The Hard Problems Of Consciousnes - One of the best cases for Intelligent Design

C C said:
I don't have any reports about an ID-specific meme that might be trending globally. Have largely just encountered the ongoing general strain of QM mysticism -- when blended with this or that religion -- as sported by gnus in discussion groups for years.

For designating an eccentric evangelist, "Gnu Guru" has been suggested as an addition to urban slang, which borrows from the comedic aspect of "Gnu Atheist", but minus the ironic retaliation. The "guru" part is often dropped or else taken to be contracted in "gnu" [somehow!]. Might be better if they just respelled it as "gnoo" to avoid confusion with Gnu Atheist and accompanying mascot.

gnu: "A budding guru, now-a-days most usually found upon the internet seeking acolytes. Can be identified by their utterance of meaningless or contradictory aphorisms and vague and meaningless nonsense about a hidden 'Truth' or 'Reality' always just out of reach. Common traits, an inability to answer sentences with question marks, acute selective reading ability, massive belief confirmation bias, ad-hominen psycho-babble and a complete inability to walk their talk or even talk their walk. Be wary of such beasts. Preventative vaccination advised, i.e. a study of Philosophy, in particular a dose of critical philosophy and Logic as practiced in Philosophy now-a-days." --as related by a UK poster

Gnu Atheist: "A term used by atheists online to ridicule the idea that there is such a thing as a New Atheist. Its origins are variously attributed to Ophelia Benson, Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers."

From Pharyngula Wiki: "Gnu [Atheist] has the added benefit of allowing atheists to reclaim the label new imposed on them by theists. In addition, the gnu (aka, the wildebeest) serves as a sort of mascot around which some atheists might choose to rally, though there are several such mascots already (e.g., IPU , FSM , Ceiling Cat , Cthulhu , and cephalopods ). Atheists who enjoy using the label Gnu Atheist for whatever reason might want to look into joining either one of the two Gnu Atheism Facebook groups..."
Click to expand...

Thanks for this. I rather like Gnoo Guru, since Gnoo rhymes more obviously with Woo, which is what this is.

"Gnoo Woo" sums it up quite nicely.
 
BIGFOOT said:
I think that is highly unlikely. Lets follow William Paley's argument, that if you were walking along a path in the Forrest and suddenly you encountered a stone besides the path, if you were asked how the stone came to lie besides the path, you would most likely say you do not know. But if you encountered s watch, most certainly you would say that an intelligent being had something to do with it. For it takes a Watchmaker to make a watch. So, we as Intelligent creatures figure out intelligence behind phenomena by some peculiar qualities to be found in anything that the intelligence had had a hand. Take for example a painting. A Painter leaves a signature on his painting. One also infers intelligence behind creation, inferred in the peculiar properties, to be found in nature. Take for example the Fibonacci numbers sequences in nature. Their peculiar properties infer intelligence.

You say that the information of DNA is not transmitted consciously. Okay. But you have to wonder about the curious aspects of the specification which take the characteristic of computer programing. So, who programed the genetic information to be found in the DNA a sequence which is specified, to create particular amino l acids which determine the proteins and its functions, which determines the character of the cell? You want to claim that all that happened by chance?
Click to expand...

I was walking a path, looked down & saw a god & it was obvious it had to have a creator. For it takes a godmaker to make a god. It could not have come about by chance.
 
Captain Kremmen said:
We are as mystified about the nature of consciousness as we are about the nature of the physical world,
We can only experience the physical world through the medium of sensory experience, but its existence is a better way of explaining its constancy in the large scale world, than dependence upon a God who has to mediate every action.

There is a difference in the nature of the world when we analyse it at an atomic and macroscopic level, but there is also a difference in dreaming and the waking state.

Even if you accept the premise that the world of conscious experience is all that exists, why would that necessitate a God?
Click to expand...
"A God who has to mediate every action"
The God I know has set everyone free.........He just wants us to love one another. Is that so difficult? “You must Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. (Deuteronomy 6:5) The second resembles it: You must love your neighbor as yourself(Leviticus 19:18). On these two commandments hangs the whole law, and the prophets” Mathew 22:36-40
Do we need monitoring to learn that, these two make Ultimate sense? You may ask me, "How do I love a God whom I cannot see? I tell, start with the "Loving your neighbor" and the other part of "loving the Lord" will fulfill itself.

"We can only experience the physical world through the medium of sensory experience"
Yeah, and my take, is what Kant proofs in his Critique of Pure Reason. Sensory experience being subjective, is biased. And I explained earlier, that since QM, has given us an inference that everything is entangled, this entanglement, convinces me, that the physical reality is but another dream state.
 
spidergoat said:
Not exactly. Words on a page are physical, but their meaning is contingent on interpretation. My cat can see the same written words, but for her they mean nothing. In the same way, thoughts are physical products of the brain, but their meaning depends on context.
Click to expand...
"thoughts are physical products of the brain"

Thoughts are not things...........thoughts are a Law.
 
BIGFOOT said:
God is Spirit.....meaning....unseen. So, there.
Click to expand...

Christianity makes no sense. God is make believe...meaning...childish play acting.

The point you don't want to see is whatever can be said about life or the universe requiring a maker applies even more so to a god.
 
BIGFOOT said:
"A God who has to mediate every action"
The God I know has set everyone free.........He just wants us to love one another. Is that so difficult? “You must Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. (Deuteronomy 6:5) The second resembles it: You must love your neighbor as yourself(Leviticus 19:18). On these two commandments hangs the whole law, and the prophets” Mathew 22:36-40
Do we need monitoring to learn that, these two make Ultimate sense? You may ask me, "How do I love a God whom I cannot see? I tell, start with the "Loving your neighbor" and the other part of "loving the Lord" will fulfill itself.

"We can only experience the physical world through the medium of sensory experience"
Yeah, and my take, is what Kant proofs in his Critique of Pure Reason. Sensory experience being subjective, is biased. And I explained earlier, that since QM, has given us an inference that everything is entangled, this entanglement, convinces me, that the physical reality is but another dream state.
Click to expand...

Yet all that depends on YOUR biased subjective sensory experience so you not only cannot know any of that or know you are correct but you have no basis to even suspect you might be correct. All you can do is speculate & you will never know whether any of your speculating ever approached the truth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
Christianity makes no sense. God is make believe...meaning...childish play acting.

The point you don't want to see is whatever can be said about life or the universe requiring a maker applies even more so to a god.
Click to expand...
photomultipliers
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
Christianity makes no sense. God is make believe...meaning...childish play acting.

The point you don't want to see is whatever can be said about life or the universe requiring a maker applies even more so to a god.
Click to expand...

"Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength." 1 Corinthians 20-25
 
BIGFOOT said:
photomultipliers


"Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength." 1 Corinthians 20-25
Click to expand...

Your ImaginaryFiend has no wisdom or strength except in the delirious delusion of those who fabricate it from their imagination.

Repeatedly quoting from fairy tales to those who have read them & heard them before yet are not susceptible to them is spinning your wheels in muddy ruts, at best. Neither does it address my comments.
 
BIGFOOT said:
I think that is highly unlikely. Lets follow William Paley's argument……..

…….You say that the information of DNA is not transmitted consciously. Okay. But you have to wonder about the curious aspects of the specification which take the characteristic of computer programing. So, who programed the genetic information to be found in the DNA a sequence which is specified, to create particular amino l acids which determine the proteins and its functions, which determines the character of the cell? You want to claim that all that happened by chance?
Click to expand...

You will get nowhere on a science forum by trotting out the old chestnut of William Paley, after all these years. It has been well observed that the so-called Argument from Design can equally be called the Argument from Personal Incredulity:-

I, personally, am unable to conceive of how something so complex could arise by the operation of nature: ergo, it must have been "designed" (implicitly, by God).

On this basis you could argue, with equal validity - or lack of it - that the order in an ice crystal, or in the configuration of electrons in successive element in the Periodic Table, "must" have been created by a designer.

The task of science is to seek for natural - not supernatural - explanations of what we observe. No amount of religious cant or sloppy logic is going to persuade people otherwise.
 
exchemist said:
The task of science is to seek for natural - not supernatural - explanations of what we observe. No amount of religious cant or sloppy logic is going to persuade people otherwise.
Click to expand...
Perhaps then what is needed is a sloppy logic sub-forum.
a55f838b08ef81b0d07e75d9ac49d632.jpg


Figure 1a. a Sloppy Joe
 
Captain Kremmen said:
If sensory experience is subjective, what is the difference between dreaming and being awake?
Click to expand...
Captain Kremmen.........BRAVO!!!!!! YOU GOT IT!! WHAT IN DEED, IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DREAMS ARE BEING AWAKE? NOTHING!!

That is what I have been trying to point out. There is no difference between dreams and reality of waking up because, just as dream state is an altered state of consciousness, this waking reality is also an altered state of consciousness. Meaning...........we are still asleep! This is want one has to conclude, because QM, has confirmed that everything is entangled at Quantum Realm meaning that even if we are not conscious of this reality, Reality is Unity, just as the Reality of Dream State is United with the dreamer, this waking reality is also united with the observer. Reality is created by the observer. Think about it. But I believe you now see the obvious. Good question!
 
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
Your ImaginaryFiend has no wisdom or strength except in the delirious delusion of those who fabricate it from their imagination.

Repeatedly quoting from fairy tales to those who have read them & heard them before yet are not susceptible to them is spinning your wheels in muddy ruts, at best. Neither does it address my comments.
Click to expand...

For you dreaming is safe.
 
exchemist said:
You will get nowhere on a science forum by trotting out the old chestnut of William Paley, after all these years. It has been well observed that the so-called Argument from Design can equally be called the Argument from Personal Incredulity:-

I, personally, am unable to conceive of how something so complex could arise by the operation of nature: ergo, it must have been "designed" (implicitly, by God).

On this basis you could argue, with equal validity - or lack of it - that the order in an ice crystal, or in the configuration of electrons in successive element in the Periodic Table, "must" have been created by a designer.

The task of science is to seek for natural - not supernatural - explanations of what we observe. No amount of religious cant or sloppy logic is going to persuade people otherwise.
Click to expand...


Well I can only quote the experts, just in case you think I am a lone-Ranger

“I am not an atheist, The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.” Albert Einstein( See M..G.S Viereck Glimpses of the Great,)

So, even the great acknowledge Intelligent Design.
 
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
Yet all that depends on YOUR biased subjective sensory experience so you not only cannot know any of that or know you are correct but you have no basis to even suspect you might be correct. All you can do is speculate & you will never know whether any of your speculating ever approached the truth.
Click to expand...

We all start with speculation. We speculate, test our speculation. If they are found true in the beginning, we test it again, and again until it becomes obvious.

We used to speculate that the earth was flat. We were wrong. We used to speculate that matter is made of "things" now, apparently we have been proved wrong. Speculation is a part of the learning process. I am speculating that when we wake up, we are still asleep. You say "duh wrong see"! and you hit an object to show you are awake. But that does not mean you cannot do the same in your dreams.

A great question has been asked by Captain Kremmen which I never thought I would be asked. He asked; "If sensory experience is subjective, what is the difference between dreaming and being awake?" What indeed?"
 
BIGFOOT said:
We all start with speculation. We speculate, test our speculation. If they are found true in the beginning, we test it again, and again until it becomes obvious.

We used to speculate that the earth was flat. We were wrong. We used to speculate that matter is made of "things" now, apparently we have been proved wrong. Speculation is a part of the learning process. I am speculating that when we wake up, we are still asleep. You say "duh wrong see"! and you hit an object to show you are awake. But that does not mean you cannot do the same in your dreams.

A great question has been asked by Captain Kremmen which I never thought I would be asked. He asked; "If sensory experience is subjective, what is the difference between dreaming and being awake?" What indeed?"
Click to expand...

Yet ALL that depends on YOUR biased subjective sensory experience so you not only CANNOT KNOW any of that or KNOW you are correct but YOU have NO BASIS to even suspect you might be correct. ALL you can do is speculate & YOU will never KNOW whether any of your speculating ever approached the truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top