|
On July 04 2013 02:50 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 02:13 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 02:07 D10 wrote:On July 04 2013 01:51 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 01:32 mcc wrote:On July 04 2013 01:20 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 01:09 mcc wrote:On July 04 2013 00:58 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 00:22 mcc wrote:On July 04 2013 00:14 xM(Z wrote:
[quote]
statements and assertions but you are basically saying that purpose = path, (predestined path i might add, based on your wording) right?
also, what is evolution, what do you mean when you say evolution?. why would the universe not be able to evolve too?.
the universe does expand, it grows, it changes. it's as though it lives, it evolves. I was using word purpose to communicate my point about how organisms differ from other entities, not to argue about meaning of life. You are missing the point, because you are too hang up on the word. And by evolution I of course mean biological evolution by natural selection as that is the whole reason how organisms differ from other entities. Evolution by natural selection introduces the purpose that universe most likely does not have. Evolution of universe does not have the same properties as biological evolution. but it's all atoms. biology is all atoms, we are all atoms, the universe is all atoms. why would atoms have different proprieties then atoms?  . i might be hang up on the word but if i am to give you an exact law, a physical law, that would define evolution (something like e=mc2) your point would die because that law would apply to everything, including the universe. you are using undefined concepts, to prove the presence or absence of them, in arbitrary systems and i can't really do anything about it (except agree to disagree). so yea, i have to be hang up on words. to your above reply: you are looking for the word use. claws have use, feathers have use ... the universe has use. You are still missing the point and making a lot of bad inferences. Physical laws might apply to everything, so what ? How does that affect my argument ? It does not. Star is made mostly of hydrogen, does it mean that something made mostly of hydrogen is a star ? That is the exact bad logical inference you are making. Just because all matter is built from the same particles does not mean all the matter has the same configuration. Stars behave differently then nebulas and stars have they own laws governing their behaviour. Yes, those laws can be deduced from general physical laws, but that does not change that stars have different properties than nebulas. So does evolution as a process have different properties than evolution of cosmos. Basically what you are arguing is actually : All things are the same and there are no differences anywhere. Which is obvious nonsense. And my usage of the word purpose was in that case perfectly correct. Purpose - "The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.". Feathers exist to isolate and enable flight. Of course universe has no purpose or use. the universe exists, it was created, so you could fucking live in it. there's the purpose. objections?. if the universe dies, you die so it has to live, for you. there!, a purpose worthy of mmc. or you figured that when the universe dies, you'll go on living ... (also expand your conception about life to more then bio-life. it quickly kills/limits an argument) Universe exists, it was not created. And it does not exist so I can live in it, if I was never born, universe would still exist. And I am starting to be pretty sure that you are either troll or just not worth discussing, not sure yet which. i was only using your definition for purpose + Show Spoiler +Purpose - "The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists." . i meant nothing by it, was just a rendition. so the big bang never happened?, the universe didn't sprung from nothingness/a singularity (as physics tell us)? All things are the same and there are no differences anywhere. Which is obvious nonsense. that is very true is you're an atom. it's not nonsense; but regardless that is not my stance. i'm only asking why do you have a purpose, why only you could have a purpose, why evolution could only affect you?. (and by you i mean whatever fits into your cathegory that is affected by evolution). After the higgs boson and the problems it created for the big bang models, I would be more wary of just blindly trusting what "physics tells us" fair point but it's not worse then blindly trusting evolution  There's no need to blindly trust evolution. Given that a nearly infinite amount of evidence exists supporting biological evolution, you may confidently trust it, assuming you are not an irrational person
i didn't mean that evolution doesn't happen. i was just hinting that evolution could turn up to be very bad for us.
|
i see logic as this picture below. while the form is/remains exactly the same, the meaning of it (rotation in this case) can go left or right depending on the observer.
![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Spinning_Dancer.gif)
quantum mechanics at work for sure!. it's also the reason special olympics over the internet, happen.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On July 04 2013 03:08 xM(Z wrote:i see logic as this picture below. while the form is/remains exactly the same, the meaning of it (rotation in this case) can go left or right depending on the observer. quantum mechanics at work for sure!. it's also the reason special olympics over the internet, happen.
Not really a demonstration of quantum physics. It's just a demonstration of how our brains take shortcuts to conclusions with limited information.
I mean in quantum physics, there is a quantum superposition, and all states occur simultaneously (in that interpretation). This is just a moving 2D image, which causes our brains to interpret as a moving 3D object moving in either one of 2 ways.
That is to say, neither possible state is actually occurring (unlike in quantum physics where both should be), our brains are just using pattern recognition inappropriately to try and make sense of the situation.
|
that was just suppose to be funny analogy ...
ex: if i say the word "sun". someone could think at light while someone else could think of heat.
+ Show Spoiler +if you have a split brain that image spins in both directions at the same time
|
How can anyone see that as spinning counterclockwise? To me that is spinning clockwise (if you imagen you are looking at it top-down).
And no. The human being is more than chemistry and electric signals. Deep within each of us is a little "I". This is easy to see in babies (imo). They are very different from each other from the get-go. I have two kids myself and you can almost predict their future by only living with them for a short period of time. The theory of "clean blackboards" (that children only become a product of their surroundings) is a bunch of crap (to some extent true ofc, but there is more.)
|
I like how everyone is invoking science and how very few actually link sources/give formulas/explain things they actually know well (not like "I heard of this somewhere in highschool, it must be true 100%!")
IT: I believe that mind is just more than chemical reactions. What it truly is, i don't know.
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 04 2013 03:56 Xiphias wrote:
How can anyone see that as spinning counterclockwise? To me that is spinning clockwise (if you imagen you are looking at it top-down).
And no. The human being is more than chemistry and electric signals. Deep within each of us is a little "I". This is easy to see in babies (imo). They are very different from each other from the get-go. I have two kids myself and you can almost predict their future by only living with them for a short period of time. The theory of "clean blackboards" (that children only become a product of their surroundings) is a bunch of crap (to some extent true ofc, but there is more.)
IIRC, most people see it spinning clockwise. I can change my perspective and see it going either way, kind of like with one of those magic eye pictures.
And I don't think the nature/nurture argument effects whether there's something more to our brains. That little 'I' that makes us all different is our genes which determine our base personality. Then of course all the different experiences we have through life determine our actual personality. IE. We might be born with a natural tendency to be outgoing, but bad experiences dealing with people change that.
|
On July 04 2013 03:56 Xiphias wrote:
How can anyone see that as spinning counterclockwise? To me that is spinning clockwise (if you imagen you are looking at it top-down).
And no. The human being is more than chemistry and electric signals. Deep within each of us is a little "I". This is easy to see in babies (imo). They are very different from each other from the get-go. I have two kids myself and you can almost predict their future by only living with them for a short period of time. The theory of "clean blackboards" (that children only become a product of their surroundings) is a bunch of crap (to some extent true ofc, but there is more.)
Because new born baby are not identical ? they don't have the same genes, their brain is physically different in an almost infinite ways. Nobody here was talking about a "clean backboards", I don't see where you got that idea from.
|
On July 04 2013 03:56 Xiphias wrote:
How can anyone see that as spinning counterclockwise? To me that is spinning clockwise (if you imagen you are looking at it top-down).
And no. The human being is more than chemistry and electric signals. Deep within each of us is a little "I". This is easy to see in babies (imo). They are very different from each other from the get-go. I have two kids myself and you can almost predict their future by only living with them for a short period of time. The theory of "clean blackboards" (that children only become a product of their surroundings) is a bunch of crap (to some extent true ofc, but there is more.)
LOL I think you proved his point about as perfectly as possible, and then some.
|
On July 03 2013 09:54 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 08:57 knOxStarcraft wrote:On July 03 2013 08:38 Djzapz wrote:On July 03 2013 08:25 knOxStarcraft wrote:On July 03 2013 02:27 Snusmumriken wrote:On July 03 2013 02:08 knOxStarcraft wrote:
With roughly 100 billion neurons in the human brain with 100 trillion connections between them I don't understand why people find it hard to believe we are just a very complicated bio computer. Given all we know it seems logical to operate believing we are just bio computers until someone shows, with evidence, that there is something more going on. Similarly, we should operate believing there is no purple antelope running at the speed of light around Jupiter granting us miracles until someone shows that there is, with evidence. Also, evolution works pretty well... What the chinese room shows, if anything, is that no matter how complicated we make a machine all we seem to end up with is syntax. When exactly do we get semantics, ie meaning, into the picture. We have no answer to that question and it is unintuitive that we would end up with anything like that no matter how complicated the computer. Similarily, the problem of consciousness is not so much things such as memory or some parts of thinking, those we can understand; the problem of consciousness is why there is such a thing as "feeling" anything at all in the first place. Why is there qualitative aspects of conscoiusness in the first place, why isnt all this going on in the dark? There is indeed reason to accept physicalism, but it is more because of how nonsensical alternative theories are than because we can make sense of a purely physical mind. I would like to quote Nagel: Strangely enough, we may have evidence for the truth of something we cannot really understand. Suppose a caterpillar is locked in a sterile safe by someone unfamiliar with insect metamorphosis, and weeks later the safe is reopened, revealing a butterfly. If the person knows that the safe has been shut the whole time, he has reason to believe that the butterfly is or was once the caterpillar, without having any idea in what sense this might be so. (One possibility is that the caterpillar contained a tiny winged parasite that devoured it and grew into the butterfly.)
It is conceivable that we are in such a position with regard to physicalismhttp://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/nagel_nice.html Couldn't consciousness simply be the act of processing information? Not really no :o Why not? Why do I have to do this? Open a dictionary. Couldn't consciousness simply be the fact of processing information, you ask? No. By definition, consciousness is having awareness of one's own existence and having sensations, etc. Definitions of consciousness sometimes explain it differently but as a general rule, that's what it is. It's not simply processing information. If we agree that consciousness is processing information, then a machine which puts the blue balls in the blue bucket and the red balls in the red bucket is "conscious". That sounds ridiculous but it's what it is. The reason why I said "no" is not just because your definition is silly. More importantly, your definition is completely different from the actual intended meaning of the word. You're defining "consciousness" off of your own gut feeling about what the word should mean. You don't get to do that.
You're not talking to a little kid who needs a time out, and you don't have to do anything. What I said doesn't break the definition of consciousness in any way. Awareness, feelings, and sensations all emerge from processing sensory input (information).
Let me ask you this; if someone is born and remains alive with no sensory input whatsoever, are they conscious? How could they possibly be aware of anything, including themselves? How could they have feelings or emotion? They wouldn't "know" anything. This, of course, would mean that we are not born with consciousness, it comes from the processing of sensory input. The interesting question is, what different types of input have to be put together for one to be "self aware"?
|
Let me ask you this; if someone is born and remains alive with no sensory input whatsoever, are they conscious? How could they possibly be aware of anything, including themselves? How could they have feelings or emotion? They wouldn't "know" anything. This, of course, would mean that we are not born with consciousness, it comes from the processing of sensory input. The interesting question is, what different types of input have to be put together for one to be "self aware"?
Hmm this is verry interesting and you do seem to have a good point for consciousness indeed beeing just a byproduct from our processing of information, instead of beeing embedded in the fabric of our brains.
Some people can remember their birth though and even some of the time in the uterus, they are conscious from the moment they are born and even slightly before that. But even inside the utures there is input so this does not realy contradict your idea. Maybe people have different levels of consciousness, some have it more then others, and maybe the consciousness is latently present in everyone once the brain has developped to a certain level,and it only needs to be awaken, just like our memmory is present from a certain point, it just is not yet filled with memmorys?
|
On July 04 2013 01:51 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 01:32 mcc wrote:On July 04 2013 01:20 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 01:09 mcc wrote:On July 04 2013 00:58 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 00:22 mcc wrote:On July 04 2013 00:14 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 23:59 mcc wrote:On July 03 2013 23:22 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 21:43 mcc wrote:
[quote]
Because our control of our body is result of biological evolution and has evolutionary purpose. Universe could have the same property, but as far as we know it is not true. It would require universe to be purposeful in the same sense as organisms are. Our current view is that universe is just a bunch of matter organized by physical laws. But as I said it could be so, but what is relevance of this to this discussion ? you would have to explain/define the word purpose, why do think we have a purpose?. if humans/all life on earth were to go extinct tomorrow, what would happen to that purpose?. does purpose means that something/someone would care if we go extinct?, could we not exist without a purpose (but with laws)?. we might just as well be a bunch of matter organized by physical laws, exactly like the universe. We are also bunch of matter organized by physical laws, but due to us being formed by evolution (as opposed to universe) we have some additional properties, specifically drive to survive and procreate as individual organisms. That is the purpose I mean. Organism's purpose is delivery mechanism for genes and to do that we evolved as individuals (by that I mean systems that consist of parts working towards common purpose) and it is evolutionary advantage for individuals to have coordination between parts and that is exactly what your brain's control over your body is. Coordination mechanism. As far as we know universe did not evolve and has no purposeful coordination taking place. statements and assertions but you are basically saying that purpose = path, (predestined path i might add, based on your wording) right? also, what is evolution, what do you mean when you say evolution?. why would the universe not be able to evolve too?. the universe does expand, it grows, it changes. it's as though it lives, it evolves. I was using word purpose to communicate my point about how organisms differ from other entities, not to argue about meaning of life. You are missing the point, because you are too hang up on the word. And by evolution I of course mean biological evolution by natural selection as that is the whole reason how organisms differ from other entities. Evolution by natural selection introduces the purpose that universe most likely does not have. Evolution of universe does not have the same properties as biological evolution. but it's all atoms. biology is all atoms, we are all atoms, the universe is all atoms. why would atoms have different proprieties then atoms? . i might be hang up on the word but if i am to give you an exact law, a physical law, that would define evolution (something like e=mc2) your point would die because that law would apply to everything, including the universe. you are using undefined concepts, to prove the presence or absence of them, in arbitrary systems and i can't really do anything about it (except agree to disagree). so yea, i have to be hang up on words. to your above reply: you are looking for the word use. claws have use, feathers have use ... the universe has use. You are still missing the point and making a lot of bad inferences. Physical laws might apply to everything, so what ? How does that affect my argument ? It does not. Star is made mostly of hydrogen, does it mean that something made mostly of hydrogen is a star ? That is the exact bad logical inference you are making. Just because all matter is built from the same particles does not mean all the matter has the same configuration. Stars behave differently then nebulas and stars have they own laws governing their behaviour. Yes, those laws can be deduced from general physical laws, but that does not change that stars have different properties than nebulas. So does evolution as a process have different properties than evolution of cosmos. Basically what you are arguing is actually : All things are the same and there are no differences anywhere. Which is obvious nonsense. And my usage of the word purpose was in that case perfectly correct. Purpose - "The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.". Feathers exist to isolate and enable flight. Of course universe has no purpose or use. the universe exists, it was created, so you could fucking live in it. there's the purpose. objections?. if the universe dies, you die so it has to live, for you. there!, a purpose worthy of mmc. or you figured that when the universe dies, you'll go on living ... (also expand your conception about life to more then bio-life. it quickly kills/limits an argument) Universe exists, it was not created. And it does not exist so I can live in it, if I was never born, universe would still exist. And I am starting to be pretty sure that you are either troll or just not worth discussing, not sure yet which. i was only using your definition for purpose + Show Spoiler +Purpose - "The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists." . i meant nothing by it, was just a rendition. so the big bang never happened?, the universe didn't sprung from nothingness/a singularity (as physics tell us)? Show nested quote +All things are the same and there are no differences anywhere. Which is obvious nonsense. that is very true is you're an atom. it's not nonsense; but regardless that is not my stance. i'm only asking why do you have a purpose, why only you could have a purpose, why evolution could only affect you?. (and by you i mean whatever fits into your cathegory that is affected by evolution).
You are not using my definition as I pointed out already and you ignored. Universe does not exist for me to exist, that is faulty logic and makes your whole "I am just using your definition" baseless. And after that you continue with trolling. What do your questions about big bang have anything to do with my post or the topic ?
As for the rest it is absolutely clear that you do not understand anything I wrote and put absolutely no effort to do so, so I will not bother.
So you are a troll that lacks basic reading and comprehension skills.
|
On July 04 2013 05:07 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 01:51 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 01:32 mcc wrote:On July 04 2013 01:20 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 01:09 mcc wrote:On July 04 2013 00:58 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 00:22 mcc wrote:On July 04 2013 00:14 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 23:59 mcc wrote:On July 03 2013 23:22 xM(Z wrote:
[quote]
you would have to explain/define the word purpose, why do think we have a purpose?. if humans/all life on earth were to go extinct tomorrow, what would happen to that purpose?.
does purpose means that something/someone would care if we go extinct?, could we not exist without a purpose (but with laws)?.
we might just as well be a bunch of matter organized by physical laws, exactly like the universe. We are also bunch of matter organized by physical laws, but due to us being formed by evolution (as opposed to universe) we have some additional properties, specifically drive to survive and procreate as individual organisms. That is the purpose I mean. Organism's purpose is delivery mechanism for genes and to do that we evolved as individuals (by that I mean systems that consist of parts working towards common purpose) and it is evolutionary advantage for individuals to have coordination between parts and that is exactly what your brain's control over your body is. Coordination mechanism. As far as we know universe did not evolve and has no purposeful coordination taking place. statements and assertions but you are basically saying that purpose = path, (predestined path i might add, based on your wording) right? also, what is evolution, what do you mean when you say evolution?. why would the universe not be able to evolve too?. the universe does expand, it grows, it changes. it's as though it lives, it evolves. I was using word purpose to communicate my point about how organisms differ from other entities, not to argue about meaning of life. You are missing the point, because you are too hang up on the word. And by evolution I of course mean biological evolution by natural selection as that is the whole reason how organisms differ from other entities. Evolution by natural selection introduces the purpose that universe most likely does not have. Evolution of universe does not have the same properties as biological evolution. but it's all atoms. biology is all atoms, we are all atoms, the universe is all atoms. why would atoms have different proprieties then atoms? . i might be hang up on the word but if i am to give you an exact law, a physical law, that would define evolution (something like e=mc2) your point would die because that law would apply to everything, including the universe. you are using undefined concepts, to prove the presence or absence of them, in arbitrary systems and i can't really do anything about it (except agree to disagree). so yea, i have to be hang up on words. to your above reply: you are looking for the word use. claws have use, feathers have use ... the universe has use. You are still missing the point and making a lot of bad inferences. Physical laws might apply to everything, so what ? How does that affect my argument ? It does not. Star is made mostly of hydrogen, does it mean that something made mostly of hydrogen is a star ? That is the exact bad logical inference you are making. Just because all matter is built from the same particles does not mean all the matter has the same configuration. Stars behave differently then nebulas and stars have they own laws governing their behaviour. Yes, those laws can be deduced from general physical laws, but that does not change that stars have different properties than nebulas. So does evolution as a process have different properties than evolution of cosmos. Basically what you are arguing is actually : All things are the same and there are no differences anywhere. Which is obvious nonsense. And my usage of the word purpose was in that case perfectly correct. Purpose - "The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.". Feathers exist to isolate and enable flight. Of course universe has no purpose or use. the universe exists, it was created, so you could fucking live in it. there's the purpose. objections?. if the universe dies, you die so it has to live, for you. there!, a purpose worthy of mmc. or you figured that when the universe dies, you'll go on living ... (also expand your conception about life to more then bio-life. it quickly kills/limits an argument) Universe exists, it was not created. And it does not exist so I can live in it, if I was never born, universe would still exist. And I am starting to be pretty sure that you are either troll or just not worth discussing, not sure yet which. i was only using your definition for purpose + Show Spoiler +Purpose - "The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists." . i meant nothing by it, was just a rendition. so the big bang never happened?, the universe didn't sprung from nothingness/a singularity (as physics tell us)? All things are the same and there are no differences anywhere. Which is obvious nonsense. that is very true is you're an atom. it's not nonsense; but regardless that is not my stance. i'm only asking why do you have a purpose, why only you could have a purpose, why evolution could only affect you?. (and by you i mean whatever fits into your cathegory that is affected by evolution). You are not using my definition as I pointed out already and you ignored. Universe does not exist for me to exist, that is faulty logic and makes your whole "I am just using your definition" baseless. And after that you continue with trolling. What do your questions about big bang have anything to do with my post or the topic ? As for the rest it is absolutely clear that you do not understand anything I wrote and put absolutely no effort to do so, so I will not bother. So you are a troll that lacks basic reading and comprehension skills.
yes, at that time i was half trolling 'cause i saw no way out. we couldn't get along.
all i was trying to do was make you see that the universe could be (or is) like you. that the universe is alive and evolving. all you had to do is change your perspective. from bio-level to atom level. you didn't so that was that.
me giving the universe a purpose?, really?, how could i know it?. you don't even know yours.
|
On July 04 2013 03:56 Xiphias wrote:
How can anyone see that as spinning counterclockwise? To me that is spinning clockwise (if you imagen you are looking at it top-down).
And no. The human being is more than chemistry and electric signals. Deep within each of us is a little "I". This is easy to see in babies (imo). They are very different from each other from the get-go. I have two kids myself and you can almost predict their future by only living with them for a short period of time. The theory of "clean blackboards" (that children only become a product of their surroundings) is a bunch of crap (to some extent true ofc, but there is more.)
http://www.moillusions.com/2012/12/spinning-girl-illusion-explanation.html
|
On July 04 2013 03:56 Xiphias wrote:
How can anyone see that as spinning counterclockwise? To me that is spinning clockwise (if you imagen you are looking at it top-down).
And no. The human being is more than chemistry and electric signals. Deep within each of us is a little "I". Why can't this little "I" be a result of chemistry and electric signals?
|
There are manny hypothetical scenarios in wich the universe and humans can have a purpose.
Our 4 dimensional universe could be made as an experiment by 5 dimensional creatures living in a 5 dimensional universe, and humans could have been seeded or engineerd by an alien civilisation to harvest the resources of the earth.
Both are just hypothetical situations to show that the fact that we cant find a purpose, does not mean that there is no purpose.
For me this is kinda irrelevant as it does not have practical meaning, we can never know the purpose of the universe in this case, and we will only know the purpose of humanity if such an alien civilisation ever turns up here to collect the resources (wich seems unlikely to say the least)
For me purpose is just a word,a way for humans to order a series of related events in time.
The event wich came first then had the "purpose" to cause the next event.
|
On July 04 2013 05:18 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 05:07 mcc wrote:On July 04 2013 01:51 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 01:32 mcc wrote:On July 04 2013 01:20 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 01:09 mcc wrote:On July 04 2013 00:58 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 00:22 mcc wrote:On July 04 2013 00:14 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 23:59 mcc wrote:
[quote]
We are also bunch of matter organized by physical laws, but due to us being formed by evolution (as opposed to universe) we have some additional properties, specifically drive to survive and procreate as individual organisms. That is the purpose I mean. Organism's purpose is delivery mechanism for genes and to do that we evolved as individuals (by that I mean systems that consist of parts working towards common purpose) and it is evolutionary advantage for individuals to have coordination between parts and that is exactly what your brain's control over your body is. Coordination mechanism. As far as we know universe did not evolve and has no purposeful coordination taking place. statements and assertions but you are basically saying that purpose = path, (predestined path i might add, based on your wording) right? also, what is evolution, what do you mean when you say evolution?. why would the universe not be able to evolve too?. the universe does expand, it grows, it changes. it's as though it lives, it evolves. I was using word purpose to communicate my point about how organisms differ from other entities, not to argue about meaning of life. You are missing the point, because you are too hang up on the word. And by evolution I of course mean biological evolution by natural selection as that is the whole reason how organisms differ from other entities. Evolution by natural selection introduces the purpose that universe most likely does not have. Evolution of universe does not have the same properties as biological evolution. but it's all atoms. biology is all atoms, we are all atoms, the universe is all atoms. why would atoms have different proprieties then atoms? . i might be hang up on the word but if i am to give you an exact law, a physical law, that would define evolution (something like e=mc2) your point would die because that law would apply to everything, including the universe. you are using undefined concepts, to prove the presence or absence of them, in arbitrary systems and i can't really do anything about it (except agree to disagree). so yea, i have to be hang up on words. to your above reply: you are looking for the word use. claws have use, feathers have use ... the universe has use. You are still missing the point and making a lot of bad inferences. Physical laws might apply to everything, so what ? How does that affect my argument ? It does not. Star is made mostly of hydrogen, does it mean that something made mostly of hydrogen is a star ? That is the exact bad logical inference you are making. Just because all matter is built from the same particles does not mean all the matter has the same configuration. Stars behave differently then nebulas and stars have they own laws governing their behaviour. Yes, those laws can be deduced from general physical laws, but that does not change that stars have different properties than nebulas. So does evolution as a process have different properties than evolution of cosmos. Basically what you are arguing is actually : All things are the same and there are no differences anywhere. Which is obvious nonsense. And my usage of the word purpose was in that case perfectly correct. Purpose - "The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.". Feathers exist to isolate and enable flight. Of course universe has no purpose or use. the universe exists, it was created, so you could fucking live in it. there's the purpose. objections?. if the universe dies, you die so it has to live, for you. there!, a purpose worthy of mmc. or you figured that when the universe dies, you'll go on living ... (also expand your conception about life to more then bio-life. it quickly kills/limits an argument) Universe exists, it was not created. And it does not exist so I can live in it, if I was never born, universe would still exist. And I am starting to be pretty sure that you are either troll or just not worth discussing, not sure yet which. i was only using your definition for purpose + Show Spoiler +Purpose - "The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists." . i meant nothing by it, was just a rendition. so the big bang never happened?, the universe didn't sprung from nothingness/a singularity (as physics tell us)? All things are the same and there are no differences anywhere. Which is obvious nonsense. that is very true is you're an atom. it's not nonsense; but regardless that is not my stance. i'm only asking why do you have a purpose, why only you could have a purpose, why evolution could only affect you?. (and by you i mean whatever fits into your cathegory that is affected by evolution). You are not using my definition as I pointed out already and you ignored. Universe does not exist for me to exist, that is faulty logic and makes your whole "I am just using your definition" baseless. And after that you continue with trolling. What do your questions about big bang have anything to do with my post or the topic ? As for the rest it is absolutely clear that you do not understand anything I wrote and put absolutely no effort to do so, so I will not bother. So you are a troll that lacks basic reading and comprehension skills. me giving the universe a purpose?, really?, how could i know it?. you don't even know yours.
Do you know yours? If yes, what is it?
|
On July 04 2013 04:14 Myles wrote:
IIRC, most people see it spinning clockwise. I can change my perspective and see it going either way, kind of like with one of those magic eye pictures.
And I don't think the nature/nurture argument effects whether there's something more to our brains. That little 'I' that makes us all different is our genes which determine our base personality. Then of course all the different experiences we have through life determine our actual personality. IE. We might be born with a natural tendency to be outgoing, but bad experiences dealing with people change that.
Like you, I can change my perspective quite quickly and can see it spinning as either clockwise or anti-clockwise but not both at the same time.
Back to the topic on consciousness, what then triggers our brain development to acquire the knowledge of self-consciousness, of being self-aware?
Not all living creatures are self-aware of their own existence like homo sapiens do. It seems that a highly developed brain is an important criteria towards our human development to make us into what we are today. But beyond that, scientists still do not know when or how we develop self-consciousness.
|
On July 04 2013 05:36 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 05:18 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 05:07 mcc wrote:On July 04 2013 01:51 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 01:32 mcc wrote:On July 04 2013 01:20 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 01:09 mcc wrote:On July 04 2013 00:58 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 00:22 mcc wrote:On July 04 2013 00:14 xM(Z wrote:
[quote]
statements and assertions but you are basically saying that purpose = path, (predestined path i might add, based on your wording) right?
also, what is evolution, what do you mean when you say evolution?. why would the universe not be able to evolve too?.
the universe does expand, it grows, it changes. it's as though it lives, it evolves. I was using word purpose to communicate my point about how organisms differ from other entities, not to argue about meaning of life. You are missing the point, because you are too hang up on the word. And by evolution I of course mean biological evolution by natural selection as that is the whole reason how organisms differ from other entities. Evolution by natural selection introduces the purpose that universe most likely does not have. Evolution of universe does not have the same properties as biological evolution. but it's all atoms. biology is all atoms, we are all atoms, the universe is all atoms. why would atoms have different proprieties then atoms? . i might be hang up on the word but if i am to give you an exact law, a physical law, that would define evolution (something like e=mc2) your point would die because that law would apply to everything, including the universe. you are using undefined concepts, to prove the presence or absence of them, in arbitrary systems and i can't really do anything about it (except agree to disagree). so yea, i have to be hang up on words. to your above reply: you are looking for the word use. claws have use, feathers have use ... the universe has use. You are still missing the point and making a lot of bad inferences. Physical laws might apply to everything, so what ? How does that affect my argument ? It does not. Star is made mostly of hydrogen, does it mean that something made mostly of hydrogen is a star ? That is the exact bad logical inference you are making. Just because all matter is built from the same particles does not mean all the matter has the same configuration. Stars behave differently then nebulas and stars have they own laws governing their behaviour. Yes, those laws can be deduced from general physical laws, but that does not change that stars have different properties than nebulas. So does evolution as a process have different properties than evolution of cosmos. Basically what you are arguing is actually : All things are the same and there are no differences anywhere. Which is obvious nonsense. And my usage of the word purpose was in that case perfectly correct. Purpose - "The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.". Feathers exist to isolate and enable flight. Of course universe has no purpose or use. the universe exists, it was created, so you could fucking live in it. there's the purpose. objections?. if the universe dies, you die so it has to live, for you. there!, a purpose worthy of mmc. or you figured that when the universe dies, you'll go on living ... (also expand your conception about life to more then bio-life. it quickly kills/limits an argument) Universe exists, it was not created. And it does not exist so I can live in it, if I was never born, universe would still exist. And I am starting to be pretty sure that you are either troll or just not worth discussing, not sure yet which. i was only using your definition for purpose + Show Spoiler +Purpose - "The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists." . i meant nothing by it, was just a rendition. so the big bang never happened?, the universe didn't sprung from nothingness/a singularity (as physics tell us)? All things are the same and there are no differences anywhere. Which is obvious nonsense. that is very true is you're an atom. it's not nonsense; but regardless that is not my stance. i'm only asking why do you have a purpose, why only you could have a purpose, why evolution could only affect you?. (and by you i mean whatever fits into your cathegory that is affected by evolution). You are not using my definition as I pointed out already and you ignored. Universe does not exist for me to exist, that is faulty logic and makes your whole "I am just using your definition" baseless. And after that you continue with trolling. What do your questions about big bang have anything to do with my post or the topic ? As for the rest it is absolutely clear that you do not understand anything I wrote and put absolutely no effort to do so, so I will not bother. So you are a troll that lacks basic reading and comprehension skills. me giving the universe a purpose?, really?, how could i know it?. you don't even know yours. Do you know yours? If yes, what is it?
you mean besides pissing off ppl on TLforums?.
i don't have one because it doesn't exist.
shit happens, if you make it to the other side you say that was your purpose, if you don't, then there is no one left to care.
|
If anyone wants to try something cool with the spinning girl, if I scroll down slowly she is always spinning the same direction, then if I keep scrolling until I can't see her anymore, then start scrolling back up and focus on the foot to determine direction on the way up I can make her spin the other way
I used to have problems making her change direction and I've found this helps a lot!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
