Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 4.11 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-09-2016, 11:18 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(02-09-2016 10:11 AM)xear Wrote:  A plant is aware. It does not think.

Those two sentences are contradictory as far as I'm concerned. I have no idea what you think "aware" means because I do not see how something can be aware of anything if it can't think.

(02-09-2016 10:18 AM)xear Wrote:  "Consciousness develops as an organism grows in complexity and ends when that organism dies."

I don't see it that way. Here's a quote from David Darling:

I am not familiar with Darling and am not finding much about him by searching. The quotes you posted are nothing but arguments from personal incredulity. He is listed as an astronomer which is fine but when speaking about cosmology he's straying from his area of expertise.

It doesn't really matter though, because I'm tired of trying to follow your jumps from when consciousness begins and ends to when the universe begins and ends. You conflate so many things that it isn't possible to have a reasonable discussion with you at all.

Bottom line... according to the best evidence we have, our universe began at the big bang although we do not know what, if anything, caused it. We do not know if it began to exist at that point or existed previously and underwent a transformation. We know that it began to expand and it looks like that expansion will continue until the eventual heat death when entropy is maximized. With regard to consciousness, it emerges as the product of a functioning brain during the development of an organism and ends when the brain stops producing it at death. Plants, and primitive organisms, react to their environment but are not aware in any meaningful sense of the word. They have no consciousness.

If you believe that your consciousness existed prior to your brain forming during gestation or that it will continue to exist after your brain dies then you need to provide evidence to support those claims. All the evidence I know of supports it being transitory. Arguments of "I can't believe that" or "it doesn't make sense to me" are worthless without evidence to back them up.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
02-09-2016, 04:20 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(02-09-2016 11:18 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(02-09-2016 10:11 AM)xear Wrote:  A plant is aware. It does not think.

Those two sentences are contradictory as far as I'm concerned. I have no idea what you think "aware" means because I do not see how something can be aware of anything if it can't think.

(02-09-2016 10:18 AM)xear Wrote:  "Consciousness develops as an organism grows in complexity and ends when that organism dies."

I don't see it that way. Here's a quote from David Darling:

I am not familiar with Darling and am not finding much about him by searching. The quotes you posted are nothing but arguments from personal incredulity. He is listed as an astronomer which is fine but when speaking about cosmology he's straying from his area of expertise.

It doesn't really matter though, because I'm tired of trying to follow your jumps from when consciousness begins and ends to when the universe begins and ends. You conflate so many things that it isn't possible to have a reasonable discussion with you at all.

Bottom line... according to the best evidence we have, our universe began at the big bang although we do not know what, if anything, caused it. We do not know if it began to exist at that point or existed previously and underwent a transformation. We know that it began to expand and it looks like that expansion will continue until the eventual heat death when entropy is maximized. With regard to consciousness, it emerges as the product of a functioning brain during the development of an organism and ends when the brain stops producing it at death. Plants, and primitive organisms, react to their environment but are not aware in any meaningful sense of the word. They have no consciousness.

If you believe that your consciousness existed prior to your brain forming during gestation or that it will continue to exist after your brain dies then you need to provide evidence to support those claims. All the evidence I know of supports it being transitory. Arguments of "I can't believe that" or "it doesn't make sense to me" are worthless without evidence to back them up.

This man [Robert Lanza] is considered an expert and genius and I see it similar to his views. I'm not saying anyone here should agree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentric_universe

Biocentrism states that life and biology are central to being, reality, and the cosmos—consciousness creates the universe rather than the other way around. It asserts that current theories of the physical world do not work, and can never be made to work, until they fully account for life and consciousness. While physics is considered fundamental to the study of the universe, and chemistry fundamental to the study of life, biocentrism claims that scientists will need to place biology before the other sciences to produce a theory of everything.



.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2016, 04:28 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(02-09-2016 04:20 PM)xear Wrote:  This man [Robert Lanza] is considered an expert and genius and I see it similar to his views. I'm not saying anyone here should agree.

That was my first post here. Big Grin

My views have tempered by reading what Wheeler really meant by a participatory universe. A rock is a participant.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2016, 04:47 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(02-09-2016 04:28 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(02-09-2016 04:20 PM)xear Wrote:  This man [Robert Lanza] is considered an expert and genius and I see it similar to his views. I'm not saying anyone here should agree.

That was my first post here. Big Grin

My views have tempered by reading what Wheeler really meant by a participatory universe. A rock is a participant.

Cool!

Also, thanks for that Wheeler link. Here's a snippet I liked:

"The universe and the observer exist as a pair," Linde says. "You can say that the universe is there only when there is an observer who can say, Yes, I see the universe there. These small words — it looks like it was here— for practical purposes it may not matter much, but for me as a human being, I do not know any sense in which I could claim that the universe is here in the absence of observers. We are together, the universe and us. The moment you say that the universe exists without any observers, I cannot make any sense out of that. I cannot imagine a consistent theory of everything that ignores consciousness. A recording device cannot play the role of an observer, because who will read what is written on this recording device? In order for us to see that something happens, and say to one another that something happens, you need to have a universe, you need to have a recording device, and you need to have us. It's not enough for the information to be stored somewhere, completely inaccessible to anybody. It's necessary for somebody to look at it. You need an observer who looks at the universe. In the absence of observers, our universe is dead.



.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes xear's post
02-09-2016, 05:21 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(02-09-2016 04:20 PM)xear Wrote:  
(02-09-2016 11:18 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Those two sentences are contradictory as far as I'm concerned. I have no idea what you think "aware" means because I do not see how something can be aware of anything if it can't think.


I am not familiar with Darling and am not finding much about him by searching. The quotes you posted are nothing but arguments from personal incredulity. He is listed as an astronomer which is fine but when speaking about cosmology he's straying from his area of expertise.

It doesn't really matter though, because I'm tired of trying to follow your jumps from when consciousness begins and ends to when the universe begins and ends. You conflate so many things that it isn't possible to have a reasonable discussion with you at all.

Bottom line... according to the best evidence we have, our universe began at the big bang although we do not know what, if anything, caused it. We do not know if it began to exist at that point or existed previously and underwent a transformation. We know that it began to expand and it looks like that expansion will continue until the eventual heat death when entropy is maximized. With regard to consciousness, it emerges as the product of a functioning brain during the development of an organism and ends when the brain stops producing it at death. Plants, and primitive organisms, react to their environment but are not aware in any meaningful sense of the word. They have no consciousness.

If you believe that your consciousness existed prior to your brain forming during gestation or that it will continue to exist after your brain dies then you need to provide evidence to support those claims. All the evidence I know of supports it being transitory. Arguments of "I can't believe that" or "it doesn't make sense to me" are worthless without evidence to back them up.

This man [Robert Lanza] is considered an expert and genius and I see it similar to his views. I'm not saying anyone here should agree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentric_universe

Biocentrism states that life and biology are central to being, reality, and the cosmos—consciousness creates the universe rather than the other way around. It asserts that current theories of the physical world do not work, and can never be made to work, until they fully account for life and consciousness. While physics is considered fundamental to the study of the universe, and chemistry fundamental to the study of life, biocentrism claims that scientists will need to place biology before the other sciences to produce a theory of everything.



.

Lanza is a medical doctor way out of his depth. His hypothesis is pretty much laughed at by actual scientists.

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
02-09-2016, 05:37 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(02-09-2016 05:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  Lanza is a medical doctor way out of his depth. His hypothesis is pretty much laughed at by actual scientists.

Wheeler is not.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2016, 06:57 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
At work.

A question for xear;

Do the other planets in our Solar sytem exist?

Does the Sun exist?

Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2016, 07:14 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(02-09-2016 06:57 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

A question for xear;

Do the other planets in our Solar sytem exist?

Does the Sun exist?

Consider

And now we come to the point where we get to the Einstein-Bohr discussion of the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Many physicists and philosophers have objected to the Copenhagen interpretation, both on the grounds that it is non-deterministic and that it includes an undefined measurement process that converts probability functions into non-probabilistic measurements. Einstein's comments "I, at any rate, am convinced that He (God) does not throw dice." and "Do you really think the moon isn't there if you aren't looking at it?"exemplify this. Bohr, in response, said, "Einstein, don't tell God what to do."

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2016, 04:28 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(02-09-2016 06:57 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

A question for xear;

Do the other planets in our Solar sytem exist?

Does the Sun exist?

Consider

And here we're back to definitions of what "exist" means.

Does anything exist without a perceiver?

Is Andrei Linde Professor of Physics at Stanford University a crackpot too?

"The universe and the observer exist as a pair," Linde says. "You can say that the universe is there only when there is an observer who can say, Yes, I see the universe there."




.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2016, 05:42 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(03-09-2016 04:28 AM)xear Wrote:  
(02-09-2016 06:57 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

A question for xear;

Do the other planets in our Solar sytem exist?

Does the Sun exist?

Consider

And here we're back to definitions of what "exist" means.

Does anything exist without a perceiver?

Is Andrei Linde Professor of Physics at Stanford University a crackpot too?

"The universe and the observer exist as a pair," Linde says. "You can say that the universe is there only when there is an observer who can say, Yes, I see the universe there."

.

So every time we blink the entire universe ceases to exist for a fraction of a second. I'm too scared to contemplate what happens when we have a nightmare while asleep.

BTW-I have never seen a god, where does that leave your assertions? In your mind only. Drinking Beverage

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: