Brontosaurie
Banned
- Local time
- Today 7:56 PM
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2010
- Messages
- 5,646
yup
-
OK, it's on.
Divine inventions: The Ribosome
- Thread starter Black Rose
- Start date
yup
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
I think that proto awareness exists inside each atom. Together they would become intelligent not by blind force but by longing. If so then spirit is possible through markov networks in a Boltzmann brain. This would be a entity that transcends normal physicality. Not just one exists but they have what is that which is god essence.
The code for a ribosome exists in the dna. Dna is read by a ribosome and translated into a ribosome. If only one exists in a cell then statistically how often would it find the dna to begin translation? Many of them exist in the cell and if they find the dna randomly then millions need to be used. Chemically if proto ribosome were first created without dna then still millions of functioning proto ribosome would need to be in the proto cell. Then they would need the dna to begin producing other proteins. At first many variations of the proteins would not be usable. They would not produce the copy protein variation that copies dna until perhaps trillions of deformed predrafts were assembled. That is so much it would kill the proto cell. Then the dna would need to be read by the proto ribosomes so that other proteins needed to begin mitosis such as tubulin. Without the right amount no mitosis. Tublin code must be found in the dna and be activated epigenetically. If the proto cell cannot evolve because it requires these steps, there cannot be variations of cells without replication. Critical mass must happen but in some way not without a mechanism to generate proto proteins without dna and also the cell membranes to contain these proto proteins. These are what probabilities we are working with.
To my ability to grasps what it would take for a being that has an IQ exponentially equal to its energy (IQ = mc^2) to derive a something (cell) insurmountably less complex that it is, is a no brainier to me.
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
yes but you don't see them
Polaris
Prolific Member
- Local time
- Today 6:56 AM
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2009
- Messages
- 2,259
And from here on, discussion is pointless.
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
What I am saying is not irrational. They make perfect sense to me. A simple response will get a simple answer. Reductionism will not be treated the same as its opposite.
SpaceYeti
Prolific Member
You know what they call it when you see things other people don't? A hallucination.
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
Rook
enter text
Your viewpoint is incorrect, as you are surplanting the rational sciences of biology, chemistry and physics with mysticism. Do you not see the flaws in your statements? Does your mind not recognise the irrationality? You are implying intelligence at all scales of the universe. There is no more argument, your statements are vague and clouded. One cannot reason with the unreasonable.
Mysticism can never be integrated with science, for science seeks truth, while mysticism supposes truth.
Mysticism can never be integrated with science, for science seeks truth, while mysticism supposes truth.
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
There is no flaw.
Are you suggesting anything of relevance or Ad hominam
yes
That is your deficiency not mine.
So you admit your unreasonable
Prove this is the case.
Cherry Cola
Banned
I think that a modified version of Animekittys thesis is quite plausible, then again its not so much of a thesis but a necessary consequence of rejecting Cartesian dualism. And there's really nothing spiritual about it. There's still nothing implicating a God.
SpaceYeti
Prolific Member
It's not an ad hom because I didn't insult you instead of deal with your argument. You had no argument to argue against in the first place! It's a valid point, though. If you're the only person who can see it, it seemingly nonexistent except in your mind, then it's a hallucination. If it is something that you're somehow the only person who can see it, it's still utterly meaningless and irrelevant to others, since it effects their life in no way at all. An ad hom requires that I attack you instead of argue against your point. I did not do that.
How would that be an insult, anyhow? I've had hallucinations before. I'm not insulting myself by saying so. Then, it also baffles me why people get offended when they're called "fucker". Oh no, you just claimed I have sex! How insulting!
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
It is an Ad hominim because you say I am alone when others clearly understand what I mean despite how I communicate. You should learn how to understand what others mean instead of criticizing what you do not want to bother internalizing.
Rook
enter text
Let us suppose the argument is scientific, and no spiritualism or deity is implied. Here is the statement: Fundementaly, all matter is consious, intelligent. How does this work?
Matter can be converted into energy through radiation and the like. Does this energy also then posses intelligence? There are even more inconsistencies with this theory: How can it be that fundemental particles such as quarks and electrons posses intelligence? When did they start possesing this intellegence, in the big bang, were matter was almost pure energy? Does antimatter posses intelligence?
I do not take fualt with Animekitty's statements, I merely take fault with their relevance to our universe. All these suppositions go against observation, and they stand opposed to quantum theory and physics, for if a photon is intellegent, it's thoughts must surpass the speed of light. I am an open minded individual, but where my mind is set is in rationality. If this theory has credence, it must be put in a less vague way, with correlation to the workings of the universe.
The statements are thought provoking, but they do not fit within our universe. Is there a possibility that all these ideas can be compiled into a precise theory, where possible inconsistencies are adressed? That would be most interesting and perhaps enlightening. (I intend no offence, I simply aim to see it in a rational light)
Matter can be converted into energy through radiation and the like. Does this energy also then posses intelligence? There are even more inconsistencies with this theory: How can it be that fundemental particles such as quarks and electrons posses intelligence? When did they start possesing this intellegence, in the big bang, were matter was almost pure energy? Does antimatter posses intelligence?
I do not take fualt with Animekitty's statements, I merely take fault with their relevance to our universe. All these suppositions go against observation, and they stand opposed to quantum theory and physics, for if a photon is intellegent, it's thoughts must surpass the speed of light. I am an open minded individual, but where my mind is set is in rationality. If this theory has credence, it must be put in a less vague way, with correlation to the workings of the universe.
The statements are thought provoking, but they do not fit within our universe. Is there a possibility that all these ideas can be compiled into a precise theory, where possible inconsistencies are adressed? That would be most interesting and perhaps enlightening. (I intend no offence, I simply aim to see it in a rational light)
redbaron
irony based lifeform
The Old Testament is not irrational. It makes perfect sense to me.
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
I not familiar with how the big bang is dealt with in quantum physics.
There must have been huge amounts of entanglement and resonance.
I think beings were present there early on.
There must have been huge amounts of entanglement and resonance.
I think beings were present there early on.
Rook
enter text
Is the implication then that energy also is consious?
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
Matter is condensed energy but really it is all waves. Waves interacted inside the pea of the big bang. We are diffuse currently but our awareness is limited to the quantum vibrations inside our brains.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75aZmMTHnMU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHTUGeeyGwQ
SpaceYeti
Prolific Member
Understanding what you mean doesn't make what you're talking about not a hallucination, and that would still not make it an ad hom! I didn't insult you instead of discussing your point! I didn't insult you at all.
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
I think you mean illusion not hallucination. One is not based in reality and could be seen as offensive. But then why do others agree with me at least not say I'm in delusion.
Hawkeye
Banned
Suggesting a hallucination and calling someone delusional are not equal. Had he have called you delusional, you could have thrown the ad hominem card.
As he did not, you have no argument.
It was not ad hominem.
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
Can you hallucinate the truth? how does SpaceYeti know I'm not.
SpaceYeti
Prolific Member
No, an illusion is part of reality we interpret a certain, unusual way. Hallucinations are part of a faulty perception. Also, you can be insulted by anything you want, it wasn't an insult, though, since it wasn't intended to be. But, sure, be offended by whatever you want.
GodOfOrder
Well-Known Member
How would he know that you are?
Hawkeye
Banned
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
The same as Cherry Cola did.
Hawkeye
Banned
You suggested he meant illusion, but unless you are saying that an illusion is a truth, where exactly are you going with this?
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
Why are my mental capacities being questioned. I explain things the best I can.
Hawkeye
Banned
You claimed Spaghetti (my name for SpaceYeti) personally attacked you by suggesting a hallucination.
You said he should have used illusion, but it makes no difference to his suggestion; hallucination and illusion are synonyms, i.e., it doesn't change the context of his suggestion.
I'm not questioning your mental capacity, I'm simply wondering where you are taking this straw man argument about ad hominem.
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
Why does SpaceYeti say I am hallucinating. Is this what you believe?
Hawkeye
Banned
He is basing it on what you have said in this thread. You have kept your explanations so incredibly vague that you are lost in a fog of "are you for real?".
It's been said a few times in this thread already that this debate is pointless until people start defining what they are talking about; instead of presenting cloudy messes of ambiguous ideas.
Do I believe you are hallucinating? No.
Do I have any clear idea of what you are talking about? No.
Does anyone else? Probably not.
redbaron
irony based lifeform
This thread has become this:
Hawkeye
Banned
This is what it never was:
SpaceYeti
Prolific Member
Ah, that! Well, that would count as an ad hom if I were using it to argue against you or one of your arguments, but what I was actually doing was voicing my suspicion that, in fact, you're not in touch with reality enough that discussing this with you will be fruitful for anybody. That is, it may be insulting, but it was also not an argument against your position.
Cherry Cola
Banned
Who cares about an ad hom or two, so long as there's a point or two along with it ad Homs can be a fun way of spicing things up a bit. I remember Chad being completely unable to stop apologizing for his own Ad-Homs as well as pointing out those of others such as mine, it sucked. I just thought it was fun when he called me an idiot :/
SpaceYeti
Prolific Member
To be fair, it's only an ad hom if you insult someone instead of addressing their point or making a proper argument against them. Arguing against them and insulting them, then, is not an ad hom either.
JimJambones
sPaCe CaDeT
- Local time
- Today 1:56 PM
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2013
- Messages
- 412
I know consciousness is awesome, but lets not assign consciousness to inanimate matter, whether it be a stuffed teddy bear or an atom. Consciousness, as it is most generally excepted, is a product of neural activity. It is the result of trillions of specialized cells that form a very specialized organ. The origin of the first cell that led to life on earth as we know it is most likely a result of the chemical properties of atoms and molecules and not from any supernatural cognitive process. An atom has no knowledge, no desire, no consciousness, only properties based on the laws of physics. We see design in a cell because we see the surviving mechanisms that worked. If it didn't work, we wouldn't be here observe that a cell is indeed highly structured in the first place. The origin of life can be explained naturalistically. The fact that we aren't remotely close to explaining or understanding it does not disprove the theory that the origin of life is based upon the laws physics, which is the most plausible explanation that exists.
GodOfOrder
Well-Known Member
Cherry Cola
Banned
I'd say let's not turn consciousness into magic and presume that it is more than interconnectivity and momentum working together just because we experience it as such.
In the end the contrast between the inanimate and the animate is just dualism all over again.
In the end the contrast between the inanimate and the animate is just dualism all over again.
JimJambones
sPaCe CaDeT
- Local time
- Today 1:56 PM
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2013
- Messages
- 412
GodOfOrder
Well-Known Member
JimJambones
sPaCe CaDeT
- Local time
- Today 1:56 PM
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2013
- Messages
- 412
Good point. As opposed to animate and inanimate, biotic and abiotic seem to a better dichotomy, in which the cell would be defined as the the most basic biotic system. Since consciousness is created by the brain and the brain is composed of cells and cells are biotic, and consciousness has not been observed outside of a functional brain, we can conclude that consciousness can only exist as a results of biotic processes. Since individual particles, atoms and molecules are not biotic, we can expect that they are not capable of consciousness.
DrGregoryHouse
Banned
humanoids as a group are strange. It seems like more often than not "groupthink" evolves (rather devolves) based on following the lead of those with the loudest, longest, most circular, self absorbed rhetoric.
good thing that, at least in the movies, the criminals with the long winded self absorbed speeches end up getting squashed before their horribly calculated plans come to fruition. Too bad, at least in this single aspect, life doesn't imitate art more often.
but don't let me be the partypooper! Get your groupthink on, everybody!
2+2=5 (nearly all of you have been owned by Freud. That is to say WHERE/ WHAT IS YOUR SOUL? DO YOU DENY YOUR OWN LIFE/ VERY EXISTENCE BY DENYING YOU HAVE ONE. Oh wait...don't answer that, I'm positive the majority of the answers will be completely self destructive, again...Freud has owned most of your souls before you were even born)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lstDdzedgcE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
good thing that, at least in the movies, the criminals with the long winded self absorbed speeches end up getting squashed before their horribly calculated plans come to fruition. Too bad, at least in this single aspect, life doesn't imitate art more often.
but don't let me be the partypooper! Get your groupthink on, everybody!
2+2=5 (nearly all of you have been owned by Freud. That is to say WHERE/ WHAT IS YOUR SOUL? DO YOU DENY YOUR OWN LIFE/ VERY EXISTENCE BY DENYING YOU HAVE ONE. Oh wait...don't answer that, I'm positive the majority of the answers will be completely self destructive, again...Freud has owned most of your souls before you were even born)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lstDdzedgcE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
Cherry Cola
Banned
my then 5 year old stepbro really dug that 2+2=5 video, I watched it with him several times. Those were the days. The days before my dad and his mom broke up.
DrGregoryHouse
Banned
test if thread over...
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
I imagine that before anything was solid their was primordial consciousness. Into the future after the singularity we will reach back into it and be in union with that force.
http://youtu.be/TdGuZicUPts
http://youtu.be/TdGuZicUPts
paradoxparadigm7
Well-Known Member
After reading this thread, it brought to mind the movie Contact.
From Wikepedia on the film: A description of an emotionally intense experience by Palmer Joss, which he describes as seeing God, is met by Arroway's suggestion that "some part of [him] needed to have it"—that it was a significant personal experience but indicative of nothing greater. Joss compares his certainty that God exists to Arroway's certainty that she loved her deceased father, despite her being unable to prove it. At the end of the film, Arroway is put into a position that she had traditionally viewed with skepticism and contempt: that of believing something with complete certainty, despite being unable to prove it in the face of not only widespread incredulity and skepticism (which she admits that as a scientist she would normally share) but also evidence apparently to the contrary.
I've often been stymied and frustrated in my attempt to convey an experience. I respect rationality and logic including science but as an Ni dom, I have "gut level" sense that I can't fully articulate and explain in a rational way. I'm agnostic. My rational side understands that God (or Grand Design) doesn't have to be invoked in the awe-inspiring findings of science however my Ni keeps gnawing at me...an inner perception of some current, force, tension that permeates everything that gives me pause or suspends my disbelief. I've come to trust my intuition (I don't expect others to nor should they). For me that means I'm still agnostic but open...
From Wikepedia on the film: A description of an emotionally intense experience by Palmer Joss, which he describes as seeing God, is met by Arroway's suggestion that "some part of [him] needed to have it"—that it was a significant personal experience but indicative of nothing greater. Joss compares his certainty that God exists to Arroway's certainty that she loved her deceased father, despite her being unable to prove it. At the end of the film, Arroway is put into a position that she had traditionally viewed with skepticism and contempt: that of believing something with complete certainty, despite being unable to prove it in the face of not only widespread incredulity and skepticism (which she admits that as a scientist she would normally share) but also evidence apparently to the contrary.
I've often been stymied and frustrated in my attempt to convey an experience. I respect rationality and logic including science but as an Ni dom, I have "gut level" sense that I can't fully articulate and explain in a rational way. I'm agnostic. My rational side understands that God (or Grand Design) doesn't have to be invoked in the awe-inspiring findings of science however my Ni keeps gnawing at me...an inner perception of some current, force, tension that permeates everything that gives me pause or suspends my disbelief. I've come to trust my intuition (I don't expect others to nor should they). For me that means I'm still agnostic but open...