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.
I and I will repeat, there is no way for science to refute something you have not substantiated in any way. Especially if the proposition is not formulated in a scientifically literate and relevant fashion.
Nice of you to invent biases for me I do not actually hold, and tell me I refuse to consider possibilities I actually do consider. But all of that is just more of your usual MO of changing the things I have been saying into things I never once did. I have explained my positions coherently and concisely. Why you choose to invent new ones for me is opaque to me.
The only reason "Consciousness is totally and forever out of the teach of instrumentation" can be taken seriously as a sentence is in the same way as "Digestion is totally and forever out of the teach of instrumentation". Because there is no reason to think either of them is a "thing" in an of themselves that can be "seen". They are labels we simply give to a group of processes.
If you want to pretend it is something else than this, that's your prerogative, but you are not doing it on the basis of any evidence I have seen, or you have presented.
They are not labels. They are processes.
Your biases are clear. If it cannot be measured by an instrument it is a " label'.
But then again you are stuck with the Hard Problem of what is doing the labeling?
Try as you might, the Problem will always exist and all you are doing is hiding the problem by inserting Conscious Intelligent properties into dead matter as well as all of your "evidence". You just magically insert Consviousness into everything and expect a sleight of hand to hide it. It is your own impenetrable biases that you refuse to acknowledge.
They are both. They are processes. The words are what we label those processes with. This has nothing to do with "bias", as much as you would like to pretend it to be. Digestion is a label we give to an entire process. You will never "see" digestion. It itself is not a thing. It is an entire process. The current data set suggests consciousness is the same thing, again as much as you might want to pretend otherwise.
I might add one of the more curious recent examples of scientific sleight of hand is Dennet's "selfish gene". Philosophical to be sure, but trying to pose as science?
They are both. They are processes. The words are what we label those processes with. This has nothing to do with "bias", as much as you would like to pretend it to be. Digestion is a label we give to an entire process. You will never "see" digestion. It itself is not a thing. It is an entire process. The current data set suggests consciousness is the same thing, again as much as you might want to pretend otherwise.
Agreed. Consciousness is an evolving process and "We label ..". Care to philosophize on what " We" is. Feel free. This is a philosophy forum.
Is 1976 "recent"? It is before my time. Might be nice if you are going to cite something like "Selfish Gene", to at least cite the right person. By all means tell us what you think the two word phrase means however.
You are still left with the problem however, which you have spent days dodging, that whatever process produced our consciousness, there is nothing on offer, much less so from you, to suggest that it was itself conscious, intelligent or intentional.
Intelligent Design is generally associated with an External Entity, I.e. God. I do not take the position there is an external entity. My position is that we are all literally a manifestation of the Creative Intelligence. The visual picture would be we are waves entangled within an ocean. Waves, within waves, within waves,... The ocean being Creative Intelligence.
I was under the impression that Intelligent Design encompassed a much broader view than just 'creation by God.' That it's proponents avoided the use of a designer. And that life can be explained by some 'intelligent cause.' That's in direct opposition to how natural selection describes the processes of evolution.... without an involvement by an intelligent source.
In that case, I would say that your vision of Creative Intelligence fits right in with ID. Wouldn't you?
The "avoid" it only because they were made legally obliged to do. One of the school text books they brought out for example was exactly the same as a previous edition except for a simple Microsoft Word "Search and Replace" where one word was swapped out for another.
So they are mostly pretending for legal reasons that they are not still selling creationism, but it is very clear indeed the majority of them still are.
Is 1976 "recent"? It is before my time. Might be nice if you are going to cite something like "Selfish Gene", to at least cite the right person. By all means tell us what you think the two word phrase means however.
You are still left with the problem however, which you have spent days dodging, that whatever process produced our consciousness, there is nothing on offer, much less so from you, to suggest that it was itself conscious, intelligent or intentional.
Who's dodging anything. I have repeatedly stated the Consciousness (or rather Awareness of our own Creative Intelligence) is fundamental it is where it all begins. It is quite literally Creative Intelligence looking upon itself as it curls (makes waves) upon itself. In this respect the Golden Radio is an excellent pictorial representation as I'd the Daoist Tai Chi symbol.
I was under the impression that Intelligent Design encompassed a much broader view than just 'creation by God.' That it's proponents avoided the use of a designer. And that life can be explained by some 'intelligent cause.' That's in direct opposition to how natural selection describes the processes of evolution.... without an involvement by an intelligent source.
In that case, I would say that your vision of Creative Intelligence fits right in with ID. Wouldn't you?
I would say my vision is exactly as I describe it. Creative Intelligence evolving and storing its learned knowledge as Memories. Memories in turn create habits as well as the basis for further learning and Evolution. All of this constitutes Time.
The "avoid" it only because they were made legally obliged to do. One of the school text books they brought out for example was exactly the same as a previous edition except for a simple Microsoft Word "Search and Replace" where one word was swapped out for another.
So they are mostly pretending for legal reasons that they are not still selling creationism, but it is very clear indeed the majority of them still are.
The concept of a Creative Intelligence vs. an Emergent Intelligent is a philosophical debate and that is all it should be. Scientists who pretend otherwise are merely using a fast sleight of hand to hide Emergent in lots of fancy concepts and terms.
Any discussion about the nature of Evolution hunters upon this debate.
What is doing the Natural Selection? There is the Hard Problem.
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.
