Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 103 of 120 1 2 101 102 103 104 105 119 120
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Cells interact.
Yes they do, in alot of ways, similar to humans.

Not in any way vaguely similar to humans. I'm a cellular/molecular biologist, and let me tell you; there are no similarity in the way people vs cells interact. A closer approximation would be how humans and baking bread interact...


Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Originally Posted By: Bryan
The mind is an emergent property from the interactions of those cells.

Just like you. You are an emergent Bryan based on the interaction of humanity.

My emergent properties are not dependent on anything other than my biology. Society itself is an emergent property of humans; but not vice-versa. Perhaps you should learn a little about emergence before pontificating on it.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Amazing how such chaos and randomness has produced such an emergent technology and consciousness that is doomed to become obsolete and valueless to so many.

Ahh, the good ol' red herrings of randomness and the need for supernaturalism to somehow give our lives value.

Firstly, randomness has little to do with it. Emergent (biological) properties are a product of chemical interactions, which in turn are predicated on physical properties driven by concrete and immutable 'laws'. There is no randomness to that; just stochasticism. Indeed, these processes are as directional and immutable as gravity. The only thing random in our biology (aside from certain environmental factors) is mutation - everything else abides by the distinctly non-random 'laws' of physics.

As for needing supernaturalism (i.e. a 'soul') to have self-value, or to value human life, is a myth created by the religieux to validate their beliefs and to maintain their self-sense of moral superiority. The fact you need some supernatural aspect to feel self-worth and/or see worth in others says far more about you than it does about those of us who value people for no reason other than they in-and-of-themselves have value.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Not in any way vaguely similar to humans. I'm a cellular/molecular biologist, and let me tell you; there are no similarity in the way people vs cells interact. A closer approximation would be how humans and baking bread interact...
Of course, you are the expert..., with a title that means something to someone.... Consciousness being like baked bread.. rising from the dough. eek


Originally Posted By: Bryan

My emergent properties are not dependent on anything other than my biology.
Right I got that. That you subscribe to the idea that spirit is a mythical fabrication of stone aged humanity points to the fact that the idea (being something other than original) also points to the fact that you couldn't have actually thought of it yourself but instead assumed the thought via the nueropeptied highway which took the exit to the (I'm Bryan a cellular/molecular biologist) reciever site.
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Society itself is an emergent property of humans; but not vice-versa.
And humans being isolated to their emergent chemical makeup have no connectivity to society. They just project it outward from their biologically emergent and random individual and isolated personalities, and it miraculously finds both commonality and diversity, forcing humanity to either love or hate each other and any idea of reality.
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Perhaps you should learn a little about emergence before pontificating on it.

Or know something about consciousness before falling for the baked bread consciousness theory of humanity? wink Besides isn't all rationalization just a biological occurrence, due to be obsolete as soon as the mechanism fails to function and society is replaced by the new mechanically fabricated society replacing it? What importance is wikipedia when it's only an emergent truth rather than a lasting and absolute truth?
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Ahh, the good ol' red herrings of randomness and the need for supernaturalism to somehow give our lives value.

Oh you had to look at it that way didn't you.
There ain't nothing supernatural about life, it isn't a random occurance and it began long before any chemical process began to reflect the reality of it.
What it is or isn't is only of concern to those who need to rule themselves by a system of measure.
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Firstly, randomness has little to do with it. Emergent (biological) properties are a product of chemical interactions, which in turn are predicated on physical properties driven by concrete and immutable 'laws'.

Ah.., and out of what did physical properties and these immutable laws come?
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
There is no randomness to that; just stochasticism.
Oh you mean democratic laws, based on random observations and the current best guess.
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

stochasticism Indeed, these processes are as directional and immutable as gravity. The only thing random in our biology (aside from certain environmental factors) is mutation - everything else abides by the distinctly non-random 'laws' of physics.

You mean Physics based on changing observations and evolving theories. Old obsolete physics, current theories or the ones not yet cognized from the immutable coalesced chemical and physical laws of reality?
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

As for needing supernaturalism (i.e. a 'soul') to have self-value, or to value human life, is a myth created by the religieux to validate their beliefs and to maintain their self-sense of moral superiority.

Of course.. what utter nonsense. What is self value or any human value system other than religious tripe. Let science cleanse the mutations and reduce the value of humanity to its natural place as an emergent artifact of gravity.
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
The fact you need some supernatural aspect to feel self-worth and/or see worth in others says far more about you than it does about those of us who value people for no reason other than they in-and-of-themselves have value.

Well what I need and how you determine my needs is going to be subjective. Based on your own needs to place a value on what you perceive as reality and what I feel or think by reading what I say would suggest you share a consciousness with me. Otherwise how else could you be other than simply self aware of your own feelings and thoughts. What do your thoughts really have anything to do with me other than what you fantasize me to be and what I might think or believe?

I remember a description of an organ harvest that was witnessed by a friend of mine with a medical title. A motorcycle accident had rendered a man brain dead by all measurements and random observations made by the staff at a hospital in Florida. The (stochastic) determination was that the man for all intents and purposes was brain dead (no neural activity, therefore no consciousness).
While the man was basically dead, his body was still working with the help of artificial support systems. His brain connected to the artificial consciousness measuring device of the emergent stochastic scientific law, also assisted by the current stochastic scientific measurement systems for heart rate and blood pressure, skin tempurature and respiration etc.

The moment the first incision was made, the heart rate increased, respiration increased and skin tempurature increased.
Now since the brain was dead and consciousness was absent, the observation and determination was that the cells with its baked bread relationship to each other somehow got the impression that something was happening to the body.

Now why do you suppose the heart, lungs and skin reacted to the knife that was cutting the skin? What investment would either of the organs have to the cutting of the skin, and to react the way someone does when their brain is active and sending impulses of conscious stimuli based on the scientific idea of brain induced chemical and cellular activity?


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Consciousness being like baked bread.. rising from the dough. eek

LOL, way to miss the point. Our cells communicate via the passage of chemical signals; the most common mechanism used to pass these messages is something called a "G-protein coupled receptor" (GPCRs). GPCRs are one of the most common types of genes in our bodies, and play a range of roles from making our eyes work, to allowing neurons to talk to each other, to allowing our immune system to detect infection, too. . .smelling baking bread.

That is how our cells communicate to each other - via the exchange of chemical signals - some even follow those signals (using GPCRs) to find the source of the signal. . .just like you may follow the smell of baking bread to a bakery (or in my case, the smell of yeast to a brewery).


Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Originally Posted By: Bryan

My emergent properties are not dependent on anything other than my biology.
Right I got that. That you subscribe to the idea that spirit is a mythical fabrication of stone aged humanity points to the fact that the idea (being something other than original) also points to the fact that you couldn't have actually thought of it yourself but instead assumed the thought via the nueropeptied highway which took the exit to the (I'm Bryan a cellular/molecular biologist) reciever site.

I don't see the point of your rant; regardless of the source of information, all information gets processed via neurotransmitter pathways. There is no magic involved, just neurobiology.

And, btw, the existence of those neurological pathways would allow me to conceive of a concept like a soul - just as those same pathways allowed me to identify the paucity of evidence and the paleo origin of the concept.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Society itself is an emergent property of humans; but not vice-versa.
And humans being isolated to their emergent chemical makeup have no connectivity to society. They just project it outward from their biologically emergent and random individual and isolated personalities, and it miraculously finds both commonality and diversity, forcing humanity to either love or hate each other and any idea of reality.

You almost got it - but, as I pointed out before, you're relying on the false assumption that biophysical processes are random to reject the very thought that almost entered your conciousness. Emergence is simple the arisal of complex structures due to the simpler interactions of of the component parts. Basic human interactions - pair-bonding, child-rearing, economic activity, community, etc - lead to the emergence of more complex social structures and activities. Its the very "soul" of emergence.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Perhaps you should learn a little about emergence before pontificating on it.

Or know something about consciousness before falling for the baked bread consciousness theory of humanity?

Yeah, that would be a good place to start too. A little reading on the neurological basis of cognition & conciousness:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22032656
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20951608
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18280713
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16906530
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22512333
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22227888


Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Ahh, the good ol' red herrings of randomness and the need for supernaturalism to somehow give our lives value.

Oh you had to look at it that way didn't you.

Truth hurts, doesn't it? Randomness is the excuse you use to ignore science - despite the fact that science clearly shows the processes to be non-random. And the claim that without god(s)/spirit(s)/soul(s)/etc are required to give life value are simply the empty claims of the religieux fearful of a changing world.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Firstly, randomness has little to do with it. Emergent (biological) properties are a product of chemical interactions, which in turn are predicated on physical properties driven by concrete and immutable 'laws'.

Ah.., and out of what did physical properties and these immutable laws come?

That is one of the big questions, and its a big question to which science is beginning to offer some very compelling answers. A few examples:
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/personal/mgreen/thesis/index.html
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaB-zq864-c
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0511037v1


Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
There is no randomness to that; just stochasticism.
Oh you mean democratic laws, based on random observations and the current best guess.

No, that is not what stoichasticism means...again, try learning what something is before you deride it. Stoichastic processes are simply probabilistic processes which exhibit predictable population behaviours. Take smelling bread as an example - the odorans of baking bread spread outwards from the source via brownian diffusion, leading to a predictable molecular distribution forming based on strict physical laws - despite the "randomness" of the movement of the constituent odorants.


Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
You mean Physics based on changing observations and evolving theories.

Nothing much has really changed in a century. We know more today than we did 100 years ago - and thus those old theories have been updated/extended to account for the new data, but the original concepts discovered by Maxwell, Lorenz & Einstein (AKA relativity) remain intact today - as does the work of individuals like Planck, Euler, Faraday, Bohr, etc - AKA quantum mechanics.

Physicists talk about things like M-theory - but these are simply extensions of (or fusions of) classical QM & relativity theories. All these "new" thoeries do is expain new phenomina, using the foundation provided by old and still standing physical principals.

Ironically, you seem to ascribe the very thing wrong with religion - stasis and an unwillingness to adapt to new data - as a virtue that science should aspire to. In reality, that is the opposite of the very "soul" of science - science strides to explain reality, and adapts if reality doesn't fit prior explanations. That is the key - adapting to new data, instead of rejecting it.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

As for needing supernaturalism (i.e. a 'soul') to have self-value, or to value human life, is a myth created by the religieux to validate their beliefs and to maintain their self-sense of moral superiority.

Of course.. what utter nonsense. What is self value or any human value system other than religious tripe.

Human value systems are a product of our evolution. We are a social species - it should be of no surprise that we have evolutionary adaptations that allow us to function as such.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
I remember a description of an organ harvest that was witnessed by a friend of mine with a medical title. A motorcycle accident had rendered a man brain dead by all measurements and random observations made by the staff at a hospital in Florida. The (stochastic) determination was that the man for all intents and purposes was brain dead (no neural activity, therefore no consciousness).
While the man was basically dead, his body was still working with the help of artificial support systems. His brain connected to the artificial consciousness measuring device of the emergent stochastic scientific law, also assisted by the current stochastic scientific measurement systems for heart rate and blood pressure, skin tempurature and respiration etc.

The moment the first incision was made, the heart rate increased, respiration increased and skin tempurature increased.
Now since the brain was dead and consciousness was absent, the observation and determination was that the cells with its baked bread relationship to each other somehow got the impression that something was happening to the body.

Now why do you suppose the heart, lungs and skin reacted to the knife that was cutting the skin? What investment would either of the organs have to the cutting of the skin, and to react the way someone does when their brain is active and sending impulses of conscious stimuli based on the scientific idea of brain induced chemical and cellular activity?

Based on this description, lets say that I am dubious about he medical credentials of your "friend". What you describe is a commonly observed biological process that requires no supernatural explanations - indeed, the processes responsible for it have been known, and understood, for decades.

Most biological processes progress just fine without the help of our brain - even many that are neurologically-based. If your brain dies, your heart continues pumping, your immune cells continue to fight infections, your gut continues digesting - right up until a lack of O2 leads to cellular death. Provide O2 & these processes can be maintained indefinitely.

This is true of many neurological processes - yes, many neurological processes work just fine without a functioning brain. For example, if you are not paying attention and touch a hot surface, your arm jerks away without any involvement of your brain - the pain signals travel along a sensory neuron to the spine, where an interneuron then passes the signal to a motor neuron that moves your arm. This while process occurs - and you hand jerks away form the stove - before the pain signals even manage to reach your brain! Our neurological system if full of these brain-independent networks; formally, they are called reflex arcs.

In addition, pain/trauma releases various chemicals (e.g. hormones, substance P, protaglandins, certain cytokines, etc) into the circulation which have effects all over the body completely independent of the brain - heart & respiration rates elevate, external blood vessels contract, blood flow is redirected form the skin intestines to muscles, basal metabolism rates increase, etc - it is a brain-independent preparation of the body for fight-or-flight responses.

Or, in other words, what your "friend" claims to have observed is exactly what one would expect of a brain-dead body; reflex arcs causing muscle movement near/at sites of surgical incisions, and systemic responses due to the release of compounds at the incision sites that have systemic effects.

You could remove the head completely and still see the same thing - at least, until the body bled out.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

LOL, way to miss the point.

No I got your point, however my biological/chemical processes don't agree with you or experience such a reduction of consciousness into your terms. Funny how that works. Chemical reductionism of humanity still can't seem to eradicate choice when it comes to what one wants to believe and experience or disbelieve and experience.
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Our cells communicate via the passage of chemical signals; the most common mechanism used to pass these messages is something called a "G-protein coupled receptor" (GPCRs). GPCRs are one of the most common types of genes in our bodies, and play a range of roles from making our eyes work, to allowing neurons to talk to each other, to allowing our immune system to detect infection, too. . .smelling baking bread.

That is how our cells communicate to each other - via the exchange of chemical signals - some even follow those signals (using GPCRs) to find the source of the signal. . .just like you may follow the smell of baking bread to a bakery (or in my case, the smell of yeast to a brewery).
The reference to communication and the idea that the cell recieves and recognizes information points to awareness. A much deeper function than just the mechanical interaction of a radio transmitter and a radio reciever.

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

I don't see the point of your rant;

Might be because you only see my point as a rant. I guess we'll just chalk that up to the anomaly of chemical processes that seem to separate the species in the radom outpicturing of beliefs and cognitive awareness.
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
regardless of the source of information, all information gets processed via neurotransmitter pathways. There is no magic involved, just neurobiology.

And behind all of that is.....? (function of life within the universe etc. etc.)
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

And, btw, the existence of those neurological pathways would allow me to conceive of a concept like a soul - just as those same pathways allowed me to identify the paucity of evidence and the paleo origin of the concept.

Or in the case of the spiritual sage, it also allows one to percieve much more than just an identification with relative concepts which are individually or democratically determined to have some function in trying to deny the personal experience of something greater than those determined by a particular scope of vision narrowed to a scientific belief system.
What I find fascinating is that there has always been this split within the history of humanity where belief extends itself beyond the physical boundaries of fact finding missions in a controlled environment or a controlled thought process.

Some even follow those signals (using GPCRs) to find the source of the signal... wink

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

You almost got it - but, as I pointed out before, you're relying on the false assumption that biophysical processes are random to reject the very thought that almost entered your conciousness.

No I use the idea to exemplify that there is order to everything including the opposite to scientific reductionism. Where contrast is necessary to expansion of the intellect and awareness, and random activity is a reflection of potential and of consciousness which is not simply set within immutable laws derived from random observations.
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Emergence is simple the arisal of complex structures due to the simpler interactions of of the component parts. Basic human interactions - pair-bonding, child-rearing, economic activity, community, etc - lead to the emergence of more complex social structures and activities. Its the very "soul" of emergence.

It's been said, "THe human has the built in quality of expansion or the desire to dissolve the finite into the infinite quality of the universe as an inherent factor."

This quality and the observance of evolution of the species is evidence that (as you put it) humanity is naturally drawn to a source.

A pseudo-agreement known as the Copenhagen Interpretation provided the interpretation of Quantum Theory accepted by the bulk of the scientific community in the early 20th century. This agreement stated the proper goal of science was to provide a mathematical framework for organizing and expanding life’s experiences, rather than seeking to provide a picture of some reality that could lie behind those experiences.
From the Copenhagen point of view, quantum theory was satisfactory as it was; i.e. as impersonal mathematical equations concerning the behavior of subatomic structures. Thus, the Copenhagen Interpretation found the effort to understand the philosophical and spiritual implications underlying hard science theories was not productive for the betterment of science.
I think this kind of exemplifies a kind of religious (as in belief system) approach to reducing the universe to a set of defining principals set within the boundaries of relative measure.
The problem with rules is that there seems to be variations or random occurrances which consistantly challenge the rules.
Where as classical science started with the assumption that separate parts worked together to constitute physical reality – thus the parts determined actions and events of the whole – quantum mechanics was based on an opposite epistemological assumption: the whole could influence actions and events of the smallest parts. The ‘smallest parts’ – (the void) – was not a void at all, but rather sub-atomic particles constantly in a state of flux, coming into and going out of existence in microseconds, based on mathematical probabilities.
A fundamental difference between Newtonian physics and quantum theory was that Newtonian physics predicted events and quantum mechanics predicted the probability of events. According to quantum mechanics, the only determinable relation between events was statistical – that is, a matter of probability, but those events could not be stated with absolute certainty as Newton had tried to claim. These observations showed another surprising truth about sub-atomic particles: they could not be isolated as independent entities.
Being that this idea became part of quantum theory it has been postulated that everything, everywhere is connected and interactive even at the subatomic level.
The pioneers of quantum physics observed a strange ‘connectedness’ among quantum phenomena during their experiments in the early twentieth century. Then in 1964, J. S. Bell, a physicist at the Switzerland-based European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) zeroed in on this strange connectedness, creating a new mathematical proof, known as Bell’s theorem. Bell’s theorem proved that if the statistical predictions of quantum theory were correct, then some of our commonsense ideas about the world were profoundly mistaken: at a deep and fundamental level, the ‘separate parts’ of the universe were connected in an intimate and immediate way. Bell’s theorem states there is no such thing as ‘separate parts.’ In other words, everything in the universe is connected in an intimate and immediate way that was previously claimed only by mystics and other scientifically-objectionable persons.
Bell’s work found that either the statistical predictions of quantum theory or the principle of local causes (i.e. cause and effect) was false. It did not say which one was false, but only that both of them could not be true. Physicists Stapp, Clauser, and Friedman, confirmed that the statistical predictions of quantum theory were indeed correct. The startling conclusion was inescapable: The principle of local causes must be false! However, if the principle of local causes was false, and hence, the world was not the way it appeared to be, then one must wonder what is the ‘true nature’ of our world? Physicist David Bohm concluded when there was no separate parts in our world, i.e. locality failed, and so the idea that events were autonomous happenings must be an illusion.

Doctors have found a person’s state of mind can have significant effects on their body’s ability to heal itself. While that anecdotal observation has not provided enough solid evidence to cause every doctor to prescribe meditation as a form of medicine, quantum physicists have found definitively that at the sub-atomic level, the act of observation actually affects the reality being observed. This fact became known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: one cannot observe a phenomenon without changing or affecting it.

This either leads one to the conclusion that reality is not real but rather fabricated in your terms according to individual neuro/biological processes, or that these neuro/biological processes are in collaboration with a Universal reality that has form and function at every level. From the microcosm to the macrocosm.

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Truth hurts, doesn't it?
Not really, it's actually quite liberating.
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Randomness is the excuse you use to ignore science - despite the fact that science clearly shows the processes to be non-random.

I use randomness to exemplify non random processes that scientists cannot align with, due to the dogma of scientific belief systems that reduce principles that are universal to principles that are of human origin.
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
... without god(s)/spirit(s)/soul(s)/etc are required to give life value are simply the empty claims of the religieux fearful of a changing world.

God/Spirituality etc. Takes different forms for different people and their belief systems. You pretend to know what I believe due to an automatic response system you allow yourself to associate yourself with in a reductionists view of spirituality and religion as prescribed by your present experience and the corresponding belief and definition.

C'est la Vie.. Probably a downfall of some scientists, to allow themselves to generalize and define everything into a particular box.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Ah.., and out of what did physical properties and these immutable laws come?

That is one of the big questions, and its a big question to which science is beginning to offer some very compelling answers.
Compelling... maybe, but then the authority/media always has a mesmerizing effect.
Ever heard of the Milgram experiment?


Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
There is no randomness to that; just stochasticism.
Oh you mean democratic laws, based on random observations and the current best guess.
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

No, that is not what stoichasticism means...again, try learning what something is before you deride it.

You mean like spirituality as taught by those who do not prescribe to mainstream religion or scientific platitudes?

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Ironically, you seem to ascribe the very thing wrong with religion - stasis and an unwillingness to adapt to new data - as a virtue that science should aspire to.
Perhaps that is because it so aptly brings out the reality that you have assumed a position on spirituality as I see and experience it with the way you look at religion, without even asking me what I know and experience.
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
In reality, that is the opposite of the very "soul" of science - science strides to explain reality, and adapts if reality doesn't fit prior explanations. That is the key - adapting to new data, instead of rejecting it.
Some scientists, tend to attempt to reduce the universe to a mechanical operative using a belief system, and instruments designed to work within a belief system and scope of vision. It is constantly reorganizing itself with the onset of qualities that re-emerge outside of the locals of the instrumental parameters. This ongoing process of re-emergence while staking claims in the deteriorating impressions, and then deriding something that has remained a constant within all of it, is just funny... The fact that scientists don't always agree with each other in every field is even funnier.

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Human value systems are a product of our evolution. We are a social species - it should be of no surprise that we have evolutionary adaptations that allow us to function as such.

This seems kind of a departure from your first statement that eluded to the idea that value systems are within the nature of the individual. Now we are getting to the idea that social systems have influence on the individual. This is good, you are expanding into the idea that there is a connectivity within the human consciousness that exceeds the simple neuro/chemical process. Sort of like the 100th monkey effect, where stimuli creates neural impulses that begin to affect the very nature of the human idea above and beyond an inherent functionality of the basic human definition. Choice and awareness is now entering the picture.
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Based on this description, lets say that I am dubious about he medical credentials of your "friend".
Fair enough, I don't value your title, so I can give you that.
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
What you describe is a commonly observed biological process that requires no supernatural explanations - indeed, the processes responsible for it have been known, and understood, for decades.

Most biological processes progress just fine without the help of our brain - even many that are neurologically-based. If your brain dies, your heart continues pumping, your immune cells continue to fight infections, your gut continues digesting - right up until a lack of O2 leads to cellular death. Provide O2 & these processes can be maintained indefinitely.

This is true of many neurological processes - yes, many neurological processes work just fine without a functioning brain. For example, if you are not paying attention and touch a hot surface, your arm jerks away without any involvement of your brain - the pain signals travel along a sensory neuron to the spine, where an interneuron then passes the signal to a motor neuron that moves your arm. This while process occurs - and you hand jerks away form the stove - before the pain signals even manage to reach your brain! Our neurological system if full of these brain-independent networks; formally, they are called reflex arcs.

In addition, pain/trauma releases various chemicals (e.g. hormones, substance P, protaglandins, certain cytokines, etc) into the circulation which have effects all over the body completely independent of the brain - heart & respiration rates elevate, external blood vessels contract, blood flow is redirected form the skin intestines to muscles, basal metabolism rates increase, etc - it is a brain-independent preparation of the body for fight-or-flight responses.

Or, in other words, what your "friend" claims to have observed is exactly what one would expect of a brain-dead body; reflex arcs causing muscle movement near/at sites of surgical incisions, and systemic responses due to the release of compounds at the incision sites that have systemic effects.

You could remove the head completely and still see the same thing - at least, until the body bled out.

I see... so you believe the brain and the body can operate independantly of each other, and with the same consciousness or neural/biological processes as do people in general in and amongst each other. All simply an outcome of probable events which should then be predictable.

Tell me.

Are we as a species good or bad? Is there a delineation that science will or should make to remove one from the other, and will science or some chemical process formulate or discover the standard of measure to make such a determination?


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

LOL, way to miss the point.

No I got your point, however my biological/chemical processes don't agree with you or experience such a reduction of consciousness into your terms. Funny how that works. Chemical reductionism of humanity still can't seem to eradicate choice when it comes to what one wants to believe and experience or disbelieve and experience.

???

No one is trying to eradicate your choice to be wrong...but regardless, you still are wrong.


Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
The reference to communication and the idea that the cell recieves and recognizes information points to awareness. A much deeper function than just the mechanical interaction of a radio transmitter and a radio reciever.

Hardly; it points to no degree awareness beyond that of a key fitting into a lock. The molecular mechanisms, changes in protein conformation, signalling cascades, etc, that comprise the passage of these signals are well elucidated - no cognition present; just atoms and molecules behaving as physical laws dictates.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
regardless of the source of information, all information gets processed via neurotransmitter pathways. There is no magic involved, just neurobiology.

And behind all of that is.....? (function of life within the universe etc. etc.)

Why does there have to be something "behind" that. To quote Tim Minchin:
Isn't this enough? // Just this world?
Just this beautiful, complex
Wonderfully unfathomable, NATURAL world?
How does it so fail to hold our attention
That we have to diminish it with the invention
Of cheap, man-made Myths and Monsters?


Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle

Or in the case of the spiritual sage, it also allows one to percieve much more than just an identification with relative concepts which are individually or democratically determined to have some function in trying to deny the personal experience of something greater than those determined by a particular scope of vision narrowed to a scientific belief system.

Again, no one is trying to deny you anything. You're free to pretend myths and "spirituality" provide insight into the universe. However, I too remain free to illistrate just how poorly those beliefs hold up against factual reality.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle

No I use the idea to exemplify that there is order to everything including the opposite to scientific reductionism.

Anyone who thinks science is purely a reductionist process is completely ignorant of science. We rely on methodological reductionism to understand basic processes, but hierarchical reductionism and holism are key parts of formulating theories from sets of facts. Indeed, understanding emergent processes would be impossible using a purely reductionist approach. Reductionism is simple a tool - one of many that we use.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle

Where contrast is necessary to expansion of the intellect and awareness, and random activity is a reflection of potential and of consciousness which is not simply set within immutable laws derived from random observations.

Again with the randomness! The only person here who thinks biology, physics, etc, are random processes are you. This is, as has been described already, completely and totally wrong.

What you are engaged in is a logical fallacy termed an argument from fallacy - you are predicating your argument on a flasehood. I.E. you are lying about science to try and disprove it.

That is quite dishonest.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle

This quality and the observance of evolution of the species is evidence that (as you put it) humanity is naturally drawn to a source.

I fail to see how a natural trend towards diversification equals being drawn to a source. Indeed, if evolution were drawing us to a source we should see patterns of evolution in which life becomes more similar - rather than more different.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle


A pseudo-agreement known as the Copenhagen Interpretation

Why would you bring up an irrelevant quantum mechanics theory in response to a post about the biological and neurological processes underlying conciousness?

And while I snipped for brevity, the Copenhagen Interpretation of QED remains the most accepted interpretation of QM among physicists today...so your little story is again, based on a fallacy.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
The problem with rules is that there seems to be variations or random occurrances which consistantly challenge the rules.

If you can find an exception to the basic "laws" of science - relativity, QM, conservation of momentum, entropy, etc, you'd be renound in scientific circles. Since you, nor anyone else, is famous for those reasons one can only assume that the above statement - like so many you've made in this post - is based on another fallacy.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle

Being that this idea became part of quantum theory it has been postulated that everything, everywhere is connected and interactive even at the subatomic level.

Only in your mind. Indeed, QM explicitly states the opposite - and sets strict spatial limits over which particles interact; i.e. the distance over which they can be connected. Aside from entangled particles, these distances are very, very small.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle

Bell’s theorem proved that if the statistical predictions of quantum theory were correct, then some of our commonsense ideas about the world were profoundly mistaken: at a deep and fundamental level, the ‘separate parts’ of the universe were connected in an intimate and immediate way.

Again, this is false. Bells theorem makes no such claim - to the contrary, his theorem deals with a small subset of particles - those which are entwined. And, as with most of QM, it is unclear how these relate to the macro world - QM is not explanatory above the subbatomic...so basing anything about our biology on it is dubious at best.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Doctors have found a person’s state of mind can have significant effects on their body’s ability to heal itself. While that anecdotal observation has not provided enough solid evidence to cause every doctor to prescribe meditation as a form of medicine, quantum physicists have found definitively that at the sub-atomic level, the act of observation actually affects the reality being observed.

And you just gave up all illusions of credibility. The mechanisms by which state-of-mind impact health are well established; stress hormones impair immune & tissue repair mechanisms through well-described and understood mechanisms. Meditation is, at best, weak at affecting these HPA-axis derived responses.

Biological processes are not subject to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, as they occur in objects large than those which experience quantum phenomena (generally, sub-atomic particles). The maacromolicules which our bodies are comprise of behave as per classical newtonian physics dictates, for the simple reason that they are incapable of achieving a coherent quantum state, and thus do not act in a fashion consistent with QM.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
This either leads one to the conclusion that reality is not real but rather fabricated in your terms according to individual neuro/biological processes, or that these neuro/biological processes are in collaboration with a Universal reality that has form and function at every level. From the microcosm to the macrocosm.

No, this leads to one conclusion - you've watched too much deepak chopra and have mistaken his ramblings for real science.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
I use randomness to exemplify non random processes that scientists cannot align with, due to the dogma of scientific belief systems that reduce principles that are universal to principles that are of human origin.

More nonsensical nonsense. You've a) not demonstrated anything of the sort, and b) falsely assigned randomness to scientific observations which are distinctly non-random.

Its your excuse to not learn what the science actually says - if its inconvenient to your belief system, you declare it 'random' and pretend it doesn't exist.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
There is no randomness to that; just stochasticism.
Oh you mean democratic laws, based on random observations and the current best guess.

No, I mean stochastic. Why is it you cannot support your position without completely mis-representing science and without redefining the english language?


Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Human value systems are a product of our evolution. We are a social species - it should be of no surprise that we have evolutionary adaptations that allow us to function as such.

This seems kind of a departure from your first statement that eluded to the idea that value systems are within the nature of the individual.

Hardly. Evolution has led to traits which we interpret as 'morlaity'; its in our genes - ergo, it comes from within. It is not something imparted on us by an external supernatural force.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
I see... so you believe the brain and the body can operate independantly of each other

Its not a belief - its an observed reality - as your friend observed. Every cell in your body doesn't magically stop working the moment your brain fails - so long as they have food & oxygen, they will continue on in their evolutionarily-programmed behaviours.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
and with the same consciousness or neural/biological processes as do people in general in and amongst each other.

I never stated anything that could possibly have been interpreted to mean the above. Your brain is your source of conciousness - if the brain dies so does the conciousness. But the concious is just one layer of our biology, and it a part of biology most life on earth gets along without just fine.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
All simply an outcome of probable events which should then be predictable.

You'd be surprized just how predictable human behaviour is. Indeed, fMRI has shown us that your brain makes decisions before your concious mind is aware of it, leading some neurologists to question whether "free will" and conciousness even exist.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Are we as a species good or bad? Is there a delineation that science will or should make to remove one from the other, and will science or some chemical process formulate or discover the standard of measure to make such a determination?

We simply are. Good and bad are human concepts that lack any sort of existence in the real world.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

We simply are. Good and bad are human concepts that lack any sort of existence in the real world.
Bryan


True relatively speaking, however whether we are on the same page or not would also be both subjective and objective.

Call it science or spirituality, the human is drawn to what it is, that simply is.
When all THAT which is unfathomable is reduced to human concepts, and the existence of all that is, is projected from what simply is thru the filters of human identity upon the the real world, as the fabric of time and space and as the existence of the human reality, all that is becomes a human invention.

Those that are open to experience it above and beyond the definitions of spirituality or science have been considered enlightened, liberated, illumined, Christed... etc.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Bryan, my first post to you was made on February 14--interestingly, the festival of EROS--the god, or is it goddess? of erotic? biologic? or romantic love? Or what?

Following, is the dialogue we had when we first started:
Quote:
Originally Posted By: Revlgking on FEB. 14.
========================================
ME: Hey IG! I see, You are a cell biologist? A student? A researcher? Or what?
========
YOU: Prof/scientist.

ME: You just arrived when I need you, thanks!

YOU: I've 'been here' since 2010...

ME: We first met, in Oct., when Jean and I celebrated out BIG 60. It was fun.EH? laugh

Keep in mind, I am seriously interested in all the sciences, including biology--and my granddaughter is at Toronto University and is engaged to a biologist. I think you know him, eh? smile

YOU: Small world; I was at sick kids (the real one in Toronto, not the pretend one in NYC) until ~2 years ago.

Bryan
The fascinating dialogue--Or is it a debate?--continues ....

BTW, is it possible to study any subject, including religion--scientifically?
==============================================
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Cells interact.
Yes they do, in a lot of ways, similar to humans.

Not in any way vaguely similar to humans. I'm a cellular/molecular biologist, and let me tell you; there are no similarity in the way people vs cells interact. A closer approximation would be how humans and baking bread interact...

THE NEXT PROTAGONIST ENTERED
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Originally Posted By: Bryan
The mind is an emergent property from the interactions of those cells.

Just like you. You are an emergent Bryan based on the interaction of humanity.

My emergent properties are not dependent on anything other than my biology. Society itself is an emergent property of humans; but not vice-versa. Perhaps you should learn a little about emergence before pontificating on it.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Amazing how such chaos and randomness has produced such an emergent technology and consciousness that is doomed to become obsolete and valueless to so many.

Ahh, the good ol' red herrings of randomness and the need for supernaturalism to somehow give our lives value.

Firstly, randomness has little to do with it. Emergent (biological) properties are a product of chemical interactions, which in turn are predicated on physical properties driven by concrete and immutable 'laws'. There is no randomness to that; just stochasticism. Indeed, these processes are as directional and immutable as gravity. The only thing random in our biology (aside from certain environmental factors) is mutation - everything else abides by the distinctly non-random 'laws' of physics.

As for needing supernaturalism (i.e. a 'soul') to have self-value, or to value human life, is a myth created by the religieux (religious) to validate their beliefs and to maintain their self-sense of moral superiority.

The fact you need some supernatural aspect to feel self-worth and/or see worth in others says far more about you than it does about those of us who value people for no reason other than they in-and-of-themselves have value. Bryan


Bryan and TT. First of all, as one who values people for what people are, my interest is in exploring whatever needs exploring, to the best of our ability, in the hope of finding that which generates, organizes and delivers that which is as close to the truth as is humanly possible. IS THIS CLEAR?

If anyone catches me pretending to be morally superior, do not hesitate to call me on such BS, OK!

Here I add: I find this exchange above--plus the ones that follow which I have read--absolutely fascinating to read.


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
First of all, as one who values people for what people are,
I've heard you describe myself as a psychopath and another as a snakeoil salesman, so I'm going to make the assumption that what people are is subject to your determination.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
my interest is in exploring whatever needs exploring, to the best of our ability, in the hope of finding that which generates, organizes and delivers that which is as close to the truth as is humanly possible.
There are relative truths and then there might be something beyond relative measurement, which was hinted at in the previous posts regarding life as being unfathomable.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

If anyone catches me pretending to be morally superior, do not hesitate to call me on such BS, OK!

My first thought regarding that statement is that you would make a determination regarding what that person was/is and their credibility as it follows that determination, with the inclination to frequently mention the ignore button (which doesn't appear to really get used since you seem to respond so often to what you say you have ignored).
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Here I add: I find this exchange above--plus the ones that follow which I have read--absolutely fascinating to read.
Really. What in particular is so fascinating?


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Bryan, before I say any more, I need to know: Where is it that you teach?

Not that it matters, all that much and in the long run, just this evening I found out that the biologist that I know teaches at the U of Toronto. For the record, where do you teach?


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Not that it matters, all that much and in the long run, just this evening I found out that the biologist that I know teaches at the U of Toronto.
Only shows you don't know the person that well..

Always seems to add credibility to a conversation when you engage someone and say "I know someone in this field".. Kinda makes it seem like you might know what you're talking about?


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
BTW, is it possible to study any subject, including religion--scientifically?

So long as you are measuring quantifiable elements (i.e. anything that exists in the real world) you can take a scientific approach.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Bryan, before I say any more, I need to know: Where is it that you teach?

I learned years ago to never reveal that sort of information. There are all sorts of people who, if given access to that data, have no qualms using it to accost me & my family. I'm not saying anyone here would do that, but this is an open forum & I'm involved in research that a lot of anti-science types do not like.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Bryan, before I say any more, I need to know: Where is it that you teach?

I learned years ago to never reveal that sort of information. There are all sorts of people who, if given access to that data, have no qualms using it to accost me & my family. I'm not saying anyone here would do that, but this is an open forum & I'm involved in research that a lot of anti-science types do not like.

Bryan
I would accept the anti-science types as being scientifically acceptable within the parameters of creation.

A reflection of diversity and possibly a motivator to keep from being complacent or dogmatic in ones approach to define everything under one system of measure.

Besides the idea of someone being anti science is like being anti God. Whatever definitions one subscribes to or belief system regarding the terms may not be entirely equal to anothers point of view.
Often, just because someone doesn't like what another says regarding the subjective ideal can motivate one to say, the antagonist is anti-(fill in the ideal subject).
No one is ever really anti science, or refuses to accept anything that comes out of science. Anti principal when it comes to the religious stance taken by a scientist in their beliefs of science as they worship it, possibly.

And no one is really anti-god. One would only be against a definition that does not appeal to them. If one was to come to their own conclusion of what God was, and in their own terms, then God is just a word applied to a universal principal that applies to whatever they know and understand.
If there is always more to know and understand then that principal would be to them the stretch of the imagination yet undiscovered, unimagined and yet to be defined. As well as all that has been imagined and experienced, whether discarded or kept. Maybe more than all those ideas put together...
Some see science as the search for finality, and spirituality as the recognition of no such finality.
When such interpretations create separation between peoples and their beliefs then you got anti god and anti science religionists.

Every thing is relative.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
I would accept the anti-science types as being scientifically acceptable within the parameters of creation.

A reflection of diversity and possibly a motivator to keep from being complacent or dogmatic in ones approach to define everything under one system of measure.

Besides the idea of someone being anti science is like being anti God. Whatever definitions one subscribes to or belief system regarding the terms may not be entirely equal to anothers point of view.
Often, just because someone doesn't like what another says regarding the subjective ideal can motivate one to say, the antagonist is anti-(fill in the ideal subject).
No one is ever really anti science, or refuses to accept anything that comes out of science.

Perhaps I should explain what I mean by "Anti-science"; by 'anti-science', I mean someone who is opposed to some forms of scientific research on philosophical/religious grounds; not someone who rejects anything that comes from science (which, I agree, would be few if any individuals in the real world).

So I'm referring to creationists, climate change deniers, anti-vaccinationists, anti-animal researchers, etc.

I, and my family, have been harassed and attacked by members of the later two groups. A few of them are still in jail for those actions.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
And no one is really anti-god.

Sure there is - anyone who rejects the existence of supernatural phenomena would be anti-god(s). A sense of awe is hardly god.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Every thing is relative.

But only by a very specific metric:


Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek


Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
And no one is really anti-god.

Sure there is - anyone who rejects the existence of supernatural phenomena would be anti-god(s).

No that would be anti supernatural phenomena as defined into a specific form called God.
If someone takes a position of resistence to an idea, yet formulates a reasonable idea of their own based on personal theories/belief in a function/process/order within the universe, which exists prior, during and after the event of the universe, saw it as something other than supernatural and called it God, then they would not be anti-God..

Everyone is familiar with the word God.
What most have an aversion to, is an authority that prescribes what that should or shouldn't mean to an individual.

If you could present a reasonable definition and allow for the experience and understanding of the subject, then one stops rejecting the idea based on someone elses needs, and the person becomes open to their own experience.

No one is anti God. No one is anti anything, only resistent to conflict of interests and experience.

People are often driven by fear to reject what historically presents itself as destructive information which threatens to take away freedom of choice and an ability to self empower their understanding thru direct experience.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Quote:
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle

No I use the idea to exemplify that there is order to everything including the opposite to scientific reductionism.

And your helpful and interesting response, Bryan.
Quote:
Anyone who thinks science is purely a reductionist process is completely ignorant of science.
Thanks for that. And for your next comment.
Quote:
We rely on methodological reductionism to understand basic processes, but hierarchical reductionism and holism are key parts of formulating theories from sets of facts.

Indeed, understanding emergent processes would be impossible using a purely reductionist approach. Reductionism is simple a tool - one of many that we use.
Bryan, when it comes to the natural sciences, which, BTW, I love reading about--physics, chemistry, biology and so on--I leave the details to qualified experts.

Therefore, put me down simply as a very curious student who is willing to learn, OK?

Me? When it comes to understanding how nature works, I am simply a reader and a student of the sciences, from the point of view of an amateur--one who loves to explore and to know as much as I can, and need to know, about THINGS--somatically speaking.

Meanwhile, I love to have dialogues with others who seem to know a few things the NATURE OF THINGS--the title of CBC series of programs.

Before I sign off, permit me to add this: I am an "expert" in theology--the science of 'god'.

Theology is--as the comedian jokingly said--the only science without an object, or a subject. laugh

BTW, in a dream Voltaire spoke to me, last night! He said: "Stop wondering about 'god. Simply summon any scientists you know and ask them to help you, invent "him". grin

Hey! What a wonderful idea! Hmmmmmm..........


Last edited by Revlgking; 02/25/13 11:50 PM. Reason: Always helpful

G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle

No that would be anti supernatural phenomena as defined into a specific form called God.

So in otherwords, you're using a definition of 'god' that is so meaningless as to be useless. The rest of us use the word as it is defined in the english language - i.e. as in a word with a meaning well-enough defined as to be able to use it in a conversation. And, amoung people who use the word as defined, it is very well possible to be anti-god.

I'm not anti-god - how, afterall, could I be opposed to something I know does not exist?

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Everyone is familiar with the word God.

LOL. Doesn't exist = no words.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
What most have an aversion to, is an authority that prescribes what that should or shouldn't mean to an individual.

You mean words with accepted definitions?

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

So in otherwords, you're using a definition of 'god' that is so meaningless as to be useless.

No, I don't define God. People who define God and expect their definition to encapsulate God don't know God.
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
The rest of us use the word as it is defined in the english language - i.e. as in a word with a meaning well-enough defined as to be able to use it in a conversation.

"The Rest of Us" refers to all those you know and don't know, (assuming everyone experiences and thinks the same as you) who see God as a non-word describing something that doesn't exist, but gives meaning to a conversation regarding what doesn't exist?
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
And, amoung people who use the word as defined, it is very well possible to be anti-god.

It is very possible to be resistent to ones own interpretations of what reality is defined as, as well as a definition of God. To say the dictionary encapsulates the history of experience and understanding of God and reduces it to a common understanding or authoritative ideal is simplistic and delusional.
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

I'm not anti-god - how, afterall, could I be opposed to something I know does not exist?

How could you know anything about anything, if the thing being referenced isn't experienced?
If something doesn't exist but the authoritative example for the word (dictionary) describing the non-thing is your point of reference, why would you give a non-thing any thought or any credibility to the dictionary?
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Everyone is familiar with the word God.

LOL. Doesn't exist = no words.
Than simply put no one can be anti-god. Since God is a non word and doesn't exist, nor could you have a conversation about something you can't know anything about since it can't exist.

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
What most have an aversion to, is an authority that prescribes what that should or shouldn't mean to an individual.

You mean words with accepted definitions?
No, authoritatively prescribed definitions of personal realities that seek to reduce the experience to a non-experience, or to prove a non-experience to be a real experience.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
MY PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION?

At this point, I like the kind of open-minded thinking I find here:

http://progressivechristianity.ca/prc/?page_id=6


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
MY PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION?

At this point, I like....

Pretty much what sums up your philosophy of Religion.

For you, its about what fits into your liking.

So were back to it being all about you.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Page 103 of 120 1 2 101 102 103 104 105 119 120

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokĀž»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5