Where do you think we came from?

First Previous

Page

113

Next Last

Frequent Posters

BirdieNumNum

@CuckooCutter7

Dazzler

Posted: 12 years ago

#71

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

It depends on who/what generated the randomness that we see.

If I type in "zxcvbnm", it might look random at the outset but what generated that is a keystroke action by me wherein I just hit a couple of keys in the last row on my keyboard in sequence. So are the letters sequential (as in exhibiting a pattern) or are they random? It depends on who the entity parsing the string is. To me, it had a pattern. To you, it probably did not (till I told you :)

So to go back to your question: "is it really random?"

The short answer is, we don't know who/what generated/generates the particles that exhibit the probabilistic wave-like behavior we usually associate with randomness.

To the other question: "does the supposed randomness disprove God (or even an algorithm, if God is replaced by a computer)?"

The answer is - most definitely not.

not sure how the "most defintely not" answer squares with your raising the point earlier: "It's the supposed randomness of this universe that we are unable to square with the order that we see all around us."

there's something about probabililities that i feel uncomfortable with in this context. If all we are given is a probability function by God, then it still leaves a lot of randomness to chance, not to God. The randomness by definition would be in terms of realized values. Someone can have a losing streak of a 100 lifetimes (assuming reincarnation of some kind) that doesnt seem fair if there is God. Even without invoking reincarnation, someone can have continuous bad luck as one of several possible paths. Not fair again.

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

Sparkler

Posted: 12 years ago

#72

Originally posted by: Vintage.Wine

@ Bold 1: Um ...No Free ..😆 ..I don't think losing some percentage of consciouslness should sound absurd ...and you know why ? Think of the WIND << The Energy, Think of the water ..We can't divert and channelise a some part of that ..And that still doesn't disrupt the Main flow ...If its the Energy, in a state without any material attribute ..It can very well scram outta that perticular part (like it happens in the cells that die) ...Which has been cut off ...and has become useless ..As propogation of stimuli from that part to the brain can't happen anymore, thus rendernig that non viable ..

I think we should first settle on what we mean by consciousness. I am concerned with the self-aware, thinking part. By losing a limb, we can lose function, but is our awareness affected? Self awareness I mean? Let's say in future we can make limbs and attach them to the body so that it connects well, with all the nerve centers so that you can use it, feel pain, sense, etc. So does the "us" changed with the limb? I think not.

Originally posted by: Vintage.Wine

Also ..imagine a situation where the part isn't the hand ...But the heart ..Much needed to purify and circulate the blood throughout the body ..Can a person live if that's gone? Just because his brain isn't damaged ? We woulda known this if we were the part of someMayan Tribe that plucked the hearts outta their captives ..😆

Because death of heart will ultimately result in death of brain. You can keep a person alive on bypass, it will do the function of heart.

Originally posted by: Vintage.Wine

And we know what happens to the comotose people ..Where the cerebral cortex is damaged severely and / or the structure responsible for productin of the neurons becomes defunct ...Now all the body movements cease ..But the person is still alive ..People are known to have fully recovered from such state after years ...People can be kept alive on life support system too .And they recuperate even then ..

But their brain is alive, right? I don't have technical knowledge of the state of coma, so feel free to correct me.

Originally posted by: Vintage.Wine

So my guess is ...Brain is a system that decodes the signals from the stimuli ..and generates newer ones to instruct the body parts to obey and move in a perticular manner ..We also can't forget that the brain cells that generate such signals are alive and conscious..They develope in a systematic fashion.. There is this occult energy which to me sounds like the consciousness at least till now that leaves the body ( Not as a Ghostly image ..😆 ) and the life ceases right there and then ...

Brain does that too. Of course brain cells are alive. But are they conscious? Which part then? How do we detect which cell is conscious and which is not.

Originally posted by: Vintage.Wine

@ Bold 2: Plants are conscious but in a limited way.. I mean they have no intelligence...A few react to the touch .. I gave one such example of that in my last post . Sunflower's immature flower buds react to the SUN's movements..Scrunge their leaves, puck em outta soil and plant em somewhere else..and the plant's growth stalls..Which means they recognise and become used to their original soil .. . .As for the bacteria, their movements are limited but carried out in a definite manner ..Even the tiny viruses have a RNA building block ..and a program is encoded in that ..Which directs their movements ..And its really very complex ...

But then you raise a question of self awareness..Is it really needed for something to be alive ? Can't the minimal awareness of the surrounding conditions suffice? In humans Consciousness, Awareness , Intellilgence work together in a fascinating way ..which makes them much more aware than such tiny organism and plants ...But we can't say that the organism and plants are not alive ..This infact becomes a proof that the life, consciousness is independant of the brain ..

Why are you mixing the both terms? Is every alive thing conscious? Of course plants are alive but are they self aware, do the think?

Originally posted by: Vintage.Wine

@ Bold 3: But what is consciousness all about ? If it Is it the same as awareness, self or that of the surroundings ..then we have no reason to say that the plants are not conscious .for the reasons I stated in my @ Bold 2 comment ..So are the viruses ..Once inside a human body, they choose the correct cell outta many differnt cells ..and attach themselves to that ..Is this not consciousness?Of the surrounding? though minimal ..But they still exhibit that ...And I believe consciousness if its an energy can be lost in parts ...or even gradually ...There is a different leveel of cosciousness in differnt species ...Cells die despite of the presence of the brain ..Which means they lose their coscioousness , or abillities to generate stimuli signals <<And here I'm believing that the Consciousness could be the energy behind the life ...

Yes, is just response to stimuli consciousness? Is every alive thing conscious? Many cells die and are replaced each day, so our consciousness keeps changing? I doubt it. You say we have part of life in each cell? So when you gain weight, your life-energy "increases" and when you lose wight it "decreases"? That doesn't seem likely to me.

Originally posted by: Vintage.Wine

@ Bold 4: Exactly my point ...Rock atoms are not alive ..cause they aren't grouped together in a way to support the life and become viable for that .Now who chooses which atoms deserve consciuosness ? The brain ? Which ai't even formed in the case of a fetus? or even at the stage before that ? So someone chooses such nacscent body ...Though not intelligent it definitely has some kind of a recognition system which is beyonnd al mundane understanding ..Consciousness chooses to be present not by some sorta thought ..but in accordance with a definite, impeccable mechanism ..which is uncanny to the humans ..

Cells are alive, the body is alive, I am not arguing that, but I don't think consciousness resides in whole of body.

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

Sparkler

Posted: 12 years ago

#73

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

it's not just a bunch of molecules, it's a bunch of molecules in certain configurations connected in specific ways that come to life. This "interconnectedness" aspect is what most people miss. i know this is just kicking the can down the road, but i thought it important to point out.

Yes, I know that, thought that was implied. But is consciousness just a by product of atom arrangement?

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

Sparkler

Posted: 12 years ago

#74

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

i wonder. When we're done playing science mechanics, i think that at best we will understand how things work, not why they work the way they do.I know some folks like to believe that science is the only path to enlightenment, but for me it's like relying on physics to solve problems in another domain. Never seen a square peg fit in a round hole.😊

Is it must that a why exist? Maybe it just does work, no reason at all.

Depends on what you mean by enlightenment. If it means knowledge, science is the best thing out there.

Quote

BirdieNumNum

@CuckooCutter7

Dazzler

Posted: 12 years ago

#75

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

Yes, I know that, thought that was implied. But is consciousness just a by product of atom arrangement?

nope, it was not implied. The question asked by you meant you did not get it. And probably still dont. Am very happy for you if you do however.😆

Quote

BirdieNumNum

@CuckooCutter7

Dazzler

Posted: 12 years ago

#76

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

Is it must that a why exist? Maybe it just does work, no reason at all.

Depends on what you mean by enlightenment. If it means knowledge, science is the best thing out there.

bud, could we do without the science is best drill all over again? I dont know about you, but it gets boring after a while. And there's nothing even remotely original about that stance. We all know. So please?😛😆

Edited by BirdieNumNum - 12 years ago

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

Sparkler

Posted: 12 years ago

#77

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

FT,

The first hop skip and a jump back in time will take us to unicellular organisms, the second to hydrogen, the third to gluons and quarks, the fourth to strings (?) and the fifth to quantum gravity (?)

The physical part of the "truth" behind the universe cannot leap past the big bang singularity, as Vintu alluded to in one of his eloquent posts.

I am guessing there's more to your "curiosity" than you are letting out (I am hoping there's some yearning to find the "Truth" behind the existence of the universe and not a desire to raise a few target rating points :)

With that in mind, let's start framing the questions correctly.

But singularity was not a physical thing, was it? That's where our models break down, not reality itself. Maybe we can develop better models. The question is, how did the Universe came to be in the "original" state?

What TRPs do you think I will raise here? Yes, i have curiosity as to how both the physical and consciousness part came to be, what powered matter into life and how they interconnect.

I asked what I am curious about. What correction do you propose?

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

Sparkler

Posted: 12 years ago

#78

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

nope, it was not implied. The question asked by you meant you did not get it. And probably still dont. Am very happy for you if you do however.😆

I do "get" it. The question is that whether consciousness is just a by product of certain molecular arrangement. If so, is it possessed by all the atoms in that arrangement? How do we detect it?

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

Sparkler

Posted: 12 years ago

#79

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

bud, could we do without the science is best drill all over again? I dont know about you, but it gets boring after a while. And there's nothing even remotely original about that stance. We all know. So please?😛😆

That is my opinion, you got a problem? 😆 Instead of just picking on that, why didn't you say what method would be better for enlightenment? 😛

Quote

@K.Universe.

Voyager

Posted: 12 years ago

#80

Originally posted by: Freethinker112
But singularity was not a physical thing, was it? That's where our models break down, not reality itself.

Physical reality does disappear at singularity; reality was neither solid, nor liquid nor gaseous at that instant. Not even plasma. To us, those are the only states which translate to "physical".