(May 5, 2018 at 11:22 pm)Quick Wrote: Right. And there is also a whole lot we don't know about consciousness either. I don't believe consciousness is deterministic anyways. One argument I have made about consciousness and whether we can know whether we are the only thing that exists in the past, is in our a priori knowledge that an other (could very well be a person and I don't think that changes the argument) exists in the first place. Why would this be a given in the first place? It shouldn't be, but it is. Our development of life in the first place is what I am talking about. I don't think you are making the argument that we are the "first" life form. If we are not, what is the big distinction between the universe itself being the first living thing and us?

Not sure if it's just me but I don't understand that. Could you try again ?

(May 5, 2018 at 11:29 pm)possibletarian Wrote:

(May 5, 2018 at 11:22 pm)Quick Wrote: Right. And there is also a whole lot we don't know about consciousness either. I don't believe consciousness is deterministic anyways. One argument I have made about consciousness and whether we can know whether we are the only thing that exists in the past, is in our a priori knowledge that an other (could very well be a person and I don't think that changes the argument) exists in the first place. Why would this be a given in the first place? It shouldn't be, but it is. Our development of life in the first place is what I am talking about. I don't think you are making the argument that we are the "first" life form. If we are not, what is the big distinction between the universe itself being the first living thing and us?

Not sure if it's just me but I don't understand that. Could you try again ?

What do you need clarifying on?

(May 5, 2018 at 11:32 pm)Quick Wrote:

(May 5, 2018 at 11:29 pm)possibletarian Wrote: Not sure if it's just me but I don't understand that. Could you try again ?

What do you need clarifying on?

All of it would be nice, could you try rephrasing it perhaps ?

(May 5, 2018 at 11:22 pm)Quick Wrote: ofc not. I mean things like how quantum mechanics work and the law of attraction and things of that nature.

Neither seems to have any obvious connection to divinity, maybe you could elaborate?  

(I was kind of hoping you'd had a chat with the world spirit or something - I could see how that might fit the description you gave.)

Quote:Right. And there is also a whole lot we don't know about consciousness either. I don't believe consciousness is deterministic anyways. One argument I have made about consciousness and whether we can know whether we are the only thing that exists in the past, is in our a priori knowledge that an other (could very well be a person and I don't think that changes the argument) exists in the first place. Why would this be a given in the first place? It shouldn't be, but it is. Our development of life in the first place is what I am talking about. I don't think you are making the argument that we are the "first" life form. If we are not, what is the big distinction between the universe itself being the first living thing and us?

There are things you don;t know about consciousness...and things you don;t believe about it.  This situation is entirely familiar to me, but here again the connection to the divine isn;t obvious?  

As to your question..in what way do you think "the universe" belongs in the set that contains a frog..for example...as opposed to the set that contains a rock, or piles and piles of rocks, even? Frogs seem different from the universe, and the universe seems more like a pile of rocks. We could go into the weeds on it...but, do we need to? Or are you asking..more accurately, why we can;t use some novel value for the term "life" in reference to the universe? If it;s the latter..I;m sure we can..but using that value for the term won;t actually make the universe any more or less like a frog or a rock.

CDF47 Wrote:However based on the fine tuning of the universe I believe the entire universe is designed

Fine tuning is not evidence of a designed universe. That is a non sequitur because the conclusion does not follow from the premise
If the universe was not so fine tuned then it would either not exist at all or exist in a form that would not make it conducive for life
But it would no more be evidence of Gods non existence than it existing as it is is evidence of his existence. So both non sequiturs
Also the universe is not fine tuned for life. Rather life is fine tuned for the universe. Although most of it cannot actually support life

Puddles fit their holes real snug.   What an enormous coincidence. 

You know what -might- show something hinky is going on with us? If we lived in a universe that didn;t have a habitable range for us. Or, if we found ourslves exactly as we are..but sitting unharmed..on the surface of a pulsar.

(May 5, 2018 at 11:22 pm)Quick Wrote:

(May 5, 2018 at 11:06 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Like seeing Elvis, you mean? 

ofc not. I mean things like how quantum mechanics work and the law of attraction and things of that nature.

(May 5, 2018 at 11:06 pm)Khemikal Wrote: If all you needed was an other thinking thing...well, you're surrounded by them.  I;m not sure what gods have to do with that.

Right. And there is also a whole lot we don't know about consciousness either. I don't believe consciousness is deterministic anyways. One argument I have made about consciousness and whether we can know whether we are the only thing that exists in the past, is in our a priori knowledge that an other (could very well be a person and I don't think that changes the argument) exists in the first place. Why would this be a given in the first place? It shouldn't be, but it is. Our development of life in the first place is what I am talking about. I don't think you are making the argument that we are the "first" life form. If we are not, what is the big distinction between the universe itself being the first living thing and us?

(May 5, 2018 at 11:32 pm)Quick Wrote:

(May 5, 2018 at 11:29 pm)possibletarian Wrote: Not sure if it's just me but I don't understand that. Could you try again ?

What do you need clarifying on?

Okay, let me try again....

Quote:And there is also a whole lot we don't know about consciousness either

Okay, but that means we do not know, and we can't just throw things in there without evidence.. right ?

Quote:. I don't believe consciousness is deterministic anyways.

Okay, an opinion.. got you so far.

Quote:One argument I have made about consciousness and whether we can know whether we are the only thing that exists in the past, is in our a priori knowledge that an other (could very well be a person and I don't think that changes the argument) exists in the first place.

Can you clarify what you mean here ?

Quote:Why would this be a given in the first place? It shouldn't be, but it is. Our development of life in the first place is what I am talking about. I don't think you are making the argument that we are the "first" life form. If we are not, what is the big distinction between the universe itself being the first living thing and us?

an you clarify this question ?

---

(May 5, 2018 at 11:05 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(May 5, 2018 at 11:02 pm)Quick Wrote: Black holes are complex... Are they also made explicitly by a creator?

Again, that's Shannon information.  It is not specified and complex.  However, based on the fine-tuning of the universe, I believe the entire universe is designed so the black hole is also designed, ultimately.  DNA contains information/a code!

Debunking the "Fine Tuning" Argument for God (Sean Carroll)
https://youtu.be/tNp0wtMkE_Y

(May 5, 2018 at 11:35 pm)possibletarian Wrote:

(May 5, 2018 at 11:32 pm)Quick Wrote: What do you need clarifying on?

All of it would be nice, could you try rephrasing it perhaps ?

(May 5, 2018 at 11:35 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(May 5, 2018 at 11:22 pm)Quick Wrote: ofc not. I mean things like how quantum mechanics work and the law of attraction and things of that nature.

Neither seems to have any obvious connection to divinity, maybe you could elaborate?  

(I was kind of hoping you'd had a chat with the world spirit or something - I could see how that might fit the description you gave.)

Quote:Right. And there is also a whole lot we don't know about consciousness either. I don't believe consciousness is deterministic anyways. One argument I have made about consciousness and whether we can know whether we are the only thing that exists in the past, is in our a priori knowledge that an other (could very well be a person and I don't think that changes the argument) exists in the first place. Why would this be a given in the first place? It shouldn't be, but it is. Our development of life in the first place is what I am talking about. I don't think you are making the argument that we are the "first" life form. If we are not, what is the big distinction between the universe itself being the first living thing and us?

There are things you don;t know about consciousness...and things you don;t believe about it.  This situation is entirely familiar to me, but here again the connection to the divine isn;t obvious?  

As to your question..in what way do you think "the universe" belongs in the set that contains a drog..for example...as opposed to the set that contains a rock, or piles and piles of rocks, even?

The divinity "felt" by one such as a human doesn't need to be supernatural..

When we are addressing the issue of how we "know" whether we are not the only "thing" all we need to do is consider the question of whether there even is another. The moment this question arises in our unconscious is the moment we make that a reality since IF we have the power to consider whether another exists, then IF we are the only thing that exists and we are operating in a vacuum, this would give US the power to create, even if it is just in our imagination. Since consciousness as well as the unconscious is subjective, we must rationally presume that we are not the only sentience that exists if even for our imagination of representation of such sentience. Since sentience is reliable according to us (this should be self evident), and since basically everything that is sentient follows a hierarchy, it should not be much of an assumption to think we are not the greatest common factor of sentience. As we follow a hierarchy within our own kin (and within our own minds i.e. consciousness and unconsciousness) it seems likely there is some other greater sentience that we are merely a part of.

(May 5, 2018 at 11:50 pm)Quick Wrote: The divinity "felt" by one such as a human doesn't need to be supernatural..

When we are addressing the issue of how we "know" whether we are not the only "thing" all we need to do is consider the question of whether there even is another. The moment this question arises in our unconscious is the moment we make that a reality since IF we have the power to consider whether another exists, then IF we are the only thing that exists and we are operating in a vacuum, this would give US the power to create, even if it is just in our imagination. Since consciousness as well as the unconscious is subjective, we must rationally presume that we are not the only sentience that exists if even for our imagination of representation of such sentience. Since sentience is reliable according to us (this should be self evident), and since basically everything that is sentient follows a hierarchy, it should not be much of an assumption to think we are not the greatest common factor of sentience. As we follow a hierarchy within our own kin (and within our own minds i.e. consciousness and unconsciousness) it seems likely there is some other greater sentience that we are merely a part of.

That's a lot to unpack..but..what makes that very last sentence follow from anything that preceded it, or even the last half of the sentence follow from the first?

Is there anything more than your floating likelihood behind this belief, an indication of some greater sentience of which we are a component part?

(May 5, 2018 at 11:08 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(May 5, 2018 at 11:05 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Again, that's Shannon information.  It is not specified and complex.  However, based on the fine-tuning of the universe, I believe the entire universe is designed so the black hole is also designed, ultimately.  DNA contains information/a code!

So what?  You think shannon info requires a god too. Something being complex -or- simple isn't a difference, to you...and because of this, one thing being simple and one thing being complex is no particular indication of anything. 

You butchered that one.

DNA contains an extremely sophisticated code!  Hence, it is designed.  Debate over, living systems have a Designer.