Evolution is the design process used by God

[Whitney]

The fact that things appear as they are is no indication of an intelligent design

To implied an Evolution design process by God is an illogical congesture by which we are implying that God first Created itself [sic]

This is more or less what is being said or implied when when stating Evolution is the design process used by God. First God design itself and then design the Universe. Such arguments are without facts and are non-scientific.

It takes a lot of careful filtering to extract hvargas's intended meaning. Sometimes unusual syntax confuses the issue and we get what appear to be contradictions where there are none upon closer reading. That's not to say he's never wrong, just more consistent that it might seem at first glance.

And this, boys and girls, is why going to school and paying attention to "instruction" is important.....you might want someone to understand what you are trying to say so you don't appear to be an idiot  

Just making a point....carry on....

[Whitney]

If you say there is no soul, and say all thing are made of atoms only. Then no matter what way you might arrange those atoms (make a human) and say this arrangement suffers, then the cause of that suffering, will be equally applicable to the painting, as such you would also have to say the painting suffers.

No one claimed that no matter how you arrange atoms that the object suffers.....rocks do not have the capacity to suffer but are made of atoms.  In order to suffer you have to have something that can process contextual and internal concerns into emotion....you have to have a brain.

So, no...no one has to say a painting suffers nor do the logicaly need to take that position...mr. strawman seems to not be feeling so well though.

[fdesilva]

Yes, if the painting also had the capacity for pain... stuff like nerves and a brain greatly increase the chances that something will feel pain. If the cause of suffering requires a brain, then anything with a brain is likely to experience suffering.

If you say there is no soul, and say all thing are made of atoms only. Then no matter what way you might arrange those atoms (make a human) and say this arrangement suffers, then the cause of that suffering, will be equally applicable to the painting, as such you would also have to say the painting suffers.

No one claimed that no matter how you arrange atoms that the object suffers.....rocks do not have the capacity to suffer but are made of atoms.  In order to suffer you have to have something that can process contextual and internal concerns into emotion....you have to have a brain.

So, no...no one has to say a painting suffers nor do the logicaly need to take that position...mr. strawman seems to not be feeling so well though.

"The complexity of the arrangement of atoms in the brain brings about pain". That is what I am saying, is not true. Because my analysis of the complexity leads to the conclusion, that if the processors in the brain can bring about pain, so should all other processors in the universe.
From the paper http://www.getbestprice.com.au/papers/Consciousness.htm
“Thus, free will and feelings, if to be explained by open-ended FQOs alone, would have to be a property of open-ended FQOs, in general. Then, we come back to the problem of having to attribute consciousness to the whole universe.”

If you do not want to read the paper and show me where I have gone wrong, then while you are free to go on believing what you believe, respect my reasoned conclusion, that anything that “feels” must have something that is outside of space and time.

[pinkocommie]

If you say there is no soul, and say all thing are made of atoms only. Then no matter what way you might arrange those atoms (make a human) and say this arrangement suffers, then the cause of that suffering, will be equally applicable to the painting, as such you would also have to say the painting suffers.

No one claimed that no matter how you arrange atoms that the object suffers.....rocks do not have the capacity to suffer but are made of atoms.  In order to suffer you have to have something that can process contextual and internal concerns into emotion....you have to have a brain.

So, no...no one has to say a painting suffers nor do the logicaly need to take that position...mr. strawman seems to not be feeling so well though.

"The complexity of the arrangement of atoms in the brain brings about pain". That is what I am saying, is not true. Because my analysis of the complexity leads to the conclusion, that if the processors in the brain can bring about pain, so should all other processors in the universe.
From the paper http://www.getbestprice.com.au/papers/Consciousness.htm
“Thus, free will and feelings, if to be explained by open-ended FQOs alone, would have to be a property of open-ended FQOs, in general. Then, we come back to the problem of having to attribute consciousness to the whole universe.”

If you do not want to read the paper and show me where I have gone wrong, then while you are free to go on believing what you believe, respect my reasoned conclusion, that anything that “feels” must have something that is outside of space and time.

So wait, your argument is that - brains are made of atoms.  Paintings are also made of atoms.  Brains feel pain.  Paintings don't.  Therefore, the ability to feel is supernatural?

[fdesilva]

So wait, your argument is that - brains are made of atoms.  Paintings are also made of atoms.  Brains feel pain.  Paintings don't.  Therefore, the ability to feel is supernatural?

IEEE engineering in medicine and biology is not going to dedicate 6 pages, if what I was saying was that.  

[pinkocommie]

So wait, your argument is that - brains are made of atoms.  Paintings are also made of atoms.  Brains feel pain.  Paintings don't.  Therefore, the ability to feel is supernatural?

IEEE engineering in medicine and biology is not going to dedicate 6 pages, if what I was saying was that.  

So, very simply, what are YOU saying?  In one or two carefully written, clear and straightforward sentences.

[Davin]

Off topic but hey, whatever:

"The complexity of the arrangement of atoms in the brain brings about pain". That is what I am saying, is not true. Because my analysis of the complexity leads to the conclusion, that if the processors in the brain can bring about pain, so should all other processors in the universe.
From the paper http://www.getbestprice.com.au/papers/Consciousness.htm
“Thus, free will and feelings, if to be explained by open-ended FQOs alone, would have to be a property of open-ended FQOs, in general. Then, we come back to the problem of having to attribute consciousness to the whole universe.”

If you do not want to read the paper and show me where I have gone wrong, then while you are free to go on believing what you believe, respect my reasoned conclusion, that anything that “feels” must have something that is outside of space and time.

Consciousness consists of two distinct components, the observed U and the observer I.

Mind describing these? Because I haven't seen a single mention of why there are only the U and I and what kind of interactions are possible or not possible in that entire load.

Also, you say this in your abstract:

A description of consciousness leads to a contradiction with the postulation from special relativity that there can be no connections between simultaneous event.

Then start the paper off with this:

Acquisition of knowledge by humanity is dependent on the consciousness of the individual. When a person makes an observation and comes to an understanding, this understanding is this person's subjective knowledge. If another person, on making a similar observation, arrives at a similar subjective understanding, this knowledge they share can be taken to be part of humanity's objective knowledge. Thus, all of humanity's objective knowledge is a subset of all of humanity's subjective knowledge; that is, there can be no objective knowledge that has not been some person's (dead or alive) subjective knowledge. Thus, an intrinsic assumption behind all of humanity's objective knowledge is the similarity of the axioms of consciousness of the individuals. The approach taken in this study of Consciousness is to define a core set of Axioms of consciousness. From these Axioms is then derived its mechanism of operation.
In order to define the axioms of consciousness a description of consciousness will now be given. One of the first outcomes of this description is a contradiction with special relativity.

It seems even when given a relatively large amount of time to go over and review your thoughts, you still end up going on tangents... in your own paper. If it's not you, then this guy has an attention/focus problem as well. The bolded parts of the previous quotes have nothing to do with the abstract.

Here is another huge problem with your paper: No data. Having done no tests and having no results makes this paper completely useless to anyone else... you don't even describe any tests to allow someone to independently verify this seeping pile of speculation.

More problems:

[...]knowledge from other areas such as religion seem to suggest otherwise.

Mind describing this "knowledge" from religion? Because all I have ever seen from religion is something exactly like this freaking waste of time you called a "paper" ->) a lot of talking and no evidence.

So here's some suggestions so that you don't waste the time of other people even when you're very wrong:

1) Focus, keep the paper down to related topics and remove all the tangents going off into lala land.
2) Speculation is only good for speculating, you need test data.
3) Create a hypothesis, write it down, do some tests, then see if the tests work to confirm your hypothesis... don't come up with a hypothesis and only speculate the ways that confirm your hypothesis[/list]

Now onto the OP's topic: If god is affecting the world then we can test for it, however if god is not affecting then what is the point of even thinking the god exists? So if evolution is the design process used by god, then why all the waste and why think that our current state is the goal of that god? I mean, maybe we still have billions of years of evolving to do before we can even think about having a soul. What if mice are why the whole universe was created and god looks like Mickey?

The problem with this is that there is no point in just speculating, I can speculate from now until I'm dead and nothing good will come of it, unless there is some way to confirm the speculation.

[fdesilva]

So, very simply, what are YOU saying? In one or two carefully written, clear and straightforward sentences.

Thanks, for your interest. I am not going to be able to summarise all of it to a couple of lines. If you wish, you could find errors in this viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4794

However while I have your attention, let me try to hold it with these question.
As you know the universe is a 4D object. A 4D object like any object has a shape/structure. Now if a 1D object changes shape, where will this take place? It will take place in a 2nd Dimension. A 2D in 3D , 3D in 4D and a 4D in 5D. Now is there any evidence that the 4D universe is changing shape? If yes, does it mean there is a 5th?

[Davin]

So, very simply, what are YOU saying? In one or two carefully written, clear and straightforward sentences.

Thanks, for your interest. I am not going to be able to summarise all of it to a couple of lines. If you wish, you could find errors in this viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4794

However while I have your attention, let me try to hold it with these question.
As you know the universe is a 4D object. A 4D object like any object has a shape/structure. Now if a 1D object changes shape, where will this take place? It will take place in a 2nd Dimension. A 2D in 3D , 3D in 4D and a 4D in 5D. Now is there any evidence that the 4D universe is changing shape? If yes, does it mean there is a 5th?

Seriously? Is this Poe's law? Are you joking? Can you even have a conversation? Here is my impression of fdesilva:

Pretty much every one: "Can you explain what you're saying?"
fdesilva: "Nope. Here's some links and here's a question completely unrelated to anything that has been covered in this thread: let's say that atoms have little planets orbiting them, who is to say that lemurs haven't already danced on the end of the spoon?"

[fdesilva]

Then start the paper off with this:
     

Acquisition of knowledge by humanity is dependent on the consciousness of the individual. When a person makes an observation and comes to an understanding, this understanding is this person's subjective knowledge. If another person, on making a similar observation, arrives at a similar subjective understanding, this knowledge they share can be taken to be part of humanity's objective knowledge. Thus, all of humanity's objective knowledge is a subset of all of humanity's subjective knowledge; that is, there can be no objective knowledge that has not been some person's (dead or alive) subjective knowledge. Thus, an intrinsic assumption behind all of humanity's objective knowledge is the similarity of the axioms of consciousness of the individuals. The approach taken in this study of Consciousness is to define a core set of Axioms of consciousness. From these Axioms is then derived its mechanism of operation.
In order to define the axioms of consciousness a description of consciousness will now be given. One of the first outcomes of this description is a contradiction with special relativity.”

It seems even when given a relatively large amount of time to go over and review your thoughts, you still end up going on tangents... in your own paper. If it's not you, then this guy has an attention/focus problem as well. The bolded parts of the previous quotes have nothing to do with the abstract.

The bold part is justifying my use of “axioms” to define consciousness.

Here is another huge problem with your paper: No data. Having done no tests and having no results makes this paper completely useless to anyone else... you don't even describe any tests to allow someone to independently verify this seeping pile of speculation.

Towards the end of the paper there are experiments...

In this experiment a person is asked to press a button at anytime they like. The
persons brain activity is constantly monitored. It has been found that before the person makes a decision to press the button there is brain activity (known as readiness potential) related to initiating the pressing of the button. This is as
expected of free will via concept A as a change at any given time to will not only
bring a change to the future but will also result in a small change to the past. (see
fig 11)
A more complete proof for concept A can be got by doing a slight variation to
Libets experiment. If a light is flashed at random intervals and the subject is asked
to press or not press the button as he wills on seeing the light. He is free to make
up his mind as to what he will do at the next light flash at anytime but does so
only at the light flash. Then under these conditions if a readiness potential is detected prior to the time of the light it will prove the existence of concept A.

and here is a link to an experiment
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/pdf ... timent.pdf
Thanks

[pinkocommie]

So, very simply, what are YOU saying? In one or two carefully written, clear and straightforward sentences.

Thanks, for your interest. I am not going to be able to summarise all of it to a couple of lines. If you wish, you could find errors in this viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4794

However while I have your attention, let me try to hold it with these question.
As you know the universe is a 4D object. A 4D object like any object has a shape/structure. Now if a 1D object changes shape, where will this take place? It will take place in a 2nd Dimension. A 2D in 3D , 3D in 4D and a 4D in 5D. Now is there any evidence that the 4D universe is changing shape? If yes, does it mean there is a 5th?

So you're refusing to summarize your position (which you evidently copy and pasted directly from a single article that is posted as a sub page to a clip art enhanced selling site called "get best price.com") and instead you're asking me a question that doesn't matter?  Super.

Let me respond to your question with an equally important question - if space were made of candy, is it not true that black holes would be diabetic and given that black holes are diabetic, isn't it also a fact that the sun shines because of a supernatural happiness only found in the 5th dimension?

[Davin]

Then start the paper off with this:
     

Acquisition of knowledge by humanity is dependent on the consciousness of the individual. When a person makes an observation and comes to an understanding, this understanding is this person's subjective knowledge. If another person, on making a similar observation, arrives at a similar subjective understanding, this knowledge they share can be taken to be part of humanity's objective knowledge. Thus, all of humanity's objective knowledge is a subset of all of humanity's subjective knowledge; that is, there can be no objective knowledge that has not been some person's (dead or alive) subjective knowledge. Thus, an intrinsic assumption behind all of humanity's objective knowledge is the similarity of the axioms of consciousness of the individuals. The approach taken in this study of Consciousness is to define a core set of Axioms of consciousness. From these Axioms is then derived its mechanism of operation.
In order to define the axioms of consciousness a description of consciousness will now be given. One of the first outcomes of this description is a contradiction with special relativity.”

It seems even when given a relatively large amount of time to go over and review your thoughts, you still end up going on tangents... in your own paper. If it's not you, then this guy has an attention/focus problem as well. The bolded parts of the previous quotes have nothing to do with the abstract.

The bold part is justifying my use of “axioms” to define consciousness.

What does the "axioms" of a persons conciousness have to do with another person?

Here is another huge problem with your paper: No data. Having done no tests and having no results makes this paper completely useless to anyone else... you don't even describe any tests to allow someone to independently verify this seeping pile of speculation.

Towards the end of the paper there are experiments...

In this experiment a person is asked to press a button at anytime they like. The
persons brain activity is constantly monitored. It has been found that before the person makes a decision to press the button there is brain activity (known as readiness potential) related to initiating the pressing of the button. This is as
expected of free will via concept A as a change at any given time to will not only
bring a change to the future but will also result in a small change to the past. (see
fig 11)
A more complete proof for concept A can be got by doing a slight variation to
Libets experiment. If a light is flashed at random intervals and the subject is asked
to press or not press the button as he wills on seeing the light. He is free to make
up his mind as to what he will do at the next light flash at anytime but does so
only at the light flash. Then under these conditions if a readiness potential is detected prior to the time of the light it will prove the existence of concept A.

Where is the data?

and here is a link to an experiment
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/pdf ... timent.pdf
Thanks

Stay on target:

Consciousness consists of two distinct components, the observed U and the observer I.

Mind describing these? Because I haven't seen a single mention of why there are only the U and I and what kind of interactions are possible or not possible in that entire load.

Mind describing this "knowledge" from religion? Because all I have ever seen from religion is something exactly like this freaking waste of time you called a "paper" ->) a lot of talking and no evidence.

[fdesilva]

So, very simply, what are YOU saying? In one or two carefully written, clear and straightforward sentences.

Thanks, for your interest. I am not going to be able to summarise all of it to a couple of lines. If you wish, you could find errors in this viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4794

However while I have your attention, let me try to hold it with these question.
As you know the universe is a 4D object. A 4D object like any object has a shape/structure. Now if a 1D object changes shape, where will this take place? It will take place in a 2nd Dimension. A 2D in 3D , 3D in 4D and a 4D in 5D. Now is there any evidence that the 4D universe is changing shape? If yes, does it mean there is a 5th?

So you're refusing to summarize your position (which you evidently copy and pasted directly from a single article that is posted as a sub page to a clip art enhanced selling site called "get best price.com") and instead you're asking me a question that doesn't matter?  Super.

Let me respond to your question with an equally important question - if space were made of candy, is it not true that black holes would be diabetic and given that black holes are diabetic, isn't it also a fact that the sun shines because of a supernatural happiness only found in the 5th dimension?

Ok here is the same question in graphic form. Maybe that will show its relavance more clearly




btw the article is mine

[pinkocommie]

Why does it matter?  What does this have to do with your entirely incorrect assumption that evolution is the design process used by god?  What is your point?

[fdesilva]

Why does it matter?  What does this have to do with your entirely incorrect assumption that evolution is the design process used by god?  What is your point?

Follow the trail on this thread, here is a summary

If this is the method God used to design the universe, then he is a god that prefers the wholesale slaughter of living things as a central part of his plan. He is a god that sat back with folded arms for millions of years as thousands of generations of humans lived, suffered, and died - often horribly and in childbirth - just so that he could recite barbaric nonsense morality to a tribe of desert nomads who practiced animal sacrifice as a means to appeal to his better side.

How many times, have the great artist of this world thrown away their work or drawn over it? Each new creation holds something new, evolving from the old. Great creators never hold on to one creation but always look forward to the next. Each is celebrated in its own time. Each is a cherished memory, carried forward.
The Greatest Creator, from an earthy perspective, where time is finite and fleeting may look cruel. Yet from an eternal perspective, time always is, as such nothing is truly destroyed but cherished with Love by its Maker.

This is abject nonsense. Artwork is not a living thing. It does not suffer. It does not die. You are equating human beings with inanimate objects.

You hit the nail on the head. That is the key! You see artwork does not suffer or does it?
Now the Christian story is that all things that suffer, have a soul. It is the soul that feels the pain. The artwork does not suffer because it has no soul. Now this soul is not material but eternal in its nature. Suffering is the medicine to prevent selfishness and pride. It is much like the surgeon’s knife.
If you say there is no soul, and say all thing are made of atoms only. Then no matter what way you might arrange those atoms (make a human) and say this arrangement suffers, then the cause of that suffering, will be equally applicable to the painting, as such you would also have to say the painting suffers. Here is a link to my thoughts on consciousness where I elaborate on this further
http://getbestprice.com.au/papers/Consc ... tmfdesilva