How did matter become aware of itself?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

That's, erm, a fine hypothesis I suppose. But does nothing to demonstrate that particles are alive or awake.

lol you are so dense

I am not even arguing that (although Neo's experiment in the OP insists they are aware). I am saying the material world is an intelligent construct. Do you agree or disagree? Try not being purposefully vague.

You should already know the answer to that question. And you should already know why.

(ok, i've slept, hopefully this is more coherent. sorry for the long-winded posts, i annoy myself with convoluted over-explanation, frankly). trying not to derail too much, hopefully.

originally posted by: daskakik
I never said it was irrelevant. I just pointed out that the bias or predisposition to cut to the punchline, God did it, which by the way is also where the OP is going, allows some people to overlook some of the flaws in their logic.

i agree, just works both ways and that's how your response struck me -- but, i think maybe in this case we may both be watching for the same things from either side of the ravine.
(honestly not trying to be argumentative, i do apologise if that's how it seemed. i really appreciate your patience in clarifying these things!)

I think the last bit was confusing because you made it seem like there was a way, although that was butchered, "but almost impossible to create an ai that might transcend our own faculties without giving one our own". Not sure what "giving one our own" means.

yeah heh, sorry. i maybe overuse vague qualifiers like "almost," (a lot,) because i'm acutely aware of my own ability to be wrong.
"giving one our own" -- referring to applications of ai, in my mind the biggest limiting factor currently is providing faculty to them. giving them our own means (in a fankenstein sense) somehow placing them in possession of full human capacitance.

Nothing wrong with metaphors and there is nothing wrong with what you came up with but I couldn't help but notice that it seemed like an adaptation made to fit that religious point of view.

It isn't surprising since that seemed to be the point anyway.

that's perfectly reasonable. truth is, i grew up annoyed by religiosity (thankfully my parents weren't totally nuts); in this case the reverse is true, the point of view started with machine learning theory -- but i have been fascinated with these similarities because my conclusions offered some insight into why the judeo-christian god would behave in some ways people commonly criticise. so, not surprising at all, if only because those conclusion-similarities have also been bouncing around in my head.
trying to de-colour a bit more, i think essentially my point was:

i can conceive a situation where awareness (perhaps could be "built?"), in an ordered system/framework, may (then) be seeded to become self-regulating/evolving and self-aware.
but i myself have not been able to conceive a situation in any system/framework where self-awareness arises "of itself" or coincidentally.

Nothing says both types of people can't exist [...]

it does "take all kinds" i suppose. i just get frustrated with extremism on either side. getting emotionally invested rarely contributes to rationality, IMHO.

It is a black box and usually the only thing to back it up is, it is too perfect or too precise to be random.

accepted/agreed, "black box" is a great phrase. again, i feel the like is sort of employed all over the place (from religion and politics to quantum theory and scientism) in a "you don't need to understand because we can do that part for you" way. in generality, i say leave off presenting as solid proof/fact/truth a thing which is subjective/experiential/theory, however well-reasoned.

personally i'm essentially agnostic, and find anyone claiming "proof" of such micro-/macrocosmic concepts rather dubious. i think truth is pervasive and underlying, doesn't need "convincing" as such. "the truth stands on its own, it doesn't need to be propped up"...i like that description (a friend once said it, and since i've seen similar attributed to very many sources).

so there really is nothing to discuss or, as is usually the case, discuss again.

and yet, endlessly 'round we go...

With the exception of a couple evolution threads, most of the topics in this section are by the overtly Judeo/Christian creationist. They will always start with a subject that initially sounds like a genuine proposal or theory or question, but in every case will be highly agendized and will not be open to counter-argument or disqualification. It seems the sole point of these self-congratulatory posts is for their own agenda to be supported by like-thinking people.

Neoholograhpic and cooperton always make posts like these, and will call out counter-posters as a 'dumbass' or 'dense'. These are supposed religious people. Personally, I think they are a long way from their personal salvation. A very long way.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

Neoholograhpic and cooperton always make posts like these, and will call out counter-posters as a 'dumbass' or 'dense'. These are supposed religious people. Personally, I think they are a long way from their personal salvation. A very long way.

Thanks for thinking so much about me. I'm flattered.

I am simply making the case for intelligence, and showing the many impossibilities of unintelligent origin theories. Kinda silly how much this upsets you.

a reply to: TerraLiga

I find more spirituality in the UFO and cryptozoology topics than anywhere on the origins forum.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: TerraLiga

I find more spirituality in the UFO and cryptozoology topics than anywhere on the origins forum.

If you weren't so biased against it you could start to speak the language

You don't upset me, coop. I pity you, that's all.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
You don't upset me, coop. I pity you, that's all.

You believe you're a random accident that will return back to eternal nothingness never to have any awareness of anything ever again.... and you pity me?

Dude, I've been there, I've faced the belief where I truly thought i was returning back to eternal nothingness. It was a dark time but I still persevered through it. Further searching, without bias, eventually led me out of that nihilistic dread.

I seriously do hope the best for you.

But I won't be eternally nothing, I will be something else eventually. I will be forever.

Thanks for the best wishes, and I'm sending them right back at ya. For the record, I don't dislike you, but I absolutely hate the cult you're wrapped up in. Your Gilead is not utopia.

originally posted by: FrothMethod
but, i think maybe in this case we may both be watching for the same things from either side of the ravine.

Actually I wasn't I said: "let's go with the idea of a creator but what if..."

i can conceive a situation where awareness (perhaps could be "built?"), in an ordered system/framework, may (then) be seeded to become self-regulating/evolving and self-aware.
but i myself have not been able to conceive a situation in any system/framework where self-awareness arises "of itself" or coincidentally.

But then you have the problem of how the being doing the seeding became aware. You can't get away from it arising "of itself" at some point.

personally i'm essentially agnostic, and find anyone claiming "proof" of such micro-/macrocosmic concepts rather dubious.

That is odd since our back and forth started after I said cooperton had no "proof" the creator was a "godlike" being, which seems to be something you would be fine with, according to what you are saying here, yet you called me out for doing that.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: TerraLiga

I find more spirituality in the UFO and cryptozoology topics than anywhere on the origins forum.

If you weren't so biased against it you could start to speak the language

What language? Pseudo spirituality and quantum strawmen?

originally posted by: neoholographic
How did matter become aware of itself?

If you asked "when?" I'd say during the coitus of male and female.

a reply to: neoholographic

How did matter become aware of itself?

It didn't, right? "God" made it happen, right? No way that random chemicals could ever combine "randomly" to a level of complexity that could possibly constitute intelligence, right?

I have a suspicion. I think you do as well. Be brave and embrace it.

a reply to: Kreeate

Billions of years of chemical accretion, evolution and natural selection gradually conquering a game of statistical probability is utterly asinine as a theory, but God being entirely self made and self sustaining with all of his reality bending ultra dimensional properties that imbued every atom across every inch of existence with his infinite cosmic genius is a reasonable assumption. 🤷

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Kreeate

Billions of years of chemical accretion, evolution and natural selection gradually conquering a game of statistical probability is utterly asinine as a theory, but God being entirely self made and self sustaining with all of his reality bending ultra dimensional properties that imbued every atom across every inch of existence with his infinite cosmic genius is a reasonable assumption. 🤷

All the gaps must be filled with God for sure. smh

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Kreeate

Billions of years of chemical accretion, evolution and natural selection gradually conquering a game of statistical probability is utterly asinine as a theory, but God being entirely self made and self sustaining with all of his reality bending ultra dimensional properties that imbued every atom across every inch of existence with his infinite cosmic genius is a reasonable assumption. 🤷

It is utterly asinine and that's why you keep making these vacuous statements.

Exactly how did awareness evolve? How did matter become aware of itself? How did matter become aware of the universe and there's laws that govern the universe? How did matter evolve the ability to think about life outside of the universe?

I constantly hear how destructive religion is, if this is the case why didn't atheism win out and why are we all not atheist?

Like I said, give me the mechanism in the brain that evolved awareness and when did this occur? Can we find it in the fossil record?

For millions of years, hominids remained isolated from each other then out of the blue a modern species that wanted to explore came out of Africa.

So when did this species evolve the ability to initiate memory recall? How did the ability for the material brain to tell the material brain what memory it wants the meterial brain to recall evolve? When exactly did this happen? How does the material brain know what neurons to active to recall a memory and where does the signal ome from to initiate the memory you're looking for?

Again, the hubris of man thinks they're the only intellect in the universe that they tell us is most likely infinite and eternal. So we're not even a type 1 civilization and we've been around 10,000 years and we're the beginning and end of intelligence and awareness if you listen to materialist stuck in Plato's cave.

originally posted by: Kreeate

All the gaps must be filled with God for sure. smh

Makes more sense than filling the gaps with random chance evolution

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Kreeate

All the gaps must be filled with God for sure. smh

Makes more sense than filling the gaps with random chance evolution

So a sky fairy is your version of empirical proof?
Show me the verifiable and peer reviewed proof of your version.
Then let us compare that with my version.

Fair play right?

originally posted by: cooperton
Makes more sense than filling the gaps with random chance evolution

And this is the difference between you and those people that can simply separate their religious beliefs from science that I mentioned earlier.

They realize that, in science, random chance evolution is just a placeholder. It is a theory that seems to fit best but it is also just a placeholder that can be challenged and replaced when more data is available.

They also realize that, in their personal philosophy, they can use whatever they want as a placeholder.

originally posted by: Kreeate

So a sky fairy is your version of empirical proof?
Show me the verifiable and peer reviewed proof of your version.
Then let us compare that with my version.

Fair play right?

Great game let's go.

So I am in favor of intelligence. You're apparently in favor of unintelligence. If you can show an example of how intelligence (i.e. humans and the cosmos in general) can come to be from unintelligence I will be open to accepting your theory