Intelligent Design

[Mercutio]

One is non-sentient, the other sentient.

Oh, come on now, Hammy, you know full well that materialists can argue for sentience arising from matter, just as idealists can argue for the appearance of a material world. You and I have spoken of this before; I know better than to think you don't know this one. I think you will have to try again.

 

[hammegk]

It's not that simple imo. The non-sentient & sentient labels are in essence ontological.

Of course either monism can be chosen, and the unchosen alternative be considered to be, say, epiphenomenal.

 

[Mercutio]

It's not that simple imo. The non-sentient & sentient labels are in essence ontological.

Of course either monism can be chosen, and the unchosen alternative be considered to be, say, epiphenomenal.

Or "illusory", perhaps. But frankly, whether the material world is an illusion or sentience is, is (forgive me) immaterial. It is beyond our ken to know which is the case, is it not?

 

[Taffer]

No, back prior to the "previous second."

If you read my original question very carefully, you'll notice that I said "including memories of past experiences". Now, please answer the question.

 

[Taffer]

Which is to say the Universe is "acausal" then? Yes, I can see that you like to have your cake and eat it too.

It means nothing of the sort. Perhaps the universe had no cause. Perhaps it did. The fact is, we can never know one way or the other! We have tried very hard to make you understand this, Iacchus.

 

[Taffer]

It can in the sense that it is "recreated" each moment.

This is not what I asked. I asked, if you universe was created (note, this is only one creation) a second ago, could you tell?

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.

As I already explained, the original question contains this as part of it. You would have memories as they were created a second ago along with the universe. Please answer the question.

 

[Taffer]

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.

How is it mediated by electromagnetic radiaton?

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.

Glad to hear it.

All posters here base their comments on a plethora of assumptions, some at least not obvious even to themselves.

Which assumptions would those be, then?

 

[Taffer]

What about the interaction between the molecules within the rock? This in fact is what makes it a rock, correct?

So when a wave interacts with a rock, the wave becomes a rock?

 

[Taffer]

Yes, but in order to maintain such an effect, it would have to be maintained continuously. Otherwise there will always be a point -- if, such a thing were possible in the first place -- when I begin to remember things as they actually happen.

No it wouldn't. The question is if the universe was created, once, a second ago, and now exists as a universe normally would, could you tell?

 

[Taffer]

Well, if I didn't believe there was a spiritual world, and a means of interacting with it, I wouldn't be wasting my time. The whole thing would be pointless don't you think?

It is pointless, since you don't have any proof for anything.

 

[Taffer]

Actually, there would be no Universe to speak of, since the material Universe is a subset of the spiritual. And, whether we're aware of it in this life or not is immaterial. It's not going to change the fact that the spiritual world is there.

Do you have any evidence for anything at all, Iacchus?

 

[Taffer]

Yes, but "who" is going to experience these new memories, not to mention everything that occurs after the new memory has been implanted?

You do, Iacchus. Could you tell any difference? Please answer the question.

 

[Iacchus]

It means nothing of the sort. Perhaps the universe had no cause. Perhaps it did. The fact is, we can never know one way or the other! We have tried very hard to make you understand this, Iacchus.

Oh, did you happen to read the little exchange between Belz and myself? ...

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.

Which is to say the Universe is "acausal" then? Yes, I can see that you like to have your cake and eat it too.

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.

Well, I suppose it's possible that he didn't really mean what he said here?

Do you think he'd be willing to retract it?

 

[Iacchus]

It is pointless, since you don't have any proof for anything.

And, if it is possible for one person to know, how does it become pointless?

 

[Mercutio]

Oh, did you happen to read the little exchange between Belz and myself? ...




Well, I suppose it's possible that he didn't really mean what he said here?

Do you think he'd be willing to retract it?

It is also possible that he meant what he said, and that you did not understand him.

I know what I would bet on.

 

[Iacchus]

Pheeew! Did somebody just piss on the fire? All I can see is smoke, and it really stinks!

 

[Iacchus]

You do, Iacchus. Could you tell any difference? Please answer the question.

If I was sentient, and able to maintain the notion that I had a past, as if I had genuinely experienced it, I would say no. Of course this also lends itself to the notion of a holographic Universe which, is set up on somebody's harddrive somewhere. And, is really not altogether different from what I'm suggesting, except that I acknowledge the passage of time. Either way though, as you seem to suggest, we probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

 

[Tricky]

And, if it is possible for one person to know, how does it become pointless?

What one person "knows" becomes pointless, when they cannot provide evidence for their "knowledge". Two people can "know" contradictory things if their only basis for "knowing" is their own feelings and opinions.

The only things that can truly be known are those things that can be shown objectively. You have never objectively shown a single one of the things you claime to "know". Indeed, the idea of providing evidence seems completely foreign to you.

Perhaps your self-centered solopsism serves your own satisfaction as a substitution for sentience. It cuts no ice here.

 

[Iacchus]

Two people can "know" contradictory things if their only basis for "knowing" is their own feelings and opinions.

Yes, I would have to concur with you here.

 

[Mercutio]

If I was sentient, and able to maintain the notion that I had a past, as if I had genuinely experienced it, I would say no. Of course this also lends itself to the notion of a holographic Universe which, is set up on somebody's harddrive somewhere. And, is really not altogether different from what I'm suggesting, except that I acknowledge the passage of time. Either way though, as you seem to suggest, we probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Congratulations, Taffer--you got the closest thing so far to a straight answer from Iacchus.