It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: cooperton
What came first?
Neither..... the seer and the seen arise as one seamless happening.
The Father and Son are one.... without a second.
originally posted by: gosseyn
a reply to: sapien82
You just ignore the fact that we have no idea how these conscious experiences come to existence, how and why stimuli like vibrating photons hitting our eyes turns into a sensation we call color.
originally posted by: cooperton
I don't mean to be a broken record, but don't you see how inconceivable it is for these intricate wavelength detection arrays that we call our retinas to have been created by random mutations? Our retinas are capable of in-taking an image of light photons, and sending it through an optic highway to our visual cortex which creates a coherent and relevant image from the rudimentary impending light. Our lens is connected to muscles which allow us to focus or un-focus on various objects and alter the amount of incoming light. We even have night-vision which is activated by rods in our retinas. We are a deterministic vessel that was made to be integrated with the external environment. No random mutation could ever contrive such a perfect synchrony with the outside world.
originally posted by: gosseyn
You use and abuse of the "argument from incredulity", you say "look how complex this is, this must have been created by an intelligence".
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: gosseyn
You use and abuse of the "argument from incredulity", you say "look how complex this is, this must have been created by an intelligence".
Doesn't that make much more sense than "look how complex this is, this must have been created by random probabilistic mechanisms"?
Argument from incredulity says there is no understanding, but I have come to understand many of the microbiological mechanisms as well as the larger biological functions as a whole. It is impossible for these known mechanisms to have come to be by random mutations.. which is reinforced with the fact that we have no lab data that an organism can change into another organism, even with artificial selection from the scientists.
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: TzarChasm
Why are you defending a situation you know nothing about?
From what I've read, all cultures say that it was a necessary purge to remove the evil from the world. That's the context we have of the event. Similar to the idea of destroying a cancerous before it kills the entire organism.
historical and scientific evidence of the global flood
originally posted by: TzarChasm
Any time someone is willing to accept genocide as a reasonable price for peace on earth, it's a glaring red flag in terms of mental health.
originally posted by: gosseyn
Nature is here and now, just before our eyes. While your god is a magical fairy tale creature that isn't here
So you reject what is before your eyes and you prefer to invent an unseen entity.
we will have no need to invoke a magical creature that just did it with a magic trick.
How do you suppose you know more about the situation than the cultures who had direct lineage to the people who went through it? It's not the Black Sea Deluge, people in the Andres mountains and all through the American continent talk about the same global flood. It's historical fact.
A world-wide deluge, such as described in Genesis, is incompatible with modern scientific understanding of natural history, especially geology and paleontology.
The Copenhagen interpretation is probably the best empirical evidence for the notion of consciousness being intimately connected to the manifestation of matter.
There is no uniquely definitive statement of the Copenhagen interpretation. It consists of the views developed by a number of scientists and philosophers during the second quarter of the 20th century. Bohr and Heisenberg never totally agreed on how to understand the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics. Bohr once distanced himself from what he considered to be Heisenberg's more subjective interpretation.
In a 2017 article, physicist and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg states that the Copenhagen interpretation "is now widely felt to be unacceptable."
The ensemble interpretation is similar; it offers an interpretation of the wave function, but not for single particles. The consistent histories interpretation advertises itself as "Copenhagen done right". Although the Copenhagen interpretation is often confused with the idea that consciousness causes collapse, it defines an "observer" merely as that which collapses the wave function. Quantum information theories are more recent, and have attracted growing support.
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: TzarChasm
Any time someone is willing to accept genocide as a reasonable price for peace on earth, it's a glaring red flag in terms of mental health.
How do you suppose you know more about the situation than the cultures who had direct lineage to the people who went through it? It's not the Black Sea Deluge, people in the Andres mountains and all through the American continent talk about the same global flood. It's historical fact.
originally posted by: gosseyn
Nature is here and now, just before our eyes. While your god is a magical fairy tale creature that isn't here
I Am (here).
In the best way I can articulate an unspeakable God, God is the marriage of virtuous ideals with our material vessel. The realization is that we are children of this Being that has always existed - Implementer of laws, and Architect of cosmos.
So you reject what is before your eyes and you prefer to invent an unseen entity.
That is exactly what the laws of physics are. They are the invisible forces that keep matter in its rightful place. You see the effect and ignore the cause - you ignore the Creator and treat the creation (matter) as t.
we will have no need to invoke a magical creature that just did it with a magic trick.
The Copenhagen interpretation is probably the best empirical evidence for the notion of consciousness being intimately connected to the manifestation of matter.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
How do you suppose that genocide in any circumstance is an acceptable solution?? Murdering an entire civilization without trial or due process is an act of war and a crime against humanity.
You have no clue what the copenhagen interpretation even means.
"It defines an "observer" merely as that which collapses the wave function. "
originally posted by: gosseyn
you loathe science and you try to diminish it when it goes against your preconceived ideas.
It's like asking why would a doctor destroy a cancerous tumor. It's not just the Bible that insists it was a necessary purge. Many of the other accounts specifically address the stubborn evil that was destroying the world.
Which is exactly my point. The observer collapses the wave function into a material form. That's what the double slit experiment demonstrated, and that is what I am saying.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: gosseyn
"Why do you need to invoke" an appeal to something "we don't fully understand" to evade the argument of induction I and many others do understand quite well?
Why are you so vague in responding to the argument of induction in question? Why do you tip-toe around the factual knowledge available regarding the effect of natural forces on molecules described in the 2nd law of thermodynamics and further elaborated on in the article in my last comment? That contradicts your beliefs, fantasies and appeals to things we supposedly don't understand (yet, but 'nature did it anyway, no matter what the evidence is pointing towards'; that attitude no longer spelled out).
Why not first look at the simpler explanation and exhaust all of its potentialities ?
The simpler causal explanation for the emergence of machinery and technology is creation (engineering) by at least 1 creator (engineer) with a corresponding level and type of intelligence and technological know-how. Not some vague description of something ""we [supposedly] don't fully understand" (yet).
So why indeed won't you look at it without looking for a way out by means of various dubious techniques, cop-outs, distracting subjects or descriptions and 'sophisticated'* blah-blah? (*: I guess that's a bit in the eye of the beholder)
You say that is a "simpler causal explanation", but then why does it raise questions you can't answer? Questions about where this engineer you mentioned is right now, why they are so mysteriously quiet?
originally posted by: gosseyn
a reply to: whereislogic
... Why do you need to invoke an entity like a god to explain something that could be explained through what we call the laws of nature ? That's simply a case for occam's razor. We know nature exists, we know nature does things, we know there are many parameters and mechanisms of nature we don't fully understand, so why would we need to say "god did it" in this context ? Maybe let's first try to see if nature did it ? A scientist who says that his knowledge is perfect is a really bad scientist, and for anyone to say that we know everything there is to know about nature is just pure ignorance.
...
Why not first look at the simpler explanation and exhaust all of its potentialities ?
originally posted by: cooperton
...The Copenhagen interpretation is probably the best empirical evidence for the notion of consciousness being intimately connected to the manifestation of matter.
originally posted by: whereislogic
you may want to check out James Tour's answer to the question: "Could laws not yet discovered have helped in the origin of life?" Since it relates to gosseyn's reasoning. At 16:34 in the video below:
And less than 10 years later, Fermi did it.
There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will. - Albert Einstein, 1932.
I confess that in 1901 I said to my brother Orville that man would not fly for fifty years. Two years later we ourselves made flights. This demonstration of my impotence as a prophet gave me such a shock that ever since I have distrusted myself and avoided all predictions. - Wilbur Wright (1867-1912) [In a speech to the Aero Club of France (Nov 5, 1908)]
I can accept the theory of relativity as little as I can accept the existence of atoms and other such dogmas. -- Ernst Mach, 1913, Austrian physicist and philosopher
The abolishment of pain in surgery is a chimera. It is absurd to go on seeking it. "Knife" and "pain" are two words in surgery that must forever be associated in the consciousness of the patient. -- Dr. Alfred Velpeau, 1839
If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can't be done. - Peter Ustinov