• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Intelligent Design

Iacchus said:
I am not wrong ... at least to the extent that there is a phenomenon called the spiritual world. While hey, there may in fact be a way of reproducing some of these things, but I can assure you, it's not going to happen (any time soon) by you having me submit to a full proctol examination in front of everyone. :cool:
Click to expand...

Again with the cool smiley. Anyway, you're absolutely close-minded. How can you expect to convince others that your belief is true, when you can't even consider the possibility that they may convince you ?
 
Iacchus said:
I'm saying that nothing new happens tomorrow -- which, in fact is all tomorrow is, something "new" ;) --which is not a direct result of what happened today.
Click to expand...

Of course. What's your point?

Hmm ... But then again, if everything that occurs tomorrow is something new, then everything that occurs today is also something new! ... and, that in fact everything that occurred yesterday was something new! Wow, here we are in a Universe which, for all intents and purposes, is always experiencing its beginning! Now how is that possible?
Click to expand...

Argument from Incredulity do not help your argument, Iacchus. If this is how the universe is, could we tell? How do we know that the universe existed a second ago?

Could it be that this beginning, which is none other than the moment that is, has always been?
Click to expand...

Nonsensical question.
 
Iacchus said:
Everything that we experience about reality is due to the "signals" that the brain receives. We do not in fact know anything outside of this phenomenon, which is called "consciousness."
Click to expand...

That simply isn't true. Machines can receive signals and record them but they aren't conscious.
 
Taffer said:
Except you have no evidence that anything was "predescribed".
Click to expand...

Well, technically, once the "inflation period" of the universe was over, and the particles and laws were set, everything had to occur in a predetermined manner (barring random fluctuations affecting them.) Of course, that doesn't mean it was "designed" at all. Just that, once chaos becomes organised, you have to expect things to run in an orderly manner. Poor Iacchus doesn't see that, and instead ascribes this order to an invisible, and shy, God.
 
Iacchus said:
So, will tomorrow unfold any differently than the way tomorrow unfolds? Yet is it not wholly contingent upon what happens today? So, where are the "missing ingredients" that tell us tomorrow should unfold any differently? The fact is, it's all here, today, "prior" to what happens tomorrow. Now please don't bother trying to explain how what I'm saying here is "illogical." Okay?
Click to expand...

You proceed from false premises. Tomorrow IS contingent upon what happens today. Wholly.
 
Belz... said:
That simply isn't true. Machines can receive signals and record them but they aren't conscious.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you here, Belz.... What are we, but very complex machines? Where is the line drawn between conscious and unconscious machines? All 'consciousness' is, is a word give to a phenomenon by humans.
 
Belz... said:
Well, technically, once the "inflation period" of the universe was over, and the particles and laws were set, everything had to occur in a predetermined manner (barring random fluctuations affecting them.) Of course, that doesn't mean it was "designed" at all. Just that, once chaos becomes organised, you have to expect things to run in an orderly manner. Poor Iacchus doesn't see that, and instead ascribes this order to an invisible, and shy, God.
Click to expand...

Yes, indeed. I was using the word "predescribed" to mean "designed". :o
 
Belz... said:
Again with the cool smiley. Anyway, you're absolutely close-minded. How can you expect to convince others that your belief is true, when you can't even consider the possibility that they may convince you ?
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree, at least one of us is close-minded. ;)
 
Taffer said:
All things that are conscious interact with things. Not all things that interact with other things are conscious. Can't you see this?
Click to expand...
We perceive the same things, yet arrive at different answers, or at least word them in different ways.

It is beginning to seem to me that Iaachus is a monist, not a dualist, but his monism is a level above both mind and body and sources both.

"Not all things are conscious" is the materialist axiom. Physics hints at things that suggest this may not be The Truth: Bell-Aspect results, the Mach inertia question, the transactional interpretation of QM: all quickly come to mind.

We can agree that existence implies interaction.
 
Taffer said:
I have to disagree with you here, Belz.... What are we, but very complex machines? Where is the line drawn between conscious and unconscious machines? All 'consciousness' is, is a word give to a phenomenon by humans.
Click to expand...
Consciousness is one of those very iffy words with different meanings depending on usage. If humans are conscious, are they conscious when they're asleep? How conscious? Is a euglena that reacts to light conscious?

That's why you have to carefully describe what you mean by "conscious" before you declare that certain things are or aren't. Changing the meaning in mid-sentence (one of Iacchus' favorite tactics) leads only to miscommunication.
 
Belz... said:
Well, technically, once the "inflation period" of the universe was over, and the particles and laws were set, everything had to occur in a predetermined manner (barring random fluctuations affecting them.) Of course, that doesn't mean it was "designed" at all. Just that, once chaos becomes organised, you have to expect things to run in an orderly manner. Poor Iacchus doesn't see that, and instead ascribes this order to an invisible, and shy, God.
Click to expand...
As if there were no "set laws" which brought about the Big Bang first place? Please ...
 
Taffer said:
I have to disagree with you here, Belz.... What are we, but very complex machines? Where is the line drawn between conscious and unconscious machines? All 'consciousness' is, is a word give to a phenomenon by humans.
Click to expand...

I didn't mention humans. I just said that machines are (most probably) not sentient. Yet they receive information, which Iacchus says means they are sentient.
 
Taffer said:
I have to disagree with you here, Belz.... What are we, but very complex machines? Where is the line drawn between conscious and unconscious machines? All 'consciousness' is, is a word give to a phenomenon by humans.
Click to expand...
If you're saying the line cannot be drawn, then you're saying it's either all consciousness or it's not. And, since all that we know is obtained through consciousness, then I would opt to say it was all consciousness.
 
Tricky said:
Consciousness is one of those very iffy words with different meanings depending on usage. If humans are conscious, are they conscious when they're asleep? How conscious? Is a euglena that reacts to light conscious?

That's why you have to carefully describe what you mean by "conscious" before you declare that certain things are or aren't. Changing the meaning in mid-sentence (one of Iacchus' favorite tactics) leads only to miscommunication.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the confusion, then. I merely said that computers beign rather simplistic calculators, they can "read" information, but, contrary to what Iacchus claims, this does not entail that they are sentient.
 
Iacchus said:
As if there were no "set laws" which brought about the Big Bang first place? Please ...
Click to expand...

There weren't. Pure chaos and random fluctuations eventually produced our universe. In fact, there probably are a great number (read: infinity) of other universes each with their own physical laws. If so, most of them probably wouldn't make any sort of (physical) sense to us. Look it up.

To what laws would you be referring to, in any case ?
 
Belz... said:
Wow. That's so mature. I say you're close minded and you basically say "no, you are!!" Ah! Good times!

Let's put it this way: What manner of evidence would convince you that you are wrong ?
Click to expand...
Hey jackass, let's not forget who just got through calling me "close-minded." Okay?
 
hammegk said:
"Not all things are conscious" is the materialist axiom. Physics hints at things that suggest this may not be The Truth: Bell-Aspect results, the Mach inertia question, the transactional interpretation of QM: all quickly come to mind.
Click to expand...

How is it a materialist axiom?

We can agree that existence implies interaction.
Click to expand...

And interaction does not imply consciousness.
 
Iacchus said:
Hey jackass, let's not forget who just got through calling me "close-minded." Okay?
Click to expand...

You are close-minded. If you aren't, then you'll answer my question about what manner of evidence could convince you that you're wrong.

Also: careful here. I've been relatively polite so far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom