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.
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
All I asked was for you to give us your definition of the word conscious, since it does not seem to be the accepted definition used by the rest of the English speaking world. Since you have not defined either mind or conscious I can only assume that you are unable to provide definitions for either.
You really cannot define for us what you mean by mind and conscious, can you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
Ok, SuzyQ, there are different kinds of consciousness. Are you conscious when you are dreaming? When you are daydreaming? While in non-REM sleep? When under general anesthesia? How would a researcher know what a person is experiencing?
There have been many reports of surgery patients hearing doctors talk while they were assumed to be unconscious. For example.
Do plants have consciousness? How would we know? Does the universe have consciousness? Well that was the subject of this post. Many people would say yes, but atheist/materialists say no.
If you are not awake, you are not conscious.
If you are supposedly under anesthesia and you are actually awake you are conscious. You are not truly anesthetized.
Please provide evidence that "the universe" is conscious. How do you know, beyond making up the concept? Who are the "many people" who say the "universe" has consciousness?
Please provide evidence that "the universe" is conscious. How do you know, beyond making up the concept? Who are the "many people" who say the "universe" has consciousness?
I didn't make up the concept. It is commonly believed, outside your little atheist world.
And scientists can't answer all your questions with controlled experiments. Sometimes we must rely on observation and experience and logic.
So if a person is asleep and dreaming they are not conscious?
I'd say not. That is the subconscious. It's arguable whether that it or is not 'consciousness itself' (ask Mystic, I'm sure he'll be able to tell you) but what we call consciousness (waking ) is turned off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
Well, philosophers and psychologists have been working on it. Maybe in a couple thousand years they will have something for you.
My money's on five years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
I didn't make up the concept. It is commonly believed, outside your little atheist world.
And scientists can't answer all your questions with controlled experiments. Sometimes we must rely on observation and experience and logic.
That is only appeal to common beliefs which as we know have often been wrong until science put it right. And what science doesn't yet know doesn't prove anything. You are still playing a hand of cards that are all jokers.
I'd say not. That is the subconscious. It's arguable whether that it or is not 'consciousness itself' (ask Mystic, I'm sure he'll be able to tell you) but what we call consciousness (waking ) is turned off.
It doesn't matter how you would define it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
My money's on five years.
Don't bet your whole savings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
That is only appeal to common beliefs which as we know have often been wrong until science put it right. And what science doesn't yet know doesn't prove anything. You are still playing a hand of cards that are all jokers.
You have naive blind faith in experimental science. Only certain kinds of questions can be addressed with controlled experiments.
In general, we have not seen new more complex types of animals or plants created by breeding. Just variations of existing types.
Yes, which is what in time leads to evolution, which I thought you'd said you accept. So the link between change within species has been shown to be by the genetic trail as well as done before your very eyes, but directed by humans instead of natural conditions, The mechanism of natural selection demonstrated. The argument for 'Macro' evolution that i usually have to make (using the Cetan sequence) doesn't have tobe made, because you said you already accept it. I am sure we have a 'Micro' does not prove 'macro' argument. But you must see that you don't even have that as you accept 'Macro' and apparently now the evidence of 'Micro'. On what grounds are you now refusing the conclusion of one being the the result of the other? At least as the best - indeed the only - evidence based explanation there is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
If we can't give you a specific and detailed answer about something people have wondered about over the ages, that means your wild guess must be correct???
Well, despite the heavily loaded language, yes. Science only claims to give the best model it can construct of reality (whatever it is) based on the best evidence. That's what we have here. If there is a better model let's hear it. If you don't have one, you have nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
You have severely limited your education somehow.
That is still not an answer. Up to now, you have provided nothing but denial, and a lack of knowledge on the subjects you are arguing about.
(Cue: "I was talking to SuzyQ, not to you". to pre -emp any such move "and I am responding as any of us can do to any post, thus ensuring that nobody gets away with just going for the easier targets".)
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-25-2018 at 05:09 PM..
You have naive blind faith in experimental science. Only certain kinds of questions can be addressed with controlled experiments.
Not all science involves controlled experiments atheists like everyone else are individuals and you still refuse to define the words on this thread. The definition of a word does matter in debating a concept otherwise two people are just talking past each other.
Yes, which is what in time leads to evolution, which I thought you'd said you accept. So the link between change within species has been shown to be by the genetic trail as well as done before your very eyes, but directed by humans instead of natural conditions, The mechanism of natural selection demonstrated. The argument for 'Macro' evolution that i usually have to make (using the Cetan sequence) doesn't have tobe made, because you said you already accept it. I am sure we have a 'Micro' does not prove 'macro' argument. But you must see that you don't even have that as you accept 'Macro' and apparently now the evidence of 'Micro'. On what grounds are you now refusing the conclusion of one being the the result of the other? At least as the best - indeed the only - evidence based explanation there is.
Micro and macro are two completely different things. Micro has been observed and can be created, macro has never been observed and cannot be created.
There is absolutely no reason to assume micro grades into macro.
And we can't even say all the changes leading to micro are entirely random.
Not all science involves controlled experiments atheists like everyone else are individuals and you still refuse to define the words on this thread. The definition of a word does matter in debating a concept otherwise two people are just talking past each other.
There is nothing I "refused" to define. Words don't necessarily have simple easy definitions.
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.
