Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 19, 2024, 1:56 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Theory number 3.
#91
RE: Theory number 3.
(October 28, 2012 at 1:08 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: What do you mean by simple?
I'm not defining the terms here, I didn't say it was simple, I said it may be simple. My point is, how do you know it's complex? I'm not defining complexity or simplicity here.

Quote:Relative to us, yes. But it's still complex.

And one of my points was, how do you know it's complex? How do you know it's not simple? At what point does something go from "simple" to "complex"? And, complex in what way? Simple in what way?

Quote:It can happen, but not by "random" mutations.
Why not?

Quote: In other words, there is a huge difference between a concious being and non-conscious being.
How? The only difference I'm aware of is that one is conscious and the other is not.

Quote: There has to be so many mutations that work together to produce it.
Yes, but that's not to say that it all has to change at once. You could go from almost conscious to conscious and there could be hardly any difference at all apart from the fact the former is unconscious and the latter is conscious. The "work together" part here is key. One mutation may occur that when working together with some other mutations, consciousness is formed.

Quote:But random mutations in one step doesn't seem to be rational.

Why would you say that?
Reply
#92
RE: Theory number 3.
DoubtvsFaith, well I think life is general is complex. But consciousness is obviously a whole different level of complexity then a cell for example. But what I mean is that A to B change is complex to a great degree. It's not like adding the penny in the analogy of Rhythm. We know consciousness is complex from perspective of naturalism. If you go spiritually, maybe natives are right, maybe everything has consciousness. All atoms, our clothes, etc. You need a sophisticated system from the naturalism perspective. It is very complex with many parts working together to produce a conscious. Sure you can have a complex biological being that is non-conscious, but it doesn't seem that it can give concsiousness to it's offspring by one step of random mutations. Sure it can have a complex sensory system with no consciousness, but then some random mutations, are not going to somehow produce concsiousness. This is because there is a significant gap between a conscious entity and non-conscious entity and I have to disagree with that it can possible be a insignificant gap between the two.

At least this seems to be the case.
Reply
#93
RE: Theory number 3.
(October 28, 2012 at 3:38 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: DoubtvsFaith, well I think life is general is complex. But consciousness is obviously a whole different level of complexity then a cell for example. But what I mean is that A to B change is complex to a great degree. It's not like adding the penny in the analogy of Rhythm. We know consciousness is complex from perspective of naturalism. If you go spiritually, maybe natives are right, maybe everything has consciousness. All atoms, our clothes, etc. You need a sophisticated system from the naturalism perspective. It is very complex with many parts working together to produce a conscious. Sure you can have a complex biological being that is non-conscious, but it doesn't seem that it can give concsiousness to it's offspring by one step of random mutations. Sure it can have a complex sensory system with no consciousness, but then some random mutations, are not going to somehow produce concsiousness. This is because there is a significant gap between a conscious entity and non-conscious entity and I have to disagree with that it can possible be a insignificant gap between the two.

At least this seems to be the case.

Is there a significant gap? What qualifies as 'conscious'? Could, perhaps, a 'non-concious' entity evolve into an entity that is only vaguely aware of its surroundings? It all depends on what conscious is deemed to be; how well integrated must the senses of an organism be to call it conscious? It is difficult to draw a line between a human and an ape, but we know that humans are different from lower primates. We also know that this transition occured solely becasue of evolution. Take said primates, for instance, are they conscious? One would conclude that they are (unless you are going by a seriously different definition than I am). How about dogs? One would also be inclined to think thay are conscious as well, but where do we draw the line? We know that there a non-conscious entities and conscious ones. We also know that the non-conscious entities evolved into conscious ones (unless you are a creationist). So, what does this tell us, then? (not rhetorical)
John Adams Wrote:The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.
Reply
#94
RE: Theory number 3.
(October 28, 2012 at 3:45 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Is there a significant gap?

I think it's rational to incline to that idea.

Quote:Could, perhaps, a 'non-concious' entity evolve into an entity that is only vaguely aware of its surroundings?

By means of naturalism, it seems to be not the case, right now to me.

Quote:It all depends on what conscious is deemed to be; how well integrated must the senses of an organism be to call it conscious?

Whatever level of consciousness it has, there is a significant gap between non-consciousness.
Quote: It is difficult to draw a line between a human and an ape, but we know that humans are different from lower primates.

Yeah but in this case, there is can be perpetual change. There doesn't have to be a step between a human and a primate. There is gradual change and we can't even put a line. But the same is not true of consciousness and unconsciousness. Whatever level of consciousness exist as weak as it maybe, it's significantly different from non-conscious.


Quote: We also know that this transition occured solely becasue of evolution.

This is news to me. Evolution is a theory, not a certain knowledge.

Quote:We also know that the non-conscious entities evolved into conscious ones (unless you are a creationist).

I don't have to be a creationist. To be a creationist, it means I claim to believe evolution didn't happen. I don't have to be evolutionist, because it doesn't seem to be conclusive to me. I don't even have to believe evolution can possibly explain life, let alone, that it does, to not be a creationist.

And the truth right now, my agnosticism is a total state of confusion. I don't know that I don't know type confusion.

It's not the type that asserts I am unconvinced by evidence that there is no higher power neither is it the type that claims I cannot know or that I do not know deep inside.

I am "confused" .

Quote: So, what does this tell us, then? (not rhetorical)

We put faith in authorities too much Tongue I don't have to believe in evolution to justify my lack of belief in God or a Creator. I can be agnostic, and think there is strong arguments for a Creator, just that I don't feel confidence in arguments anymore.

I think the best word to describe by position is "confused".
Reply
#95
RE: Theory number 3.
It very much appears to be an issue of adding pennies, just not three of them, and over a very long time - with increasing complexity as we move closer to the present. You don't have to invoke spiritualism for "everything to be conscious" btw, nor do you need much in the way of complexity for consciousness (you must be thinking mammalia and the like). Present an example of a "complex biological being that is non-conscious". Present an example of a "complex sensory system" that is not conscious. Present an example of a biological organism incapable of passing on it's genetic material (and ergo attributes) to the next generation. How is anyone supposed to determine how wide the gap is when you refuse to suggest where we might look?

(yes....evolution is a theory......not conclusive or anything...ffs)
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#96
RE: Theory number 3.
(October 28, 2012 at 3:58 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: This is news to me. Evolution is a theory, not a certain knowledge.

I understand everything you said above until this. Do we need to discuss the 'theory' of gravity again?

(October 28, 2012 at 3:58 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:
Quote:We also know that the non-conscious entities evolved into conscious ones (unless you are a creationist).

I don't have to be a creationist. To be a creationist, it means I claim to believe evolution didn't happen. I don't have to be evolutionist, because it doesn't seem to be conclusive to me. I don't even have to believe evolution can possibly explain life, let alone, that it does, to not be a creationist.

And the truth right now, my agnosticism is a total state of confusion. I don't know that I don't know type confusion.

It's not the type that asserts I am unconvinced by evidence that there is no higher power neither is it the type that claims I cannot know or that I do not know deep inside.

I am "confused" .

By creationist, I meant that all beings were created in their current states, and thus consciousness is completely inseperable from that which has it. From an evolutionary standpoint, it seems logical to conclude that consciousness was evolved, but we do not know how this happened or when. I am not sure if we even fully understand what is 'conscious'. My best guess would be that a conscious being has a brain, and a non-conscious one does not. I, however, do not know for certain. So in that sense, I too am agnostic in regards to the origin of consciousness.

(October 28, 2012 at 3:58 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: We put faith in authorities too much Tongue I don't have to believe in evolution to justify my lack of belief in God or a Creator. I can be agnostic, and think there is strong arguments for a Creator, just that I don't feel confidence in arguments anymore.

I think the best word to describe by position is "confused".

You don't need to deny evolution to believe in a god. Some people believe that god created the universe knowing that life would arise and evolve in the way it did. Some are deists, and others might think that god interferes in life on earth, just not as a creator beyond the big bang. One could theorize that while god did not create the earth, or life on it, he guided natural processes in a way that would allow for such things to occur. Now, I do not believe that this claim can be tested, so I don't think it would be reasonable to assume that it is true, however, theists who already assume there is a gos might be able to speculate this as an explanation to what we have observed.
John Adams Wrote:The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.
Reply
#97
RE: Theory number 3.
(October 28, 2012 at 3:38 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: [...]what I mean is that A to B change is complex to a great degree.
Imagine the least complex kind of consciousness. Not the least complex consciousness in this universe plausible but rather the least complex consciousness possible. That may not be so complicated. Just because science cannot detect consciousness doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means that it doesn't exist scientifically. If science one day became omniscient perhaps it would know that even a single neuron is conscious but in some extremely limited way then - but certainly not now - understood. It would of course be completely unable to feel or understand anything, but it would, perhaps, be in some extremely limited sense "aware". Science today can't detect this, but that doesn't mean it isn't so. Science can't determine quantum physics, it can only make accurate predictions, that doesn't mean it isn't philosophically a deterministic universe, it just means that, at least for the moment, it isn't scientifically a deterministic universe. It depends how you define "consciousness". Are neurons each conscious in the same way "we" are? Certainly not. But surely you're not expecting the first example of consciousness in the universe to be as conscious as us anyway. I don't know what such a reduced level of consciousness would even mean, you tell me: What do you mean by conscious at the most basic level possible?

Quote:If you go spiritually, maybe natives are right, maybe everything has consciousness. All atoms, our clothes, etc.

If everything had consciousness then you'd definitely have to be very clear about what you meant by "conscious". I get the feeling that it then either results in loses its meaning entirely or it results in absurdities such as the notion of everything being as conscious as animal/human life.
Reply
#98
RE: Theory number 3.
(October 28, 2012 at 4:15 pm)Darkstar Wrote: I am not sure if we even fully understand what is 'conscious'. My best guess would be that a conscious being has a brain, and a non-conscious one does not. I, however, do not know for certain. So in that sense, I too am agnostic in regards to the origin of consciousness.
We don't understand it fully. However, this is precisely the sort of definition for conscious that would help move this whole thing along. Now, are we content with any expression of said organ (are ants conscious?) or do we have something more elaborate in mind?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#99
RE: Theory number 3.
(October 28, 2012 at 4:10 pm)Rhythm Wrote: How is anyone supposed to determine how wide the gap is when you refuse to suggest where we might look?

I'm going to be doing a lot of reading into this subject as well as discussions with scientists hopefully via email. (blog sites for example). I will get back to you after I have more explanation.

As I said, it's a semi argument from ignorance. The truth is I don't know what even makes consciousness, or even if material atoms working together can give rise to consciousness. But it seems to be the case of assumption from naturalism, that there a significant gap between concsiousness and non-concsiousness in complexity/design, to the extent mutations of one generation of a entity to another cannot account for it.

This seems to be the case to me. It may not be true. But I don't think it's a weak argument or weak reasoning.

In this case, try as I might, I cannot convince myself this reasoning is wrong, and it seems true.
Reply
RE: Theory number 3.
Quote:But it seems to be the case of assumption from naturalism, that there a significant gap between concsiousness and non-concsiousness in complexity/design, to the extent mutations of one generation of a entity to another cannot account for it.

First off, we "assumed" spirits. We discovered central nervous systems (the sort of consciousness you seem to be hinting at) and evolutionary biology, so that's DOA. Secondly, you haven't even attempted to explain what it is you're claiming cannot be accounted for. "The gap" means nothing if you can't even give us the broad strokes. "Consciousness" means nothing if you can't at least draw temporary line in the sand. Whether or not your line is accurate is neither here nor there, right? Because the line you draw is bsed on your own perceptions, it forms the justification for this line of reasoning, so whatever that is, it has to be more than the words "the gap cannot be accounted for". You have to be referring to something, correct? Otherwise it's just a mantra. Perhaps the gap you have in mind -can- be accounted for .....but some other gap cannot. Perhaps there is no gap. Perhaps the gap you have in mind cannot be accounted for.......but you'll still have a hell of a hard time selling magic as solid reasoning to me, personally.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  How many of you atheists believe in the Big Bang Theory? Authari 95 3935 January 8, 2024 at 3:21 pm
Last Post: h4ym4n
  First order logic, set theory and God dr0n3 293 25086 December 11, 2018 at 11:35 am
Last Post: T0 Th3 M4X
  A loose “theory” of the dynamics of religious belief Bunburryist 6 1653 August 14, 2016 at 2:14 pm
Last Post: Bunburryist
  Top misconceptions of Theory of Evolution you had to deal with ErGingerbreadMandude 76 12278 March 7, 2016 at 6:08 pm
Last Post: Alex K
  A crazy theory Ruprick 11 2676 February 18, 2016 at 10:51 pm
Last Post: ignoramus
  Hindu Perspective: Counter to God of Gaps Theory Krishna Jaganath 26 5654 November 19, 2015 at 6:49 pm
Last Post: Simon Moon
Thumbs Up Number of male vs female atheists? MentalGiant 36 6042 October 10, 2015 at 9:40 am
Last Post: houseofcantor
  So here's my theory RobBlaze 28 8908 August 12, 2015 at 4:10 am
Last Post: robvalue
Video Dr Zakir Naik Vs the Theory of Evolution Mental Outlaw 4 2461 July 23, 2015 at 10:27 pm
Last Post: Mental Outlaw
  my new theory about christians Jextin 49 7915 October 4, 2014 at 7:21 pm
Last Post: Lek



Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)