A few questions

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Tune in next week as we investigate the capybara. What you don't know just might kill you!

While capybara are damn scary little fellas...



I'm more worried about the chupacabras

THEY'RE SO CUTE!

There's some in a nature reserve near where I live and they're so awesome. Although one woman was explaining to her little daughter that they were small donkey's, despite the fact the sign explaining their genetic history clearly stated they were in fact big rodents.

[bennyboy]

THEY'RE SO CUTE!

There's some in a nature reserve near where I live and they're so awesome. Although one woman was explaining to her little daughter that they were small donkey's, despite the fact the sign explaining their genetic history clearly stated they were in fact big rodents.

omg. If I had to guess, I'd say they look like a cousin of beavers just based on their size and head shape. But donkeys? Dammit, who let that woman breed?

[TreeSapNest]

The actions and thinking of living things are determined by the brain, determined by the laws, excluding the higher power. :-)

I'd have to ask you the same question the other guys are asking the Deist. How do you/can you know this for sure? Specifically, how do you know for sure that there is not a higher power which mediates or modulates mood, injects at least some ideas or feelings into a human organism?

Because a thinking, acting nothingness is nonsensical?

[Cyberman]

"How do you know that there isn't" is a textbook shifting of the burden of proof.

[bennyboy]

I'd have to ask you the same question the other guys are asking the Deist. How do you/can you know this for sure? Specifically, how do you know for sure that there is not a higher power which mediates or modulates mood, injects at least some ideas or feelings into a human organism?

Because a thinking, acting nothingness is nonsensical?

I think the universe seems to be largely nonsensical. I mean, it seems either to have always existed, or to have magically been created by something which always existed, or to be part of a chain of infinite co-existence; fuck-- none of those options makes any sense. But I do know that it includes consiousness, and so without knowing absolutely why any chain of events occurs, one of the possibilities (even if slim) is that consciousness is injected somewhere along that chain.

It depends how you look at it. On the one hand, it seems of all the things we know about, only a very small % of "stuff" involves anything we'd call thinking. On the other hand, 100% of that "stuff" is known to us only through a thinking mind-- absolutely nothing is known to exist that we are not conscious of. And 100% is a statistic worth carefully considering when drawing philosophical inferences.

---

"How do you know that there isn't" is a textbook shifting of the burden of proof.

Yes, it is.

[Aoi Magi]

Before considering a "possibility" from a scientific perspective, you need to consider it's "plausibility", and the plausibility for a self-contradictory being at this point is zilch, nothing.

As for consciousness being injected, that kind of depends on what you would define as "consciousness". Even unicellular organisms react to stimuli, and what we call consciousness in humans is just a more complex reaction to stimulus. Everything in nature reacts to other things in one way or the other, so if you look at consciousness as a basic concept of "reaction" it has always existed, and if you consider it the more complex version, then too the change seems pretty gradual.

[Cyberman]

Yes, it is.

Ah. Then you must have posed the question knowing it couldn't be answered rationally.

[Surgenator]

Because a thinking, acting nothingness is nonsensical?

I think the universe seems to be largely nonsensical. I mean, it seems either to have always existed, or to have magically been created by something which always existed, or to be part of a chain of infinite co-existence; fuck-- none of those options makes any sense.

These options make little sense because the question is malformed. Your effectively trying to answer what happened before time and space existed.

But I do know that it includes consiousness, and so without knowing absolutely why any chain of events occurs, one of the possibilities (even if slim) is that consciousness is injected somewhere along that chain.

The word "injected" suggest it came from somewhere else. Consiousness could of arisen naturally.

It depends how you look at it. On the one hand, it seems of all the things we know about, only a very small % of "stuff" involves anything we'd call thinking. On the other hand, 100% of that "stuff" is known to us only through a thinking mind-- absolutely nothing is known to exist that we are not conscious of. And 100% is a statistic worth carefully considering when drawing philosophical inferences.

"100% of the stuff in known to us", I wouldn't be so sure about that. For a long time people didn't know the Earth was spherical, Europeans didn't know there about the Americas, scientist didn't know about neutrinos, etc... There are plenty of mysteries left. Plus, all the optical illusions must really mess with our 100% knowledge.

"absolutely nothing is known to exist that we are not conscious of." So if a comet hits my car at midnight, and noone was around to be conscious of it. Does that mean my car was never hit by a comet? When I see my car in the morning, is my car damaged from the comet or not?

[TreeSapNest]

I think the universe seems to be largely nonsensical. I mean, it seems either to have always existed, or to have magically been created by something which always existed, or to be part of a chain of infinite co-existence; fuck-- none of those options makes any sense. But I do know that it includes consiousness, and so without knowing absolutely why any chain of events occurs, one of the possibilities (even if slim) is that consciousness is injected somewhere along that chain.

It depends how you look at it. On the one hand, it seems of all the things we know about, only a very small % of "stuff" involves anything we'd call thinking. On the other hand, 100% of that "stuff" is known to us only through a thinking mind-- absolutely nothing is known to exist that we are not conscious of. And 100% is a statistic worth carefully considering when drawing philosophical inferences.

Is 100% of thought the product of brain and brain the product of law worthy then? :-)

[Mister Agenda]

If you don't mind I have a few questions. I'm orthodox Christian btw

Why is the universe the way it is? Brilliant and beautiful?
Why does it have to be in order? Why can't it be chaotic? Why can't the speed of light change? Why is gravity between two bodies proportional to product of the masses? Why not anything else? (Note inversely proportional equation doesn't count). Why can't the laws of thermodynamics be changed? Why are laws the way they are?

why is the energy in the universe constant? Why can't it be destroyed or created

why is heat transfer done from warm regions to cold regions and not the other way around

In short, why does the universe need to conform to the laws? Doesn't the fact that the laws can't be changed or substituted indicate there could be a higher power that set it all in place?
Hypothetically, the universe could very well be chaotic. But it's not

I'll check out your answers and reply tomorrow

---

Also notice, the actions and thinking of living things are the only things without law ( free will)

You do realize that if the actual case in each of your questions was the reverse, it would be just as mysterious why they are the other way. Why is the universe dull and ugly? Why does chaos prevail over order? Why can't the speed of light stop changing? Why isn't gravity proportionate to mass? Why isn't there a consistent law for thermodynamics?

If anything, such a universe would be LESS explicable than the one we find ourselves in. As though a lower power were intervening to keep it random.

You're equivocating between the kinds of laws that come from people and the kinds of laws people discover. A natural law is merely a mathematical description of a part of the universe that acts consistently. They don't indicate anything but that there are parts of the universe that act consistently in a way that can be mathematically described...so far.

If it's a hypothesis, it can be tested. What's the test for determining if the universe could be more chaotic? It's getting more chaotic, does that count? Right now it's a mix of order and chaos, and the laws of thermodynamics you mentioned are leading it to heat death. If this goes on (if the laws stay consistent) the universe will end as an ever-expanding and thinning cloud of photons and virtual particles barely distinguishable from nothing at all in which human survival will be impossible. If there were a higher power, it could alter the laws to avert that fate, couldn't it? And in this state of maximal disorder, isn't it more consistent than ever? It will wind up being just space, time, photons, and virtual particles instead of all the messy stars and asteroids and living things that clutter it now.

Why would a universe have unchanging laws of nature if there was a being that could change them?