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.
OP: Instead of postulating mixed up theories about things (really just a smorgasbord of random ideas kind of glommed together), why don't you think about the bottom line idea that you are trying to promote and state that - and then you can work back from there, and see if you can fill in facts to support your hypothesis) . . .
The way you are doing it now is very sloppy, if nothing else because the ideas you are trying to promote don't have natural relationships to each other.
Ok. So? So several possibilities could be true. Yes, so? If you want to pick one of them as worthy of attention, give us some reason to pay attention to it. Just saying that there are unknowns and the more we find out, the more complicated it seems to get is telling us what we already know. And we can do without any strawman accusations that science reckons it hasit all figured out. That's the last thing it claims.
So you already know that the more science finds out the more complicated it seems to get? And you don't see that as a hint that maybe nature is smarter than we are?
I never said science knows nothing, so don't repeat that one again. I said it can't know everything. Complex natural systems are ultimately beyond human comprehension.
Our composite consciousness (the integration of the individual neural activity we experience as our sense of Self) MUST have a locus outside the brain since the entire brain produces the individual neural states themselves as "firings" so there is no place for the composite state (resonant neural field) to reside. Besides, the neural "firings" are consolidated into our composite consciousness and already do not exist as physical matter eliminating the physical matter of the brain as their locus.
There is absolutely no reason to think that physical human brains are the creators of intelligence. They are an expression of intelligence.
So you already know that the more science finds out the more complicated it seems to get? And you don't see that as a hint that maybe nature is smarter than we are?
No I see it as a hint that the universe is "not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."
Quote:
I never said science knows nothing, so don't repeat that one again. I said it can't know everything. Complex natural systems are ultimately beyond human comprehension.
My dear lady you are doing it again: "science doesn't know everything, so it really knows nothing".
If that is not the case and you accept that what it DOES know is pretty reliable, then what it doesn't know, whether complex or simple, is irrelevant. So don't repeat that one again, eh?
Our composite consciousness (the integration of the individual neural activity we experience as our sense of Self) MUST have a locus outside the brain since the entire brain produces the individual neural states themselves as "firings" so there is no place for the composite state (resonant neural field) to reside. Besides, the neural "firings" are consolidated into our composite consciousness and already do NOT exist as physical matter eliminating the physical matter of the brain as their locus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
There is absolutely no reason to think that physical human brains are the creators of intelligence. They are an expression of intelligence.
Physical human brains produce what we experience as our conscious awareness with which we express intelligence.
No I see it as a hint that the universe is "not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."
My dear lady you are doing it again: "science doesn't know everything, so it really knows nothing".
If that is not the case and you accept that what it DOES know is pretty reliable, then what it doesn't know, whether complex or simple, is irrelevant. So don't repeat that one again, eh?
lmao, and when science shows us that denying everything isn't scientific, just shun it, minimize it, and finally run away when it thrashes a "deny-everything because we fear religion" as just a child's mind doing what it can to be more real.
I wish you actually did, Arq. As you say, it is quite tiresome and tedious trying to make it happen.
You can't make it happem mystic. You two are in it for two different reasons. he is not about describing how the universe works. he doesn't care mystic. he is about one thing "deny anything that doesn't recruit members to his brand of atheism" even at the expense of truth. just like fundy theists.
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.
I see it as a hint that the universe is "not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."
My dear lady you are doing it again: "science doesn't know everything, so it really knows nothing".
Right. Right. Got it.
