How do you know the universe was not created a second ago, exactly as it appears to you in this moment, complete with your memories of past experiences?
Intelligent Design
- Thread starter codeblue
- Start date
-
- Tags
- design intelligent
How do you know the universe was not created a second ago, exactly as it appears to you in this moment, complete with your memories of past experiences?
He takes your translation of his words as a statement of your own beliefs.
Oh. No, Iacchus. I was rewording your own statement as you are so prone to do to ours.
You cannot deny that the machines are not interacting with something else and, that there's some factor of "awareness" that allows them to do this.
Why is there a factor of "awareness"? Your definition of "awareness" here is anything that interacts with anything else, and as such, is useless. If we mean, when we say "awareness", "something that interacts with something else", then of course everything has "awareness". But this is just the same as saying "all husbands have wives", and is equally as useless when dealing with the workings of the universe. Note, however, that awareness does not mean what you are attributing to it.
Exactly! Which is why the Big Bang -- hence that which came after the Big Bang -- is contingent wholly upon that which happened prior to it. Now, you see, if we could at least agree upon that much, then perhaps we can begin to speculate on what existed prior to that?
Ah! Wonderful! We have progress!
I have argued this in the past, Iacchus--that we use the word "awareness" or "consciousness", or infer metaphorical consciousness-based attributes to non-human entities (my car hates me, my computer has decided to act up, the furnace is playing tricks on me and knows when I am particularly vulnerable...)
You (and the rest of us, too) do speak of "awareness" in machines, non-human animals, and humans, based on observation of their interactions. For that matter, we speak of the same for ourselves, based on observation of our own actions. This "continuum of awareness" or "continuum of consciousness" or whatever it is you called it does exist--ah, but only in our language. Simply asserting that a machine is conscious is not the same as demonstrating that it is, of course. We can just as easily make the opposite decision, and deny consciousness in machines...and logically, call into question "consciousness" as an entity in ourselves. (for those who have been through these arguments before, if we were p-zombies, would we know it?)
The same observation you make can be seen (quite easily) as evidence against your assertion. This is why we ask for your reasoning as to why it is you feel it can only be seen as evidence for it.
And is this an attempt to humor me, or what?
In a ratio scale (that is, one with an absolute zero), when we count backwards from any given number, we eventually get to zero. Where do we go from there?
You are, once again, treating time as an interval scale rather than as a ratio scale. You have been corrected on this more times than I care to remember.
You can feel free to speculate...the rest of us are well aware that there is no, and can be no, evidence to tell us if our speculations are correct, close, or wild-goose chases.
It seems to me to be a simple statement of fact.
No, it does not necessarily mean they are sentient, in the sense that we are. If consciousness were a base property, as I suggest, then it would depend on how it was configured in relation to everything else in order to determine whether something was sentient or not.
No, I am not a Young Earth Creationist.
Nonsense.
And did you notice my use of the term, "awareness factor?"
Nonsense.
I have also gone so far as to say consciousness is an advanced form of recognition -- hence, "awareness." Now, at what point does it not become a form of awareness?
Last edited:
DreadNiK
A typical atypical
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2005
- Messages
- 909
This seems typical of this thread.
Try answering questions rather than merely responding to them...
Yet this (in effect) is the same argument that the Young Earth Creationists give. Am I to believe that he's in agreement with that?
Neither am I. Please answer the question.
But we always begin with "here" though don't we?
Are you saying there are no other dimensions that exist outside of time and space? If not, there where did time and space come from?
And are you telling me that the script for tomorrow was not written today?
Actually, I'm right.
So you agree with my assessment? You think that by saying "all things that interact with other things are aware", and then saying "everything is aware" means anything? It is a purely analytical statement, Iacchus, and as such, is useless for describing the universe.
Actually, I think you'll find I'm right here too. Of course, for you to do that, you'd have to actually learn about some of the subjects you are posting. As I find that unlikely, I'm not holding my breath.
Just because something interacts with something else, does not make it aware, Iacchus. You can do a simple test. Go to sleep. While you are asleep, I will hit you with a hammer as hard as I can. Will you die (assuming I hit you in the place that would cause you to die if you were awake)?
Yet this (in effect) is the same argument that the Young Earth Creationists give. Am I to believe that he's in agreement with that?
Actually, this is an old philosophical question, Iacchus, and has nothing to do with YEC's. Please answer my question, and don't just dodge it once again.
And how does what you're asking me differ from Young Earth Creationism? If you don't believe in it, and neither do I, then you have your answer.