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.
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.
Quote:
Yes. I agree. Consciousness and 'sub' consciousness. I believe the definitions are generally understood.
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.
Materialists also say 'Evidence to support you claim or "No" is the logical and (negative) evidence -based current hypothesis. Tp overturn it, come up with some evidence. As to plants, have you seem and of them migrate from a field when they become cognizant of harvesters working their way towards them? They act as though they understand not a thing. That's where I'm putting my money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
It doesn't matter how you would define it.
Actually it does - If I explain the definition, but I'd prefer to go with the general definition
(Merriam -webster) subconscious noun Definition of subconscious (Entry 2 of 2)
: the mental activities just below the threshold of consciousness.
There are longer ones that point up the subtle but real distinction. I can post them if you like.
Quote:
Don't bet your whole savings.
I won't. And I'd advise you not to bet a nickel on you winning this argument.
Quote:
You have naive blind faith in experimental science. Only certain kinds of questions can be addressed with controlled experiments.
Science is more than just people in lab coats. And i Do not have 'blind Faith' in science - not in the way you evidently have 'blind faith in whatever beliefs backed up with nothing that you can explain to us. Science has the best (indeed only) reliable track record for finding things out. If you disagree with that, you have no business even arguing about science.
You really cannot define for us what you mean by mind and conscious, can you?
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?
You are couscous so that mean part of the universe is conscious. You and many other life forms have varying degrees of consciousness. That means there is a volume of the universe that is conscious. At the very least, a much larger portion than a human has it.
The many people that would say yes it has a degree of it? I haven't met one trained person in person deny it. Of course, these people are very familiar with QED and understand that we are connected at the very fundamental level of the universe. They understand that the universe and you are the same thing.
Can you show that we are not part of the universe? Can explain how it is possible that the universe is not doing you? Can you show us where humans are not part of a larger more complex system?
Materialists also say 'Evidence to support you claim or "No" is the logical and (negative) evidence -based current hypothesis. Tp overturn it, come up with some evidence. As to plants, have you seem and of them migrate from a field when they become cognizant of harvesters working their way towards them? They act as though they understand not a thing. That's where I'm putting my money.
Actually it does - If I explain the definition, but I'd prefer to go with the general definition
(Merriam -webster) subconscious noun Definition of subconscious (Entry 2 of 2)
: the mental activities just below the threshold of consciousness.
There are longer ones that point up the subtle but real distinction. I can post them if you like.
I won't. And I'd advise you not to bet a nickel on you winning this argument.
Science is more than just people in lab coats. And i Do not have 'blind Faith' in science - not in the way you evidently have 'blind faith in whatever beliefs backed up with nothing that you can explain to us. Science has the best (indeed only) reliable track record for finding things out. If you disagree with that, you have no business even arguing about science.
no you don't have blind faith in science ... you deny any science that doesn't support your sect of atheism statement of "deny everything because of how theists will use it."
lmao at your sect. You guys would be funny if you weren't so dangerous to freedom.
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.
That is like saying that Murder that happens before your eyes and murder where you only find the crime scene later are different things. Macro and Micro -evolution are the same. Presumably you accept that 'Macro' evolution happens, but you refuse to accept 'Micro' which you also seem to accept happens, as being produced by it. You might as well say that the body with a bullet in it wasn't murdered because nobody saw it. And you can't trust science.
If your argument wouldn't be accepted in a court of law, why on earth should it be accepted anywhere outside a creationist presentation?
Materialists also say 'Evidence to support you claim or "No" is the logical and (negative) evidence -based current hypothesis. Tp overturn it, come up with some evidence. As to plants, have you seem and of them migrate from a field when they become cognizant of harvesters working their way towards them? They act as though they understand not a thing. That's where I'm putting my money.
Actually it does - If I explain the definition, but I'd prefer to go with the general definition
(Merriam -webster) subconscious noun Definition of subconscious (Entry 2 of 2)
: the mental activities just below the threshold of consciousness.
There are longer ones that point up the subtle but real distinction. I can post them if you like.
I won't. And I'd advise you not to bet a nickel on you winning this argument.
Science is more than just people in lab coats. And i Do not have 'blind Faith' in science - not in the way you evidently have 'blind faith in whatever beliefs backed up with nothing that you can explain to us. Science has the best (indeed only) reliable track record for finding things out. If you disagree with that, you have no business even arguing about science.
Science is just a method of making observations and trying to figure out causality. It is something that all people have always tried to do. It is difficult and has limitations.
(And by the way, technology and science are not the same thing. The great advances in technology don't reflect great advances in scientific understanding. You can use electricity without having a real understanding of it, for example.)
We can't rely on science to give us the answers we want or need when we want or need them. Some things will never be answered by science, others might be answered eventually but we can't predict when.
And now we have organized scientific establishments, or Big Science, which is influenced by money and connected to powerful institutions. Very often what we call "science" is actually Big Science, which is just as trustworthy as big corporations or big governments.
That is like saying that Murder that happens before your eyes and murder where you only find the crime scene later are different things. Macro and Micro -evolution are the same. Presumably you accept that 'Macro' evolution happens, but you refuse to accept 'Micro' which you also seem to accept happens, as being produced by it. You might as well say that the body with a bullet in it wasn't murdered because nobody saw it. And you can't trust science.
If your argument wouldn't be accepted in a court of law, why on earth should it be accepted anywhere outside a creationist presentation?
There are certain changes within a species that the species is capable of producing, and these can be selected from. A species of moth might have the potential to be light or dark, and the color of its habitat will select one or the other. That kind of change was assumed to be what happens in evolution in general. It is not.
Every kind of change created by artificial breeding brought out one or another potential of the species. Artificial breeding has NEVER created anything new.
If you breed dogs for intelligence, for example, a ceiling will be reached at the limit of the normal range for dog intelligence. And the same goes for any trait you breed any species for.
Science is just a method of making observations and trying to figure out causality. It is something that all people have always tried to do. It is difficult and has limitations.
(And by the way, technology and science are not the same thing. The great advances in technology don't reflect great advances in scientific understanding. You can use electricity without having a real understanding of it, for example.)
We can't rely on science to give us the answers we want or need when we want or need them. Some things will never be answered by science, others might be answered eventually but we can't predict when.
And now we have organized scientific establishments, or Big Science, which is influenced by money and connected to powerful institutions. Very often what we call "science" is actually Big Science, which is just as trustworthy as big corporations or big governments.
I know all that which makes no difference to the peer -reviewed and discussed and checked and duplicated science that science accepts, not just governments and corporations who know what results they want.
Don't let yourself be misled by those who point to irrelevant limitations or aberrations. Science -fiddling corportations have more in common with creation 'science' than with the peer - reviewed science that is somewhat more credible.
And in the end it beats the guesswork of religious myth, and even that beats someone who can't even come up with a decent myth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
There are certain changes within a species that the species is capable of producing, and these can be selected from. A species of moth might have the potential to be light or dark, and the color of its habitat will select one or the other. That kind of change was assumed to be what happens in evolution in general. It is not.
Every kind of change created by artificial breeding brought out one or another potential of the species. Artificial breeding has NEVER created anything new.
If you breed dogs for intelligence, for example, a ceiling will be reached at the limit of the normal range for dog intelligence. And the same goes for any trait you breed any species for.
It is the same and doesn't alter the argument. You appear to accept the 'change' whether induced by humans in animals or plants, or by natural (so to speak - not done with intent) conditions like the pepper moth or the Galapagos animals though there the change was Observed retrospectively. Nobody saw it happen, but it evidently happened.
Evidently it happened in the past with the Cetans, horses and feathered dinosaurs. There is No Valid Difference.
I give up. G4N is impervious to reason, and every exchange is a variation on a nuanced, supported point, which results in G4N responding with “nuh uh!”
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.
