BS: The God Delusion 2010

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 01:42 PM

///The problem with studying consciousness is that no one has come up with anything that approaches a definition of it, or even a description of any consciousness but their own. You can't even prove to another person that you are conscious.///

That's solipsism. People have been brainwashed into believing it has been disproven but that is not true. Solipsism is found in virtually every epistemological argument that I know of. Beyond that, you are correct. No one can prove what consciousness is or where in the body it actually resides. However, that doesn't mean it is unknowable. We can test its effects and various properties or traits.

///BEsides, although QM may have demonstrated some really wild things about very very small-scale physics--entanglement and FTL information transfer foremost among them--it has yet to prove--in a rigorous scientific sense--anything about consciousness.///

Whether people like it or not, the Copenhagen Interpretation is the most widely accepted in physics concerning QM. The other theories are even worse--multiple universes, local realism, consistent histories, hidden variables, etc.

But I was responding to the person who said, "Quantum mechanics has proven nothing." He is flat out wrong. It is the cornerstone of all our sciences--period.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 11:26 AM

..unless you just 'define' a chess-playing computer program as 'intelligent'. If you go there, you can assert almost anything.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 11:26 AM

Well, what do you mean by intelligence then? Can you come up with a description (I'm not even asking for a definition) that isn't circular?

Here's Chambers 1972 for a start:

Intelligence, intellectual skill or knowledge: mental brightness;... a spiritual being..

Intellect, the mind, in reference to its rational powers; the thinking principle; meaning (Shak)...

Mind, memory;.. thought: judgement: opinion: inclination: attention: direction of the will: state of thought and feeling: .... consciousness: (etc. etc.)

Conscious, having feeling or knowledge of something; aware; having consciousness...

Consciousness, the waking state of the mind; the knowledge which the mind has of anything; awareness; thought.

So consciousness is the waking state of consciousness....


In fact, nobody seems to use those definitions of intelligence post- computers. We usually mean rich, adaptive, complex behaviour... when we don't try a circular definition like "intelligence is what intelligent beings have".

Think to yourself, choosing your own (hopefully consistent) meaning of "conscious":

Is a person conscious?
Is a chimp conscious?
Is a cat conscious?
Is a bird conscious?
Is a lizard conscious?
Is a butterfly conscious?
Is a planarian conscious?
Is a Euglena conscious?
An archaean?
A bacterium?
....
A supercomputer?
A bee colony?

And wherever you draw the line, try to decide what is the difference in testable terms (chemical, physical, behavioural, whatever terms, as long as you can come up with some criterion by which you can say consciousness exists somewhere over here, and not somewhere over there.

If a spider isn't conscious, couldn't you have an alien race of super- spiders? If a spider seems too programmatic for you, try creatures that definitely have complex and adaptive behaviour, like termites or cockroaches.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 10:05 AM

? Intelligence without consciousness? What would the intelligence *work* on?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 05:26 AM

hi paul.i read your link which you posted without comment.im not qualified to rebutt it except that even as a non scientist i would question quite a lot of it.there may well be those who can/have done so and hopefully without the slander [lies accusasion]contained therein.perhaps your lack of comment signifies your disassotiation?.reading between the lines and comparison of your posts i suspect you already knew of some bones of contension but put the bait out for this fish to bite.as far as i can see, my point about fossil record not neat and tidy and presuppositions still stands.ps puns attempted herein intentional-spelling mistakes not!.God bless you[even if you dont accept his existence!]

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 04:37 AM

The problem with studying consciousness is that no one has come up with anything that approaches a definition of it, or even a description of any consciousness but their own. You can't even prove to another person that you are conscious.

The flying saucer test:

A flying saucer lands nearby. A door opens, and The Thing From Outer Space comes out.

How do you know if it's an intelligent, sentient, feeling alien, or a sophisticated robot, or an intelligent life form which nonetheless is not conscious? How do you find out?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 02:06 AM

BEsides, although QM may have demonstrated some really wild things about very very small-scale physics--entanglement and FTL information transfer foremost among them--it has yet to prove--in a rigorous scientific sense--anything about consciousness.


As far as I know.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 11:37 PM

That could be the one thing it's actually proved.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 11:27 PM

Wasn't it Feynman who said, Nobody understands quantum physics?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 08:47 PM

Ok, tell me who understands the world and give me proof.

It ain't me, babe.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 08:28 PM

Look, josep, it's not enough to say QM trumps everything and no one understands the world, therefore what I say is as good as what you say. You've got to make a (preferably falsifiable) prediction from that.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 08:11 PM

For whoever it was that said QM has proven nothing (source is same as above):

Quantum mechanics had enormous success in explaining many of the features of our world. The individual behaviour of the subatomic particles that make up all forms of matter—electrons, protons, neutrons, photons and others—can often only be satisfactorily described using quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics has strongly influenced string theory, a candidate for a theory of everything (see reductionism) and the multiverse hypothesis.

Quantum mechanics is important for understanding how individual atoms combine covalently to form chemicals or molecules. The application of quantum mechanics to chemistry is known as quantum chemistry. (Relativistic) quantum mechanics can in principle mathematically describe most of chemistry. Quantum mechanics can provide quantitative insight into ionic and covalent bonding processes by explicitly showing which molecules are energetically favorable to which others, and by approximately how much.[40] Most of the calculations performed in computational chemistry rely on quantum mechanics.[41]
A working mechanism of a resonant tunneling diode device, based on the phenomenon of quantum tunneling through the potential barriers.

Much of modern technology operates at a scale where quantum effects are significant. Examples include the laser, the transistor (and thus the microchip), the electron microscope, and magnetic resonance imaging. The study of semiconductors led to the invention of the diode and the transistor, which are indispensable for modern electronics.

Researchers are currently seeking robust methods of directly manipulating quantum states. Efforts are being made to develop quantum cryptography, which will allow guaranteed secure transmission of information. A more distant goal is the development of quantum computers, which are expected to perform certain computational tasks exponentially faster than classical computers. Another active research topic is quantum teleportation, which deals with techniques to transmit quantum information over arbitrary distances.

Quantum tunneling is vital in many devices, even in the simple light switch, as otherwise the electrons in the electric current could not penetrate the potential barrier made up of a layer of oxide. Flash memory chips found in USB drives use quantum tunneling to erase their memory cells.

QM primarily applies to the atomic regimes of matter and energy, but some systems exhibit quantum mechanical effects on a large scale; superfluidity (the frictionless flow of a liquid at temperatures near absolute zero) is one well-known example. Quantum theory also provides accurate descriptions for many previously unexplained phenomena such as black body radiation and the stability of electron orbitals. It has also given insight into the workings of many different biological systems, including smell receptors and protein structures.[42] Recent work on photosynthesis has provided evidence that quantum correlations play an essential role in this most fundamental process of the plant kingdom.[43] Even so, classical physics often can be a good approximation to results otherwise obtained by quantum physics, typically in circumstances with large numbers of particles or large quantum numbers. (However, some open questions remain in the field of quantum chaos.)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 08:09 PM

For snail:

Quantum mechanics and classical physics

Predictions of quantum mechanics have been verified experimentally to a very high degree of accuracy. According to the correspondence principle between classical and quantum mechanics, all objects obey the laws of quantum mechanics, and classical mechanics is just an approximation for large systems (or a statistical quantum mechanics of a large collection of particles). The laws of classical mechanics thus follow from the laws of quantum mechanics as a statistical average at the limit of large systems or large quantum numbers.[30] However, chaotic systems do not have good quantum numbers, and quantum chaos studies the relationship between classical and quantum descriptions in these systems.

Quantum coherence is an essential difference between classical and quantum theories, and is illustrated by the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Quantum interference involves the addition of probability amplitudes, whereas when classical waves interfere there is an addition of intensities. For microscopic bodies, the extension of the system is much smaller than the coherence length, which gives rise to long-range entanglement and other nonlocal phenomena characteristic of quantum systems.[31] Quantum coherence is not typically evident at macroscopic scales, although an exception to this rule can occur at extremely low temperatures, when quantum behavior can manifest itself on more macroscopic scales (see Bose-Einstein condensate). This is in accordance with the following observations:

    * Many macroscopic properties of a classical system are a direct consequences of the quantum behavior of its parts. For example, the stability of bulk matter (which consists of atoms and molecules which would quickly collapse under electric forces alone), the rigidity of solids, and the mechanical, thermal, chemical, optical and magnetic properties of matter are all results of the interaction of electric charges under the rules of quantum mechanics.[32]
    * While the seemingly exotic behavior of matter posited by quantum mechanics and relativity theory become more apparent when dealing with extremely fast-moving or extremely tiny particles, the laws of classical Newtonian physics remain accurate in predicting the behavior of large objects—of the order of the size of large molecules and bigger—at velocities much smaller than the velocity of light.[33]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 06:28 PM

I wonder what an UNlicensed Quantum Healer does? I'll bet the Quantum Healer Licensing Board would sue 'em if they catch 'em falsely healing quantums!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 06:13 PM

They also appear to be oblivious of the meaning of the word 'quim', otherwise they'd have surely chosen a different name..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 06:10 PM

Just looking round the site, it's full of such gems; I have to say I've not laughed so much in a long time.. I'd wager they're not going hungry, either.


"Licensed Quantum Healer™

This educational program will prepare you to become a Licensed Quantum Healer™. IQUIM has the only Licensed Quantum Healer™ program approved by the Quantum Healer Licensing Board."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Bill D
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 05:52 PM

wow...what a bargain! And I note that he is also active in other media... "Dr. Goswami has appeared in the movie "What the Bleep do We know?"

I wonder if I can save my pennies to get Amos a copy before the prices goes up....after all, there is a picture of the good Doctor smiling like he just swallowed a happy pill and with the caption:

"Consciousness is the ground of Being"

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 05:42 PM

Here's a bargain for y'all - be quick while it's going cheap.

'The Quantum Activist Course'

Dr Amit Goswami

Click

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 04:49 PM

their brain ratio (to body mass)

Why should brain mass/ body mass be a criterion? Unless brain cells are smaller for smaller creatures.

Does a bigger body require a bigger brain to do the same things? If not, whatever is left over after doing the same motor and reflex functions as a smaller body is available for being clever.

I think I have an answer.. what's yours?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 04:39 PM

Well, Bill, jokes aside it is an interestingly different model.

Just because the luminiferous ether was "disproved" by the Michaelson-Morley experiments (about which Einstein warned "we have not disproved the ether, only that we don't need it for computation") that doesn't mean that Žlan vital has been abandoned. A universal gradient index of life-force endowment for each bee, boar, dog, whale and barracuda!!!

That means every organism should have three scores: their endowment of life force, their brain ratio (to body mass) and the net combination they make of these two things, indicating how good they are at broad survival. This scoring system would put an end to species-ism and establish a global meritocracy across all species, and possibly revolutionize our notion of who is entitled to what civil rights!!!

V_i=B_i x EV_i

Voila!! The future is assured!


:D

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 04:05 PM

"Thus some horses (with medium brains) act much smarter than some people with large ones ..."

Ya' know, that is a good thing to keep in mind....ummmm...

It might explain some thread around here.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 03:17 PM

Well, we get all involved in the forms, differentiating between aardvarks and, say, wild boars. But in terms of their imagninative abilities, their internal landscape, maybe there are not fifty million different types, but a continuous gradation of degrees of ability, as a separate set of variables from brain function or number of synapses, etc. Thus some horses (with medium brains) act much smarter than some people with large ones (relative to body mass). Likewise some dogs can outsmart some cows. But not all dogs, and not all cows.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 02:43 PM

"Dogs understand death, their own as well as that of others..."

Well, pigs are said to be as smart or smarter than dogs.... that would sure give bacon & ham a different aura.

What elephants or dolphins understand is equally of interest. I don't know how we'd prove opinions one way or another.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 01:27 PM

Love surviving death happens all the time--ask any widow! :D

Whether it is reciprocal (also continuing in the "departed") is another question.

Some people hold that you can be driven into a real spin by unexpectedly meeting someone in this life that youhad an undying affection for in an earlier one. I can see how that could impose some extreme distortions on your present time frame, if true.

It would certainly explain a few oddball spins I have known folks to take from time to time.
:D

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 01:14 PM

I'm *not* comfortable, I live in the southern US! My kids have bible quotes in their history books as if they (mythological characters) were historical, atheism is not viewed as a possibility let alone a sensible alternative possibility, my mom's a Holocaust survivor despite having had a secular family, my dad failed to survive the first carbombing of our embassy anywhere by islamic fundamentalists despite being a pacifist atheist Quaker, sorry, religion is way too tolerated here, this place puts a parent's determined (and pigheaded) disbelief in the biological reality of our species ahead of a child's right to education, the time is way past comfortable.

Whew. I feel better now.

But I did see your *if* and I meant to say so, but upon rereading, you're right, I didn't. But ew ick, loving surviving death, Treacly (not Trickly) Sweeter it is.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 12:03 PM

"(Consciousness) can make you well when you're sick but it can also make you sick when you are well. "

That attribute is usually applied to the unconscious- the placebo effect and the like. It's a rare person who can reason himself well.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 12:00 PM

Well, 7*Pete, I don't know that particular case, but there seems to be someone who does: A plesiosaur fell down a hole?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 11:05 AM

Let me say that I have a totally different view of the afterlife. I think the idea of eternal bliss is the pie-in-the-sky that is so often mentioned.

Rather, I think of it as another level of learning. Which is where reincarnation comes in- you wouldn't send the typical third grade kid directly to the second year of high school, for instance.

Dogs understand death, their own as well as that of others. That is one thing I am sure of.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 10:55 AM

Well, I don't know about any "after life" as far as bouncing among clouds or the like is concerned, nor would I hazard to make any assertions about 'em. I personally think a lot of the assertions made by various faiths concerning such are pure-dee pie-in-the-sky bunkum and snake oil, such as the woefully mis-translated promises of Muslim virgins and so on. I don't play the harp and have no desire to learn--I'd prefer hell for the company and heaven for the climate, but I don't think either of these environments are anything more than speculative metaphors.

But in more concrete terms the puzzle of knowing what a dog thinks is an interesting one. From our own experience in trying to communicate I think most any of us is familiar with the state of having a huge array of impressions, conclusions, speculations, insights and feelings that are woven around some moment or subject and about which the prospect of communicating it all seems overwhelming, or at least extraordinarily difficult, the subtleties of our internal landscape being so difficult to cram into ordinary language.

The possibility exists that dogs are in a similar quandary relating to humans, especially constrained by such different vocal equipment, such different sensory emphases, and such different instinctual inputs. Who knows what their internal horizons look like? It's a good bet they HAVE such horizons and visualizations--anyone who has seen a dog chasing a rabbit in his sleep would likely conclude dreaming is in progress. But what are the colors of the subtle smells? What are the shapes in a world where every blade of grass can have a different signature and there are no verbal safeguards to lump things together?

It is possible then that like ourselves at some moments a dog's behavioural array of gestures and sounds is the narrow end of a very long funnel(if that is the right word) which is fed by a huge array of "mental" scapes and energies, much too large to fit through the funnel in any coherent way.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 10:41 AM

"The idea that consciousness is an accident of evolution virtually destroys the concept of evolution"

Evolution is not an "accident". It is a scientific process. There is a great deal of misunderstanding about the nature of Evolution.

I would say that the notion of a god is a historical "accident". Dawkins calls it a "meme".
Consciousness and unconsciousness has to do with the function of the brain and studies
working with electrodes on the brain substantiate this.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Bill D--testing new browser
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 10:18 AM

That's pretty close, Ebbie....but wishing FOR an afterlife now is pointless unless I knew how it was arranged and what my place would be. I don't really like many of the claimed versions. What I'd really 'like' is for some of the earthly metaphysical claims to be true...telekinesis, precognition, etc....but yep, I am comfortable with just waiting to see. ;>)



however:
"I know of at least two dogs that understood that they were about to die"
That's pretty broad. I can well imagine a dog realizing he's about to be punished in some manner, but I can't be sure he can internalize the concept of his own death. If he had seen some other animal shot, the sight of a gun pointing at him, along wish olfactory clues dogs can pickup on 'might' cause him increased stress...*shrug*....

I do know that dogs 'grieve' in some manner when they refuse to leave a grave, etc....but it is hard to know exactly what they are aware has happened.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 09:23 AM

hi paul burke.ichthyosaur in natural history museum olten switzerland.discovered nose down well preserved beak to part of rib cage in 3 "ages"suppossed million years.rapid burial is the obvious reason but im sure that will be avoided by a more improbable explanation.i hope this suffices-time consuming research but i wanted to oblige if possible.creation.com has the real scientists[i admit not my gifting!]

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 03:03 AM

"I am reminded of that when I read such wishful thinking as If it can love it will survive death..."Mrrzy

You might note, Mrrz, that I said IF there is an afterlife. Slight difference there.

I - very often - like how your mind works but when it comes to this subject it seems to me that you have an actual - and very strong - need to convince others - and yourself, perhaps? - that you are correct in your belief.

I don't know why that should be. I like Bill D's attitude better. The way I understand him is that he thinks that there probably is no afterlife, attendant with all its trappings, but that he would love there to be and still has hope that there might someday be convincing evidence to support such a belief. In the meantime he is comfortable in his non-belief.

You don't strike me as comfortable.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 01:15 AM

My happy theoretical pooch can't, doesn't need to, and lacks nothing for it.

Well, you haven't answered the question as to how you can postulate the internal states of these "others" with such certainty. You have no idea, for example, what it is like to see in smell the way a dog does. And their non-verbal communication with their own species is outside your ken, to a large degree. Yet you seem content to inform me what they do or do not feel or think.

I am not sure that is good science at all.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 12:09 AM

The idea that consciousness is an accident of evolution virtually destroys the concept of evolution. Consciousness is a powerful tool. But it is a double-edged sword. It can make you well when you're sick but it can also make you sick when you are well. It is something that has to be controlled. We have not yet learned to do this except on a very rudimentary level. That's why I tend to stay away from political arguments when they start getting too nasty. This conservative-liberal hatred is pointless and stupid and cannot end well as long as one side thinks it will vanquish the other. It is as stupid and counterproductive as Sunnis and Shia killing each other in Iraq.

It's not what we believe about others that will enable us to control consciousness for our benefit--it's what we believe about ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Mrrzy, confused
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 12:09 AM

That was quie a tricky blicky, where was it meant to go, or did I miss an obvious irony?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Mrrzy chez a friend
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 12:07 AM

Ever read the Adventures of Dunno and Dono? There was a achracter there called Trickly Sweeter; I am reminded of that when I read such wishful thinking as If it can love it will survive death...

And, yes, back to the thread, indeed. Concsiousness was quite a detour, via Life After Death being a delusion too, which certainly is helped along by religion but doesn't require it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 11:51 PM

///You say " the cat is a quantum object". No, it isn't. That is precisely the point. It is a macroscopic object that obeys the rules of classical physics. It does not exist in a superposed state of dad and alive.///

You seem to think that there is a rigid difference between quantum and classical. Anything that can be explained by classical physics can be explained by quantum physics. The reverse is not true. That's why there's quantum physics in the first place. Classical physics breaks down on the subatomic level. Quantum physics does not break down at the macrophysical level. We don't really need two system. We use classical physics at the macro level because it is easier and yields the same answers. But classical physics is incomplete!!! It is just a quick shorthand for quantum physics on the macro level!!! My goodness!!!!!!

"Any macro body (the cat or any observing machine), however, is ultimately a quantum object; there is no such thing as a classical body unless we are willing to admit a vicious quantum/classical dichotomy in physics. It is true that a macro body's behavior can be predicted in most situations from the rules of classical mechanics. (Quantum mechanics gives the same mathematical predictions as does classical mechanics in such cases--this is the correspondence principle that Bohr himself pioneered.) For this reason we often loosely refer to macro bodies as being classical. The measurement process, however, is not such a case, and the correspondence principle does not apply to it. Bohr knew this, of course. In his celebrated debates with Einstein, he often invoked quantum mechanics for describing macro bodies of measurement in order to refute the acute objections that Einstein raised to probability waves and to the uncertainty principle."

--Amit Goswami, Ph.D. physics professor at the Institute of Theoretical Sciences at the University of Oregon.

And yes the cat is 50% and 50% alive simultaneously in potentia before we open the box to look. If you don't understand this, I can only wonder in utter bewilderment what you're reading.

Dr. Goswami also writes, "The paradox of a cat that is dead and alive at the same time is a consequence of the way in which we do our calculations in quantum mechanics. However bizarre its consequences, we must take this mathematics seriously because the same mathematics gives us the marvels of transistors and lasers."

He also states, "Since our observations magically resolves the dichotomy of the cat, it must be us--our consciousness--that collapses the cat's wave function. Material realists do not like this idea, because it makes consciousness an independent, causal entity; admitting that would be like putting nails in the coffin of material realism. Materialism notwithstanding, such luminaries as John von Neumann, Fritz London, Edmond Bauer, and Eugene Paul Wigner have endorsed this resolution to the paradox."

Any other questions--ask away.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 11:11 PM

///The Delayed-Choice Experiment and Schrödinger's cat are thought experiments.///

Schroedinger's Cat was obviously a thought experiment. I never said otherwise. Delayed-Choice was done in the laboratory according to Hellmuth, Zajonc and Walther in "Realizations of the Delayed Choice Experiment" p. 108 put out the New York Academy of Science, edited by D. Greenberger.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 08:55 PM

It is well documented that elephants honor/mourn the dead.

I have been clearly shown several times that dogs understand their own upcoming death. Can't say any more about that, at the moment.

I have seen a mother dog grieve over the grave of two of her pups, although the pups were long past weaning and she really had nothing to do with them.

And I know of at least two dogs that understood that they were about to die. In both cases - and years apart - they were shot by a brother and a brother in law respectively after their owner gave up on their sheep-killing and/or chicken-killing proclivities.

Given all that, I fail to see where I can draw the line as to where and to what they are not able to cogitate and perceive.

It is my own opinion that if there is an afterlife any animal that is capable of loving will survive; and for all I know,the ability to love is not the criterion for their survival. I don't know that much- and I don't know anyone else can claim to.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 06:34 PM

Jack the Sailor

And inserting my opinion of it

Can't see the connection myself, but who cares? This thread has taken some entertaining byways.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 05:47 PM

>>>> Bringing this back to the origin of this thread.<<<<


And inserting my opinion of it

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 05:36 PM

Jack the Sailor

Bringing this back to the origin of this thread.

Really?

Take a look.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 05:01 PM

Bringing this back to the origin of this thread.

Emotions such as happiness, sadness, fear, anger, stress, even grief and greed are emotions felt by most mammals and are due to infusions or the lack thereof of serotonin, adrenaline, dopamine and other nerve acting chemicals.

The major difference between animals and humans on this issue is the human's ability to be self aware of these effects and to manipulate them. In all ancient cultures and many modern ones this is done through religion.

Meditation, confession, ritual, putting your faith and worries on a higher power are all more or less proven ways to decrease adrenaline and increase serotonin.

Is civilized man only a superior brain with a greater degree of control of his endocrine system? Amos would certainly disagree. In fact I don't fully agree with that myself. But it is an illustrative paradigm and it does explain most things.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 03:03 PM

Sure, Amos, I autopilot a lot - the difference is, sometimes I don't. I can think about how happy I am, and feel the happiness of a dog being patted, but I really don't think said pooch can be thinking about how happy *they* are. But boy, are they happy. I can also think about going on a diet, fates preserve me. My happy theoretical pooch can't, doesn't need to, and lacks nothing for it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 02:54 PM

Mrrz:

Your attributions are quite definitive, but in light of your skeptical perspective about consciousness I wonder how it is you have come to these conclusions about what animals think, or do not think. I just don't see where you could get such certain conclusions from about their internal processes.

I am sure there haveen times in your own life when you were busily reflecting on some situation or oher, with all kinds of variables and possibilities, while you were physically doing something quite mundane and semi-automatic, such as walking down a road or chewing on lunch.

What evidence would an observer have as to the depth or lack thereof of your internal world at that time?


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 01:12 PM

but still, if they are hungry, they seek and consume food, without thinking about it. When in heat, females seek mating. When around a female in heat, males seek mating. No thought involved... unlike poor us.

Was that intended to be ironic? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 10:53 AM

Adaptation is about becoming an ancestor.

And yes, horses, dogs, lots of mammals have personality, but still, if they are hungry, they seek and consume food, without thinking about it. When in heat, females seek mating. When around a female in heat, males seek mating. No thought involved... unlike poor us.

They don't think about their personality, either. They just have it. Like their emotions/motivations/motives - they just have them, and act upon them, in their playful/lazy/whatever their personality happens to be, way.

The trick with evolution is that it has to have variation from amongst which to select, so of course individuals are different. Has nothing to do with consciousness, though, till you get to the animals who perceive their motivations rather than just having them, and for that, on this planet, you need a brain curved into a loop to accommodate bipedalism. It just happened... and look what happened next! Folkies and 'Catters and threads, oh my!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 10:53 AM

Destroyed? Not exactly... maybe confoozilated.

The little cartoon makes some of it's points with clever use of equivocation...on 'pragamtism' and 'evidence' for example.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 10:00 AM

The sad truth is any argument can be destroyed by nihilism...