U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-19-2015, 05:30 AM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,001,803 times
Reputation: 1365

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Ah. I get the 'hunching'. I have some ideas about our 'hunches' and also some data about how reliable those hunches may be. Also about how consciousness applies at 'stuff-working' level to everything including inanimate matter, just as 'life' does; but life, like consciousness as we tend to identify it, has to 'emerge'. And I think there is reason to believe that this is what it does. I know that Mystic disagrees.
It doesn't "have to", but I get ya. And I agree with ya ... emerge,

that what it looks like it's doing to me too as I noted in many a post. Like conservation laws and feedback loops the next big thing we see everywhere is hierarchy of structure. they are empirical trends and great anchors for a hunch. toss in quantum computing with 10^70-ish seen particles. And they are only x<10% of the known universe? and a reasonable hutch is that something has already emerged and we are "living" in it.

notice how I left out "what","why", and "hows", we don't know. We die not knowing. I don't care yet. I only need to address the "hunch" as possible or not possible. Not that we think we "are correct", but at least we can limit the number of less valid takes by using only what is generally accepted. The three things I mentioned can be seen by anybody, anywhere, if they choose to look. And most importantly they choose for themselves when discussions are conducted without insertion a warped world views.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-19-2015, 05:41 AM
 
39,146 posts, read 10,857,554 times
Reputation: 5090
The emergence theory 'has to' have a theory of emergence of course. It does not imply that it 'has to' be true. But I certainly feel that the evidence (and all the scientific thinking) points that way.

In my clumsy, practical, way. I rely on the predictability of nature and the soundness of science, ever since we replaced Ptolemy with Copernicus and 'Humours' with Hervey. Thus whatever is going on with Quantum foam or even if Reality is a 2d holographic projection from beyond the edge of the universe, all that affects us is still workable in terms of Newton and Darwin.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2015, 08:11 AM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,001,803 times
Reputation: 1365
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
The emergence theory 'has to' have a theory of emergence of course. It does not imply that it 'has to' be true. But I certainly feel that the evidence (and all the scientific thinking) points that way.

In my clumsy, practical, way. I rely on the predictability of nature and the soundness of science, ever since we replaced Ptolemy with Copernicus and 'Humours' with Hervey. Thus whatever is going on with Quantum foam or even if Reality is a 2d holographic projection from beyond the edge of the universe, all that affects us is still workable in terms of Newton and Darwin.
one thing i can say, we are all clumsy. some of us just don't think we are.

keep in mind what emergence is. Not that I even like teaching militants, I rather genocide them, but that's a notion for another day. "emergence", It's a word used describe "unexpected traits" when little pieces add up to form bigger pieces. The traits of the bigger piece may not have been "predicted". But that's only due to lack of knowledge, not that the trait "appeared out of nowhere" or 'was not there".

For example, "water" acts exactly like a group of hydrogen and oxygen atoms joined together can act. Just because we didn't see it while they were still in the tanks before mixing doesn't mean it wasn't going to be that way. water acts exactly like the group leptons, QED, Quarks, and QCD allow it to act. again, some clarification is needed. But I aint no how no pretty writer.

emergence" is not a "theory" like evolution. emergence is just when an unexpected trait shows up. "emergence" is part of theories. The theories that have "emergence" in them can be right or wrong, not emergence. Like a theory that uses the "color red" in the theory. The theory can be wrong, but red is kind of red no matter what the theory said about something else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2015, 03:08 PM
 
40,086 posts, read 26,750,404 times
Reputation: 6050
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
The state of our conscious Self at any point in time is the composite of everything happening within our body and brain. What we are aware of is not controlling. Every little nuance is incorporated into what we experience as our Self at each point in time. Studies have clearly shown this nuanced effect on our state of mind from things we are not consciously aware of. The entire composite state is what is "summarized" in our consciousness at any point in time. That is why there is no place within the brain for this "summarizing" to occur.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus View Post
You appear to be leaping to that from everything you wrote before it - but none of which actually lead to it. You are simply refusing to answer the question you have been asked multiple times now.
That is because you appear to be ignoring everything and employing no thought whatsoever. The state of the ENTIRE brain is part of the entire composite (conscious and unconscious and autonomic) to BE summarized . . . because it ALL effects the complete state of Self we experience. Ergo . . . nothing within the brain can summarize it all . . . without altering the brain state to BE summarized. Your iterative nonsense can NOT apply.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2015, 09:29 PM
 
39,146 posts, read 10,857,554 times
Reputation: 5090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
one thing i can say, we are all clumsy. some of us just don't think we are.

keep in mind what emergence is. Not that I even like teaching militants, I rather genocide them, but that's a notion for another day. "emergence", It's a word used describe "unexpected traits" when little pieces add up to form bigger pieces. The traits of the bigger piece may not have been "predicted". But that's only due to lack of knowledge, not that the trait "appeared out of nowhere" or 'was not there".

For example, "water" acts exactly like a group of hydrogen and oxygen atoms joined together can act. Just because we didn't see it while they were still in the tanks before mixing doesn't mean it wasn't going to be that way. water acts exactly like the group leptons, QED, Quarks, and QCD allow it to act. again, some clarification is needed. But I aint no how no pretty writer.

emergence" is not a "theory" like evolution. emergence is just when an unexpected trait shows up. "emergence" is part of theories. The theories that have "emergence" in them can be right or wrong, not emergence. Like a theory that uses the "color red" in the theory. The theory can be wrong, but red is kind of red no matter what the theory said about something else.
Yes. I need an expert in this area, or at least to browse wiki for a while, but emergence covers a lot of effects that i am sure we know of. There is no hint of wetness' in the molecules that make up water, but put them together and the effect is - wetness. In the same way I envisage the evolutionary theory of the development of life (and consciousness) back through the postulated hypothesis that it emerged in a basic form from a combination of biochemicals and reason back through the way that biochemicals combine, matter combines and all particles interact. The same properties of physical matter produce 'emergent' effects that one would not expect - as you say - from looking at the particles or chemicals themselves.

This is why there is no reason - other that gaps for God of the 'you cannot prove how the universe started/how life began/where consciousness came from'. We can't, but we can explain, hypothetically, extrapolating backwards from what we can prove.

The other side with their arguments that it is all inexplicable without Something More' are wrong. It is explainable, though not down to the nano -particle. But the unexplained (claimed) events of the distant past and the unknown effects down at nano -level of the way matter, lifer and consciousness work are false arguments (specifically argumentum ignorantiam) of the gap for god kind.

There is no good reason to credit the 'Something more' arguments, let alone to present them as reliable, believable, facts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2015, 10:09 PM
 
40,086 posts, read 26,750,404 times
Reputation: 6050
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
The state of our conscious Self at any point in time is the composite of everything happening within our body and brain. What we are aware of is not controlling. Every little nuance is incorporated into what we experience as our Self at each point in time. Studies have clearly shown this nuanced effect on our state of mind from things we are not consciously aware of. The entire composite state is what is "summarized" in our consciousness at any point in time. That is why there is no place within the brain for this "summarizing" to occur.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
That is because you appear to be ignoring everything and employing no thought whatsoever. The state of the ENTIRE brain is part of the entire composite (conscious and unconscious and autonomic) to BE summarized . . . because it ALL effects the complete state of Self we experience. Ergo . . . nothing within the brain can summarize it all . . . without altering the brain state to BE summarized. Your iterative nonsense can NOT apply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Yes. I need an expert in this area, or at least to browse wiki for a while, but emergence covers a lot of effects that i am sure we know of. There is no hint of wetness' in the molecules that make up water, but put them together and the effect is - wetness. In the same way I envisage the evolutionary theory of the development of life (and consciousness) back through the postulated hypothesis that it emerged in a basic form from a combination of biochemicals and reason back through the way that biochemicals combine, matter combines and all particles interact. The same properties of physical matter produce 'emergent' effects that one would not expect - as you say - from looking at the particles or chemicals themselves.

This is why there is no reason - other that gaps for God of the 'you cannot prove how the universe started/how life began/where consciousness came from'. We can't, but we can explain, hypothetically, extrapolating backwards from what we can prove.
Emergence explains NOTHING, Arq. It is NOT an explanation. It is just an inexplicable observation. What about that do you not understand???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2015, 03:26 AM
 
3,637 posts, read 2,698,670 times
Reputation: 4300
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
That is because you appear to be ignoring everything and employing no thought whatsoever.
Nope - that is you you and no one else but you. I have a long list of posts you have simply ignored - questions you have simply skipped over - and even questions you replied to but then pretended I did not ask. The ONLY person ignoring everything and dodging thought here is you. No one else. Just you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
The state of the ENTIRE brain is part of the entire composite (conscious and unconscious and autonomic) to BE summarized . . . because it ALL effects the complete state of Self we experience.
Your repetition of your point does not answer the question. You appear to have an issue with thinking that the the aspects of the brain that notice or respond to brain states - can not therefore themselves be part of the composite brain state. Yet you have dodged EVERY attempt to get you to give your reason why this is so.

Your sole point is that by such a measurement and response to it - you alter the brain state. So what? You keep saying this - but you are not grounding that point in reality in any way. I am even granting you the point 100% for the sake of conversation - but you are still doing dodge ball with the queries about the point.

What is wrong with a self-referential iterative system? I am not seeing it - and you certainly are not showing it. Simply shouting it can not apply does not make it so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2015, 03:48 AM
 
3,637 posts, read 2,698,670 times
Reputation: 4300
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Emergence explains NOTHING, Arq. It is NOT an explanation. It is just an inexplicable observation. What about that do you not understand???
It is not meant to be an explanation. It is meant to be the thing that needs explaining. What about that do you not understand???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2015, 04:58 AM
 
39,146 posts, read 10,857,554 times
Reputation: 5090
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Emergence explains NOTHING, Arq. It is NOT an explanation. It is just an inexplicable observation. What about that do you not understand???
I understand everything about it, and your bamboozlement and your faith -based arguments and the facts that you and your synthesis are all washed up, old son. emergence is a process, phenomenon, observation and mechanism, like evolution. I do hope you are not going to add cherry -picking definitions to your list of fallacious and deceptive arguments.

While it doesn't seem to have received as much attention as evolution, it is in fact an observable and demonstrable phenomenon that, viewed overall, nicely fits the 'Eviliooshun' (a Darwinistic process from the beginnings of matter to humans) category and in fact (gaps and unexplainds aside) answers the question.

It also explains consciousness, which is a constituent of action, reaction, semi -life (stromatolites and viruses) lower life to higher life, problem -solving and reasoning. I have explained this from our first discussion and repeatedly thereafter. I know that you sneer at 'Emergence', demonstrable though it is, as you do at the materialist default, evidentially supported though it is, simply because it doesn't fit in with your faith -based preferences.

I don't expect you to take this point on board even as a reason why your crafty attempts to ask me ( ) why I don't understand. I merely repeat that you are flogging a very deceased Equuine and you and your theory are all washed up.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-20-2015 at 05:40 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2015, 05:27 AM
 
5,462 posts, read 5,939,436 times
Reputation: 1804
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
That is because you appear to be ignoring everything and employing no thought whatsoever. The state of the ENTIRE brain is part of the entire composite (conscious and unconscious and autonomic) to BE summarized . . . because it ALL effects the complete state of Self we experience. Ergo . . . nothing within the brain can summarize it all . . . without altering the brain state to BE summarized. Your iterative nonsense can NOT apply.
Why not? Calling it nonsense isn't an argument, it is an admission you have no real reason to reject the idea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top