For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
I would suggest a rather more direct explanation for our mate jackles ,skakos wrote:For me this is the point where the truly interesting questions about consciousness arise.
We, as observers, are those who give (literally) meaning to the cosmos...
and what takes over when science finishes , or before it starts ,jackles wrote:I think this comes to the question.what is the observer in terms of science.the answer has to be consciousness.what is consciousness. nonlocality.consciousness has to be nonlocal to the event being observed.nonlocality is where science finishes.science starts and finishes in nonlocality.
What kind of evidence do you have that me and you have DIFFERENT consciousnesses?Godfree wrote:I would suggest a rather more direct explanation for our mate jackles ,skakos wrote:For me this is the point where the truly interesting questions about consciousness arise.
We, as observers, are those who give (literally) meaning to the cosmos...
I have tried to explain a consciousness to him on other threads and it keeps appearing on most of the threads he is now on ,
allow me to interpret , consciousness , to jackles = god,
so if he can persuade people we all have the same consciousness ,
then that must be god ,,???
a fairly lame and stupid thing to try and prove to my mind,
he has no facts no logic and no understanding,
and yet in his mind he imagines he is on to something important here ,
or why would he be launching in to the same subject on every thread ,,????
Not quite accurate since we live in the present and always have one foot in the past and one in the future. Thus our destiny (future) is to always deal with past events (so that "Current Events" for a news program is really a misnomer). Consequently, everything we do, and you might say this is splitting hairs now, is forensic. Also, science starts not with faith but with the expectation that applied methods are thoroughly vetted and therefore forever repeatable unless a mistake is made by the experimenter. That's why in a laboratory you follow steps outlined in documents called lab/test/operating procedures and specifications. So faith has nothing to do with it but experience does. Based on that, you know that it will work, and faith, by comparison, means you hope that it will work. Hence the expression "unjustifiable faith", but you can't say "unjustifiable experience."jinx wrote:Anything in the past (even yesterday) is forever lost to observational science and so falls into the category of forensic/historical science. The further back in time/less historical records there is for an event the more 'inferences' have to be made and so the more possibility there is of being wrong. Even in the present though science starts with faith, faith that the world is real, faith that mans senses are not deceiving him, faith that the laws of the universe will not change tomorrow without those first faith based assumptions science doesn't get done.
Really? Would the cosmos "be" if there was no one to observe it? If yes, how? And how would you "know" that?surreptitious57 wrote:We do not give meaning to the Cosmos. We give meaning - or rather attempt to - give meaning to our place in the Cosmos which is something entirely different now. Because it is all from our own subjective interpretation. One of which is the view that there must be meaning of some kind otherwise it does not explain why we are here. We are here because our existence is compatible with the laws of physics and chemistry and biology. Anything else is superfluous to requirement. The only reason we go in search of meaning is because of a fear of death and a general belief that we deserve more just because we have the ability to philosophise about our existence in the first place. The first is complete nonsense. We were dead for all of known existence before we were born and it did not bother us then so why should it now ? The second is just arrogance of the highest order. We are not actually important at all in the grand scheme of things. Nothing is. Even the Cosmos itself is of no importance and so neither does it have any meaning to it either. It just is. And that is it. No more no less
I got this far before commenting. Kuznetzova, I’d challenge the premises in your reductio. You merely constructed a straw man and they proceeded to tear it down. Go back and try again, but base your reductio argument on what God has revealed of himself in the Bible rather than the ruminations of your mind.Kuznetzova wrote:You have claimed that DNA is evidence for divine intervention in the universe. On top of that you have claimed that God must be a first cause. (I will assume for brevity, that you mean God was the direct cause of the Big Bang. Honestly, Aristotle knew not an iota of our modern understanding of the cosmos.)But religion does not accept a God based on NO EVIDENCE whatsoever! There are many evidence. From the subtle parameterization of the cosmos for it to be able to sustain life, to the complicated designs which sustain life, from the DNA that encodes information that I dare you to create via random "noise"-making processes, to the very things you feel and which undermine every materialistic shallow explanation of the world. Not to mention the logical proofs of Godel and Aristotle for a First Cause. Would you call that "blind faith"? No...
Now let's do a little exercise I like to called Reductio ad Absurdum. In Reductio, you go ahead and pretend like the premises are completely true, then you derive consequences that are absurd. This tells you that the original premises stink, and should be thrown out the window.
Okay, let's do this. Let's pretend like God actually caused the big bang, and that God directly interfered with the Earth in order to design DNA. Those are the premises. Now let's draw some conclusions.
God did the Big Bang directly. When he was finished, he left the universe alone and did not touch it. The universe went about forming stars and galaxies by completely natural forces. It later formed the solar system and earth by completely natural processes. DNA molecules are composed of atoms, mostly carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and phosphorous. These elements were all formed completely naturally (no God involved) in the explosions of stars during their supernovas. DNA chains are made of nucleotide bases. These bases can form naturally and Miller and Urey showed how that can happen, sans God.
So God did the Big Bang, then he departed the universe and went on vacation for 9.7 billion years. The universe did everything naturally by itself while he was gone. Then suddenly, at around 3.5 billion years ago, God comes back to the universe and finds this one little planet near a star in the Milky Way and he says to himself : "Golly gee wizz boss -- I think imma design me some DNA today!"
So God did not create DNA... he sort of fashioned it like a chef from existing ingredients found directly on the Earth already. Yeah that's right. The necessary ingredients were already sitting right there on Earth, ready for God to come along and start stitching them together.(what a coinq-ee-dink!).
What was the first thing God made? God made a bunch of bacteria to slosh around the ocean. And then he took his spanking-new Divinely-Fashioned DNA Molecules and placed most of them where? Yeah, I'm asking you. Where did God put most of the DNA on this planet? Do you know the answer to that question? (Have ever even considered asking it?)
Welp, God put most of his Special Divine DNA in microscopic little bags with needles on them that slosh around in the ocean infecting various bacteria that they ram into (by accident). Those things are called Marine Bacteriophages. They are the most common DNA container on the face of planet earth - by far - by far!
So basically God did the Big Bang, went on vacation for 9 billion years, then came back and decided to cover the entire face of some little rocky planet with viruses that squirt DNA into bacteria. Oh, and by the way, he specifically designed these things to-order, according to his genius plan.
So skakos, we have completed our little Reductio exercise, and we have landed on an absurdum. At this point you have two choices. 1. You can try to amend or discard your premises. or 2. You can continue to make yourself look completely idiotic. Your choice. Ball's in your court, buddy.