[W:926]The central evolution problem

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

He seems to enjoy ignoring reality.

I've corrected you three times already about G4N's gender and yet you persist in referring to her as "he."
Is this a political thing, ma'am? Or just provocation?
It's a game that two can play at any rate, as you see, and as two will play if you continue the discourtesy.
Yes?

 

[Manc Skipper]

Re: The central evolution problem

You can find out if it's brain dead. And if it is, it can't communicate. You don't know if it still has a mind.

You are assuming the brain creates the mind. We have no evidence for that.

You assume magic then.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Re: The central evolution problem

This is myth. You poke fun at Christians for their spiritual myth, but theirs has the virtue of hope and transcendence. Your physical myth is hopeless hoopla for naifs.

Your lack of understanding, or enthusiasm for it, is understandable.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: The central evolution problem

You assume magic then.

ID in another guise.

 

[Quag]

Re: The central evolution problem

ID in another guise.

No no no!
Angel is talking about intelligence in the design not intelligent design. The difference is very important as it shows that Angel is smarterer than the average potato

 

[zyzygy]

Re: The central evolution problem

No no no!
Angel is talking about intelligence in the design not intelligent design. The difference is very important as it shows that Angel is smarterer than the average potato

Who or what designed the intelligence in the design?

 

[Quag]

Re: The central evolution problem

Who or what designed the intelligence in the design?

Coco Chanel?

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: The central evolution problem

Actually otters use tools as well
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_use_by_sea_otters

I believe the qualification was 'in fighting'

 

[Quag]

Re: The central evolution problem

I believe the qualification was 'in fighting'

If it was meant that way then otters dont apply but hamsters on the other hand

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: The central evolution problem

Yes we do have massive evidence for that.

You have no evidence for the contrary.

There is no evidence that the brain creates the mind. There is evidence that the brain is part of the mind. I already mentioned the research that supports Penrose's quantum consciousness.

You are confused about causality. The brain is necessary for a person to be able to communicate in this 3D world of the senses. That doesn't mean the brain is what causes the mind to exist.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: The central evolution problem

There is no evidence that the brain creates the mind. There is evidence that the brain is part of the mind. I already mentioned the research that supports Penrose's quantum consciousness.

You are confused about causality. The brain is necessary for a person to be able to communicate in this 3D world of the senses. That doesn't mean the brain is what causes the mind to exist.

When somebody gets brain damage that impairs their thinking but not their communicating it shows that the brain does the thinking not some magic spirit thing.

Mentioning some gibberish that you want to support your position does not cut it. You will have to link to it with quotes from it showing what it is you are claiming it is supporting.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: The central evolution problem

If it was meant that way then otters dont apply but hamsters on the other hand
View attachment 67246238

Does that count as ID?

 

[Logician Man]

Re: The central evolution problem

Does that count as ID?

:lol:

 

[zyzygy]

Re: The central evolution problem

There is no evidence that the brain creates the mind. There is evidence that the brain is part of the mind. I already mentioned the research that supports Penrose's quantum consciousness.

You are confused about causality. The brain is necessary for a person to be able to communicate in this 3D world of the senses. That doesn't mean the brain is what causes the mind to exist.

When the brain dies the mind dies too.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: The central evolution problem

There is no evidence that the brain creates the mind. There is evidence that the brain is part of the mind. I already mentioned the research that supports Penrose's quantum consciousness.

You are confused about causality. The brain is necessary for a person to be able to communicate in this 3D world of the senses. That doesn't mean the brain is what causes the mind to exist.

There is direct evidence than Penrose is wrong about quantum consciousness in the mind. It has been shown that the brain operates at a temperature too high for quantum effects to provide consciousness to happen.

https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9907/9907009v2.pdf

 

[zyzygy]

Re: The central evolution problem

There is direct evidence than Penrose is wrong about quantum consciousness in the mind. It has been shown that the brain operates at a temperature too high for quantum effects to provide consciousness to happen.

https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9907/9907009v2.pdf

It was a sad day when the world of woo discovered the word quantum. It's telling that we provide links to prove our claims but Good4Nothin merely claims.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: The central evolution problem

It was a sad day when the world of woo discovered the word quantum. It's telling that we provide links to prove our claims but Good4Nothin merely claims.

The argument from quantum seems to be

"I don't understand Quantum Mechanics"

I don't understand xyz

therefore God.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: The central evolution problem

The argument from quantum seems to be

"I don't understand Quantum Mechanics"

I don't understand xyz

therefore God.

You can make fun of their arguments. That's easier than actually learning what they are.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: The central evolution problem

When the brain dies the mind dies too.

Says the all-knowing you.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: The central evolution problem

You can make fun of their arguments. That's easier than actually learning what they are.

I can make fun of it, because that is the level of discourse that a lot of the people who use 'quantum' and 'intelligence' resort to. They appeal to 'quantum', but what is lackign is 1) an understanding of quantum mechanics' 2) a model that can be tested, 3) any objective and tangible evidence, 4) an explanation of how it could work.

That's the level of the junk from James Shapiro too.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: The central evolution problem

You can make fun of their arguments. That's easier than actually learning what they are.

I do know what they are. I am familiar with quantum physics.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: The central evolution problem

Says the all-knowing you.

Says reality.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: The central evolution problem

I can make fun of it, because that is the level of discourse that a lot of the people who use 'quantum' and 'intelligence' resort to. They appeal to 'quantum', but what is lackign is 1) an understanding of quantum mechanics' 2) a model that can be tested, 3) any objective and tangible evidence, 4) an explanation of how it could work.

That's the level of the junk from James Shapiro too.

Yes, they always seem to leave out those irrelevant details.

 

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

The argument from quantum seems to be

"I don't understand Quantum Mechanics"

I don't understand xyz

therefore God.

Then you don't understand the argument from quantum mechanics.

 

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

I can make fun of it, because that is the level of discourse that a lot of the people who use 'quantum' and 'intelligence' resort to. They appeal to 'quantum', but what is lackign is 1) an understanding of quantum mechanics' 2) a model that can be tested, 3) any objective and tangible evidence, 4) an explanation of how it could work.

That's the level of the junk from James Shapiro too.

News flash, friend: quantum scientists don't understand quantum mechanics. This goes all the way back to Bohr. They just know how it works, somewhat.