Re: The (g)od That Exists

[Martin TK]

The thing I keep getting here is this REALLY BIG LOOP of nothingness.  If you question the OP's position you are nothing but an atheist, and it's not HIS fault if you can't keep up... well, I can't keep up, and I really am a pretty well educated fellow.  No, I agree I am NOT a scientist nor am I particularly strong in math and logic, but I do usually have a firm grasp on what is being presented on here.  Right now, I am LOST, so someone catch me up, quick.. please...

 

[Recusant]

I'm surprised no one had mentioned chemotaxis before.

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/lol.gif" alt="" title="smile" /> I'm not.  None of us involved in this discussion are as informed in the biological sciences as you are.  I, for instance, was not even aware that scientists had tested paramecia for learning before reading Edward the Theist's posts.  The chemotaxis issue is something that I came across in researching the subject, but I only read some abstracts, and was not ready to bring it into the discussion.  However, in the paper that Edward the Theist referenced, which was published in 2006, there is a description of an attempt to elicit a learned response from paramecia which seems to eliminate the possible effects of chemotaxis.  The conclusion of that paper is that

From "DISCRIMINATION LEARNING IN PARAMECIA" by HARVARD L. ARMUS, AMBER R. MONTGOMERY, and JENNY L. JELLISON, of the University of Toledo

"...the results of these two experiments offer evidence that paramecia (P. caudatum) can and did learn a brightness discrimination and that illumination level acted as an acquired or secondary reinforcer."

This is fascinating stuff, but I still do not see any strong evidence that the "consciousness" of the paramecium is non-physical.  Edward the Theist has yet to show a good case (or any evidence that I can recall) for why the physical structures known to function as the paramecium equivalent to a nervous system are inadequate to that task.

[Squid]

Hmmm, I don't see anywhere in the paper if they utilized deionized water in the created medium, it was distilled but not deionized.  The thing is that shocking the medium will effect the water (even shooting photons through it as with a light) and it has already been shown that not only chemotaxis but ion sensitivity are important for paramecia motility especially in regard to Ca2+ dependent proteins in the cellular membrane.  I also ran across another follow up paper (by the lead author from the first paper) on this line of experimentation where they attempted to induce learning of a discrete action instead of making them stay in one place away from a cathode, it was unsuccessful.  Therefore it wouldn't be too unprecedented to think that the paramecium reacted based upon environment and did not display what one would think of as "learning".

[Thumpalumpacus]

I didn't know about it, thanks for the one-a-day.

[Squid]

Anyhow, I told myself I wouldn't get into this debate so I'm going to leave it at that.

[Sophus]

Again THIS DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING. As you yourself have stated, some protozoa exhibit this "consciousness" and others don't. If they need something internally to receive this external sense of consciousness how can this prove anything? It means something from within is already responsible for their consciousness. This alone does not, and cannot, prove the necessity of an external source for their consciousness.

Everything must be prevaded by consciousness to the same degree, or at least proportionately. However, some things have the ability to use consciousness better than others. Some things have senses, muscles, cillia, etc. Some things don't, like trees. All they can do is grow. It would seem the best structure in the world for utilizing consciousness is those creatures that have senses, brains, muscles and skeletons. Humans seem to have the best brains.

That doesn't mean we generate consciousness. It means we are better able to use it. We (along with the other higher mammals) also seem to form a psychological mind to better utilize it.

I must admit, however, at this time, I do not know the way or reason in which a primordial consciousness would begin to form itself into the matter of the universe. When I have that breakthrough, and I am praying for it, that will be the capstone of my theory.

Any brilliant atheists in here have any ideas?

This still doesn't provide any evidence to suggest we don't generate it. There is no proof of an external source.

[Asmodean]

Anyhow, I told myself I wouldn't get into this debate so I'm going to leave it at that.

Ah... You keep promising yourself that too..? Some debates, they have the gravity of black holes though, do they not..?  

[Sophus]

Dude, there's little sense taking Occam's Razor to Jell-O such as this.

Did I take a sledgehammer to a peanut? Because I still don't think the nut's cracking.

[The Magic Pudding]

The thing I keep getting here is this REALLY BIG LOOP of nothingness....  
Right now, I am LOST, so someone catch me up, quick.. please...  

You don't need to catch up it is as you say, a big loop.
Just stay still for a while and the nothing will come back around and you can jump on-board.

[Tank]

Oh no... it's Edward the Theist. This guy recently got banned from atheistforums.com. I see he's doing nothing different here.

Well he's got a fresh chance here, he'll get banned here if he breaks the rules of this forum. We may not agree with his ideas but there still his ideas.

[Heretical Rants]

You believe something to be true, underlying consciousness, and then you propose it to others as the truth before you have any way to test it.  You have even skipped the steps necessary to formulate a proper hypothesis.

A thought:
Take "underlying consciousness" and replace it with "fundamental particles with the form of vibrating strings of energy."

[Edward the Theist]

You believe something to be true, underlying consciousness, and then you propose it to others as the truth before you have any way to test it.  You have even skipped the steps necessary to formulate a proper hypothesis.

A thought:
Take "underlying consciousness" and replace it with "fundamental particles with the form of vibrating strings of energy."

Great, you still have the same problem I do.

[Heretical Rants]

You believe something to be true, underlying consciousness, and then you propose it to others as the truth before you have any way to test it.  You have even skipped the steps necessary to formulate a proper hypothesis.

A thought:
Take "underlying consciousness" and replace it with "fundamental particles with the form of vibrating strings of energy."

Great, you still have the same problem I do.

I personally think that it´s just a bunch of cool mathematics and probably not much more, so no.
What would even make you think that I was treating string theory the same way that you treat this "(g)od" theory of yours? I just pointed out that often ideas of all kinds are explored thoroughly despite having little or nothing to back them.

Incedentally, what is an od? This isn´t so helpful http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OD

Odic force? Ã"ðr?

OOO, Ã"ðr´s wife is VERY cool.