There’s also the little matter that the planet is now littered with cameras. Upwards of a billion smartphones on the planet have cameras built into them, that can also shoot video footage. Even before then, we had people shooting both still and video footage of various interesting phenomena. Such as those photos I took of my catfish spawning back in 2000 or thereabouts.
A classic example of our recent ability to verify various phenomena independently, was provided in Chelyabinsk in 2013, when that meteorite paid Earth a visit and detonated with the force of a 50kt nuclear weapon when it landed. Several thousand Russian car dash cams recorded it flying over Chelyabinsk.
Rather puts blind assertions about the “subjective” into perspective, doesn’t it?
Indeed, though not for everyone apparently. Ironically those who fail to grasp this are most vocal about others lacking objectivity as well, and I invite everyone to read @Quim’s post about him “knowing better then 99% of biologists” and where he then risibly made a generic accusation that the atheists here were a closed minded sect.
Heh, that one would have made me laugh, if [1] it weren’t such as blatantly and pathetically ignorant assertion on his part, and [2] there had been some indication that this was genuinely posted as some sort of joke, instead of being a galactically hubristic delusion on his part.
I’m still waiting to see if his “simulations” are something other than a fabrication. Not least because if his claims about them are correct, that work would be worthy of a paper in a prestigious journal. Which makes you wonder why he’s wasting his time posting assertions about them here, instead of documenting the requisite experimental results in a properly constructed paper, and submitting it to the likes of Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Part B. Given the manner in which Turing’s work on this topic led to the publication of a landmark paper of its kind, that is still cited today as prior art in modern research papers 71 years down the line, there’s scope for a modern simulation to achieve the same landmark status.
It’s at this point that i’m wondering if our latest arrival is Rupert Sheldrake writing under a pen name. Look him up - you’ll find his activites took a very interesting trajectory.
He reminds a lot of a poster called Breezy (sp) he was a young undergraduate apparently, and boy did he admire his own opinion. He was a Christian, and he also believed he was going to publish papers on evolution and entirely change if not falsify it. That was years ago now, I’ve not seen any paradigm shifts in the theory that suggest natural selection has been seriously rethought in favour of an unevidenced deity using inexplicable magic, well not yet anyway.
Sheldrake questions conservation of energy; he calls it a “standard scientific dogma,”[93]: 337 says that perpetual motion devices and inedia should be investigated as possible phenomena,[93]: 72–73 and has said that “the evidence for energy conservation in living organisms is weak.”[93]
This is an Atheist community, not a church. Claiming your god is real while providing 0 admissible evidence will not automatically make us believe you.
That’s really funny and hypocritical coming from you. Other religions that you disagree with would accuse you of believing in the wrong god. Hindus and Muslims would have no tolerance for your beliefs and write you off as an infidel. You assert that the “god stories” that your family indoctrinated you into believing is the one true god. You want to believe in bullshit stories that have no evidence backing them, be my guest. But coming on here trying to force your bullshit religious views onto a community of atheists was a real shit idea on your part.
As usual you ignore the fact your beliefs are irrational, and ignore the fact you can’t demonstrate any objective evidence to support them, and then use an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy to imply not believing your claims equates to making a contrary claim, which of course is a straw man fallacy, and a false dichotomy fallacy…
Here is your opening post, note the appeal to ignorance fallacy straight away, which you never addressed:
That’s not a predicament, that’s a god of the gaps polemic, it is the very definition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy…to base any assertion claim or belief on this.
And again…
and again…
and again…
and again…
And that is just from @Quim’s first post, basing his opening arguments on so many fallacious appeals to mystery / ignorance had alarm bells ringing from that moment, yet we gave him every chance to present a cogent argument despite this, and what did we get…histrionics, hubris, hyperbole, a risible denial of scientific fact, and then a flounce, and then like Jayyyzuz…he returned…only to flounce again, and then again.
Since I’ve already mentioned Alan Turing’s landmark paper on morphogenesis, and the role of reaction-diffusion equations therein, I thought it would be instructive to elaborate further on the topic, as I did elsewhere some years ago. However, this exposition is a long one, and much too voluminous to fit into a standard forum post, so once again, I’ve turned to Google Docs to come to the rescue, and allow the material to be presented in full, whilst maintaining something resembling post brevity here.
The document in question covers no less than eleven peer reviewed scientific papers, starting with Turing’s paper, then moving on to recent papers that reinforce his ideas, including one that describes an explicit mathematical model based upon Turing’s ideas. The document in question is this one:
which can be freely read by the audience here.
Persevere with this one, it covers a lot of material, but even those who don’t have a sophisticated mathematical background will appreciate that a LOT of works has been performed in this area, over the 71 years since the original publication of Turing’s paper.
As a corollary of the contents of that document, and the papers referenced and presented therein, I can safely dismiss fatuous assertions to the effect that evolutionary processes purportedly cannot account for relevant morphological change. That evolutionary processes can achieve this result, is also demonstrated by my previous presentation on domesticated goldfish genetics, in which specific genes responsible for well-defined morphological changes were cited in the paper I covered in that document. For those who haven’t yet read that document on goldfish genetics, you can find it here:
Once again, genuine scientific research destroys ignorant blind assertions.
It’s a Congo line, we go here and there, in and out, around and around, up and down, over and under, through and through, left and right, north and south, to the moon and back, and off into the sunset.
Personally I don’t believe consciousness exists. The reasoning behind that is far too long for this forum. Simply put though, I believe the logical progression of evolution proves it doesn’t exist i.e. you can’t suddenly turn on consiousness following a random mutation.
There may come a day where AI is declared to have consciousness (some already claim it has) but that is only going to confirm it doesn’t exist.
Subjective experience only needs a brain to process it, I don’t believe it needs consciousness as a mystery component as to why or how it does, it just does. (Again the reason why I say that is too big for the forum.)
As far as consciousness proving a god, well no. The reason for this also simple: If you believe consciousness exists but can’t define what is, then it is not possible to claim it infers a god is required beyond a desire for a god to exist.
Then you start your own thread. You’ll have to begin by defining what you are calling consciousness that does not exist.
So the evidence that supports the idea of crows, mollusks, apes, whales, elephants, dolphins, pigeons, and many others, is all false? Really? And what’s up with spiders having dreams?
Hmmm. Plants do not have brains. Are you going to assert they have no subjective experience? Every single plant feels the cold and the sunlight in exactly the same way? There is nothing subjective between one plant and the next? Or are you perhaps going to claim, ‘plants have brains.’
Your making a lot of assertions. Perhaps you want to start your own thread and put some of these ideas down a bit more clearly.
I think you are attempting to reference ‘consciousness outside an organism.’ As in the Jungian concept of the collective unconscious. The brain is a receiver and consciousness occurs outside of it.*
If you are not referencing consciousness outside an organism, you are making an assertion that is going to need definitions and examples. (Evidence)
I don’t see anywhere that I wanted to convince you cosciousness exists or not?
No, if you understood what I said you would have realised your comment has no relevance to mine.
I don’t know maybe you need to publish your discussions with plants so we can all understand. Focus on how you found out they were conscious and sentient.
Nope, I don’t need to do anything. I think my comment is sufficient to serve itself : i.e. it’s up to the poster to prove consciousness exists, what it is, how it works and fully define it before they claim it requires a god (and we all know that’s not going to happen). (By the way what didn’t you understand about: "I don’t believe cosciousness exists?)
Read the post. I was not addressing whether you wanted to convince me or not. I was clearly addressing your beelief. What did you not understand when I ‘QUOTED’ you … just like this…
And certainly you are Mistaken Bacon, making inane assertions all over the place and expecting not to be challenged.
Why are you adding shit now. Happy to cite articles on plant consciousness. But that is NOT what we are talking about is it? It is an entire field of study. At the same time, the assertion you made was not that plants were conscious but rather, “They did not have subjective experiences.” You are being dishonest. Do you need to lie and move the goal posts to try and make a point?
One of us certainly is not holding onto some sort of belief. What is it you think you don’t believe? I have no idea what you are talking about. If you can’t define what you don’t believe in, how in the hell do you not believe in it. I don’t have a clue what you are talking about. One of us is certainly in the dark while the other seems to have a clear belief in exactly what he knows he does not believe in. How is it not appropriate to ask for clarification?
Believe what you want to believe. You don’t have to share your beliefs with anyone, but if you are going to post them openly, have the balls to back them up with something. Your sounding like a whiny 16-year-old.
Your the one asserting beliefs… not me. Then you want to whine because someone asked you for evidence? Waaaah!
Are you a beliver in the Squidlydoogleburg? Be carefuul of what your response is as some low IQ looser may make a comment such as:
“One of us certainly is not holding onto some sort of belief. What is it you think you don’t believe? I have no idea what you are talking about. If you can’t define what you don’t believe in, how in the hell do you not believe in it. I don’t have a clue what you are talking about. One of us is certainly in the dark while the other seems to have a clear belief in exactly what he knows he does not believe in. How is it not appropriate to ask for clarification?”
Once again, print of my comment and read it over and over and oever and over until you can gain at least a miniscule comprehension of what was said.
And instead of making a fool of yourself as you appear to be habitually doing on everything you say to try to challenge me, get back to my comment:
"Nope, I don’t need to do anything. I think my comment is sufficient to serve itself : i.e. it’s up to the poster to prove consciousness exists, what it is, how it works and fully define it before they claim it requires a god (and we all know that’s not going to happen). (By the way what didn’t you understand about: “I don’t believe consciousness exists?)”
Since your IQ and comprehension seem to be infinitesimally small and unworthy of consideration: Your first role in your response is to prove “consciousness exists, what it is, how it works and fully define it” before making any further absurd attempt to prove you have nothing to offer (we already know you haven’t, you’ve proved it. (Do you need a “well done” and pat on the head?).
Oh and you don’t need “balls” to back up anything until the person attempting to challenge you offers something that offers a challenge. Unless, of course, there’s something that needs explaining relevant to my comment above. Hint for the dumb: My entire comment could have been left at the above single paragraph which makes the rest virtually superfluous (but you couldn’t figure that out could you.)
Are you going to provide the impossible on consciousness or are you going to keep on with your deranged and irrelevant ranting about irrelevancies?
The chance of Squidflydoogleburg is exactly the same at Eric the Rainbow farting Unicorn. Extremely miniscule. So as you pointed out previously, we can not rule it out. Neither can we demonstrate it can be ruled out. (Can you wrap your head around that?)_
