Neither follows from the other. The fact that Newton believed in a god does not imply that his discoveries were god-given. On a side note, the fact that the sumerians invented the art of writing does not mean that the gods in the sumerian pantheon actually exist.
I assume this is “tounge in cheek”?
Gravity existed before Newton, as I’m sure you’re aware, and Christianity has nothing to do with his accomplishments.
If you imply that gravity (and–perhaps–the other laws of physics) exists because it must have been intelligently created by virtue of it’s existence . . . so God.
There are many, many problems with this:
We may not know where the laws of physics come from, but just because we don’t know something doesn’t mean we should automatically invoke God. If we invoke God whenever we don’t understand something, then lightning would still be the wrath of God that leads to buildings getting destroyed by lightning instead of using lightning rods.
If God created gravity, then we should ask where God came from. If God has always existed, then why not save a step and assume that the laws of physics have always existed?
People use the laws of physics to argue that the Universe is–somehow–fine tuned for life. If this is the case, then why is 99.99999% of the Universe uninhabitable? We can’t exist between the galaxies or on the surfaces of stars.
Even if a God (or gods) constructed the Universe . . . there is no reason to assume that it was the Abrahamic God. It could have been Vishnu, Zeus, Ahmen-Ra, the Great Spirit, and so forth . . . so Newton being Christian means nothing.
.I Have A question? DO YOU Think Trees more Concious Than Concrete or Rock?
Wrong: Isaac Newton (4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727)[1] was considered an insightful and erudite theologian by his Protestant contemporaries.[2][3][4] He wrote many works that would now be classified as occult studies, and he wrote religious tracts that dealt with the literal interpretation of the Bible.[5] He kept his heretical beliefs private.
That seems out from left field, but OK.
How do you define consciousness?
Trees respond to their environment, some use chemical signals to communicate with each other.
The woody plant Mimosa pudica is the “sensitive plant” which folds its leaves inward when touched.
This motion is stimulated by changes in electrical action potentials, so I imagine that we can argue that the sensitive plant and other plants like the better-known venus flytrap have an analogue of a very primitive nervous system, as they respond in specific ways to the environment.
Even more interesting is that the sensitive plant can actually “learn” and retain memory. See below:
Is any of this what you mean when you ask if trees are conscious? And what does this have to do with gravity? Or God’s existance?
I’m lost.
It’s the ole… “Look at the trees.” Argument for god’s existence. You can’t make a tree, therefore God.
I think the likelihood of reaching personal satisfaction for a child born into abundance is higher than a child born into poverty. I think the quality of life for a rich child is more likely to be higher than a poor child. Of course, they’re going to measure sources of satisfaction differently. And so too with sources of dissatisfaction.
Obviously a rich child can be spoiled and a poor child can be resilient to adverse conditions. But I think there’s a happy medium where most members of this species are able to derive satisfaction from there environment to the degree that their personal mental and bodily needs are met to a high degree without too much adversity.
As I said, it’s a happy medium.
I don’t think I can define satisfaction for you. I think you can define it for your self and you can answer the question in a straightforward way. That’s what I actually think.
The old “serotonin and dopamine are happiness.”
What is it about those molecules which provide happiness. We know their shape, their molecular formula, weight, electrical charge, etcetera.
And yet we don’t know what it is about those molecules or their behaviour which could explain mental or physical satisfaction.
We know they’re crucial in order for satisfaction to arise. But then, we know the eye is required as well. The ear … the nose … the tongue … the body.
All you’ve done is gone down a rabbit hole and found nothing at the bottom. This is a reductivist argument which loses sight of the larger context and indeed the point itself.
Agreed. And I’m saying that sources of satisfaction can vary. But in particular I’m asserting that the senses do provide satisfaction as you’ve defined it according to the dictionary. The question is “to what extent” can the sense provide mental “pleasure derived there from”.
Then you are amazingly ignorant. All satisfaction studies demonstrate different cultures have different value systems for life satisfaction or well-being. You are showing your ignorance once again. To measure satisfaction you must know what each person holds as satisfying. Even subcultures have their own standards of satisfaction. Belonging to a gang is as satisfying as belonging to a football team. Going to the mall and buying new shoes is as satisfying as getting an old pair you can wear to school from Red Cross. Your perception of life and of humanity is extremely limited.
You’re taking about a cultural criteria for satisfaction. Of course it’s going to be different across different cultures.
What remains the same are the perceptual faculties. We all see the same things, hear, smell, taste, and touch with the same organs.
Now, someone in Scotland may have an affinity for beer entrails cooked in a sheep’s stomach. And others may not.
But we all find satisfaction in the senses. Or we’re all at least designed by evolution to seek out sense media which has co-evolved with our instinctual drives.
We don’t measure eye sight by any standard other than how far and how clear you can see objects.
We don’t measure hearing by any standard other than the range and accuracy of the ear.
We about measure the ability of the tongue by a standard other than what range of tastes one can perceive. And so forth.
Perceptual faculties can be superior and inferior among different peoples. But all peoples agree on what the standard of the faculties are.
There are discrepancies of course, but evolution has supplied humans with a ubiquitous ability to detect our environment and derive both pleasure and pain from it.
In evolutionary terms, modern examples of masochism and sadism are in the minority. Perhaps the evolution has selected for such phenotypes for a reason. But in order to talk rationally we must admit to a Norm of behaviours. A median of normal behavioural types.
My criteria for satisfaction does not entail gang membership or what have you. I’m speaking strictly about normal perceptual desire and satisfaction.
And I just showed you there are none. This has all been previously shown to you as well. Your just repeating your ignorant verbiage.
It it normal to desire copulation with a rotting, bloated corpse?
Have human beings throughout history copulated with rotting bloated corpses? What is the percentage? There is a percent and humans have done it. We even define the behavior as “necrophilism.’ In a long list of human behaviors, this one is included. If we define normal as " conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.” then we look at the human species from it’s origins to now, you would be amiss to assume necrophilism would not occur.
SOME FOOD FOR THOUGHT:
According to The American DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition), necrophilia doesn’t get its own spot as a tried-and-true mental illness. It belongs to a broader category called paraphilias, which is sexual attraction or practices with people or objects other than genital stimulation between consenting adults.
The only reason that necrophilia is on the list is because the dead cannot consent. Aside from that, necrophilia is not all that odd, psychologically speaking. While most of us recoil in horror at the idea due to the innate human tendency to be afraid of death, a dead person was once a living person while objects were not.
Surprisingly, nailing down exactly what makes necrophilia a mental disorder has proven rather challenging. According to Martin Kafka in the paper “The DSM Diagnostic Criteria for Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified,” there really isn’t much new data on necrophilia besides a 1989 study by Rosman and Resnick.
Paraphilias become mental disorders when they significantly impact someone’s life in a meaningful way, much like alcohol isn’t alcoholism until it becomes a real pain for someone. Paraphilias can either involve objects (e.g., shoes, household appliances, foods, clothing) or acts (e.g., exposing one’s self to an unwilling party, being whipped, being bound)
History is rife with necrophilic descriptions, art, and literature. As can be imagined by their practices of embalming and their religious obsession with the afterlife, the ancient Egyptians had a lot to say about necrophilia.
In one of their major myths, three of their gods partake in a necrophilic tale that sheds light on their belief systems. The story goes that Seth and Osiris were enemies. Seth killed Osiris and cut his corpse into pieces.
Then Isis goes all Frankenstein with Osiris’s corpse and pieces it back together. But there’s one problem. Isis can’t find Osiris’s penis. So she substitutes another phallic object and attaches it to the corpse. Then she has sex with Osiris’s body, of course.
OPEN YOUR MIND RATTY ---- OPEN YOUR MIND
I’ve never worked with a necrophiliac. that I know of, but I have worked with a lot of weird shit. What I might consider weird, not weird for the people doing it.
THINK RATTY THINK! Necrophilia is not much different than your fetish for penises. It’s only a problem when it becomes a problem.
OOPS, SORRY I FORGOT: (A fun read for ratty.)
Well. I don’t see it as a fetish. If you took a random survey of 100 people and asked them to rate the attractiveness of my penis on a scale of 1 to 10, I think the mean average would be about an 8.5. You can’t blame me for bragging. I’ve earned it in a way.
Yes. I realize necrophilia is a “thing”. Heck. Put me alone in a charnel ground for long enough; a guy gets lonely some times.
Is it normal? That’s all I’m asking.
Edit: thanks for rhe reading materia
What a stupid question. Of course they are! That’s basic anatomy.
Probably at least as conscious as concrete, but definitely not as conscious as rock.
“Necrophilia is not all that odd”? You must move in some strange circles.
I seem to have problems separating necrophiliacs and murderers, as a lot of serial killers (such as Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Gary Ridgeway, and Ed Gein) were also all necrophiliacs who enjoyed “interacting” with the corpses of their victims.
I realize that not all necrophiles are murderers, but I consider necrophilia to be a risk factor for being a murderer like smoking as a risk factor for lung cancer.
I am not a psychologist, so maybe I’m thinking about this in the wrong way and perhaps I’m being overly judgmental . . . rather like how lots of people automatically assume that being gay must mean that someone is also a paedophile. Or–perhaps–I’m confusing correlation with causation.
Still . . . how can a person engage in sexually abusing a cadaver and not be dangerous?
If I’m being bigoted and closed-minded, please let me know.
Is it wrong?
Not entirely, I have no doubt that a blind or death person can still experience satisfaction.
I have no doubt also, that a man with his tongue removed can also experience it too.
I haven’t found myself down anywhere, that is unfortunately where you are at.
For me, im happy with my position and if evidence comes along to be describe or explain then ill adjust my position.
Anyone thinking its some sort of cosmic woo going on has to evidence the claim and add some substance to it.
And here is the issue.
All your ‘senses’ rely upon chenical reaction in the brain.
You can lose sight and still experience satisfaction, likewise with hearing, taste or touch.
The senses rely on the brain and its chemical reactions, not the other way around.