abiogenesis vs id using a razor sharp method

reply to post by DazDaKing


Well, I promised Another Nut an explanation if the thread went to a third page.

The fatal flaw in his or her opening post is that the conclusion is based on a nonfactual premise.

humans... create a new lifeform.

They haven't. Yes, I know it was stated explicitly to be an assumption. But you can't use an assumed fact to prove the validity of a proposition, whatever the other merits of your argument may be.

Your argument is identical to his (or hers).

if we... create a virtual universe as complex as ours

Indeed, the existence of an artificially created universe would certainly prove that artificially created universes are possible! In the absence of such a universe, however, we cannot draw any conclusions from it regarding our own.

Astyanax
reply to post by DazDaKing

 

Well, I promised Another Nut an explanation if the thread went to a third page.

The fatal flaw in his or her opening post is that the conclusion is based on a nonfactual premise.

humans... create a new lifeform.

They haven't. Yes, I know it was stated explicitly to be an assumption. But you can't use an assumed fact to prove the validity of a proposition, whatever the other merits of your argument may be.

Your argument is identical to his (or hers).

if we... create a virtual universe as complex as ours

Indeed, the existence of an artificially created universe would certainly prove that artificially created universes are possible! In the absence of such a universe, however, we cannot draw any conclusions from it regarding our own.

edit on 23/11/13 by Astyanax because: of smiliferocity.

Right. But you agree that if we DO go on to create such a virtual universe, it gives significant leverage for the idea to be a genuine, logical possibility? Would it change YOUR opinion on the matter, or are you speaking purely from an analytical sense.

These are just fun thought experiments to me regardless. I think the virtual universe of our creation will happen eventually, but what intrigues me more is if we will be able to code an existence that IS as self-conscious and self-controlling over itself as we are, rather than an automated process churning numbers and giving the illusion of self-consciousness. I just hope we don't hit a point where we can't tell the difference and then assume we have created something as aware as we are. That would open the doors to all sorts of problems such as humans believing we can download/upload consciousness. Off-topic but food for thought.

reply to post by DazDaKing

But you agree that if we DO go on to create such a virtual universe, it gives significant leverage for the idea to be a genuine, logical possibility?

No, it would make the idea an accomplished fact. It would make us gods.

able to code an existence that IS as self-conscious and self-controlling over itself as we are, rather than an automated process churning numbers and giving the illusion of self-consciousness

Are we self-controlling? Can you provide clear, unambiguous evidence of this?

Is consciousness anything more than an illusion? Can you provide clear, unambigous evidence of this?

Astyanax
reply to post by DazDaKing

 

Well, I promised Another Nut an explanation if the thread went to a third page.

The fatal flaw in his or her opening post is that the conclusion is based on a nonfactual premise.

humans... create a new lifeform.

They haven't. Yes, I know it was stated explicitly to be an assumption. But you can't use an assumed fact to prove the validity of a proposition, whatever the other merits of your argument may be.

Your argument is identical to his (or hers).

if we... create a virtual universe as complex as ours

Indeed, the existence of an artificially created universe would certainly prove that artificially created universes are possible! In the absence of such a universe, however, we cannot draw any conclusions from it regarding our own.

edit on 23/11/13 by Astyanax because: of smiliferocity.

ahh first of all i coverrd this at the enf of pagr 2 ty. obvios was obvious

now if we take that arguement that we will never replocate the spontanios self folding of protiens that further do something that suddenly makes thsm into alive.,

wjat would this say about the origin of life

ignorant_ape
reply to post by Another_Nut

 

for fooks sake - its not that difficult

if you claim that present life " must require a designer "

then the alledged designer must follow the infine regression path , which :

demands explaination of how the regression jumps the age of the current universe / escapes the current universe

OR requires a special pleading that the alledged designer was not designed

I will spell it out - the " explain the alledged designers orign " does NOT posit that a designer is impossible - merely that the alledged designer needs a special pleading to explain its origin

get it yet ?

whst your saying is we were not created we are a special pleading?

isnt that a little human centric?

i mean saying we are created and eill create just makes us anither spoke in the wheel

but special pleading that requires faith convviction and a drive to convert. and in a funny way is more biblical sounding than just being created

it all go to method of creation. but creation requies no magic no faith jusy the right tools and the right talent

reply to post by Another_Nut


No you didn't. And you're still batting on about 'if this, then that'. But have it your own way; I don't propose to try to educate you further.

Astyanax
reply to post by Another_Nut

 

No you didn't. And you're still batting on about 'if this, then that'. But have it your own way; I don't propose to try to educate you further.

if we create life

or

if we dont create life.

these sre not the nomal "if this then that"

becasusr one acually exists.

if we create life then, through infinite regression logic, because if the life we create has a creator then then it must.have a creator and so forth.
?
if we dont create life in a lab then, why? mabe because u cant get life from nonlife


eta yes,yes i did. it is the last two sentences of page two.

Another_Nut
id - proven in a lab

abiogenesis- unprovable (atm)

That was contagiously funny statement you got there...

Care to do some research and reading?

Please start here: Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions

Once done, we can talk if you have any questions...

Astyanax
reply to post by DazDaKing

 

But you agree that if we DO go on to create such a virtual universe, it gives significant leverage for the idea to be a genuine, logical possibility?

No, it would make the idea an accomplished fact. It would make us gods.

able to code an existence that IS as self-conscious and self-controlling over itself as we are, rather than an automated process churning numbers and giving the illusion of self-consciousness

Are we self-controlling? Can you provide clear, unambiguous evidence of this?

Is consciousness anything more than an illusion? Can you provide clear, unambigous evidence of this?

Yes, it would make us Gods, but that wasnt my question. Let me try another way; if we prove ourselves to be capable of creating a virtual universe (we already have in multiple ways but I assume you want one exactly like the universe until you'll claim its conclusive), wouldn't that put us in a position where by the nature of logic and probability, we will have to admit we were probably created? Am I right then, in understanding, that the one thing that seperates you from seeing God as an 'illogical conclusion' as opposed to a 'logical conclusion' is the creation of a virtual universe?

But surely - you must be aware that every and any function of the universe can be modelled and discretised as far as we know, that the speed of light would be the processing rate required and the Planck length would be the smallest possible time interval. All the gaps can be filled from there, and as I have concluded that you believe consciousness is programmable, doesn't that mean you should be quite well aware that it is not only a probable possibility, but practically a fact (unless funding or supercomputing never takes off - but theoretically) that the universe can be created. What is the theoretical obstacle to this not being possible?

Then, if that is the case and you accept that, why are you waiting for it to be done. If you know it's possible, and video games show to us the level of progress we have made in creating virtual universes over the past 3 decades, isn't it a bit too extreme to refuse to even accept it as a possibility until it is in front of you? I'm just trying to gain insight into your thoughts on this. I understand you can simply turn around and say 'but I can't know for certain until it is done', which is of course a valid point, but I feel at the same time you are intelligent enough to understand it will happen, and has been happening. Femtosecond interval universes have already been made - ironically in attempts to prove our universe is simulated by showing the link between coded constraints and physical constraints (long to get into that here). Is there an aspect of it you believe is unrecreatable? Or is it, like I said before, simply a case of wanting to know its possibility through physical evidence rather than the combination of theoretical knowledge/logic and the future projection of current technology. In that case, you are not much of a philosopher as you are a taker and accepter of truth? I am surprised there is not a higher overlap of those characteristics in the modern age. I understand the intellectual safety of only ever going on evidence, but isn't it these types of realistic assumptions that have pushed our knowledge forward, rather than harmed it.

This is why I had lost my nerve with this conversation before. I felt like a perfectly plausible topic of conversation was completely shut off due to lack of evidence of us creating a virtual universe, when actual evidence is practically round the corner. Perhaps that is just my opinion, but even those disinterested should be able to see this happening in the future. If it is comprehendanble by a human - it is usually possible to recreate.

I honestly think we WILL make virtual universes like ours - hence why I do not see this as much of an obstacle as you evidently have (with no due fault of course - everyone's free to completely base their judgment on nothing but rock-hard evidence).

I shall return to your consciousness question later. It is two good questions you poise, but I'm sure you understand that they cannot be easily explored or debated through a quick or swift reply.

Peace