Why would an intelligent designer use mass extinctions?

[I Ratant]

God is the perfect being and make no mistakes. He makes mass extinction to erase his mistakes.

.
Erase what can't exist?

 

[smartcooky]

God is the perfect being and make no mistakes. He makes mass extinction to erase his mistakes.

That's a bit like the sign I used to have on the wall in my office.

Rule One: The Boss is never wrong

Rule Two: When the Boss is wrong, apply Rule One

 

[Navigator]

You're going to spend your life worrying about death?

That's better tsig. Much less succinct !

Now how do you figure that I worry at all about death, let alone all my life?

I simply accept that death is inevitable and on that alone, worth the effort to investigate the possibilities.
There is certainly no worry involved. I am looking forward to it.

 

[Navigator]

God is the perfect being and make no mistakes. He makes mass extinction to erase his mistakes.

.
Erase what can't exist?

That's a bit like the sign I used to have on the wall in my office.

Rule One: The Boss is never wrong

Rule Two: When the Boss is wrong, apply Rule One

The assumption is both that ID cannot make mistakes and that this universe was a mistake on the part of the Grand Old Designer.



Purely a common human mistake to make.

 

[Navigator]

Yes, I brought up fire extinguishers (specifically, for those unwilling to zip back and forth through the thread, the question of whether there were enough fire extinguishers on the Death Star), specifically as an example of something the consideration of which so is utterly inane and unworthy of serious discussion because it is so inane, that further discussion outside, perhaps, of the art of fictional narrative, is crazy, and guess what? Further discussion!

I brought up my stepson and his childhood obsession with fictitious trivia because when he was a child he seemed to have some difficulty realizing that the specifications of a fictitious object are also fictitious, but he grew up. Playtime can of course be considered seriously, but the subject you play with is not reality. If you're fantasizing your way into a Star Wars scenario, it's fine to be enthusiastic about it, and to know your way around it, and to imagine all sorts of imaginary details. But it's still fiction. I had no problem with him poring over the books, and playing the computer simulations in which he flew X-wings through outer space and blasted storm troopers.

I would be a little worried if, in a discussion of how the world began, he suggested that in trying to figure out the mysteries of the universe, we consider how we fit in with the plans of the Imperial Emperor.

The fact that someone has thought of something does not make it necessary to add it to the list of things that are worth arguing about.

The 'problem' you have with the concept and to which you find silly even discussing is not a problem at all bruto.

It is not a problem for me anyway, and I can't quite see why it should be a problem for you.
It is, simply put, a subject I will find interesting until the day I die. More interesting than anything else on offer.

 

[Brian-M]

These type organisms are presumed not to have any kind of self awareness.
Presumption is not clarity.

These types of organisms have no brains, no capacity for cognitive function, therefore are physically incapable of being conscious or self-aware.

But it is acceptable to me that some living forms can be 'set to automatic' - In relation to god ideas, these are specific to human beings, and human being are consciousness in form.

And clearly consciousness is required in relation to that form.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. I can't make any sense of the assertions you're making.

 

[Navigator]

These types of organisms have no brains, no capacity for cognitive function, therefore are physically incapable of being conscious or self-aware.

The assumption being that consciousness cannot exist independently of 'brains'.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. I can't make any sense of the assertions you're making.

Okay. I will attempt to clarify.



But it is acceptable to me that some living forms can be 'set to automatic'

This just means they function more like a program. They are living but restricted to certain tasks which do not necessarily require brains or limbs or decision making abilities etc.

- In relation to god ideas, these are specific to human beings, and human beings are consciousness in form.

This is to say that human beings specifically have god ideas, and that human beings are consciousness within form. Bodies called 'human'.

And clearly consciousness is required in relation to that form.

Compared to some other life forms, it is very clear that human forms have consciousness rather than 'are' conscious, although I think it might be possible the form also has a type of consciousness not necessarily obviously linked with the self aware consciousness...but is more that 'automated' thing.

 

[Brian-M]

The assumption being that consciousness cannot exist independently of 'brains'.

Given that:

• There is no confirmed evidence that consciousness can exist independently of brains
• There is no plausible mechanism for consciousness existing independently of brains
• Altered states of consciousness correspond to altered brain activity
• Altering brain-state alters consciousness
• Suppressing brain function suppresses consciousness

It is perfectly reasonable and justifiable to operate from the assumption that the existence of consciousness is dependent on brain function.

- In relation to god ideas, these are specific to human beings, and human beings are consciousness in form.

This is to say that human beings specifically have god ideas, and that human beings are consciousness within form. Bodies called 'human'.

And clearly consciousness is required in relation to that form.

I'd say that many forms of animal life have consciousness to some degree, and that consciousness is a property of the brain that evolved to enable organisms to engage in complex adaptive behavior.

Humans seem to have a greater degree of consciousness because we are far more intelligent and far better at communicating than any other species we know of, and so are better at conveying experiences based on conscious awareness. (Whether or not we are fundamentally more conscious than other conscious creatures such as cats, pigs, or elephants may be a subject for debate.)

The reason that only humans have "God ideas" (assuming that this is actually true) would probably be because "God" is an extremely abstract concept, and the fact that our intelligence is far superior to that of any other type of organism that we're aware of means that we are capable of understanding and communicating abstract concepts that the other organisms are not capable of comprehending.

Compared to some other life forms, it is very clear that human forms have consciousness rather than 'are' conscious,

I don't understand the distinction you're making between having consciousness and being conscious in this context.

If you were making the distinction in the context of humans being entities that have consciousness as a general property, but are not always conscious (eg, when asleep), then the distinction would make sense to me.

But I don't understand it in the context of applying the one to humans and the other to animals.

 

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by I Ratant View Post
.
Nope.
Everything stops. There's nothing after that. Can't be amazed or dismayed, there's no there there anymore to be anything.

"Aren't you going to feel stupid when you die and find out there's no afterlife!"

-- No atheist, ever

My personal take on that (as an agnostic, functionally an atheist) is "being an atheist means never being able to (humanly) hope that the fundies will get what they think other folks have coming to them."

 

[I Ratant]

They do rejoice in our upcoming eternal tribulation..

 

[Navigator]

Given that:

• There is no confirmed evidence that consciousness can exist independently of brains
• There is no plausible mechanism for consciousness existing independently of brains
• Altered states of consciousness correspond to altered brain activity
• Altering brain-state alters consciousness
• Suppressing brain function suppresses consciousness

It is perfectly reasonable and justifiable to operate from the assumption that the existence of consciousness is dependent on brain function.

Sure it is. But that still does not account for the possibility that consciousness can survive the death of its brain.

I'd say that many forms of animal life have consciousness to some degree, and that consciousness is a property of the brain that evolved to enable organisms to engage in complex adaptive behavior.

The thing about the brain is that it is basically a biological machine.
A mechanical machine created by a bio-brain can be left to its own devices and still not create consciousness for itself.
For some reason the brain created consciousness. No one can say why the brain needed consciousness, or for that matter why the human body needed a brain which could create consciousness.

What can be said is that what looks apparently connected might be able to function away from the actual brain which is in the individual human head.
What can be said is that it looks apparent that the brain created consciousness but no one can be absolutely sure about that.

Except in an "I believe that is the case" manner.

Humans seem to have a greater degree of consciousness because we are far more intelligent and far better at communicating than any other species we know of, and so are better at conveying experiences based on conscious awareness. (Whether or not we are fundamentally more conscious than other conscious creatures such as cats, pigs, or elephants may be a subject for debate.)

And we seem to be in the position where we are more advanced than those critters we share the planet with. Presumably if we had the same evolution, we should be pretty much on par with those other critters. Yet we are so far advanced as to seem like a different species altogether.
And then we have to add that extra data which shows that we are racing to get into the stars out there and do not consider the sacrifice of needy human beings let alone other animals and plants etc to be consequential. We are so advanced that we care not to care for one another or the planet in general.

Count '2' for seemingly being 'unearthly'.

Everything we build together reflects the mind that we are. Brains?

The reason that only humans have "God ideas" (assuming that this is actually true) would probably be because "God" is an extremely abstract concept, and the fact that our intelligence is far superior to that of any other type of organism that we're aware of means that we are capable of understanding and communicating abstract concepts that the other organisms are not capable of comprehending.

Well that is one explanation. Another reason might be that we simply have no other choice because that is just what consciousness does when it finds itself in awkward situations not completely understandable.
It wonders how it got here if it has no data.
It then concludes that 'brain made it' and 'it will all be okay one day. You will die when brain dies. In the mean time do what you will with what you can...So in seeing how absurd the situation is, consciousness realigns its thinking its creator is some amazing god, delegates that role to 'brain' and gets about the business of being entertained while the oportunity affords itself to do so.
Worse, the brain has no say in that. It is what Consciousness decides which makes the rules.
Brain just pooed it out.

I don't understand the distinction you're making between having consciousness and being conscious in this context.

Sorry about that.

Lets see.

having consciousness is what the brain does.

being conscious is what consciousness does.

If you were making the distinction in the context of humans being entities that have consciousness as a general property, but are not always conscious (eg, when asleep), then the distinction would make sense to me.

Well that is a different but well connected story.
I very seldom consciously experience my dreams as lucid. I know I dream every sleep time and get snippets of those but consciously I (the consciousness) am for the most part excluded from that experience.
When it does happen mind you, it is quite the thing.

]But I don't understand it in the context of applying the one to humans and the other to animals.

human bodies are animals.
Human consciousness is something else again.

 

[I Ratant]

...
human bodies are animals.
Human consciousness is something else again.

.
Ever killed anything? Rabbit, deer, .... tomato plant...
The lack of animation/firmness is total.
And all of these things degrade into yuck and mung.
At which point in the evolution of the human animal did Ma Nature come up with a consciousness that could survive the death of the animal it was in?
And just how could that whatever it may be be found?

 

[Iamme]

Good question I Ratant. REAL good question. Seriously. A chin scratcher.
.
What comes to my mind is, it have to be on or about the time that one bi-pedal animal noticed it was naked. After all, what animal goes around thinking it is naked, and then tries to cover itself up with leaves, skins, or other forms of clothes? Knowing nakedness is a sure indicator of consciousness.
So is naming yourself and other THINGS.

 

[Navigator]

.
Ever killed anything? Rabbit, deer, .... tomato plant...
The lack of animation/firmness is total.
And all of these things degrade into yuck and mung.
At which point in the evolution of the human animal did Ma Nature come up with a consciousness that could survive the death of the animal it was in?

It may be nothing more or less than a natural occurrence - something which just happens.

And just how could that whatever it may be be found?

You will have to expand on this question as it isn't altogether understandable.

 

[I Ratant]

Good question I Ratant. REAL good question. Seriously. A chin scratcher.
.
What comes to my mind is, it have to be on or about the time that one bi-pedal animal noticed it was naked. After all, what animal goes around thinking it is naked, and then tries to cover itself up with leaves, skins, or other forms of clothes? Knowing nakedness is a sure indicator of consciousness.
So is naming yourself and other THINGS.

.
Well, yeah, but what is there about our consciousness that would make consciousness survive the death of the container it is in?

 

[Dog Town]

Haven't read whole four pages, but I'm gonna guess! We were made in it's image!

 

[Iamme]

Turn off a computer and the computer quits computering.
Turn off the light switch and no more lights.
Turn off the radio or tv, no more sound or picture.
Turn off the stove and the food that was cooking stops cooking.
.
But alas; snuff out the candle and the smoke still lingers.
Same for the gases from a volcano.
And i guess, technically if a star blows up, we can still see its light, millions or billions of years after the star blew up.
Or say an aquarium of water represents the brain as the aquarium and the water as consciousness...if the aquarium goes to pot(death of the container), the water(consciousness) just dont cease...it simply goes elsewhere...like on the floor, and evaporates to the air.
.
So in conclusion; who knows? One set of examples shows the end of the road. Another set of examples shows continuation. Spirituality(consciousness) maybe cant be killed. Don`t know. It`s stuff we ponder.
Obviously religious people take the side that it continues on.

 

[bruto]

.
Well, yeah, but what is there about our consciousness that would make consciousness survive the death of the container it is in?

The conviction that consciousness is an entity rather than a process.

People would be hard put to suggest that movement survives the thing that moves, but are less comfortable with the idea that thought does not survive the thing that thinks.

 

[tsig]

Sure it is. But that still does not account for the possibility that consciousness can survive the death of its brain.





The thing about the brain is that it is basically a biological machine.
A mechanical machine created by a bio-brain can be left to its own devices and still not create consciousness for itself.
For some reason the brain created consciousness. No one can say why the brain needed consciousness, or for that matter why the human body needed a brain which could create consciousness.

What can be said is that what looks apparently connected might be able to function away from the actual brain which is in the individual human head.
What can be said is that it looks apparent that the brain created consciousness but no one can be absolutely sure about that.

Except in an "I believe that is the case" manner.




And we seem to be in the position where we are more advanced than those critters we share the planet with. Presumably if we had the same evolution, we should be pretty much on par with those other critters. Yet we are so far advanced as to seem like a different species altogether.
And then we have to add that extra data which shows that we are racing to get into the stars out there and do not consider the sacrifice of needy human beings let alone other animals and plants etc to be consequential. We are so advanced that we care not to care for one another or the planet in general.

Count '2' for seemingly being 'unearthly'.

Everything we build together reflects the mind that we are. Brains?




Well that is one explanation. Another reason might be that we simply have no other choice because that is just what consciousness does when it finds itself in awkward situations not completely understandable.
It wonders how it got here if it has no data.
It then concludes that 'brain made it' and 'it will all be okay one day. You will die when brain dies. In the mean time do what you will with what you can...So in seeing how absurd the situation is, consciousness realigns its thinking its creator is some amazing god, delegates that role to 'brain' and gets about the business of being entertained while the oportunity affords itself to do so.
Worse, the brain has no say in that. It is what Consciousness decides which makes the rules.
Brain just pooed it out.





Sorry about that.

Lets see.

having consciousness is what the brain does.

being conscious is what consciousness does.



Well that is a different but well connected story.
I very seldom consciously experience my dreams as lucid. I know I dream every sleep time and get snippets of those but consciously I (the consciousness) am for the most part excluded from that experience.
When it does happen mind you, it is quite the thing.




human bodies are animals.
Human consciousness is something else again.

No, it's not.

Consciousness is an emergent property of electro-chemical reactions in the brain when the reactions ends, it ends, to claim consciousness has some transcendent properties that allow it to exist independent of a materiel brain is wishful thinking.

 

[tsig]

Good question I Ratant. REAL good question. Seriously. A chin scratcher.
.
What comes to my mind is, it have to be on or about the time that one bi-pedal animal noticed it was naked. After all, what animal goes around thinking it is naked, and then tries to cover itself up with leaves, skins, or other forms of clothes? Knowing nakedness is a sure indicator of consciousness.
So is naming yourself and other THINGS.

So that's why humans who live in warm climates still wear lots of heavy clothes?