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.

 

Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

page: 39
18
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by dragonridr

Thank you finally got you there your beginning to understand. Look the coder and the messenger are in the same cell no external coder needed. The cells themselves create their DNA according to their needs. You just proved the point nicely id say.


You have got to be kidding. You do realise how anti darwinian that is right? I actually agree with that, the cell can rearange itself. This is precisely the gist of James Shapiro's theory that I subscibe to. But wait, you say it is chemically determined, then you refute yourself, then it is not a code, and now there is a coder in the cell?
You had better make up your mind. You are all over the place.



The scientific community agrees with me DNA is like a code not is a code. And no you said morse code is set by physical laws its called making an incorrect inference which you seem to do alot.


What? are you drunk or something?



Morse code is set through intelligence by the sender and the receiver. .- will all ways be A if it wasnt then its not morse code its what ever code you create.



Oh boy.

I stand by my original statement you are not qualified to be even making an argument. DNA is semiotic get over it.
edit on 8-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)


Wow when all else fails attack good plan. First Darwin would have no problem with cells coding to their needs its kinda his theory you know. I might suggest you read it on how life adapts do to its needs. And even drunk i could understand scientific principle it really seems its beyond you. And ill give you credit its not because your stupid because i dont believe you are. Its because your attempting to will it to confirm your beliefs. As far as qualified im more then qualified tell you what explain in your own word what you believe show me the proof of your assertions and we can discuss.

Here this should help you explain how DNA is indeed reversible like every other code.

Who is this intelligence that created DNA specific to each cell?

Why does DNA codons change between different species if it is a code?

And finally your version of Semiosis in a cell stop trying to pop in and throw in cute one liners that prove nothing lay it on the line so to speak.




posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 10:32 PM
link   


Here it is again. DNA is semiotic. It is a code, there is no such thing as like a code. This is not controversial. This is established science. This diagram completely destroys your nonsense. See the big word at the top?

Your numerous blunders have destroyed you credibility over and over.

Instead of making stuff up I suggest you supply some scientific references. It simply looks like you are now trolling.

I have answered those questions. Detecting design does not include indentifying the designer.
The fact the codons can code for different amino acids in a very few other organisms shows it is not chemical determined and arbitrary as in a real code.

There are no physical constraints between codon and amino acid, what force determines this?
edit on 8-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   


First Darwin would have no problem with cells coding to their needs its kinda his theory you know.


Really, care to back that up? let's get some actuall scientific references from you hey? please support your waffle.




And even drunk i could understand scientific principle it really seems its beyond you.


Haha, I guess that means you are.
That explains why you are so scattered and all over the place. Try again when you sober up. Nah I think I will just ignore you. You don't have anything except denial of 60 years of genetics.
edit on 8-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz


Here it is again. DNA is semiotic. It is a code, there is no such thing as like a code. This is not controversial. This is established science.

Your numerous blunders have destroyed you credibility over and over.

Instead of making stuff up I suggest you supply some scientific references. It simply looks like you are now trolling.

I have answered those questions. Detecting design does not include indentifying the designer.
The fact the codons can code for different amino acids in a very few other organisms shows it is not chemical determined and arbitrary as in a real code.

There are no physical constraints between codon and amino acid, what force determines this?
edit on 8-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)


You didnt answer a single question i asked so here with the diagram of valine synthesis again. So whos the codemaker in your diagram and im guessing you believe the code is DNA but your diagram is saying its valine because a code is a symbol or sign which conveys meaning. So let me ask you this where is the intelligence in your diagram what is it?



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by dragonridr
 



Thank you, I was going to bring this up. It actually proves my point.
The fact that one codon codes for one amino acid in one organism and the same codon codes for something else in another organism empirically shows that the code is arbitrary and the mapping is not determined by chemistry. It is not fixed by any chemical means.

A true code is arbitrary it is defined by conventions. If we all agreed that the word cat represented a dog we could. Meaning real codes are arbitrary.

Very good point. Thanks you just refuted yourself and supported the fact it is a true code.

But really denying it is a code is very desperate, it has been firmly established as a code for around 60 years and amounts to scientific denial.
edit on 8-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)


Thats not true code is never arbitrary its exact .- = A morse code never changes period. Arbitrary things are created through random processes. However i am glad you finally admit DNA was created through random choices since you believe DNA is arbitrary shows you realize its random.


So wouldnt this be akin to DNA being the alphabet, and each organism having its own internal language, and communication with the external environment?

And your argument is that one organisms DNA processes do not equal another organism therefor DNA is not used as a code? Doesnt inter specie reproduction show that for a species the DNA code is transferable and interpretable?


No if it was we wouldn't have the problem we do DNA is different between species So decoding the DNA for a rat the codons are in different locations and can produce different proteins. We can find correlations but this is because we understand the effects certain proteins have on cells. Geneticists don't read the DNA and go this regulated the circulatory system they look for proteins produced by the DNA . So if DNA were truly a code we would just be abled to read it instead of try to determine the reactions the DNA causes subtle difference. Look if i wrote a message in morse code doesnt matter what i write you can read it. DNA doesnt work that way To decode DNA we have to look at what it does when they part is used.

So DNA is very random because it all works differently depending on the species.But if god created a code why would he have it vary from one cell to another thats just all around silly. It be like a programer rewriting code he all ready created they wouldn't do this its a waist of time.


Pft no its not very random. You expect us to just look at this code and understand what it means in english? Like we have books and stuff and can go to a library to find out how the morse code we invented translates. This is like going to an alien planet and expecting to translate their books into english by reading nothing but the words. If they were to show us that flsjflkjs = tree then we can one by one learn the physical correlations of their langue to the symbols, but this would be like us learning the physical correlations between the DNA language and its physical counterpart.

The fact the DNA code represents different things for different species is not surprising. Millions of years of differently physically designed organisms interacting with their environment, the code was being worked out. This is like how different computer operating systems have evolved over time to use different symbolic codes, that correlate to the computers digital world of processing.

Im guessing that is your mention of random, the fact that the DNA, the organism and environment contribute to changes in the DNA, and this is how evolution occurs. But I think the argument is more about how DNA was created, How the letters/symbols were decided to correlate to specific functions, and complex functions. You say "So DNA is very random because it all works differently depending on the species." and expect me to agree that the existence of the potential chaos/randomness of the external and micro universe and world, mean that DNA is sloppy or stupid design, because it is able to evolve according the the chaos and random fluctuation of environments over time. You believe if nature was really intelligent it would make one DNA code that was the same to all species, and one non fluxing environment, and non evolving organism, thats what would be intelligent design?



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Inelligent People trying to compare intelligence. If this subject proves anything. It is that People have different degree of intelligence. That is about all that this topic is proving.

Howe can People argue if a cell that evolved through a first cause 13.7 billion years ago have something to do With intelligence?
Ofcource non of this will seam intelligent when everything we observe comes from a prosess caused by the inflation of the singularity. What we observe from Planck time 10-44 Seconds after the big bang are actions and reactions. A scientist will never understand the intelligence in a prosess that like that, they just want to confirm a prosess.

Why dont you People try and prove if the first cause was caused randomly or by something intelligent.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Detecting design does not include indentifying the designer.

How do you identify design in the fact that 6 codons encode leucine, serine and arginine each, but only 2 codons encode e.g. phenylalanine? What is the rational/intelligence behind this arrangement? Just so happens that if the genetic code evolved over time, this arrangement makes perfect sense. Such a bizarre coincidence, huh?


Originally posted by squiz
There are no physical constraints between codon and amino acid, what force determines this?

If you acknowledge that the genetic code evolved/changed over time, then why would you expect to find such a thing? Would it not make sense that while physical/chemical constraints might have existed between tRNAs and the few prebiotic amino acids in the 'primordial' genetic code (i.e. they might have stuck together with some specificity), such functions were later overtaken by aminoacyl tRNA synthetases.

mmbr.asm.org...
edit on 9-6-2013 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


So what does code evolve from again?

My argument has nothing to do with evolution it is about the birth of evolution. You are just skipping over my main point altogether. Everything up to and including LUCA is pure speculation. Gotta love those just so stories.


"There is no evidence that hereditary evolution [natural selection] occurs except in cells which already have ... the DNA, the replicating and translating enzymes, and all the control systems and structures necessary to reproduce themselves." - Howard Pattee.


In response you posted a 20 year old theoretical just so story stating this veteran in the field hasn't read the literature. Sorry but that is deceptive to say the least. Whatever I post, even from mainstream peer reviewed papers you will just state something like " it proves nothing".

I would not bother to reply because it has nothing to do with my argument, but what you raise actually makes brilliant design sense.

The particular configuration of redundancy just happens to be a marvel of engineering ingenuity.


It turns out that there is a reason for this redundancy. Some codons are faster and easier for cells to process and assemble into proteins than others. Recognition of this difference led to the concept of optimal codons and the hypothesis that natural selection should drive organisms[/] - particularly fast growing ones - to use genes that use optimal codons to make critical proteins that need to be highly abundant or synthesized rapidly in cells.
cyanobacteria biological clock molecules.



The problem with this hypothesis was shown by Johnson and Rokas' study of the effect of changing codon usage on the simple biological clock found in single-celled cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) and a similar study of the more complex biological clock found in bread mold performed by a team led by Professor Yi Liu of University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center that were published together.

"What the Liu team found was that optimizing all the codons used by the fungal biological clock knocked the clock out, which was totally unexpected! Those researchers concluded that clock proteins in the fungus are not properly assembled if they are synthesized too rapidly; it's as if the speed of one's writing affected our ability to read the text," Johnson summarized.



Like many written languages, the genetic code is filled with synonyms: differently spelled "words" that have the same or very similar meanings. For a long time, biologists thought that these synonyms, called synonymous codons, were in fact interchangeable. Recently, they have realized that this is not the case and that differences in synonymous codon usage have a significant impact on cellular processes, so scientists have advanced a wide variety of ideas about the role that these variations play.



This work shows how organisms can ignore the clock under certain circumstances -- much like hitting a biological snooze button on the internal timepiece--and enhance their survival in the face of ever-changing circumstances."


news.vanderbilt.edu...

Coincidence hey? Makes absolutely exquisite design sense, enough to make any engineer drool. This is not the only reason either.

Let me guess means nothing right? What design sense?

edit on 9-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


So what does code evolve from again?

Clearly from a simpler code. I've said it many times already. Why are you having such a hard time understanding this?


Originally posted by squiz
My argument has nothing to do with evolution it is about the birth of evolution. You are just skipping over my main point altogether. Everything up to and including LUCA is pure speculation. Gotta love those just so stories.

Pure speculation would imply that these hypotheses wouldn't be based on anything. Fact of a matter is, that they're based on cold hard empirically observed facts. Intelligent design would be an example of pure speculation. No, since it ignores these facts, it's but an uneducated opinion.


Originally posted by squiz

"There is no evidence that hereditary evolution [natural selection] occurs except in cells which already have ... the DNA, the replicating and translating enzymes, and all the control systems and structures necessary to reproduce themselves." - Howard Pattee.


In response you posted a 20 year old theoretical just so story stating this veteran in the field hasn't read the literature. Sorry but that is deceptive to say the least. Whatever I post, even from mainstream peer reviewed papers you will just state something like " it proves nothing".

You can't argue against cold hard logic. Fact is that natural selection does operate on for example autocatalytic RNA sets. We should thus conclude that either this guy doesn't know his literature, or that, perhaps more likely, you're quoting out of context.


Originally posted by squiz
I would not bother to reply because it has nothing to do with my argument, but what you raise actually makes brilliant design sense.

The particular configuration of redundancy just happens to be a marvel of engineering ingenuity.


It turns out that there is a reason for this redundancy. Some codons are faster and easier for cells to process and assemble into proteins than others. Recognition of this difference led to the concept of optimal codons and the hypothesis that natural selection should drive organisms[/] - particularly fast growing ones - to use genes that use optimal codons to make critical proteins that need to be highly abundant or synthesized rapidly in cells.
cyanobacteria biological clock molecules.



The problem with this hypothesis was shown by Johnson and Rokas' study of the effect of changing codon usage on the simple biological clock found in single-celled cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) and a similar study of the more complex biological clock found in bread mold performed by a team led by Professor Yi Liu of University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center that were published together.

"What the Liu team found was that optimizing all the codons used by the fungal biological clock knocked the clock out, which was totally unexpected! Those researchers concluded that clock proteins in the fungus are not properly assembled if they are synthesized too rapidly; it's as if the speed of one's writing affected our ability to read the text," Johnson summarized.



Like many written languages, the genetic code is filled with synonyms: differently spelled "words" that have the same or very similar meanings. For a long time, biologists thought that these synonyms, called synonymous codons, were in fact interchangeable. Recently, they have realized that this is not the case and that differences in synonymous codon usage have a significant impact on cellular processes, so scientists have advanced a wide variety of ideas about the role that these variations play.



This work shows how organisms can ignore the clock under certain circumstances -- much like hitting a biological snooze button on the internal timepiece--and enhance their survival in the face of ever-changing circumstances."


news.vanderbilt.edu...

Coincidence hey? Makes absolutely exquisite design sense, enough to make any engineer drool. This is not the only reason either.

Let me guess means nothing right? What design sense?

Here you display your lack of insight into the whole topic. The quoted texts clearly discuss codon usage within genes, not the genetic code as a whole. It's a completely different topic. But go ahead, do explain how the above is related to the fact that there are e.g. 6 codons for arginine, but only one for methionine. Hey, maybe you can also explain why your designer felt the need to create aminoacyl tRNA synthetases twice from scratch?
edit on 9-6-2013 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


Ive ran across this problem all ready he doesn't understand semiosis in a cell is about protein production he thinks its about DNA code. Thats why he throws up a diagram he doesn't understand to answer questions. Ive asked him several questions he still hasnt answered because im beginning to believe he doesnt know the answer. But will try again.

What is the external coder ina a cell on your theory of only intelligence can create code?

If Dna is a code please explain how we can start with proteins and code it backwards into a DNA strand like every other code can do? (real interested in this one because if he can do it i see a nobel prize coming.

Im also very interested in what in DNA makes it impossible to occur naturally?

This is supposed to be about proof of intelligent design time for some people to make there case.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by Barcs
1. Inference to the only "known" cause is not empirical truth. I explained how inferences work and you ignored it / denied it.


I never said that. The premises are empirical, objective truth. An inference is not proof as I have said over and over.


How can the premises be objective based on the definition I posted? Read my post. It clearly said for something to be considered objective evidence, it must be based on evidence or observations THAT PROVE something. Please read it.




1. All known causes of origins of phenomena in the universe are naturalistic, except things that are man made.
2. DNA is a phenomena in the universe and is not man made.
3. DNA has naturalistic origins.


Besides being ridiculous? Yes I did address it. Difference 1. It is ambiguous, you insert the term natural instead of code if you used the word code it would be obviously false. That is misleading and deceptive. The word natural is subjective, is a beehive natural? if I make a mud hut is that natural? Difference 2. And where it collapses. The entire thing rests on being man made. It is absurd and yet another strawman.


How is the term 'natural' or 'naturalistic' ambiguous? Did you honestly not understand what I meant? By natural, I'm saying unguided aka not influenced by an external intelligent agent AS DEFINED BY INTELLIGENT DESIGN. No experiments or scientific observations have been made about ID, EVER. It's inference to the only known cause of anything ever to exist in the universe that has ever been studied using the scientific method. We know bees make beehives because we've observed it. We don't know that an intelligent agent created or can create DNA as it is today because It hasn't been observed (plus no experiments and rigorous testing), which means NOT OBJECTIVE. No inference is objective unless the premise is an undeniable fact. Your inference is not an objective argument. Neither is mine. This is my point. They follow the same logic.

PLUS, you use the term "from a mind" in the premise of your inference, which is as vague as it gets. By doing that you are comparing human intelligence with a likely much greater one that we don't even know exists and making appeals to it. You are making vague statements rather than specific exact arguments.

1. All known codes come from a mind - vague

2. All known digital codes have been created by humans - specific

Your argument 100% relies on the vagueness of your terminology

ALSO, my premise does not rest on 'being man made'. It rests on the FACT that no scientific observations of ID have ever been made to explain anything. Stop confusing ID with human intelligence. It's not the same, and you equating them is fallacy known as equivocation. It's another one that Meyer constantly uses.


Premise one and two are not subjective but objective. We are surrounded by our own intelligent designs, the mechanisms for those are self evident. It is a stupid question. You have no objective evidence for a natural origin of code. In fact you have no objective evidence for the grandiose extrapolation for your version of evolution


As I already explained that is equivocation, and NOT objective in the least. Hilarious that you still do not understand the term.


It is not part of my hypothesis. It applies to any code. This is misdirection and irrelevant. Your hang up on being digital is because you denied the digital nature of DNA. Scientific denial. The fact that it is digital only further points to an intelligent cause. It does not help you.

Backtracking again. It was definitely part of your original argument, and you did not answer my point. Digital has multiple meanings and is an AMBIGUOUS term.
But yeah, lets pretend you never said it.


An inference is not a claim of proof! How many times have you made this blatant Strawman! The inference is a strong as any, stronger because it only valid one. You can't refute it. To refute it the burden of PROOF is on you to empirically demonstrate an unguided natural cause. Which is impossible. Because code is not physics.

This statement proves my point 100%. An inference is not claim of proof. I've been saying this the whole time. IT IS THEREFOR NOT OBJECTIVE. By definition, objective evidence must help prove something. You have unraveled your own argument in your own statements and resorted again to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto me. Your best arguments have been quote mines. You still do not even understand what a strawman is. I can't really say much more than that.

Semiosis is a red herring, as it cannot objective prove ID one way or another.

It seems like 90% of our disagreement is based on your poor understanding of what constitutes as objective or empirical evidence.
edit on 9-6-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
What drives the need for survival?

Why the need to survive and reproduce in the first place? Where does this arise from?


Your questions are rather vague. Every creature wants to survive. If they don't, then they die. If it happens to an entire species, they go extinct. It's not because some "need' to survive and others don't. Sometimes it is luck, based on the environment changing in a way that's favorable to them. Without the "need" to reproduce, life doesn't exist today, so the 'need' itself is simply existing. If the first cells couldn't reproduce, they would have been irrelevant, and I would imagine that in the early stages of earth there were plenty that died out almost immediately.


1 decimal place in a seemingly infinite universe is a big difference

Not really. 99% is still almost ALL of universe no matter how you slice it. It still means the vast majority, almost all of it, is uninhabitable, so the point against ID is still valid, regardless of nitpicking the figures.


edit on 9-6-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Barcs
 


Dear Barcs,

I paid a brief visit to your talk origins website, which is a paper defending common descent. While there, I found this in the early going:


In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin. All scientific theories have their respective, specific explanatory domains; no scientific theory proposes to explain everything. . . . Similarly, universal common descent is restricted to the biological patterns found in the Earth's biota; it does not attempt to explain the ultimate origin of life.


That seems to this untutored person to be a pretty significant assumption. Wouldn't self replicating indicate the existence of the codes under discussion here? And if so, and if I'm following, it seems as though the article assumes the existence of what is being questioned here.

With respect,
Charles1952


What they are saying is that they do not know the origin of the first life. Of course a self replicating lifeform existed in the ancient past. It exists today, so that pretty much goes without saying, plus we've found some of the really early fossils. Without replication, how are they even there? The problem is we do not have any DNA samples from that time period, so determining how much DNA itself has evolved since the first life and how complex the original "codes" were is near impossible. The codes argument is being used in relation to ID, not evolution. The problem with that argument is that we simply do not know that DNA in its current form is the same as the original form. In all likelihood it started much simpler, as it only had to replicate a single cell, rather than an entire being with billions of years of genetic changes.
edit on 9-6-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


And once again, you completely miss the point. It clearly says SCIENTIFIC inference using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which means the premise is based on a provable fact. Your inference was not and therefor was not scientifically valid, and does not objectively prove anything. You are still misunderstanding terminology.
edit on 9-6-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Clearly from a simpler code. I've said it many times already. Why are you having such a hard time understanding this?


No I said it. And does not answer the question and you know it. It is begging the question.



Pure speculation would imply that these hypotheses wouldn't be based on anything. Fact of a matter is, that they're based on cold hard empirically observed facts. Intelligent design would be an example of pure speculation. No, since it ignores these facts, it's but an uneducated opinion.


You are being deceitful again, they are based on nothing but guesses. Intelligently engineered ribozyme experiments that require hands on attention at every stage, and accomplish nothing is as far as it has got. All it has shown is how incredulous it is. It also does not answer my central point at all.


You can't argue against cold hard logic. Fact is that natural selection does operate on for example autocatalytic RNA sets. We should thus conclude that either this guy doesn't know his literature, or that, perhaps more likely, you're quoting out of context.


No new functions have ever emerged from autocatalytic RNA sets, no emergence of proteins from just RNA and the RNA sets are sequenced by intelligent agents.


Like many written languages, the genetic code is filled with synonyms: differently spelled "words" that have the same or very similar meanings.



Here you display your lack of insight into the whole topic. The quoted texts clearly discuss codon usage within genes, not the genetic code as a whole. It's a completely different topic.


Rubbish, you are very dishonest Rhino, they are discussing redundancy in the genetic code. The genes are a result of the code. It even states in plain english - "The genetic code is filled with synonyms". Quit lying. Might work on others but it does not work on me.



But go ahead, do explain how the above is related to the fact that there are e.g. 6 codons for arginine, but only one for methionine. Hey, maybe you can also explain why your designer felt the need to create aminoacyl tRNA synthetases twice from scratch?


I did explain it, the particular configuration of redundancy is exquistely exploited for robustness, adaptability and flexability.
So blind churning found the same solution twice eh? All the designer would need to do is plant the seed once, that then extrapolates by itself, filling any niche and adapting by seeking solutions by itself.

You are a trickster, and just plain dishonest.
edit on 9-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   
I have finished with Barcs he is stuck in loops and continues with the strawmen. DragonRidr is just incoherant. Rhino is simply deceptive and dishonest. Why should I bother?

None have an answer.

The simple fact remains that semiosis is self evidently irriducable and is not physics and can never be created by physics. It requires a mind. it is simply impossible under a mechanistic materialistic paradigm. The fact it exists empirically demonstrates materialism is false. Anyone can see if they are willing to see.

But the religion of scientism blinds to what is clear. Design is overwheliming as Dawkins says, but an illusion you see. I know who is suffering from illusions.

Otherwise you must believe that language can emerge without consciousness. That is simply absurd. Will never happen because it cannot happen.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


I understand that you're saying that ideas as such have no physical manifest.. But I don't think we know enough about reality to say.. essentially that "ideas" don't exist in the physical world. I mean, an idea is a thought, and a thought would have to involve a presence of something in order for that thought to exist, and without the physical parameter to give ideas/experience substance, there would be no experiencing of ideas. I'd prefer to think of it in terms of relativity of thought if that makes sense, though this doesn't explain awareness, and I don't anything will ever "explain" its existence.. I would find it hard to fathom that you could disagree with my above statement that without physicality the experience would basically have no substance/meaning or even exist, which brings us back to my original point that consciousness != first cause... But maybe that means you agree with me.. Or it's just impossible to argue against since it really comes down to opinion of data.

edit: just saw your post above. When you state mind, a mind as we know it, has dimensions, so it seems rather contradictory to state that what we understand to have physical parameters, does not have physical parameters. We haven't, and obviously never will observe a mind that doesn't exist. I suppose if you want to stand by that revelation of sorts, then this argument is pointless (well, only in terms of the thread title, that consciousness was the first cause, though I don't think you ever directly stated that and haven't tried to argue against the ideas I've put forward that disagree with the statement).
edit on 9-6-2013 by WorShip because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
I have finished with Barcs he is stuck in loops and continues with the strawmen. DragonRidr is just incoherant. Rhino is simply deceptive and dishonest. Why should I bother?

None have an answer.

The simple fact remains that semiosis is self evidently irriducable and is not physics and can never be created by physics. It requires a mind. it is simply impossible under a mechanistic materialistic paradigm. The fact it exists empirically demonstrates materialism is false. Anyone can see if they are willing to see.

But the religion of scientism blinds to what is clear. Design is overwheliming as Dawkins says, but an illusion you see. I know who is suffering from illusions.

Otherwise you must believe that language can emerge without consciousness. That is simply absurd. Will never happen because it cannot happen.


Once again lay out semiosis in the cell stop playing games Who is the coder what are the signs and whats the translator and most important where is the intelligence in the cell that codes the information? Don't throw up your diagram on protein synthesis since you shown you dont agree just tell us.And the diagram you keep throwing up is to prove biosemiotics in a cell not prove DNA was coded.

And how come every time you start to lose you give up not a good thing but you've done it multiple times in this thread. If your going to prove intelligence is needed make your case we have cells we know how they work science should back you up. Problem is you just cant say all code needs intelligence we dont know that to be true so you will have to do better than that.

One last thing please show me how DNA is a language again you prove this one i see a Nobel prize in your future.

edit on 6/9/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr

It was that the universe was made to support life i know if i created a universe to support life i could have done a better job.


Ah yes. Well I'll take the other side of that bet.


Why dont people look at it the other way lifeis hanging on by a thread in a universe that is hostile. But you know what were still here and thats a true miracle. Life had to fight every inch of the way but we did it!


Yes, a true miracle. It's not supposed to even be, is it? At least according to you and many others. Yet here we are typing to each other on man made intelligence machines.


. Do you know what caused the largest mass extinction on earth? The addition of oxygen into the atmosphere the entire eco system had to adapt. Most people dont realize this but oxygen is toxic and a corrosive and very hostile to life forms. But life adapted and used this so now its indispensable to life.


What I wonder; was adaptation a random trait (process), or was it inherent right from the start? Why adapt? In a such a hostile universe that's immense beyond what we can comprehend, life emerged on a particle. And lots of it. If this place is so inhospitable to life as you assert, then why did it occur in the first place? And why so diverse, on just one little planet alone? And why did it evolve- into intelligent beings like ourselves- with consciousness and souls. Where does that come from?

In a universe that hates life so much, it went ahead a created millions of types of it. I think the most important answers are not observable. So I guess we all know what that means when it comes to science

But having said that, I think the greatest irony in life will be when science does discover the God many people think exist, whatever it may be.
edit on 9-6-2013 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Where survival makes a way of life it alone will cause intelligence.

Dark matter is awesome stuff huh...

I liked the idea of it not being visible because of it's existing in a higher dimension.
We will never be able to observe a higher dimension without our limited 3D view.
It will make dimensional travel really interesting though. Manipulating dimensions that exist beyond our reach will be useless getting a hold for a fold. Damn. Maybe some day.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join