Time dose not exist except in human models, so if no humans no time, however the observed effects that time is included in our theories to model should still persist.


No that is not what I am saying.

A nervous system is a necessary condition for biological life to experience consciousness, but clearly not sufficient.

I am saying that consciousness has developed in the period after animals first gained nervous system. Not that consciousness magically appeared with the first neuron.

I am saying that consciousness developed during the last half a billion years, not that it developed half a billion years ago.

I've tried to lay that out as best I can ITT. I realize that I haven't done a great job so w/e.

I do think that is what we are talking about (even tho I initially chose to approach it in an incoherent way). The rejection of those explanations I mentioned leaves you with these as the two most likely options (IMO):

1 - some deity/higher power (if materialism is incorrect)
2- we are part of a larger existence/higher order (if materialism is correct)

Also - Can you clarify exactly what your objection is? If it is that I should not be calling this
*something* God, then that is a fair objection and like I said I am open to finding better words, I just think it needs a word.

I don't know. It could have been the beginning of the chain of events that led to it's existence just like the beginning of the chain of events that led to our existence. Or it could have existed before the big bang.

Wow, really? So I guess you would also say that if there are no humans than math as another example does not exist either, right? I forget the correct term, but I think these things inherently exist regardless of us.

OK. Yea as I mentioned earlier, I subscribe to the theory that even single cells possess "units of consciousness". So to me consciousness likely started to evolve as soon as life started to evolve or possibly even before that (if consciousness can exist in some transcendent form or something).

FWIW, this would be fine if it wasn't for the special precedence you're giving to this *something*.

Premise (1) would indicate that at one point in time this *something* did not exist. Why are you assuming that it would probably exist now? Premise (2) would indicate that 'knowledge' somehow exists outside of a living organism. How so?

To your edit: That's definitely part of it. The second part of it is that this *something* is just so nebulous and ill-defined (and I don't understand why you feel why it's likely that there's something that understands stuff that is, and always will be, beyond human comprehension).

OK yea no priority in ranks here. No level/scale/size is more "important" than any other. There is no whole without the parts after all.

Sorry I am too slow pony to figure out my own premises that you are referring to, would you mind clarifying this (sorry I suck at this).

Admittedly it is nebulous and ill-defined to me as well, that is why I'm having so much trouble articulating myself!

The bolded is the key here. Let's try this. I am a computer programmer. You are the computer program (and lets assume your physical characteristics are exactly the same as you are now so you can think, etc). I create a simulation with a bunch of laws and rules. I put you in it from birth, and this is the world that you know your whole life. To you, this is reality. Every inch of code "just is". Every parameter "just is". You wouldn't be able to explain the constructs of your world. I on the other hand, created the simulation!

Again, if someone is willing to further articulate the "it just is" argument then maybe I can better understand that as a valid option.

You keep changing terms. You are asserting that this *something* has knowledge that isn't available to us (is it available to other living things?). What is this something, and why can *it* understand "X" when we never can? (If you're going to use the size distinction again, assume it's a billion years (or whatever) in the future, and we've made a conscious bio-computer the size of Jupiter.)

Was referring to the ideas that this *something* either existed before the big bang, or the big bang set in motion the conditions necessary to create this *something*.

Then it's probably a good idea not to believe in something that you feel is nebulous and ill-defined. IMO, of course.

I don't necessarily agree with the premise that I wouldn't be able to explain the constructs of the world. However, even if I could not (or could never) explain the constructs of the world, that in and of itself does not imply anything about a creator or a higher power (as defined by knowledge). In other words, my inability to know something about my world doesn't imply anything other than that I have an inability to know something about my world.

Kind of, although there will be aliens on other planets with their own languages.

A maths book is just paper and ink. It does not have meaning without someone to recognise the patterns. Although something like number theory is so basic that any intelligence similar to ours is likely to replicate it in some way.

What

Cell biology has the major working of single cells almost completely worked out. Their really is no mystery. Serious unknowns only start to occur when you have multiple cells working together to form a structure currently too complex for us to accurately model.

Here is an episode of "Through The Wormhole" (narrated by morgan freeman) on the Science Channel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LKtiR3Y3SE

It would be a super organism, so by definition it would have greater knowledge than its parts... So you are correct, no living thing (that is within the super organism) could have knowledge available to the super organism. Even a conscious bio-computer the size of Jupiter would be just a part of this universe sized super organism.

explained by video above

meh, string theory seems nebulous and ill defined to me but I still believe it is likely to be correct.

I agree that it doesn't imply anything about a creator, but I do think that it implies a higher power/existence (as defined by knowledge)!

The fish's inability to know what is outside the fishbowl implies that there is something more outside of the fishbowl

Happy New Years Yall

So, you're now arguing the universe is alive?

No it doesn't. Please explain, in detail, how my inability to understand something implies something/someone else can explain it.

Again, no it doesn't. (And you're begging the question by presupposing there's something more outside of the fishbowl.)

Yes, I realize the form in which we communicate math is "just paper and ink", but the underlying concepts are real and universal. They exist outside of human beings (IMO). Besides number theory, you don't think any intelligence similar to ours would be able to replicate mathematical concepts such as say, geometry or fractional mathematics? Quantum physics is really just an extension of math, aren't those concepts real outside of human beings?

An excerpt from Dr Bruce Lipton's "The Biology of Belief"

http://books.google.com/books?id=p6P...reness&f=false

lol, 2 separate theories. Either the universe is alive, or we are a computer simulation. Those are the main 2 at least. I believe in endless possibilities, including atheistic materialism.

In our world from a human perspective there is something more outside of the fishbowl. There is time, consciousness, etc that are outside of your metaphoric fishbowl of possible understanding. You are also in a metaphoric fishbowl with regard to your physical limitations. So there we have established that there is something more outside of this "metaphoric fishbowl" that I am describing.

So as we move toward the larger scale (if the universe were one big superorganism) there should be increasingly greater intelligence based on both the concepts of increasing size having increased intelligence, and super organisms having a greater intelligence than any of it's parts. Again this cannot be proved, by I do think that it can be implied!

Please explain your definition of "alive" and explain in what way the universe is "alive". (I'll watch the video when I have time)

That seems (to me) to be a misuse of the word 'God' or 'Higher Power'. For example, let's say the creator of this computer simulated universe is actually *you* 35 years from now. Would *you* qualify as a 'higher power'? Sure. Are you the highest power, the God? Nah. You're just moving the problem back a step, infinite regression, etc.

Since you referred to it as "atheistic materialism" are you now recanting this idea?

This isn't a given. Please explain why something like consciousness will forever be outside our grasps.

And in what way do my physical limitations (let's say, my inability to teleport across the galaxy) imply that there's something more? Please go step-by-step.

No, it's not implied. Sorry. You're just doing a lot of hand waving. (Remember, also, that we were talking about available/unavailable knowledge, not intelligence.)

From what I understand there are several working definitions of alive, but I would say the main requirements are that: There is a beginning and an end to it's collective existence (you are born and die), you can replicate, and you possess some form of sentience (you have awareness, etc).

This is a very fair statement. I agree that my 35 yr from now future self in this case would be better described as a "higher power" and not "the highest power. FWIW, I am not sure that I believe that there is a such thing as "the highest power".

I don't believe that atheistic materialism is likely to be true. It is a possibility tho. I guess what I was trying to refer to at that time (poorly) was the whole 'universe is alive' concept. So in the quoted that I described it is either atheistic materialism or universe is alive. One has to be true.

The whole "what is it like to be a bat" problem has no possible solution (IMO)

We know for a fact that there is more than the eye can potentially see. Think about micro scales. As we go smaller and smaller, particles disappear into waves, exist at more than one place at the same time, etc. As we go larger and larger, we can't possibly travel that far.

I'm not sure I see a big difference between intelligence and available/unavailable knowledge. Like we can say that one of the cells within my body has available to it all the knowledge that my brain holds (if it somehow was able to get past the physical limitations of being so small vs traveling around my entire brain/body), but it just doesn't/can't have the capacity to know all of the knowledge that my brain holds.

And you believe that the universe, as a whole, somehow collectively formed some kind of singular intelligence? Does this intelligence span the entirety of the universe? How? (light speed tho').

Okay.

Huh? This goes against the entire idea of the universe being alive and collectively having the most knowledge...

Fair enough.

So it looks like "Through The Wormhole" (narrated by Morgan Freeman) also has an episode on the possiblity that we are a simulation! Best show ever! None of my ideas are at all original

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRs72OXRLIc

I don't know but I think it's got something to do with the neutrinos yo. As the 1st video shows this goes hand in hand with "the big bounce". So it was prob alive way before this iteration of the universe.

Maybe our alive universe is just a cell within a bigger alive universe to infinity! Who knows?

I'm not seeing any barrier (given that we've figured out how consciousness works) that would prevent us from replicating the bat's qualia.

EDIT: I worded that poorly. Obviously I'm not saying that we've currently figured out how consciousness works.

I don't see how that helps your case. You only pointed out a particular limitation and noted that there's something more. But you haven't explained *why* a limitation implies something more. In other words, let's say my vision was such that I could *see* superstrings, but no further. How does *this* imply that there's something smaller than superstrings?

You're behind on your "Through the Wormhole". That was season one, episode one. And fret not, none of my ideas are original either. Not the good ones, anyways.

Yeah I guess I can't say this with 100% certainty (that we will never be able to replicate a bat's qualia/know what it is like to be a bat), but I just don't see this as possible personally. Intuitively, I just think there is a small category of stuff that is absolutely unknowable (to us).

Good point, I certainly agree that it doesn't prove that there is something smaller. I think we are getting into semantics when we say "implied", since that is kinda based on intuition, which varies from person to person. I just feel like when we hit that physical wall of particles literally disappearing into waves, it creates a sort of "oh **** I'm stuck in the matrix" feeling.

Okay. Thanks for the discussion.

and it only took 3 weeks ... So in your opinion, based on what I have spewed in this thread, am I better described as a agnostic deist or agnostic atheist?

Is the "computer programmer" concept consistent with atheism?

Is the "universe is a super-organism/alive" concept consistent with atheism?

It's going to depends on the level on confidence you are attributing to these scenarios and (much more importantly) how you personally parse this information. Even if you feel it's likely (or very likely) that "something" exists that you would call "God" does not, in and of itself, make you a deist. You still have to parse this feeling and decide if you "believe".

As an example, let's say I reach into a bag with four (4) blue marbles, and one (1) white marble. After blindly retrieving a single marble do I "believe" it's a blue marble because there's a high probability (80%) of it being blue? No, I'm personally going to withhold belief until I have further evidence (or a higher percentage). So even here, where it's 80-percent to be a blue marble, I would still be an a-blueist. You may feel differently and believe you're holding a blue marble in a bag with 51-blue and 49-white.

So, with that in mind, do you believe you're holding a blue marble (God)?

Yes to both depending on the specifics.