Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Thread Closed  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
06-04-2019, 07:53   #91
Sleeper12
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 13,496
Most of the old testament were stories & songs handed down generation to generation. Noah and the Great flood is an amalgamation of three of or four of stories.

The new testament was written or put together hundreds of years after the death of Jesus. Some heavy editing went on. It's wildly believed that there was a lot more than four gospels. Judas the hero of the jesus story most likely had a gospel. Mary magdalene is believed to have had a gospel.
Sleeper12 is offline  
Advertisement
06-04-2019, 13:06   #92
YFlyer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllForIt View Post
I don't believe that there is a God.

However I still have the problem about how life became so sophisticated all by itself from basic building blocks.

If it is explained as a process of evolution then fine but I still have to ask myself how evolution came about all by itself.

I still have to ask myself why is it that it is not the case that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever and how instead there is something. I don't get how something can make itself. Maybe there will be a scientific explanation for this one day but I doubt it will be explained in my lifetime.
Mostly because the quantum realm is ignored when explaining evolution.
YFlyer is offline  
06-04-2019, 13:16   #93
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 13,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dravokivich View Post
it seems they've changed the things they teach kids in school now. The stations of the cross have gone from 12 to 6 in my sons religion book.
Post offices have gone the same way.
There just isn't the market any more.
recedite is offline  
Thanks from:
07-04-2019, 17:49   #94
decky1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 960
it's a bit like man evolving from the apes why is none of it happening now?
decky1 is offline  
07-04-2019, 17:57   #95
Capt'n Midnight
00:00
 
Capt'n Midnight's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by decky1 View Post
it's a bit like man evolving from the apes why is none of it happening now?
It still is.

The Koran is centuries newer and the Book of Mormon is less than 200 years old.

Then again lots of people think the New Testament is too new so there's that.
Capt'n Midnight is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
07-04-2019, 18:09   #96
Arbitrary
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 476
Give a story one week with a sample size of 1,000 people and see how it evolves. I can't begin to imagine what that same story looks like after 500 years.

Last edited by Arbitrary; 07-04-2019 at 18:12.
Arbitrary is offline  
07-04-2019, 19:05   #97
Fourier
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 10,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by nozzferrahhtoo View Post
This is essentially the same thing as above though. A good question in reverse is why SHOULDNT the atoms do this? You are sitting there thinking about it because that IS what atoms do. Perhaps there is nothing remarkable about it, other than it seems remarkable to us! But even the most simple mathematical equations can have complex results. So really I find it remarkable and wholly mundane at the same time.
Just thinking about this a bit I'm not quite sure the sentence in bold is true. It would require us to have demonstrated that all biological and chemical effects reduce to the physics of atoms which has never been done. You don't know if the chemistry of your neurons is "what atoms do" let alone if your mind is "what atoms do".
Fourier is offline  
07-04-2019, 19:13   #98
Ipso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arbitrary View Post
Give a story one week with a sample size of 1,000 people and see how it evolves. I can't begin to imagine what that same story looks like after 500 years.
Th internet is a hyper example of this, just look st conspiracy theories to see how removed from reality people can get in a matter of hours.
Ipso is offline  
(2) thanks from:
08-04-2019, 06:20   #99
nozzferrahhtoo
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
You don't know if the chemistry of your neurons is "what atoms do" let alone if your mind is "what atoms do".
"know" can be a powerful word. Well really the only thing we do "know", because we do not have conclusive proof of anything at all really, is what we have evidence for and what we do not.

Consciousness could be something more than merely the emergent property that results from certain complex formations of atoms. We simply have no evidence of this.

Any evidence we currently have in our limited and incomplete understanding of it however links consciousness entirely to the brain and the workings of the neurons/atoms underlying it. No evidence suggests anything else.

So when 100% of evidence, even incomplete evidence, points one way and 0% points the other way..... I will go with the former. YMMV.
nozzferrahhtoo is offline  
Advertisement
08-04-2019, 07:33   #100
Fourier
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 10,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by nozzferrahhtoo View Post
"know" can be a powerful word. Well really the only thing we do "know", because we do not have conclusive proof of anything at all really, is what we have evidence for and what we do not.
I mean "know" in a more colloquial sense than water tight philosophical demonstration, a more formal version of what I mean would be "scientifically supported".

Quote:
Originally Posted by nozzferrahhtoo View Post
Consciousness could be something more than merely the emergent property that results from certain complex formations of atoms. We simply have no evidence of this.

Any evidence we currently have in our limited and incomplete understanding of it however links consciousness entirely to the brain and the workings of the neurons/atoms underlying it. No evidence suggests anything else.

So when 100% of evidence, even incomplete evidence, points one way and 0% points the other way..... I will go with the former. YMMV.
This isn't true and my point was not explicitly about consciousness.

Forget consciousness, it has not even been scientifically established that the chemistry of organic molecules reduces to the physics of their atoms. So even this first level of reduction has not been established. Even a two electron system can have properties that do not reduce or even emerge from any properties of the two constituent electrons and as the number of particles in a system increases the number of properties that are not reducible to a combination of those of each individual particle grows faster than those that are reducible. (For convenience I'm ignoring the fact that strictly speaking particles do not exist in quantum mechanics)

Hans Primas's book "Chemistry, Quantum Mechanics and Reductionism" is a decent older account of the scientific issues with reducing chemistry to atomic physics.

So in no sense does 100% of the evidence point to everything about neurons or even biochemistry being linked to the working of atoms.
Fourier is offline  
08-04-2019, 07:52   #101
nozzferrahhtoo
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,485
Sounds a bit too far in the direction of linguistic pedantry for me I have to admit. I see nothing there really taking issue with what I am saying, just the words I am using to say it. I can restate it in vaguer words if it helps, but would still essentially be saying the same thing, as I am only using the word "atoms" because the user did. And responding to people in the same language they use to you is a useful rhetorical move.

So lets use the vaguer word "stuff" then. The user above us appears to be concerned that the "stuff" in his head has come together in such a way that it is capable of contemplating how the "stuff" in his head has come together. And as humans this is indeed amazing to us. And he is interested to explore explanations that do not require an appeal to a creator hypothesis.

And my point is that much like the expectation that "nothing" should be default and therefore "something rather than nothing" is what requires explanation..... perhaps this is just what that "stuff" does. Perhaps it is that "stuff" NOT doing it would be what requires more explanation, similar to that "why should there be nothing rather than something" might be what would require explanation. Much like the Anthropic Principle.... the reason the "stuff" is doing that is because that is what that "stuff" does in this universe.

Or TLDR version: Perhaps we just ask the wrong questions sometimes.
nozzferrahhtoo is offline  
08-04-2019, 08:01   #102
Fourier
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 10,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by nozzferrahhtoo View Post
Sounds a bit too far in the direction of linguistic pedantry for me I have to admit.
The fact that the world lacks a reductive character is just "linguistic pedantry"?

The point is what "stuff" in his head performs the functions you're speaking of?
Fourier is offline  
08-04-2019, 08:06   #103
nozzferrahhtoo
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
The fact that the world lacks a reductive character is just "linguistic pedantry"?
Nope. The fact that the changing of wording does not change point being made, is more suggesting of linguistic pedantry.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
The point is what "stuff" in his head performs the functions you're speaking of?
.... because that is what I mean. Our knowledge of that is not complete. We simply have no knowledge as to how and why the "stuff" in our head is doing what it is doing.

But when I referred to "100% of the evidence" I was pointing out to the user that whatever it is.... however it is doing it..... THAT it is the "stuff" doing it is so far where 100% of the evidence points.

There is no evidence that anything external is at play.... such as these new agey ideas of a consciousness field for which our brain is only a receiver. And there is no evidence whatsoever at this time that consciousness and the brain can work independently of each other, let alone continues working somewhere somehow following the death of the brain which theists often believe.

So what stuff in the brain is doing it, or how, is still an open question for us. THAT it is stuff in the brain doing it however is where all the evidence currently lies, and all my point to the user above was. That while we are seeking to explain it, just like when we explore the question "Why is there something rather than nothing".... that we do well to explore our assumptions too when asking such questions. Why should there be nothing? Why should the stuff in our heads NOT give us the emergent properties we call consciousness?
nozzferrahhtoo is offline  
08-04-2019, 08:13   #104
Fourier
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 10,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by nozzferrahhtoo View Post
Nope. The fact that the changing of wording does not change point being made, is more suggesting of linguistic pedantry.....
Well my point was to make you aware of what I think is the interesting fact that the scientific properties of objects do not wholly arise from their constituent parts. I think it is an amazing point and counter to at least my intuition and I thought by your use of "atoms" you might find it interesting to know, but fair enough if you find such details "linguistic pedantry".

Quote:
So what stuff in the brain is doing it, or how, is still an open question for us. THAT it is stuff in the brain doing it however is where all the evidence currently lies, and all my point to the user above was.
What's the content of this aside from "the thing causing consciousness causes consciousness"?

Also you still might not get my point. The point is that in a two electron system for example there are properties that are not associated with either of the single electrons or both of them combined. And thus one cannot easily point to some "stuff" in which they are embodied. And that's at the simplest level of reality. This is not "linguistic pedantry" but to me makes what you're saying difficult to imagine.
Fourier is offline  
Thanks from:
08-04-2019, 08:21   #105
kneemos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 18,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by nozzferrahhtoo View Post
Nope. The fact that the changing of wording does not change point being made, is more suggesting of linguistic pedantry.....



.... because that is what I mean. Our knowledge of that is not complete. We simply have no knowledge as to how and why the "stuff" in our head is doing what it is doing.

But when I referred to "100% of the evidence" I was pointing out to the user that whatever it is.... however it is doing it..... THAT it is the "stuff" doing it is so far where 100% of the evidence points.

There is no evidence that anything external is at play.... such as these new agey ideas of a consciousness field for which our brain is only a receiver. And there is no evidence whatsoever at this time that consciousness and the brain can work independently of each other, let alone continues working somewhere somehow following the death of the brain which theists often believe.

So what stuff in the brain is doing it, or how, is still an open question for us. THAT it is stuff in the brain doing it however is where all the evidence currently lies, and all my point to the user above was. That while we are seeking to explain it, just like when we explore the question "Why is there something rather than nothing".... that we do well to explore our assumptions too when asking such questions. Why should there be nothing? Why should the stuff in our heads NOT give us the emergent properties we call consciousness?

The conscious mind is only a bit of what the mind gets up to.
Even that is not wholly in our control.
kneemos is offline  
Thread Closed

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search