• 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

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.

Allright. That's something we can build on, now. However, could you elaborate on how such a base property would work, or exactly what function it would have ? That is, what would a thing with consciousness do that it couldn't do without consciousness, and how would it do that ?
 
And are you telling me that the script for tomorrow was not written today?

Again, you fail to understand. ONCE the universe was formed, everything is pretty much (or completely) deterministic. BEFORE the universe, there is no such thing as time, space or causality.
 
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.

That's not the point. COULD the universe have been created a second ago ? And could you tell the difference with a universe that hasn't ?
 
I covered question dodging in a previous course...entitled 'Why you can't have reasoned debate with delusionals'

[rubs temples] I will not engage Iacchus in reasoned debate....
I will not engage Iacchus in reasoned debate....
I will not engage Iacchus in reasoned debate....
I will not engage Iacchus in reasoned debate....
I will not engage Iacchus in reasoned debate....
I will not engage Iacchus in reasoned debate....
I will not engage Iacchus in reasoned debate....
I will not engage Iacchus in reasoned debate....
I will not engage Iacchus in reasoned debate....
[/rubs temples]
 
[rubs temples] I will not engage Iacchus in reasoned debate....
I will not engage Iacchus in reasoned debate....
I will not engage Iacchus in reasoned debate....
I will not engage Iacchus in reasoned debate....
I will not engage Iacchus in reasoned debate....
I will not engage Iacchus in reasoned debate....
I will not engage Iacchus in reasoned debate....
I will not engage Iacchus in reasoned debate....
I will not engage Iacchus in reasoned debate....
[/rubs temples]

You, my friend, just won yourself a nomination. :D
 
You, my friend, just won yourself a nomination. :D

Um...thanks, Taffer. In the immortal words of actors everywhere "It's an honor just to be nominated."

And don't worry, I won't let my success go to my head, now fetch me that cappiccino, k? k.
 
That's not the point. COULD the universe have been created a second ago ?
It can in the sense that it is "recreated" each moment.

And could you tell the difference with a universe that hasn't ?
No, because I don't believe this to be the case, primarily because I have the memory of a "beginning" which extends back prior to this.
 
It can in the sense that it is "recreated" each moment.

No, because I don't believe this to be the case, primarily because I have the memory of a "beginning" which extends back prior to this.

You have a "memory" that extends back BEFORE the point when the universe came to be....

[rubs temples]
 
Again, you fail to understand. ONCE the universe was formed, everything is pretty much (or completely) deterministic. BEFORE the universe, there is no such thing as time, space or causality.
Which is to say the Universe is "acausal" then? Yes, I can see that you like to have your cake and eat it too. :D
 
Yes, and "you" are a figment of your own imagination.

NO, Iacchus, we've been over this. There are 23 of us that share the responsibility for imagining the universe. While it is possible that DreadNik is one of the 23, I cannot be sure until I run further tests. Until then, please refrain from attributing that quality upon him. I know you are jealous that you aren't one of the 23, but that's just the way the reality crumbles.
 
No, back prior to the "previous second."

Iacchus, I have to thank you for making me elligable for the million dollars. When I hit (Send) I thought "this is a mistake". You have shown me to be psychic, and for that, I thank you.
 
Which is to say the Universe is "acausal" then? Yes, I can see that you like to have your cake and eat it too. :D

Incorrect, Iacchus. The universe has no cause, but everything in it does. Perhaps you should read up on scientific litterature before making such inane statements.
 
Allright. That's something we can build on, now. However, could you elaborate on how such a base property would work, or exactly what function it would have ? That is, what would a thing with consciousness do that it couldn't do without consciousness, and how would it do that ?
Well, if it were in fact the "base property," why should anything behave any differently? ... Albeit it does do one thing, adds an extra dimension which allows us to exercise "our spirit."
 
I assume you're not including the interraction of rocks with other rocks, right ?
The problem is that 'rocks' don't interact with 'rocks'. QM provides a description interactions terran life perceives, all of which require mediation by photons.

Otherwise it'd be like claiming that rocks have consciousness.
I make no claim one way or the other, but agree that rocks in the macro sense meet no definition of consciousness I would agree with.


taffer said:
No. The best we can do is "we can never know". This is a different thing.
All posters here base their comments on a plethora of assumptions, some at least not obvious even to themselves.
 
Iacchus, I have to thank you for making me elligable for the million dollars. When I hit (Send) I thought "this is a mistake". You have shown me to be psychic, and for that, I thank you.
I have no idea what the hell you're talking about? ...
 

Back
Top Bottom