so young' earth, and 'not so old' earth.
Perhaps applying the 'Goldilocks principal' of 'just about right' is a compromise between the young and old earth proponents .

As I like to say, atheists can be just as ideological as theists. The difference is atheists don't generally impose on others and claim a superiority as Christians do.

I agree this could happen for some, who are claiming to be Christians and claiming to be of a superior standing. Ive been in debates/discussions where the atheist has pointed out, that Christians like these, making claims of a superiority nature... are 'not' following according to Jesus etc..
Indicating they the atheists know it's not, in anyway, commanded to make such claims.

Christians and those who are of good will, not necessarily Christian can claim they are morally better than someone who is not of a good will, i.e. the murderer, a manipulator who creates situations for individuals to cause the victims harm etc..

That there is a Goldilocks zone roughly from Earth to Mars does not mean a creator or designer. As with evolution is what is with no meaning or intent.

The Goldilocks zone/ principal can be more reasonable to comprehend, than the extremes of each end of a puzzle dilemma, e.g. 'a very young earth or very old earth' etc. Which could clear up a few dating issues, by recalibration.

Extinction scale asteroid strikes are created by gpd, or are they just the way reality is?

Well the reality is... we haven't witnessed asteroid-strikes harming us - and we can't predict any asteroid strikes would be happening anytime soon, (depending on what one thinks is soon), which would otherwise mean destroying human life without having meaning or intention in the first place. Mind you... some people no doubt, could take that to be the wrath of God.

 

[steve_bank]

It is not a principle as you infer it.

Goldilocks Zone is a term that describes the region about a star where Earth like planets might exist that would give rise to life as we know it. Not too hot, not too cold, and liquid water.

Truly you can not be so ignorant or you are willfully ignorant. We have had several near misses, closer than the orbit of the moon. Numerous impact craters.

Well the reality is... we haven't witnessed asteroid-strikes harming us - and we can't predict any asteroid strikes would be happening anytime soon, (depending on what one thinks is soon), which would otherwise mean destroying human life without having meaning or intention in the first place. Mind you... some people no doubt, could take that to be the wrath of God.

 

[DBT]

I think awareness and being conscious is a slippery slope.

There are certain plants that can communicate the presence of a pathogen through root systems.

I think consciousness has to be prefixed as human consciousness.

Are atoms aware and conscious? If so industrial chemistry that forces atoms to combine must surely be forced labor. Atoms need a union.

The ability to detect is not necessarily to be aware. Light sensors switch the lights on when darkness falls without being aware of the light level or the action of tripping the light switch.

 

[Jarhyn]

I think awareness and being conscious is a slippery slope.

There are certain plants that can communicate the presence of a pathogen through root systems.

I think consciousness has to be prefixed as human consciousness.

Are atoms aware and conscious? If so industrial chemistry that forces atoms to combine must surely be forced labor. Atoms need a union.

The ability to detect is not necessarily to be aware. Light sensors switch the lights on when darkness falls without being aware of the light level or the action of tripping the light switch.

You have yet to define what it means to be "aware" in your semantic model.

You have no argument until you do.

 

[steve_bank]

Those with a mystical bent like to see and describe reality mystically. Like Christians do with the Christian supernatural.

God is all things,atoms are conscious....six of one half a dozen the other.

These debates always descend int arguments over meaning and go nowhere.

Wgen you state something philosophical preface with a definition of the terms you use.

 

[DBT]

I think awareness and being conscious is a slippery slope.

There are certain plants that can communicate the presence of a pathogen through root systems.

I think consciousness has to be prefixed as human consciousness.

Are atoms aware and conscious? If so industrial chemistry that forces atoms to combine must surely be forced labor. Atoms need a union.

The ability to detect is not necessarily to be aware. Light sensors switch the lights on when darkness falls without being aware of the light level or the action of tripping the light switch.

You have yet to define what it means to be "aware" in your semantic model.

You have no argument until you do.

Not just 'aware' but a subset of consciousness, to be conscious and aware. That is something that you are experiencing while you read this reply. You see the imagery, the objects before you, you see your computer or phone and what it written on their screens, you understand writing and the meaning of words and sentences....while computers do not have awareness they do not consciously perceive their environment, they do not see what is written, they do not understand the significance of words, they have none of that ability because they are not conscious....and your error still lies in conflating consciousness with function.

Things can and do function without consciousness.

 

[Jarhyn]

I think awareness and being conscious is a slippery slope.

There are certain plants that can communicate the presence of a pathogen through root systems.

I think consciousness has to be prefixed as human consciousness.

Are atoms aware and conscious? If so industrial chemistry that forces atoms to combine must surely be forced labor. Atoms need a union.

The ability to detect is not necessarily to be aware. Light sensors switch the lights on when darkness falls without being aware of the light level or the action of tripping the light switch.

You have yet to define what it means to be "aware" in your semantic model.

You have no argument until you do.

Not just 'aware' but a subset of consciousness, to be conscious and aware.

So, no definition here. I wonder if there is one later on...

That is something that you are experiencing while you read this reply.

So, you said I'm experiencing it but not what it is to "experience" so far...

You see the imagery, the objects before you, you see your computer or phone and what it written on their screens, you understand writing and the meaning of words and sentences.

And then you use the word "see", not defining that, and then "understand"... Still no definitions...

...while computers do not have awareness

Hmm... Used the word but no definition yet.

they do not consciously perceive their environment,

But what is "consciously perceive" supposed to mean?

they do not see what is written, they do not understand the significance of words, they have none of that ability because they are not conscious....

Still failing to produce definitions I see...

and your error still lies in conflating consciousness with function.

No definitions here either

Things can and do function without consciousness.

And again, no definitions

Got to the end, and nada.

You. Have. No. Argument.

It's all just bare assertion all the way down from DBT, who swung, and missed.

 

[Learner]

It is not a principle as you infer it. Goldilocks Zone is a term that describes the region about a star where Earth like planets might exist that would give rise to life as we know it. Not too hot, not too cold, and liquid water.

I was using a context in principal, to mean certain conditions are 'just about right' particularly for a given outcome.

Truly you can not be so ignorant or you are willfully ignorant. We have had several near misses, closer than the orbit of the moon. Numerous impact craters.

We haven't witnessed them actually hitting us was the point to your question, in which you asked, "Extinction scale asteroid strikes are created by god, or are they just the way reality is?"

Yeah well....
..those near misses you mentioned, in the same manner of speaking, just means those (created) asteroids just wasn't meant for the extinction of humans, henceforth it hasn't happened. We weren't around to witness the forming of craters, therefore didn't cause humans to be extinct.

 

[steve_bank]

It is ike talking with a child.

 

[Learner]

M..my dad knows karate.