Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 148
  1. #101
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,950
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    @ belthazor.. I. Regards to the soul definition. I was using it in a more general term, not a philisiophical, religious way. Like a chicken. Soup for your soul kinda way. People recognize something throughout history that we would label a soul. It is the emotional relational side of life, generally. I was just saying that naturalism doesn't have to reject that.. they just define it different.

    As to naturalism actually appealing to a soul.. I don't know, certainly not I the same sense as religion I was just pointing out that I think they can use the word to refer to their ideas in a consistent way.. I agree that it may be confusing.. but I am just open to it being consistent with naturalism.

    Do theists find it easier to define conciousness. No just defining it differently.

    I agree with the definition point. There are a lit of words in this debate that have interesting imolications. Like trying to appeal to an abstract as a naturalist. As far as I can tell those are mutually exclusive ideas.
    To serve man.

  2. #102
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    895
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    @ belthazor.. I. Regards to the soul definition. I was using it in a more general term, not a philisiophical, religious way. Like a chicken. Soup for your soul kinda way. People recognize something throughout history that we would label a soul. It is the emotional relational side of life, generally. I was just saying that naturalism doesn't have to reject that.. they just define it different.

    As to naturalism actually appealing to a soul.. I don't know, certainly not I the same sense as religion I was just pointing out that I think they can use the word to refer to their ideas in a consistent way.. I agree that it may be confusing.. but I am just open to it being consistent with naturalism.

    Do theists find it easier to define conciousness. No just defining it differently.

    I agree with the definition point. There are a lit of words in this debate that have interesting imolications. Like trying to appeal to an abstract as a naturalist. As far as I can tell those are mutually exclusive ideas.
    If your brain is the receiver of thoughts form your soul, it is still obviously capable of processing those same thoughts even with the limits of chemical reactions. I am not seeing a reason why the brain could not initiate those thoughts that being the case

    ---------- Post added at 06:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:43 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The claim is that there is no mechanism to select correct thoughts from incorrect thoughts, especially in the course of evolutionary history that lead up to our current brains.
    With regards to evolution, correct thoughts are "rewarded" by staying alive and reproducing. Incorrect thoughts that don't affect reproduction aren't relevant in the context of evolution. IOW, you could still have incorrect thoughts, but they don't matter in the ability to stay alive (kinda like we see in everyday human life. We make mistakes all the time in our thought processes, but it only really matters if the mistakes cause our untimely death).
    I'm still not seeing the conflict I guess.

  3. #103
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    895
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    And yet Brain state A does lead to brain state B.
    A logical argument is the appeal to something like the thought of a horse leading to the thought of a bunny. .. only.. you know a logical connection.
    I am not sure this is always true. Sometimes one thought has no connection to the next. I could be gardening and suddenly think about what ice cream tastes like. The thought of gardening in no way lead to thinking about ice cream's taste.

  4. #104
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,950
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    If your brain is the receiver of thoughts form your soul, it is still obviously capable of processing those same thoughts even with the limits of chemical reactions. I am not seeing a reason why the brain could not initiate those thoughts that being the case
    The problem is one of causation. Even granting that the chemicals can cause the ideas, as long as the ideas themselves don't have causative powers (which being immaterial they can not) then immaterial laws such as logic, simply are not at work.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    With regards to evolution, correct thoughts are "rewarded" by staying alive and reproducing.
    False. you have assumed causative powers for thoughts that don't exist. It is correct action that is "rewarded" with life.
    The thoughts behind them are not relevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Incorrect thoughts that don't affect reproduction aren't relevant in the context of evolution. IOW, you could still have incorrect thoughts, but they don't matter in the ability to stay alive (kinda like we see in everyday human life. We make mistakes all the time in our thought processes, but it only really matters if the mistakes cause our untimely death).
    I'm still not seeing the conflict I guess.
    The challenge is that evolution has no way to weed out incorrect thoughts that lead to correct action.
    Which means evolution is not sufficient to explain the astounding lack of incorrect thoughts leading to correct action.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    I am not sure this is always true. Sometimes one thought has no connection to the next.
    That is a false statement given naturalism. Each brain state is directly caused by the one prior (+stimuli). It isn't like one brain state is an uncaused supernatural event.
    To serve man.

  5. #105
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    895
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The problem is one of causation. Even granting that the chemicals can cause the ideas, as long as the ideas themselves don't have causative powers (which being immaterial they can not) then immaterial laws such as logic, simply are not at work.
    God being immaterial then could not cause a soul to live nor grant a soul "powers of access to logic"...

    ---------- Post added at 09:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:43 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    False. you have assumed causative powers for thoughts that don't exist. It is correct action that is "rewarded" with life.
    The thoughts behind them are not relevant.
    Interesting....
    True, correct action is rewarded, but action is a consequence of thought, for no conscious action could result from anything but a thought...

    ---------- Post added at 09:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:47 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The challenge is that evolution has no way to weed out incorrect thoughts that lead to correct action.
    Which means evolution is not sufficient to explain the astounding lack of incorrect thoughts leading to correct action.
    False. Incorrect thoughts that don't relate to reproduction are also not related to evolution.

    Memory of past events is the answer to most of this "dilemma" you are trying to address.

    ---------- Post added at 09:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:51 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is a false statement given naturalism. Each brain state is directly caused by the one prior (+stimuli). It isn't like one brain state is an uncaused supernatural event.
    Can you support that a bit more?

    How would those thoughts be connected if a soul existed??
    It is still a random thought, how does a soul make it more palatable?

  6. #106
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,950
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    God being immaterial then could not cause a soul to live nor grant a soul "powers of access to logic"...
    Worse, on naturalism there is no such thing as god.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Interesting....
    True, correct action is rewarded, but action is a consequence of thought, for no conscious action could result from anything but a thought...
    The problem is that incorrect thought can lead to correct action.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    False. Incorrect thoughts that don't relate to reproduction are also not related to evolution.
    That is part of the problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Memory of past events is the answer to most of this "dilemma" you are trying to address.
    I don't see how. If the memory is of incorrect logic...that doesn't change the problem at all.
    Also, that requires a "Memory" element.. what about before robust memory? How does evolution get to that point?
    Or rather, are you thus agreeing that up to a robust memory development in the brain that the problem is real?

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Can you support that a bit more?
    Neurons fire, causing other neurons to fire. That is one brain state leading to another.
    Granted, some of that brain state is created due to outside stimulie.. light, sound etc.
    Even if we say that a brain state is due to quantum fluctuations, that would still be part of the brain state.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    How would those thoughts be connected if a soul existed??
    Good question.. but not relevant in objections to naturalsim.
    I would say that once we get into the realm of how immaterial things work.. we are outside of our element, as we experience so much in just the physical.
    The answer may be obvious once we die and live in the spirit.
    so.. long winded.. "I don't know specifically".

    I think it is elemental of a will to grasp ideas and handle abstract things like that. The very idea of knowing what one wants, or choose a or -a
    requires one to consider abstract non-physical aspects of ideas. Like the idea of morality. Which is to say one aught to act one way over another.
    if how one acts is just a chemical reaction, necessitated by chemical forces.. It is ludicrous to say that chemicals should not react such and such a way. How delusional would one be to stand on the sea shore and yell at the water "you ought not precipitate!" Yet yelling at a bag of chemical reactions "you should not kill" is not significantly different, even if that bag is dressed up in skin and bone.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    It is still a random thought, how does a soul make it more palatable?
    I don't think it is random. I mean it is caused by the "self".
    To serve man.

  7. #107
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    895
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Worse, on naturalism there is no such thing as god.
    True
    I was making Sqatch'ism:

    "If there are only two possible answers, and we eliminate one, it MUST be the other".
    IOW, you are claiming naturalism is wrong and I wash showing Theism wrong as well for the same reason/s.

    So our "two possible " answers are both wrong...hmmm.....

    ---------- Post added at 05:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:55 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The problem is that incorrect thought can lead to correct action.
    Very true. Why this matters still escapes me. If one survives to reproduce utilizing some incorrect thoughts along the way it matters little. Most thoughts (that matter to survival) will be correct out of necessity or one will not reproduce.

    ---------- Post added at 06:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:59 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The challenge is that evolution has no way to weed out incorrect thoughts that lead to correct action.
    Which means evolution is not sufficient to explain the astounding lack of incorrect thoughts leading to correct action.
    You keep saying this based on a particular incorrect thought could still lead to a positive conclusion. What you leave out is how often this might be the case. One can not continually have incorrect thoughts that result in positive outcomes (from a reproduction point of view). Evolution speaks to "change in populations over time". Incorrect thoughts will generally lead to incorrect outcomes. It is a naturally correcting occurrence.

    ---------- Post added at 06:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:16 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Good question.. but not relevant in objections to naturalsim.
    I would say that once we get into the realm of how immaterial things work.. we are outside of our element, as we experience so much in just the physical.
    The answer may be obvious once we die and live in the spirit.
    so.. long winded.. "I don't know specifically".
    I really appreciate your candor
    I think this whole post of yours has been the most clear of what you are trying to get across.

    But to this particular part of your post:

    Now if we could just have a reason to believe the soul exists (apart from the Bible).

    ---------- Post added at 06:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:20 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't think it is random. I mean it is caused by the "self".
    If there is a soul would not random thoughts be caused by that "self"?
    In what way would it be different?
    Last edited by Belthazor; January 15th, 2019 at 05:48 PM.

  8. #108
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,950
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    True
    I was making Sqatch'ism:

    "If there are only two possible answers, and we eliminate one, it MUST be the other".
    IOW, you are claiming naturalism is wrong and I wash showing Theism wrong as well for the same reason/s.

    So our "two possible " answers are both wrong...hmmm.....
    That the ideas presented here apply the same to Theism, is not what I have been addressing, and would need it's own thread to evaluat IMO.
    but I am open to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Very true. Why this matters still escapes me. If one survives to reproduce utilizing some incorrect thoughts along the way it matters little. Most thoughts (that matter to survival) will be correct out of necessity or one will not reproduce.
    That is not true. There are far, far more incorrect thoughts that would lead to survival. We would thus expect most thoughts connected to survival to be illogical in nature.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    You keep saying this based on a particular incorrect thought could still lead to a positive conclusion. What you leave out is how often this might be the case. One can not continually have incorrect thoughts that result in positive outcomes (from a reproduction point of view). Evolution speaks to "change in populations over time". Incorrect thoughts will generally lead to incorrect outcomes. It is a naturally correcting occurrence.
    Not at all. Again, there is only one correct thought, but infinite number of incorrect thoughts that would lead to reproduction.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    I really appreciate your candor
    I think this whole post of yours has been the most clear of what you are trying to get across.

    But to this particular part of your post:

    Now if we could just have a reason to believe the soul exists (apart from the Bible).
    Well, there is a test.. and everyone takes it.
    It's called death.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    If there is a soul would not random thoughts be caused by that "self"?
    In what way would it be different?
    That would depend on the nature of the self.
    To serve man.

  9. #109
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    895
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That the ideas presented here apply the same to Theism, is not what I have been addressing, and would need it's own thread to evaluat IMO.
    but I am open to that.
    Awesome
    I have never started a thread on ODN, how does it work? IOW, how do you do it?

    But agreed, I will leave this point for a different thread.

    ---------- Post added at 07:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:27 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is not true. There are far, far more incorrect thoughts that would lead to survival. We would thus expect most thoughts connected to survival to be illogical in nature.
    Let's say I agree.

    Whether we have a soul or not, this would still be true....

    Um...guess this should go to the other thread as well....

    ---------- Post added at 07:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:31 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not at all. Again, there is only one correct thought, but infinite number of incorrect thoughts that would lead to reproduction.
    Maybe this is why humans struggle so much with the issues of life...

    ---------- Post added at 07:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:33 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, there is a test.. and everyone takes it.
    It's called death.
    Agreed.
    Though if there is "life after death" (it just defeats the meaning of the words. Reminds me of PC'ness!!! Let me give two more !!'s just for Cowboy there could be communication of such a situation.'
    If dead is dead (like where you were before you were born) then we would expect no communication which is also what we observe or lack observing....

    ---------- Post added at 07:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:37 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That would depend on the nature of the self.
    Would you take another stab at this, I'm not getting it...

  10. #110
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,950
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Would you take another stab at this, I'm not getting it...
    Well, if the self is not capable of random thoughts, like what if the thoughts have to be relevant to the self.
    I mean if we are created, then the creator can put in parameters, so as to make completely random thoughts impossible..... or not.. just saying it depend on the nature of the self.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Agreed.
    Though if there is "life after death" (it just defeats the meaning of the words. Reminds me of PC'ness!!! Let me give two more !!'s just for Cowboy there could be communication of such a situation.'
    If dead is dead (like where you were before you were born) then we would expect no communication which is also what we observe or lack observing....
    No, those are not inherently contradictory words. Once one says that they are a soul and a body. Then death can refer to the death of the body, and life can refer to the life of the soul without the body.
    Only if you define life as purely the physical body, would the terms be contradictory, and as we are referring to a soul.. in that context it isn't.
    As the bible would say flesh give birth to flesh but spirit gives birth to spirit. (john 3:6) paraphrased.
    To serve man.

  11. #111
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    895
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, if the self is not capable of random thoughts, like what if the thoughts have to be relevant to the self.
    I mean if we are created, then the creator can put in parameters, so as to make completely random thoughts impossible..... or not.. just saying it depend on the nature of the self.
    I think this could be at issue with free will.

    ---------- Post added at 05:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:38 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No, those are not inherently contradictory words.
    I said nothing like "contradictory"?

    ---------- Post added at 05:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:39 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No, those are not inherently contradictory words. Once one says that they are a soul and a body. Then death can refer to the death of the body, and life can refer to the life of the soul without the body.
    I understand your contention and perhaps you are correct. My point was, it would render the typically used definition of the word untenable.

    IOW, parts of my body "dying" happens every single day, but if the "mind/soul" lives on past the whole body dying totally, you just aren't really dying are you or the word has to be redefined?
    Your body would not be "you" in this scenario, so it dying only makes it so you can no longer communicate with people who are still "trapped in a body". You are still alive and no real death of a soul occurred.

  12. #112
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    895
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I think this could be at issue with free will.

    ---------- Post added at 05:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:38 PM ----------



    I said nothing like "contradictory"?

    ---------- Post added at 05:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:39 PM ----------



    I understand your contention and perhaps you are correct. My point was, it would render the typically used definition of the word untenable.

    IOW, parts of my body "dying" happens every single day, but if the "mind/soul" lives on past the whole body dying totally, you just aren't really dying are you or the word has to be redefined?
    Your body would not be "you" in this scenario, so it dying only makes it so you can no longer communicate with people who are still "trapped in a body". You are still alive and no real death of a soul occurred.
    Hmmmm, I thought this had at least enough horsepower for a response, but I will take a different shot:


    Some animals appear to have "access to logic":
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...and-analogies/

    "A recent research collaboration between Moscow State University and here at the University of Iowa has discovered that crows exhibit strong behavioral signs of analogical reasoning—the ability to solve puzzles like “bird is to air as fish is to what?” Analogical reasoning is considered to be the pinnacle of cognition and it only develops in humans between the ages of three and four."

    "Furthermore, crows are renowned for crafting and using tools. They can carve thin strips of wood into skewers and bend wires into hooks to collect otherwise inaccessible food."

    I will spare the different tests, but it's an interesting read (even though I don't like crows), another interesting point though is:

    "Not only could the crows correctly perform this task, but they did so spontaneously, from the very first presentations, without ever being trained to do so."

    Many other examples exist, for instance:
    https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/boxplot/chimp-logic

    "Chimpanzees are highly social primates. They form communities with dominance hierarchies and subgroups. But while chimpanzees may be influenced by group mentality, they know a better deal when they see one. Researchers at Wolfgang Kohler Primate Research Center in Germany reported that when presented with a choice between rewards, logic, not popularity, prevailed.

    "Edwin van Leeuwen and colleagues from the MPI's for Psycholinguistics and Evolutionary Anthropology devised an experiment to test the strength of social influences. Picture this: Two vending machines appear in an enclosure shared by two groups of chimpanzees. The minority group is trained in the use of one machine, and the majority group is taught to use the other. Occasionally, a token is thrown into the enclosure, and the groups can trade it in at the appropriate machine for a peanut. Life is good and fair.
    Since things are going so well, the researchers decided to mix things up and see how the groups respond. Suddenly, the minority group's machine started giving out five peanuts for every token. It didn't take long for the majority group to notice that they had been dealt a bad hand, and over time all of the members switched sides and joined the minority group. All except for one, who switched back to the machine he was originally trained in. Though this may, too, have been a reward maximizing strategy, as he was a low ranking member and risked having his peanuts stolen by a more dominant chimp. This way, while he may have had the inferior vending machine, he had it all to himself."

    It is hard to deny the beginnings of logic in animals. The more social the animal in question, the easier to share this information. Then add:
    humans ability to communicate ideas between each other verbally,
    longer lifespan (than most animals)
    leading to more memory of past events.

    It seems the ability to access logic can be observed watching/studying other life evolve over time...

  13. #113
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,950
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Hmmmm, I thought this had at least enough horsepower for a response, but I will take a different shot:
    Yea.. sorry missed it. Or read it and got busy and forgot. Sorry.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    I think this could be at issue with free will.
    So, I have long operated under a slightly different understanding of Free will than is typical.
    I think it is understood in two different statements.
    1) Free will is will that is "self originated"
    2) Free will is the power of contrary choice. So the ability to choose A or -A given the same circumstances.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    I said nothing like "contradictory"?
    Sorry. I think my point was ... see response below

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    I understand your contention and perhaps you are correct. My point was, it would render the typically used definition of the word untenable.

    IOW, parts of my body "dying" happens every single day, but if the "mind/soul" lives on past the whole body dying totally, you just aren't really dying are you or the word has to be redefined?
    Your body would not be "you" in this scenario, so it dying only makes it so you can no longer communicate with people who are still "trapped in a body". You are still alive and no real death of a soul occurred.
    Christianity has long dealt with the idea of death applying both to the body and to the soul, and so there doesn't appear to me to be any issue inherent to the idea of death that limits it to only being applied to the body. Yes, it may take on different contexts, but it is a pretty common application of the idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Some animals appear to have "access to logic":
    First, That doesn't support evolution at all. In that, it doesn't point to evolution in any way.
    Second, Evolution may attempt to explain it, but that explanation would fall to the point I make, as it would only beg the question. My point directly attacks and applies to the how evolution is assumed to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    It seems the ability to access logic can be observed watching/studying other life evolve over time...
    Look, the word "evolve" is a bit of a magic wand used by scientists when ever they want to appeal to some undefined idea.
    In the context here, it doesn't really mean anything. Evolution itself is not some defined "theory" that can be disproved, it is more of a presupposition that is simply set over whatever is being observed.

    -on evolution, kinda going the wrong direction here---
    So, no they have not observed or studied life evolve over time. They have asserted, and question begged, and "Just so storied" evolution over time plenty though.
    For example, observing the social interactions of any particular animal, does not connect them to any other animal on some evolutionary tract. A school of fish is no more related to monkey, just because they can solve the same math problem, then you are related to to the monkeys (assuming all could solve the same math problem). So if your using the story as some support for evolution in your mind..that is just logically fallacious.
    To serve man.

  14. #114
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,292
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    For the uninitiated, what MT is describing here is the so called "Hard Problem of Consciousness", which, in a terribly inadequate nutshell, posits that:
    We cannot account for subjective experiences in the mind by describing the physical processes that give rise to those feelings of subjective experiences. Put another way, even if we could know every physical thing there is to know about a given person, we still could not know what it's like to BE that person.

    Consequently, proponents of the existence of this problem often conclude that this accounts for the existence of something other than physical that gives rise to consciousness - typically something like a "soul".

    There are many ways to consider this problem, but since I can only speak for myself here, the way that resonates most strongly with me is to simply deny that there is a problem.

    If we're talking about conscious experience, we're talking about interactions with the physical world that impact the state of our brains. Since this thread is centered on our access to logic, consider that logic is often informed by our so-called "intuition" about the world; things often simply make sense or they don't. Our intuitions about the world and the "logical" intuition we have about are simply another kind of feeling; another kind of experience.

    Smell something you enjoy, your brain responds positively. Smell something you dislike, your brain responds negatively. If you feel pain, you recoil. If you feel pleasure, you embrace it. Hear a song; have a conversation; see an attractive person; laugh at a joke; feel sorry for a sad event; get awestruck by a majestic scene; read a book; paint a picture; write a song; fall in love; ALL of these things are experiences that WOULD NOT happen if they didn't have an impact on your brain. Moreover, if you damage parts of the brain, its capacity for conscious experience is often diminished. It can also be diminished by disease, drugs, etc. Damage it enough, and consciousness stops altogether.

    And because all of these experiences absolutely depend on the existence and proper function of the brain, it doesn't appear that there needs to be anything extra to account for conscious experience. That's not to say that there's a full account of the mechanics that give rise to consciousness, but, again, there doesn't appear to be the need for anything extra - or anything "beyond" the physical - to account for it.

    Consider that just 80 or so years ago there wasn't a clear distinction between "alive" and "not alive", and some philosophers suggested that living things needed something extra to animate them - again, some proponents believed that accounted for the existence of "souls" (re: "Vitalism"). Now the distinction between a living and a non-living thing is about as well-understood as anything in science and, consequently, you don't hear much about vitalism anymore. So it seems to me that the "Hard Problem of Consciousness" is really just vitalism pushed into another space where the explanation for a given phenomenon is incomplete.

    Here's an interesting debate/discussion on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoZsAsgOSes
    That is a great description. This reminds me of the watchmakers theory/analogy. In the watchmaker's analogy, it is implied that man is based on a design and, therefore, needs a designer. The premise is that man is based on a design although, to my knowledge, no blueprint has ever been uncovered. For the hard problem of consciousness, the faulty (or arguable) premise is that we could ever possibly know every physical detail of anyone. When one considers that this would involve knowing each and every neuron in a person's brain which is estimated at 100 billion, and we can clearly see that this premise is simply unknowable and impossible to fathom.

    In both theories, Christians sort of skim over a fairly flimsy premise in order to arrive at their foregone conclusion.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  15. #115
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,950
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by IBELSD
    That is a great description. This reminds me of the watchmakers theory/analogy. In the watchmaker's analogy, it is implied that man is based on a design and, therefore, needs a designer. The premise is that man is based on a design although, to my knowledge, no blueprint has ever been uncovered. For the hard problem of consciousness, the faulty (or arguable) premise is that we could ever possibly know every physical detail of anyone. When one considers that this would involve knowing each and every neuron in a person's brain which is estimated at 100 billion, and we can clearly see that this premise is simply unknowable and impossible to fathom.

    In both theories, Christians sort of skim over a fairly flimsy premise in order to arrive at their foregone conclusion.
    So the the watchmaker analogy, is one that tries to draw out natures relationship to information. It isn't a blue-print that is lacking, we actually have access to the blue print, that is called DNA. So the obvious challenge is where did the information contained in the DNA come from. The reason the clock is used, is because it is pretty intuitively recognized that high level information (like a clock) doesn't come about through natural processes. As the video below points out, this is used all the time in relation to crime investigation.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4uR...&index=11&t=0s
    5:15 Starts to talk about the 5 levels of information.

    Now what this thread does, is point out the inherent issue between mechanical processes and their access to information. There is no need to know every neuron, because that is not relevant to the objection.
    I would be very interested to see how it is relevant or why 100% knowledge is necessary, like what relevant factor is not taken into account in the objection. Lacking that, the assertion that it is a flimsy premise, is nothing more than an opinion statement, and not a reflection of any argument that can be addressed.
    To serve man.

  16. #116
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    895
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So, I have long operated under a slightly different understanding of Free will than is typical.
    I think it is understood in two different statements.
    1) Free will is will that is "self originated"
    2) Free will is the power of contrary choice. So the ability to choose A or -A given the same circumstances.
    Ok, I think I am down with this definition/s.
    How does it relate to:
    "Well, if the self is not capable of random thoughts, like what if the thoughts have to be relevant to the self."
    I mean if we are created, then the creator can put in parameters, so as to make completely random thoughts impossible..... or not.. just saying it depend on the nature of the self."

    If God is "hard wiring" people so random thoughts are not possible, I just sense an infringement on consciousness. Creativity would/could be limited it seems?

    ---------- Post added at 05:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:19 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Christianity has long dealt with the idea of death applying both to the body and to the soul, and so there doesn't appear to me to be any issue inherent to the idea of death that limits it to only being applied to the body. Yes, it may take on different contexts, but it is a pretty common application of the idea.
    Yes I understand Christianity sees a soul and body (that is my issue as I'm struggling to justify belief in a soul). My point is, death of the body matters little compared to the death of a soul to the point death of the body matters not at all. I see no reason to even call it death as very little has changed.
    If you are still you (alive) after your body dies what has really changed? It reminds me of getting to choose your gender, now we get to choose if we are actually "dead"...

    ---------- Post added at 05:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:26 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    First, That doesn't support evolution at all. In that, it doesn't point to evolution in any way.
    Second, Evolution may attempt to explain it, but that explanation would fall to the point I make, as it would only beg the question. My point directly attacks and applies to the how evolution is assumed to work.
    1st. We see simple life with no access to logic. As life becomes more complex we do see access to logic building in stages. This does support evolution.
    2nd. Let us make sure we are both thinking the same thing when using the word evolution. When we see chihuahuas and st bernards and realize they have wolves for ancestors, we are seeing what evolution describes. Agreed?

    ---------- Post added at 05:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:39 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So, no they have not observed or studied life evolve over time. They have asserted, and question begged, and "Just so storied" evolution over time plenty though.
    For example, observing the social interactions of any particular animal, does not connect them to any other animal on some evolutionary tract. A school of fish is no more related to monkey, just because they can solve the same math problem, then you are related to to the monkeys (assuming all could solve the same math problem). So if your using the story as some support for evolution in your mind..that is just logically fallacious.
    This is not totally correct. To wit:
    "A school of fish is no more related to monkey"

    All life on earth shares a common ancestor. So mushrooms are related to human's. We all share DNA from a past earlier, simpler life form.
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...mmon-ancestor/
    "Despite the difficulties of formally testing evolution—especially back across the eons to the emergence of life itself—Theobald was able to run rigorous statistical analyses on the amino acid sequences in 23 universally conserved proteins across the three major divisions of life (eukaryotes, bacteria and archaea). By plugging these sequences into various relational and evolutionary models, he found that a universal common ancestor is at least 10^2,860 more likely to have produced the modern-day protein sequence variances than even the next most probable scenario (involving multiple separate ancestors).*"

    What about evolution is bothering you?
    Last edited by Belthazor; January 23rd, 2019 at 05:59 PM.

  17. #117
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,950
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    If God is "hard wiring" people so random thoughts are just not possible I just sense an infringement on consciousness. Creativity would/could be limited it seems?
    I don't see how that would be a problem. I don't think free will implies a necessity for randomness.
    And again, I'm not taking a position on what level of randomness is built into the self. I mean, suppose we can choose to be random in our creative capacity.
    Like if I say "think of something" that you can think of something absolutely random. But if I say think of something, and there are parameters, that doesn't really infringe on free will.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Yes I understand Christianity sees a soul and body (that is my issue as I'm struggling to justify belief in a soul). My point is, death of the body matters little compared to the death of a soul to the point death of the body matters not at all. I see no reason to even call it death as very little has changed.
    If you are still you (alive) after your body dies what has really changed? It reminds me of getting to choose your gender, now we get to choose if we are actually "dead"...
    Well, considering Christians (at least me) believe in a bodily resurrection. As in, you die but one day I will get a perfected body... (which I only assume will have abs and being to consume mass quantities of donuts without losing said abs). I don't think it is insignificant.
    Especially if we are created to be 3 parts (body/mind/spirit).

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    1st. We see simple life with no access to logic. As life becomes more complex we do see access to logic building in stages.
    "simple life" is a evolution spin word. There is nothing simple about any life.
    Second "becomes more complex" is another evolution word. So your just question begging. There is no observation of life becoming more complex. Rather the opposite.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    2nd. Let us make sure we are both thinking the same thing when using the word evolution. When we see chihuahuas and st bernards and realize they have wolves for ancestors, we are seeing what evolution describes. Agreed?
    No.
    1) Because no information is being created, only destroyed. Information creation is the central tenant of evolution.
    2) Because, while that sort of thing is expected within evolution, that is only small sliver of what evolution is talking about. Specifically because evolution is talking about the event of new species creation. Which is not what we are observing in the dog example.

    So basically, evolution speaks of a 1million mile journey and the dog example is like 2 inches. To call that evolution is a hasty generalization and an over simplification of evolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    All life on earth shares a common ancestor. So mushrooms are related to human's. We all share DNA from a past earlier, simpler life form.
    Speaking evolution like.. yes and no.
    What I mean is. That doesn't show evolutionary relation. It is possible that they had a common ancestor, but aren't evolutionary linked. So the fish did not become a monkey through evolution, and thus developed through evolution the same ability to do the math problem in unconnected ways.

    So.. my point would stand that the ability to do the math, doesn't support a relation.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    "Despite the difficulties of formally testing evolution—especially back across the eons to the emergence of life itself—Theobald was able to run rigorous statistical analyses on the amino acid sequences in 23 universally conserved proteins across the three major divisions of life (eukaryotes, bacteria and archaea). By plugging these sequences into various relational and evolutionary models, he found that a universal common ancestor is at least 10^2,860 more likely to have produced the modern-day protein sequence variances than even the next most probable scenario (involving multiple separate ancestors).*"
    What do you think this means or supports?
    I to me it appears he is comparing evolution to evolution. That isn't proof of evolution. It also seems to lack some context.
    Like, specifically regarding the likely hood that it happened at all. (Hint it's insanely mind boggling unlikely... so unlikely it would be proof of God if it occurred)

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    What about evolution is bothering you?
    1) It's pretty preposterous. I mean, while atheist will berate Christians for appealing to miracles. Atheists will then turn around and accept miracles in the name of science.
    an example. An evolutionist proposed bubbles as the cause of the first cell formation. Bubbles dude. I'm not talking about like tests and experiments showing how well bubbles cause X or Y.
    I'm talking about some scientist writing a book say "yea, bubbles man... bubbles". Take just a half step back, and it's pretty preposterous.

    2) It isn't a theory, it is an idea that gets inserted over everything and then called a theory.
    It then allows very imaginative people to come up with .. whatever they want. A blank slate.
    So, everyone everywhere gets to say X evolved from Y, and does so with all sorts of inconsistencies with each other. Then refer to each other as a "theory of evolution".

    3) The basic assumption is that information is created naturally. Specifically high order information, yet we don't see that.. anywhere.

    4) The language is tricky and used to deceive.
    Now, I'm not saying you are doing this. However in your response you switched language and assumed evolution to prove evolution.
    While for you it is was just a logical error, for evolution as applied it is tricky language that can be abused to deceive.

    For example. Does evolution occur?
    Well what are we going to talk about ?
    Chemical evolution (how we got all the elements, especially the heavy ones through natural processes?)
    Micro evolution (How bacteria work or dogs)
    Macro evolution (How dirt turns into you over generations)

    .. there are what 7 different evolution to talk about..but they get lumped together and naturalism needs them all.


    .. anyway.. that just off the top of my head.
    To serve man.

  18. #118
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    895
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Like if I say "think of something" that you can think of something absolutely random. But if I say think of something, and there are parameters, that doesn't really infringe on free will.
    This sounds like the situation you describe of a limited number of chemical reactions possible in the brain. Only in this scenario, thoughts are being limited not chemical reactions...

    ---------- Post added at 05:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:10 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, considering Christians (at least me) believe in a bodily resurrection. As in, you die but one day I will get a perfected body... (which I only assume will have abs and being to consume mass quantities of donuts without losing said abs). I don't think it is insignificant.
    Especially if we are created to be 3 parts (body/mind/spirit).
    Interesting, I have always heard you are only spirit in heaven (no male/female-ness).

    No offense to your donuts hypothesis, but I have never really heard anyone speak of needing to eat in Heaven (of course I suppose you might "get to eat" if that's your thing)

    ---------- Post added at 05:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:14 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    "simple life" is a evolution spin word. There is nothing simple about any life.
    Let me try to unspin then.
    Fossil records show the earliest life on earth were a single cell. No nervous system, brain, organs, limbs, etc.
    Life today shows a much more complicated forms as well.

    You are correct and I agree, there is actually nothing simple about life in general.

    ---------- Post added at 05:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:21 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    There is no observation of life becoming more complex. Rather the opposite.
    We have observed life getting less complex?
    (in ways other than the liberal mindset)

    Do you have examples?

    ---------- Post added at 05:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:23 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So basically, evolution speaks of a 1million mile journey and the dog example is like 2 inches. To call that evolution is a hasty generalization and an over simplification of evolution.

    We can see in a relatively small number of generations, dramatic changes in dogs when guided by humans. It isn't so far fetched that countless generations over billions of years could produce even more dramatic results.

    Add to that dogs and mushrooms share DNA from a common ancestor it even makes it seem like common sense.

    ---------- Post added at 05:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:29 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Speaking evolution like.. yes and no.
    What I mean is. That doesn't show evolutionary relation. It is possible that they had a common ancestor, but aren't evolutionary linked. So the fish did not become a monkey through evolution, and thus developed through evolution the same ability to do the math problem in unconnected ways.
    ABSOLUTELY, a "fish did not become a monkey" and evolution supports/claims no such thing!

    A common ancestor means their great, great, great (add billions of greats) grandparents were the same though! So quite distant relatives, but related none the less!

    ---------- Post added at 05:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:35 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    What do you think this means or supports?
    It is showing the statistical likelihood of today's "life" more likely from one (first) form of vs more than one original life form.

    ---------- Post added at 05:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:39 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    1) It's pretty preposterous. I mean, while atheist will berate Christians for appealing to miracles. Atheists will then turn around and accept miracles in the name of science.
    an example. An evolutionist proposed bubbles as the cause of the first cell formation.
    1st. That a person claims themselves an "evolutionist", does not necessarily mean they speak to/for the theory of evolution!

    2nd. The theory of evolution never, ever, ever speaks to the origin of life, at all!!

    ---------- Post added at 05:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:43 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    For example. Does evolution occur?
    Well what are we going to talk about ?
    Chemical evolution (how we got all the elements, especially the heavy ones through natural processes?).
    No not chemical's per se, but life and how it changed over vast time frames (but certainly NOT what started life in the first place. God is completely compatible with evolution).

    A simple definition of evolution:
    https://www.britannica.com/science/e...entific-theory
    Evolution, theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. The theory of
    evolution is one of the fundamental keystones of modern biological theory."

    The origins of life remain a mystery to science as we speak, but how life has changed over time is pretty well documented.
    Last edited by Belthazor; January 24th, 2019 at 06:34 PM.

  19. #119
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,950
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    This sounds like the situation you describe of a limited number of chemical reactions possible in the brain. Only in this scenario, thoughts are being limited not chemical reactions...
    The chemical limitations pose a specific problem that doesn't apply to any kind of parameters on thought itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Interesting, I have always heard you are only spirit in heaven (no male/female-ness).

    No offense to your donuts hypothesis, but I have never really heard anyone speak of needing to eat in Heaven (of course I suppose you might "get to eat" if that's your thing)
    You have to look at Jesus resurrected. He returns, and eats dinner with some. The point being that He has a very physical body, and it is his physical body that is taken to heaven.
    This is the same kind of resurrection that the Jews are talking about in the bible when Jesus tells Lazerous' sister that he will be raised again. She says Yea, sure in the last day.. but he is kinda dead right now.
    Finally, there is the whole idea of a wedding feast. The brid being the church, the groome being Christ. That is kinda a literal thing (or at least many understand it that way).
    So, as you read the bible think about the resurrection and what they are talking about and mean by it.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHZOR
    Fossil records show the earliest life on earth were a single cell.
    Not really I mean, that is how evolution interprets the data, but that is not the inherent conclusion or implication of the data itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    We have observed life getting less complex?
    (in ways other than the liberal mindset)

    Do you have examples?
    Your dog example is a pretty obvious one.
    Each breed signifies a loss of genetic information. Like you may be able to take one large breed and make it into some smaller breed, but you wouldn't be able to backtrack that end breed back into it's original.
    That is because genetic information is being lost in the process.

    That is also the same thing we see with mutations. The represent loss of information.
    the ultimate reason for that, is that it is genetically easier to adapt through destruction than creation.
    Like Milaria Vs Genetic answers to it. Such as sickle cell (which makes one immune to malaria virus).
    It's a loss of genetic information, not creation of new systems or information.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    We can see in a relatively small number of generations, dramatic changes in dogs when guided by humans. It isn't so far fetched that countless generations over billions of years could produce even more dramatic results.
    Sure there is.
    first there is the time problem.
    Dogs have been directed through intelligent breeding. How much time would that be represented to take place naturally? IE how much evolutionary time did man simulate?
    Now I know you don't know the answer, but it seems that such an answer would be highly relevant to your claim that we could expect more dramatic results with more time.
    For example, suppose that we simulated 100k years of evolution.. then your claim may have merrit. But what if we simulated 20billion years of evolution..
    Then your claim is ridiculous, and dogs would stand as evidence against evolution not for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Add to that dogs and mushrooms share DNA from a common ancestor it even makes it seem like common sense.
    Not common sense at all. Well, no more than common blue prints imply a common intelligent creator.

    The problem assumption in evolution is that similar things are evolutionary connected. Like this has 3 bones, and that has 3 bones.. so this and that must be related.
    That reasoning is shown to be false all the time. Sure evolutionists just work out some other connection.. but that is what human imagination is good for. Which is why the theory of evolution(as in macro and chemical) remains more in the imagination then in reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    ABSOLUTELY, a "fish did not become a monkey" and evolution supports/claims no such thing!
    That wasn't the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    A common ancestor means their great, great, great (add billions of greats) grandparents were the same though! So quite distant relatives, but related none the less!
    So, your missing the point I was making. The point was that, it could have developed separately (according to evolution) so it isn't proof of relation.
    Like for example, evolution proposes that Flight was developed at least 4 separate times in unrelated evolutionary chains. So there an ultimate common ansester is assumed, but not in relation to flight.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    It is showing the statistical likelihood of today's "life" more likely from one (first) form of vs more than one original life form.
    1) Only statistical according to their model. Which means there are loads of assumptions.
    2) It is as I said a evolution vs evolution comparison.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    1st. That a person claims themselves an "evolutionist", does not necessarily mean they speak to/for the theory of evolution!
    Well, it isn't like its a fake. I mean it was an honest attempt from the evolution POV.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    2nd. The theory of evolution never, ever, ever speaks to the origin of life, at all!!
    That is just a single definition of evolution. In that, It is still proper to say the universe evolved life and all it's diversity.
    So, your just picking one definition of evolution to imply that any other is improper. .. but that just isn't the case.
    I bet if I googled "life evolved" I could find all sorts of qualified evolutionists speaking on the subject as though it was totally in line with an idea of "evolution".


    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    No not chemical's per se, but life and how it changed over vast time frames (but certainly NOT what started life in the first place. God is completely compatible with evolution).
    The point of the link below is that your statement "certainly not what started life" is incorrect.
    chemical evolution is a thing, and while it may be excluded when the word "evolution" is being used, that doesn't seem to be a necessary distinction, rather just a practical one based on a particular field of study.
    Instead, they seem to be directly related. Especially to those that deny special creation. If one is going to say that evolution is the best explanation for all life, that statement must account for the start of life as well necessarily.

    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/chemical-evolution
    Quote Originally Posted by link
    The formation of complex organic molecules (see also organic molecule) from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions in the oceans during the early history of the Earth; the first step in the development of life on this planet. The period of chemical evolution lasted less than a billion years.
    To serve man.

  20. #120
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    895
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The chemical limitations pose a specific problem that doesn't apply to any kind of parameters on thought itself.
    No, I meant if God set "parameters" prohibiting random thoughts (for instance), it would limit the amount the amount of thoughts available.
    (like chemical reactions would limit the possible number of thoughts available.)

    ---------- Post added at 04:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:41 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You have to look at Jesus resurrected. He returns, and eats dinner with some....
    I get what you are saying and don't necessarily disagree. It is just not what I am used to hearing from a Christian.

    ---------- Post added at 05:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:43 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    T
    Your dog example is a pretty obvious one.
    Each breed signifies a loss of genetic information. Like you may be able to take one large breed and make it into some smaller breed, but you wouldn't be able to backtrack that end breed back into it's original.
    That is because genetic information is being lost
    I don't think this is totally correct. Could you support information is lost?
    After all, the only thing people did was select dogs that exhibited a preferred trait and let it mate with another dog that also exhibited this trait. As this still continues today, why would it be impossible to select dogs that exhibit traits form their ancestors?

    In the lab humans starting to turn back the "clock" on life. "Chickenosauris" may one day be with us....
    https://www.livescience.com/50886-sc...o-chicken.html


    Maybe we should discuss plants (since the same "rules " apply in general) because people will go from dogs to humans and get emotional. Did you know cauliflower and broccoli came from the same "plant", guided by humans?
    http://beingabiologist.blogspot.com/...come-from.html

    "In the same way, Domestication of the wild cabbage has led to the evolution of the Cole family. Cabbage, Broccoli, Cauliflower, Brussels sprouts, Kale, Kohlrabi all belong to the same family and have originated from the wild type cabbage. They have originated through the artificial selection"

    ---------- Post added at 05:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:02 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not common sense at all. Well, no more than common blue prints imply a common intelligent creator.
    As I said, there is nothing about evolution that is NOT compatible with God/creation.

    My point was more like a common ancestor does show a direct relationship. So if you take your family history book back far enough, you have a mushroom for a relative.

    ---------- Post added at 05:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:08 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So, your missing the point I was making. The point was that, it could have developed separately (according to evolution) so it isn't proof of relation.
    Like for example, evolution proposes that Flight was developed at least 4 separate times in unrelated evolutionary chains. So there an ultimate common ansester is assumed, but not in relation to flight.
    I don't think I am. All life is related, so your point is off slightly.
    Ok, say flight developed four different times. The ability to fly does not in any way make said life related, why would it? Take DNA from each of these four occasions and you will see they ALL share a common ancestry. Their abilities don't make life related, common ancestors does.

    ---------- Post added at 05:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:14 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The point of the link below is that your statement "certainly not what started life" is incorrect.
    When the term "evolution" is commonly used, it would be quite a stretch to use your link as the definition (even if it was, you know that is not what I am forwarding so to really wouldn't matter, as I am not defending that claim).

    What you are referring to is:
    https://www.britannica.com/science/abiogenesis
    "Abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth."

    Abiogenesis is discussing how life originated.
    Evolution is discussing what happened after life came to be.

    This is what I will defend, not that somehow evolution involves the origin of life, because I don't think evolution speaks to this.

 

 
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Mind Trap's
    By MindTrap028 in forum Logical Riddles & Puzzles
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: November 26th, 2011, 03:22 PM
  2. Mind Trap #1
    By MindTrap028 in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: June 13th, 2009, 05:44 PM
  3. Mind Trap VS The Dog
    By MindTrap028 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: March 24th, 2009, 10:49 PM
  4. Mind Trap Got hit
    By MindTrap028 in forum Entertainment
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: January 21st, 2008, 04:08 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •