Re: The (g)od That Exists

[Edward the Theist]

The paramecium is not much more conscious [/b]than a plant, as we would normally understand consciousness.  Edward the Theist seems to put great store in the movement of the paramecium; the fact that it changes direction, and I think there's a good reason for that.  The paramecium obviously is affected by light and heat, and the presence of potential food.  But so is a plant, and unless we're willing to call a plant conscious, then it really comes down to movement as the distinguishing factor.

(emphasis in red is mine)

I'm sorry, I assume you believe your words matter and that you say what you mean. You just said the paramecium was conscious. Not much more than a plant (and I would agree) but conscious nonetheless. Either you aren't fit to handle this discussion, or you can't admit what you know because of your religious bias (your religion being atheism). So, which is it?

However, the movement of the paramecium is the result of the way that cilia work:

Yeah, obviously. The way I move is the result of the way my muscles and skeleton work. Your point?

This doesn't happen quite smoothly, and when the paramecium resumes its journey, it is usually in a slightly different direction than before - giving the appearance that it has made a detour around the obstacle.

You could say the same thing about any animal movement. In fact, you can say it's an illusion all day long. You can say that about anything you want that doesn't fit your mode of thinking. But if you watch the video, if you go one better and do the microbiology work yourself, you're going to see that they are moving about like animals, not like automatons responding to environmental stimuli. All I can do is show you. I can't make you believe what you see.

What is the significance of this? Galvanotaxis provides a neat model of how our very own nerve cells communicate, via voltage gated channels. Cells are stimulated or not by the voltage gradient across their outer membrane; when they are stimulated, they depolarize, meaning ions like potassium and chloride rush through pores or channels that can open when the voltage exceeds a certain level, i.e. they are "voltage gated").
(Emphasis mine)

The above is irrelevant to this discussion. You are describing how the machinery works, not what works the machinery. But it sure makes it sound like you know what you're talking about, doesn't it? You know, I think atheism is nothing more than a big Wizard of Oz.

Anyway, you were saying...

So, while it looks like the paramecium has made a choice, and is consciously changing direction, that is actually not what's going on.

Apparently it is. I'm not saying they don't bump into things and reflex back. I'm saying when they get done feeding on one piece of algae, they dash across the water dropplet to the next one, and then come back to the same spot a little while later. In fact, there's even research into training protozoa. I just came across it, so I'll look it up myself and see what it is. I don't need to. I've watched their behavior at length both in video and through my own microscope. You can say it's only an appearance of consciousness, and I could say that about everyone walking down the street. But at the end of the day, that pig won't fly.

Though it's quite true that the paramecium doesn't have a nervous system such as is present in the majority of multi-cellular animal life, the roughly equivalent parts of the paramecium are fairly well understood.  (The linked article has some of the ideas about the paramecium's equivalent of a nervous system, but an online search of "paramecium nervous system" will provide several other articles about the subject.) In other words, there is no great mystery of a "consciousness" inhabiting the paramecium with no structure to support it.

Your talking about the electro-chemical way in which muscle fiber works, and it's similar to the way nerve impulses travel down an axon. That's not a central nervous system. I realize that's how their cilia work. But that's like our peripheral nervous system, and no one would consider that a mechanism of consciousness. I'm talking about a central nervous system. You know, a brain.

Edward the Theist, I have a simple question for you: When you had your revelation about the paramecium, did you investigate the scientific explanation for what's going on at all?  Assuming that you did, what do you find unsatisfactory about it?

I wonder if you think for one minute that you can try to back me down by acting scientifically pompous? Do you really think after 16 years of debating atheists I would still fall for that old trick? I know you're not a scientist. I know you did a little checking on the internet and then came in here and acted like it's common knowledge to you. That's what atheists do, they put their arm around scientists for the photo op and think Christians and other theists will be intimidated by that. Well, this ain't your grandma's theism anymore.

I shouldn't even answer your question, but I will. I've done all kinds of research on protozoa and the various species thereof and on how they move, And not just on the internet, but in college, too. The consensus is that they move around but they are not conscious. I say they are conscious and that's how they move around. I'm not saying they're doing math or designing houses to live in. I'm not saying there are any poet paramecium. I'm saying they demonstrate volition in their movements as compared to other microorganisms. They move around like animals.

We assume they are not conscious, because to say they are would change the entire world. It would change everything we think we know about the world. Kind of like precognition. You have to doubt it, or else the implications start breaking shit apart.

[pinkocommie]

I wonder if you think for one minute that you can try to back me down by acting scientifically pompous? Do you really think after 16 years of debating atheists I would still fall for that old trick? I know you're not a scientist. I know you did a little checking on the internet and then came in here and acted like it's common knowledge to you. That's what atheists do, they put their arm around scientists for the photo op and think Christians and other theists will be intimidated by that. Well, this ain't your grandma's theism anymore.

   I don't know, man - so far it all seems pretty status quo to me.

[Recusant]

I'm sorry, I assume you believe your words matter and that you say what you mean. You just said the paramecium was conscious. Not much more than a plant (and I would agree) but conscious nonetheless. Either you aren't fit to handle this discussion, or you can't admit what you know because of your religious bias (your religion being atheism). So, which is it?

Oh boy.  You are twisting my words, Edward the Theist, and you know it.  I did not say that the paramecium is conscious.  Rather I compared it's level of consciousness to that of a plant.  There is a difference in the two statements.  Please refrain from such tactics, it does you no credit.

However, the movement of the paramecium is the result of the way that cilia work:

Yeah, obviously. The way I move is the result of the way my muscles and skeleton work. Your point?

Here you take my words out of context, as can be seen by the fact that the quoted sentence ends in a colon.  Why not just include the quote below, and deal with the entire point that I was making? This is not the way to gain the respect of you interlocutor.

This doesn't happen quite smoothly, and when the paramecium resumes its journey, it is usually in a slightly different direction than before - giving the appearance that it has made a detour around the obstacle.

You could say the same thing about any animal movement. In fact, you can say it's an illusion all day long. You can say that about anything you want that doesn't fit your mode of thinking. But if you watch the video, if you go one better and do the microbiology work yourself, you're going to see that they are moving about like animals, not like automatons responding to environmental stimuli. All I can do is show you. I can't make you believe what you see.

When I observe the paramecium, I see a marvelous example of life in action.  I do not see any evidence of consciousness, however, any more than I see evidence of consciousness in the actions of a Venus Flytrap.

The above is irrelevant to this discussion. You are describing how the machinery works, not what works the machinery. But it sure makes it sound like you know what you're talking about, doesn't it? You know, I think atheism is nothing more than a big Wizard of Oz.

That which "works the machinery" is something that's been investigated by scientists.  They seem to have a good grasp on what's going on in the paramecium, and it doesn't agree with your hypothesis.  Present evidence (beyond your observations, which as evidence is equivocal, since others have observed precisely the same thing and have come to a different conclusion) to prove your hypothesis, and I have no doubt that you will be hailed for your breakthrough.  Until you do that, you really have no basis for your disdainful attitude.

Anyway, you were saying...

So, while it looks like the paramecium has made a choice, and is consciously changing direction, that is actually not what's going on.

Apparently it is. I'm not saying they don't bump into things and reflex back. I'm saying when they get done feeding on one piece of algae, they dash across the water dropplet to the next one, and then come back to the same spot a little while later. In fact, there's even research into training protozoa. I just came across it, so I'll look it up myself and see what it is. I don't need to. I've watched their behavior at length both in video and through my own microscope. You can say it's only an appearance of consciousness, and I could say that about everyone walking down the street. But at the end of the day, that pig won't fly.

I can understand your passionate defense, however as I mentioned above, plenty of others have observed the same things you have, yet have not reached the same conclusions as you have.  You may have had a profound insight into paramecium activity, but just saying so doesn't carry any weight at all.  Yours is the pig that needs to fly, sir, not mine.  Mine only walks.  I'm not the one that's making extraordinary claims.

I wonder if you think for one minute that you can try to back me down by acting scientifically pompous? Do you really think after 16 years of debating atheists I would still fall for that old trick? I know you're not a scientist. I know you did a little checking on the internet and then came in here and acted like it's common knowledge to you. That's what atheists do, they put their arm around scientists for the photo op and think Christians and other theists will be intimidated by that. Well, this ain't your grandma's theism anymore.

Did I present myself as a knowledgeable scientist?  Did I once say that the sources I quoted were presenting what was "common knowledge" to me?  Please quote the relevant passage.  Your rhetoric is amusing, but it would only sting if it were accurate.  I'm not trying to intimidate you, but to discuss your ideas. Mellow out.

I shouldn't even answer your question, but I will. I've done all kinds of research on protozoa and the various species thereof and on how they move, And not just on the internet, but in college, too. The consensus is that they move around but they are not conscious. I say they are conscious and that's how they move around. I'm not saying they're doing math or designing houses to live in. I'm not saying there are any poet paramecium. I'm saying they demonstrate volition in their movements as compared to other microorganisms. They move around like animals.

We assume they are not conscious, because to say they are would change the entire world. It would change everything we think we know about the world. Kind of like precognition. You have to doubt it, or else the implications start breaking shit apart.

OK.  So you don't agree with the consensus. I have an open mind. I think it would be ground-breaking if someone were able to show that there was some type of consciousness in the paramecium, but not world-shaking.  If you can prove your hypothesis, or for instance, if paramecium are shown to be trainable, then I'll be quite willing to agree that there is some form of consciousness there.  That still would not prove that the consciousness was in some way extra-corporeal.

Thank you for your prompt reply.  I know that you're trying to deal with several conversations in this thread.

EDIT: Change "theory" to "hypothesis."

[Cite134]

Atheism is a religion? That's news to me.

[Whitney]

A. I don't believe you are one, because trust me, I'd know one if I saw one (e.g., any psychologist who starts off an assessment with "Dude" has serious problems.)

It's not in keeping with HAF rules to imply or state that a member is lying as that is an uncivil approach to conversation.  I have not been following your posts so I don''t know if you've been warned about this before.  So, this is just a friendly reminder unless someone points out that it should have been a more official step in the warning process.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I wonder if you think for one minute that you can try to back me down by acting scientifically pompous? Do you really think after 16 years of debating atheists I would still fall for that old trick? I know you're not a scientist. I know you did a little checking on the internet and then came in here and acted like it's common knowledge to you. That's what atheists do, they put their arm around scientists for the photo op and think Christians and other theists will be intimidated by that. Well, this ain't your grandma's theism anymore.

No, hers had the decency to wear the garment of faith fairly and squarely, without apology, rather than getting gussied up in a "science" that is obviously ill-fitting.

I wonder why you're so heated up?  The burden of evidence lies squarely on you, and so far, it all seems rather thin.

[Sophus]

To Sophus,

You said: "Single cells do not operate on volition, rather they respond to their environment accordingly."

How do you know? The fact is, you don't. You are biased, and did you even watch the one minute and thirty second video of parmecium feeding? You say they respond to their environment accordingly, but with that kind of bias you would also have to say that every other living animal does as well. You would only be able to verify your own consciousness. You would never be able to verify anyone elses. That might be all you can do with strict proof, but if you see an animal behaving with apparent will, it's a pretty good guess that animal is conscious.

On the other hand, in the same microbiology class, I viewed bacteria, and they also had movement, but it was a kind of vibration that perhaps came from something as slight as breathing on the microscope. They didn't display any sign of volition. So, I know the difference. But do you know the difference?

As for the consciousness we share with protozoa like the paramecium. Yes, I believe it is the same. We simply have a greater mechanical capcity to use that consciousness owing to our muscles and skeleton and central nervous system.

All you've done here is assert that I am biased, ignoring the evidence of the frog and the analogy of starling flocks (and Boids).
And stating that you simply know what volition looks like isn't much of a case. You have to lay out the evidence.

You say they respond to their environment accordingly, but with that kind of bias you would also have to say that every other living animal does as well.

Did you skip over the part where I wrote about the semantics of 'consciousness'?

If you will, take a second read of that and I think you'll see we're likely not in total disagreement. A choice is not being made within the protozoa, per se, rather the choosing is being done for it. This is probably a bad way of explaining it, which will come back to haunt me, because I am not talking of Freewill. What I mean is the protozoa is, like a simple “Boid”, following its inbred nature programmed in by its DNA.

The Magic Pudding’s satirical antenna remark is actually quite astute in that: if you concede certain things are not made to receive consciousness from some external force while others are (especially when some protozoa do and others don't), why then implement the external force at all? It’s not necessary. It means there’s something already going on inside of the organism which accounts for this.

[humblesmurph]

Edward the Theist,

I have to admit, you fight the good fight.  You've got doubters left and right, but you are unswayed.  I admire that.  You remind me of one of my very good friends.  

Disclaimer: I freely admit that my knowledge about biology, God, (g)od and (g) is likely inferior to yours.  I am not challenging your assertions or belittling your intellect.  I admit that much of what I know about biology and the cosmos  has been spoon fed to me from documentaries and books.  I have little to no hands on experience with any of this stuff.  

I did watch a few paramecia videos on YouTube.  I don't see consciousness.  I see movement.  You've stated yourself that the consensus among people who have witnessed what you have witnessed is that paramecia don't have consciousness.  Is there some evidence that you are holding back or that I may have missed in this rather long thread?

I'm not commenting on whether you are right or wrong, but I do have a question.  This discussion has a decidedly scientific tilt to it.  As I understand it, scientists start with a hypothesis and test it to show whether it is right or wrong.  My question is, what evidence are you looking for?  Specifically, what would have to happen for you to conclude that the hypothesis (non physical consciousness) is wrong?  Or confirm that it is correct?

[Squid]

A. I don't believe you are one, because trust me, I'd know one if I saw one (e.g., any psychologist who starts off an assessment with "Dude" has serious problems.)

I use dude quite frequently but I'm just one of those nutty research guys.

[McQ]

A. I don't believe you are one, because trust me, I'd know one if I saw one (e.g., any psychologist who starts off an assessment with "Dude" has serious problems.)

I use dude quite frequently but I'm just one of those nutty research guys.

Edward, I use the word Groovy a lot. Never stopped. Like my vocabulary was halted in 1970. It's weird, man.
Oh yeah, I use "man" too.

And I know dudes who say the strangest things. But it's not like they're Geneticists or anything. Or Oncologists.

And Squid? Well that dude is totally off the hook, man.

So, even though I'm taking the long way to make a point, which I hope you are getting, it doesn't make the point less valid. The fact is that you don't know who is an expert in various things here yet, and who might be blowing smoke. But it would be a mistake for you to assume without evidence.

Another fact is that I've actively engaged in making sure members here didn't just jump all over you because I want new members to get a fair shake. In a way, it's like sticking my neck out for the new guys. So please don't start acting like you have all the answers. You've already falsely stated that atheism is a religion, and you've said you did microbiology work with paramecium. I just pointed out one issue with the false statement. How about backing up your statement about doing microbiology work with presenting some data from it? Preferably in a peer-reviewed journal, or anything that has been replicated.

[Sophus]

A. I don't believe you are one, because trust me, I'd know one if I saw one (e.g., any psychologist who starts off an assessment with "Dude" has serious problems.)

I use dude quite frequently but I'm just one of those nutty research guys.

Yeah, I think saying Martin TK can't be a psychologist because he uses the word "dude" is a bit like saying this guy couldn't be a genius physicist because he likes to stick his tongue out:

[Thumpalumpacus]

A. I don't believe you are one, because trust me, I'd know one if I saw one (e.g., any psychologist who starts off an assessment with "Dude" has serious problems.)

I use dude quite frequently but I'm just one of those nutty research guys.

Yeah, I think saying Martin TK can't be a psychologist because he uses the word "dude" is a bit like saying this guy couldn't be a genius physicist because he likes to stick his tongue out:

Oh, come on, that has to be Photoshopped.  We all know scientists are humorless.  Dude.

[Edward the Theist]

A. I don't believe you are one, because trust me, I'd know one if I saw one (e.g., any psychologist who starts off an assessment with "Dude" has serious problems.)

It's not in keeping with HAF rules to imply or state that a member is lying as that is an uncivil approach to conversation.  I have not been following your posts so I don''t know if you've been warned about this before.  So, this is just a friendly reminder unless someone points out that it should have been a more official step in the warning process.

Okay, I knew this would happen. It usually does when the conversation turns to the pesky little parameciums. Your rules say absolutely nothing about that. Nothing. You're now making it up because you can't win this thing any other way.

Never mind the supposed psychologist was telling me I was crazy--on the web--without even interviewing me or assessing me as a psychologist would. No for that uncivil tone, he's not reprimanded at all.  Just me for doubting his credentials when I happen to be someone in a position to know better.

This happens in every atheist group--the double standard. And like I said, it typically happens when what should be the proof your looking for shows up and you can't deny it, or you deny it but can't remain rational in so doing.  

So, warn away. Ban me, by all means. That's why I wait 60 days now before donating to these forums.

[Edward the Theist]

Edward the Theist,

I have to admit, you fight the good fight.  You've got doubters left and right, but you are unswayed.  I admire that.  You remind me of one of my very good friends.

Thanks, Humblesmurph. That's nice of you to say. As for being unanswered, it's going to stay that way, too. I'm going to take a break for a while. I have a paper to write, and I'd like to announce it here first rather than at Pharyngula or some damn place. But, when the mods start making double standards, you know you're about to be banned. So, I'm going to take a breather from this forum.

Disclaimer: I freely admit that my knowledge about biology, God, (g)od and (g) is likely inferior to yours.  I am not challenging your assertions or belittling your intellect.  I admit that much of what I know about biology and the cosmos  has been spoon fed to me from documentaries and books.  I have little to no hands on experience with any of this stuff.  

Yeah, but you have a mind to think with. So, you'll do alright in the end. But you know, you bring up a good point: The paramecium theory is doomed (even though I still intend to use it). It's doomed because the people who do know are typically biased toward atheism, and the people who don't know don't feel they can make a decision one way or another about it. But I say this: look at your dog or cat. Look at your best friend. Why do you think they are conscious? Isn't it because they display behaviors that look conscious? In fact, faking consciousness is pretty hard to do.

I did watch a few paramecia videos on YouTube.  I don't see consciousness.  I see movement.  You've stated yourself that the consensus among people who have witnessed what you have witnessed is that paramecia don't have consciousness.  Is there some evidence that you are holding back or that I may have missed in this rather long thread?

It's the movement itself. Why do they move in one direction and then another? It's not like the current is moving them. They are making deliberate movements. It's not like a venus flytrap that is triggered by an insect and internal hydrodynamics. It's an apparent choice to look in one spot and then another. But if you don't see it, you don't see it. But be honest, if Richard Dawkins came out and said he saw it, and that in some way it supported evolution this or that, I'll bet you'd see it then. And at the risk of offending you, that my friend, is your biggest problem. It will be  for your entire life if you don't do something about it. Forget paramecium. It's time to decide who is going to rule your mind--you or someone else.

I'm not commenting on whether you are right or wrong, but I do have a question.  This discussion has a decidedly scientific tilt to it.  As I understand it, scientists start with a hypothesis and test it to show whether it is right or wrong.  My question is, what evidence are you looking for?  Specifically, what would have to happen for you to conclude that the hypothesis (non physical consciousness) is wrong?  Or confirm that it is correct?

If there was evidence that their apparent volition was actually just automatic reactions, like with a venus flytrap, then the evidence would be kaput, I suppose. On the other hand, if they could be trained through behavioral techniques of some sort, then they would display memory, and that in my mind would be irrefutable. Right now, understand, it's not just the paramecium. For me, it's also the precognition and the logical inability of the brain to use itself as a tool. So, with the combined affect of those three things, I come to the conclusion that consciousness is external to the central nervous system.

And ultimately, that's all I need to move forward with my cosmology. In the end, I may not be right. But if I can make a theory that is internally consistent, even if the hypotheses turn out to be false in the end, I could live with that. I don't think I'd see that in my lifetime anyway.

Now, Humblesmurph, you tell me straight up--isn't it better to be a free thinker? If it is, then even if I'm wrong I win, right?

[Edward the Theist]

You've already falsely stated that atheism is a religion, and you've said you did microbiology work with paramecium. I just pointed out one issue with the false statement. How about backing up your statement about doing microbiology work with presenting some data from it? Preferably in a peer-reviewed journal, or anything that has been replicated.

You haven't pointed out a false statement at all. Is not atheism in this country protected under the First Amendment? If it's not a religion, then it shouldn't be afforded any protections at all. Rather, it's become a fairly dominant religious force in our society. If it walks like a duck and quacks like one, I typically call it a duck.

As for my research: How exactly am I to get published in a peer-reviewed journal? I'm not a biologist. I'm a nurse who made an observation and reported it. You have yet to prove it's not consciousness we are seeing in the paramecium. And by all accounts it looks like it. Again with the duck thing.

You atheists get all bent out of shape over the parameciums. Isn't it funny how your whole world-view rests on whether the smallest animal in the world is conscious or not? One little thing goes one way or the other and the whole world falls apart.

And that supposed psychologist? I am an expert on that. If he is one, and it's true I can't be sure, but if he is, he acts awfully unprofessional about it. In fact, go back and check it out: he uses his supposed credentials to insult me. That's how he reveals he's a psychologist, but using it to insult me--dude. You really think that guy is a Ph.D. or Psy.D. He'd have to show me his license before I'd believe it. Oh, and without a state license, he is not a clincial psychologist. :upset: Anyone who wants can contact me through my blog or I think I have an e-mail link in my profile. If you don't ban me, I'll come back and start a new topic in a week or so. The great big theory of (g)!