Happy Atheist Forum

As my mind is really bogged down with studying for finals right now, I can't say that I'll be able to articulate my thoughts wonderfully, or even if this idea will make sense, but I'll try to present it to you.

My thought was, if god existed forever, couldn't we have never reached today, since there was an infinite amount of time before now in which god existed?

I think it makes sense, but I don't think it would be useful in debating a theist.  Whenever I bring this or the exclusiveness of omnipotence and omniscience up to my dad, he just replies, "God transcends time, normal rules don't apply."  In turn, whenever I ask him how he knows this, he simply replies, "Because the Catholic Church teaches it."  I was actually surprised the first time I heard him say this, as he is an extremely logical person, and even considered himself an agnostic a while back.  I've been trying to sway him away from religion for a while now  

But anyways, at this point I'm just rabbling on, so....have at it.

I would skip that argument.  I'm an atheist and it doesn't work for me because it is when it is, obviously.

I wouldn't try to argue with someone like that, actually.  When their answer is, "Because the Catholic Church teaches it" there's not much chance you'll get through.

I wouldn't say we argue as much as just have casual debates.  That's actually the response that is the most "typical Christian" from him.  Most of his other points, although not founded in any fact, do at least make a better attempt to be logical than many many many other theist's arguments I've heard.  Some I've even been unable to respond to.  But about the god that existed forever, I wouldn't even think about using it in any serious debate.  As seen, a simple "time doesn't apply to god" will easily sidestep, at least in the eyes of the theist, the argument.

Quote from: "Mike M."My thought was, if god existed forever, couldn't we have never reached today, since there was an infinite amount of time before now in which god existed?

I think it makes sense, but I don't think it would be useful in debating a theist.  Whenever I bring this or the exclusiveness of omnipotence and omniscience up to my dad, he just replies, "God transcends time, normal rules don't apply."  In turn, whenever I ask him how he knows this, he simply replies, "Because the Catholic Church teaches it."  I was actually surprised the first time I heard him say this, as he is an extremely logical person, and even considered himself an agnostic a while back.  I've been trying to sway him away from religion for a while now  

That God transcends space and time is a fairly standard part of the definition of God.  God is posited as the cause of space and time themselves, and in order for that to be possible God must be "outside" of both.  (You cannot paint a picture if you are already in it.)  Interestingly, your argument that an infinite amount of time is an absurd concept is regularly used as part of some form of cosmological argument.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"I would skip that argument.  I'm an atheist and it doesn't work for me because it is when it is, obviously.

I wouldn't try to argue with someone like that, actually.  When their answer is, "Because the Catholic Church teaches it" there's not much chance you'll get through.

A fruitful line of attack might be to ask why the Catholic Church has any authority on truth.

Quote from: "Mike M."As my mind is really bogged down with studying for finals right now, I can't say that I'll be able to articulate my thoughts wonderfully, or even if this idea will make sense, but I'll try to present it to you.

My thought was, if god existed forever, couldn't we have never reached today, since there was an infinite amount of time before now in which god existed?

I think it makes sense, but I don't think it would be useful in debating a theist.  Whenever I bring this or the exclusiveness of omnipotence and omniscience up to my dad, he just replies, "God transcends time, normal rules don't apply."  In turn, whenever I ask him how he knows this, he simply replies, "Because the Catholic Church teaches it."  I was actually surprised the first time I heard him say this, as he is an extremely logical person, and even considered himself an agnostic a while back.  I've been trying to sway him away from religion for a while now  :) Simple  

Quote from: "Joe Klooski"Anyways, yes that is true. Infinite time means that nothing could ever existed because it would take infinity to get there. :headbang:

Unless everything had always existed and things had always been happening.... er, right?  

According to this logic, though, things couldn't have existed forever, because by  the same thought process, it would take an infinite amount of time to get to today.  Very interesting.

Quote from: "Mike M."According to this logic, though, things couldn't have existed forever, because by  the same thought process, it would take an infinite amount of time to get to today.  Very interesting.

This is false, and I can simply prove it without much effort.

1) -1 energy is not possible
2) -1 spatial space is not possible
3) everything including empty space is all energy... The universal set of all sets is energy itself from zero base energy (which is likely not measurable)..
4) Energy self-osculates and is also the reason why absolute zero is impossible according to the 3rd law of thermodynamics.
5) existence exists because non-existence can not be a literal person, place, thing, object, or substance... Hence, it can not have mass, matter, or energy..
6) E=MC2 means all energy can convert into matter and all matter can convert to energy. Hence, everything is made of energy!.. A simple example via analogy is that water converts to Ice and Ice converts to water.. And this is essentially a literal example as well.
7) You can pretty much define a GOD as only the source origin of existence itself without needing to imply it's some conscious deity.. In this case we can state that Energy is GOD, and it's infinite in volume, and represents all time and space, or all mass, matter, and energy..
8) all information is completely comprised of energy
9) you can not even so much as think, communicate, or do anything without energy.
10) It takes more cause to support consciousness than it does to support unconsciousness, and thus any conscious deity, life form, or thing can not be the source origin to time, and space, or existence!

So when I hear a theist try and state that their deity is outside of time, space, and material physicality, all I can do is sit and wonder why they can't comprehend that they are basically saying their GOD exists in a place of no place to which is comprised of no time, substance, or material, and doesn't have any space to exist in.. This is essentially telling us that their GOD doesn't exist while they claim it exists LOL.. Hence, theists are talking self-contradictions, and they don't even realize it :O

Quote from: "TheJackel"1) -1 energy is not possible
2) -1 spatial space is not possible

What do you mean here?  What is "-1 energy" and "-1 spatial space"?

Quote from: "Jack's Disciple"

Quote from: "TheJackel"1) -1 energy is not possible
2) -1 spatial space is not possible

What do you mean here?  What is "-1 energy" and "-1 spatial space"?

Energy can not exist in the form of a negative existence.. Hence a -1 energy is literally not possible just as a -1 spacial space is not possible.. Can you collapse a sphere into a negative existing sphere, aka -1 dimensional sphere? NO, because it's not possible. You can not have capacity to have existence, or contain anything in a negative capacity. This is why non-existence can not exist as a form of an existing person, place, thing, object, or substance. To put in simple terms, existence exists because the opposite simply doesn't and is impossible to literally exist.

1) Trying to state that -1 energy exists is like trying to state that a non-existing substance can exist as a substance. This is simply not possible. Hence, this is like saying nothing can be a substance .

2) Stating that a -1 spatial space or -1 dimensional space can exist is like saying non-existing space can exist as a space of existence.. Well, that isn't possible either..

Now our "Universe" has been measured to be flat with only a 2% margin of error.. This shows that our observable Universe is shaped like a disk much like our own Milkyway galaxy floating about in a much larger spatial space, or volume of space.. And since a -1 dimensional space is impossible most agree that space or the unobservable Universe that extends beyond the Observable Universe is likely infinite in volume.. Hence most of space is entirely zero base energy. And this would be regardless of how many dimensions one might think there are, or aren't.. The fact remains that everything is entirely comprised of energy.

So the magical questions I can use to completely debunk the notion of a GOD that created everything is as follows:

1) What is your GOD made of? It surely can't be nothing.
2) Where did this substance come from if your GOD can't create so he himself can exist?
3) What boundaries separate you as an individual from said being?
4) Mind containment? What contains your GOD's mind apart from yours?
5) Where? Every mind requires a place to exist in, so where is your GOD in relation to you, us, or Earth?
6) How does you GOD design and create a place so he himself can exist, or be ->IN<- existence?
7) Time is a fickle thing, How does one create time without taking the time to create it? Without forward inertia there can be no thoughts, choices, or decisions to be assessed, processed, and executed.
8) How does one design and create knowledge, and information giving one would be slave to it and in need of it just to know oneself even exists? So where does information really come from?

There a ton of questions I can lay out that totally devalues the notion of a "Creator", or "GOD".. Sorry, no being can be the source origin of existence when itself is slave to the need of existence and the substance of existence in order to exist, or even be aware that itself exists.. It's Folly, pure and simple.

Negative values of energy and space are not possible.

Wait, he got here before me...  

Quote from: "TheJackel"Energy can not exist in the form of a negative existence..

From what you have written, it's not clear to me that "negative existence" is even a meaningful concept.  What does "-1-dimensional" actually mean?  Can you have "2-dimensional existence" or "3-dimensional existence"?  What exactly is the connection between existence and dimensionality that you are implicitly referring to?  Basically, I haven't a clue what it is you're talking about.  

sits back to watch the fun, don't mind me.

Quote from: "Tank":pop: sits back to watch the fun, don't mind me.

I have a feeling this is going to be the most mind-boggling thread ever.  Negative existence, "self-osculating energy", ...   :hmm:  

Quote from: "Jack's Disciple"

Quote from: "TheJackel"Energy can not exist in the form of a negative existence..

From what you have written, it's not clear to me that "negative existence" is even a meaningful concept.  What does "-1-dimensional" actually mean?  Can you have "2-dimensional existence" or "3-dimensional existence"?  What exactly is the connection between existence and dimensionality that you are implicitly referring to?  Basically, I haven't a clue what it is you're talking about.   :crazy: This is apparently to complicated for you to grasp.

And a negative existence isn't a meaningful concept because it's not possible to exist :yay:

Thus it's impossible to be outside of space, time, or material physicality.. You can't exist in a place of non-existence to which is made of nothing. Nor can you exist outside of time and have any sort of functionality, process,  inertia, ability, or motion.. Thus, the notion of a GOD existing out side of space, time, and material physicality is entirely laughable.  Theists are basically stating their GOD doesn't exist while claiming it magically does.  

Quote from: "Jack's Disciple"

Quote from: "Tank":pop: sits back to watch the fun, don't mind me.

I have a feeling this is going to be the most mind-boggling thread ever.  Negative existence, "self-osculating energy", ...   :hmm:  

This is hardly crazy.. Energy in fact self-osculates, and this is a fundamental property and attribute of energy itself. You should educate yourself on quantum electrodynamics, emergence, the butterfly effect, and chaos theory. There is a reason why you can't light a match without electromagnetism, or put one out with water without electromagnetism. You should also read up on quantum electrodynamics and why the only force that has yet to be unified with the 3 other unified forces is gravity.. And gravity is starting to show it's roots in quantum gravity, and particle physics. However, unifying gravity runs the risk of blowing ourselves up according to Steven Hawking.. Hence, the origins of the phenomenon are unlocked via particle collisions within particle colliders..

Also Gravity isn't even necessary to support life, and neither is the weak force. We can grow things in zero G without a problem. And things like the water bear can even survive in the vacuum of space for 11 days without protection from cosmic radiation and have shown to be likely possible to survive deep within comets ectra or other bodies that could provide protection from cosmic radiation.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Wow, to make this simple for you..You need a place to exist LOL, and it's not possible to have a literal no-place of existence son.. Dimensionality is the representation of spatial space, and what part about that do you not comprehend  lol.. I can't imagine how you can not follow this very basic concept..

Negative existence = -1 dimensional, -1 enegy, -1 spatial space, non-material, nothing, non-existence, non-existent, and simply not possible to be a person, place, thing, object, or substance.

I see.  So basically all you're saying is that something can only exist if it has a location.  You have chosen a very long-winded and bizarre way of saying that.  Apparently "negative existence" for you is simply "non-existence".  But non-existence is a meaningful concept, and what it has to do with "-1 dimensional space" I haven't the foggiest.  Something either exists or it doesn't.  Something is either extended in an n-dimensional space* or it isn't (n≥0).  There seems no  reason a priori why we should reject the notion of an object that exists and is not extended in space.  Indeed, there are plenty of abstract objects that many philosophers throughout history have considered to fit into that category.  All you have done is state that "you need a place to exist".  That is far from a self-evident truth, and you will need to make some kind of argument to support it.

*It is unclear whether "space" for you refers to physical space or just space in general - you will need to clarify this before you make an argument.  In fact generally you will need to define concepts more clearly than you have thus far.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Wow, to make this simple for you..You need a place to exist LOL, and it's not possible to have a literal no-place of existence son.. Dimensionality is the representation of spatial space, and what part about that do you not comprehend  lol.. I can't imagine how you can not follow this very basic concept..

Negative existence = -1 dimensional, -1 enegy, -1 spatial space, non-material, nothing, non-existence, non-existent, and simply not possible to be a person, place, thing, object, or substance. :yay:

I would like to ask that since this is the "Happy Atheist" forum, that we refrain from condescending personal attacks. I'm sure there are a lot of people who have questions about this topic and haven't studied quantum physics. Jack's Disciple asked perfectly legit questions in a sincere form and deserves respectful answers. You have knowledge that you can impart, but which is difficult to grasp for many people, not just Jack.

Thank you in advance for helping stick to the spirit of the forum.
 

I think that I'll give Stephen Hawkins a call to ask him what this thread is all about .

I'm pretty sure I'm following along, but I feel like if I ask a question I'm going to be treated like an idiot.  :pop:

Okay, so what I got from that was since nothingness apparently can't exist, something, even if just in the form of energy, has always existed.  Now I'm not saying that that is wrong or right, I don't have anywhere near the credentials to do so.  But if it is right, how could we have reached today, since something had existed forever, which all goes back to the infinite amount of time before now?  Again, I'm not asking the question to try and prove you false, I'm simply wondering how it's possible.

Quote from: "Mike M."Okay, so what I got from that was since nothingness apparently can't exist, something, even if just in the form of energy, has always existed.  Now I'm not saying that that is wrong or right, I don't have anywhere near the credentials to do so.  But if it is right, how could we have reached today, since something had existed forever, which all goes back to the infinite amount of time before now?  Again, I'm not asking the question to try and prove you false, I'm simply wondering how it's possible.

You're living right now, in part of that forever.

I've heard this example: "If I wait for an infinite amount of time before I make a sandwich, I'll never make that sandwich. Therefore an infinite amount of time could not have existed before now." The idea is that if time is infinite, then nothing would happen. The problem with this concept of infinity is that it doesn't align itself very well with reality because things aren't waiting for an infinite amount of time before they do something, they're just happening because of the laws of nature. A sun doesn't think to itself "hmm, I'll wait for an eternity before I explode." It just explodes based on the laws of nature.

Wow, Davin, that completely makes sense!  Thank you for that explanation - I was trying to convey the same message but I kept getting lost in confusing metaphors and over complicated ideas.  

Quote from: "TheJackel"

Quote from: "Jack's Disciple"

Quote from: "TheJackel"Energy can not exist in the form of a negative existence..

From what you have written, it's not clear to me that "negative existence" is even a meaningful concept.  What does "-1-dimensional" actually mean?  Can you have "2-dimensional existence" or "3-dimensional existence"?  What exactly is the connection between existence and dimensionality that you are implicitly referring to?  Basically, I haven't a clue what it is you're talking about.   :crazy: This is apparently to complicated for you to grasp.

And a negative existence isn't a meaningful concept because it's not possible to exist :yay:

Thus it's impossible to be outside of space, time, or material physicality.. You can't exist in a place of non-existence to which is made of nothing. Nor can you exist outside of time and have any sort of functionality, process,  inertia, ability, or motion.. Thus, the notion of a GOD existing out side of space, time, and material physicality is entirely laughable.  Theists are basically stating their GOD doesn't exist while claiming it magically does.  

Please remember that HAF has civility guidelines that must be followed by all parties participating in debate.

So... since I understand this entirely... does that make me a super nerd?  :blush:

Maybe sports parlance might help.

In football, let's say you start at the 20 yard line.  If the running back runs forward 5 yards, it is +5 yards.  He ends up on the 25 yard line  Let's say he is tackled behind the 20 yard line at a loss of 10 yards, that will be -10 yards.  That is how negative numbers work.  You have a starting point where you can move forward or backwards.

Within our physical existence, ie. space, time, matter, physics, chemistry, and so on, the theoretical starting point is ZERO.  So there is no going backwards, no negative numbers.  In football, if it were allowed, the running back is starting at the goal post and can't ran backwards.  He has nowhere to go.

To complicate all of this   There is no such thing as ZERO energy -and further more negative energy.  In the universe we live in, there is no such thing as "nothing."  Thus a God which IS "something" could not logically create another "something" out of "nothing."  Non sequitur, right?  The logic does not follow.

So everything we see today has indeed existed forever then, in one form or another?  This I find to be an extremely interesting topic seeing as I plan to become an astrophysicist.  I would really love for anyone who has more knowledge of this subject to post what they know so my mind can have a feast  

Quote from: "Mike M."So everything we see today has indeed existed forever then, in one form or another?  

We don't know for certain, hence the numerous theories on the origins of the universe, if in fact it 'originated'.     First law of thermodynamics: energy can't be created or destroyed.  So therefore it would appear it has been here forever in some form.

Quote from: "Mike M."So everything we see today has indeed existed forever then, in one form or another?  This I find to be an extremely interesting topic seeing as I plan to become an astrophysicist.  I would really love for anyone who has more knowledge of this subject to post what they know so my mind can have a feast  

We don't know.  We don't know what comes before the "big bang."  Sure there are "string" theories, alternate universes, parallel universe, but is it really all that complicated?  Personally, I don't know, but I also don't think so.

What do you mean by forever?  The Universe supposedly has an age, around 13 billion years, but we don't know what happened before that.  It is a great question, we say there is a zero age, the universe started somewhere, but what was it before that?

We don't know.

I don't think we will ever find out either.

Some questions don't have answers and will never have answers.

QuoteI would like to ask that since this is the "Happy Atheist" forum, that we refrain from condescending personal attacks. I'm sure there are a lot of people who have questions about this topic and haven't studied quantum physics. Jack's Disciple asked perfectly legit questions in a sincere form and deserves respectful answers. You have knowledge that you can impart, but which is difficult to grasp for many people, not just Jack.

Thank you in advance for helping stick to the spirit of the forum.
 :)

QuoteI see.  So basically all you're saying is that something can only exist if it has a location.

Well, yes it would need a place to exist, and it would also need to be made of something, or have substance. This means it can't exist without substance, or a place to exist. Thus, you must have material physicality, dimension, and spatial space in order to exist. Without these, you can not have the capacity to exist at all.. Thus, you can not be made of nothing within a place of non-existence to which is also made of nothing..

QuoteYou have chosen a very long-winded and bizarre way of saying that.  Apparently "negative existence" for you is simply "non-existence".

No, my original explanation was hardly long winded or bizarre because it simply read as follows:

Existence exists because non-existence can not be a person, place, thing, object or substance of existence.. Hence, non-existence simply means that even itself does not exist, and can not exist. If non-existence existed as a person, place, thing, object, or substance it would negate it's own definition and fall under the definition of existence..

QuoteBut non-existence is a meaningful concept, and what it has to do with "-1 dimensional space" I haven't the foggiest.

- 1 dimensional object, place, substance, or thing is not possible to exist. Non-existence is only a descriptive word to describe what doesn't exist within existence. Itself can not be a literal existing form of actual existence just as -1 dimensional spatial space can not be a literal form of existence.. These are simply examples to why there has always been existence, energy, and spatial space considering the opposites are not possible to exist.

QuoteSomething either exists or it doesn't.

That is correct.. Or the idea of something either exist beyond that idea or it doesn't.. Hence, GOD or some green eyed Pixie fairy clan can be said to exist as ideas, but not actually exist beyond the idea, or imaginative concept.

QuoteSomething is either extended in an n-dimensional space* or it isn't (n≥0).  There seems no  reason a priori why we should reject the notion of an object that exists and is not extended in space.

There can be no object, person, place, or thing in a negative spatial space simply because -1D would have a negative capacity.. Hence, no containment possible even for it's own existence.. Thus, the point of that is to show that all things must take up volume of spatial space and can not exist without it. The human body is 90+% empty space, 75% water molecules, and 100% energy for example.

QuoteIndeed, there are plenty of abstract objects that many philosophers throughout history have considered to fit into that category.  All you have done is state that "you need a place to exist".  That is far from a self-evident truth, and you will need to make some kind of argument to support it.

No, I stated that you need a place to exist in, and be in a place that has substance. So you can't be made of nothing, or exist in a place of negative spatial dimension to which would also be made of nothing.. It's simply impossible.

Quote*It is unclear whether "space" for you refers to physical space or just space in general - you will need to clarify this before you make an argument.  In fact generally you will need to define concepts more clearly than you have thus far.

All space is physical, and is all entirely comprised of energy.

Quote from: "deekayfry"Maybe sports parlance might help.

In football, let's say you start at the 20 yard line.  If the running back runs forward 5 yards, it is +5 yards.  He ends up on the 25 yard line  Let's say he is tackled behind the 20 yard line at a loss of 10 yards, that will be -10 yards.  That is how negative numbers work.  You have a starting point where you can move forward or backwards.

Within our physical existence, ie. space, time, matter, physics, chemistry, and so on, the theoretical starting point is ZERO.  So there is no going backwards, no negative numbers.  In football, if it were allowed, the running back is starting at the goal post and can't ran backwards.  He has nowhere to go.

To complicate all of this  :)..

So we can clearly state that a God can not create that to which he himself would require to exist, and is thus not possible to be the answer to existence.. So when theists try and state that their GOD exists outside of time, space, and material physicality they are essentially unknowingly stating their GOD doesn't exist while trying to claim it does.. Thus said deity would have to equally be slave to the need of being made of something, and have a place to exist in just so itself can exist like the rest of us. So it's logical to state that there is no such thing as a GOD or Creator to existence.. This then without possible argument show's that no mind, or being can every be the source origin to existence, and that all minds are mere products of the substance of existence.

In fact I can break down everything from evolution to morality, thoughts, feelings, choices, decisions ectra in 3 simple attributes of energy.

1) positive
2) negative
3) Neutral

Everything swings on the pendulum of these 3 simple laws of energy. There can ever only be a positive, negative, or neutral action, reaction, response, motion, process, result, osculation, or inertia to anything that exists.. And the severity or extent of any of the above depends greatly on chaos theory, cause and effect, or exerted pressure that may cause the pendulum to swing one way or the other..

Existence: The Eternal Universal Set

Here I will use the "I" argument as the example to the scientific explanation. The posts following the OP will go deep into the heart of things, so I hope you have some time on your hands :pop: [/b]

[youtube:30pdrwjw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88tK5c0wgH4[/youtube:30pdrwjw]


Conclusion:

Existence is A phenomenal reality of physical self-osculating, self-organizing energy that makes you, me, the stars, matter, mass possible.. Everything must following the energy scale to where all things begin and end at zero!.. An ever progressive and regressive flow of energy..

Thus, energy = the substance of information, mass, matter, existence, and itself without contradiction.. A true universal set of all sets!.. This is compliant to all aspects of existence, life, time, experience, complexity, or conscious observation of reality.. All minds are subset products of existence and are all material physical products and processes!

Quote from: "Mike M."So everything we see today has indeed existed forever then, in one form or another?  This I find to be an extremely interesting topic seeing as I plan to become an astrophysicist.  I would really love for anyone who has more knowledge of this subject to post what they know so my mind can have a feast  

By this book http://www.amazon.co.uk/Universe-Roger- ... 892&sr=8-2 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Universe-Roger-Freedman/dp/142923153X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276153892&sr=8-2) it is an absolute eye opener!

Quote from: "TheJackel"Well, yes it would need a place to exist, and it would also need to be made of something, or have substance. This means it can't exist without substance, or a place to exist.

You are simply begging the question.  You seem to think that the only alternative to existence in an n-dimensional space is existence in "-1-dimensional space".  You have defined existence in such a way as to implicitly reject any notion of aspacial existence.  Again, you need to provide an argument why aspacial existence is an incoherent notion.  Simply stating that it is "impossible" without a logical argument is just an argument from lack of imagination.

Quote from: "Mike M."So everything we see today has indeed existed forever then, in one form or another?  This I find to be an extremely interesting topic seeing as I plan to become an astrophysicist.  I would really love for anyone who has more knowledge of this subject to post what they know so my mind can have a feast  :D

Sorry if I appear to be teaching you to suck eggs but this post isn't aimed specifically at yourself but also the wider audience of the forum.

QuoteYou are simply begging the question.  You seem to think that the only alternative to existence in an n-dimensional space is existence in "-1-dimensional space".

Eh?. I am not begging the question or even stating that -1 dimension would be an alternative.. -1D is not an alternative because it's not possible to exist. I am not sure where you got the notion that I would suggest it's an alternative.

QuoteYou have defined existence in such a way as to implicitly reject any notion of aspacial existence.  Again, you need to provide an argument why aspacial existence is an incoherent notion.  Simply stating that it is "impossible" without a logical argument is just an argument from lack of imagination.

So your argument here is that non-existence, non-material, non-physicality can magically exist as a person, place, or thing of existence? That makes absolutely no logical sense sir. Why it's incoherent notion:

non-material:

If something is non-material is it then thus made of nothing? How can something exist have have no substance, or material.. To state something is non-material is stating it's made of nothing. So if you are going to attempt to argue nothing can be something, you will need to take the time to define what these words mean. So if you are not made of anything, you essentially don't exist

Non-Physicality:

To be a Phenomenon or have process, function, ability, or be made of material you will require physicality. To state something has no physicality is also stating it has no phenomenon, function, ability, process, or being made of anything. And thus again you are referring to nothing as a something to which is impossible.

Temporal, or time:

To state something exists out side of time is suggesting something doesn't exist. When dealing with a consciousness for example, all minds must be temporally bound to time in order to have process, ability, function, thought, progression, experience, observation, mobility, motion, inertia, or be able to do something.. Theists stating a being is outside of time don't realize you can't design, create, think, or make choices or decisions without time, or being bound to it.. Consciousness is an active phenomenon, or material physical process and requires inertia to be in process.

Dimensional:

Without spatial space or dimensional attributes you have no means of existing. To have no place to exist, or to have no dimensional attributes as an object of observation, you simply wouldn't exist. Here again we go right back into the definition of nothing and theists trying to claim nothing can magically be a something.. It's entirely incoherent to suggest something exists outside of dimensional spatial space. This would literally mean such suggested fallacious object would have no attributes to which would be observable. Even your Idea of said deity had dimensional attributes as a pattern of energy, or as an image or thought.

QuoteSince the point of the 'Big Bang' the process of the 'heat death' of the universe started. As far as I understand it, the heat death is the process by which all energy in the universe will eventually degrade to the point where it can do no useful work. Once the initial expansion of the Universe occurred all the mass was to be found in Hydrogen (75%), Helium (two fused Hydrogen atoms, (25%) ) and Lithium (three fused Hydrogen atoms (<0.01%)). And a lot of energy in the form of mediation particles such as photons.

Actually this is only half true.. This will not result in the loss of existence, spatial dimension, or the potentiality of other Big Bangs.. The quantum foam will never wind down, and they are only referring to the decay of matter back into base energy.. Particle and anti-particle collisions will never wind down, and the flow of energy will never cease to flow, osculate, or cease to create that bi-product of matter from anti-particle and particle collisions.

QuoteNothing else existed until gravity started to form the first stars.

Yes gravity played a Key role in creating the stars, but nothing did not exist prior to star formation or the Big Bang.. In fact much of what made the stars didn't just come from the Big Bang as it did from all the feverish activity generated by the Quantum foam of particle and anti-particle collisions. Even if all the matter in the Universe came from a single point there still would be energy, empty space, dimensional expanse, and the quantum foam beyond that point of expansion.

QuoteWithin these stars nuclear fusion started which holds the star open against the force of gravity. The first fusion fuel is Hydrogen which fusses into Helium releasing energy as it does so, once the Hydrogen is used up the star cools and collapses a little so the pressure and core heat grows which allows Helium to fuse into Lithium and so on down the periodic scale. At some point and I can't remember where this cascade becomes unstable and the ability of gravity to hold the star together ceases and the star explodes. What happens to the remains depends on how big the star was to start with.

Fusion is pretty much what made all the heavier elements.

Quote from: "Mike M."So everything we see today has indeed existed forever then, in one form or another?  This I find to be an extremely interesting topic seeing as I plan to become an astrophysicist.  I would really love for anyone who has more knowledge of this subject to post what they know so my mind can have a feast  :headbang:

I will later tonight after work post a thread with a ton of information on this subject.. I have a lot of videos to share, and plenty of links and other information that will be a good resource for other people interested in the subject.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteSince the point of the 'Big Bang' the process of the 'heat death' of the universe started. As far as I understand it, the heat death is the process by which all energy in the universe will eventually degrade to the point where it can do no useful work. Once the initial expansion of the Universe occurred all the mass was to be found in Hydrogen (75%), Helium (two fused Hydrogen atoms, (25%) ) and Lithium (three fused Hydrogen atoms (<0.01%)). And a lot of energy in the form of mediation particles such as photons.

Actually this is only half true.. This will not result in the loss of existence, spatial dimension, or the potentiality of other Big Bangs.. The quantum foam will never wind down, and they are only referring to the decay of matter back into base energy.. Particle and anti-particle collisions will never wind down, and the flow of energy will never cease to flow, osculate, or cease to create that bi-product of matter from anti-particle and particle collisions.

Thanks for the additional points, most interesting.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteNothing else existed until gravity started to form the first stars.

This is a false statement, and a rather fallacious one at that. Yes gravity played a Key role in creating the stars, but nothing did not exist prior to star formation or the Big Bang.. In fact much of what made the stars didn't just come from the Big Bang as it did from all the feaverish activity generated by the Quantum foam of particle and anti-particle collisions. Even if all the matter in the Universe came from a single point there still would be energy, empty space, dimensional expanse beyond that point of expansion.

I never said that nothing existed before the Big Bang. My statement related to what you would find in the universe if you travelled back to a point after the Big Bang and period of expansion but before the first stars were formed. One would be travelling around in a nebulous cloud of Hydrogen, Helium and a little bit of Lithium with no overt structure. And it is the action of gravity that started the transformation of this primordial matter into what we witness today. I think you were reading my post far too deeply  

osculate http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/osculate (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/osculate)

I've not come across this term before. Could you pad out the definition a little in the context of your posts. Thanks.

Quote from: "TheJackel"This is why life is observer matter capable of processing observable information that is all material!

Quote from: "TheJackel"Existence, energy, and information are essentially the same coin!

Quote from: "TheJackel"Existence is A phenomenal reality of physical self-osculating, self-organizing energy that makes you, me, the stars, matter, mass possible.

I'm curious about a couple of points along the way in your argument. Firstly I would like to say that I entirely agree with you regarding the natural, physical, material basis of the mind, but you seem to imply that you have neatly and definitively disposed of the dualists and all their arguments.  A laudible feat, if true, since materialist and physicalist philosophers have been arguing to do that very thing for a number of years now, with no very great concensus as to their success (although, obviously, Dennett and Chuchland feel they gone a long way towards this).  Now, you may say that is merely evidence of the ineptitude of philosophers and those who pretend to understand them.  Still...I would very much like to know precisely how you have done this.  It just doesn't quite seem to follow exactly from the argument as you present it.  You seem to be assuming a few things.  Can you expand on your arguments?

The crucial link in your argument appears to me to be a linkage between "information" (as a basic component of existence) and your use of the term "phenomenal."  Are you essentially equating these two terms?  How do you answer the qualia question?  How is information, which in the brain is represented by electrochemical interactions, translated into what you would presumably claim to the "information" of phenomenal qualities?  How do you answer the subjectivity problem?  

I would also like to point out that I understand, and concede, the points about non-dimensionality, non-materiality, etc. - so that an attempt to claim that the mind is "non-material" is fatally flawed.  I'm just curious how, specifically, you answer the "what it is like" problem.

Quote from: "TheJackel"So your argument here is that non-existence, non-material, non-physicality can magically exist as a person, place, or thing of existence? That makes absolutely no logical sense sir. Why it's incoherent notion:

"Non-existence can magically exist as a thing of existence"?  I don't mean to be rude, but I have great trouble taking someone seriously when they use such obviously meaningless language.

QuoteIf something is non-material is it then thus made of nothing? How can something exist have have no substance, or material.. To state something is non-material is stating it's made of nothing. So if you are going to attempt to argue nothing can be something, you will need to take the time to define what these words mean. So if you are not made of anything, you essentially don't exist

You are begging the question!  You equivocate "having no material" with "being nothing".  If your argument has any non-tautologous content, please put your argument in syllogistic form - premises and the conclusion that "non-material entities cannot exist".

QuoteTo be a Phenomenon or have process, function, ability, or be made of material you will require physicality. To state something has no physicality is also stating it has no phenomenon, function, ability, process, or being made of anything. And thus again you are referring to nothing as a something to which is impossible.

You are begging the question!  Premises please with the conclusion "non-physical entities cannot exist".

QuoteTo state something exists out side of time is suggesting something doesn't exist. When dealing with a consciousness for example, all minds must be temporally bound to time in order to have process, ability, function, thought, progression, experience, observation, mobility, motion, inertia, or be able to do something.. Theists stating a being is outside of time don't realize you can't design, create, think, or make choices or decisions without time, or being bound to it.. Consciousness is an active phenomenon, or material physical process and requires inertia to be in process.

You are...guess what...begging the question!  Simply stating "such and such must..." is not an argument!  Again, premises, concluding that "atemporal entities cannot exist".

QuoteWithout spatial space or dimensional attributes you have no means of existing. To have no place to exist, or to have no dimensional attributes as an object of observation, you simply wouldn't exist. Here again we go right back into the definition of nothing and theists trying to claim nothing can magically be a something.. It's entirely incoherent to suggest something exists outside of dimensional spatial space. This would literally mean such suggested fallacious object would have no attributes to which would be observable. Even your Idea of said deity had dimensional attributes as a pattern of energy, or as an image or thought.

Surprisingly: more question-begging assertions.  Premises that logically lead to the conclusion "aspatial entities cannot exist" if you please.

Quote from: "Tank"osculate http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/osculate (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/osculate)

I've not come across this term before. Could you pad out the definition a little in the context of your posts. Thanks.

I assumed it was a misspelling of "oscillate".

Quote from: "Jack's Disciple"

Quote from: "Tank"osculate http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/osculate (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/osculate)

I've not come across this term before. Could you pad out the definition a little in the context of your posts. Thanks.

I assumed it was a misspelling of "oscillate".

Possibly, but I'm no sure. It's the tangential mathematical element in the definition of osculate that may be in use here.

Quote from: "Jack's Disciple"

Quote from: "TheJackel"So your argument here is that non-existence, non-material, non-physicality can magically exist as a person, place, or thing of existence? That makes absolutely no logical sense sir. Why it's incoherent notion:

"Non-existence can magically exist as a thing of existence"?  I don't mean to be rude, but I have great trouble taking someone seriously when they use such obviously meaningless language.

QuoteIf something is non-material is it then thus made of nothing? How can something exist have have no substance, or material.. To state something is non-material is stating it's made of nothing. So if you are going to attempt to argue nothing can be something, you will need to take the time to define what these words mean. So if you are not made of anything, you essentially don't exist

You are begging the question!  You equivocate "having no material" with "being nothing".  If your argument has any non-tautologous content, please put your argument in syllogistic form - premises and the conclusion that "non-material entities cannot exist".

QuoteTo be a Phenomenon or have process, function, ability, or be made of material you will require physicality. To state something has no physicality is also stating it has no phenomenon, function, ability, process, or being made of anything. And thus again you are referring to nothing as a something to which is impossible.

You are begging the question!  Premises please with the conclusion "non-physical entities cannot exist".

QuoteTo state something exists out side of time is suggesting something doesn't exist. When dealing with a consciousness for example, all minds must be temporally bound to time in order to have process, ability, function, thought, progression, experience, observation, mobility, motion, inertia, or be able to do something.. Theists stating a being is outside of time don't realize you can't design, create, think, or make choices or decisions without time, or being bound to it.. Consciousness is an active phenomenon, or material physical process and requires inertia to be in process.

You are...guess what...begging the question!  Simply stating "such and such must..." is not an argument!  Again, premises, concluding that "atemporal entities cannot exist".

QuoteWithout spatial space or dimensional attributes you have no means of existing. To have no place to exist, or to have no dimensional attributes as an object of observation, you simply wouldn't exist. Here again we go right back into the definition of nothing and theists trying to claim nothing can magically be a something.. It's entirely incoherent to suggest something exists outside of dimensional spatial space. This would literally mean such suggested fallacious object would have no attributes to which would be observable. Even your Idea of said deity had dimensional attributes as a pattern of energy, or as an image or thought.

Surprisingly: more question-begging assertions.  Premises that logically lead to the conclusion "aspatial entities cannot exist" if you please.

You are using soliloquy as means to distract from the debate at hand.  As you would know, this is called "straw man."   Any reasonable person entering into a good faith and civil debate accepts that logical fallacies do exist when although the logic is fallacious the information is true.

The form of Mr. TheJackel's argument does not automatically falsify the statements he makes.

Quote"Non-existence can magically exist as a thing of existence"?  I don't mean to be rude, but I have great trouble taking someone seriously when they use such obviously meaningless language.

Wrong, this is a question directed at you, and for you to answer. You can feel free to attempt to argue otherwise and provide evidence to show the existence of a non-existing person, place, or thing.. Otherwise you are just playing a game of distraction, and avoidance while pretending not to comprehend the argument. If you want to play circular games, you know where the door is.

QuoteYou are begging the question!  You equivocate "having no material" with "being nothing".  If your argument has any non-tautologous content, please put your argument in syllogistic form - premises and the conclusion that "non-material entities cannot exist".

You can feel free to show us what non-material looks like, feels like, and what exactly it is then. Your argument here is meaningless because you don't seem to comprehend what non-material means apparently (sorry, I don't mean to be rude ).. And I am not stating that nothing is a material substance either, as I have clearly stated that non-material simply doesn't exist because it simply by definition states that there is no material or substance.. Theists trying to claim an entity or object is non-material is illogical and simply impossible.

Adverb

non

   1. no
   2. not

[edit] Interjection

non !

   1. no!

Nothing:

1: no
2: not
3: Nothing is a concept that describes the absence of anything at all. Colloquially, the concept is often used to indicate the lack of anything relevant or significant, or to describe a particularly unimportant thing, event, or object. It is contrasted with something and everything. Nothingness is used more specifically as the state of nonexistence of everything. Hence, the absence of material physicality would be nothing, or nothingness to which is impossible.

QuoteYou are begging the question!  Premises please with the conclusion "non-physical entities cannot exist".

physicality [ˌfɪzɪˈkælɪtɪ]
n
1. the state or quality of being physical
2. the physical characteristics of a person, object, etc.
3.  Of or relating to material things: our physical environment.
4. Of or relating to matter and energy or the sciences dealing with them, especially physics.

Hence, in order to have properties, attributes, process, functionality, or activity is to have physicality.. So yes, there can be no such thing as a non-physical entity.. You can feel free to show us how something can exist without properties, attributes, characteristics, material, process, function, ability, ectra.. Otherwise you are talking in circles, and avoiding having to address the argument.

QuoteYou are...guess what...begging the question!  Simply stating "such and such must..." is not an argument!  Again, premises, concluding that "atemporal entities cannot exist".

Again you are pleading to avoid the argument in attempt to deflect the argument into nonsensical circles. This is entirely a valid argument and you can feel free to prove me wrong by showing us how something that can have inertia, process, ability, function, action, or reaction without temporality. You can feel free to show us how you can have progressive mental processing without having inertia or forward progression of mental process. So before you start crying out that I am begging the question, you really need to comprehend what you are trying to suggest.

QuoteSurprisingly: more question-begging assertions.  Premises that logically lead to the conclusion "aspatial entities cannot exist" if you please.

Again, you are pleading while providing no argument to suggest how something can exist in an aspatial existence.. Simply put sir, if it has no place to exist, it simply doesn't exist. In essence you are trying to claim an object or entity can exist in a place that has no capacity to exist itself or contain anything.. And the premise is correct, there can be no such thing as aspatial entities. Again you can fee free to show me a -1 dimensional object, or even attempt to describe to me what a -1 dimensional object would look like. You will find that to be impossible.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Jack's Disciple"

Quote from: "Tank"osculate http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/osculate (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/osculate)

I've not come across this term before. Could you pad out the definition a little in the context of your posts. Thanks.

I assumed it was a misspelling of "oscillate".

Possibly, but I'm no sure. It's the tangential mathematical element in the definition of osculate that may be in use here.

Sorry I meant oscillation, or that energy Vibrates, or always has momentum, motion, or activity.. Hence, it's always in process because electromagnetism is simply a natural attribute or property of energy. Even under controlled circumstances absolute zero could never be achieved because it's impossible to literally stop energy from oscillating. And this is especially true at the quantum level.

Again sorry for the typo, I don't know why I used the term osculation.. But hey, kissing is kewl  

Quote from: "deekayfry"You are using soliloquy as means to distract from the debate at hand.  As you would know, this is called "straw man."   Any reasonable person entering into a good faith and civil debate accepts that logical fallacies do exist when although the logic is fallacious the information is true.

The form of Mr. TheJackel's argument does not automatically falsify the statements he makes.

• The thread is about whether atemporal existence is coherent.
• TheJackel claimed that atemporal existence (along with immaterial, non-physical and aspatial existence) is incoherent, and gave reasons why he thought it was.
• I claimed that these reasons beg the question.

The distraction in this thread, if there is one, is the discussion about whether anything existed before the Big Bang.  All I am doing is trying to get us back on topic.  While I agree that the truth-value of TheJackel's claims do not depend on his arguing for them, claiming to disprove the existence of God is rather vacuous without any justification.

Quote

• The thread is about whether atemporal existence is coherent.
  

Well, it simply isn't

Quote[/li]
[li]TheJackel claimed that atemporal existence (along with immaterial, non-physical and aspatial existence) is incoherent, and gave reasons why he thought it was.

The "why" I provided is hardly that of opinion, but logical understanding of what the implications are when addressing the actual reality and meaning behind the notion of what non-material physicality actually means. And what atemporal actually implies.. These are things many theists don't stop and think about when they attempt to imply them as some sort of divine truth, or possibility when in fact it's simply not possible and is entirely illogically fallacious.

Quote[/li]
[li]I claimed that these reasons beg the question. [/li][/list]

That is of your opinion, and does not make your argument relevant or meaningful without providing something empirical to substantiate your claims against my argument to show it's being assumed.. Sorry, but my argument has empirical evidence, and scientific evidence to support it. Hence, I am not just wildly making assumptions here, and I am telling you what exactly it means when you are talking about non-material, non-physicality, atemporal, and aspatial.. You simply fail to realize these are attributes or properties aligned with the definitions of nothing, non-existence, non-existent, no, not, and nothingness.. Those are facts you are going to have to deal with, and trying to re-label them as "atmeporal", "amaterial", "aphysical", or "aspatial" is not going to magically change the meanings, or what they actually are implying.

QuoteThe distraction in this thread, if there is one, is the discussion about whether anything existed before the Big Bang.  All I am doing is trying to get us back on topic.  While I agree that the truth-value of TheJackel's claims do not depend on his arguing for them, claiming to disprove the existence of God is rather vacuous without any justification.

I had clearly outlined this within my arguments, and the topic never went off topic vs going into scientific explanation of what was here before the Big Bang. You seemingly missed the boat on this and why my arguments here are entirely relevant to the topic of discussion. And you must remember we are on an Atheist website while under a thread titled "A God who existed forever".. My entire argument was to show that we can define GOD not as an entity, but rather as the substance of existence itself.. I also clearly stated why no mind or deity could ever be the source origin of existence due to the fact that it can not create that which itself would require to exist, or even know itself exists.

And for the argument of a forever existing deity to even be valid, or relevant, the person making the claim must actually validate and substantiate said deity's existence to the point of being absolutely irrefutable.. Hence, I can prove energy and existence exist without possible argument, but your argument is like trying to prove a non-existing object magically exists giving the attributes theists attempt to attach to their deity as being non-material, non-physical, aspatial, and atemporal.. But hey, if theists want to unknowingly call their GOD nothing, so be it

Quote from: "The Black Jester"

Quote from: "TheJackel"This is why life is observer matter capable of processing observable information that is all material!

Quote from: "TheJackel"Existence, energy, and information are essentially the same coin!

Quote from: "TheJackel"Existence is A phenomenal reality of physical self-osculating, self-organizing energy that makes you, me, the stars, matter, mass possible.

I'm curious about a couple of points along the way in your argument. Firstly I would like to say that I entirely agree with you regarding the natural, physical, material basis of the mind, but you seem to imply that you have neatly and definitively disposed of the dualists and all their arguments.  A laudible feat, if true, since materialist and physicist philosophers have been arguing to do that very thing for a number of years now, with no very great concensus as to their success (although, obviously, Dennett and Chuchland feel they gone a long way towards this).  Now, you may say that is merely evidence of the ineptitude of philosophers and those who pretend to understand them.  Still...I would very much like to know precisely how you have done this.  It just doesn't quite seem to follow exactly from the argument as you present it.  You seem to be assuming a few things.  Can you expand on your arguments?

The crucial link in your argument appears to me to be a linkage between "information" (as a basic component of existence) and your use of the term "phenomenal."  Are you essentially equating these two terms?  How do you answer the qualia question?  How is information, which in the brain is represented by electrochemical interactions, translated into what you would presumably claim to the "information" of phenomenal qualities?  How do you answer the subjectivity problem?  

I would also like to point out that I understand, and concede, the points about non-dimensionality, non-materiality, etc. - so that an attempt to claim that the mind is "non-material" is fatally flawed.  I'm just curious how, specifically, you answer the "what it is like" problem.

Hello The Black Jester :D

If I am stating that information is equal to all mass, matter, and energy.., I am clearly stating that Energy to which is the substance of all existence is also that of all information, pattern, phenomenon, or process. There can be no phenomenon without material physicality.. I had a very interesting debate on this here:


Page 12:Yes science can explain these things / what is information? / understanding information formation / mental processing. (http://www.thinkingaloudforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=130&t=14295&start=110)

Page 26:Final argument on Noumenon, Phenomena, and Memory (http://thinkingaloudforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=130&t=14295&start=250)

Page 27:Closing arguments on non-material 2 (http://www.thinkingaloudforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=130&t=14295&start=260)[/url]

This is where the mind can be considered as a perfect example of quantum mechanics, computation, and physics.. And this is also where Existence can also be considered as an example of Quantum Mechanics because it is a self-oscillating progressive and regressive flow of energy to where any pattern of behavior can arise to which includes morality, love, feeling, hate, anger, action, reaction, or the simple bounce of a bouncing ball  ectra.. These things are just behavioral attributes of energy, or physical pattern from a physical and material process..

* Conscious Mechanical Self-Organization (http://www.sourceintegralis.org/Art%20Self-Org.html)

Abstract

QuoteThe evolution of consciousness is seen in the context of energy driven evolution in general, where energy and information are understood as two sides of the same coin. From this perspective consciousness is viewed as an ecological system in which streams of cognitive, perceptual, and emotional information form a rich complex of interactions, analogous to the interactive metabolism of a living cell. The result is an organic, self-generating, or autopoietic, system, continuously in the act of creating itself. Evidence suggests that this process is chaotic, or at least chaotic-like, and capable of assuming a number of distinct states best understood as chaotic attractors

Example of Self organization:

Enzymes:

Strong diffusional mixing and short delivery times typical for micrometer and sub-micrometer reaction volumes lead to a special situations of self oscillation where the turnover times of individual enzyme molecules become the largest characteristic time scale of the chemical kinetics. Under these conditions, populations of cross-regulating allosteric enzymes form molecular networks that exhibit various kinds of self-organized coherent collective dynamics.

Chaos Theory:

Cybernetic and Chaos - Positive and negative feeback And how feedback is the controlling mechanisms in pattern and order.. This link also discusses brain self-organization.

[youtube:2xl17fbt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HVRniR3GrQ[/youtube:2xl17fbt]

Quantume electrodynamics, self-oscillation, and self-organization of energy leads to increased complexity, processes, and behavioral dynamics.. Hence, all matter is, is energy. Life is nothing more than matter and energy.. Self-organization, and self-oscillation can lead to cognitive dynamics, and observer matter relationships to where information can process other pieces of information including itself( energy processing energy).. Hence, all you are doing is going from self-oscillation, to self-organization, and then to self-direction of both attributes.. At some point cognitive dynamics turn into cognitive self direction, and later on could lead to conscious awareness.

Plants for example show what primitive cognitive dynamics looks like before the evolution of the brain.. Hence plants show behaviors that exhibit cognitive dynamics such as the ability to solve problems, avoid obstacles, plant their own seeds, co-evolve to specific species of insects or animals, move in a 3d environment, or communicate ect. Even though these are chemically or sometimes electrically driven, they are none-the-less dynamics associated with intelligence, the basics to awareness, and cognition at the most primitive levels.

Example:

Plant stimuli reactions from wikipedia:

* Auxin - A plant hormone which mediates responses
* Chemotropism - Plant response to chemicals
* Cryptochrome - A light receptor pigment
* Ethylene - A plant hormone which mediates responses
* Gravitropism - Behavior associated with gravitic perception
* Heliotropism - Behavior associated with sunlight perception
* Hormonal sentience - Plant information processing theory
* Hydrotropism - Plant response to moisture
* Hypersensitive response - Local reaction produced in response to infection by microbes
* Kinesis - Movement
* Nastic movements - A type of rapid response to non-directional stimulus
* Osmosis - A means of water transportation on the cellular level
* Phototropin - A light receptor pigment
* Phototropism - A behavior associated with light perception
* Phytochrome - A light receptor pigment
* Phytosemiotics - Analysis of vegetative processes on the basis of semiotic theory
* Plant defense against herbivory - Some plant responses to physical disruption
* Plant hormone - A mediator of response to stimuli
* Plant physiology - The science of plant function
* Rapid plant movement - Description of rapid plant movements
* Sensory receptors - Discussion of organs of perception in organisms
* Statolith - An organ of gravity perception
* Stoma - A plant pore which responds to stimulus and which regulates gas exchange
* Systemic acquired resistance - A "whole-plant" resistance response to microbial pathogens that occurs following an earlier, localized response
* Taxis - A type of response to a directional stimulus seen in motile developmental stages of lower plants
* Thermotropism - Plant response to heat
* Thigmotropism - Plant response to touch
* Tropism - A type of response to a directional stimulus

Now you can ask me why haven't plants evolved consciousness by now? Well, evolution does not state that they would because Chaos theory states that there is only a probability of this occurring in plants..This means they could plausibly do so, and there are examples of plant-like animals such as the Green Sea slug to which produces its own chlorophyll though horizontal gene transfers with algae as an example of the direction to which plant and animal evolution might progress from.

Some other interesting videos on Energy and Life:

[youtube:2k58be8i]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXTOSdnsTTk[/youtube:2k58be8i]
-
[youtube:2k58be8i]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKpXlbeHwh4[/youtube:2k58be8i]

"God" is an easy answer for hard questions. It's the equivalent of saying "stuff" when asked what's inside the Large Hadron Collider.  

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat""God" is an easy answer for hard questions. It's the equivalent of saying "stuff" when asked what's inside the Large Hadron Collider.  roflol

Seriously though, theists assume creation had to be how everything came to be because of the complexity of it all. And yet they like to claim the most complex thing that anyone can think of as being the source origin to complexity. This would be like taking ten apples and then imply the 10th apple could exist prior to the 9 other apples just so itself as the 10th apple could design and create the 9 other apples including itself. It's essentially ass backwards logic, or reverse creationism to which makes absolutely no coherent sense at all. And the worst part of that is where they make this complexity argument and then assign attributes consistent with non-existence, nothingness, or nothing to it. It's just mind boggling how anyone can logically rationalize it into some meaningful coherent ideological construct. :cool:

TheJackel -

Thank you for the astounding thoroughness of your reply, I very much appreciate it.  I have read your responses with great interest, have read the sections of your other discussion to which you provided links, but have yet to watch the videos you posted.  I will definitely do so.  I'm not entirely convinced (yet) that you've answered the subjectivity problem, but I see an interesting possibiltiy in the way you addressed the noumena/phenomena issue in the other post.  This actually makes me a little chagrin that I began another thread on consciousness, when it clearly had been well discussed elsewhere.  But I'm interested to see what others think.  Hopefully they will respond.  

Obviously, dualist conceptions of mind, like religion, are a mystical attempt to explain what was, for earlier ages, inexplicable (the seeming non-material nature of phenomenal experience).  Why do so many fight so hard to keep things inexplicable, rather than joyfully anticipating explication?  Yes, they see their own inexplicably unsound exlpanations as proper explanations, and are therefore entrenched against competing theories.  But it never ceases to amaze me, the resistence better explanations face in the fight for credibility and acceptance.

Quote from: "The Black Jester"TheJackel -

Thank you for the astounding thoroughness of your reply, I very much appreciate it.  I have read your responses with great interest, have read the sections of your other discussion to which you provided links, but have yet to watch the videos you posted.  I will definitely do so.  I'm not entirely convinced (yet) that you've answered the subjectivity problem, but I see an interesting possibiltiy in the way you addressed the noumena/phenomena issue in the other post.  This actually makes me a little chagrin that I began another thread on consciousness, when it clearly had been well discussed elsewhere.  But I'm interested to see what others think.  Hopefully they will respond.

You are welcome :) I will post an example on morality shorty for you as an example :)

I think it makes sense, but I don't think it would be useful in debating a theist. :P




_____________
spam removed by admin

Quote from: "winli"I think it makes sense, but I don't think it would be useful in debating a theist. :P