A Question for S.T.Ranger
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 4 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-06-2012, 12:58 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(15-06-2012 12:48 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  
(15-06-2012 12:25 PM)morondog Wrote:  You seem to think it illogical to believe that life just ends and nothing continues?

Not at all. In fact, I believe this to be the case with most life found in creation.

Just not man.

Of course, my view is biased. I believe that mankind, not all life, was created in the image and likeness of God (the "image" and "likeness" open for debate). We are told there are differences among the "bodies" of creation, and because I view scripture to be divinely inspired, I believe that simple concept.

So it is completely reasonable to consider that the brain activity of an animal, when it ceases, represents the cessation of existance for the animal. Now I would ask in regards to this, if animals and man are the same substance, meaning, they are made of the same materials and the result of the same process, then for both the demands of either dualism must be the same, right?

Which means, just as in the example of our being organic computers, we are really no better than animals, right? Just as we are no better than computers. So if this is the case, when will we see computer law? When we we see advocates for "elderly computers?" How dare we just throw away old computers thereby placing ourselves as the superior being on this planet? How dare we think to eat a hamburger, seeing that we are, after all, really just made of the same materials? Cows have brain activity as well, this can be monitored with the same machines that detect such activity in humans.

Of course, that is a bit silly, and I admit that, but, the basic principle applies. And the result is an attack on how precious mankind is, and the fact that there is something different about mankind that is not found in nature. Those that place mankind in the category of animal in the truest sense, meaning, those who actually do believe that animals have just as much right to life as mankind (and I agree with this for the most part, I love animals) to the point where an animal should not die that a man might live...well, I just cannot understand this.

(15-06-2012 12:25 PM)morondog Wrote:  PS I will answer your other post sometime, I'm just not up for lots of typing right now - one liners ftw.

Okay, just don't forget me on this...lol.

GTY
What makes humans special is that we have evolved to consciousness. We are (apparently) the only species to be able to reflect on our existence, to use our minds to construct alternative realities, and so on.

This does not make us divinely created. Our evolutionary past is clearly spelled out in the genetic evidence, no gods need apply. Many people are horrified by the idea that we are not specially created and become blinded to the evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
15-06-2012, 01:12 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(15-06-2012 12:48 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  
(15-06-2012 12:25 PM)morondog Wrote:  You seem to think it illogical to believe that life just ends and nothing continues?

Not at all. In fact, I believe this to be the case with most life found in creation.

Just not man.

I don't see how that position can be reconciled with evolution. And if you just dismiss the theory of evolution out of hand, ... well then we don't have much left to talk about.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2012, 01:17 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(15-06-2012 01:12 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(15-06-2012 12:48 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Not at all. In fact, I believe this to be the case with most life found in creation.

Just not man.

I don't see how that position can be reconciled with evolution. And if you just dismiss the theory of evolution out of hand, ... well then we don't have much left to talk about.

I thought he was YEC?

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2012, 01:18 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
You see... this thing that you have about cows and artificial intelligences being extended rights under law... that seems OK to me, I don't see how that's silly. If AIs ever really get to human level intelligence this will be an issue. Maybe they will Smile I'd love to see that day. Otherwise, maybe to the extent that cows are not really self-aware we can justify eating them, but really not. Except if we just say "well, you have intelligence but I'm going to eat you *anyway*" which is nice for us but no fun for the cow.

However, that's kinda off topic Tongue On topic again: as you say, if humans and animals are the same, why should I expect that when I die something special must happen but when a dog dies he just ceases to exist? Because of this strange book? But outside of the book there seems to be no reason to believe it, and inside of the book are some inaccuracies...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2012, 01:33 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
Here's a tidbit, ST:
Quote: But suppose certain mental states emerge not only from our nervous system, but from an embodied and embedded system which includes our dynamic interactions with other people? If those dynamic interactions with other people involve vector transformations that produce skillfully maintained social relations, this kind of social ‘‘know-how’’ would involve neither simulations nor theories. In cases where our awareness of other minds emerges from the social system of which we are a part, there would be no need to create a simulation of other people’s mental states inside our heads. (At least some of) our experiences would emerge from the social system, in essentially the same way that others emerge from our nervous system. If this is what happens, societies and minds would be very similar kinds of dynamic systems, which might make the concept of ‘‘group mind’’ something more than a metaphor.

As to this:
Quote:I would ask what you personally view to be the future state of the human mind when the body expires?

There is no future beyond the failure of the organics. Future is merely a simulation based upon propagation of observed events. You're not gonna read this in the future. When you read this, it will be now. We get to believing in the simulation by being part of the sequence, like my two fingers - and a thumb... wait, there was just four fingers! Dang forum, making me learn stuff! Where was I? Oh, yeah... fingers clicking on the keys. An anticipation in my mind of a concept I desire to express. If now I die, no message will be sent...

If I'm already dead, what are you reading? By hitting the "post reply" button, do I not create my past and your future? Or is all merely now, and of the infinite replies possible, this one is sent. Why? Because I, and you, too. That is the limit of perception. That we perceive. When the organics fail, there will be no Gwynnies. This does not make me sad, for I know that "no Gwynnies" is, in itself, an infinite potential of Gwynnies. Heart

(Yes. I am broken in the head over that girl. Big Grin But, the example of love tends to be always relevant now)

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2012, 01:42 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(15-06-2012 12:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(15-06-2012 12:48 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Not at all. In fact, I believe this to be the case with most life found in creation.

Just not man.

Of course, my view is biased. I believe that mankind, not all life, was created in the image and likeness of God (the "image" and "likeness" open for debate). We are told there are differences among the "bodies" of creation, and because I view scripture to be divinely inspired, I believe that simple concept.

So it is completely reasonable to consider that the brain activity of an animal, when it ceases, represents the cessation of existance for the animal. Now I would ask in regards to this, if animals and man are the same substance, meaning, they are made of the same materials and the result of the same process, then for both the demands of either dualism must be the same, right?

Which means, just as in the example of our being organic computers, we are really no better than animals, right? Just as we are no better than computers. So if this is the case, when will we see computer law? When we we see advocates for "elderly computers?" How dare we just throw away old computers thereby placing ourselves as the superior being on this planet? How dare we think to eat a hamburger, seeing that we are, after all, really just made of the same materials? Cows have brain activity as well, this can be monitored with the same machines that detect such activity in humans.

Of course, that is a bit silly, and I admit that, but, the basic principle applies. And the result is an attack on how precious mankind is, and the fact that there is something different about mankind that is not found in nature. Those that place mankind in the category of animal in the truest sense, meaning, those who actually do believe that animals have just as much right to life as mankind (and I agree with this for the most part, I love animals) to the point where an animal should not die that a man might live...well, I just cannot understand this.


Okay, just don't forget me on this...lol.

GTY
What makes humans special is that we have evolved to consciousness.

Okay, so define and explain this "consciousness" you speak of.

Why is it that of the many "animals" on this planet, only man has "evolved" to a state of consciousness?



(15-06-2012 12:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  We are (apparently) the only species to be able to reflect on our existence, to use our minds to construct alternative realities, and so on.

So you are saying that we actively use our minds, right? So do animals. Animals can show emotion, care for their young, change their behavior based upon experience.

But it is significant that man can "construct alternative realities?"

I agree. I view the evolution theory to be just such a construct. Wink

So where do you stand on dualism, either that theorized by philosophers or that embraced by theologians? I would guess that when the body dies, the person, the consciousness of the person dies as well, right? Which means, though the evolved state may be at a greater level, we are talking about the same thing. A man is no different than an animal.

Right?

So following this train of reasoning we can theorize that given enough time, we will see animals evolve similarly. If the one be true, the other is a likely outcome. Which means that we are eating the forefathers of of future equals on a daily basis. How horrible! Doesn't that make us...like animals or something?

(15-06-2012 12:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  This does not make us divinely created.

This is your theory?

(15-06-2012 12:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  Our evolutionary past is clearly spelled out in the genetic evidence, no gods need apply.

Correction: the interpretations of the genetic evidence of men that align with your belief system teach this.

I admit that I am pretty ignorant in this area, so have fun with it: what I have seen as claims of "new genetic material" seems to be to be a little deceiving. Replication and duplication is a far cry from something being new, such as the instance of animals gaining a new function, namely...consciousness (in the sense you yourself describe above).

While I say this, I do have to mention that this concept is, in my estimation, similar to the difference between things spiritual and physical. If you will just humor me for a bit, and consider the difference between an animal having "no conscience" and man having a conscious element to represent a similar concept as is proposed in the term "new." So for the theistic evolutionist it would be plausible that man was made "new" when he came to the point where he had something that animals do not, which sets him apart from the make-up of animals. One problem associated with that is that science can neither affirm or deny it's own theories, in relation to dualism.

If there were truly "new genetic material" it would seem to me that this would be front page news. But I have only seen "newly observed material," which is quite different. Just like a newly observed is quite different from a species that is new.

(15-06-2012 12:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  Many people are horrified by the idea that we are not specially created and become blinded to the evidence.

And some of us are just waiting for science to catch up to that which scripture teaches. Perhaps one day science will be able to monitor the "consciousness" which you mention, and then again, perhaps not.

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2012, 02:54 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
I really can't get past this statement - "And some of us are just waiting for science to catch up to that which scripture teaches"

How do we catch up? Cure disease by animal sacrifice? There is nothing in the bible that the people of the time could not know or have made up and quite a bit they got wrong.

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like KidCharlemagne1962's post
15-06-2012, 03:30 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(15-06-2012 02:54 PM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  I really can't get past this statement - "And some of us are just waiting for science to catch up to that which scripture teaches"

How do we catch up? Cure disease by animal sacrifice? There is nothing in the bible that the people of the time could not know or have made up and quite a bit they got wrong.
iam4



That's the fulfilled prophecy of the whole "Holy Bible." Fuckers. But I wuz just arguing pure number over string theory, which starts with the tao and gets a kick from Ezekiel. I mean, scripture ain't worthless. It is the most successful form of human technology, but the whole thing fits into iam4.

So it ain't worth this paragraph. E=mc^2 don't communicate anything without the background. Communicating here is no more than war. To paint a banner with one equation in blue, one in red; decide who's right by determining who's left. Like evolution dictates. Buncha theists forget what this prophet remembers. I am more than the sum of my parts. At the same time, I am far less. There's an animal in me that breathes and eats and shops at the grocery store. An animal that knows how to send blood from my toes to keep my mind fed and free from everything around me.

To dissolve into pure mind is to let the animal that don't know devour the world for my Gwynnies. It's evolutionary imperative.

Yet the Bible teaches... revelation. Dodgy

Motherfuckers weren't supposed to have a Bible. Motherfuckers supposed to have prophets. But instead they had priests, lawyers; bickering over the word of the law because they could not market the spirit. NASB over KJV, a marketing dispute; blue over red. Because the marketing strategy preserves power over the people. The spirit preserves the power over the self. Self-control? Priests? Can't have that!

Instead we have this.

What has come between us atheists and theists is not Almighty but less than iam4. If you don't understand that, your jihad is mere crusade.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2012, 03:47 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(15-06-2012 02:54 PM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  I really can't get past this statement - "And some of us are just waiting for science to catch up to that which scripture teaches"

If you read the discussion, this is primarily in reference to the spiritual aspect of our existence.

While believers may not be able to offer the "proof" that might satisfy the skeptic, neither can science disprove our beliefs. Accounts of existence after being pronounced dead are very common. While I would not call this evidence myself, it is interesting. As I mentioned earlier, It cannot be denied that the technology of today can pronounce someone dead and then that person "come back to life." Were the doctors or machinery in error? Perhaps.

Which means that error can be found even in this technology, right? And if they cannot properly identify bodily death at all times, why would we be surprised that they cannot identify the spirit of a man?

So, I hope that puts the statement in context. When man is able to deny or validate the spiritual realm, then, if scripture is true, they will have caught up with what scripture teaches.


(15-06-2012 02:54 PM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  How do we catch up?

Well, take for example the fact that scripture records that just prior to performing surgery on Adam, God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam. Well, there you go: the first instance of anaesthesia, lol. Beats "biting the bullet," don't you agree?



(15-06-2012 02:54 PM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  Cure disease by animal sacrifice?

Sacrifice was instituted as a temporary atonement for sin, not to cure disease. While ther emight have been sacrifice offered after a disease was contracted, the sacrifice itself was not the curative, God was.

Of course sin can be viewed as a disease, to put it into understandable terms.

(15-06-2012 02:54 PM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  There is nothing in the bible that the people of the time could not know or have made up and quite a bit they got wrong.

As to the former, it is true they did not have nearly the information available that we do today, yet, according to the command of God, they were given instruction that disease not be spread. I look at this from this perspective: just as we do not explain the property of fire to children, but say, "Don't play with fire," even so God gave instruction that disease not be spread.

Thanks for the reply,

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2012, 04:39 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(15-06-2012 01:33 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Here's a tidbit, ST:
Quote: But suppose certain mental states emerge not only from our nervous system, but from an embodied and embedded system which includes our dynamic interactions with other people?

A tidbit from where? If you don't mind me asking.

Now ask the question, "If a man loses his memory, does he cease to be the same man?" Does he start all over to put all of these factors into effect or does he remain the same individual? Will he dislike certain foods? People?

How about a person that has been brain damaged? Does the function of their brain being altered make them a different person?


(15-06-2012 01:33 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  If those dynamic interactions with other people involve vector transformations that produce skillfully maintained social relations, this kind of social ‘‘know-how’’ would involve neither simulations nor theories.

I am trying to follow this best as I can, so bear with me.

And I cannot see how this would make us deny the presence of a spiritual nature within man.

(15-06-2012 01:33 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  In cases where our awareness of other minds emerges from the social system of which we are a part, there would be no need to create a simulation of other people’s mental states inside our heads.

This precludes that all men are taught their belief in God. There is no question that the iinfluence of those around us play a large part in our develpment, but, there are those that come to faith in God who are raised in households devoid of "indoctrination." And the reverse is true as well: there are those that reject God even after having a thorough knowledge of the facts.

Also, do people in mental hospitals "catch" what their roomies have? Why not?

(15-06-2012 01:33 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  (At least some of) our experiences would emerge from the social system, in essentially the same way that others emerge from our nervous system.

Think this kind of broad-brushes to present a plausible scenario. Life is far too diverse to explain the actions of everyone in such a simple manner. The results of our lives are mysterious at times.

(15-06-2012 01:33 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  If this is what happens, societies and minds would be very similar kinds of dynamic systems, which might make the concept of ‘‘group mind’’ something more than a metaphor.

The group mind is definitely a real concept. We see this in many instances. Mob mentality, so to speak. However, just as there is an individual aspect to the members of the group, despite uniform belief, there is an individuality to the mind that also has to be factored in.

The fact that many will, despite their influences, go against the grain in individual pursuits and achievements is seen universally and is in fact just an indication that despite the influences of our peers and experiences...the human mind, and the human mind alone reflects the ability to think for itself.

Whereas, the animal primarily responds instictually, and the computer responds only as it is programmed.

(15-06-2012 01:33 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  As to this:
Quote:I would ask what you personally view to be the future state of the human mind when the body expires?

There is no future beyond the failure of the organics.

So explain why science can pronounce death and then apologize to the dead?

(15-06-2012 01:33 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Future is merely a simulation based upon propagation of observed events.

Perhaps. However, if this were entirely true then man...could control the future.

And we both know that man has a hard enough time...controlling himself in the present. Ever gotten mad despite the fact that you told yourself you would not? Be honest.

(15-06-2012 01:33 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  You're not gonna read this in the future. When you read this, it will be now.

Doesn't change the fact that when you wrote it, I was not a factor...I was not involved. It is no longer now for you.

Doesn't change the fact that as I read this now...it was your future that I read it in.

(15-06-2012 01:33 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  We get to believing in the simulation by being part of the sequence, like my two fingers - and a thumb... wait, there was just four fingers! Dang forum, making me learn stuff! Where was I? Oh, yeah... fingers clicking on the keys. An anticipation in my mind of a concept I desire to express. If now I die, no message will be sent...

What does that have to do with the price of tea in Egypt? This has no relevance to the issue. You may never read my response, yet, it has no effect on my perception. It does not change me. It does not change you.

(15-06-2012 01:33 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  If I'm already dead, what are you reading?

Last will and testament?

Do you really think that reading the post will become a part of my existence?

(15-06-2012 01:33 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  By hitting the "post reply" button, do I not create my past and your future?

No, you do not...lol. When you hit the post button, it will always be your present. When you watch Iron Man, it will always have been Paltrow's past.

(15-06-2012 01:33 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Or is all merely now, and of the infinite replies possible, this one is sent. Why? Because I, and you, too.

Say, getiting a little eastern mystical on me, house.

Is it chance that caused you to type the words you wrote? No. Is it the influence of the members here that create house? Make him the man he is? If you had been exposed to other people, is it possible you might have simulated their theology, thereby being a different man than you are?

No. You are yourself, despite the beliefs you embrace or the actions you engage in. You will always approach life as house, and will not be a product of your environment or the experiences you have.

(15-06-2012 01:33 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  That is the limit of perception.

But you act as if perception is all there is. Yet you speak of all these factors that are so diverse as if it is all one big movie. It is like the difference between reading and watching a movie: the concept that I see here is like the movie, where as life is more like a book. In the movie, you are limited to perception, in the book, the hero, YOU, is not always aware of all that is going on.

A little chaos theory influence there, perhaps, but it is true: your exxperiences in life will be affected by people and events you will never...perceive.

Now apply that to the topic, and you might see what I mean.

(15-06-2012 01:33 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  That we perceive.

But just because we do not perceive something, does not mean we are not affected by it. You may not perceive that virus that somebody left on the cereal box you were looking at. And it changed your life...right?

(15-06-2012 01:33 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  When the organics fail, there will be no Gwynnies. This does not make me sad, for I know that "no Gwynnies" is, in itself, an infinite potential of Gwynnies. Heart

(Yes. I am broken in the head over that girl. Big Grin But, the example of love tends to be always relevant now)

The only solution is to win her over to the Lord, right after your conversion, of course, and then, you can be friends for eternity.

Smile

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: