Impenitent wrote:mental- activity of the mind including but not necessarily limited to conscious linguistic manipulations ...

To much brevity for me.analogies of undefinables is futile...
Not a dualist.limiting the machine the ghost inhabits...
Impenitent wrote:mental- activity of the mind including but not necessarily limited to conscious linguistic manipulations ...
To much brevity for me.analogies of undefinables is futile...
Not a dualist.limiting the machine the ghost inhabits...
reasonvemotion wrote:If the theory of evolution does not rely on a supernatural creation, is it possible that life itself could have arisen by the random chance combinations to form the first living organism.reasonvemotion wrote:
Darwin's claim that all life arose from a primordial single organism into which "life was breathed", is poppycock.
He said 'probably' but this appears to be pretty what is claimed by the creationists, a 'God' breathing life into inanimate matter to create life? So I assume you think what they say is poppycock as well?
Quote:
There is still no known mechanical or naturalistic explanation as to how life started.
So what? Science does not work like religion, it does not need a first cause to explain how what it is observing works.
There is no satisfactory explanation of how the first living cell could form by itself, but it is assumed that it did.
So how is it possible for a living cell to arise by chance.
There is tidal wave of evidence that the natural process by which life arises from inorganic matter is impossible.
Maybe this book will offer you some logic in softening your staunch belief in Darwin.Got the book Tom, bit pricy I must say but will get back to you with some thoughts after a peruse.
I have no belief in Darwin, I know he existed.reasonvemotion wrote:Maybe this book will offer you some logic in softening your staunch belief in Darwin.
reasonvemotion wrote:Maybe this book will offer you some logic in softening your staunch belief in Darwin.Got the book Tom, bit pricy I must say but will get back to you with some thoughts after a peruse.
Ginkgo wrote:reasonvemotion wrote:If the theory of evolution does not rely on a supernatural creation, is it possible that life itself could have arisen by the random chance combinations to form the first living organism.reasonvemotion wrote:
Darwin's claim that all life arose from a primordial single organism into which "life was breathed", is poppycock.
He said 'probably' but this appears to be pretty what is claimed by the creationists, a 'God' breathing life into inanimate matter to create life? So I assume you think what they say is poppycock as well?
Quote:
There is still no known mechanical or naturalistic explanation as to how life started.
So what? Science does not work like religion, it does not need a first cause to explain how what it is observing works.
There is no satisfactory explanation of how the first living cell could form by itself, but it is assumed that it did.
So how is it possible for a living cell to arise by chance.
There is tidal wave of evidence that the natural process by which life arises from inorganic matter is impossible.
You may well be correct, but I am not sure of the point you are trying to get across.
When enough evolutionary scientists start to feel the criticisms in terms of their explanations being inadequate, then according to Thomas Kuhn in his, "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" there will be a paradigm shift in science. For example, Mendelian inheritance taking over from Darwin's pangenesis. Science is not set in stone. The future may well reveal that the current evolutionary theories are inadequate.
Again, I am not sure of the point you are making in relation to your claims that the current science is not an adequate explanation. In the future science will develop a different explanation to fit the observations.
Ginkgo
not making the charge, merely cutting to the explaination...Arising_uk wrote:Impenitent wrote:mental- activity of the mind including but not necessarily limited to conscious linguistic manipulations ...Okay but what is this conscious manipulation? A model that makes an other from perceptions that we then call self as long as theres two of them to communicate.
it could be a manipulating entity outside of the biologicalbox, then again, it could merely be a function of biological components... I do not know what directs the manipulation, but ideas represented via language are arranged...
To much brevity for me.analogies of undefinables is futile...
comparing things that have yet to be defined is pointless... too much brevity?
Not a dualist.limiting the machine the ghost inhabits...
I can understand that perceptions are arranged by whatever and that ideas cannot use anything but, but I'd have thought ideas can be rearranged.Impenitent wrote:it could be a manipulating entity outside of the biologicalbox, then again, it could merely be a function of biological components... I do not know what directs the manipulation, but ideas represented via language are arranged...
Still not quite getting it but we have been creating computational neural nets and their properties appear to shed some light on how the wetware may work.comparing things that have yet to be defined is pointless... too much brevity?
Fair dos.limiting the machine the ghost inhabits...not making the charge, merely cutting to the explaination...Not a dualist.
-Imp
not unless the ghost is more than binary selections... then again the myriad of selections which the biological machine allows is not matched by artificial means...Arising_uk wrote:I can understand that perceptions are arranged by whatever and that ideas cannot use anything but, but I'd have thought ideas can be rearranged.Impenitent wrote:it could be a manipulating entity outside of the biologicalbox, then again, it could merely be a function of biological components... I do not know what directs the manipulation, but ideas represented via language are arranged...
it appears we agree... that which directs the manipulation, both arranged and rearranged by whatever
Still not quite getting it but we have been creating computational neural nets and their properties appear to shed some light on how the wetware may work.comparing things that have yet to be defined is pointless... too much brevity?
neural nets don't regulate heartbeats... we cannot fathom all that in which the mind may consciously or unconsciously be involved... appearing to represent that which is undefined?
Fair dos.limiting the machine the ghost inhabits...not making the charge, merely cutting to the explaination...Not a dualist.
-Imp
Do you mean the idea of the ghost is the limiting factor on the 'machine' or vice versa?
True, but it may well be quantum selections.Impenitent wrote:
not unless the ghost is more than binary selections... then again the myriad of selections which the biological machine allows is not matched by artificial means...
-Imp
The latter is demonstrably false:reasonvemotion wrote:Darwin's claim that all life arose from a primordial single organism into which "life was breathed", is poppycock.
There is still no known mechanical or naturalistic explanation as to how life started.
Which bit of this;reasonvemotion wrote:...
As it stands all this is simply assertion, or where evidence is cited it does not actually prove the claim.
And yet here we are? The problem with probabilities are that they are just that. I take it you are saying a 'God' did it 6000 years ago? I don't know but I can think that there can be other effects that could affect your figures, so what are the rates of change or mutation at the time?reasonvemotion wrote:There is still no known mechanical or naturalistic explanation as to how life started.
To carry meaningful information, the amino acids have to occur in a specific sequence and the chances of that could be 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.for example. Just changing one specific sequence renders it meaningless. There are 20 difference amino acids involved in biological systems and unless the amino acids are in the right sequence, the code will not work to carry information in a cell. This calculation does not include other possible valid sequences that could contain information. Nor the fact there are many non protein forming amino acids in nature that make the chances of the right protein forming even less likely.
no but the building blocks for it apparently can and with chance, mutation and evolution it appears it has. Unless of course you think a'skyfather' did it 6000 years ago, not saying 'it' didn't as I like the astronut or maybe even probes idea. Although I think Fred may be right and it all came from comets and asteroids.Of studies of single celled organisms, scientists have estimated that the simplest possible living organism would require a genome containing a minimum of 250 to 400 genes. Thus the improbability of life occurring in the simplest cells has high odds against it. That is, a living organism cannot arise by chance from nonliving matter.