Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
well not totally true. nozz and mort we have to look at the tiniest then.
Space is something as shown by nasa. We are in the space, or the space itself. That is known. If we are alive then an unknown area around us is probably alive also. The question is how much. The analog would be a cell in you is inside a larger alive thing. So it is more reasonable to say we are probably in something that is life because there is life around us. Is it more reasonable to suggest smaller pieces of life do not add up to larger life forms?
Next tiny piece: you will need to show bounaries between living and non living things here. I say there is no "real boundary". But rather over lapping fields.
next tiny piece. We (life) really are just processing information. I say it is impossible for us to be processing information without being in a larger volume of particles that is processing this information. The evidence is evolution. We, our bofy and brain type is the solution to processed information by the universe.
Are you saying god(s) are physical manifestations?
"God is an undesirable by-product of our over-developed primate minds, which most likely occurred when we attained self-awareness, and then were faced with the stark, cruel realization that, yes, this IS all that there is. So, in order to assuage this unpleasant fact, we invented all manner of invisible, BFF Sky People to keep us company and keep a place for us at their Imaginary Table after we die. (You know, kind of like adult versions of those invisible childhood friends!)"
a couple of flaws. Although "complexity" can be subjective to a degree, it is objective. People can be shown what they don't understand to see complexities differences. Also your claim "even in the smallest way" is 100% subjective. And thus of little use in dismissing god as not there. It would better to stick to nonsensical magic like "walking on water" or "rising someone from the dead" than to misstate what is known or not known.
Not what I am saying at all. Again complexity is subjective in many things. For example Calculus is extremely easy for me. For others it is insurmountably complex.
But the point is that using complexity as a point about complexity means nothing. Because it IS a subjective point to say "It is complex to me, therefore only an intelligence greater than mine could have created it. That is a non-argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
I say it is impossible for us to be processing information without being in a larger volume of particles that is processing this information.
This sentence requires unpacking and explanation. What is "impossible" exactly? And what "information" are you referring to and measuring? I attempted to have you explain this before but you contrived to keep it willfully vague.
I say it is impossible for us to be processing information without being in a larger volume of particles that is processing this information. The evidence is evolution. We, our body and brain type is the solution to processed information by the universe.
This is very similar to saying that we are conscious, and consciousness cannot arise from unconsciousness, therefore the universe is conscious -- a fairly old New Age trope. That is a composition fallacy with hints of confirmation bias (because we are conscious, we tend to think that our consciousness is more special than it is). In addition there's a whiff of argument from incredulity (since I am so special in being self aware and conscious at a higher level than other creatures, it's inconceivable to me that my consciousness does not have an inherent purpose, and an intelligent Source that lovingly created it or at least gives rise to it). And this incredulity is catered to by our narcissistic tendencies as well as our fear of mortality.
Suppose that you are a car battery with sentience. You understand through your science that you have a cathode and an anode and that you generate electricity chemically. Would it be logical to reason that since you generate electricity, it's impossible for you to be doing that without being inside a larger battery? Of course not. Now you discover that the fact you mysteriously do not run out of electricity is because of a continuous inflow of electricity from a generator. Do you now deify the Generator, reasoning that it sustains and nurtures you and keeps you alive, therefore this proves that it loves and cares for you and must have created you? Of course not.
Finally you are asserting that the universe, being conscious, has a desire to process information and meets this need by producing our bodies and brains. I call this the "cosmic sock puppet" argument. We are the universe playing with awareness. Each of us are individuated expressions of cosmic consciousness that produces experiences that end up somehow in a cosmic pool of awareness. Like god-assertions, this is an unfalsifiable assumption so far as I know. How would we disprove or prove such a thing? It is, IMO, just another way that we humans try to create explanations, purpose and meaning when no such thing is inherent. I don't subscribe to notions that are beyond examining and substantiating. Inherently such notions can be nothing more than sheer speculation. And no matter how attractive or "nice if true" some of those speculations may or may not be, there are of no use if they cannot be validated in some objective manner.
This is very similar to saying that we are conscious, and consciousness cannot arise from unconsciousness, therefore the universe is conscious -- a fairly old New Age trope. That is a composition fallacy with hints of confirmation bias (because we are conscious, we tend to think that our consciousness is more special than it is). In addition there's a whiff of argument from incredulity (since I am so special in being self aware and conscious at a higher level than other creatures, it's inconceivable to me that my consciousness does not have an inherent purpose, and an intelligent Source that lovingly created it or at least gives rise to it). And this incredulity is catered to by our narcissistic tendencies as well as our fear of mortality.
Suppose that you are a car battery with sentience. You understand through your science that you have a cathode and an anode and that you generate electricity chemically. Would it be logical to reason that since you generate electricity, it's impossible for you to be doing that without being inside a larger battery? Of course not. Now you discover that the fact you mysteriously do not run out of electricity is because of a continuous inflow of electricity from a generator. Do you now deify the Generator, reasoning that it sustains and nurtures you and keeps you alive, therefore this proves that it loves and cares for you and must have created you? Of course not.
Finally you are asserting that the universe, being conscious, has a desire to process information and meets this need by producing our bodies and brains. I call this the "cosmic sock puppet" argument. We are the universe playing with awareness. Each of us are individuated expressions of cosmic consciousness that produces experiences that end up somehow in a cosmic pool of awareness. Like god-assertions, this is an assumption so far as I know. How would we disprove or prove such a thing? It is, IMO, just another way that we humans try to create explanations, purpose and meaning when no such thing is inherent. I don't subscribe to notions that are beyond examining and substantiating. Inherently such notions can be nothing more than sheer speculation. And no matter how attractive or "nice if true" some of those speculations may or may not be, there are of no use if they cannot be validated in some objective manner.
yes, I claim we can't get "something" from "nothing" here on earth yet. That what we have must exist in some form in the universe in much larger amounts.
I didn't say the universe has any desires what so ever. I said it is data processing. And yes, anybody thinking they are the top awareness is very self centered and narcissistic. thinking that we are that special goes against observation. We are just a part of the universe. My claim is just that in the end.
yes, without electrons being able to move there is no battery. and yes, you are sea of electrons right now and you and it are based on a larger set of conservation laws. In this case let's call it "electron conservation" but I'll assume you know all of them.
Don't know about all that other convolution but I guess we all do some type of self justifying mind bending. Mine is simply based on conservation laws. But if you think we can have anything on earth that the universe has less than you have to show me. It doesn't match observation, in fact the opposite fits way better than "no nothing".
And my stance is as unfalsifiable as e=mc2 and quantum mechanics. .it's just that they haven't been shown to be wrong yet. My conclusion is based on known observations so of course it seems you can't prove it wrong. Your "cosmic soup", I am not sure how your life doesnt influence the system around it? That is funny that you would even suggest that since you claiming some real understanding. maybe I am misunderstanding you.
yes, they are of no use to you. that is fine. But it doesn't mean that for all of us. no use doesn't mean wrong either.
yes, I claim we can't get "something" from "nothing" here on earth yet. That what we have must exist in some form in the universe in much larger amounts.
The idea that conscious entities cannot be emergent from non-conscious entities is a category error. I do not allege "something from nothing"; I simply do not see consciousness as a "thing" in the sense that water or potassium or dirt are "things". Consciousness is an emergent property of complex systems. It makes no more sense to say that consciousness can't come from non-consciousness than it makes sense to say that culture cannot come from non-culture or that morality cannot exist outside of some larger morality. We might call things like culture, society, morality, and consciousness "virtual things" that describe relations between physical things. Whenever 2 or more people must cooperate, a form of morality is emergent from that relation / need -- and whenever 2 or more people DO cooperate, a form of society is emergent from those actions. Whenever 2 or more people move sufficiently up through the hierarchy of needs through their participation in each other's society, culture emerges.
Similarly, when a sufficiently complex multicellular being with a sufficiently complex nervous system is capable of self-reflection and time-awareness of a certain order, self aware consciousness is observable.
Even further up the hierarchy of needs, when all the above exists in sufficient "quantity" and quality for long enough, more data processing, as you put it, gives way to wisdom: not merely the possession of knowledge, but the ability to use it counter to short term goals and self interest for the greater good -- either an individual's long-term benefit, and/or, society's long-term benefit.
Wisdom, consciousness, culture, society, are not things-in-themselves that must flow like water or electricity from some wider source. They are abstractions that exist under the right conditions. They are composed of abstract relations, not of material components. The mistake we make is to call comprehension and observation of abstract relations by confusing and unhelpful labels such as "spirituality" -- or on the other hand, commit the category error of assuming that such abstract relations are somehow subject to the same natural laws that conserve energy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
But if you think we can have anything on earth that the universe has less than you have to show me. It doesn't match observation, in fact the opposite fits way better than "no nothing".
I have just done so, but to understand that you must not mistake consciousness (for example) as an "anything" in the same sense that you consider rocks or water or radiation or sunshine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
Yes, they are of no use to you. that is fine. But it doesn't mean that for all of us. no use doesn't mean wrong either.
Of course not. And you are completely within your rights to think these speculations are of use when I don't. That doesn't make them actually useful, either. As I have pointed out in this post, they are the wrong ideas / metaphors for the job.
you are making assumptions I am willing to make yet. I am only taking one step off the curve of what we know. Within reason that is, between me and you. I do not assume any traits yet. I don't know enough for that. I am only at "more likely we are part of larger data processing system" or "more likely not part of a larger data processing system".
Yes. "consciousness" is not a thing because there are no things. It is an event, just like everything else. We are an event in a much larger set of events to me. But to cross check I try and go both ways (hey!!! I heard that). In this case we are talking emergence as the complexity increase. So I take it one step further. Is there a reason to stop at emergence "past human" based on what we see around us? So my answer is no because. Bla ba bla, you know the rest. 10% known vs. a given volume type things and so on.
But as an example lets use your battery. The Battery and you are in a sea of electrons. can there be "power transfers" using electrons that surround the system of just you and the battery? Well we know that answer. So is it a crazy reach to apply the same logic to a possible "living universe" or just a "living biosphere"? no more than that. I imply nothing else at this point
I don't answer "no" to something like this because of "what that would mean to me". I answer "more likely yes" or "more likely no" only based on what I know at this point. all that other Bee smidgens is for , like you say, other people not me.
"of use to ..". for me and you there is no use "morally" or "religiously" to that knowledge or line of questioning. But form me it is just learning a little more about the universe. people like my brother don't care at all. and that is way cool to me. I only jump him when he starts misusing the science to show me I am wrong.
The first piece of real data for me is that "space" is a "thing" (quantum thing here, like consciousness ... not a rock thing ) it has real descriptors at each and every point in space as far as we can tell. That would mean you and I are living in something akin to a three dimensional screen. If possible, you could walk on that screen to every point in space. See how that statement can be confused with "unfalsable" to the less educated? But anyway, they don't know what it is per say just that it's there. No traits of it yet.
the pin drop that shatters windows.
they call it "The light" in some circles.
I can't speak for others, but if you're interpreting my lack of response to your last post as you winning an argument by rendering me speechless in the face of your superior argument, I'm afraid it had more to do with my being unable to decipher what you're trying to say in the amount of time I'm willing to devote to this particular thread.
Right out the chute, you say, "you are making assumptions I am willing to make yet". I think you probably meant "you are making assumptions that I am not willing to make yet", although which points you are referring to would still be unclear to me at that point. But the whole post is sort of like that. It lacks precision. And if you can't or won't be clear, then it becomes kind of guesswork with a high probability of talking past each other.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) it has real descriptors at each and every point in space as far as we can tell. That would mean you and I are living in something akin to a three dimensional screen. If possible, you could walk on that screen to every point in space. See how that statement can be confused with "unfalsable" to the less educated? But anyway, they don't know what it is per say just that it's there. No traits of it yet.
