Why would an intelligent designer use mass extinctions?

[tsig]

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.

And just as obviously, they are wrong.

The are wrong in the beginning* even as they are wrong in the end**.

*godidit

**death isn't final

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There were never any mass extinctions. All those dead animals just had severe arthritis.

I blame Obamacare.

 

[tsig]

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.

Probably has something to do with being a thing that thinks. Our own extinction seems to be an unthinkable thought for some.

Of course, we can't discount the cultural conditioning we have all undergone just by growing up in a society that believes in an afterlife.

 

[Brian-M]

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

I have no more need to account for the possibility that consciousness can survive the death of the brain than I need to account for the possibility that feelings of hunger are triggered by intangible belly butterflies.

Supernatural possibilities don't need to be accounted for until demonstrable evidence that the claimed supernatural phenomena exists is presented. In the meantime, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

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.

Computer scientists are still struggling to create supercomputers that are powerful enough to emulate the brain of an insect. Mechanical Electrical computers are currently nowhere near as complex as organic brains, so it's hardly surprising that organic brains have capabilities that computers do not.

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.

Maybe we can't say for certain, but if you compare the behavior of organisms not thought to be conscious (such as molluscs) with the behavior of organisms that are thought to be conscious (such as squirrels), it's evident that the creatures generally thought to be conscious possess far greater complexity of behavior and far greater ability to learn, adapt and anticipate when encountering unfamiliar circumstances. All of which would suggest that consciousness provides a significant evolutionary advantage for complex organisms.

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.

And then again it might not. In the absence of any evidence that this happens, and absent any evidence of a mechanism that might make it even remotely possible, there's no point giving it serious consideration.

What can be said is that it looks apparent that the brain created consciousness but no one can be absolutely sure about that.

There are many things you can't be absolutely sure about but still regard as true. The important thing is the degree of confidence we can have a claim.

For example, you can't be absolutely certain that when you drop a rock that it will fall down. Just because nobody has ever witnessed a dropped rock falling upward into the sky doesn't mean that it absolutely cannot happen. But given the vast number of rocks (and other objects) that have been observed to fall towards the ground when dropped, we can say with an extremely high degree of confidence that a dropped rock will fall down.

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.

An amoeba is just as evolved as an orangutang, but the orangutang seems more advanced to us because we tend to attribute importance to things like multi-cellular physiology, sexual reproduction and central nervous systems.

Different species specialize to exploit different biological niches....

• Giraffes have far more advanced necks than other creatures.
• Tardigrades have far more advanced extreme-condition survival capabilities than other creatures (Freeze them with liquid oxygen, cook them in boiling water, expose them to the vacuum of space, deprive them of food and water for ten years, and yet they still manage to survive.)
• Bombardier beetles have far more advanced explosive-chemical secretion capabilities than other creatures.
• Bats have far more advanced echolocation capabilities than other creatures.
• Humans have far more advanced cognitive capabilities than other creatures.

Intelligence just happens to be the attribute that the human species specializes in. If you judge other species on the basis of our specialist trait, of course we'll be significantly superior in comparison to them. But judge us by their specialist traits, and they'll be clearly superior in comparison to us.

(Why the hell is my spell-check suggesting that I should replace "multi-cellular" with either "mulch-cellular" or "mufti-cellular"?)

 

[turingtest]

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.

Countdown to "but how can chemicals think??!?!?" begins here (I anticipate this from someone who either disregards or doesn't understand the phrase "emergent property").

 

[tsig]

Countdown to "but how can chemicals think??!?!?" begins here (I anticipate this from someone who either disregards or doesn't understand the phrase "emergent property").

How can chemicals fly is just as valid a question but no one seems to say that bird flight is beyond comprehension.

 

[I Ratant]

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.

.
When the CPU has no electric activity, no blood pressure, no oxygen, it's d.e.a.d..dead.

 

[turingtest]

How can chemicals fly is just as valid a question but no one seems to say that bird flight is beyond comprehension.

Sometimes I like to amuse myself by imagining woo-answers to points like this; here, I'm thinking "birds fly for the same reason men think- nature summons us all to the sky, and this is how birds answer the call" sounds properly mystical (and I'll have to ask you to picture me gazing rhapsodically upward- at a ceiling fan- while enthusiastically flapping my hands around as I'm saying this, since there doesn't seem to be a smilie that will cover this).

 

[I Ratant]

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

.
There's the legendary "three dog night" in the land of OZ.
The real prehistoric genius was the guy that discovered one need not carry around a buncha furry animules to keep warm, but just their skins.

 

[Navigator]

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.

It is not something which can be argued for the purpose of reaching a definite conclusion.
It is either believed, not believed or left to prove itself at some later date, depending on the individuals own perceived needs.

The 'conviction that consciousness is a process.' is not something any one entity can argue convincingly.

 

[Navigator]

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.

It may be wishful thinking to claim such, I agree.

I have already spoken about the peculiar situation in relation to observing the interaction of brain and consciousness which so obviously shows a connection but in the observation cannot say for certain that consciousness is actually a creation of the brain and even if that is the case, cannot say for certain that consciousness does not survive the brain.

It could be said about those who make claims either way, that wishful thinking is involved.

 

[catsmate]

It is easy to write off the universe as a mindless muddle that has no purpose,

This isn't "writing anything off", it's accepting reality

but why would anything evolve if that were the case. Evolution obviously exists, and it indicates a purpose working itself out behind the scenes.

Evidence? Other than your need to believe in a purpose why should their be a reason for the universe?

Spirit bodies are made of energy vibrating at a far higher rate than earthy atoms, so I doubt they weigh anything.

Rubbish. All energy has mass.

 

[Navigator]

I have no more need to account for the possibility that consciousness can survive the death of the brain than I need to account for the possibility that feelings of hunger are triggered by intangible belly butterflies.

Supernatural possibilities don't need to be accounted for until demonstrable evidence that the claimed supernatural phenomena exists is presented. In the meantime, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Is this because you are a materialist and this is how materialists chose to position themselves?
It is the rule of that position. You cannot call yourself a materialist and not position yourself as you have?

I do not hold such position myself so am free to ponder the possibilities without any need for proof which cannot most obviously be gained through any material method.

(apart from one, which at least allows for data transference which then can be worked with.)

Where the materialist presumes to be in the better position is evident in their partaking in discussion which has to do with things not so material and in that presumption consider themselves to being correct about those things which are not strictly material and thinking that they are reasonable in their demands for evidence they should obviously know cannot be presented.
It is a position which allows for nothing more than 'I am right and anyone who does not accept that is therefore ill.'

Of course, you are not right. Your position is merely focused upon the material and thus you are not equipped to venture into the unknowable...although I am not exactly sure why that is the case. My best guess is that it has something to do with your belief systems.
I think this is the case because those who have belief systems which are in opposition to materialism also display similar expressions. Perhaps then it is belief which causes one to be ill, once the belief become dogma.

Computer scientists are still struggling to create supercomputers that are powerful enough to emulate the brain of an insect. Mechanical Electrical computers are currently nowhere near as complex as organic brains, so it's hardly surprising that organic brains have capabilities that computers do not.

But organic brains which are able to create such amazing things cannot create computers which are able to simulate consciousness?
That seems oxymoron.

Maybe we can't say for certain, but if you compare the behavior of organisms not thought to be conscious (such as molluscs) with the behavior of organisms that are thought to be conscious (such as squirrels), it's evident that the creatures generally thought to be conscious possess far greater complexity of behavior and far greater ability to learn, adapt and anticipate when encountering unfamiliar circumstances. All of which would suggest that consciousness provides a significant evolutionary advantage for complex organisms.

The ingredient which separates the program from the programmer.

Consciousness.

Now with these complex organisms (great apes spring to mind) come ideas which separate and compartmentalize an ancient unified whole system into parts and then attempts to separate those parts into none connected groups in an effort to see what can be done without.

Now the great apes wish to go into space and are even willing to risk irrevocable harm to their home planet to achieve this thing. All are materialists (by definition of their actions) and all believe that such attitude is simply a conscious expression of what evolution is doing anyway.
Unfortunately they forgot that they first had to separate the things of evolution if not physically then at least in their own minds.

And of course they remembered to place themselves at the top of the list of important things. Evolution's finest and fittest. the cream of the human specie!

And then again it might not. In the absence of any evidence that this happens, and absent any evidence of a mechanism that might make it even remotely possible, there's no point giving it serious consideration.

Yes - as can be seen, I am aware of this, a materialist mantra.

There are many things you can't be absolutely sure about but still regard as true. The important thing is the degree of confidence we can have a claim.

You do understand that your particular position requires that degree of confidence otherwise you would not be able to so easily argue the rightfulness of being a materialist. You are of the belief that being a materialist is perfectly aligned with how evolution works. Therefore those who are not, are simply 'ill'.

For example, you can't be absolutely certain that when you drop a rock that it will fall down. Just because nobody has ever witnessed a dropped rock falling upward into the sky doesn't mean that it absolutely cannot happen. But given the vast number of rocks (and other objects) that have been observed to fall towards the ground when dropped, we can say with an extremely high degree of confidence that a dropped rock will fall down.

Consciousness therefore is a rock! There is no easy way for anyone to explain what consciousness really is. I understand your compulsion to assume that it is only a product of the brain because to think any other way contradicts your materialist position.

Now don't get me wrong here Brian. To some degree we are all materialists simply because we are all experiencing a material reality. Perhaps I have confused you with someone else who inferred that to even think about things in non material ways is a sign of being 'ill'. Perhaps this is not what you think.
But if you or anyone else are going to form solid beliefs about things which can only be assumed due to 'compelling evidence' (what it compels is assumption really) then you have already gone through the process of bedding down with dogma, and are arguing from belief, albeit you have heaping's of material covering over the fact that it is still a position of belief you are arguing from.

 

[bruto]

It is not something which can be argued for the purpose of reaching a definite conclusion.
It is either believed, not believed or left to prove itself at some later date, depending on the individuals own perceived needs.

The 'conviction that consciousness is a process.' is not something any one entity can argue convincingly.

Well, of course what is convincing quite obviously varies, but I thought William James did a pretty good job of it.

 

[Navigator]

I am inclined toward the position that intelligence is a property of the brain and consciousness not so much. Intelligence is 'owned' whereas consciousness if free to move outside the constructs of the human brain.

I think too that some individuals confuse intelligence with consciousness.

 

[tsig]

I am inclined toward the position that intelligence is a property of the brain and consciousness not so much. Intelligence is 'owned' whereas consciousness if free to move outside the constructs of the human brain.
I think too that some individuals confuse intelligence with consciousness.

You're confusing consciousness with some sort of elan vital:

Élan vital was coined by French philosopher Henri Bergson in his 1907 book Creative Evolution, in which he addresses the question of self-organisation and spontaneous morphogenesis of things in an increasingly complex manner. Elan vital was translated in the English edition as "vital impetus", but is usually translated by his detractors as "vital force". It is a hypothetical explanation for evolution and development of organisms, which Bergson linked closely with consciousness.

 

[Brian-M]

The 'conviction that consciousness is a process.' is not something any one entity can argue convincingly.

Why not?

 

[Brian-M]

Is this because you are a materialist and this is how materialists chose to position themselves?

It is because I am a skeptic, and skeptics tend not to accept claims without evidence to support those claims. It doesn't apply only to the supernatural. If you were asserting that there existed some new kind of natural force never observed before, or that some kind of extraordinary event that isn't impossible under a materialistic of philosophy had occurred, I'd also want to be presented with adequate supporting evidence before accepting it as true.

I do not hold such position myself so am free to ponder the possibilities without any need for proof which cannot most obviously be gained through any material method.

I'm not objecting to you pondering such things, I regard myself free to ponder these things too. It's the assertion without evidence that these things are fact that I object to.

But organic brains which are able to create such amazing things cannot create computers which are able to simulate consciousness?
That seems oxymoron.

Why does this seem to be an oxymoron to you?

What possible reason could you have for assuming that intelligent conscious entities capable (collectively) of building such things as computers should necessarily be capable of intelligently constructing other conscious entities?

And what reason do you have to assume that we won't be capable of this at some point in the future? I see no reason why, theoretically, we couldn't eventually be capable of such a thing. (Although I don't claim to know if we ever will or will not develop technology capable of such things.)

I was just pointing out that our current technology is nowhere near advanced enough to produce the equivalent of an organic brain, and so we shouldn't be surprised that it can't do all the same things that organic brains do.

Now the great apes wish to go into space and are even willing to risk irrevocable harm to their home planet to achieve this thing.

What evidence do you have that attempts at space exploration puts our home planet at any risk of irrevocable harm?

All are materialists (by definition of their actions) and all believe that such attitude is simply a conscious expression of what evolution is doing anyway.

Materialism is a philosophical position, and is in no way defined by a person's actions. Your assertions that all are materialists and that all believe that "such attitude simply a conscious expression of what evolution is doing anyway" is absurd.

And of course they remembered to place themselves at the top of the list of important things. Evolution's finest and fittest. the cream of the human specie!

Nice strawman you've constructed there. I don't think you'll find many people who actually understand evolution who would describe humanity as "evolution's finest and fittest".

In evolutionary terms, my personal position is that bacteria are demonstrably far more evolutionarily fitter than primates (including humans).

This is supported by the fact that bacteria can survive in far more diverse conditions than humans can, that in total they outnumber humans by 700,000,000,000,000,000,000 to one, and that human bodies carry ten times more bacteria cells than they do human cells (bacteria cells are far smaller than human cells), which makes us effectively little more than mobile homes for bacteria.

Source for how greatly outnumbered we are by bacteria: http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0998/et0998s8.html (I divided the estimated number of bacteria by seven billion.)
Source for the number of bacteria cells on and in the human body: http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...s-carry-more-bacterial-cells-than-human-ones/

You are of the belief that being a materialist is perfectly aligned with how evolution works. Therefore those who are not, are simply 'ill'.

I don't see how you get from the premise to the conclusion here.

I understand your compulsion to assume that it is only a product of the brain because to think any other way contradicts your materialist position.

I assume that it's a product of brain function because nobody has ever demonstrated the existence of any other plausible mechanism, materialistic or otherwise.

Perhaps I have confused you with someone else who inferred that to even think about things in non material ways is a sign of being 'ill'. Perhaps this is not what you think.

No, it's not what I think. I think that it's perfectly natural for people to be somewhat irrational in their beliefs and opinions. Nobody's immune to cognitive biases. The trick is to figure out how to identify when your position is not logically sound.

But if you or anyone else are going to form solid beliefs about things which can only be assumed due to 'compelling evidence' (what it compels is assumption really) then you have already gone through the process of bedding down with dogma, and are arguing from belief, albeit you have heaping's of material covering over the fact that it is still a position of belief you are arguing from.

Okay, so I'm arguing from a position of belief. I don't have a problem admitting that. But unlike your position of belief, my position of belief is supported by a large body of demonstrable evidence and critical thinking.

 

[crhkrebs]

Is this because you are a materialist and this is how materialists chose to position themselves?
It is the rule of that position. You cannot call yourself a materialist and not position yourself as you have?

(Snipped for gibberish)

Of course, you are not right. Your position is merely focused upon the material and thus you are not equipped to venture into the unknowable...

(snipped for gibberish)

But organic brains which are able to create such amazing things cannot create computers which are able to simulate consciousness?
That seems oxymoron.

(Snipped for gibberish)

The ingredient which separates the program from the programmer.

(Snipped for gibberish)

You do understand that your particular position requires that degree of confidence otherwise you would not be able to so easily argue the rightfulness of being a materialist.

(Snipped for gibberish)

Consciousness therefore is a rock!

(Snipped for gibberish)

Perhaps I have confused you with someone else who inferred that to even think about things in non material ways is a sign of being 'ill'. Perhaps this is not what you think.

I am having a hard time deciding if this is a Poe or not. So either:

1) Navigator actually thinks this opaque, obtuse writing contributes to the topic of mass extinctions.

2) Navigator is maliciously submitting meaningless nonsense to clog up the bandwidth of yet another topic on JREF.

3) Navigator has aquired software like Text Mangler and is submitting samples of his computer generated writing.

Regardless, I now know that it is best to avoid any thread with Navigator's "contributions". YMMV.

 

[I Ratant]

I am having a hard time deciding if this is a Poe or not. So either:

1) Navigator actually thinks this opaque, obtuse writing contributes to the topic of mass extinctions.

2) Navigator is maliciously submitting meaningless nonsense to clog up the bandwidth of yet another topic on JREF.

3) Navigator has aquired software like Text Mangler and is submitting samples of his computer generated writing.

Regardless, I now know that it is best to avoid any thread with Navigator's "contributions". YMMV.

.
They do fill in the time, trying to interpret them..