This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:My statements are internally consistent. Yours are......?

Oh deasr, well if that makes you happy then don't let me stop you. One more thing I can help you with is reading; the "it" is "acquiring energy", which is the "root of desire". Not desire, acquiring energy. And that begins passively and develops into proactive strategies that become called "desire". Got that? Brilliant!!

Afraid it's English. Not your first language I know so I make allowances.

No, a line is as long as it's defined. Another ouch moment there.

More English issues for you, still if it helps you avoid the challenge of explaining your ideas rather than seeking ever-decreasing ways to moan about mine then it's all good!

Mines are evolving.

Amazing how your basic and unproven explanations satisfy you. Again, it is there for everybody to see. You do not know what matter is made off but the whole of your "theory" is based on it. Do you know whether Energy came first or was it Matter? what form were they in to start with? You seem to know what no scientist knows. Bottom line, it tells us more about you and your fear of the unknown than anything else. Maybe a telling sign to that was you first think we create gods to ease our minds. Was that a piece of unconscious transfer?

Don;t worry about my english, it is your logos which is to be questioned.

Oh  and a defined line is called a segment. Not a line.

Does it evolve because of competitive pressure or do you just will it to be right? 

Weak try at the turnaround. I've seen enough in life to show me that most of this garbage is based on a fear of oblivion, and the smart-alec atheists who reserve their position on life and consciousness are no better, they just want the intellectual thrill of laughing at those like nitb who believe these books but hang on to principles that more or less make them Jedis. 

I admit that when it comes to reading motives into all you believers I guess at fear based on experience of hearing their reasons; that's probably a bit harsh, for many they just haven't thought about it enough. But like I say, once you take seriously the principle that we are just organic machines everything slots into place; no need for daft self-referential mysteries like consciousness, just physics and process.

As for where the energy / matter comes from, I've never said there theory is there yet but I'm prepared to say at the amazing rate of progress made in the last 200 years we will.

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:
How this is has reached 9 pages is beyond me. All I've seen is a reputable theory put out there and it being canned with maybes. That's essentially been it. Random waffle! Alternative thinking put out there with zero application or understanding.

The best paradox I can offer came from one of my favourite films: Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade. Anyone seen it? If so, remember near the beginning when Indiana Jones summarized beautifully Archeology when he stated it was the search for facts and that if it's truth you want, go to philosophy class. Basically saying Fact and Truth and mutually exclusive of one and another. And that's exactly what science and faith. Science is about the how and not about the why. I have seen BB's thinking around the how and all I've seen counter that is "Not that simple" which has been met with "Ah ok, then what is it?" to which that has been met with "Could be this, or that, maybe, who knows" and even shoulder shrugging.

BB's theory has never been about the why, been about the how. Which is why I have seen on here a big misinterpretation of his views. Asking why in my opinion will just lead you to do your head in thinking about it. It seems if we can ask the why and not just accept the how that there must be alternative theories that go against the how. So essentially how we came to be is a bigger mystery than the ill fated meaning of life.

I don't think this debate can really go any further beyond the repetition seen over the last 5 pages!

But BB says there is no why. This very approach which is completely unscientific and as fundamentally based on his faith of "Science Akbar" (or the Golden Vault but he does not understand the analogy). Cause even in the hows, there are whys (reasons and purpose). Understanding how feelings work scientifically for instance, does not make those feelings any more deader! When Darwin lost his daughter, did he tell himself, how that was just a broken machine, I can't care less as I am a machine myself? The roller coaster of life, and I believe you know a bit of it yourself, is as real as the atoms and energies sustaining it. It is only fair to question science further to get more answers. But apparently, not BB...he knows it all!

Or in his mind no need to ask the why in the first place

Largely depends on the "how" one accepts before saying the rest is unquantifiable which is where the mystery lie.

I have to say I always found the big bang theory amusing as that felt at times are more generic headline than a god  

The "why" for me will just cause inner conflict (well with me for the large part because of my personality) and whilst I feel science explains a lot, it can never explain all. I don't think we'll ever get the bottom of the true beginning. It's 4 billion years worth of catch up and that gap grows with each passing day

Funny you mention the conflict legendkiller, my journey to today began with something similar.

I may have mentioned this before on this forum, but when I was about 8 or 9, I forget when it was, I found myself asking the question who it was who was asking the question who was asking the question.... a sort of infinite regression of awareness questioning (if I had the time). I wasn't thinking about God because even God had a context. I was thinking about completely non-contextual thought. It scared the Hell out of me! 

I found myself almost looking upon myself (not literally) asking this question and for the first and most vivid time in my life wondering just what all this really was. It went far, far beyond questions of origin but was truly about what the Hell was the thought that was asking this question and how I had come to exist.

For such a little lad it was quite the thing, and though I tried many times later in life to recapture it, it never had the novelty of that first, scary moment.

I later in life dabbled with religion, though never really with any enthusiasm. As I grew older (I'm in my 50's now) I came to the view it was all the plaything of knaves, fools and dupes (sorry!).

The thing that occupied me though was the thought of the little boy. What is this thinking entity thinking this question? How did it happen? Why doesn't it know?

And I considered more things; 

- if a virus is a machine, which it really is, and we have a spirit, then where is the dividing line? Where is the unbroken line of evolution from basic entity to complex animal did it spring into existence, and from where? Why did a soulless parent give birth to a spiritual child? It makes no sense to me, I can't see the line.
- as AI emerges we are shortly to face the existence of something which unless we see if we won't know isn't one of us. It's coming so very soon. And it will evolve faster than we can conceive, and it'll evolve far beyond our limited IQ. Why does this think not have a spirit then, and if it does where did it come from when only a few years ago it was as primitive as a virus.
- that as time goes by we keep turning mysteries into routine and we show no signs of slowing down, and I'm content to extrapolate this process


And so I come finally to the conclusion that only one theory reconciles all this; that the reason why the concepts of life and the boundaries of consciousness are so hard to locate is that they aren't there.

Now I accept others may disagree but could they not set out their perspective? I don't mind criticism but really I'd more enjoy a well argued alternative opinion, it'd be more interesting to me.

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:
How this is has reached 9 pages is beyond me. All I've seen is a reputable theory put out there and it being canned with maybes. That's essentially been it. Random waffle! Alternative thinking put out there with zero application or understanding.

The best paradox I can offer came from one of my favourite films: Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade. Anyone seen it? If so, remember near the beginning when Indiana Jones summarized beautifully Archeology when he stated it was the search for facts and that if it's truth you want, go to philosophy class. Basically saying Fact and Truth and mutually exclusive of one and another. And that's exactly what science and faith. Science is about the how and not about the why. I have seen BB's thinking around the how and all I've seen counter that is "Not that simple" which has been met with "Ah ok, then what is it?" to which that has been met with "Could be this, or that, maybe, who knows" and even shoulder shrugging.

BB's theory has never been about the why, been about the how. Which is why I have seen on here a big misinterpretation of his views. Asking why in my opinion will just lead you to do your head in thinking about it. It seems if we can ask the why and not just accept the how that there must be alternative theories that go against the how. So essentially how we came to be is a bigger mystery than the ill fated meaning of life.

I don't think this debate can really go any further beyond the repetition seen over the last 5 pages!

But BB says there is no why. This very approach which is completely unscientific and as fundamentally based on his faith of "Science Akbar" (or the Golden Vault but he does not understand the analogy). Cause even in the hows, there are whys (reasons and purpose). Understanding how feelings work scientifically for instance, does not make those feelings any more deader! When Darwin lost his daughter, did he tell himself, how that was just a broken machine, I can't care less as I am a machine myself? The roller coaster of life, and I believe you know a bit of it yourself, is as real as the atoms and energies sustaining it. It is only fair to question science further to get more answers. But apparently, not BB...he knows it all!

Or in his mind no need to ask the why in the first place

Largely depends on the "how" one accepts before saying the rest is unquantifiable which is where the mystery lie.

I have to say I always found the big bang theory amusing as that felt at times are more generic headline than a god  

The "why" for me will just cause inner conflict (well with me for the large part because of my personality) and whilst I feel science explains a lot, it can never explain all. I don't think we'll ever get the bottom of the true beginning. It's 4 billion years worth of catch up and that gap grows with each passing day

Funny you mention the conflict legendkiller, my journey to today began with something similar.

I may have mentioned this before on this forum, but when I was about 8 or 9, I forget when it was, I found myself asking the question who it was who was asking the question who was asking the question.... a sort of infinite regression of awareness questioning (if I had the time). I wasn't thinking about God because even God had a context. I was thinking about completely non-contextual thought. It scared the Hell out of me! 

I found myself almost looking upon myself (not literally) asking this question and for the first and most vivid time in my life wondering just what all this really was. It went far, far beyond questions of origin but was truly about what the Hell was the thought that was asking this question and how I had come to exist.

For such a little lad it was quite the thing, and though I tried many times later in life to recapture it, it never had the novelty of that first, scary moment.

I later in life dabbled with religion, though never really with any enthusiasm. As I grew older (I'm in my 50's now) I came to the view it was all the plaything of knaves, fools and dupes (sorry!).

The thing that occupied me though was the thought of the little boy. What is this thinking entity thinking this question? How did it happen? Why doesn't it know?

And I considered more things; 

- if a virus is a machine, which it really is, and we have a spirit, then where is the dividing line? Where is the unbroken line of evolution from basic entity to complex animal did it spring into existence, and from where? Why did a soulless parent give birth to a spiritual child? It makes no sense to me, I can't see the line.
- as AI emerges we are shortly to face the existence of something which unless we see if we won't know isn't one of us. It's coming so very soon. And it will evolve faster than we can conceive, and it'll evolve far beyond our limited IQ. Why does this think not have a spirit then, and if it does where did it come from when only a few years ago it was as primitive as a virus.
- that as time goes by we keep turning mysteries into routine and we show no signs of slowing down, and I'm content to extrapolate this process


And so I come finally to the conclusion that only one theory reconciles all this; that the reason why the concepts of life and the boundaries of consciousness are so hard to locate is that they aren't there.

Now I accept others may disagree but could they not set out their perspective? I don't mind criticism but really I'd more enjoy a well argued alternative opinion, it'd be more interesting to me.

You mean if you can’t understand somehing it doesn’t exist.

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:
How this is has reached 9 pages is beyond me. All I've seen is a reputable theory put out there and it being canned with maybes. That's essentially been it. Random waffle! Alternative thinking put out there with zero application or understanding.

The best paradox I can offer came from one of my favourite films: Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade. Anyone seen it? If so, remember near the beginning when Indiana Jones summarized beautifully Archeology when he stated it was the search for facts and that if it's truth you want, go to philosophy class. Basically saying Fact and Truth and mutually exclusive of one and another. And that's exactly what science and faith. Science is about the how and not about the why. I have seen BB's thinking around the how and all I've seen counter that is "Not that simple" which has been met with "Ah ok, then what is it?" to which that has been met with "Could be this, or that, maybe, who knows" and even shoulder shrugging.

BB's theory has never been about the why, been about the how. Which is why I have seen on here a big misinterpretation of his views. Asking why in my opinion will just lead you to do your head in thinking about it. It seems if we can ask the why and not just accept the how that there must be alternative theories that go against the how. So essentially how we came to be is a bigger mystery than the ill fated meaning of life.

I don't think this debate can really go any further beyond the repetition seen over the last 5 pages!

But BB says there is no why. This very approach which is completely unscientific and as fundamentally based on his faith of "Science Akbar" (or the Golden Vault but he does not understand the analogy). Cause even in the hows, there are whys (reasons and purpose). Understanding how feelings work scientifically for instance, does not make those feelings any more deader! When Darwin lost his daughter, did he tell himself, how that was just a broken machine, I can't care less as I am a machine myself? The roller coaster of life, and I believe you know a bit of it yourself, is as real as the atoms and energies sustaining it. It is only fair to question science further to get more answers. But apparently, not BB...he knows it all!

Or in his mind no need to ask the why in the first place

Largely depends on the "how" one accepts before saying the rest is unquantifiable which is where the mystery lie.

I have to say I always found the big bang theory amusing as that felt at times are more generic headline than a god  

The "why" for me will just cause inner conflict (well with me for the large part because of my personality) and whilst I feel science explains a lot, it can never explain all. I don't think we'll ever get the bottom of the true beginning. It's 4 billion years worth of catch up and that gap grows with each passing day

Funny you mention the conflict legendkiller, my journey to today began with something similar.

I may have mentioned this before on this forum, but when I was about 8 or 9, I forget when it was, I found myself asking the question who it was who was asking the question who was asking the question.... a sort of infinite regression of awareness questioning (if I had the time). I wasn't thinking about God because even God had a context. I was thinking about completely non-contextual thought. It scared the Hell out of me! 

I found myself almost looking upon myself (not literally) asking this question and for the first and most vivid time in my life wondering just what all this really was. It went far, far beyond questions of origin but was truly about what the Hell was the thought that was asking this question and how I had come to exist.

For such a little lad it was quite the thing, and though I tried many times later in life to recapture it, it never had the novelty of that first, scary moment.

I later in life dabbled with religion, though never really with any enthusiasm. As I grew older (I'm in my 50's now) I came to the view it was all the plaything of knaves, fools and dupes (sorry!).

The thing that occupied me though was the thought of the little boy. What is this thinking entity thinking this question? How did it happen? Why doesn't it know?

And I considered more things; 

- if a virus is a machine, which it really is, and we have a spirit, then where is the dividing line? Where is the unbroken line of evolution from basic entity to complex animal did it spring into existence, and from where? Why did a soulless parent give birth to a spiritual child? It makes no sense to me, I can't see the line.
- as AI emerges we are shortly to face the existence of something which unless we see if we won't know isn't one of us. It's coming so very soon. And it will evolve faster than we can conceive, and it'll evolve far beyond our limited IQ. Why does this think not have a spirit then, and if it does where did it come from when only a few years ago it was as primitive as a virus.
- that as time goes by we keep turning mysteries into routine and we show no signs of slowing down, and I'm content to extrapolate this process


And so I come finally to the conclusion that only one theory reconciles all this; that the reason why the concepts of life and the boundaries of consciousness are so hard to locate is that they aren't there.

Now I accept others may disagree but could they not set out their perspective? I don't mind criticism but really I'd more enjoy a well argued alternative opinion, it'd be more interesting to me.

I think everyone has that said "conflict" or curiosity or as Ten said "consciousness" whereby I feel we try to grasp a better understanding of our environment, our history and even existence.

It's why even though I am a big nature documentary lover, the explanation for animals and their behaviours often or not is interesting as I am convinced that animals have the vivid mindset and perception a human does. And that the things we call emotions or thoughts are experienced by them.

One of my favourite books I ever owned (sadly on the scrap heap due to wear and tear) was a huge encyclopedia. I was 8 at the time when my folks bought it for me and it was such an amazing book that covered space, time, nature. The question I kept asking was how far does this existence stretch?

And your second to last sentence sums up your position brilliantly. Nothing points to something tangible which is why (no pun) the why doesn't exist for you.

I can see why others would disagree. What would prevent me from leaning towards there no being a why is one word. Doubt.

Undoubtedly animals experience these things, it seems obvious. Once again, where do we draw the line if otherwise? Chimps share a huge proportion of our genes, dolphins and whales communicate, and everywhere you look parents bond with their offspring. And they compete, and form friendships and feel enmity.

noleisthebest wrote:You mean if you can’t understand somehing it doesn’t exist.

No, I said the opposite. 

I said the revelation that the lack of a why made all the strange stuff obviousl, like how you get to cancel out loads of variables and finish with a neat equation. Normally something simple and elegant that does this is the sign of the right answer.

All religion does is substitute one set of questions with another, and ask you to just believe it explicitly without any evidence. Normally somethings not like that is classed as garbage.

Bogbrush's position is unreasonable and unintellectual when applied to where the universe came from in the first place - and numerous phenomena that even prominent scientists have admitted defeat on.  Yet, somehow, he feels he knows all the answers.  And it's only his ego and sense of self importance that's really on display here.  Nothing else.  When the likes of Hoyle, Penrose, and Feynman are all at a loss and all have debated this subject far more thoroughly, I tend to trust this is a far more complicated subject than "Hurrrr!  Science hasn't explained it yet, but will!". He can't and never will be able to explain where the universe came from.  He can't explain why red is red.  He can't explain in any way shape or form the answer to the Hard Problem of Consciousness. 

Bogbrush is taking a minuscule amount of data and extrapolating it to massive amounts of conclusion. 
Like he and Hawking do with "Black Holes".

The reason it got over 9 pages is because BB can't extract himself from his own limited corner he has boxed himself in, so he keeps repeating the same louder and louder.

Exactly.  And I am not even debating god here.  Certainly, I don't believe in the world religions AT ALL - but Bogbrush is simply substituting bad science and bad scientific method for his religion. His entire argument is "Because A and B are true, the X Y and Z are.  Please trust me on this guys - I am the mighty Bogbrish!"  Well, no.  You aren't as smart as real scientists and philosophers who debate this every day.  And it's time you just accepted it.

Great, so let’s hear your ideas. You’ve obviously read widely and given this much thought to be able to know all the flaws in my arguments so I’m excited to hear the detail and clarity of your own ideas.

I know they,ll be so much better than “people with certificates say it’s hard so ordinary people can’t know”. Looking forward to it!


PS I told you why the “hard problem” of consciousness didn’t matter, I told you why red wasn’t actually red at all, and I told you black holes aren’t a thing, it’s the singularity which creates the absence of light in a region that we name a black hole that is there and which creates such difficult but ultimately exciting questions.

Interesting article over Darwin's own doubts, as he was a real scientist, not one of those fanatic fools like Dawkins.  

http://www.windowview.org/sci/pgs/09doubts.html

I personally do not doubt the principles of evolution. I just think it is incomplete and a work in progress, especially since it does not explain the very origin and the end...if it was science we could predict the future of it, like we can have theories on the future of the universe.

It's funny also that this theory of passing the best genes don't quite work for tennis as not many children of champions have become champions themselves. And this is not so much seen in tennis but almost any sport, art and science. The next genius comes from an unrelated family. Federer's father looks like a curling athlete more than a tennis one.

Tenez wrote:It's funny also that this theory of passing the best genes don't quite work for tennis as not many children of champions have become champions themselves. And this is not so much seen in tennis but almost any sport, art and science. The next genius comes from an unrelated family. Federer's father looks like a curling athlete more than a tennis one.

If you think what makes a guy a great tennis player, there's so much on top of genetics; hunger, opposing opportunity, early practise, etc. etc. Tennis is very much a "game" so I wouldn't surprised if Federer's kids were so-so. I would, though, expect that if Usain Bolt married a tall athletic girl that his kids would be able to run like the wind. Works with racehorses. I hear Frankl earns £175k a cover, maybe Usain should check that out.....

Regarding Darwin, he would have had great doubts I'm sure. We've been lucky to have many years to add to his insight with so much more information taking in the development of feathers and so on, and the eye which he couldn't figure out. Poor guy had a slow boat to the Pacific, we've got analytical tools that he never dreamt of. Like I say, we build and add on to knowledge at an almost exponential rate - imagine what gaps we'll have filled in within 50 years (or have filled in for us by some machine with an IQ of 1000+).

As for the end, evolution doesn't have a destination it's just a process. A sudden change in the environment might make the dominant lifeform in 100,000 years the cockroach. It's just about what works.


I don't know whether Darwin was conflicted with religion either, hard to shake that kind of early life brainwashing.

Prof. Andrews (London University), a family friend and a christian, wrote a good book called “Who Made God?”

If anyone is interested I’ll send it to them free as a Christmas present as I have a few more copies spare.

Here is his interview:

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:It's funny also that this theory of passing the best genes don't quite work for tennis as not many children of champions have become champions themselves. And this is not so much seen in tennis but almost any sport, art and science. The next genius comes from an unrelated family. Federer's father looks like a curling athlete more than a tennis one.

If you think what makes a guy a great tennis player, there's so much on top of genetics; hunger, opposing opportunity, early practise, etc. etc. Tennis is very much a "game" so I wouldn't surprised if Federer's kids were so-so. I would, though, expect that if Usain Bolt married a tall athletic girl that his kids would be able to run like the wind. Works with racehorses. I hear Frankl earns £175k a cover, maybe Usain should check that out.....

Yes things have progressed much since but it also raised more questions than answers. Glad some are dedicating their lives into it, and have a curious attitude instead of being as certain as you of everything.

Regarding Darwin, he would have had great doubts I'm sure. We've been lucky to have many years to add to his insight with so much more information taking in the development of feathers and so on, and the eye which he couldn't figure out. Poor guy had a slow boat to the Pacific, we've got analytical tools that he never dreamt of. Like I say, we build and add on to knowledge at an almost exponential rate - imagine what gaps we'll have filled in within 50 years (or have filled in for us by some machine with an IQ of 1000+).

For a couple of centuries for instance there was nothing proving that one patient's state of mind would alter in turn his/herpathology  but now a long study seems to prove it does. I am sure it can be perfectly explained scientifically but for now we do not seem to have an answer, bar you of course.  

As for the end, evolution doesn't have a destination it's just a process. A sudden change in the environment might make the dominant lifeform in 100,000 years the cockroach. It's just about what works.

Well that's your vision. largely unproven. Like we think the universe will collapse again and or everything will gradually turn into heavy stable elements such as metal.

I don't know whether Darwin was conflicted with religion either, hard to shake that kind of early life brainwashing.

He did not look a happy chap.

Here we go again, evolution most definitely is not a train on a track to a destination. That's not just my "vision", that's the bleeding obvious to just about anyone who knows anything about the subject.

And, no. Our advances create loads of answers and NEW QUESTIONS, it does not on the whole undermine our existing answers. You seem to imply discoveries take us backwards. Well, for you perhaps not not on the whole they don't. There are some right characters on this forum - there's one guy who actually seems to think "red" is a thing (what a stupid idea!!) which makes a mystery - utterly laughable!!

Other than that, you don't appear to be answering some of the parts of my post with the bits you've written, your reply is all messed up.

 -as AI emerges we are shortly to face the existence of something which unless we see if we won't know isn't one of us. It's coming so very soon. And it will evolve faster than we can conceive, and it'll evolve far beyond our limited IQ. Why does this think not have a spirit then, and if it does where did it come from when only a few years ago it was as primitive as a virus.
- that as time goes by we keep turning mysteries into routine and we show no signs of slowing down, and I'm content to extrapolate this process

Fascinating stuff from Bogbrush - the search for a why and the essence of 'life' or 'consciousness' or some such will obviously continue until such time as science may be able to provide a clearer answer, but my view on such evidence as there is is that he is more likely to be right than such alternative explanations as there may be (and beyond whataboutery they are lacking on here). 

However my point is that the above extract, and his post in general, opens up a similar (but different) question as to the direction of law & ethics.  We recognise and enshrine in law human rights borne of our acceptance of a notion of human dignity, and we recognise the slightly different matter of animal welfare borne of our acceptance of duties to creatures we can harm but which cannot speak for themselves or enforce 'rights' in any meaningful way, but we don't accept that inanimate objects merit any similar protection, whether as a matter of morality or of law (we cherish things like Old Masters for our edification, not the object's).  Once AI has reached the degree of sophistication which he describes (and undoubtedly it will, far sooner than we realise before outstripping our capabilities to an extent we will probably unable to fathom), what about these machines which will be capable of our functions and more - they will be able to grasp matters such as feelings and empathy &c &c?  Will we need to accept as a matter of law or morality (or both) that they merit similar protection?

barrystar wrote:

 -as AI emerges we are shortly to face the existence of something which unless we see if we won't know isn't one of us. It's coming so very soon. And it will evolve faster than we can conceive, and it'll evolve far beyond our limited IQ. Why does this think not have a spirit then, and if it does where did it come from when only a few years ago it was as primitive as a virus.
- that as time goes by we keep turning mysteries into routine and we show no signs of slowing down, and I'm content to extrapolate this process

Fascinating stuff from Bogbrush - the search for a why and the essence of 'life' or 'consciousness' or some such will obviously continue until such time as science may be able to provide a clearer answer, but my view on such evidence as there is is that he is more likely to be right than such alternative explanations as there may be (and beyond whataboutery they are lacking on here). 

However my point is that the above extract, and his post in general, opens up a similar (but different) question as to the direction of law & ethics.  We recognise and enshrine in law human rights borne of our acceptance of a notion of human dignity, and we recognise the slightly different matter of animal welfare borne of our acceptance of duties to creatures we can harm but which cannot speak for themselves or enforce 'rights' in any meaningful way, but we don't accept that inanimate objects merit any similar protection, whether as a matter of morality or of law (we cherish things like Old Masters for our edification, not the object's).  Once AI has reached the degree of sophistication which he describes (and undoubtedly it will, far sooner than we realise before outstripping our capabilities to an extent we will probably unable to fathom), what about these machines which will be capable of our functions and more - they will be able to grasp matters such as feelings and empathy &c &c?  Will we need to accept as a matter of law or morality (or both) that they merit similar protection?

Those are excellent questions. I'm even more concerned about the stance they will take on our rights! These things will be as intelligent relative to us as we are to cats (or worse). 

I did think for a time that the process would be that we will integrate with them, plugging in so we have access to the power but the more I look at it the more I think whichever way it goes the genie will only need to get out of the bottle once and we'll have totally lost control.  On a lighter note I always thought Star Trek missed a great opportunity by pitching their Borg characters as some offshoot of humanity that had gone a bit over the top on integrated AI

Wow...Barry...good to have you here. It took you some time!

Tenez wrote:Well that's your vision. largely unproven. Like we think the universe will collapse again and or everything will gradually turn into heavy stable elements such as metal.

An enjoyable diversion, but neither of these form a viable end of Universe model.

1. The Universe, far from re-collapsing, is accelerating in expansion and has gone far past the point where gravity could recapture it. The weirdest thing is that as the Universe expands it is not because things are themselves moving, it is because the space itself is expanding, thus the things travel farther apart without actually moving in space. Think about putting two dots onto the surface of a balloon and then blowing it up - the dots become separated but they don't actually have independent motion! This is why all things are moving away from each other which is very odd if you think about it.

2. Metals aren't actually necessarily heavy. In fact most elements are metals, including most of the lightest elements after Hydrogen and Helium. Leaving that aside, there's no reason why matter would gravitate to that state, no process known takes it in that direction. With the accelerating expansion of space it's far more likely that the true "final" fate will be that the rate of expansion will become so huge that even atoms will be torn apart, breaking down into subatomic particles, or less. One kind of reassuring idea (not that any of us will witness it) is that at levels of extreme emptiness vacuum energy can give rise to a rapid expansion and another Universe arising as a bubble from the last. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_genesis . It might have happened repeatedly, or indeed given the debatable nature of time even that concept might not have meaning.

barrystar wrote:Fascinating stuff from Bogbrush - the search for a why and the essence of 'life' or 'consciousness' or some such will obviously continue until such time as science may be able to provide a clearer answer, but my view on such evidence as there is is that he is more likely to be right than such alternative explanations as there may be (and beyond whataboutery they are lacking on here). 

Science will always be able to explain new discoveries, otherwise they woudl not be discoveries. That's not the point  As special as humans are, or simply life is, everything obeys to the laws of physics. It does not make chemistry, psychology, physiology or biology wrong sciences. They simply bring more light on the phenomenon of life. One doesn't exclude the others.

The main difference between BB and I is that he considers matter dead, he says "everything is dead", I consider everything alive. To me an atom is alive, in the sense that it vibrates, It has a charge, mass, energy, even time! and electrons spinning like crazy around them, and can "crave" to associate with others. They are even made of smaller entities. They are the perfect starting piece of lego to start evolution.
To me "dead" means no time, no space, nothingness. If atoms had not all those properties, we could not reflect on the subject today. That is why even Artificial intelligence will only happen thanks to matter's natural laws. Try to start life with legos, you can;t.....as complicated as your legos design will be...you will go nowhere. (I am using lego as an image of something which is really lifeless (even though I agree it is also made of atoms).

However my point is that the above extract, and his post in general, opens up a similar (but different) question as to the direction of law & ethics.  We recognise and enshrine in law human rights borne of our acceptance of a notion of human dignity, and we recognise the slightly different matter of animal welfare borne of our acceptance of duties to creatures we can harm but which cannot speak for themselves or enforce 'rights' in any meaningful way, but we don't accept that inanimate objects merit any similar protection, whether as a matter of morality or of law (we cherish things like Old Masters for our edification, not the object's).  Once AI has reached the degree of sophistication which he describes (and undoubtedly it will, far sooner than we realise before outstripping our capabilities to an extent we will probably unable to fathom), what about these machines which will be capable of our functions and more - they will be able to grasp matters such as feelings and empathy &c &c?  Will we need to accept as a matter of law or morality (or both) that they merit similar protection?

I have a feeling we human will get bored of that horizontal knowledge, what's really interesting is the vertical one.

Tenez wrote:The main difference between BB and I is that he considers matter dead, he says "everything is dead", I consider everything alive. To me an atom is alive, in the sense that it vibrates, It has a charge, mass, energy, even time! and electrons spinning like crazy around them, and can "crave" to associate with others. They are even made of smaller entities. They are the perfect starting piece of lego to start evolution.
To me "dead" means no time, no space, nothingness. If atoms had not all those properties, we could not reflect on the subject today. That is why even Artificial intelligence will only happen thanks to matter's natural laws. Try to start life with legos, you can;t.....as complicated as your legos design will be...you will go nowhere. (I am using lego as an image of something which is really lifeless (even though I agree it is also made of atoms). 

If that's really the main difference, it looks rather semantic to me - you both agree that there is energy and matter within Atoms and more generally in the Universe, and that atoms are building blocks of what we generally think of as animate and inanimate objects; it's not clear to me what difference it makes whether one describes an atom in its natural single state as we currently understand it to be as 'alive' or 'dead'.

I thought you were more in disagreement about how much we can say with confidence about the appearance/origin of matter & energy, where they and the Universe more generally are headed, whether "why" is a legitimate question to pursue and what answers it may throw up, all in the context of what, if any, is the precise difference between two collections of atoms or molecules which make up: (i) some entity which we would describe as 'living' in standard parlance, perhaps the key distinguishing feature of which is something that can reproduce itself; and, (ii) something which is not living, whether it was previously living (i.e. a dead animal or plant) or never living (i.e. a lump of aluminium ore).

I don't pretend to know in any detail, even at a superficial level, the answers to these questions beyond being very confident indeed that they are not explained by the existence of a God in the theistic sense of the word as opposed, possibly (and maybe stretching the concept to breaking point) to a more Aristotelian 'deistic' sense.

I come across a lot of people these days who seem to believe in The Force as a (they think) less embarrassing outlet of their religious impulses. I think those shit Star Wars films have a lot to answer for.

bogbrush wrote:I come across a lot of people these days who seem to believe in The Force as a (they think) less embarrassing outlet of their religious impulses. I think those shit Star Wars films have a lot to answer for.

Is that a dig at me? Such as I can explain my thoughts they are very far from a notion of The Force - there is some basis for the existence of mass and energy - scientists have not yet explained it, but I suspect that they probably will one day although not necessarily in my lifetime.  Until they do, I don't know what the hell It is, or weather I will be capable of understanding the scientific explanation when they do, but I'm absolutely sure that It has no interested involvement in morality or the agency of humans or animals or 'living things' and that It cannot be suborned or called upon by us to our ends other than in the sense of our observation of the laws (e.g. laws of physics) by which it seems to exist and taking advantage of our understanding of them (i.e. by using nuclear fission or fusion).

No, not at all.

I had a guy worked for me who was very proud of how he knew the Bible stories were wrong but he had all sorts of profound (he thought) ideas about Universal energy. He wasn’t so happy when I said he was basically a Jedi.

barrystar wrote:

Tenez wrote:The main difference between BB and I is that he considers matter dead, he says "everything is dead", I consider everything alive. To me an atom is alive, in the sense that it vibrates, It has a charge, mass, energy, even time! and electrons spinning like crazy around them, and can "crave" to associate with others. They are even made of smaller entities. They are the perfect starting piece of lego to start evolution.
To me "dead" means no time, no space, nothingness. If atoms had not all those properties, we could not reflect on the subject today. That is why even Artificial intelligence will only happen thanks to matter's natural laws. Try to start life with legos, you can;t.....as complicated as your legos design will be...you will go nowhere. (I am using lego as an image of something which is really lifeless (even though I agree it is also made of atoms). 

If that's really the main difference, it looks rather semantic to me - you both agree that there is energy and matter within Atoms and more generally in the Universe, and that atoms are building blocks of what we generally think of as animate and inanimate objects; it's not clear to me what difference it makes whether one describes an atom in its natural single state as we currently understand it to be as 'alive' or 'dead'.

Well it makes a big difference to me as this would explain a lot more of the world around me. In short one would need a miracle to go from a dead building block to something as "lively" as we are, even as we seem we are (according to BB), able to think, reflect and gain enough freedom to change our own genetics at "will". That's why BB has little alternative but to call everything dead. (in that respect, I am not sure why being amazed at AI if we are dead to start with AI being even deader). It's more a hole in logic doubled with the sense of certitude which I find strange to say the least.

As mentioned for someone logic, nothingness is what really makes sense: no time, no matter, no space, no pain!. However there is something and that something vibrates and complexifies beyond what we can consciously grasp, to the point where even you has to consider in your job human dignity or self-esteem.  Is this notion of "Self" arising at the end of the evolution or is it in matter to start with, even at atomic proportion?

A definition of alive that includes forces such as electromagnetic attraction renders the word meaningless. It also begs the question why would you call a person ‘dead’ just because they have stopped functioning. There’s no difference is there? Are you coming round?

It’s not that I have no alternative it’s just that it’s tge only route that cancels out all this self-referential crap and makes it potentially a straightforward process.

If you want to call the process of evolution miraculous that’s up to you, but it’s that acting on chemistry that does it.

Rules of human interaction are inevitable in an organism that evolved in a social setting. Humans who don’t had lower survival rates, though there are reproductive advantages to some degree of isolationism / separation, which is why other humans need rules to protect them from the more predatory individuals.

bogbrush wrote:A definition of alive that includes forces such as electromagnetic attraction renders the word meaningless. It also begs the question why would you call a person ‘dead’ just because they have stopped functioning. There’s no difference is there? Are you coming round?

No there is a huge difference. It is amazing you don't see it. A dead body is different than a living body cause cause its energy is gone. No more energy is going through the brain cells. Any life knows when it's dead. Life does exist. The fear you have of dying is a proof that you live. A dead body is made of atoms which will be used to generate more life. What's so complicted?

It’s not that I have no alternative it’s just that it’s tge only route that cancels out all this self-referential crap and makes it potentially a straightforward process.

Oh I see. This fear of the voice that says "who was asking the question who was asking the question.?" This Self is defining itself through evolution and us in particular.

If you want to call the process of evolution miraculous that’s up to you, but it’s that acting on chemistry that does it.

It's not evolution which I find "miraculous". I mentioned I am not surprised life has to follow some rules. It's a the fact there is something instead of nothingness. We should be allowed to call this miraculous..at least this is more true than everything is dead.

Rules of human interaction are inevitable in an organism that evolved in a social setting. Humans who don’t had lower survival rates, though there are reproductive advantages to some degree of isolationism / separation, which is why other humans need rules to protect them from the more predatory individuals.

You are talking about the mecanism again....We know it. We know how a car works, yet it does not make the car any less impressive.

Tenez wrote:To me an atom is alive, in the sense that it vibrates, It has a charge, mass, energy, even time! and electrons spinning like crazy around them, and can "crave" to associate with others. They are even made of smaller entities. They are the perfect starting piece of lego to start evolution. 

Tenez wrote: A dead body is different than a living body cause cause its energy is gone. No more energy is going through the brain cells. Any life knows when it's dead. Life does exist. The fear you have of dying is a proof that you live. A dead body is made of atoms which will be used to generate more life. What's so complicated?

If I may be so bold - these two quotes suggest to me that either your differences are semantic, or you are looking in the wrong place for your starting point as to the difference between living and dead organisms/objects.  The atoms (and molecules) inside a dead body are just as 'alive' in the sense you describe in the first quote as they are in a living body - carbon atoms or more complex compounds do not change their essential sub-atomic make-up at the moment of death - the differences between a dead and a living body are not observable at atomic or sub-atomic levels, they present in the way in which much larger groupings of matter than individual atoms or molecules interact between one another.  Bogbrush says that this is explained by the fact that living creatures are hugely complex machines involving vast conglomerations of the tiny building blocks of matter and that what some describe as 'spirit' or 'consciousness' are part of the observable functions of such complex machines - which are 'alive' when they are functioning and 'dead' when they are not but otherwise essentially the same (whether your starting point is that the atoms that make them up are 'alive' or 'dead' makes no difference).  He suggests that much of our appreciation of how these machines work is tempered by the centuries of religious and cultural baggage that we all carry from mankind's imperfect and unscientific attempts to explain the 'miracle of life'.  For my part I think he's on the right lines - although, as so often, the forthright way in which he expresses himself  can encourage an argumentative response rather than an attempt to narrow areas of disagreement and to identify areas of agreement.

You think he is far too confident in his conclusions on the evidence thus far, so much so that you suggest that his over-confidence is unscientific, but as I say above, if you are to make that good you need to start somewhere else, because you will not find the difference between living and not living at the sub-atomic level - and if you do have to start somewhere else, you might find yourself getting closer to Bogbrush's view, as I have done.

Wow!

I was going to use the analogy of a corpse and a living person to illustrate the presence of life and now I read that people can't tell it and claim the two are the same.

I don't normally use this word, but I am staggered.

Mind you, spiritually those people are dead, so it all does make sense in the end.

Here is the debate that took place in Oxford in 1986.
E. Andrews took on S. Dawkings : "Creation vs Evolution"

part 1



& part 2




A proper debate, not an ego pumping/salvaging exercise.

p.s.

note the hostile, aggressive tone of the "evolutionists", no grace in their speech. The brains behind today's PC culture, given ample coverage in media with one sole purpose...not to build, but to tear the man down.

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:A definition of alive that includes forces such as electromagnetic attraction renders the word meaningless. It also begs the question why would you call a person ‘dead’ just because they have stopped functioning. There’s no difference is there? Are you coming round?

No there is a huge difference. It is amazing you don't see it. A dead body is different than a living body cause cause its energy is gone. No more energy is going through the brain cells. Any life knows when it's dead. Life does exist. The fear you have of dying is a proof that you live. A dead body is made of atoms which will be used to generate more life. What's so complicted?

It’s not that I have no alternative it’s just that it’s tge only route that cancels out all this self-referential crap and makes it potentially a straightforward process.

Oh I see. This fear of the voice that says "who was asking the question who was asking the question.?" This Self is defining itself through evolution and us in particular.

If you want to call the process of evolution miraculous that’s up to you, but it’s that acting on chemistry that does it.

It's not evolution which I find "miraculous". I mentioned I am not surprised life has to follow some rules. It's a the fact there is something instead of nothingness. We should be allowed to call this miraculous..at least this is more true than everything is dead.

Rules of human interaction are inevitable in an organism that evolved in a social setting. Humans who don’t had lower survival rates, though there are reproductive advantages to some degree of isolationism / separation, which is why other humans need rules to protect them from the more predatory individuals.

You are talking about the mecanism again....We know it. We know how a car works, yet it does not make the car any less impressive.

1. Sorry, what energy is gone? I thought you considered the electrons alive. You do realise they still spin on unaltered after the person expires, don't you? (please say you do, I wouldn't be able to cope if you didn't).

2. The startled reaction of the 9 year old boy, yes. As I say I've never been able to recapture that sensation because it no longer troubles me at all.

3. If you think so, then call it miraculous. You are certainly allowed to.

4. Why does a car impress you? If you understood the design process and manufacturing method you'd think nothing of it. That's what happens when you have understanding rather than ignorance.

noleisthebest wrote:Wow!

I was going to use the analogy of a corpse and a living person to illustrate the presence of life and now I read that people can't tell it and claim the two are the same.

I don't normally use this word, but I am staggered.

Mind you, spiritually those people are dead, so it all does make sense in the end.

All the energy and cells are still there, it's just stopped the process of cycling tissue to maintain function. Like a car that's broken down with a full tank, and like the car it will soon begin to fall apart but there's no meaningful change.

Welcome to the forum Barrystar

barrystar wrote:
For my part I think he's on the right lines - although, as so often, the forthright way in which he expresses himself  can encourage an argumentative response rather than an attempt to narrow areas of disagreement and to identify areas of agreement.

Yes but it makes it more entertaining to read
I haven’t had a debate with Bogbrush in a while, will pick an argument soon!

Also as for the debate as a whole, can people say where they specificslly disagree? Again all I’m seeing is vague statements and then just more questions for BB.

DECIMA wrote:

barrystar wrote:
For my part I think he's on the right lines - although, as so often, the forthright way in which he expresses himself  can encourage an argumentative response rather than an attempt to narrow areas of disagreement and to identify areas of agreement.

Yes but it makes it more entertaining to read
I haven’t had a debate with Bogbrush in a while, will pick an argument soon!

Also as for the debate as a whole, can people say where they specificslly disagree? Again all I’m seeing is vague statements and then just more questions for BB.

I seldom ever find myself agreeing with you in a complete sentence, but in this case I do and even see fit to forgive the misspell!

DECIMA wrote:

Also as for the debate as a whole, can people say where they specificslly disagree? Again all I’m seeing is vague statements and then just more questions for BB.

Quite so - even better would be if people would set their stall out and offer a complete theory to counter BB's.  It's pretty clear what's happening and where this is headed.

barrystar wrote:Bogbrush says that this is explained by the fact that living creatures are hugely complex machines involving vast conglomerations of the tiny building blocks of matter and that what some describe as 'spirit' or 'consciousness' are part of the observable functions of such complex machines - which are 'alive' when they are functioning and 'dead' when they are not but otherwise essentially the same (whether your starting point is that the atoms that make them up are 'alive' or 'dead' makes no difference).  He suggests that much of our appreciation of how these machines work is tempered by the centuries of religious and cultural baggage that we all carry from mankind's imperfect and unscientific attempts to explain the 'miracle of life'.  For my part I think he's on the right lines - although, as so often, the forthright way in which he expresses himself  can encourage an argumentative response rather than an attempt to narrow areas of disagreement and to identify areas of agreement.

First, unlike what you say, BB does not "suggest", He is certain!  You have the humility to "think" he is right. I understand BB position. But he has not got all the data at hand to be certain of anything. This is what many of us have been disagreeing upon.  That's my main issue.  In front of so many unanswered questions, I find BB's attitude arrogant and not very scientific. I maintain.

You think he is far too confident in his conclusions on the evidence thus far, so much so that you suggest that his over-confidence is unscientific, but as I say above, if you are to make that good you need to start somewhere else, because you will not find the difference between living and not living at the sub-atomic level - and if you do have to start somewhere else, you might find yourself getting closer to Bogbrush's view, as I have done.

But again, unlike BB I am not certain of anything, It just "appears" to me that everything lives. As Descartes said, the only thing we can say is Cogito Ergo Sum, the rest is a bit less certain.[/quote]

bogbrush wrote:1. Sorry, what energy is gone? I thought you considered the electrons alive. You do realise they still spin on unaltered after the person expires, don't you? (please say you do, I wouldn't be able to cope if you didn't).

What energy? Good question. I don;t know. The breath of life is gone. It does not not mean the heart or liver is dead, they can be transplanted to others, like the atoms of the dead body can be an excellent source of future life.

2. The startled reaction of the 9 year old boy, yes. As I say I've never been able to recapture that sensation because it no longer troubles me at all.

yep not that different than NITB's faith now that she knows.

4. Why does a car impress you? If you understood the design process and manufacturing method you'd think nothing of it. That's what happens when you have understanding rather than ignorance.

I am impressed by a car cause I do not know how it works and some made the cars. Not me. And even if I learn how it runs, I'd still think it's an amazing piece of engineering. Why would you be impressed by AI then? Sames reasons. An atom seems more complicated than your think, we are still studying it. So imagine life?

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:1. Sorry, what energy is gone? I thought you considered the electrons alive. You do realise they still spin on unaltered after the person expires, don't you? (please say you do, I wouldn't be able to cope if you didn't).

What energy? Good question. I don;t know. The breath of life is gone. It does not not mean the heart or liver is dead, they can be transplanted to others, like the atoms of the dead body can be an excellent source of future life.

2. The startled reaction of the 9 year old boy, yes. As I say I've never been able to recapture that sensation because it no longer troubles me at all.

yep not that different than NITB's faith now that she knows.

4. Why does a car impress you? If you understood the design process and manufacturing method you'd think nothing of it. That's what happens when you have understanding rather than ignorance.

I am impressed by a car cause I do not know how it works and some made the cars. Not me. And even if I learn how it runs, I'd still think it's an amazing piece of engineering. Why would you be impressed by AI then? Sames reasons. An atom seems more complicated than your think, we are still studying it. So imagine life?

It’s actually knowledge, but too difficult for most here to comprehend.

I liked the fact you used the word “LEGO” in this thread, because word “religion” comes from the Latin word “legare” which means connect (hence the name for lego blocks/bricks which you have to connect to each other).

Re-legare (religion) means men’s reconnection with God, after the original separation.

So I am happily relegar-ed and I know it.

I also have many practical proofs for it, but I don’t think they would be of any help to people here who can’t even understand they are alive (their bodies).

barrystar wrote:

DECIMA wrote:

Also as for the debate as a whole, can people say where they specificslly disagree? Again all I’m seeing is vague statements and then just more questions for BB.

Quite so - even better would be if people would set their stall out and offer a complete theory to counter BB's.  It's pretty clear what's happening and where this is headed.

The point is, BB arrogantly assumes he is right and the rest of us are idiots.


That’s why I only prodded with a few questions to show how limited his standpoint is. Siemce is good, but it’s so limited...it’s only a tool, a helper to men not its definer.

The youtube clips I posted  with debate about creation vs evolution supports my view on it to a tee.
Nothing to add.

BB has bitten more than he can chew and is trying not to sink but running out of energy quickly.

Hopefully, this chat will have challenged him and bring him back to when he was less cynical...at the age of 9.

If you and him are happy to believe you are an accidental series of chemical accidents, fine.

You probably think men have advanced, but I say only horizontally, spiritually, man is regressing...

We’ll all find out on our last day who was right, and unlike most here I look forward to that day with great confidence.

As for the higher than thou “cogito ergo sum” position, it’s fine, so long as the rest of us allowed to think and not be boxed or judged on where we got with it.

Think and let think...

noleisthebest wrote:
It’s actually knowledge, but too difficult for most here to comprehend.

I liked the fact you used the word “LEGO” in this thread, because word “religion” comes from the Latin word “legare” which means connect (hence the name for lego blocks/bricks which you have to connect to each other).

Re-legare (religion)  means men’s reconnection with God, after the original separation.

So I am happily relegar-ed and I know it.

I also have many practical proofs for it, but I don’t think they would be of any help to people here who can’t even understand they are alive (their bodies).

I agree that we can look at it from the way up (BB) as well as the way down (you)....as long as one does not think he holds the truth. Cause if one did, we 'd know it by now. It does not take away what Galileo, Pasteur, Newton, Darwin, Einstein and Jung discovered as they helped understand how what is out there works, none of them manage to understand what really IS out there.

Jung in that respect is one of the most interesting of them all as he directly studied the mind and in particular those subtle energies which rule us.

A lot more playing of the ball than the man on all sides would be preferable.  It's no good criticising the way in which one's opponent argues in one breath, and then damning them roundly in a similar fashion in the next.

I'm signing off on this one with my last thought.

Amidst all of this I hold onto only one certainty - that there is no supernatural creator God, Yaweh, Jehovah, Allah &c &c &c who keeps a continuing interest in the moral way we conduct ourselves of the sort that the world's various religions worship.  I find that a comforting thought because if there were such an entity he'd be a capricious monster.

I don't damn those who differ from me on this score - it's a free world; but I do think that the effect of the hold that religions have on people the world over has moved from broadly civilising, as some undoubtedly were originally by contrast to the order of the societies from which they grew, to problematic in many instances.  That's not to deny the reality that religion provides great solace and a civilising influence in many individual circumstances - I am talking big picture.

I don't 'look forward' to my last day, I cherish being alive and want to be around for my family, particularly my young son, for years to come, but equally I see no point in dreading what is, after all, the only certainty of life.

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:
yep not that different than NITB's faith now that she knows.

It’s actually knowledge, but too difficult for most here to comprehend.

I know neither myself or Bogbrush are bright enough, but try anyway.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:
It’s actually knowledge, but too difficult for most here to comprehend.
I liked the fact you used the word “LEGO” in this thread, because word “religion” comes from the Latin word “legare” which means connect (hence the name for lego blocks/bricks which you have to connect to each other).
Re-legare (religion)  means men’s reconnection with God, after the original separation.
So I am happily relegar-ed and I know it.
I also have many practical proofs for it, but I don’t think they would be of any help to people here who can’t even understand they are alive (their bodies).

I agree that we can look at it from the way up (BB) as well as the way down (you)....as long as one does not think he holds the truth. Cause if one did, we 'd know it by now. It does not take away what Galileo, Pasteur, Newton, Darwin, Einstein and Jung discovered as they helped understand how what is out there works, none of them manage to understand what really IS out there.

Just because they didn’t doesn’t mean that I can’t.
I am not going to exercise false humility here and waving “big names” in front of me does not intimidate me. They are great scientists, yet they failed to soleve the only problem in life they really needed to.

Tenez wrote:
Jung in that respect is one of the most interesting of them all as he directly studied the mind and in particular those subtle energies which rule us.

Jung was good, a step forward from Freud. Another useful scientist who threw some light
on the inner mechanics of mind and emotions as well as where we may get oir patterns of thoughts and behaviour from. I enjoy his work very much.

All that is very exciting but all it’s doing is not much different from designing a car.

Man can not comprehend God but he can relegare with him and relegare has nohing to do with science...be it psychology or physics.

I know this all sounds preposterous to you but again, I am not judging whatever people including you here may think and believe.

Again think and let think..seems to br allowed for anyone but to the relegared ones.
Now why is that?

Why does that irritate so much?

DECIMA wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:
yep not that different than NITB's faith now that she knows.

It’s actually knowledge, but too difficult for most here to comprehend.

I know neither myself or Bogbrush are bright enough, but try anyway.

It’s nothing to do with brightness, just humility.
Despite his prickly image, BB seems to be someone who is genuinely searching for truth (maybe I am wrong, but at least I gave him benefit of the doubt), you in the other hand have a history of not being interested in it...only wish to be seen right.

noleisthebest wrote:

barrystar wrote:

DECIMA wrote:

Also as for the debate as a whole, can people say where they specificslly disagree? Again all I’m seeing is vague statements and then just more questions for BB.

Quite so - even better would be if people would set their stall out and offer a complete theory to counter BB's.  It's pretty clear what's happening and where this is headed.

The point is, BB arrogantly assumes he is right and the rest of us are idiots.


That’s why I only prodded with a few questions to show how limited his standpoint is. Siemce is good, but it’s so limited...it’s only a tool, a helper to men not its definer.

The youtube clips I posted  with debate about creation vs evolution supports my view on it to a tee.
Nothing to add.

BB has bitten more than he can chew and is trying not to sink but running out of energy quickly.

Hopefully, this chat will have challenged him and bring him back to when he was less cynical...at the age of 9.

If you and him are happy to believe you are an accidental series of chemical accidents, fine.

You probably think men have advanced, but I say only horizontally, spiritually, man is regressing...

We’ll all find out on our last day who was right, and unlike most here I look forward to that day with great confidence.

That's not true. Not everyone.

You totally fail to understand what I realised at 9!!! That was the beginning of my realisation that there was no life - what scared me was this revelation being so out of line with what I'd been told before.

No, unortunately on our last day we don't even know we've died because the very last thing we know is that we're feeling a bit sleepy.

barrystar wrote:...
I don't damn those who differ from me on this score - it's a free world; but I do think that the effect of the hold that religions have on people the world over has moved from broadly civilising, as some undoubtedly were originally by contrast to the order of the societies from which they grew, to problematic in many instances.  That's not to deny the reality that religion provides great solace and a civilising influence in many individual circumstances - I am talking big picture

.This is a point I raise at the beginning of this conversation. People need to believe in something, and if you take religion away, what's left? Money and power! Which is in effect the religion described in the bible as the Golden Vault (need for tangible beliefs), which in my view destroys the world much faster and at a much larger scale than any religion. In fact it is also money/power which use religions for its own end.

Tenez you should be embarrassed that this level of discourse is on the same side as you.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:It’s actually knowledge, but too difficult for most here to comprehend.

I agree that we can look at it from the way up (BB) as well as the way down (you)

Right, so Bogbrush's logic is on the other side of the coin as Bible literalism- completely made up stories? How can you write things like that and not be embarrassed.
Once in a debate you declared yourself the Roger Federer of intellectual debating and called me Horacio Zeballos, I would return the favour but it would be a serious insult to the only man to beat Nadal in Chile.

noleisthebest wrote:
Despite his prickly image, BB seems to be  someone who is genuinely searching for truth (maybe I am wrong, but at least I gave him benefit of the doubt), you in the other hand have a history of not being interested in it...only wish to be seen right.

Go on, where have you got this from, give me evidence that this my 'history'.

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:1. Sorry, what energy is gone? I thought you considered the electrons alive. You do realise they still spin on unaltered after the person expires, don't you? (please say you do, I wouldn't be able to cope if you didn't).

What energy? Good question. I don;t know. The breath of life is gone. It does not not mean the heart or liver is dead, they can be transplanted to others, like the atoms of the dead body can be an excellent source of future life.

2. The startled reaction of the 9 year old boy, yes. As I say I've never been able to recapture that sensation because it no longer troubles me at all.

yep not that different than NITB's faith now that she knows.

4. Why does a car impress you? If you understood the design process and manufacturing method you'd think nothing of it. That's what happens when you have understanding rather than ignorance.

I am impressed by a car cause I do not know how it works and some made the cars. Not me. And even if I learn how it runs, I'd still think it's an amazing piece of engineering. Why would you be impressed by AI then? Sames reasons. An atom seems more complicated than your think, we are still studying it. So imagine life?

One minute electrons are alive, the next minute the breath of life vanishes. Do electrons have the breath of life? 

Exactly, and this is why you think it's all such an amazing mystery - because you have no grasp of physics and process. I suspect you never will because the key is the confidence to release yourself from the fear of pointlessness.