Guest Mike Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <5eklksF39dc2mU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> >> >> snip >> >>> If people choose not to believe the information in the Bible, that is >>> their choice. According to the Time Almanac (2005), 1.9 billion people are >>> Christians so they do believe the information in the Bible. >> So? That doesn't make it true. > > Many of the advocates of evolution believe that life evolved from > non-life. That doesn't make it true. No, they don't. Jason, please quit lying so blatantly. You know you've been told over and over again that evolution and abiogenesis are two seperate processes and life doesn't 'evolve' from non-life (although it did form from non-life and even you agreed to that.) Quote
Guest James Norris Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Jun 30, 4:26 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 3:25?am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > On Jun 30, 1:55 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > > > Design for a Conscious Mechanoid > > > [Just to deter the predictable 'define what you mean by conscious' > > posting: 'Conscious' means 'aware of reality' - a human being is > > conscious, but a piece of paper is not conscious. If there is still a > > problem with understanding the word 'conscious', try using a > > dictionary.] > > > Start off with millions of identical ordinary (non-conscious) robots. > > Each robot is pre-programmed to collect things from the environment at > > random (twigs, elastic bands, teadcups, wheels, orange peel etc), and > > incorporate them into itself, gradually replacing all its original > > component parts as it does so. Now let the robots free to interact > > with the environment, and watch what happens. > > > Most of the robots would cease to function quite rapidly, of course. > > They might replace one of their vital components (the computer > > program, for example), with a piece of orange peel and immediately > > stop working permanently. Some might continue to function for quite a > > while, making meaningless minor alterations to their original > > structure, without affecting their basic operation as a programmed > > mechanical device, which we knew to be non-conscious. We can ignore > > robots which have replaced themselves with biological material which > > was already conscious, because that is obviously not what we are > > interested in. > > > The robots we are interested in are those which manage to replace all > > their constituent components, including their original computer > > hardware and software, but are still functioning. They, like > > ourselves, have been created out of material from the environment, so > > they might be conscious, as we are. > > > A certain amount of complexity is required for consciousness, and this > > could be provided, for example, by using the twigs to twang the > > elastic bands - the vibrational properties of the elastic bands could > > easily carry any complexity necessary for the occurrence of thought. > > For that to happen by chance is extremely unlikely of course, as is > > the likelihood of millions of monkeys randomly operating typewriters > > producing the occasional Shakespeare sonnet by chance, but if you left > > them long enough, they would eventually do it! > > > Consciousness is a subjective experience, so there is no way of > > determining whether or not anything or anybody is conscious. In the > > design above, the construction allows the possibility that > > consciousness might occur in a device which was originally non- > > conscious. The random self-modifying behaviour may have led to a > > wheeled mechanism made out of orange peel, teacups and elastic bands > > held together with bits of wood, with its understanding of reality > > contained in the vibrational processes occurring in the twig-twanged > > elastic bands, which wanders around in the natural environment > > apparently decorating itself with the bits of garbage it picks up. > > Perhaps the device has improved on its original design and is now > > conscious? At any rate, it certainly wouldn't be less conscious than > > it was to begin with. > > > James Norris > > > > > > I read your thread. Was it a satirical portrayal of atheist > > > > > "reasoning"? > > > > > No, it was a design for a conscious entity, neither biological nor > > > > computer-based. > > > > > > I especially liked the bit: > > > > > > "A certain amount of complexity is required for consciousness, and > > > > > this could be provided, for example, by using the twigs to twang the > > > > > elastic bands - the vibrational properties of the elastic bands could > > > > > easily carry any complexity necessary for the occurrence of thought." > > > > > > You could imagine atheists setting themselves up as authorities on > > > > > which tunes played on a guitar gave rise to consciousness, and whether > > > > > one string, or all the strings, or the whole guitar had the > > > > > experiences. They could debate on to what extent they could > > > > > anthropomorphise the conscious experience a certain song gave. > > > > > The notion of vibrations carrying information was an example of how > > > > the necessary complexity for 'thoughts' might arise in the mechanism. > > > > I understand from your earlier postings that you believe that human > > > > beings have a non-physical 'soul', so I'm not sure why you think my > > > > suggestion is so laughable. > > > > > > Though the part where you said, "consciousness is a subjective > > > > > experience, so there is no way of determining whether or not anything > > > > > or anybody is conscious", did illustrate that from an atheist > > > > > perspective there would be no experimental difference expected whether > > > > > something was or wasn't consciously experiencing, which is something a > > > > > few of them here are having problems coming to terms with. > > > > > I don't know why you pick on atheists in particular as having a > > > > problem with the unverifiability of subjective experiences, but > > > > anyway, perhaps many of us do - I personally don't. > > > > > > Still, very amusing, assuming of course you weren't being serious, and > > > > > an absolute nutter. > > > > > An absolute nutter in your opinion might be someone who believed that > > > > they had four souls, rather than just the one, I suppose. > > > > > The Design for a Conscious Mechanoid is quite serious - a hypothetical > > > > example of how a constructed 'mechanical' (ie non-biological) being > > > > might be conscious. I'm not suggesting that it would ever work in > > > > reality, any more than that a million monkeys typing on a million > > > > typewriters for a million years to produce the works of Shakespeare > > > > would ever work in reality. The example draws attention to the > > > > salient aspects of an interesting question. I'm glad you found it > > > > amusing though. I always try to make my postings interesting and > > > > memorable, and humour is a well-known didactic tool. > > > > The problem with no experimental difference expected whether something > > > was or wasn't consciously experiencing, is that it means whether it > > > was or wasn't, couldn't be thought to influence behaviour. If that was > > > the case, it would have to be a coincidence that our behaviour > > > expressed the conscious experiences we actually have (it couldn't have > > > been influenced by their existance). > > > You are trying to discuss consciousness using behavioural concepts. > > The behavioural understanding of the psyche has little to say about > > consciousness - the brain reacts to external stimuli and produces > > behaviour in the organism, which is studied to give an understanding > > of the workings of the brain. Cognitive models of consciousness, > > which you should look into as they might help you express your > > argument, are inside-out compared to the behavioural viewpoint. The > > 'mind' (which is believed to exist because of processes occurring in > > the brain) is considered as an Ego, with Superego, Id and various > > other paraphernalia, and these all contribute to goal-directed > > behaviour caused by subjective 'needs' which the conscious being tries > > to satisfy. > > > > Anyway, interesting post. So have you any thoughts on which tunes > > > played on a guitar might be give rise to, the string(s) or the guitar > > > thinking? Any thoughts on what those thoughts might be? I ask you, as > > > I guess you would be the closest thing to a world authority on the > > > concept, or have you got competition? > > No, you haven't really grasped the point about the vibrations in the > example. I was just pointing out that a certain amount of complexity > is required for consciousness, so complexity is needed somewhere in > the mechanoid. Vibrating systems can contain information of arbitrary > complexity - they don't have to be made out of physical elastic > bands. Vibrations occur in strings in general, these could be the > theoretical strings of string-theory, or hair-like cilia made from > millions of tiny pinheads all oscillating in a plasma field, if you > think elastic bands are too primitive a device to be worth > considering. Some people think that Mobius strips are weirdly clever > - perhaps if millions of elastic bands were Mobius strips interacting > in a complex 3-d lattice, with carefully placed twigs and twiglets to > provide the necessary resonance and feedback effects, it would be > rather more likely to have the necessary complexity for conscious > awareness of reality, than using just the one guitar string that you > suggest? Discuss. Jim On Jun 30, 12:17?pm, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <5eklksF39dc2...@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > > <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > > >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> > > >> snip > > >>> If people choose not to believe the information in the Bible, that is > >>> their choice. According to the Time Almanac (2005), 1.9 billion people are > >>> Christians so they do believe the information in the Bible. > >> So? That doesn't make it true. > > > Many of the advocates of evolution believe that life evolved from > > non-life. That doesn't make it true. > > No, they don't. Jason, please quit lying so blatantly. You know you've > been told over and over again that evolution and abiogenesis are two > seperate processes and life doesn't 'evolve' from non-life (although it > did form from non-life and even you agreed to that.) Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1183168962.712319.241720@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 30, 4:37 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <BRdhi.18042$19.4...@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >>> <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >>>> news:Jason-2906071317290001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>>> In article <DHchi.6375$09.4...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >>>>> <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:Jason-2906071053290001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>>>>> In article <5eklksF39dc2...@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >>>>>>> <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> >>>>>>>> snip >>>>>>>>> If people choose not to believe the information in the Bible, that >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> their choice. According to the Time Almanac (2005), 1.9 billion >>>>>>>>> people >>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>> Christians so they do believe the information in the Bible. >>>>>>>> So? That doesn't make it true. >>>>>>> Many of the advocates of evolution believe that life evolved from >>>>>>> non-life. That doesn't make it true. >>>>>> Nice subject shift there Jason. >>>>> Thanks for the compliment. >>>> No problem. I checked your posting history Jason, and I see that you > go back >>>> to 2005 with the bullshit you have been posting here. Same MO, same > results. >>>> You need to get closer to Jesus. >>> You have to much free time on your hands. I was hoping that scientists had >>> found some new evidence since 2005 but I was wrong. One poster referred me >>> to a site which indicated that a scientist had been able to design an >>> experment that caused genetic material to be developed from non-genetic >>> material. That was an interesting experiment. However, as you know, there >>> is a vast amount of difference between genetic material and Life. >> Really? Explain to us, oh great fountain of scientific knowledge, >> what exactly is the difference between something which is alive and >> something which reproduces itself chemically? What qualities do your >> individual cells possess that cause you to say they are "alive"? >> >> The evidence that you requested is already available but you lack the >> scientific know-how to realize it and so you dismiss it out of hand >> even after promising you wouldn't! >> >> Martin > > Martin, > Thanks for the compliment. Jason, you're about the only person I know that thanks someone for an insult. Apparently you don't even know extreme sarcasm when you read it. I will believe that life can evolve from > non-life when I read an article about it in National Geographic Magazine, > the ICR newsletter, The Discover Magazine or on the Oral Roberts > University website. No, you won't. You've already said your mind is made up and no evidence will change it. Please quit lying so blatantly. Quote
Guest James Norris Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Jun 30, 12:28?pm, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <1183168962.712319.241...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> On Jun 30, 4:37 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>> In article <BRdhi.18042$19.4...@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > >>> <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >>>>news:Jason-2906071317290001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >>>>> In article <DHchi.6375$09.4...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > >>>>> <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >>>>>>news:Jason-2906071053290001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >>>>>>> In article <5eklksF39dc2...@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > >>>>>>> <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> > >>>>>>>> snip > >>>>>>>>> If people choose not to believe the information in the Bible, that > >>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>> their choice. According to the Time Almanac (2005), 1.9 billion > >>>>>>>>> people > >>>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>> Christians so they do believe the information in the Bible. > >>>>>>>> So? That doesn't make it true. > >>>>>>> Many of the advocates of evolution believe that life evolved from > >>>>>>> non-life. That doesn't make it true. > >>>>>> Nice subject shift there Jason. > >>>>> Thanks for the compliment. > >>>> No problem. I checked your posting history Jason, and I see that you > > go back > >>>> to 2005 with the bullshit you have been posting here. Same MO, same > > results. > >>>> You need to get closer to Jesus. > >>> You have to much free time on your hands. I was hoping that scientists had > >>> found some new evidence since 2005 but I was wrong. One poster referred me > >>> to a site which indicated that a scientist had been able to design an > >>> experment that caused genetic material to be developed from non-genetic > >>> material. That was an interesting experiment. However, as you know, there > >>> is a vast amount of difference between genetic material and Life. > >> Really? Explain to us, oh great fountain of scientific knowledge, > >> what exactly is the difference between something which is alive and > >> something which reproduces itself chemically? What qualities do your > >> individual cells possess that cause you to say they are "alive"? > > >> The evidence that you requested is already available but you lack the > >> scientific know-how to realize it and so you dismiss it out of hand > >> even after promising you wouldn't! > > >> Martin > > > Martin, > > Thanks for the compliment. > > Jason, you're about the only person I know that thanks someone for an > insult. Apparently you don't even know extreme sarcasm when you read it. > > I will believe that life can evolve from > > > non-life when I read an article about it in National Geographic Magazine, > > the ICR newsletter, The Discover Magazine or on the Oral Roberts > > University website. > > No, you won't. You've already said your mind is made up and no evidence > will change it. Please quit lying so blatantly.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - On Jun 30, 4:26 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 3:25?am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > On Jun 30, 1:55 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > > > Design for a Conscious Mechanoid > > > [Just to deter the predictable 'define what you mean by conscious' > > posting: 'Conscious' means 'aware of reality' - a human being is > > conscious, but a piece of paper is not conscious. If there is still a > > problem with understanding the word 'conscious', try using a > > dictionary.] > > > Start off with millions of identical ordinary (non-conscious) robots. > > Each robot is pre-programmed to collect things from the environment at > > random (twigs, elastic bands, teadcups, wheels, orange peel etc), and > > incorporate them into itself, gradually replacing all its original > > component parts as it does so. Now let the robots free to interact > > with the environment, and watch what happens. > > > Most of the robots would cease to function quite rapidly, of course. > > They might replace one of their vital components (the computer > > program, for example), with a piece of orange peel and immediately > > stop working permanently. Some might continue to function for quite a > > while, making meaningless minor alterations to their original > > structure, without affecting their basic operation as a programmed > > mechanical device, which we knew to be non-conscious. We can ignore > > robots which have replaced themselves with biological material which > > was already conscious, because that is obviously not what we are > > interested in. > > > The robots we are interested in are those which manage to replace all > > their constituent components, including their original computer > > hardware and software, but are still functioning. They, like > > ourselves, have been created out of material from the environment, so > > they might be conscious, as we are. > > > A certain amount of complexity is required for consciousness, and this > > could be provided, for example, by using the twigs to twang the > > elastic bands - the vibrational properties of the elastic bands could > > easily carry any complexity necessary for the occurrence of thought. > > For that to happen by chance is extremely unlikely of course, as is > > the likelihood of millions of monkeys randomly operating typewriters > > producing the occasional Shakespeare sonnet by chance, but if you left > > them long enough, they would eventually do it! > > > Consciousness is a subjective experience, so there is no way of > > determining whether or not anything or anybody is conscious. In the > > design above, the construction allows the possibility that > > consciousness might occur in a device which was originally non- > > conscious. The random self-modifying behaviour may have led to a > > wheeled mechanism made out of orange peel, teacups and elastic bands > > held together with bits of wood, with its understanding of reality > > contained in the vibrational processes occurring in the twig-twanged > > elastic bands, which wanders around in the natural environment > > apparently decorating itself with the bits of garbage it picks up. > > Perhaps the device has improved on its original design and is now > > conscious? At any rate, it certainly wouldn't be less conscious than > > it was to begin with. > > > James Norris > > > > > > I read your thread. Was it a satirical portrayal of atheist > > > > > "reasoning"? > > > > > No, it was a design for a conscious entity, neither biological nor > > > > computer-based. > > > > > > I especially liked the bit: > > > > > > "A certain amount of complexity is required for consciousness, and > > > > > this could be provided, for example, by using the twigs to twang the > > > > > elastic bands - the vibrational properties of the elastic bands could > > > > > easily carry any complexity necessary for the occurrence of thought." > > > > > > You could imagine atheists setting themselves up as authorities on > > > > > which tunes played on a guitar gave rise to consciousness, and whether > > > > > one string, or all the strings, or the whole guitar had the > > > > > experiences. They could debate on to what extent they could > > > > > anthropomorphise the conscious experience a certain song gave. > > > > > The notion of vibrations carrying information was an example of how > > > > the necessary complexity for 'thoughts' might arise in the mechanism. > > > > I understand from your earlier postings that you believe that human > > > > beings have a non-physical 'soul', so I'm not sure why you think my > > > > suggestion is so laughable. > > > > > > Though the part where you said, "consciousness is a subjective > > > > > experience, so there is no way of determining whether or not anything > > > > > or anybody is conscious", did illustrate that from an atheist > > > > > perspective there would be no experimental difference expected whether > > > > > something was or wasn't consciously experiencing, which is something a > > > > > few of them here are having problems coming to terms with. > > > > > I don't know why you pick on atheists in particular as having a > > > > problem with the unverifiability of subjective experiences, but > > > > anyway, perhaps many of us do - I personally don't. > > > > > > Still, very amusing, assuming of course you weren't being serious, and > > > > > an absolute nutter. > > > > > An absolute nutter in your opinion might be someone who believed that > > > > they had four souls, rather than just the one, I suppose. > > > > > The Design for a Conscious Mechanoid is quite serious - a hypothetical > > > > example of how a constructed 'mechanical' (ie non-biological) being > > > > might be conscious. I'm not suggesting that it would ever work in > > > > reality, any more than that a million monkeys typing on a million > > > > typewriters for a million years to produce the works of Shakespeare > > > > would ever work in reality. The example draws attention to the > > > > salient aspects of an interesting question. I'm glad you found it > > > > amusing though. I always try to make my postings interesting and > > > > memorable, and humour is a well-known didactic tool. > > > > The problem with no experimental difference expected whether something > > > was or wasn't consciously experiencing, is that it means whether it > > > was or wasn't, couldn't be thought to influence behaviour. If that was > > > the case, it would have to be a coincidence that our behaviour > > > expressed the conscious experiences we actually have (it couldn't have > > > been influenced by their existance). > > > You are trying to discuss consciousness using behavioural concepts. > > The behavioural understanding of the psyche has little to say about > > consciousness - the brain reacts to external stimuli and produces > > behaviour in the organism, which is studied to give an understanding > > of the workings of the brain. Cognitive models of consciousness, > > which you should look into as they might help you express your > > argument, are inside-out compared to the behavioural viewpoint. The > > 'mind' (which is believed to exist because of processes occurring in > > the brain) is considered as an Ego, with Superego, Id and various > > other paraphernalia, and these all contribute to goal-directed > > behaviour caused by subjective 'needs' which the conscious being tries > > to satisfy. > > > > Anyway, interesting post. So have you any thoughts on which tunes > > > played on a guitar might be give rise to, the string(s) or the guitar > > > thinking? Any thoughts on what those thoughts might be? I ask you, as > > > I guess you would be the closest thing to a world authority on the > > > concept, or have you got competition? > > No, you haven't really grasped the point about the vibrations in the > example. I was just pointing out that a certain amount of complexity > is required for consciousness, so complexity is needed somewhere in > the mechanoid. Vibrating systems can contain information of arbitrary > complexity - they don't have to be made out of physical elastic > bands. Vibrations occur in strings in general, these could be the > theoretical strings of string-theory, or hair-like cilia made from > millions of tiny pinheads all oscillating in a plasma field, if you > think elastic bands are too primitive a device to be worth > considering. Some people think that Mobius strips are weirdly clever > - perhaps if millions of elastic bands were Mobius strips interacting > in a complex 3-d lattice, with carefully placed twigs and twiglets to > provide the necessary resonance and feedback effects, it would be > rather more likely to have the necessary complexity for conscious > awareness of reality, than using just the one guitar string that you > suggest? Discuss. Jim Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 Ralph wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-2906071316160001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> In article <SGchi.6374$09.2830@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >>> news:Jason-2906071056190001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>> In article <5ekkkiF386fk4U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >>>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote >>>>> >>>>> snip >>>>> >>>>>> There were thousands of people attending the crucifixion. The >>>>>> disciples >>>>>> were probably part of the crowd. >>>>> How would you know? Were you there? >>>> It's speculation based upon the fact that at least three of the >>>> disciples >>>> discussed aspects of the crucifixion in their gospels. The Bible does >>>> indicate that one disciple and the two Marys were present when the body >>>> of >>>> Jesus was placed in the tomb. >>> The disciples didn't write the gospels. In addition, no disciple was >>> present >>> when the he was placed in the tomb. This is, of course, calling a spade a >>> spade. >> >> According to the Bible, one disciple and the two Marys were present when >> Jesus was placed in the tomb. Of course, if you do not believe the Bible >> is true than you will not believe that one disciple and the two Marys were >> present when the body of Jesus was placed in the tomb. >> Jason > > Gee Jason, I read the gospels to see which disciple was there and I saw no > reference to one. Perhaps you can give a reference for your assertion. Ooo, ooo, I know!!!!! Matt 27:57-61 As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. 58Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him. 59Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away. 61Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were sitting there opposite the tomb. Damned. No disciple there. Oh, wait, there's always Mark. Mark 15:42-47 It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, 43Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. 44Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. 45When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph. 46So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. 47Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid. Struck out again. Hmmmm. This is going to be harder than I thought. Oh, wait, Luke's a good guy. He MUST have seen it! Luke 23:50-56 Now there was a man named Joseph, a member of the Council, a good and upright man, 51who had not consented to their decision and action. He came from the Judean town of Arimathea and he was waiting for the kingdom of God. 52Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body. 53Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen cloth and placed it in a tomb cut in the rock, one in which no one had yet been laid. 54It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin. 55The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it. 56Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment. Oh, I know! <slaps forehead> Of COURSE, it was JOHN who saw it! John 19:38-42 Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jews. With Pilate's permission, he came and took the body away. 39He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds.[d] 40Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. 41At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid. 42Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there. Ah, heck, I give up. There must not have been ANY disciple that was there. Jason must have told a lie again. Whowuddathunkit? Quote
Guest James Norris Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Jun 30, 1:05?pm, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Ralph wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-2906071316160001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> In article <SGchi.6374$09.2...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > >> <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >>>news:Jason-2906071056190001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >>>> In article <5ekkkiF386fk...@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > >>>> <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > > >>>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote > > >>>>> snip > > >>>>>> There were thousands of people attending the crucifixion. The > >>>>>> disciples > >>>>>> were probably part of the crowd. > >>>>> How would you know? Were you there? > >>>> It's speculation based upon the fact that at least three of the > >>>> disciples > >>>> discussed aspects of the crucifixion in their gospels. The Bible does > >>>> indicate that one disciple and the two Marys were present when the body > >>>> of > >>>> Jesus was placed in the tomb. > >>> The disciples didn't write the gospels. In addition, no disciple was > >>> present > >>> when the he was placed in the tomb. This is, of course, calling a spade a > >>> spade. > > >> According to the Bible, one disciple and the two Marys were present when > >> Jesus was placed in the tomb. Of course, if you do not believe the Bible > >> is true than you will not believe that one disciple and the two Marys were > >> present when the body of Jesus was placed in the tomb. > >> Jason > > > Gee Jason, I read the gospels to see which disciple was there and I saw no > > reference to one. Perhaps you can give a reference for your assertion. > > Ooo, ooo, I know!!!!! > > Matt 27:57-61 > As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named > Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. 58Going to Pilate, > he asked for Jesus' body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him. > 59Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60and placed > it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big > stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away. 61Mary > Magdalene and the other Mary were sitting there opposite the tomb. > > Damned. No disciple there. > > Oh, wait, there's always Mark. > > Mark 15:42-47 > It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as > evening approached, 43Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the > Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to > Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. 44Pilate was surprised to hear that he > was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had > already died. 45When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he > gave the body to Joseph. 46So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down > the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of > rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. 47Mary > Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid. > > Struck out again. Hmmmm. This is going to be harder than I thought. > > Oh, wait, Luke's a good guy. He MUST have seen it! > > Luke 23:50-56 > Now there was a man named Joseph, a member of the Council, a good and > upright man, 51who had not consented to their decision and action. He > came from the Judean town of Arimathea and he was waiting for the > kingdom of God. 52Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body. 53Then he > took it down, wrapped it in linen cloth and placed it in a tomb cut in > the rock, one in which no one had yet been laid. 54It was Preparation > Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin. > > 55The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and > saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it. 56Then they went home and > prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in > obedience to the commandment. > > Oh, I know! <slaps forehead> Of COURSE, it was JOHN who saw it! > > John 19:38-42 > Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now > Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jews. > With Pilate's permission, he came and took the body away. 39He was > accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at > night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about > seventy-five pounds.[d] 40Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped > it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with > Jewish burial customs. 41At the place where Jesus was crucified, there > was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever > been laid. 42Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the > tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there. > > Ah, heck, I give up. There must not have been ANY disciple that was > there. Jason must have told a lie again. Whowuddathunkit?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - On Jun 30, 4:26 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 3:25?am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > On Jun 30, 1:55 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > > > Design for a Conscious Mechanoid > > > [Just to deter the predictable 'define what you mean by conscious' > > posting: 'Conscious' means 'aware of reality' - a human being is > > conscious, but a piece of paper is not conscious. If there is still a > > problem with understanding the word 'conscious', try using a > > dictionary.] > > > Start off with millions of identical ordinary (non-conscious) robots. > > Each robot is pre-programmed to collect things from the environment at > > random (twigs, elastic bands, teadcups, wheels, orange peel etc), and > > incorporate them into itself, gradually replacing all its original > > component parts as it does so. Now let the robots free to interact > > with the environment, and watch what happens. > > > Most of the robots would cease to function quite rapidly, of course. > > They might replace one of their vital components (the computer > > program, for example), with a piece of orange peel and immediately > > stop working permanently. Some might continue to function for quite a > > while, making meaningless minor alterations to their original > > structure, without affecting their basic operation as a programmed > > mechanical device, which we knew to be non-conscious. We can ignore > > robots which have replaced themselves with biological material which > > was already conscious, because that is obviously not what we are > > interested in. > > > The robots we are interested in are those which manage to replace all > > their constituent components, including their original computer > > hardware and software, but are still functioning. They, like > > ourselves, have been created out of material from the environment, so > > they might be conscious, as we are. > > > A certain amount of complexity is required for consciousness, and this > > could be provided, for example, by using the twigs to twang the > > elastic bands - the vibrational properties of the elastic bands could > > easily carry any complexity necessary for the occurrence of thought. > > For that to happen by chance is extremely unlikely of course, as is > > the likelihood of millions of monkeys randomly operating typewriters > > producing the occasional Shakespeare sonnet by chance, but if you left > > them long enough, they would eventually do it! > > > Consciousness is a subjective experience, so there is no way of > > determining whether or not anything or anybody is conscious. In the > > design above, the construction allows the possibility that > > consciousness might occur in a device which was originally non- > > conscious. The random self-modifying behaviour may have led to a > > wheeled mechanism made out of orange peel, teacups and elastic bands > > held together with bits of wood, with its understanding of reality > > contained in the vibrational processes occurring in the twig-twanged > > elastic bands, which wanders around in the natural environment > > apparently decorating itself with the bits of garbage it picks up. > > Perhaps the device has improved on its original design and is now > > conscious? At any rate, it certainly wouldn't be less conscious than > > it was to begin with. > > > James Norris > > > > > > I read your thread. Was it a satirical portrayal of atheist > > > > > "reasoning"? > > > > > No, it was a design for a conscious entity, neither biological nor > > > > computer-based. > > > > > > I especially liked the bit: > > > > > > "A certain amount of complexity is required for consciousness, and > > > > > this could be provided, for example, by using the twigs to twang the > > > > > elastic bands - the vibrational properties of the elastic bands could > > > > > easily carry any complexity necessary for the occurrence of thought." > > > > > > You could imagine atheists setting themselves up as authorities on > > > > > which tunes played on a guitar gave rise to consciousness, and whether > > > > > one string, or all the strings, or the whole guitar had the > > > > > experiences. They could debate on to what extent they could > > > > > anthropomorphise the conscious experience a certain song gave. > > > > > The notion of vibrations carrying information was an example of how > > > > the necessary complexity for 'thoughts' might arise in the mechanism. > > > > I understand from your earlier postings that you believe that human > > > > beings have a non-physical 'soul', so I'm not sure why you think my > > > > suggestion is so laughable. > > > > > > Though the part where you said, "consciousness is a subjective > > > > > experience, so there is no way of determining whether or not anything > > > > > or anybody is conscious", did illustrate that from an atheist > > > > > perspective there would be no experimental difference expected whether > > > > > something was or wasn't consciously experiencing, which is something a > > > > > few of them here are having problems coming to terms with. > > > > > I don't know why you pick on atheists in particular as having a > > > > problem with the unverifiability of subjective experiences, but > > > > anyway, perhaps many of us do - I personally don't. > > > > > > Still, very amusing, assuming of course you weren't being serious, and > > > > > an absolute nutter. > > > > > An absolute nutter in your opinion might be someone who believed that > > > > they had four souls, rather than just the one, I suppose. > > > > > The Design for a Conscious Mechanoid is quite serious - a hypothetical > > > > example of how a constructed 'mechanical' (ie non-biological) being > > > > might be conscious. I'm not suggesting that it would ever work in > > > > reality, any more than that a million monkeys typing on a million > > > > typewriters for a million years to produce the works of Shakespeare > > > > would ever work in reality. The example draws attention to the > > > > salient aspects of an interesting question. I'm glad you found it > > > > amusing though. I always try to make my postings interesting and > > > > memorable, and humour is a well-known didactic tool. > > > > The problem with no experimental difference expected whether something > > > was or wasn't consciously experiencing, is that it means whether it > > > was or wasn't, couldn't be thought to influence behaviour. If that was > > > the case, it would have to be a coincidence that our behaviour > > > expressed the conscious experiences we actually have (it couldn't have > > > been influenced by their existance). > > > You are trying to discuss consciousness using behavioural concepts. > > The behavioural understanding of the psyche has little to say about > > consciousness - the brain reacts to external stimuli and produces > > behaviour in the organism, which is studied to give an understanding > > of the workings of the brain. Cognitive models of consciousness, > > which you should look into as they might help you express your > > argument, are inside-out compared to the behavioural viewpoint. The > > 'mind' (which is believed to exist because of processes occurring in > > the brain) is considered as an Ego, with Superego, Id and various > > other paraphernalia, and these all contribute to goal-directed > > behaviour caused by subjective 'needs' which the conscious being tries > > to satisfy. > > > > Anyway, interesting post. So have you any thoughts on which tunes > > > played on a guitar might be give rise to, the string(s) or the guitar > > > thinking? Any thoughts on what those thoughts might be? I ask you, as > > > I guess you would be the closest thing to a world authority on the > > > concept, or have you got competition? > > No, you haven't really grasped the point about the vibrations in the > example. I was just pointing out that a certain amount of complexity > is required for consciousness, so complexity is needed somewhere in > the mechanoid. Vibrating systems can contain information of arbitrary > complexity - they don't have to be made out of physical elastic > bands. Vibrations occur in strings in general, these could be the > theoretical strings of string-theory, or hair-like cilia made from > millions of tiny pinheads all oscillating in a plasma field, if you > think elastic bands are too primitive a device to be worth > considering. Some people think that Mobius strips are weirdly clever > - perhaps if millions of elastic bands were Mobius strips interacting > in a complex 3-d lattice, with carefully placed twigs and twiglets to > provide the necessary resonance and feedback effects, it would be > rather more likely to have the necessary complexity for conscious > awareness of reality, than using just the one guitar string that you > suggest? Discuss. Jim Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <6Vdhi.18044$19.13430@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-2906071316160001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>> In article <SGchi.6374$09.2830@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >>> <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >>>> news:Jason-2906071056190001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>>> In article <5ekkkiF386fk4U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >>>>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote >>>>>> >>>>>> snip >>>>>> >>>>>>> There were thousands of people attending the crucifixion. The >>>>>>> disciples >>>>>>> were probably part of the crowd. >>>>>> How would you know? Were you there? >>>>> It's speculation based upon the fact that at least three of the >>>>> disciples >>>>> discussed aspects of the crucifixion in their gospels. The Bible does >>>>> indicate that one disciple and the two Marys were present when the body >>>>> of >>>>> Jesus was placed in the tomb. >>>> The disciples didn't write the gospels. In addition, no disciple was >>>> present >>>> when the he was placed in the tomb. This is, of course, calling a spade a >>>> spade. >>> >>> According to the Bible, one disciple and the two Marys were present when >>> Jesus was placed in the tomb. Of course, if you do not believe the Bible >>> is true than you will not believe that one disciple and the two Marys were >>> present when the body of Jesus was placed in the tomb. >>> Jason >> Gee Jason, I read the gospels to see which disciple was there and I saw no >> reference to one. Perhaps you can give a reference for your assertion. > > Matthew 27: 57-61 > > Matt 27:57As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. He wasn't one of the disciples that (supposedly) wrote the gospels, nor was he one of the "fab 12." Quote
Guest James Norris Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Jun 30, 1:37?pm, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <6Vdhi.18044$19.13...@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >>news:Jason-2906071316160001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >>> In article <SGchi.6374$09.2...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > >>> <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >>>>news:Jason-2906071056190001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >>>>> In article <5ekkkiF386fk...@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > >>>>> <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > > >>>>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote > > >>>>>> snip > > >>>>>>> There were thousands of people attending the crucifixion. The > >>>>>>> disciples > >>>>>>> were probably part of the crowd. > >>>>>> How would you know? Were you there? > >>>>> It's speculation based upon the fact that at least three of the > >>>>> disciples > >>>>> discussed aspects of the crucifixion in their gospels. The Bible does > >>>>> indicate that one disciple and the two Marys were present when the body > >>>>> of > >>>>> Jesus was placed in the tomb. > >>>> The disciples didn't write the gospels. In addition, no disciple was > >>>> present > >>>> when the he was placed in the tomb. This is, of course, calling a spade a > >>>> spade. > > >>> According to the Bible, one disciple and the two Marys were present when > >>> Jesus was placed in the tomb. Of course, if you do not believe the Bible > >>> is true than you will not believe that one disciple and the two Marys were > >>> present when the body of Jesus was placed in the tomb. > >>> Jason > >> Gee Jason, I read the gospels to see which disciple was there and I saw no > >> reference to one. Perhaps you can give a reference for your assertion. > > > Matthew 27: 57-61 > > Matt 27:57As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, > named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. > > He wasn't one of the disciples that (supposedly) wrote the gospels, nor > was he one of the "fab 12."- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - On Jun 30, 4:26 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 3:25?am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > On Jun 30, 1:55 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > > > Design for a Conscious Mechanoid > > > [Just to deter the predictable 'define what you mean by conscious' > > posting: 'Conscious' means 'aware of reality' - a human being is > > conscious, but a piece of paper is not conscious. If there is still a > > problem with understanding the word 'conscious', try using a > > dictionary.] > > > Start off with millions of identical ordinary (non-conscious) robots. > > Each robot is pre-programmed to collect things from the environment at > > random (twigs, elastic bands, teacups, wheels, orange peel etc), and > > incorporate them into itself, gradually replacing all its original > > component parts as it does so. Now let the robots free to interact > > with the environment, and watch what happens. > > > Most of the robots would cease to function quite rapidly, of course. > > They might replace one of their vital components (the computer > > program, for example), with a piece of orange peel and immediately > > stop working permanently. Some might continue to function for quite a > > while, making meaningless minor alterations to their original > > structure, without affecting their basic operation as a programmed > > mechanical device, which we knew to be non-conscious. We can ignore > > robots which have replaced themselves with biological material which > > was already conscious, because that is obviously not what we are > > interested in. > > > The robots we are interested in are those which manage to replace all > > their constituent components, including their original computer > > hardware and software, but are still functioning. They, like > > ourselves, have been created out of material from the environment, so > > they might be conscious, as we are. > > > A certain amount of complexity is required for consciousness, and this > > could be provided, for example, by using the twigs to twang the > > elastic bands - the vibrational properties of the elastic bands could > > easily carry any complexity necessary for the occurrence of thought. > > For that to happen by chance is extremely unlikely of course, as is > > the likelihood of millions of monkeys randomly operating typewriters > > producing the occasional Shakespeare sonnet by chance, but if you left > > them long enough, they would eventually do it! > > > Consciousness is a subjective experience, so there is no way of > > determining whether or not anything or anybody is conscious. In the > > design above, the construction allows the possibility that > > consciousness might occur in a device which was originally non- > > conscious. The random self-modifying behaviour may have led to a > > wheeled mechanism made out of orange peel, teacups and elastic bands > > held together with bits of wood, with its understanding of reality > > contained in the vibrational processes occurring in the twig-twanged > > elastic bands, which wanders around in the natural environment > > apparently decorating itself with the bits of garbage it picks up. > > Perhaps the device has improved on its original design and is now > > conscious? At any rate, it certainly wouldn't be less conscious than > > it was to begin with. > > > James Norris > > > > > > I read your thread. Was it a satirical portrayal of atheist > > > > > "reasoning"? > > > > > No, it was a design for a conscious entity, neither biological nor > > > > computer-based. > > > > > > I especially liked the bit: > > > > > > "A certain amount of complexity is required for consciousness, and > > > > > this could be provided, for example, by using the twigs to twang the > > > > > elastic bands - the vibrational properties of the elastic bands could > > > > > easily carry any complexity necessary for the occurrence of thought." > > > > > > You could imagine atheists setting themselves up as authorities on > > > > > which tunes played on a guitar gave rise to consciousness, and whether > > > > > one string, or all the strings, or the whole guitar had the > > > > > experiences. They could debate on to what extent they could > > > > > anthropomorphise the conscious experience a certain song gave. > > > > > The notion of vibrations carrying information was an example of how > > > > the necessary complexity for 'thoughts' might arise in the mechanism. > > > > I understand from your earlier postings that you believe that human > > > > beings have a non-physical 'soul', so I'm not sure why you think my > > > > suggestion is so laughable. > > > > > > Though the part where you said, "consciousness is a subjective > > > > > experience, so there is no way of determining whether or not anything > > > > > or anybody is conscious", did illustrate that from an atheist > > > > > perspective there would be no experimental difference expected whether > > > > > something was or wasn't consciously experiencing, which is something a > > > > > few of them here are having problems coming to terms with. > > > > > I don't know why you pick on atheists in particular as having a > > > > problem with the unverifiability of subjective experiences, but > > > > anyway, perhaps many of us do - I personally don't. > > > > > > Still, very amusing, assuming of course you weren't being serious, and > > > > > an absolute nutter. > > > > > An absolute nutter in your opinion might be someone who believed that > > > > they had four souls, rather than just the one, I suppose. > > > > > The Design for a Conscious Mechanoid is quite serious - a hypothetical > > > > example of how a constructed 'mechanical' (ie non-biological) being > > > > might be conscious. I'm not suggesting that it would ever work in > > > > reality, any more than that a million monkeys typing on a million > > > > typewriters for a million years to produce the works of Shakespeare > > > > would ever work in reality. The example draws attention to the > > > > salient aspects of an interesting question. I'm glad you found it > > > > amusing though. I always try to make my postings interesting and > > > > memorable, and humour is a well-known didactic tool. > > > > The problem with no experimental difference expected whether something > > > was or wasn't consciously experiencing, is that it means whether it > > > was or wasn't, couldn't be thought to influence behaviour. If that was > > > the case, it would have to be a coincidence that our behaviour > > > expressed the conscious experiences we actually have (it couldn't have > > > been influenced by their existance). > > > You are trying to discuss consciousness using behavioural concepts. > > The behavioural understanding of the psyche has little to say about > > consciousness - the brain reacts to external stimuli and produces > > behaviour in the organism, which is studied to give an understanding > > of the workings of the brain. Cognitive models of consciousness, > > which you should look into as they might help you express your > > argument, are inside-out compared to the behavioural viewpoint. The > > 'mind' (which is believed to exist because of processes occurring in > > the brain) is considered as an Ego, with Superego, Id and various > > other paraphernalia, and these all contribute to goal-directed > > behaviour caused by subjective 'needs' which the conscious being tries > > to satisfy. > > > > Anyway, interesting post. So have you any thoughts on which tunes > > > played on a guitar might be give rise to, the string(s) or the guitar > > > thinking? Any thoughts on what those thoughts might be? I ask you, as > > > I guess you would be the closest thing to a world authority on the > > > concept, or have you got competition? > > No, you haven't really grasped the point about the vibrations in the > example. I was just pointing out that a certain amount of complexity > is required for consciousness, so complexity is needed somewhere in > the mechanoid. Vibrating systems can contain information of arbitrary > complexity - they don't have to be made out of physical elastic > bands. Vibrations occur in strings in general, these could be the > theoretical strings of string-theory, or hair-like cilia made from > millions of tiny pinheads all oscillating in a plasma field, if you > think elastic bands are too primitive a device to be worth > considering. Some people think that Mobius strips are weirdly clever > - perhaps if millions of elastic bands were Mobius strips interacting > in a complex 3-d lattice, with carefully placed twigs and twiglets to > provide the necessary resonance and feedback effects, it would be > rather more likely to have the necessary complexity for conscious > awareness of reality, than using just the one guitar string that you > suggest? Discuss. Jim Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <MPG.20ef8d91891daf5098a6d2@216.196.97.136>, Brian E. Clark > <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote: > >> In article <Jason-2906071709210001@66-52-22- >> 15.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason said... >> >>>>> For those people that believe Yahweh and Allah are >>>>> the same God--please explain why there is a symbol >>>>> of a crescent moon on top of every [Muslim] Mosque >>>>> in the world? >>>> For those who believe that the god of the Hebrews >>>> and the god of the Christians are the same God -- >>>> please explain why there is a symbol of a cross >>>> in every Christian church. >>> Because Jesus was crucified on a cross. >> Jewish places of worship do not have crosses on >> display. Still, Christians insist that the God of >> the Torah is the God of the Gospels. >> >> In other words, the identity of the gods of >> Judaism and Christianity is asserted even though >> the Christian religion has particularities, >> including idiosyncratic symbolisms. >> >> Now apply that to your comment about Muslims and >> crescent moons. > > Thanks for your excellent post. If you have a point related to Muslims and > the crescent moon--please make it. Look way up in the sky. See that tiny speck? That was his point, the size of the sun, sailing at light speed about a lightyear over your head. > I continue to believe that the main reason there is a symbol of a crescent > moon on top of every mosque is because the name Allah came from an Arabic > word that had to do with the worship of the moon god in pre-Islamic > Arabia. However, Muslims believe that Allah and Yahweh are the same Gods. > > > I suggest that you read this book. It was written by Mark Gabriel, a > former devout Muslim that is now a Christian. The title of his book is > "Jesus and Muhammad". > > Jason > > Quote
Guest James Norris Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Jun 30, 1:42?pm, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <MPG.20ef8d91891daf5098a...@216.196.97.136>, Brian E. Clark > > <r...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote: > > >> In article <Jason-2906071709210001@66-52-22- > >> 15.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason said... > > >>>>> For those people that believe Yahweh and Allah are > >>>>> the same God--please explain why there is a symbol > >>>>> of a crescent moon on top of every [Muslim] Mosque > >>>>> in the world? > >>>> For those who believe that the god of the Hebrews > >>>> and the god of the Christians are the same God -- > >>>> please explain why there is a symbol of a cross > >>>> in every Christian church. > >>> Because Jesus was crucified on a cross. > >> Jewish places of worship do not have crosses on > >> display. Still, Christians insist that the God of > >> the Torah is the God of the Gospels. > > >> In other words, the identity of the gods of > >> Judaism and Christianity is asserted even though > >> the Christian religion has particularities, > >> including idiosyncratic symbolisms. > > >> Now apply that to your comment about Muslims and > >> crescent moons. > > > Thanks for your excellent post. If you have a point related to Muslims and > > the crescent moon--please make it. > > Look way up in the sky. See that tiny speck? That was his point, the > size of the sun, sailing at light speed about a lightyear over your head. > > > > > I continue to believe that the main reason there is a symbol of a crescent > > moon on top of every mosque is because the name Allah came from an Arabic > > word that had to do with the worship of the moon god in pre-Islamic > > Arabia. However, Muslims believe that Allah and Yahweh are the same Gods. > > > I suggest that you read this book. It was written by Mark Gabriel, a > > former devout Muslim that is now a Christian. The title of his book is > > "Jesus and Muhammad". > > > Jason- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - On Jun 30, 4:26 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 3:25?am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > On Jun 30, 1:55 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > > > Design for a Conscious Mechanoid > > > [Just to deter the predictable 'define what you mean by conscious' > > posting: 'Conscious' means 'aware of reality' - a human being is > > conscious, but a piece of paper is not conscious. If there is still a > > problem with understanding the word 'conscious', try using a > > dictionary.] > > > Start off with millions of identical ordinary (non-conscious) robots. > > Each robot is pre-programmed to collect things from the environment at > > random (twigs, elastic bands, teacups, wheels, orange peel etc), and > > incorporate them into itself, gradually replacing all its original > > component parts as it does so. Now let the robots free to interact > > with the environment, and watch what happens. > > > Most of the robots would cease to function quite rapidly, of course. > > They might replace one of their vital components (the computer > > program, for example), with a piece of orange peel and immediately > > stop working permanently. Some might continue to function for quite a > > while, making meaningless minor alterations to their original > > structure, without affecting their basic operation as a programmed > > mechanical device, which we knew to be non-conscious. We can ignore > > robots which have replaced themselves with biological material which > > was already conscious, because that is obviously not what we are > > interested in. > > > The robots we are interested in are those which manage to replace all > > their constituent components, including their original computer > > hardware and software, but are still functioning. They, like > > ourselves, have been created out of material from the environment, so > > they might be conscious, as we are. > > > A certain amount of complexity is required for consciousness, and this > > could be provided, for example, by using the twigs to twang the > > elastic bands - the vibrational properties of the elastic bands could > > easily carry any complexity necessary for the occurrence of thought. > > For that to happen by chance is extremely unlikely of course, as is > > the likelihood of millions of monkeys randomly operating typewriters > > producing the occasional Shakespeare sonnet by chance, but if you left > > them long enough, they would eventually do it! > > > Consciousness is a subjective experience, so there is no way of > > determining whether or not anything or anybody is conscious. In the > > design above, the construction allows the possibility that > > consciousness might occur in a device which was originally non- > > conscious. The random self-modifying behaviour may have led to a > > wheeled mechanism made out of orange peel, teacups and elastic bands > > held together with bits of wood, with its understanding of reality > > contained in the vibrational processes occurring in the twig-twanged > > elastic bands, which wanders around in the natural environment > > apparently decorating itself with the bits of garbage it picks up. > > Perhaps the device has improved on its original design and is now > > conscious? At any rate, it certainly wouldn't be less conscious than > > it was to begin with. > > > James Norris > > > > > > I read your thread. Was it a satirical portrayal of atheist > > > > > "reasoning"? > > > > > No, it was a design for a conscious entity, neither biological nor > > > > computer-based. > > > > > > I especially liked the bit: > > > > > > "A certain amount of complexity is required for consciousness, and > > > > > this could be provided, for example, by using the twigs to twang the > > > > > elastic bands - the vibrational properties of the elastic bands could > > > > > easily carry any complexity necessary for the occurrence of thought." > > > > > > You could imagine atheists setting themselves up as authorities on > > > > > which tunes played on a guitar gave rise to consciousness, and whether > > > > > one string, or all the strings, or the whole guitar had the > > > > > experiences. They could debate on to what extent they could > > > > > anthropomorphise the conscious experience a certain song gave. > > > > > The notion of vibrations carrying information was an example of how > > > > the necessary complexity for 'thoughts' might arise in the mechanism. > > > > I understand from your earlier postings that you believe that human > > > > beings have a non-physical 'soul', so I'm not sure why you think my > > > > suggestion is so laughable. > > > > > > Though the part where you said, "consciousness is a subjective > > > > > experience, so there is no way of determining whether or not anything > > > > > or anybody is conscious", did illustrate that from an atheist > > > > > perspective there would be no experimental difference expected whether > > > > > something was or wasn't consciously experiencing, which is something a > > > > > few of them here are having problems coming to terms with. > > > > > I don't know why you pick on atheists in particular as having a > > > > problem with the unverifiability of subjective experiences, but > > > > anyway, perhaps many of us do - I personally don't. > > > > > > Still, very amusing, assuming of course you weren't being serious, and > > > > > an absolute nutter. > > > > > An absolute nutter in your opinion might be someone who believed that > > > > they had four souls, rather than just the one, I suppose. > > > > > The Design for a Conscious Mechanoid is quite serious - a hypothetical > > > > example of how a constructed 'mechanical' (ie non-biological) being > > > > might be conscious. I'm not suggesting that it would ever work in > > > > reality, any more than that a million monkeys typing on a million > > > > typewriters for a million years to produce the works of Shakespeare > > > > would ever work in reality. The example draws attention to the > > > > salient aspects of an interesting question. I'm glad you found it > > > > amusing though. I always try to make my postings interesting and > > > > memorable, and humour is a well-known didactic tool. > > > > The problem with no experimental difference expected whether something > > > was or wasn't consciously experiencing, is that it means whether it > > > was or wasn't, couldn't be thought to influence behaviour. If that was > > > the case, it would have to be a coincidence that our behaviour > > > expressed the conscious experiences we actually have (it couldn't have > > > been influenced by their existance). > > > You are trying to discuss consciousness using behavioural concepts. > > The behavioural understanding of the psyche has little to say about > > consciousness - the brain reacts to external stimuli and produces > > behaviour in the organism, which is studied to give an understanding > > of the workings of the brain. Cognitive models of consciousness, > > which you should look into as they might help you express your > > argument, are inside-out compared to the behavioural viewpoint. The > > 'mind' (which is believed to exist because of processes occurring in > > the brain) is considered as an Ego, with Superego, Id and various > > other paraphernalia, and these all contribute to goal-directed > > behaviour caused by subjective 'needs' which the conscious being tries > > to satisfy. > > > > Anyway, interesting post. So have you any thoughts on which tunes > > > played on a guitar might be give rise to, the string(s) or the guitar > > > thinking? Any thoughts on what those thoughts might be? I ask you, as > > > I guess you would be the closest thing to a world authority on the > > > concept, or have you got competition? > > No, you haven't really grasped the point about the vibrations in the > example. I was just pointing out that a certain amount of complexity > is required for consciousness, so complexity is needed somewhere in > the mechanoid. Vibrating systems can contain information of arbitrary > complexity - they don't have to be made out of physical elastic > bands. Vibrations occur in strings in general, these could be the > theoretical strings of string-theory, or hair-like cilia made from > millions of tiny pinheads all oscillating in a plasma field, if you > think elastic bands are too primitive a device to be worth > considering. Some people think that Mobius strips are weirdly clever > - perhaps if millions of elastic bands were Mobius strips interacting > in a complex 3-d lattice, with carefully placed twigs and twiglets to > provide the necessary resonance and feedback effects, it would be > rather more likely to have the necessary complexity for conscious > awareness of reality, than using just the one guitar string that you > suggest? Discuss. Jim Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <nnha83ph8rgv3l86dvf9a0rfjpphn4d8n4@4ax.com>, John Baker > <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: > >> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:16:57 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >>> In article >>> <DipthotDipthot-677E57.20063928062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, >>> 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: >>> >>>> In article >>>> <Jason-2806071932410001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, >>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>> >>>>> Do you believe humans evolved from other life-forms without any >>>>> involvement of god? yes or no >>>> That's easy: Why should I? There has been no good reason to do so. >>>> That's the main point for being an atheist. No one has set forth a good >>>> reason to believe in any gods. >>>> >>>> When posed with question whose answer is unknown, the skeptic is pretty >>>> darned comfortable with the answer, "As yet, the answer to that question >>>> is unknown." >>>> >>>> We don't feel the need to fill in the void with invented gods who, >>>> amazingly, fit the void so precisely that they, suddenly, simply must be >>>> true -- looking back post-invention, that is. >>>> >>>>> Do you believe that both evolution and intelligent design should be > taught >>>>> in the public schools or just evolution? >>>> ID isn't something someone can teach, because there is no teachable >>>> element of it. It's all preaching when it comes to ID. You have to >>>> invent a god(s) concept to teach; you have to invent the process by >>>> which the god(s) did the creating, and then, perhaps the purpose. >>>> >>>> All this invention has nothing to do with observation. And that's what >>>> makes it unscientific. No "textbook" of any number of pages can conceal >>>> that fact. >>>> >>>> And teaching post-invention is PREACHING, pure and simple. >>>> >>>> So "teaching" ID has no place in public schools. Sunday School, >>>> perhaps. (Bad ones.) >>>> >>>> But you have run away from one of my questions. I'll repeat it here, >>>> and you'll probably run again, or pretend you didn't read it: >>>> >>>> How many of the numerous creation theories do you want to bring into >>>> the ID curriculum? One? A dozen? Two hundred? (Don't worry, there are >>>> that many -- scores more, in fact.) >>> Only one--Visit the Discovery Institute website for details. They have >>> already published a textbook entitled, "Of Pandas and People". >> >> <sigh> OK, Jason. How much is the DI paying you to plug that stupid >> book? >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> In other words, how far down the twisted, branched theological path do >>>> you want to take your 'science' students before you admit to them that >>>> you're NOT teaching them science at all? >>> It's a basic course related to the basics of Intelligent Design. When I >>> took a high school biology class, we only spent about two weeks on >>> evolution. The teacher could cover Intelligent Design in about two weeks. >>> >>>> I anticipate that you will again run from this question. >>>> >>>> Do prove me wrong. I salivate at the opportunity. >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> "Creation theories" are more accurately called "myths," but I'll set >>>> that aside for now for the purpose of this discussion , because I know >>>> how skittish you believers get around that word. >>>> >>>> I choose to call this thread a "discussion" at this time, even though >>>> you, the dishonest coward that you will demonstrate that you are, will >>>> likely run from my question, which negates the possibility that it's a >>>> discussion at all. >>>> >>>> --------------------------------- > > $10.00 --every time that I mention the titles of any books. It's a hassle > because I have to make hard copies of my posts and mail them to ICR before > I get my money. I suggest that you read these books: > > Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by M. Denton > > The Lie: Evolution by K. Ham > > Creation and Change by D.F. Kelly > > > I am just joking--they don't pay me any money. Yeah, he spreads bullshit for free. Quote
Guest James Norris Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Jun 30, 1:49?pm, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <nnha83ph8rgv3l86dvf9a0rfjpphn4d...@4ax.com>, John Baker > > <n...@bizniz.net> wrote: > > >> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:16:57 -0700, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >>> In article > >>> <DipthotDipthot-677E57.20063928062...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > >>> 655321 <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > > >>>> In article > >>>> <Jason-2806071932410...@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > >>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >>>>> Do you believe humans evolved from other life-forms without any > >>>>> involvement of god? yes or no > >>>> That's easy: Why should I? There has been no good reason to do so. > >>>> That's the main point for being an atheist. No one has set forth a good > >>>> reason to believe in any gods. > > >>>> When posed with question whose answer is unknown, the skeptic is pretty > >>>> darned comfortable with the answer, "As yet, the answer to that question > >>>> is unknown." > > >>>> We don't feel the need to fill in the void with invented gods who, > >>>> amazingly, fit the void so precisely that they, suddenly, simply must be > >>>> true -- looking back post-invention, that is. > > >>>>> Do you believe that both evolution and intelligent design should be > > taught > >>>>> in the public schools or just evolution? > >>>> ID isn't something someone can teach, because there is no teachable > >>>> element of it. It's all preaching when it comes to ID. You have to > >>>> invent a god(s) concept to teach; you have to invent the process by > >>>> which the god(s) did the creating, and then, perhaps the purpose. > > >>>> All this invention has nothing to do with observation. And that's what > >>>> makes it unscientific. No "textbook" of any number of pages can conceal > >>>> that fact. > > >>>> And teaching post-invention is PREACHING, pure and simple. > > >>>> So "teaching" ID has no place in public schools. Sunday School, > >>>> perhaps. (Bad ones.) > > >>>> But you have run away from one of my questions. I'll repeat it here, > >>>> and you'll probably run again, or pretend you didn't read it: > > >>>> How many of the numerous creation theories do you want to bring into > >>>> the ID curriculum? One? A dozen? Two hundred? (Don't worry, there are > >>>> that many -- scores more, in fact.) > >>> Only one--Visit the Discovery Institute website for details. They have > >>> already published a textbook entitled, "Of Pandas and People". > > >> <sigh> OK, Jason. How much is the DI paying you to plug that stupid > >> book? > > >>>> In other words, how far down the twisted, branched theological path do > >>>> you want to take your 'science' students before you admit to them that > >>>> you're NOT teaching them science at all? > >>> It's a basic course related to the basics of Intelligent Design. When I > >>> took a high school biology class, we only spent about two weeks on > >>> evolution. The teacher could cover Intelligent Design in about two weeks. > > >>>> I anticipate that you will again run from this question. > > >>>> Do prove me wrong. I salivate at the opportunity. > > >>>> ------------------------------ > > >>>> "Creation theories" are more accurately called "myths," but I'll set > >>>> that aside for now for the purpose of this discussion , because I know > >>>> how skittish you believers get around that word. > > >>>> I choose to call this thread a "discussion" at this time, even though > >>>> you, the dishonest coward that you will demonstrate that you are, will > >>>> likely run from my question, which negates the possibility that it's a > >>>> discussion at all. > > >>>> --------------------------------- > > > $10.00 --every time that I mention the titles of any books. It's a hassle > > because I have to make hard copies of my posts and mail them to ICR before > > I get my money. I suggest that you read these books: > > > Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by M. Denton > > > The Lie: Evolution by K. Ham > > > Creation and Change by D.F. Kelly > > > I am just joking--they don't pay me any money. > > Yeah, he spreads bullshit for free.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - On Jun 30, 4:26 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 3:25?am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > On Jun 30, 1:55 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > > > Design for a Conscious Mechanoid > > > [Just to deter the predictable 'define what you mean by conscious' > > posting: 'Conscious' means 'aware of reality' - a human being is > > conscious, but a piece of paper is not conscious. If there is still a > > problem with understanding the word 'conscious', try using a > > dictionary.] > > > Start off with millions of identical ordinary (non-conscious) robots. > > Each robot is pre-programmed to collect things from the environment at > > random (twigs, elastic bands, teacups, wheels, orange peel etc), and > > incorporate them into itself, gradually replacing all its original > > component parts as it does so. Now let the robots free to interact > > with the environment, and watch what happens. > > > Most of the robots would cease to function quite rapidly, of course. > > They might replace one of their vital components (the computer > > program, for example), with a piece of orange peel and immediately > > stop working permanently. Some might continue to function for quite a > > while, making meaningless minor alterations to their original > > structure, without affecting their basic operation as a programmed > > mechanical device, which we knew to be non-conscious. We can ignore > > robots which have replaced themselves with biological material which > > was already conscious, because that is obviously not what we are > > interested in. > > > The robots we are interested in are those which manage to replace all > > their constituent components, including their original computer > > hardware and software, but are still functioning. They, like > > ourselves, have been created out of material from the environment, so > > they might be conscious, as we are. > > > A certain amount of complexity is required for consciousness, and this > > could be provided, for example, by using the twigs to twang the > > elastic bands - the vibrational properties of the elastic bands could > > easily carry any complexity necessary for the occurrence of thought. > > For that to happen by chance is extremely unlikely of course, as is > > the likelihood of millions of monkeys randomly operating typewriters > > producing the occasional Shakespeare sonnet by chance, but if you left > > them long enough, they would eventually do it! > > > Consciousness is a subjective experience, so there is no way of > > determining whether or not anything or anybody is conscious. In the > > design above, the construction allows the possibility that > > consciousness might occur in a device which was originally non- > > conscious. The random self-modifying behaviour may have led to a > > wheeled mechanism made out of orange peel, teacups and elastic bands > > held together with bits of wood, with its understanding of reality > > contained in the vibrational processes occurring in the twig-twanged > > elastic bands, which wanders around in the natural environment > > apparently decorating itself with the bits of garbage it picks up. > > Perhaps the device has improved on its original design and is now > > conscious? At any rate, it certainly wouldn't be less conscious than > > it was to begin with. > > > James Norris > > > > > > I read your thread. Was it a satirical portrayal of atheist > > > > > "reasoning"? > > > > > No, it was a design for a conscious entity, neither biological nor > > > > computer-based. > > > > > > I especially liked the bit: > > > > > > "A certain amount of complexity is required for consciousness, and > > > > > this could be provided, for example, by using the twigs to twang the > > > > > elastic bands - the vibrational properties of the elastic bands could > > > > > easily carry any complexity necessary for the occurrence of thought." > > > > > > You could imagine atheists setting themselves up as authorities on > > > > > which tunes played on a guitar gave rise to consciousness, and whether > > > > > one string, or all the strings, or the whole guitar had the > > > > > experiences. They could debate on to what extent they could > > > > > anthropomorphise the conscious experience a certain song gave. > > > > > The notion of vibrations carrying information was an example of how > > > > the necessary complexity for 'thoughts' might arise in the mechanism. > > > > I understand from your earlier postings that you believe that human > > > > beings have a non-physical 'soul', so I'm not sure why you think my > > > > suggestion is so laughable. > > > > > > Though the part where you said, "consciousness is a subjective > > > > > experience, so there is no way of determining whether or not anything > > > > > or anybody is conscious", did illustrate that from an atheist > > > > > perspective there would be no experimental difference expected whether > > > > > something was or wasn't consciously experiencing, which is something a > > > > > few of them here are having problems coming to terms with. > > > > > I don't know why you pick on atheists in particular as having a > > > > problem with the unverifiability of subjective experiences, but > > > > anyway, perhaps many of us do - I personally don't. > > > > > > Still, very amusing, assuming of course you weren't being serious, and > > > > > an absolute nutter. > > > > > An absolute nutter in your opinion might be someone who believed that > > > > they had four souls, rather than just the one, I suppose. > > > > > The Design for a Conscious Mechanoid is quite serious - a hypothetical > > > > example of how a constructed 'mechanical' (ie non-biological) being > > > > might be conscious. I'm not suggesting that it would ever work in > > > > reality, any more than that a million monkeys typing on a million > > > > typewriters for a million years to produce the works of Shakespeare > > > > would ever work in reality. The example draws attention to the > > > > salient aspects of an interesting question. I'm glad you found it > > > > amusing though. I always try to make my postings interesting and > > > > memorable, and humour is a well-known didactic tool. > > > > The problem with no experimental difference expected whether something > > > was or wasn't consciously experiencing, is that it means whether it > > > was or wasn't, couldn't be thought to influence behaviour. If that was > > > the case, it would have to be a coincidence that our behaviour > > > expressed the conscious experiences we actually have (it couldn't have > > > been influenced by their existance). > > > You are trying to discuss consciousness using behavioural concepts. > > The behavioural understanding of the psyche has little to say about > > consciousness - the brain reacts to external stimuli and produces > > behaviour in the organism, which is studied to give an understanding > > of the workings of the brain. Cognitive models of consciousness, > > which you should look into as they might help you express your > > argument, are inside-out compared to the behavioural viewpoint. The > > 'mind' (which is believed to exist because of processes occurring in > > the brain) is considered as an Ego, with Superego, Id and various > > other paraphernalia, and these all contribute to goal-directed > > behaviour caused by subjective 'needs' which the conscious being tries > > to satisfy. > > > > Anyway, interesting post. So have you any thoughts on which tunes > > > played on a guitar might be give rise to, the string(s) or the guitar > > > thinking? Any thoughts on what those thoughts might be? I ask you, as > > > I guess you would be the closest thing to a world authority on the > > > concept, or have you got competition? > > No, you haven't really grasped the point about the vibrations in the > example. I was just pointing out that a certain amount of complexity > is required for consciousness, so complexity is needed somewhere in > the mechanoid. Vibrating systems can contain information of arbitrary > complexity - they don't have to be made out of physical elastic > bands. Vibrations occur in strings in general, these could be the > theoretical strings of string-theory, or hair-like cilia made from > millions of tiny pinheads all oscillating in a plasma field, if you > think elastic bands are too primitive a device to be worth > considering. Some people think that Mobius strips are weirdly clever > - perhaps if millions of elastic bands were Mobius strips interacting > in a complex 3-d lattice, with carefully placed twigs and twiglets to > provide the necessary resonance and feedback effects, it would be > rather more likely to have the necessary complexity for conscious > awareness of reality, than using just the one guitar string that you > suggest? Discuss. Jim Quote
Guest Therion Ware Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 05:45:23 -0700, James Norris <JimNorris014@aol.com> wrote: [snip] >Discuss. 200 odd lines in numerous posts with a one word response? Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f63pn1$fka$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article >>> <DipthotDipthot-677E57.20063928062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, >>> 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: >>> >>>> In article >>>> <Jason-2806071932410001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, >>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>> >>>>> Do you believe humans evolved from other life-forms without any >>>>> involvement of god? yes or no >>>> That's easy: Why should I? There has been no good reason to do so. >>>> That's the main point for being an atheist. No one has set forth a good >>>> reason to believe in any gods. >>>> >>>> When posed with question whose answer is unknown, the skeptic is pretty >>>> darned comfortable with the answer, "As yet, the answer to that question >>>> is unknown." >>>> >>>> We don't feel the need to fill in the void with invented gods who, >>>> amazingly, fit the void so precisely that they, suddenly, simply must be >>>> true -- looking back post-invention, that is. >>>> >>>>> Do you believe that both evolution and intelligent design should be taught >>>>> in the public schools or just evolution? >>>> ID isn't something someone can teach, because there is no teachable >>>> element of it. It's all preaching when it comes to ID. You have to >>>> invent a god(s) concept to teach; you have to invent the process by >>>> which the god(s) did the creating, and then, perhaps the purpose. >>>> >>>> All this invention has nothing to do with observation. And that's what >>>> makes it unscientific. No "textbook" of any number of pages can conceal >>>> that fact. >>>> >>>> And teaching post-invention is PREACHING, pure and simple. >>>> >>>> So "teaching" ID has no place in public schools. Sunday School, >>>> perhaps. (Bad ones.) >>>> >>>> But you have run away from one of my questions. I'll repeat it here, >>>> and you'll probably run again, or pretend you didn't read it: >>>> >>>> How many of the numerous creation theories do you want to bring into >>>> the ID curriculum? One? A dozen? Two hundred? (Don't worry, there are >>>> that many -- scores more, in fact.) >>> Only one--Visit the Discovery Institute website for details. They have >>> already published a textbook entitled, "Of Pandas and People". >> Why that one instead of one of the other hundred or so? > > Because it's the best one. Why? What science backs it up? We're still waiting for an answer. >>> >>> >>> >>>> In other words, how far down the twisted, branched theological path do >>>> you want to take your 'science' students before you admit to them that >>>> you're NOT teaching them science at all? >>> It's a basic course related to the basics of Intelligent Design. When I >>> took a high school biology class, we only spent about two weeks on >>> evolution. The teacher could cover Intelligent Design in about two weeks. >> No, they could cover it in 2 seconds: "Goddidit." > > That's illegal to say in a public school classroom. The teachers would > have to say that an Intelligent Designer done it. And this intelligent designer is who? God. "A pile of male bovine excrement by any other name would still be bullshit." When the teachers > covered evolution, the teachers would have to say, "Life evolved from > non-life". No, they wouldn't, because it's not true. Life FORMED from non-life; it didn't evolve from it (and even you agreed that life formed from non-life.) Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 Jason wrote: > Would you be in favor of such a course? I posted an article about a public > school where Muslim children have a special recess so the Muslim students > can have a group prayer session. That same public school has a special > class that only has Muslim girls. No boys are allowed to enter that class > room. What is your opinion about that public school? A public school in the US? Sure ya did. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f63of0$e38$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> I understand your point: This is how I would ask the questions: >>> >>> Do you believe humans evolved from other life-forms without any >>> involvement of god? yes or no >>> >>> Do you believe that both evolution and intelligent design should be taught >>> in the public schools or just evolution? >> Do you believe something should be taught in schools that has no >> scientific backing? > > If you are referring to Intelligent Design, it does have fossil evidence > as scientific backing. No, it doesn't. Now answer the question: Do you believe something should be taught in schools that has no scientific backing? It's a simple "yes/no" question. No essays required. There have been two books written related to fossil > evidence that supports creation science and intelligent design. And there have been thousands of books related to fossil evidence that supports evolution. Dr. Steven > Austin has a degree in geology from Penn State. He has led 15 research > expeditions to the Grand Canyon. His specialty is the sedimentary > processes that form rock strata and fossils. And this supports creationism how? Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <Dkehi.18055$19.2828@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-2906071345110001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>> In article <FXdhi.18047$19.9282@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >>> <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >>>> news:Jason-2906071323570001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>>> In article <f63of0$e38$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>> I understand your point: This is how I would ask the questions: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you believe humans evolved from other life-forms without any >>>>>>> involvement of god? yes or no >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you believe that both evolution and intelligent design should be >>>>>>> taught >>>>>>> in the public schools or just evolution? >>>>>> Do you believe something should be taught in schools that has no >>>>>> scientific backing? >>>>> If you are referring to Intelligent Design, it does have fossil >>>>> evidence >>>>> as scientific backing. There have been two books written related to >>>>> fossil >>>>> evidence that supports creation science and intelligent design. Dr. >>>>> Steven >>>>> Austin has a degree in geology from Penn State. He has led 15 research >>>>> expeditions to the Grand Canyon. His specialty is the sedimentary >>>>> processes that form rock strata and fossils. >>>>> Jason >>>> Yes and he maintains that the Grand Canyon is less than 10,000 yeas old. >>>> It >>>> would appear to me that his specialty is bullshit! >>> No, but during the expeditions to the Grand Canyon, they have to watch out >>> for mule shit. >> No Jason, the answer is bullshit!! > > In the report that I read related to the latest expedition, mules were > mentioned since tourists use mules to carry their camping supplies. Bulls > were not mentioned. Perhaps you are referring to the bull.... related to > some of the posts that contained derogatory language. No, Jason, he was referring to the bullshit in the book written by this joker. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 James Norris wrote: <snip off-topic and repeatedly cut-and-pasted crap> > Discuss. Go away. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 <snip for brevity> >> No, you haven't really grasped the point about the vibrations in the >> example. I was just pointing out that a certain amount of complexity >> is required for consciousness, so complexity is needed somewhere in >> the mechanoid. Vibrating systems can contain information of arbitrary >> complexity - they don't have to be made out of physical elastic >> bands. Vibrations occur in strings in general, these could be the >> theoretical strings of string-theory, or hair-like cilia made from >> millions of tiny pinheads all oscillating in a plasma field, if you >> think elastic bands are too primitive a device to be worth >> considering. Some people think that Mobius strips are weirdly clever >> - perhaps if millions of elastic bands were Mobius strips interacting >> in a complex 3-d lattice, with carefully placed twigs and twiglets to >> provide the necessary resonance and feedback effects, it would be >> rather more likely to have the necessary complexity for conscious >> awareness of reality, than using just the one guitar string that you >> suggest? > > Discuss. > > Jim Clip the post if that is all you are saying, you inconsiderate ass. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 Jason wrote: > The same time that you realize that there is no evidence to indicate that > life ever natually evolved from non-life. It's based on speculation and > not evidence. Who ever claimed that life DID evolve from non-life? Jason, why do you keep repeating this same tired lie? Quote
Guest James Norris Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Jun 30, 2:01?pm, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > The same time that you realize that there is no evidence to indicate that > > life ever natually evolved from non-life. It's based on speculation and > > not evidence. > > Who ever claimed that life DID evolve from non-life? Jason, why do you > keep repeating this same tired lie? On Jun 30, 4:26 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 3:25?am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > On Jun 30, 1:55 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > > > Design for a Conscious Mechanoid > > > [Just to deter the predictable 'define what you mean by conscious' > > posting: 'Conscious' means 'aware of reality' - a human being is > > conscious, but a piece of paper is not conscious. If there is still a > > problem with understanding the word 'conscious', try using a > > dictionary.] > > > Start off with millions of identical ordinary (non-conscious) robots. > > Each robot is pre-programmed to collect things from the environment at > > random (twigs, elastic bands, teacups, wheels, orange peel etc), and > > incorporate them into itself, gradually replacing all its original > > component parts as it does so. Now let the robots free to interact > > with the environment, and watch what happens. > > > Most of the robots would cease to function quite rapidly, of course. > > They might replace one of their vital components (the computer > > program, for example), with a piece of orange peel and immediately > > stop working permanently. Some might continue to function for quite a > > while, making meaningless minor alterations to their original > > structure, without affecting their basic operation as a programmed > > mechanical device, which we knew to be non-conscious. We can ignore > > robots which have replaced themselves with biological material which > > was already conscious, because that is obviously not what we are > > interested in. > > > The robots we are interested in are those which manage to replace all > > their constituent components, including their original computer > > hardware and software, but are still functioning. They, like > > ourselves, have been created out of material from the environment, so > > they might be conscious, as we are. > > > A certain amount of complexity is required for consciousness, and this > > could be provided, for example, by using the twigs to twang the > > elastic bands - the vibrational properties of the elastic bands could > > easily carry any complexity necessary for the occurrence of thought. > > For that to happen by chance is extremely unlikely of course, as is > > the likelihood of millions of monkeys randomly operating typewriters > > producing the occasional Shakespeare sonnet by chance, but if you left > > them long enough, they would eventually do it! > > > Consciousness is a subjective experience, so there is no way of > > determining whether or not anything or anybody is conscious. In the > > design above, the construction allows the possibility that > > consciousness might occur in a device which was originally non- > > conscious. The random self-modifying behaviour may have led to a > > wheeled mechanism made out of orange peel, teacups and elastic bands > > held together with bits of wood, with its understanding of reality > > contained in the vibrational processes occurring in the twig-twanged > > elastic bands, which wanders around in the natural environment > > apparently decorating itself with the bits of garbage it picks up. > > Perhaps the device has improved on its original design and is now > > conscious? At any rate, it certainly wouldn't be less conscious than > > it was to begin with. > > > James Norris > > > > > > I read your thread. Was it a satirical portrayal of atheist > > > > > "reasoning"? > > > > > No, it was a design for a conscious entity, neither biological nor > > > > computer-based. > > > > > > I especially liked the bit: > > > > > > "A certain amount of complexity is required for consciousness, and > > > > > this could be provided, for example, by using the twigs to twang the > > > > > elastic bands - the vibrational properties of the elastic bands could > > > > > easily carry any complexity necessary for the occurrence of thought." > > > > > > You could imagine atheists setting themselves up as authorities on > > > > > which tunes played on a guitar gave rise to consciousness, and whether > > > > > one string, or all the strings, or the whole guitar had the > > > > > experiences. They could debate on to what extent they could > > > > > anthropomorphise the conscious experience a certain song gave. > > > > > The notion of vibrations carrying information was an example of how > > > > the necessary complexity for 'thoughts' might arise in the mechanism. > > > > I understand from your earlier postings that you believe that human > > > > beings have a non-physical 'soul', so I'm not sure why you think my > > > > suggestion is so laughable. > > > > > > Though the part where you said, "consciousness is a subjective > > > > > experience, so there is no way of determining whether or not anything > > > > > or anybody is conscious", did illustrate that from an atheist > > > > > perspective there would be no experimental difference expected whether > > > > > something was or wasn't consciously experiencing, which is something a > > > > > few of them here are having problems coming to terms with. > > > > > I don't know why you pick on atheists in particular as having a > > > > problem with the unverifiability of subjective experiences, but > > > > anyway, perhaps many of us do - I personally don't. > > > > > > Still, very amusing, assuming of course you weren't being serious, and > > > > > an absolute nutter. > > > > > An absolute nutter in your opinion might be someone who believed that > > > > they had four souls, rather than just the one, I suppose. > > > > > The Design for a Conscious Mechanoid is quite serious - a hypothetical > > > > example of how a constructed 'mechanical' (ie non-biological) being > > > > might be conscious. I'm not suggesting that it would ever work in > > > > reality, any more than that a million monkeys typing on a million > > > > typewriters for a million years to produce the works of Shakespeare > > > > would ever work in reality. The example draws attention to the > > > > salient aspects of an interesting question. I'm glad you found it > > > > amusing though. I always try to make my postings interesting and > > > > memorable, and humour is a well-known didactic tool. > > > > The problem with no experimental difference expected whether something > > > was or wasn't consciously experiencing, is that it means whether it > > > was or wasn't, couldn't be thought to influence behaviour. If that was > > > the case, it would have to be a coincidence that our behaviour > > > expressed the conscious experiences we actually have (it couldn't have > > > been influenced by their existance). > > > You are trying to discuss consciousness using behavioural concepts. > > The behavioural understanding of the psyche has little to say about > > consciousness - the brain reacts to external stimuli and produces > > behaviour in the organism, which is studied to give an understanding > > of the workings of the brain. Cognitive models of consciousness, > > which you should look into as they might help you express your > > argument, are inside-out compared to the behavioural viewpoint. The > > 'mind' (which is believed to exist because of processes occurring in > > the brain) is considered as an Ego, with Superego, Id and various > > other paraphernalia, and these all contribute to goal-directed > > behaviour caused by subjective 'needs' which the conscious being tries > > to satisfy. > > > > Anyway, interesting post. So have you any thoughts on which tunes > > > played on a guitar might be give rise to, the string(s) or the guitar > > > thinking? Any thoughts on what those thoughts might be? I ask you, as > > > I guess you would be the closest thing to a world authority on the > > > concept, or have you got competition? > > No, you haven't really grasped the point about the vibrations in the > example. I was just pointing out that a certain amount of complexity > is required for consciousness, so complexity is needed somewhere in > the mechanoid. Vibrating systems can contain information of arbitrary > complexity - they don't have to be made out of physical elastic > bands. Vibrations occur in strings in general, these could be the > theoretical strings of string-theory, or hair-like cilia made from > millions of tiny pinheads all oscillating in a plasma field, if you > think elastic bands are too primitive a device to be worth > considering. Some people think that Mobius strips are weirdly clever > - perhaps if millions of elastic bands were Mobius strips interacting > in a complex 3-d lattice, with carefully placed twigs and twiglets to > provide the necessary resonance and feedback effects, it would be > rather more likely to have the necessary complexity for conscious > awareness of reality, than using just the one guitar string that you > suggest? Discuss. Jim Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 >> No, you haven't really grasped the point about the vibrations in the >> example. I was just pointing out that a certain amount of complexity >> is required for consciousness, so complexity is needed somewhere in >> the mechanoid. Vibrating systems can contain information of arbitrary >> complexity - they don't have to be made out of physical elastic >> bands. Vibrations occur in strings in general, these could be the >> theoretical strings of string-theory, or hair-like cilia made from >> millions of tiny pinheads all oscillating in a plasma field, if you >> think elastic bands are too primitive a device to be worth >> considering. Some people think that Mobius strips are weirdly clever >> - perhaps if millions of elastic bands were Mobius strips interacting >> in a complex 3-d lattice, with carefully placed twigs and twiglets to >> provide the necessary resonance and feedback effects, it would be >> rather more likely to have the necessary complexity for conscious >> awareness of reality, than using just the one guitar string that you >> suggest? > > Discuss. PLONK Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 21:13:02 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2906072113020001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <abfb83pgo2i5676l16o4ldmbemvoajj8ei@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:00:01 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2906071900010001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <s4cb83dcef6ojpeq98o3o2c4ctu5fm6q87@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:42:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-2806071942490001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >In article <e0l883t608fc0d1nfsgeqg3ccqh8s5efpk@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> ... >> >> >> >> Yet your rejection of these entails rejecting evidence. Why do you >> >> >> reject evidence? >> >> > >> >> >I don't reject evidence. I have stated in other posts that I would accept >> >> >abiogenesis if scientists could conduct a lab experiment that proved that >> >> >life could evolve from non-life. Someone referred me to a site that >> >> >discussed an experiment that proved that some genetic material could be >> >> >produced from non-genetic material. As you know, there is a vast amount of >> >> >difference between genetic material and life. >> >> >Jason >> >> > >> >> You reject evidence. You are not a scientist. You don't get to tell >> >> scientists what evidence you accept and what you reject. You don't even >> >> know what evidence is. >> > >> >The point is that any experiment that was done would have to be >> >repeatable. >> >> Yes, but not necessarily in the way you insist. >> >> > That means that any of the science professors that teach at >> >the ICR graduate school >> >> They don't teach science. Stop lying about that. >> >> >or Oral Roberts University could repeat the >> >experiment and write a report in their newsletters or on their websites >> >about the results of that experiment. >> >> Your point? Oral Roberts is a member of North Central Association. That >> means they are a real college. I am confident that you would be able to >> find a qualified Biologist in their faculty. Don't lump them in with the >> liars of ICR and DI. >> >> >I could also read about it in >> >Discovery Magazine, National Geographic magazine or the Journal of >> >Molecular Evolution website. I may not be able to personally analyze the >> >results of such an experiment but there are lots of other people that >> >could do it. The above mentioned people and organizations know what >> >evidence is. >> >> ICR doesn't. You know they are liars. The rest have no problem with real >> science. > >Not a problem: I would visit the Oral Roberts University website and read >about the results of such an experiment. I would buy Discorvery Magazine >and National Geographic Magazine and read about the results of such an >experiment. You haven't explained why you reject evidence that comes from places that you don't approve of or accept false claims made by groups that you do approve of? Don't you think that you harm Christianity by supporting liars like the ICR? By the way, Bill Dembski has completely lost the thread. He is now defending a holocaust denier who was jailed in Germany. Learn about the entire context here: <http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/whod_have_ever_cared_about_joh.php> Learn not to defend those who lie and deceive in His name. It makes you, and all of Christianity look bad. -- "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis Quote
Guest James Norris Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Jun 30, 4:26 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 3:25?am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > On Jun 30, 1:55 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > > > Design for a Conscious Mechanoid > > > [Just to deter the predictable 'define what you mean by conscious' > > posting: 'Conscious' means 'aware of reality' - a human being is > > conscious, but a piece of paper is not conscious. If there is still a > > problem with understanding the word 'conscious', try using a > > dictionary.] > > > Start off with millions of identical ordinary (non-conscious) robots. > > Each robot is pre-programmed to collect things from the environment at > > random (twigs, elastic bands, teacups, wheels, orange peel etc), and > > incorporate them into itself, gradually replacing all its original > > component parts as it does so. Now let the robots free to interact > > with the environment, and watch what happens. > > > Most of the robots would cease to function quite rapidly, of course. > > They might replace one of their vital components (the computer > > program, for example), with a piece of orange peel and immediately > > stop working permanently. Some might continue to function for quite a > > while, making meaningless minor alterations to their original > > structure, without affecting their basic operation as a programmed > > mechanical device, which we knew to be non-conscious. We can ignore > > robots which have replaced themselves with biological material which > > was already conscious, because that is obviously not what we are > > interested in. > > > The robots we are interested in are those which manage to replace all > > their constituent components, including their original computer > > hardware and software, but are still functioning. They, like > > ourselves, have been created out of material from the environment, so > > they might be conscious, as we are. > > > A certain amount of complexity is required for consciousness, and this > > could be provided, for example, by using the twigs to twang the > > elastic bands - the vibrational properties of the elastic bands could > > easily carry any complexity necessary for the occurrence of thought. > > For that to happen by chance is extremely unlikely of course, as is > > the likelihood of millions of monkeys randomly operating typewriters > > producing the occasional Shakespeare sonnet by chance, but if you left > > them long enough, they would eventually do it! > > > Consciousness is a subjective experience, so there is no way of > > determining whether or not anything or anybody is conscious. In the > > design above, the construction allows the possibility that > > consciousness might occur in a device which was originally non- > > conscious. The random self-modifying behaviour may have led to a > > wheeled mechanism made out of orange peel, teacups and elastic bands > > held together with bits of wood, with its understanding of reality > > contained in the vibrational processes occurring in the twig-twanged > > elastic bands, which wanders around in the natural environment > > apparently decorating itself with the bits of garbage it picks up. > > Perhaps the device has improved on its original design and is now > > conscious? At any rate, it certainly wouldn't be less conscious than > > it was to begin with. > > > James Norris > > > > > > I read your thread. Was it a satirical portrayal of atheist > > > > > "reasoning"? > > > > > No, it was a design for a conscious entity, neither biological nor > > > > computer-based. > > > > > > I especially liked the bit: > > > > > > "A certain amount of complexity is required for consciousness, and > > > > > this could be provided, for example, by using the twigs to twang the > > > > > elastic bands - the vibrational properties of the elastic bands could > > > > > easily carry any complexity necessary for the occurrence of thought." > > > > > > You could imagine atheists setting themselves up as authorities on > > > > > which tunes played on a guitar gave rise to consciousness, and whether > > > > > one string, or all the strings, or the whole guitar had the > > > > > experiences. They could debate on to what extent they could > > > > > anthropomorphise the conscious experience a certain song gave. > > > > > The notion of vibrations carrying information was an example of how > > > > the necessary complexity for 'thoughts' might arise in the mechanism. > > > > I understand from your earlier postings that you believe that human > > > > beings have a non-physical 'soul', so I'm not sure why you think my > > > > suggestion is so laughable. > > > > > > Though the part where you said, "consciousness is a subjective > > > > > experience, so there is no way of determining whether or not anything > > > > > or anybody is conscious", did illustrate that from an atheist > > > > > perspective there would be no experimental difference expected whether > > > > > something was or wasn't consciously experiencing, which is something a > > > > > few of them here are having problems coming to terms with. > > > > > I don't know why you pick on atheists in particular as having a > > > > problem with the unverifiability of subjective experiences, but > > > > anyway, perhaps many of us do - I personally don't. > > > > > > Still, very amusing, assuming of course you weren't being serious, and > > > > > an absolute nutter. > > > > > An absolute nutter in your opinion might be someone who believed that > > > > they had four souls, rather than just the one, I suppose. > > > > > The Design for a Conscious Mechanoid is quite serious - a hypothetical > > > > example of how a constructed 'mechanical' (ie non-biological) being > > > > might be conscious. I'm not suggesting that it would ever work in > > > > reality, any more than that a million monkeys typing on a million > > > > typewriters for a million years to produce the works of Shakespeare > > > > would ever work in reality. The example draws attention to the > > > > salient aspects of an interesting question. I'm glad you found it > > > > amusing though. I always try to make my postings interesting and > > > > memorable, and humour is a well-known didactic tool. > > > > The problem with no experimental difference expected whether something > > > was or wasn't consciously experiencing, is that it means whether it > > > was or wasn't, couldn't be thought to influence behaviour. If that was > > > the case, it would have to be a coincidence that our behaviour > > > expressed the conscious experiences we actually have (it couldn't have > > > been influenced by their existance). > > > You are trying to discuss consciousness using behavioural concepts. > > The behavioural understanding of the psyche has little to say about > > consciousness - the brain reacts to external stimuli and produces > > behaviour in the organism, which is studied to give an understanding > > of the workings of the brain. Cognitive models of consciousness, > > which you should look into as they might help you express your > > argument, are inside-out compared to the behavioural viewpoint. The > > 'mind' (which is believed to exist because of processes occurring in > > the brain) is considered as an Ego, with Superego, Id and various > > other paraphernalia, and these all contribute to goal-directed > > behaviour caused by subjective 'needs' which the conscious being tries > > to satisfy. > > > > Anyway, interesting post. So have you any thoughts on which tunes > > > played on a guitar might be give rise to, the string(s) or the guitar > > > thinking? Any thoughts on what those thoughts might be? I ask you, as > > > I guess you would be the closest thing to a world authority on the > > > concept, or have you got competition? > > No, you haven't really grasped the point about the vibrations in the > example. I was just pointing out that a certain amount of complexity > is required for consciousness, so complexity is needed somewhere in > the mechanoid. Vibrating systems can contain information of arbitrary > complexity - they don't have to be made out of physical elastic > bands. Vibrations occur in strings in general, these could be the > theoretical strings of string-theory, or hair-like cilia made from > millions of tiny pinheads all oscillating in a plasma field, if you > think elastic bands are too primitive a device to be worth > considering. Some people think that Mobius strips are weirdly clever > - perhaps if millions of elastic bands were Mobius strips interacting > in a complex 3-d lattice, with carefully placed twigs and twiglets to > provide the necessary resonance and feedback effects, it would be > rather more likely to have the necessary complexity for conscious > awareness of reality, than using just the one guitar string that you > suggest? Discuss. Jim On Jun 30, 3:08?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 21:13:02 -0700, in alt.atheism > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2906072113020...@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > > > >In article <abfb83pgo2i5676l16o4ldmbemvoajj...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > >> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:00:01 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-2906071900010...@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <s4cb83dcef6ojpeq98o3o2c4ctu5fm6...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > >> >> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:42:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> <Jason-2806071942490...@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >In article <e0l883t608fc0d1nfsgeqg3ccqh8s5e...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> >> ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > >> ... > > >> >> >> Yet your rejection of these entails rejecting evidence. Why do you > >> >> >> reject evidence? > > >> >> >I don't reject evidence. I have stated in other posts that I would accept > >> >> >abiogenesis if scientists could conduct a lab experiment that proved that > >> >> >life could evolve from non-life. Someone referred me to a site that > >> >> >discussed an experiment that proved that some genetic material could be > >> >> >produced from non-genetic material. As you know, there is a vast amount of > >> >> >difference between genetic material and life. > >> >> >Jason > > >> >> You reject evidence. You are not a scientist. You don't get to tell > >> >> scientists what evidence you accept and what you reject. You don't even > >> >> know what evidence is. > > >> >The point is that any experiment that was done would have to be > >> >repeatable. > > >> Yes, but not necessarily in the way you insist. > > >> > That means that any of the science professors that teach at > >> >the ICR graduate school > > >> They don't teach science. Stop lying about that. > > >> >or Oral Roberts University could repeat the > >> >experiment and write a report in their newsletters or on their websites > >> >about the results of that experiment. > > >> Your point? Oral Roberts is a member of North Central Association. That > >> means they are a real college. I am confident that you would be able to > >> find a qualified Biologist in their faculty. Don't lump them in with the > >> liars of ICR and DI. > > >> >I could also read about it in > >> >Discovery Magazine, National Geographic magazine or the Journal of > >> >Molecular Evolution website. I may not be able to personally analyze the > >> >results of such an experiment but there are lots of other people that > >> >could do it. The above mentioned people and organizations know what > >> >evidence is. > > >> ICR doesn't. You know they are liars. The rest have no problem with real > >> science. > > >Not a problem: I would visit the Oral Roberts University website and read > >about the results of such an experiment. I would buy Discorvery Magazine > >and National Geographic Magazine and read about the results of such an > >experiment. > > You haven't explained why you reject evidence that comes from places > that you don't approve of or accept false claims made by groups that you > do approve of? > > Don't you think that you harm Christianity by supporting liars like the > ICR? > > By the way, Bill Dembski has completely lost the thread. He is now > defending a holocaust denier who was jailed in Germany. Learn about the > entire context here: > <http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/whod_have_ever_cared_about...> > > Learn not to defend those who lie and deceive in His name. It makes you, > and all of Christianity look bad. > -- > > "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel > to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy > Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should > take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in > which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh > it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - On Jun 30, 4:26 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 3:25?am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > On Jun 30, 1:55 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > > > Design for a Conscious Mechanoid > > > [Just to deter the predictable 'define what you mean by conscious' > > posting: 'Conscious' means 'aware of reality' - a human being is > > conscious, but a piece of paper is not conscious. If there is still a > > problem with understanding the word 'conscious', try using a > > dictionary.] > > > Start off with millions of identical ordinary (non-conscious) robots. > > Each robot is pre-programmed to collect things from the environment at > > random (twigs, elastic bands, teacups, wheels, orange peel etc), and > > incorporate them into itself, gradually replacing all its original > > component parts as it does so. Now let the robots free to interact > > with the environment, and watch what happens. > > > Most of the robots would cease to function quite rapidly, of course. > > They might replace one of their vital components (the computer > > program, for example), with a piece of orange peel and immediately > > stop working permanently. Some might continue to function for quite a > > while, making meaningless minor alterations to their original > > structure, without affecting their basic operation as a programmed > > mechanical device, which we knew to be non-conscious. We can ignore > > robots which have replaced themselves with biological material which > > was already conscious, because that is obviously not what we are > > interested in. > > > The robots we are interested in are those which manage to replace all > > their constituent components, including their original computer > > hardware and software, but are still functioning. They, like > > ourselves, have been created out of material from the environment, so > > they might be conscious, as we are. > > > A certain amount of complexity is required for consciousness, and this > > could be provided, for example, by using the twigs to twang the > > elastic bands - the vibrational properties of the elastic bands could > > easily carry any complexity necessary for the occurrence of thought. > > For that to happen by chance is extremely unlikely of course, as is > > the likelihood of millions of monkeys randomly operating typewriters > > producing the occasional Shakespeare sonnet by chance, but if you left > > them long enough, they would eventually do it! > > > Consciousness is a subjective experience, so there is no way of > > determining whether or not anything or anybody is conscious. In the > > design above, the construction allows the possibility that > > consciousness might occur in a device which was originally non- > > conscious. The random self-modifying behaviour may have led to a > > wheeled mechanism made out of orange peel, teacups and elastic bands > > held together with bits of wood, with its understanding of reality > > contained in the vibrational processes occurring in the twig-twanged > > elastic bands, which wanders around in the natural environment > > apparently decorating itself with the bits of garbage it picks up. > > Perhaps the device has improved on its original design and is now > > conscious? At any rate, it certainly wouldn't be less conscious than > > it was to begin with. > > > James Norris > > > > > > I read your thread. Was it a satirical portrayal of atheist > > > > > "reasoning"? > > > > > No, it was a design for a conscious entity, neither biological nor > > > > computer-based. > > > > > > I especially liked the bit: > > > > > > "A certain amount of complexity is required for consciousness, and > > > > > this could be provided, for example, by using the twigs to twang the > > > > > elastic bands - the vibrational properties of the elastic bands could > > > > > easily carry any complexity necessary for the occurrence of thought." > > > > > > You could imagine atheists setting themselves up as authorities on > > > > > which tunes played on a guitar gave rise to consciousness, and whether > > > > > one string, or all the strings, or the whole guitar had the > > > > > experiences. They could debate on to what extent they could > > > > > anthropomorphise the conscious experience a certain song gave. > > > > > The notion of vibrations carrying information was an example of how > > > > the necessary complexity for 'thoughts' might arise in the mechanism. > > > > I understand from your earlier postings that you believe that human > > > > beings have a non-physical 'soul', so I'm not sure why you think my > > > > suggestion is so laughable. > > > > > > Though the part where you said, "consciousness is a subjective > > > > > experience, so there is no way of determining whether or not anything > > > > > or anybody is conscious", did illustrate that from an atheist > > > > > perspective there would be no experimental difference expected whether > > > > > something was or wasn't consciously experiencing, which is something a > > > > > few of them here are having problems coming to terms with. > > > > > I don't know why you pick on atheists in particular as having a > > > > problem with the unverifiability of subjective experiences, but > > > > anyway, perhaps many of us do - I personally don't. > > > > > > Still, very amusing, assuming of course you weren't being serious, and > > > > > an absolute nutter. > > > > > An absolute nutter in your opinion might be someone who believed that > > > > they had four souls, rather than just the one, I suppose. > > > > > The Design for a Conscious Mechanoid is quite serious - a hypothetical > > > > example of how a constructed 'mechanical' (ie non-biological) being > > > > might be conscious. I'm not suggesting that it would ever work in > > > > reality, any more than that a million monkeys typing on a million > > > > typewriters for a million years to produce the works of Shakespeare > > > > would ever work in reality. The example draws attention to the > > > > salient aspects of an interesting question. I'm glad you found it > > > > amusing though. I always try to make my postings interesting and > > > > memorable, and humour is a well-known didactic tool. > > > > The problem with no experimental difference expected whether something > > > was or wasn't consciously experiencing, is that it means whether it > > > was or wasn't, couldn't be thought to influence behaviour. If that was > > > the case, it would have to be a coincidence that our behaviour > > > expressed the conscious experiences we actually have (it couldn't have > > > been influenced by their existance). > > > You are trying to discuss consciousness using behavioural concepts. > > The behavioural understanding of the psyche has little to say about > > consciousness - the brain reacts to external stimuli and produces > > behaviour in the organism, which is studied to give an understanding > > of the workings of the brain. Cognitive models of consciousness, > > which you should look into as they might help you express your > > argument, are inside-out compared to the behavioural viewpoint. The > > 'mind' (which is believed to exist because of processes occurring in > > the brain) is considered as an Ego, with Superego, Id and various > > other paraphernalia, and these all contribute to goal-directed > > behaviour caused by subjective 'needs' which the conscious being tries > > to satisfy. > > > > Anyway, interesting post. So have you any thoughts on which tunes > > > played on a guitar might be give rise to, the string(s) or the guitar > > > thinking? Any thoughts on what those thoughts might be? I ask you, as > > > I guess you would be the closest thing to a world authority on the > > > concept, or have you got competition? > > No, you haven't really grasped the point about the vibrations in the > example. I was just pointing out that a certain amount of complexity > is required for consciousness, so complexity is needed somewhere in > the mechanoid. Vibrating systems can contain information of arbitrary > complexity - they don't have to be made out of physical elastic > bands. Vibrations occur in strings in general, these could be the > theoretical strings of string-theory, or hair-like cilia made from > millions of tiny pinheads all oscillating in a plasma field, if you > think elastic bands are too primitive a device to be worth > considering. Some people think that Mobius strips are weirdly clever > - perhaps if millions of elastic bands were Mobius strips interacting > in a complex 3-d lattice, with carefully placed twigs and twiglets to > provide the necessary resonance and feedback effects, it would be > rather more likely to have the necessary complexity for conscious > awareness of reality, than using just the one guitar string that you > suggest? Discuss. Jim Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 21:00:37 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2906072100370001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1183168775.672682.49010@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Martin ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 30, 4:23 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <f63of0$e3...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> > >> > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> > > Jason wrote: >> > > > I understand your point: This is how I would ask the questions: >> > >> > > > Do you believe humans evolved from other life-forms without any >> > > > involvement of god? yes or no >> > >> > > > Do you believe that both evolution and intelligent design should >be taught >> > > > in the public schools or just evolution? >> > >> > > Do you believe something should be taught in schools that has no >> > > scientific backing? >> > >> > If you are referring to Intelligent Design, it does have fossil evidence >> > as scientific backing. >> >> Again, show us a fossil of your god or stop lying. >> >> Martin > >Martin, >I've already told you about two books that discuss the evidence. Upon >request, I'll try to find an article on the net that provides a summary of >the evidence. Jason, clearly you haven't read them, nor do you understand enough of science to know how bad those books are. Since you have decided to remain ignorant of everything scientific and refuse to accept any facts that are put before you, why don't you stop posting. You already know that your opinion is worthless and makes Christians look bad. -- "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.