Why I Am No Longer a Creationist

2012 ,    »  -   1,000 Comments
Ratings: 8.78/10 from 41 users.

Why I Am No Longer a CreationistFrom the author: I'm no longer a creationist or a Christian... these videos are some of the reasons why. I don't really have anyone to talk to about this stuff because my family and friends are all fundamental Christians like I was... so I thought this may be a good way to start discussions and be able to finally get it all out there.

There are many well-meaning creationists who have just been misinformed. It takes a good deal of time to come to a thorough understanding of a major scientific theory; and many just don't have the luxury of investing enough. They often become the unwitting victims of a few charlatans, and of their own confirmation bias.

It is the evangelical creationist leaders who are the main targets of my criticism. These men either should know better; or they are deliberately lying.

More great documentaries

1,000 Comments / User Reviews

  1. walterr44

    Masrsupials such as the opposum are found in north and south america.
    They are not limited to australia.

  2. Jim Dorey

    yes, however, koala's(not including the ones shipped in crates for the tables of america) -only- exist in australia.

  3. walterr44

    I"m not challenging evolution which is an established law of biology,
    not just a theory. But when you're arguing the veracity of evolution
    aaginst creationists you shoould be 100% accurate as to your facts,
    and that error marred an otherwise good presentation.

  4. robertallen1

    As do wallabies', bilbies and wombats.

  5. dylans12

    True but the question that matters is why? Because of continental drift. The Australian and American land masses were once connected

  6. robertallen1

    Although you are correct about the amount of human DNA in bananas, writing this in standard English shows far more intelligence.

  7. robertallen1

    My question is why we don't find more different types of native marsupials outside of Australia and Tasmania. Is it that wallabies, and wombats came into being after the split?

  8. walterr44

    Autralia and Americas were connected before mammals
    evolved. South america was isolated from north america until 5 million years ago when Panama volcanically rose and bridged the gap.
    Before that marsupials were in south america but the opposum
    migrated north after the land bridge. most but not all of the masrsupial mammals were driven to extinction because of the influx of placentals.
    Marsupials were probably everywhere but were driven to extinction
    by placentals except on the two isolated continents of
    Australia and south america.

  9. robertallen1

    You've raised an interesting question. Why were marsupials in Australia and South America spared the depredations of placentals? Is it because of this continental isolation of which you write?

  10. Michael Marino

    The percentage of shared DNA examples are a bit misunderstood. In terms of genetics an organism that is .01% different than another can alter its body immensely. Just take chimps and humans. Look at the differences just based on .2% difference in those two species. Now take a banana which is 50% similar to a human. There is a huge amount of change in even .000001%, so to think geneticists are all wrong because a banana doesn't look like a human is to be quite stupid, but I can see by your rage face you are just trolling, so carry on.

  11. robertallen1

    You got his number. Welcome aboard.

    Even creatures which look alike may have evolved along completely different paths and may be only distantly related.

  12. over the edge

    you also share 99.9% (or more) of your DNA with Einstein and Darwin but i think many of us here could point out many important differences, as for bananas are you referring to coding or non coding DNA or both? are you including the basic cell maintenance DNA that is common between many living things? you see without elaborating on your question and a display of a informed understanding of the subject (genetics) in particular a satisfactory answer is not possible

  13. robertallen1

    Not that he is seeking one. To paraphrase the venerable song, "What a difference a gene made."

  14. KingGeorgeIV

    Well I can pretty much guarantee you that evolution is not an established law of biology, in fact some university professors would say that it is still on the verge of being an established theory. There are too many gaps to title it an established fact. Im curious as to what textbook you may provide where this law has been established, because any science major and/or professor I have talked to has been careful to tread in such waters. While I do see the strength, truth, and the benefit that the theory of evolution provides to biology, I still wouldn't call it a fact. However you could get away by saying something like, "all facts of biology... make sense only within the general theory of evolution" (Michael Alan Park 2011).

  15. walterr44

    That all known life today descended from a unicellular ancestor
    and through the process of natural, sexual, selection,
    and perhaps also so ancillary mechanism such as viral exchange
    of genes is beyond dispute. Natural and sexual selection are beyond any doubt. the only hypothetical part is the possibility of ancillary mechanisms

  16. robertallen1

    A law, no, but an established theory, most definitely. It is far from being on the verge.

  17. Qamersland

    if we were evolved from Apes then why there are still apes in the world.

    who could have mentioned below in the Quran 1400 years ago that we have discovered recently.

  18. robertallen1

    It's still not a law like the laws of thermodynamics or gravity. There's no formula(s) for it and as I was mentioning the other day, there are too many factors involved to predict what will happen although I understand that in immunology there has been some headway in this direction.

  19. KingGeorgeIV

    I would agree that it is an established theory, I just know of one professor that recently stated in their lecture that it was about to become an established theory.

  20. walterr44


  21. walterr44

    parallel evolution as opposed to divergent.

  22. robertallen1

    That's one out of how many scientists in the world?

  23. KingGeorgeIV

    I'm not sure if I would say its beyond dispute. If (and this is what I have been taught) you can't explain where certain organisms derived from in each step of their evolving, a dispute remains. However even if it was beyond dispute, is that enough to establish it as a fact? Natural selection, yes; but the entirety of the mechanisms that make up evolution are not fact but a very well supported theory. As we all know, evolution is made up of far more mechanisms than just natural selection. The relative importance of these mechanisms are still being debated. We are still examining hypotheses to account for how evolution takes place.

  24. robertallen1

    Exactly. Welcome to the site. We could use more knowledgable posters like you.

  25. KingGeorgeIV

    Im not saying we should hold this one person's lecture higher than anyone else. I am saying that if it was an established fact/law, then a college level professor would never say something so ludicrous and would most likely refer to it as a fact/law in their lectures.

  26. over the edge

    you state "if we were evolved from Apes then why there are still apes " please show me where the theory of evolution states that? are you claiming that the Koran states scientific facts? i watched the first video and i have had these debates before. so to cut to the chase please give me the best evidence that (just a couple to start please) the Koran knew these things. please note that a verse that requires interpretation and can be interpreted many ways holds little if any weight. are any of these revelations an explanation that argues against the theory of evolution? if these things were so clearly revealed why were they not found til after science discovered it?

  27. CyberDog Breath

    Those facts are correct. It is distinct species. The opposum in America and Australia are different species. Same as the elephant found in asia compared to the ones in Africa, they are distinctly different. Same as all the other animals that are highlighted in Australia. Those animals found there are distinctly unique to there. That does not mean they are not found anywhere else, it means that they are different to the ones found everywhere else. If you are looking for fault, that was not it.

  28. robertallen1

    It's the on the verge part that's bothering me. For the last 150 years or so, evolution has superbly held its own, bolstered by new technology and the emergence of scientific fields unknown in Darwin's day. If there were anything wrong with its basic tenets, I think we would have discovered it by now. All that remains is further refinements based on more information.

  29. robertallen1

    The same with the Galapagos Islands and Madagascar. Have you read "The Ancestors Tale" of Richard Dawkins? In it, he mentions a type of desert creature (I can't remember its name or where in the book it is mentioned) found in two different places of the same desert. In one place, it is sui generis, but in the other, it is not.

  30. Epicurus

    dont respond...he is trolling.

  31. robertallen1

    Because evolution is not replacement. We didn't evolve from them. They're our cousins. You have a lot of learning to do

  32. Epicurus

    i suggest everyone going to this youtubers page and subscribing.

  33. Giacomo della Svezia

    Do you have a link to a site with an explanation of ancillary mechanisms or can you explain it briefly? I have a (probably) superficial understanding of viral and sexual selection.
    I tried to find information with Google, but got poor results.

  34. robertallen1

    I don't understand. Which youtubers page?

  35. walterr44

    There is a theory and I can't quote the exact source that viruses
    by their nature alter DNA. in fact viruses are now used for genetic
    engineering. This could have been done naturally. actually viruses would constitute another kind of mutagen. There is no hard evidence
    that this did happen naturally. But even so, all mutations survive
    ultimately because they are either beneficial or not harmful.
    In other words through natural and sexual selection

  36. urban deadite

    yeah one of the biggest misconceptions in science is that we evloved from chimps etc, we share a common ancestor.

  37. Epicurus

    everyone, real_skeptic is speaking in internet troll speak, has a troll rage face as an avatar and his email is an encrypted one....i think it would be best if you just ignore him and i will go about deleting his comments in a couple hours.

  38. Epicurus

    is this a serious question....are you serious?

    if dogs came from wolves why are there still wolves?

    if my ancestors were irish why do we still have irish people?

    you know the phrase "there is no such thing as a stupid question"? well you have proven it wrong.

  39. urban deadite

    "if we were evolved from Apes then why there are still apes "
    Homo Sapiens, Gorillas, Chimpanzees, Orangutans are all 'Primates'.
    He fails to grasp there is no such singular animal called an 'Ape'.

    I wonder how he responds to the fact several new species of Hominids who made tools, fire, buried there dead and so had a culture and were NOT Homo Sapiens were around the same time as we were?.

    you are so right imo.

  40. urban deadite

    You do realise there is no such singular animal as an 'Ape' it could mean one of many species.

    Firstly that is one of the biggest misconceptions in Science that we evolved from Apes, Scientists of the appropriate fields certainly do not think that.

    Homo Sapiens DID NOT evolve from 'Apes' we share a common ancestor THAT WAS NOT APE OR MONKEY.

    How do you explain all the other different species of homonids that lived along side Homo Sapiens that were NOT us?
    All where very similar, made tools, fire, buried their dead and so had culture, how could they exist too?

  41. Laban

    Until you have a solid mutagen theory, I think the whole evolution theory is in need of a major revision. Random mutations do not qualify as a solid mutagen theory in my eyes. Viruses: certainly worth exploring, but they do sound inadequate too... We'll see if science ever brings up some solid, believable evidence. I don't think we've seen the last theory as to the origin of species yet.

  42. over the edge

    urban deadite
    i an not sure what his/her response will be but i will make a prediction. if there is a response it will be either directly from or related to the thoroughly debunked claims of Zakir Naik

  43. bbga

    Not very interesting video. He regurgitates everything I've heard since high school. Is this suppose to be revealing? I guess these people were playing hookey from school that day.

    I've heard the argument about the Bible stating the earth is 6,000 yrs old...for
    YEARS. The Bible NEVER states the age of the earth. There are many scholars and independent readers who've tried to extrapolate an age based on the genealogy information from Genesis forward. But there are gaps in the genealogy and larger spans of time unaccounted for.

    I'm not a fundamentalist, but I do find these arguments frustrating sometimes.

    Really, it is a modern (relatively speaking) concept that ancient Christians did not, and were not, interested in. They were interested in the teachings of Christ. The age of the earth was irrelevant.

  44. robertallen1

    I see. Thank you.

  45. robertallen1


  46. robertallen1

    Not to Bishop Ussher.

  47. Giacomo della Svezia

    If I understand this correctly I read an article about this in The New Scientist.
    In it I read that viruses can add genetic information to that of their host, or they can alter information, causing tumors for example, in which case the mutation is harmful and the host dies, making it less probable that the mutation will be passed to a new generation.
    Related to this: I understood that some scientists think that an animal species like the butterfly may initially have been two seperate ones, because of the metamorphosis from caterpillar to the adult insect.

  48. bbga

    Right, and Augustine and others thought the earth was much older.

  49. robertallen1

    True. That's what happens when the Bible and any other "holy" book is treated as scientific text.

  50. Rikiycrikit

    I will accept everything you have presented here, if you will accept that you lack the ability to view god without the limitations of science which, you have stated that, at best, is undetermined and, at worst, bewildering and depressing.

  51. Ricketycricket

    There are some very interesting things being considered (thrown around) in the world of theoretical physics that lead to the idea that time itself is curved and it might not be so far fetched to think that we are moving backwards and that fossils are actually future creatures. If any part of this becomes more than a scoff, I fear it might open the floodgates! Not only will there be more theories, but they will be increasingly ridiculous.

  52. robertallen1

    You don't know any more about god than a boll weevil. As you can't prove the existence of a supreme being, all you can do is utter empty assertions.

  53. robertallen1

    Just what are you talking about--or do you know?

  54. Jack1952

    I read a biography about a Jew who became a Nazi. The aberration is not to taken seriously.

  55. Jack1952

    The age of the earth may have been irrelevant but who created it wasn't. Ancient Christians were adamant that God created the universe in six days. And...it wasn't just the teachings of Christ but how his existence related to the creator, his father.

    The Bible does not state the age of the earth but it does imply that it is not very old. The implication is that the earth came into existence at relatively the same time that Adam was created and that the universe was created as the support system for man. Egocentric.

  56. Jack1952

    Science discovers it and someone points to the ambiguous verse and says "That's what it must be talking about. How insightful. How revealing." Have to make everything fit no matter how tenuous.

  57. KsDevil

    I think the "Why I Am No Longer A Christian" documentary was better presented. It was well layed out in a clear timeline of progression.
    This docunetary seems to be a random collection of thoughts put together to justify it's own creation. (how ironic)
    Well, you can't win them all.

  58. robertallen1

    It all depends on how you interpret "day" and "year." In older languages words took their color from the sentence and were not in general as confined in meaning as they are in modern languages. Take the Latin word "virtus" from which we get "virtue." The word comes from "vir" meaning man (cf. virile) and meant the manly qualities. Therefore, the word could mean bravery, conviviality, beauty, strength and much more. Our narrower connotation is a serotinous development. The word "tempus" which literally means time could also mean concern, troubles, sickness depending on the surrounding words. I'll bet it was the same with ancient Hebrew.

  59. slpsa

    I like to keep it simple. There is no God, no proof of such a being that you can use as an example. Science on the other hand, can be proven and is every day. Enough said. The sky fairy people have crawled out from under the rock. Excellent. Something new for a change, topics like this never attract them at all. (insert sarcastic tone)

  60. slpsa

    If he could get over the whole Jews are the chosen people and stop with the one sided propaganda, I may join you in welcoming Walter. If you recall, he was not so nice not so long ago. Knowledgeable perhaps, fair, not so much. Regardless, the man talks sense and is evidently, well educated.

  61. slpsa

    For those of you who do not believe we did evolve from apes, they have evidently, never met my mother in law. :)

  62. robertallen1

    That's the main thing.

  63. Steven Bailey

    i love how people use their computers to discuss the uselessness and incorrectness of science.

  64. I AM POP SLAG.

    If you understood "god" then you would realise that it is an intangible concept and frankly it makes you look bonkers to profess to know more about him/she/it than someone who has an interest in science, Word of advice when approcahing spiritual etheric concepts with those interested in science -dont mention "god" , your better off using analogies such as "the force" etc. your particular church cult and hence your god has a bit of a dodgy history when it comes to science...
    Ive met many ex-christian, science minded "atheists" and/or "agnostics" but not one scientist who converted to your branch of hoodoo.
    what does that tell us? if we apply some scientiiic method and thought processes?
    you trying to convince others of the existence of your god is like me trying to tell you about the goblins that live under my settee, they are definitely real as far as im concerned but i have found that they are only acceptable to others if i dont talk about them! As even if someone else actually believes in them they are their concept of them is not the same as mine.
    I think the goblins are benign but my friend says they are malignant and venomous, so we cant truly share the concept anyway even i we were to start a goblin cult, get some real estate and the scientologists a run for their money- we would have terrible trouble keeping on message as the goblins tell us different things.
    the whole concept of god is manifestly unmanifested so to speak and therefore what your selling isnt even a reputable brand in the world of spirituality- a single god that does everything,is everywhere and knows everything.
    a much more saleable concept is the god of a particular facet of the world -a tree god for instance -we can all club together and agree on an suitable anthropomorphisation -he looks like a tree- we all worship the same aspects (apples/shelves) and the god becomes useful - ie he lives in the tree and needs water or he will destroy the apples.
    know we know about photosynthesis and nutrient absorption we dont need him so much....

  65. I AM POP SLAG.

    "if we were evolved from Apes then why there are still apes in the world." erm..because there are?
    seriously thats like asking
    "If gorillas are apes and so are chimps why arent gorillas actually chimps?
    by your logic we would be all identical organisms with no genetic differences in a big homogeneous sexless blob.

  66. I AM POP SLAG.

    They are also the only other animals with true fingerprints...
    And they are perpetually intoxicated by their diet of eucalyptus.

  67. I AM POP SLAG.

    these are all theories of laws, not laws per se.
    gravity theory is most definitely theory as if we had laws as concrete as those proposed in fermis theories we would have a grand unified theory which is frankly a preposterous thing to try and find as it would have to explain itself and the existence of itself as a theory inside itself and it would answer every question in existence whilst asking them at the same time.
    That is if we are going to be pissy about semantics. youre always pissy though its how you were grown methinks.

  68. robertallen1

    Just what is a theory of law or am I being to pissy by asking?

  69. dylans12

    Do you actually want an answer to this question or, as usual, are you going to completely ignore it and continue on your merry road of ignorance? Because there is a very simple answer to your question.

    We didn't evolve FROM apes. We are apes. We are primates like Gorillas and Urangutans and Chimps and Gibbons. We are related to all primates.

    We share a common ancestor with all primates. It is not a straight linear process of Gibbons turning into Urangutans and Urangutans turning into Gorillas and Gorillas turning into Chimps and Chimps turning into Humans with each replacing the other. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution.

    Rather, evolution is like a branching tree, at some point in our evolutionary past was a common ancestor to all of the above that was neither Gibbon or Urangutan or Gorilla or Chimp or human. Slowly and gradually the tree of life branched into the species that evolved into what we know as Gibbons and the ancestral species that led to everything else. Then at a later time it branched again leading to the evolution of species that became Urangutans and a branch that led to the ancestor of everything else. Later, about 9 million years ago, the tree of life branched again leading to the species that evolved into Gorillas and a branch leading to the ancestor of Chimps and humans, finally about 5 million years ago, the tree split again with one branch leading to the species evolving into what we now know as Chimps and a branch that led to us.

    The simple answer to your question is that other species of primates still exist because they are on different evolutionary branches of the tree of life.

  70. TheSatyaYuga

    I'm looking forward to this, both the video itself and the comments section. :)

  71. Don

    Now that he no longer believes in a Creator would he be as willing die for his unbelief?

  72. over the edge

    there are many things worth dieing for. and people willing to die for their god hasn't always worked out for the rest of us

  73. Mercenarry ForHire

    That Panda in the video was like. "I love you! Rawr!" :D

  74. robertallen1

    Being willing to die for one's beliefs does not make them right? What about those involved in 911?

  75. Kateye70

    Why should anyone have to be 'willing to die' for anything at all?

    What's wrong with living?

  76. Giacomo della Svezia

    What is worth dying for?
    I have no problem finding things worth living (i.e. working) for. Living is everything, being dead is nothing.

  77. robertallen1

    You're right. It's better to be a live coward than a dead hero.

  78. explorerguy

    Interesting video and better done than most. One thing however it doesn't address the concerns raised by scientists who are critics of evolutionary theory and mostly talk about the lies of religious misguided people who talk in the name of science without knowing the issues. One caution however is the fact that the different fossils of hominids presented, however, do not hold a close temporal relationship with the 'tree of life' lineage that supposed antecedent of modern man.

  79. robertallen1

    Out of the thousands of scientists the world over who support evolution, the few who don't are composed mainly of people who hold their religion over science and hence are not worthy of being called scientists.

    And just what is a close temporal relationship with the "tree of life" lineage or do you know?

  80. over the edge

    could you list some of these "scientists who are critics of evolutionary theory ". are their concerns based in science? are their fields of study related to evolution and what is their scientifically tested alternative?

  81. robertallen1

    A biologist who denies evolution is like an immunologist who denies viruses.

    Started chapter one of the Ehrman volume in which he discusses the extreme diversity of various sects of "Christianity" around the first century A.D. Note that doctrinal codification did not occur until the third century when proto-orthodoxy became the norm much as the Northumbrian dialect became the standard of English a few hundred years later. All of which goes to show you that the Bible with all its precepts, however contradictory, is without doubt the divine word of god (if you need further proof, look up "The Shepherd of Hermes.") Although a lot of the material is repeated in later volumes, it is still a fine introduction and so far Dr. Ehrman has lived up to his promises in all three prefaces (I have the third edition).

    Now a question for you: As you are probably aware, the cause of cataracts is so far unknown (and I don't mean cause in the sense of quantum physics), do you think that there is any possibility that the condition of which there is a high incidence in India has its roots in evolution or genetics?

  82. John Hanna

    Nice presentation.
    The science supports the science and that is unfortunate for evolution.
    You did save it when you stated that the theory of evolution was evolving and that natural selection was a force.
    I don't think it is a strong enough force to modify complete skeletal shapes but certainly guides skin or eye color.
    Any large modification can not come about by chance - people don't understand the enormity of permutations - but although this is not a self promoting blog I do detail it at PappyMart dot com.
    Creationism isn't yet disproven and it may be that our creator has inserted a story into our past that will come to pass ... but I doubt it.
    There does appear to be a force operating within evolution. It could be goal oriented unseen like a moral gravity or it could be alien grad students eh?
    But it has been going on over a long period of time.
    I would say that this particular creation is limited to this star or region and is guided by an AI for purposes unknown.
    What else can travel at high speeds and has the tenacity to hang in there over eons?
    Who says that different ones don't come and go covering different periods of Earth's history?
    AIs are also misunderstood. They don't really care.
    What doesn't really care if it exists or ceases to exist yet isn't depressed?
    heh! Not me!

  83. robertallen1

    Just what are you talking about? How about writing so that one sentence flows from another rather than in scattered, haphazard "thoughts." The whole thing is gibberish.

  84. robertallen1


  85. over the edge

    John Hanna
    i went to your site other than trying to sell me things and self promotion where is this detail? i found one very superficial blog but it contains conjecture only no proof,also i hate having to repeat this but you state in your blog "intelligent design has been proven." please provide this proof?

  86. explorerguy

    Over the edge,
    Can't give you a LIST but here's just a few examples. Remember that you can't test evolution of a creature either. You can demonstrate how organisms change and how selection happens or mutations but you cannot demonstrate experimentally that a blob of cells became a complex organism. All life processes we know exist have been tested on already organized forms of life. Also there's no way of demonstrating in a lab how less complex originates highly complex. Therefore 'demonstrating ' may not be the word you want. Any how. the discussion is also a philosophical one and there are many levels to this.
    Stephen C. Meyer and Paul A. Nelson, “Can the Origin of the Genetic Code Be Explained by Direct RNA Templating?,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(2) (2011)

    Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe, “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(1) (2011).

    Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).

    Douglas D. Axe, “The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010(4):1 (2010).

    Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some further research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,”Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology, 1-21 (2010).

    George Montañez, Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II, “A Vivisection of the ev Computer Organism: Identifying Sources of Active Information,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010(3) (2010).

  87. Achems_Razor

    Went to your site also, what does it mean? Disjointed. Is as haphazard as your post, on drugs?
    Where is your proof of ID,? wasted my time!

  88. over the edge

    you state "that you can't test evolution of a creature either" yes we can and have google observed evolution please as the list is too long to include here. i did check a few of your sources and surprise no background in evolutionary sciences (well behe but he has been thoroughly debunked and admits his definition of science includes astrology). did you read all of these sources material? if so could you pick one and lay the case out? do they all belong to the discovery institute? an organization that knowingly lies. you do know that evolution has nothing to say on the origins of life don't you? there's no way of demonstrating in a lab how less complex originates highly complex" look up the evolution of the eye many of the steps are alive today and show exactly how complex functions can arise. yes due to the time necessary highly complex organisms cannot be observed to evolve in real time from start to finish but the fact that it takes a long time is in line with evolution. finally do you have any positive proof for this designer?

  89. robertallen1

    When you cite Michael Behe, Stephen C. Meyer and William Dembski who are no more than religious shills who have put their religion before science and therefore are unworthy of the name scientists,
    your post is highly suspect. Meyer, the pseudobiologist, is at the Discovery Institute and Dembski, the pseudomathematician, at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, probably the only places which will accept them. Michael Behe got his comeuppance at the Dover trial and Dempski once took his autistic son to a faith healer. That says a lot about them and their honesty. Not one of these individuals holds any credibility or esteem among mainstream scientists.

    Let's take a look at some of the other individuals you've listed:

    Paul A. Nelson is not a scientist, but a philosopher at the Creation Institute which means his opinion does not count. Despite what you have to say, philosophy proves nothing scientific.

    Anne Gauger and Douglas Axe are at the Biologic Institute which is funded by the Discovery Institute. Robert J. Marks teaches at Baylor University, a Christian institution. None of the aforementioned four individuals either works or teaches at any reputable institution and none of them is held in any esteem by mainstream scientists, in all probability because the institutions at which they are employed place religion first and science second just as you do.

  90. robertallen1

    Please ignore earlier response. Disqus screwed up.
    What I meant to write was like a typical religee explorerguy lies through his teeth. This is beyond disgusting.

  91. over the edge

    if i remember correctly he is the poster that gave the useless paper that he obviously didn't read as evidence on "Falsifying Phylogeny" (thanks to epic for providing the whole paper) and if i remember he believes the designer is the christian god

  92. robertallen1

    I believe you're right.

  93. David Ewer

    Most enjoyable film - thanks as always to Vlatko for a great resource.

  94. ShadowMan

    ....The real honest truth of us in appearing/becoming is that we were created by an advanced ET' civilization! It totally makes sense in ever view of this said statement! Believe this and you will find the truth quickly. We are not the only ones in this universe, others are definitely out there, and some are way far more advanced than us, if so, then why not they travel to here and start us off?! We will surely do the same in a few 100 thousand years from now or less. The evidence for this is growing quickly! UFO's are stepping up in appearance too.

  95. Roger Gordon

    I don't get it why there are so many people thinking that world is only about 5000 years old that is just totally none sense. Fossils were here hidden to test our faith?! As Bill Hicks said God sent me you to test my faith. Of course there is some higher power which is overall and in one of us but it is a mechanism of subatomic particles which in fractal fashion are affecting the greatest galaxies The Universe. Creationism is just oldest MKULTRA or mildly to say entertainment for the not informed.

  96. robertallen1

    Where is your hard evidence?

  97. explorerguy

    I see several issues with your response that concern me as someone trying to 'argue' for evolution. First you seem to think you need to be doing research in evolution to critique it? IF that's your thought I will respectfully disagree with the basic premisse. We ALL study evolution in grad school and decide what one likes to study and feels passionate about. However, since evolutionary thought is highly interpretative for the reasons of not being able to 'test' the model except for simulations and for many other reasons, the interpretations connecting the dots do not add up in every investigator's minds and no science lacks critics. Evolution is no exception.
    A bit disturbing to me is that you want to judge some scientists by whether they belong to this institute or that. That to me is sad, because it tells me you are bringing your bias to this and will never listen to what others would point out.
    You may say it takes a long time, but that's also a huge assumption..how do you know it "TAKES" who has demonstrated it takes time? It takes time for mutations to occur or modifications given different environmental pressures are present and who knows how the earth and life and the genome behaved when it was 'brand new" without the "junk DNA"? DO you know this? Can anyone know this?
    No one argues animals can reshape to some degree. What we are talking about is the formation of a whole ecosystem with man on top, a biological integrated beautiful system where everything has a place and a reason and there's very little waste in the optimization. A system where the biological needs of the human body for instance is met in the complexity of food composition.

    Inteligent design is just saying that, normally, what we see out there is more compatible with the idea of design than not. Even the movie has that when it says: ELefants were DESIGNED...(did you catch that?)
    Sir Isaac Newton once had a very skeptical student and one day he prepared a model of the solar system beautifully done on wood and set it out. When the student came he asked: WHO made this..Sir I Newton answered: Nobody ...the student at first was angry with the reply. get the point.
    The issue of the designer is another level of discussion. For this discussion introducing that gets into religion and that's when problems arise. If you can just focus on the simple philosophical argument that design is in everything we have in our home (chairs, cars, machines etc)..why not in nature?

  98. explorerguy

    For you lady, one only needs to pose a critique to evolution to be wrong and be demonized by you or vandalized by your sarcastic, remarks, no matter how many degrees in biology or peer reviewed papers one writes or genius or intelligence or insight. I am aware of your line of argument and way of thinking, it is at best dangerous in science. I am very thankful though that in the corridors of scientific associations, there is more respect than that even with such a widely variety of differing opinions and views on things including evolution. It is the skepticism that runs scientific the enterprise not your religionism and that of some few evolution scientists that have an agenda of imposition and domination..a philosophical one.

  99. over the edge

    the members of the discovery institute stopped being scientists when they stopped looking for "natural explanations for natural phenomenon" that is what scientists do. the discovery institute in general and some of the people you mentioned specifically had their chance. they were on the witness list as the Dover trial. they had a christian judge appointed by a creationist president and they still refused to argue their evidence under oath. now to his credit Behe did and he got torn apart by the facts. so yes if judging an institution by their past and present behavior is biased then i am. why are we talking evolution anyway? this doc is about creationism so lets see your best couple of pieces of actual evidence? not it looks designed or inanimate objects that are complex are designed. you know some hard evidence that we can test? just one or two and please don't just list a bunch of papers and books and say read these. but tell me what these sources state,what were the conditions of the experiment, where they were peer reviewed and most importantly what conclusions did they reach backed by evidence.

  100. robertallen1

    First of all, you're as much mistaken about my sex as you are about evolution. As Vlad and Over the Edge have indicated, the individuals you cite are an insult to the name of science and the opening paragraph of your post from yesterday is as complete a fabrication and mass of misinformation as your current statement that there are differing opinions on evolution (and by that, I take it you mean on the truth of evolution).

    The contributions of science are immense and unquestionable. On the other hand, what have creationism and creationists contributed? No more than an untenable philosophy defended at all costs, even if it means substituting spuriousness for the honesty.

    Because creationists have nothing to offer in place of evolution, they try to poke holes in it and come out as fools and frauds--as did Michael Behe during the Dover trial. So no wonder they are ostracized by the scientific community at large and no wonder you can't see the difference between being employed at a pseudoscientific institution such as the Creation Institute in its various incarnations and outright lies and deceptions and a reputable university or research facility. And no wonder that peer review means nothing to you--would you go to a medical doctor who was not a member of the AMA, not licensed by the state in which he practices and graduated from an internet medical school? Well maybe you would.

    Particularly insulting are all your claims about evolution contained in your latest post to Over the Edge which are either fraudulent or ignorant, especially your assertion of design. My guess is that you uncritically gleaned them from some creationist website One way or the other, I doubt whether you studied evolution, much less basic biology, in grad school--or anywhere else.

    In short, you're as much of a fraud as those pseudos you support.

  101. Bone Daddys

    Thxs great movie feels good to here sanity in a cray world.

  102. oQ

    It is easy and perhaps instinctive to a person who was raised parallel to the idea of the bible, to say that aliens created us 6000 yrs ago using the existing ape (animals) and that, our ancestors made during that era.... a giant leap.
    I can see why a large amount of people would persist in thinking about this possibility.
    I don't support it, but i also don't oppose it. I allow this possbility to be if it may come to be.

  103. oQ

    How can you call Robert a she? Have you just landed here blind while reading?

  104. oQ

    "Real scientists" should have the freedom to explore the "natural explanations for natural phenomenon" and the "not so natural explanations for surpernatural phenomenon". Science teaches how to reach the unknown, no scientists should be told what to think. All should be supported or encouraged.
    The supernatural may be our next leap as a civilization, i certainly would rather support that possibility than to line myself behing those who believe that we will become machines (as in Beyond Human).

  105. robertallen1

    So therefore you believe that alchemy, astrology, telepathic communication, spiritism should be supported and encouraged.

    Leave science to the real scientists. You know nothing about it and your comment is outright silly and uninformed.

  106. oQ

    I don't believe, i support that no scientists (with credentials) should be told which way to research his mind.
    Real scientists are those who are free to research.
    I am uninformed, is right. I wear no uniform, never did, never wish to wear one. I see all there is in front of me, always did.
    You seem to do the same but in a different dimension than i.

  107. oQ

    I believe constant effort to reseach something, always bear fruits. What that is, is only known after having been acquired.
    Science has nothing to loose in researching the supernatural, what ever form it takes until it gels.
    I am in no way saying let's throw the same amount of money in supernatural hypotheses as we throw in natural science. I am saying let's offer the same respect for those choice, especially if funds are offered.

  108. over the edge

    a scientist can research whatever he/she wishes. but if it is not a natural explanation it is not science and also not allowed into science class. i have absolutely no issue with a person or persons spending their own time and money looking into whatever they wish. i do get offended when they lie to me and say it is not a religious or supernatural god they are looking for to try to circumvent the laws in place to protect me from such nonsense. i do get offended when schools and scientists who are working within an increasingly tight budget and they have to divert funds from teaching our kids and finding answers to fight dishonest people. i do get offended when a person either through ignorance or deliberate misinformation attacks science instead of trying to learn something. these people aren't interested in proving their ideas. when was the last time that those who are researching the supernatural provided something tangible that expanded knowledge or helped society as a whole? you are right maybe someday they will find something but it will never be scientific and until then they produce absolutely nothing of value and have no proof for their claims

  109. oQ

    I hardly ever get offended, makes my life easier.
    You write: "if it is not a natural explanation it is not science".
    Science should not be defined with boundaries. Anything could be found to be detrimental, the unknow has to be somewhere untouched, in whatever form that is.
    Have you read "How The Hippies Saved Physics", quite an interesting look in quantum's past.

  110. over the edge

    you state "Science should not be defined with boundaries" but it is these boundaries that has made science what it is today. imagine if the flood gates were opened. what would our children be taught in class? how would we know what is dependable information if there weren't guidelines and principles to be followed? science is reliable and is expanding our knowledge because of these boundaries. not in spite of them

  111. robertallen1

    The only scientists with any credentials worth talking about are those who support naturalistic explanations which is what science is all about. What uninformed has to do with wearing a uniform is beyond me unless it's a weak attempt at irony.

    P.S. What is "research his mind" supposed to mean? Or does this pertain to this other dimension in which you think you reside.

  112. Vlatko

    All off topic, chit-chat and personal attack comments will be DELETED.

  113. oQ

    Science means knowledge. All scientists with credentials should be supported in unveiling new knowledge. New knowledge has no boundaries.

  114. oQ

    In response to over the edge, this comment was on topic with his and represents my view:
    The flood gate is open, existence is overfowing and inquisitiveness flows freely in people's mind. The word science has gone through transformation for eons and it will continue to do so with new paradigms.


  115. robertallen1

    Despite the efforts of several other posters, you still can't get it through your head that science deals only with the natural world and that for a scientist to be credentialed, he must conform to this, whether you like it or not--or perhaps you feel that credentialing should be expanded to include astrology, metaphysics, mental telepathy, faith healing, homeopathy; perhaps you feel that a certain amount of research money should be set aside for mathematicians who believe in numerology and some more for creationists who've contributed nothing except vain expostulations and some more for paranormal research which hasn't yielded anything and is not likely to. In other words, money siphoned away from true science to support quackery.

    I really resent it when people like you who don't know anything about the subject make pronouncements on it.

  116. robertallen1

    Just how do you know this?

  117. oQ

    "A scientist, in a broad sense, is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge".
    Science pushes boundaries, it will push the boundaries that describes it's present rules, one day. It always did.

  118. Vlatko


    Well @robert asked you a direct question: you feel that credentialing should be expanded to include astrology, metaphysics, mental telepathy, faith healing, homeopathy;... etc.

    Do you support creationism?

  119. robertallen1

    A broad sense means nothing. By your definition and Michael Behe's (horrible company), science could include astrology, tarot card readings, oneiromancy, etc.

    You've used the term "credentialed scientist" and a credentialed scientist is by definition one who works in the natural world whether you like it or not. Yes, science pushes the boundaries, but, as you seem not to be able to comprehend, these are the boundaries of THE NATURAL WORLD. Even quantum mechanics, particle physics and string theory deal with THE NATURAL WORLD. What about this don't you understand?

  120. over the edge

    when you quoted "A scientist, in a broad sense, is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge". did you read a couple of lines down where the same article states "Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms" ? i too would like to see an answer to robertallen1 direct question.

  121. robertallen1

    This is clearly a case of quoting out of context, not to mention quote mining.

    Have you read my comment to Achem about the two videos of Brian Greene which I watched last night and found incomprehensible? Achem was kind enough to suggest a volume of Dr. Greene which I have ordered and to provide me with his website. I'm thinking of writing to him with my comments on these videos. Have you seen these two videos, one on quantum mechanics and the other on string theory? If so, I would appreciate your thoughts.

  122. oQ

    If we start from this description "Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being, most often referring to the Abrahamic God."
    I am not religious, i don't support the belief of an Abrahamic God, i actually could'nt care less if people are religious or not, it's their business not mine. Many atheists were once religious, they changed when the time came right for them to change. For others they had no belief system and came to have one following a certain experience in their life. In my opinion being or not being religious does not make someone stupid, ignorant or whatever Robert calls them.
    I am of the opinion that the word God will have to be reinvented as it will not dissapear.
    My best definition of God is the self and it's union with the whole, because as a whole we are the creator of our perception, we are the creator of our world.

    When i say scientist with credentials, i make allusion to scientists who have been educated by the normal process and have an interest in the paranormal, the noncorporeal, and the mysterious ou whatever other strange way.
    While a large part of the science budget goes to scientists busy working on the science that will transform a part of humanity into machines (computers), others are wondering if the mind itself (the awareness) is able to change reality by willing it with intent.

    Scientists such as Dean Radin, Rupert Sheldrake, Charles Tart, John Hagelin, Bruce Lipton and many others, have deserved the right to be considered scientists in their own ways and not be ridiculed for their effort. Their search is as noble as any others. It should even be welcomed as a new branch of science defined justly by science.

    Who knows what the "crack pots" may discover.

  123. oQ

    Yes i did, i read the whole page. And i still stand by what i am trying to express in this thread.
    Did you?

  124. oQ

    Never have i said tarot, astrology, oneiromancy and etcetera should be part of science, i am saying science should include all scientists who have acquired the years of study to walk around with a certificate of completion.
    In declaring that science is: "The only scientists with any credentials worth talking about are those who support naturalistic explanations which is what science is all about."
    You are limiting science by scientists who have different concepts than the majority. You also say:"Leave science to the real scientists.".
    I prefer "Leave scientists do real science".

  125. robertallen1

    And just how are we supposed to test for the paranormal, the non-corporeal? How do we falsify? How do we predict? Whether you know it or not, these are scientific standards. The answer is that none of those you mention can. What you believe should be funded is not science and those you mention deserve ridicule just as you do.

    Again, as others have told you, you don't know what you're talking about and you have no business saying where the funds for research should go. As it is based on complete ignorance of science, your opinion doesn't count.

  126. oQ

    Synonyms of the word standard: accepted, authoritative, average, basic, boilerplate, canonical, classic, common, customary, definitive, established, everyday, garden variety, general, normal, official, orthodox, popular, prevailing, recognized, regulation, run-of-the-mill, set, staple, stock, typical, usual, vanilla.
    I say science should not have set standards that are immutable.
    Science's (potential) is unlimited.

  127. Achems_Razor

    oQ...You know for the life of me I really do not know what you are trying to get at, you say science is unlimited? how do you know that? and what do you mean by that? The set standard that science has is the scientific method, do you think there is a better way? if so then tell us.

    You are giving a roundabout reference to "the hidden reality" a book by Brian Greene, with all your non-corporeal stuff, but alas, it is a book on science, why don't you read it, then we can talk.

    Are you maybe alluding to dreams counting them as animate objects/realities, different levels of consciousness, et al as your non-corporeal paranormal activity things? you have sorta lost me.

  128. oQ

    I meant to say science as an unlimited potential.
    How do i know that? How do you not know that?
    The scientists i have named and others do follow the set standards of scientific method.
    Although i have not read the book, i watched the video between Greene and Amir D. Aczel. in Keen Talks.
    I am alluding to evey possible results while exploring, researching awareness.

  129. robertallen1

    If a "scientist" does not follow the set standards of the scientific method, he is not a scientist and is unworthy of scientific consideration. What about that don't you understand?

  130. lakhotason

    Before researching awareness you need to research what you should be aware of. First things first.

  131. oQ

    As with any other research, a scientist starts with a concept, a thought, an idea....and then sometimes come up with string theory, extra dimension of space, and other non provable hypothesis other than by math equations.
    How about conciousness, aliveness, perception, mind, any of those words better?
    The hardest part of science is allowing all questions to be asked.

  132. Achems_Razor

    What scientists have you named that do not follow set standard of scientific method?

    The scientific method.



  133. oQ

    I haven't. Those i named do follow the scientific method, have appropriate credentials, and continue doing research despite the lack of support.

  134. robertallen1

    Apparently the three categories I had outlined got deleted, so I will reiterate them.

    1. There is nothing wrong with someone who admits to knowing nothing about science, not wanting to learn anything about it and keeping silent.

    2. There is nothing wrong with someone who admits to knowing nothing about science, but desires to cure his ignorance by learning about it--as a matter of fact, this is admirable.

    3. But there's a lot wrong with someone who knows nothing about science, refuses to learn anything about it and yet makes pronouncements on it. This is reprehensible. oQ falls into this category.

  135. Achems_Razor

    You are right! You did say "do" follow the scientific method, I stand corrected.

  136. lakhotason

    I agree a scientist starts with a thought and I certainly agree scientists come up with string theory. But only because they asked the right questions.

  137. oQ

    What falls under the wrong questions? Don't bring the unicorn, none of the scientists i mentionned talk of unicorn.

  138. robertallen1

    By your rationale, we should ask if god did it. Contrary to what you write, scientific research doesn't begin with concepts, but rather with observations. If you read up on the history of modern science (which you obviously won't do), you would know this.

    I'd like to know the extent of your background in science and if it is limited, what makes you think that you can dictate the direction in which it should go, i.e., what should be funded.

  139. lakhotason

    That's not what I mean at all. Science is examining all the things you mentioned - the mind, perception,aliveness, conciousness. Perhaps they are being studied now more than ever and that is my point. You can't expect an answer from science to a question that science can't answer. Science can't answer the question because most times the question is too broad or contradictory. Consider your questions in terms of what science is capable of answering - and that is unlimited if you only ask the right questions.

    I'm not making a comment on what you perceive as the role of science so this isn't a debate about that.

  140. robertallen1

    But it is a debate about someone with no knowledge of science making pronouncements about it. But you're right, think about what you're asking before asking it. I expect we've all fallen into this trap, but when some of his realize this, we revamp and retool.

  141. oQ

    I already said i read the entire page of wiki on the subject of Science, it included the history. SO this proves you wrong, after the fact. Pay attention.

    You want to talk about your background in science, you are free to do so.

  142. oQ

    "I expect we've all fallen into this trap, but when some of his realize this, we revamp and retool".
    What is that suppose to mean?

  143. oQ

    By my rationale i do not ask if god did it. Unless the word god is transformed....one day.

  144. robertallen1

    Who cares how much of the Wiki article you read? You tried to deceive pure and simple.

    And don't also try that tactic. As you're the one making all the assertions about what science should be and what should be funded, this gives anyone the right to inquire as to the extent of your background in science. Why are you so reluctant to provide it?

  145. robertallen1

    We try to re-examine our approach and possibly rephrase our questions.

  146. robertallen1

    "How do I know that? How do you not know that?" Another arttempt to abdicate on your responsibility to support your assertions. Once again, you assert, you prove.

  147. Guest

    Okay so what exactly is creation, does any human being alive now or in the past know the answer, well none of us do. Therefore the atheist and the Christian may look upon and view the same truth from different perspectives. The atheist may look on creation as natural selection and the strongest surviving. Whilst the Christian may see evolution as a divine blue-print of life and work in progress. Who are we the created to understand the plans of the creator?

  148. robertallen1

    Who's to say there was a creator? All that matters is the hard evidence.

  149. Guest

    Look at the universe, look at nature on our own planet - how much hard evidence do you need Robertallen?

  150. robertallen1

    "Look at the universe . . . " doesn't cut it. Your statement that there is a creator is subjective and therefore scientifically worthless.

  151. Guest

    I am not talking science Robertallen and you know that. Dismiss as much as you wish but at the end of the day you cannot dismiss either the beauty you see around you on planet earth or the magnificence of the universe.

  152. robertallen1

    Well, I am--and the beauty and magnificence I see around me are no indication of the existence of a creator.

  153. Guest

    Robertallen I totally respect your viewpoint your honesty and truthfulness. Even if we do not agree it has been a pleasure talking to you.

  154. over the edge

    when you say "at the end of the day you cannot dismiss either the beauty you see around you on planet earth or the magnificence of the universe. " i agree. i wish to understand,explain and study it. i wish to try to provide as many answers for it to future generations as i can just as others did for me. other than place the label creator upon it tell others to just "look at" it or state "Who are we the created to understand " what actual understanding and knowledge do you have to pass on? and how do we tell your "creator" from the creators others claim?

  155. Guest

    Robertallen1 thanks for your reply. The only thing I can really add to the discussion is an experience I personally had on Oct 1st 1988. When I thought I was in control I was not. That evening after listening to a sermon that reached deep into me I understood more about Christ. The result was I was prayed over and for the first time in my life I understood why Jesus had lived nearly 2000 years ago. I also understood that he had paid for every sin I had ever committed and would ever committed again during this lifetime.

    That for me was salvation

  156. robertallen1

    Your little personal anecdote points to nothing except an ignorance of the history of the bible.

  157. Guest

    Good night Robertallen as I say it was nice talking to you.

  158. Lynley Ruth Butt

    Hey you two! Excuse me if I break in here to suggest you might like to take a look at something I really enjoyed and found expanded my own take on things in a compatible way today- lets you have a good preview of a new Kindle download book " New Physics and the Mind" by Robert Pastor. I'm not a physicist ( but my bright cousin was)- I'm a musician and a teacher and interested in science along with other things- human psychology, culture, comparative religion... future studies and debate. There is a new tentative attempt at a 'theory of everything' super ceding the string theory. Non-determinism is related to quantum jumps. as Nimtz said- the idea is that physical systems also have electromagnetic identity... so that consciousness sends out EEG waves... so long that they create a " Field body" of astrological size! Superluminal light velocities form remote energy metabolisms. Our bodies serve as motor instruments... brains as sensory receptors and moreover... our intentions and cognition are our eternal souls... and thoughts have infinite size and are Cosmic phenomena... making ( Higgs - bosun particle that creates matter from energy)) basic spacetime structure! They equate all this theory of everything to the old Brahman-Altman identity... but in the 3 levels in the " many sheeted" space time 1) earth- here below- world to 2) the here-after paradisaical more energized heaven-to 3) a further even more perfected "farthest lote tree" expansive heaven- world beyond... there is a possible parallel to the Quran's ideas as well....( we plant the trees for that ourselves along with holistic super-consciousness) so take a read, v interesting. Good luck both of u.

  159. Lynley Ruth Butt

    Yeah- correct I'm sure...my Dad was a Greek and Hebraic scholar... he was also a minister in the Methodist Church. I got hooked on some issues as an adolescent when a NZ Court in my hometown Christchurch " tried" another Old testament scholar/professor... for New testament heresy!
    The funniest thing was when another friend would expound at length on the Lost tribe of Israel- capped by the look on my Dad's face when I irately questioned this "Trinity" theology doctrine at age 12yrs.

  160. Lynley Ruth Butt

    What you say is relevant... I confess I like things to fit... so I manoevre them into position to fit my theories. Christ was " a word from God" says the Quran- which is the clash of civilisations- since Islam says NO- A Word from God.... not THE ( whole word ... every aspect of God made flesh... there was/is/ will be more to God than is consummated by the Christian idee fixe and self-serving salvation scapegoat theology of the Christ-role) Agrees Yes- Christ IS a sign from the Holy Spirit ( ie God has more words than the one Christ is- was -will be- up his sleeve- for our exploration. plus the Holy Spirit is larger than just Christ who undoubtedly did "open" up and exemplify the way... but actually Mohammed's names mean not just lover of God/ beloved of God... but also admit him into a self-responsible- responsive place there... along with others of mighty minds aspirations words deeds... that dwell with/in sight of... the inner sanctum.. collective Lord over all-Holistic Universal Mighty " We").
    The Quran reiterates that a day in God's sight can be eons in mans estimates of his timeplace habitation. ... so1-7 ' Days' is not our literal one day/night little mean thing.
    I agree and feel I have got beyond this original egocentric thing that God did all this for us, alone as a solitary originator''' there is the time-space circular spiral image of the snake's open mouth curved onto its own tail... but do take the Qurannic hint that... we are called to be helpers in the way... to plant the trees of our future paradise... in other words things are evolving... not only here by our own conscious evolutionary growth and energetic-mind projections " God" is the opener- evolver, truth dis closure reality and the eventual closure as well.. perfecter. How?
    The latest sci tries to incorporate biology... energy turned to matter ( our obsession with the particle Hadron collider- Higgs Bosun ) into the theory of everything.
    So the new theory is- incorporating the Brahmin- Altman and the Qurannic 3 tier states of consciousness -building.... reality worlds 1 earth here below- 2) precept of heaven after-life above higher consciousness energy state universe... and a further 3rd tier expansion.... world to come/in the making, as it were..
    Please also - 3rd person I asked- take a look over the new sci release which discusses some of these concepts- " New physics and the mind" by Robert Pastor- he doesn't mention religious precepts of course... I am fitting them in... but talks about EEG electro-magnetic identities and projections that build remote energy-matter metabolisms , quantum leaps of consciousness- which relates to self-determinism. And bear in mind Islam is open -ended... ie we can destroy everything or build to our own success... and he talks of field bodies of astro-physical size since thoughts are cosmic phenomena and intentions and cognition our " eternal soul... he does think that.... calling the present known universe a kind of algebraic hologram.

  161. oQ

    Thanks for reaching out. I have not read the book, if it falls in my hand i will. I am sorry to say i do not understand your interpretation of the book.
    Just as a side note the author's name is Robert Paster.

  162. Achems_Razor

    Ah, rabbit holes love them, at first I thought you were espousing new age stuff, but after looking for summaries about the book I find it is basically science, string theory and such, the summary for the quest to marry GR and quantum gravity has garnered my interest, some top physicists in the picture, will look further into the paradigm.

  163. robertallen1

    The "Trinity" appears nowhere in the Bible. At best, it is hinted at. Apparently the doctrine didn't emerge until the second century and remained a nebula until the Counsel of Nicea in 325. Are you interested in biblical scholarship?

  164. lex lexich

    yet another all american nonsense debate about who has bigger cock -Darwin or God...c'mon people, get over yourself -evolution is widely accepted theory for hundred years now

  165. robertallen1

    Right, but once again, it does not tackle how life began; that's abiogenesis.

  166. lex lexich

    and the name matters why exactly? omen ist nomen?

  167. lex lexich

    speak for yourself, I do! i know how life on earth came to be! why life came to be is another question, why is there something, and why there isnt nothing, those are the questions and those questions have nothing to do with your petty religions or various god(s)! religious theories (yes those are just theories) are old and wrinkled now, get over yourself and start thinking, we really need to evolve -all of us, if we are to see 'god' one day...

  168. robertallen1

    Let's be accurate, all right? The two terms mean two different things--and omen EST nomen has nothing to do with it.

  169. robertallen1

    Like purpose, why in this sense is philosophical, hence non-scientific, hence meaningless and useless. I've never been able to understand why people can't appreciate and try to understand the natural world without having to invent a third party to answer the piddling question of why. Now, how is another matter.

  170. Achems_Razor

    Unbelievable! Using Mel Gibson "passion of the Christ movie", to make some kind of a point. It is as real as everything else about your religions, all make believe.

  171. robertallen1

    And this is the jerk who insisted that his movie be in Aramaic.

  172. Epicurus

    LOL wow. ignorance at its best.

  173. oQ

    This is the post concerning Robert's claim of dishonesty.
    See my response to Vlatko below.

    And these are the scientists i was talking about, read the thread to see my point.

  174. Patrick Henry

    puh-lease, I am getting tired of people who say they were "real" Christians/Creationists/Bible Believers and are no longer. Do some exist? Very likely, but I have personally engaged three just to find out that they went to Church a while (usually forced by their parents), or had some type of fleeting brush with exploring Christianity, but never were fully-aware believers.
    As someone who was a real, practicing atheist for years who ridiculed and mocked Christians, I usually can tell these kind of phonies by their total discounting of any credibility at all of anything Biblical. For instance, even secular, non-believing archaeologists recognize the many discoveries that have lent credence to the Bible's historicity. Even if one doesn't accept the supernatural claims of the Bible, an objective and fairly unbiased perspective will at least regard some of the verified claims of the Bible.

  175. robertallen1

    Which discoveries are you referring to?

  176. dogsaysbark

    Sadly you miss the point of all this. I can read any fiction book such as Harry Potter and pull out events that are true -- e.g. set in a place called England -- wow its true! That doesnt mean the whole thing is true -- no spells and wizards :( . So events that occurred in the Bible such as a regular dude named Jesus is plausible. But saying saying he had magic ability is stupid. The bible is filled with all kinds of magic nonsense. And you know it.

    Science is about facts. The bible and its magic superstitions is not. End of story.

    As time goes on the more educated a society becomes the less likely they will cling to such fairytales like the Bible.

  177. dogsaysbark

    "If a "scientist" does not follow the set standards of the scientific method, he is not a scientist and is unworthy of scientific consideration."

    PRECISELY! And this is where Creationism junk falls flat and will continue to be looked on as an embarrassment by everyone.

  178. robertallen1

    It regard being quoted in this fashion as a compliment. Thank you.

  179. Shawn4004

    I would like to say that not all creationists believe all the "the earth is 6000 years old" nonsense. I am both a creationist and an evolutionist. I think (as does the largest group of Christians on the planet) that the Biblical account of creation was an account written by a non-scientific culture to explain a scientific occurrence. I believe its ignorant to lump all creationists into the same category. I understand that it wasn't the purpose of this film to do this, but looking over the comments, it seems several posters have. Moreover, I have to say that the Bible is not about "magic and superstitions." It is, and is considered to be by even atheistic and agnostic scholars, a pretty good historical record of the middle east, on top of meaning much more to Christians and Jews. Just saying.

  180. robertallen1

    No, it is not and any biblical scholar worth his salt will tell you so. Some scattered examples: Luke indicates that at the time of "Jesus'" birth Quirinius was the Syrian governor; however, secular sources such as Tacitus and Josephus indicate that Quirinius became governor of Syria in 6 A.D. Therefore, if "Jesus" had been born during Herod's reign, Quirinius could not have been the Syrian governor. The geneologies in Matthew and Luke differ not only from each other but from those contained in Chronicles. There is no evidence, either archaeological or historical, for the existence of Moses, the exodus from Egypt or the wandering in the desert. There is no evidence, either archaeological, geological or historical for the flood. Need I go on.

  181. Fabio Mir

    ARG. People like you piss me off. My own sister, who I led to Christ, now believes the same bullshit you do. Now that I'm no longer a Christian (after being an all out born again for 16 years, ages 19-35), she thinks I wasn't really a believer. Meanwhile, my pastor pointed out Hebrews chapter 6 where it threatens you that you cannot be saved again if you continue to deny Jesus. My entire life centered around Jesus. Yes, people leave Christianity, even after being real believers. It's your own close-minded view because you believe in "once saved always saved" that blinds you to the truth of what people are telling you from their own hearts.

  182. Danny

    wow thanks, I myselft am moving slowly among my own people's and declaring my disapointment with religion and creation. As of this moment I hafta accept the THEROY that we were created by an alien source and home grown on this planet. I'm still searching though. Keep the videos coming my friend they give me strength. Thanks, Kit. good god, I had to create a whole new junk only email just to post and prevent all my personal information being shared, what's up with that?

  183. Dave Cooney

    WTF? BC to AD. Can you explain what is powerful that it changes the time on clocks, TWICE A YEAR? WOW, must be some kind of divine power. god or jesus had nothing to do with the calender, Rome did and they messed up that.. Oh and jesus was born,the regular way, in the fall,not in winter and his trial and death penalty took months not hours unless your from the south and your use to lynching poo folks

  184. Dave Cooney

    I think Darwin, jesus got snipped.

  185. Mom

    Don't keep looking for someone to advise you, because there is already someone listening who will guide you right out of religion and into his never-never land. Go back to the Big Bang and tell me where it came from? and are there more out there going off again and again taking us into other dimensions? If not, why not?

  186. robertallen1

    Just what are you blathering about?

  187. Code000

    Do people still believe in the supernatural?

  188. robertallen1

    I don't know where you're from, but the United States is the most religious nation on earth--perhaps next to Libya and the like.

  189. Larry W. Crotts

    It amazes that Christianity is ALWAYS called a religion. It is NOT; it is a relationship with Almighty God through His son Jesus. We actually become children with a true purpose for living. (sharing the truth of that relationship)

    That being said, if one truly accepts God gift of eternal life through Jesus that RELATIONSHIP can not broken. Like denying your kinship with your earthly parents and siblings.

    My thought about "why you are no longer a Christian" is; you must not have been one in the first place. All you have to do is accept Christ as your savour and you are in.

    You can play around with the philosophy of creation or evolution if you want to. Jesus, to my knowledge, never spoke philosophy. He did recommend that religious people repent and believe on him as God's own sacrifice for their eternal life. It's so simple and so straight forward. Accept Jesus and that and that alone gets and keeps you right with God. ADD NOTHING ELSE.

    My prayer is simple. After reading this let the truth speak to your heart ad allow Him to come into you. The Christian life in 6 words...fear not, expect good, be happy.

  190. robertallen1

    Please read the comment policy against preaching which you have clearly violated. This thread is not your personal pulpit or anyone else's.

    Be that as it may, you have no more idea of what a Christian is than anyone else and all of your assertions are mere dogma and hence are worthless.

  191. Vlatko

    @Larry W. Crotts,

    That was a good laugh. Christianity is NOT a religion... All you have to do is accept Christ as your savour and you are in.

    Why not accepting Allah? Or Ganesha? Or good old ancient Roman, Norsemen and Greek gods? Why favoring one particular deity? Why favoring any deity?

  192. Achems_Razor

    You know, that is what I believe is wrong with the world, listening to gullible people like you that want a free ride, with all your religions and gods, all you have to do is praise and grovel beneath the feet of your psychopathic god, and all is well. Cannot think for yourselves just follow some dusty old book. And/Or almost start wars because of some cartoons, does not matter what religion, religion is religion.

  193. robertallen1

    Now that you mention it, can you imagine atheists doing this or being goaded to do this?

  194. cole long

    Lol we dont have the capability to know everything... Thats not what science is about. We're learning more and more about the universe every day and perhaps one day soon we'll have the capability to answer questions like that.

    Just because we cant explain everything in the universe doesnt automatically mean a god did it. Thats such a ridiculous leap in logic I think.

  195. cole long

    How can you be a "practicing" atheist? There are no rules, or regulations so being an atheist just means you dont believe in a god or gods. And why did you NEED to be an ***hole to religious people? You sound like a bad person in general.

  196. James

    Although you may find scripture that backs your claim that all you need to be a Christian is to believe in Jesus, you will also find scripture that says even Satan believes in Jesus. That is not going to save satan and it will certainly not save the believer.
    Jesus came down to this earth to teach us how to live and get along with each other, by providing us with some moral grounds and common sense on how to live as a community. you are right in that it is simple once the relationship part is recognized.
    All too often though given enough time, religion becomes that which it abhors. The Christianity we see in the bible belt (most of it anyway) has become judgmental, hateful, harmful and foul mouthed. People cannot even speak in a debate about anything intelligent without riling up a Christian to anger. Our young are not running to anything they are running FROM hypocritical behaviors.
    Science, Intelligence, wisdom, and the Analytical mind opens doors and we should take Jesus words to heart and not FEAR and not WORRY. Progress is right around the corner, we have the potential to be the greatest nation ever in the world but we are kept back by folks who FEAR and WORRY.
    Stop trying to convince everyone that you are right and they are wrong, that is the pride Jesus warned us about having too much of. The ability to sit down and discuss and intellectually tackle these issues will result in progress. The current I AM RIGHT BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN JESUS attitude is counter to everything Jesus taught us. He wants us to be respectful of others, and that my friend takes humility and the ability to see the world through a different set of eyes. Keep up your faith brother you are almost there Larry.

  197. robertallen1

    How do you know what Jesus said or taught? It's far more accurate to say, "According to . . . "

  198. John Jacquard

    what evidence is there that the interpretation of the bible held by people today (or ever) , is the real meaning of the words in that book? why is no deeper meaning extracted?

  199. robertallen1

    Which interpretation are you referring to? What do you mean by deeper meaning?

  200. Cernunnos Green

    That's the "no true Scotsman " argument, and it is a logical fallacy. Understand what you are writing before you post, that way you will not open yourself up to criticism. Christianity is one of the "big 3" religions on the planet. To deny it is to be willfully blind to your own beliefs. LLAP :)

  201. robertallen1

    I deny it and I'm not wilfully blind to my own beliefs.

  202. FundamentalClue

    I have always related my entire perception to science. I could never in my life be goaded to believe such irrational ideas as any religious fundamentalist or creationist. That being said, God exists. But not in the frame of perception of any religious or biblical anecdote. God might not even be a good word to use given the automatic personified precept that has been the deeply engraved image through millennia. This argument stems in majority but not excluded to my study in quantum mechanics, cosmology, biology, chemistry, spirituality in the broadest sense; encompassing various ideologies from around the world and ancient history. First things first, science has a difficult time studying its own cognitive origin - meaning, it isn't a simple task to describe, measure, quantify and definitively ascribe origins to, the mind or consciousness in general. The presence of consciousness, ie. mine, yours, any form of it in general, is a bit of an enigma. The best attempts to define it have scoured the brain's structure and chemical constituents for evidence of its point of origin. To no avail. I could continue this point but will continue to the next for now. The study of quantum mechanics stumbled onto a characteristic of sub-atomic particles they call "the law of super-position". The basic premise is that these particles, not only can but DO, occupy more than one position in space and time spontaneously (at the exact same time). The implications of this can't be understated. Not definitively but within the allowable scope of these findings is that all the electrons in this entire universe, technically could be, the exact same one. Armed with this, let's look at what scientists call the zero-point field. This can be described as the underlying current to all existence, as it is the lowest energy point of all quantum particles due to their wave-like nature. It's been projected that all quantum particles flicker from their common energy point and the zero-point approx 1000 times per second. Affectively making reality analogous to a picture reel, except that reality spins at 1000 flickers per second indiscriminately as opposed to our familiar 28 frames per second uniformly in movie reels. Now compound that with quantum entanglement; a phenomenon that leaves a pair of particles that come in contact, sharing correlating traits - even at great distances without time intervals. Finally, there is the observer effect. This particular characteristic is telling. An observation of reality reduces quantum probabilities to a single defined state. Consciousness defines reality by virtue of its observation of it. Before a conscious mind observes any portion of physical reality it remains in a state of probabilities. Only when it is observed does it reduce all probabilities to a single outcome. Now to the next point... Ever play telephone? Whisper something in someone's ear and see what comes out of the last persons mouth after it's been repeated from person to person. Usually hear something quite different from the first statement. You can't study ancient history or per-history without that in mind, predominantly in scholarly disciplines. This planet has undoubtedly been here for roughly 6.4 billion years. In that time, what we see on the planet today evolved from its beginnings to its current state. Exactly how that all happened is yet to be determined, and this is not in contest of archeological evolutionary evidence. More pointedly it's about the missing cross-species examinations, which have much to say but nevertheless leave gaping holes. With this in mind let's discuss our records of history. I'm not even going to surmise the possible dates to an event like Noah's flood but let's look at some other points of reference. Most notedly is the fact that the story of a global flood is repeated by over 700 separate culture groups that span the entire globe and are separated by time. Their stories vary but an interesting coincidence nonetheless, especially when noting the most ancient lore we have on record from Egypt, Sumer,China and Hebrew texts; the oldest known repositories of written history. Funny thing is, all of them tell of a time before theirs, one of great antiquity. How ancient that antiquity might be is anyone's guess. But to refute a common theme of advanced prehistoric civilizations, is to say that we know more about prehistory than they do. And to play the, "they're all a bunch of superstitious, iconic worshipping, pimitve minds" card, is nothing short of ignorant. The people we read our oldest history from are far divided from the time they try to describe and therefore have been playing telephone for ages, literally! Also, look into all the places marine fossils have been found above sea level. Don't worry, no ancient alien BS is coming from this rational mind. Rather, what we are faced with is a missing piece of our oldest origins of civilization and science. How long do you suppose it takes a civilization to notice, chart and map the night sky? Following that, to notice a 1 degree every 71 years change in their relative positions in the sky at specific times of year. So now take into account that the calculations for the precession of the equinoxes (a 26,000 year period) are found all over the lore and legends of the earliest writings on earth. Not to mention the precision with which these calculations were made. All I'm saying is evidence does point us toward a much longer homo-sapiens sapiens reign on our fair planet earth. Unless you want to suggest that neanderthal man did most of the star mapping work for consequent generations. I know I'm rambling a bit but there are so many divergent subjects that correlate to form my hypothesis. And I apologize but I wouldn't be able to fully explain in detail without writing a book. So lastly,... The big bang theory and black holes... We've made a great start in explaining the origins of our universe but the underlying cause to the big bang remains a mystery. The universe started out as a singularity, which in fact is nothing short of the defining characteristic of black holes. So the universe essentially started out as a black hole. From whence came the singularity? By what mechanism was its explosion of energy potential catalyzed? And at what point was consciousness involved in order to crystallize the probabilities of quantum wave functions into defined outcomes? Without the observer effect the universe is left to its undefined and infinite probabilities. The short of it is this:   Consciousness IS... Everything else was made. Matter did not spawn consciousness. It can't. Predicated by the divide between seer and seen. Matter as it turns out does not define itself. It is defined by the consciousness observing it and hence therefore cannot be responsible for the existence of that consciousness. My guess is a "singularity" aka "singular consciousness" was and is responsible for the existence of anything and everything, aka God if u will. I have scores of debate left but feel my argument is already long winded and will leave it at that as food for thought. Please debate back, I love these conversations :)

  203. Achems_Razor

    You are basically in essence saying that we form our own reality, and en-mass form all that we see by collapsing the wave form, if so need references at least.

    If you are interested in quantum mechanics, would like to know how you know that reality spins @ 1000 times per second, and what spin? up, down, left or right? Never heard of reality only being only a micro 0.001 sec. kind of slow. A Planck sec. 10^43 would be more like it. And since subatomic particles then would be coming in and out of existence, as "Feynman demonstrated that subatomic particles traverse infinite paths through spacetime, implicating infinite histories for any one particle."

    You are also saying one singularity aka singular consciousness is responsible for everything? you may have to rethink that, everything it "seems" is still a work in progress re: many worlds theory, parallel universe theory, 27 dimensions, string theory, colliding Branes constantly forming new universes/from multiverses. And on and on, we have only scratched the surface.

  204. robertallen1

    You say God exists. How do you know? Your pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo doesn't prove it and Achem's comments on your statements concerning quantum clearly display your ignorance of the subject.

    No matter the number of accounts, there is no scientific evidence (the only type of evidence that counts on this topic) of a biblical flood, no matter how many accounts there are of it.

    And just what is a cross-species? As a matter of fact, do you even know what a species is?

    The rest of your post is a piece of incoherent, rambling nonsense written as a wall of text rather than a series of paragraphs.

  205. PillowhandsMcgraw

    Achems, Could i ask for your opinion on a couple of things. What do you think of many worlds and copenhagen interpretations? Also do you have a take in which universe we live in?


  206. oQ

    Very interesting post.
    Don't expect gentlemen debating here unless you say like they say and never ever ever mention the word god even if you specify that: "But not in the frame of perception of any religious or biblical anecdote. God might not even be a good word to use given the automatic personified precept that has been the deeply engraved image through millennia".
    Achems (and a few others) may be the exception...may be, sometimes when he feels like it. At least here you are talking about his passion in known (familiar) terms.

  207. Pysmythe

    A very interesting post, but you do appear to make some leaps, some assumptions, near the end that seem easily enough countered to me. WHY is it, precisely, that matter cannot spawn consciousness? If there was no matter anywhere, where would consciousness reside, or how could it ever arise? Quite a while back, I saw a study about neural nets (obviously comprised of matter) that strongly suggested that if you can only make them complex enough, consciousness will arise as a matter of course, no pun intended. And where, in addition, was your own consciousness, before your parents combined matter to make it?

  208. FundamentalClue

    I apologize for the confusion. I shortened explanations to keep my post from being too longg the most obvious reference to our observation collapsing wave-forms is the double-slit experiment. It's a straight forward example of What happens when the sub-atomic world is observed. I didn't say "sub-atomic particles" because that's not what it was before it was observed. Before the fact of observation, it was a wave-form.
    As far as reality spinning... I said it flickers. Flickers is a descriptive word that tried to emphasize constant transition of all quantum particles between their high an low energy states. I haven't found the article that detailed the frequency at which this happens again at this time

  209. FundamentalClue

    And my use of the word "spin" was more poetic than scientific.

  210. Achems_Razor


    Poetic? not interested in poetry concerning science or anywhere else for that matter. Nor am I interested in any spiritual ad hoc superlatives.

    Don't know what you mean when you say reality flickers, you mean vibrates at a certain frequency as in string theory, one Planck sec we are here and one Planck second somewhere else, or is there a phase, and if was a longer phase we would be divorced from this reality, death?

    At the subatomic level in the quantum foam there are quantum jitters that will peak the wave forms to produce crests in the probability spectrum to form ongoing results re reality, matter etc: but then you are looking at Planck time, speed, Planck's constant, not reality spinning in and out at 1000 times per second as you have said.

  211. FundamentalClue

    As far as us forming our reality, please understand that I am not suggesting that your individual conscious mind is creating what you see out of nothing, or creating or molding it outright. Rather, we participate in its unfolding, at varying levels and degrees for each individual with respect to a myriad of variables (possibly a new discussion altogether). But the existence of anything, in any state, dimension, parallel or what have you is still attributable to an underlying consciousness.

    In response to another post someone asked, "if there was no matter anywhere, where would consciousness reside, or how could it ever arise?" 
    In my view, consciousness is the medium in which reality finds itself. To refute this, answer these questions:
    1. What is the root cause of propagation? All waves propagate...how?
    2. Energy is said to be neither created nor destroyed... What exactly is it? And don't tell me it's the ability to do work; not sufficient.
    3. By what mechanism do molecules create an encoded, intelligible map of instructions that can be read and understood by once again, more molecules? Not how cells do it, how did it arise at all in the first place. And if u think of replying with "an infinite number of random collisions", please use discretion before using the term infinity.
    4. To counter the original question; if there was no consciousness, most of you would tell me the universe would still exist... Prove it. Keep in mind that human consciousness, though the only we are aware of, is most definitely not the only form this universe is comprised of. Probabilities are more or less certain of it. 
    With this hypothesis it is the assertion that consciousness provides the underpinning force that that could be ascribed to energy and would ultimately be underpinning every facet of what you call reality. That includes multi-verses, parallel universes, any number of dimensions and so on.

    Also I'll restate and explain the end of my first post. Consciousness IS... Everything else was made. Matter did not spawn consciousness. It can't. Predicated by the divide between seer and seen. Matter as it turns out does not define itself. It is defined by the consciousness observing it and hence therefore cannot be responsible for the existence of that consciousness.

    -If probabilities for the state of matter are reduced by observation, meaning the intangible mind has focused its essence of awareness on something and that something reduces itself from a myriad of possibilities to a defined outcome; we must assume the mind to be independent of the observable, which ultimately includes the brain and entire human body.

  212. robertallen1

    Why don't you try writing in plain English rather than gibberish?

  213. FundamentalClue


    Otherwise we are saying the atoms that create your brain, with no intelligence or mind,  somehow produce an intangible awareness that in turn is the determinant factor in the state of those atoms that created it. Am I wrong to say, that is a paradoxical loop and it doesn't make sense.

  214. robertallen1

    More gibberish.

  215. FundamentalClue

    If you have anything earnestly intelligible to say, I suggest you do so. Because showing me you don't understand what I wrote doesn't dismiss what I wrote, any more than ignoring a gash in your leg would stop the bleeding. I hold a valid argument and if you can't see it I can only assume you've only skimmed over my posts while not giving any thought as to its meaning and implication. You sound like someone who is ignorantly defiant of anything that would contradict your current belief system. The argument against me doesn't hold any more weight or merit. Its only way of doing so is by assuming it is right before conducting the inquiry, resulting in a gross bias.

  216. robertallen1

    If you can't write clearly, you have nothing to say.

  217. oQ

    If you can't understand the conversation why don't you exit it instead of spoiling it with your out of topic attacks.

  218. robertallen1

    if he can't write clearly, he has nothing to say and I am not fooled--and don't you dare tell me what to do.

  219. FundamentalClue

    You only prove my point... If you seriously can't understand what I wrote, try reading it slower, word for word. If that doesn't help try taking some English courses.

  220. oQ

    @Vlatko someone is trying to start an intelligent conversation/debate and you are allowing once again Robert's out of topic shite.
    Some of us have had quite enough of his bullying around à la Mr. knows it all.
    If he has nothing to add to the subject, it would be right to ask that he stands aside and watch. I can see that he wants to turn this into a God argument but that is not where this is heading unless once again he stirs it this way.

  221. robertallen1

    I am not fooled. You write in the anfractuous way you do because you have nothing to say and quite frankly, I resent the snow job.

  222. robertallen1

    Wrong as usual. It's not about turning this into a God argument. Get this straight. It's about someone writing complete gibberish disguised as "profound" thought. There is no subject to add to.

  223. oQ

    This was your first attempt to turn this into a god argument, you didn't succeed so you resort to wording attack...cheap, real cheap...go take a hot bath.

  224. robertallen1

    Why don't you look up the word orthographic BEFORE using it? And once again, don't you dare try to tell me what to do.

  225. robertallen1

    At least this was clearly written. See what you can do when you try. Now how about extending it to your discussion of consciousness or will this dilute your illusion of profundity?

  226. robertallen1

    This too was clearly written. If you can't write any clearer than what I have encountered in your last two or three posts, you're the one who needs some English courses.

  227. oQ

    "Matter as it turns out does not define itself. It is defined by the consciousness observing it and hence therefore cannot be responsible for the existence of that consciousness."
    I do hope Achems will continue on this thread as he is one of our best Quantum clue on TDF.

  228. FundamentalClue

    Robert seriously... Stop pretending to be a mediator or authority on the subject. You seem like an intelligent person, so what gives? You are not fooled? No one is fooling around; except possibly you. I've said all I need to say in earlier posts to state my case. I'm not wasting my time repeating myself. And this is not a stab at you but if you seriously can't understand what I wrote, read it MUCH MORE carefully. There is a substantial volume of credible argument in my case that requires some cross examination from serious and intelligent people.

  229. Pysmythe

    Come on, man, we can go on with this all day, you know it?
    If the universe didn't exist, consciousness would not exist.
    Prove that isn't the case.

    I feel quite certain that matter not only spawns, but has ultimate sovereignty over consciousness, whatever the myriad of possibilities suggested by all the heady theories of quantum physics... which no one really understands, anyway! And when it inevitably breaks down its constituent parts into parts that will no longer support life, consciousness comes to an end; and when this universe finally suffers its heat-death a quadrillion years from now, any possibility of any kind of consciousness whatsoever will come to an end with it. You seem to be making a kind of anthropomorphic argument that at last will run into a brick wall, as far as the physics are concerned.

  230. FundamentalClue

    And let me restate and stress:

    The argument against me doesn't hold any more weight or merit. Its only way of doing so is by assuming it is right before conducting the inquiry, resulting in a gross bias.

  231. robertallen1

    If there is, as you claim, a "substantial volume of credible argument" it's up to you to write it out clearly. It is not up to me or any other reader to try to make heads or tails out of your gibberish. Failing to write in a lucid manner can be considered as only an attempt to camouflage the vacuity of your thoughts and your inability to express them coherently.

    And please do consider this a stab at you.

  232. FundamentalClue

    Now that's better :)

    So if consciousness comes to an end when the constituent parts breakdown, what are your thoughts on the molecular language, produced and deciphered by mindless molecules. How is it that these atomic strings we call molecules have any notion of producing a language or code that would be "understood" as instructions for other molecules (strings of atoms). Doesn't the ability to make and take instruction require intelligence? But that's impossible without consciousness right?

  233. robertallen1

    You write clearly and the reason is probably because you have something to say. On the other hand, FundamentalClue doesn't and tries to make up for this deficiency by writing gibberish.

  234. FundamentalClue

    Well arent you a piece of work. Your inability to understand my sentences is not for lack of coherency, at least not on my part.

  235. robertallen1

    Pysmythe's thoughts in response to your post are perfectly clear and coherent. So maybe you should use Pysmythe as your paragon or perhaps take a class or two in expository writing.

  236. Pysmythe

    Well, I wouldn't go that far, Robert. I can see what he's getting at... even if it is a little overcomplicated, at times. Concision, choosing the familiar word when you can, etc., are always important. Maybe especially so when it's a topic of this potential magnitude.

  237. Pysmythe

    Doesn't the ability to make and take instruction require intelligence? But that's impossible without consciousness right?

    I don't believe it is... But I confess I don't have nearly the expertise to give you any kind of really satisfactory answer on it. Simple solutions like water and lemonade-mix, for example, might combine to make a tasty beverage, and that certainly has to do with "instructions" for the arrangement of their molecules... But I don't believe I'd label a glass of lemonade intelligent.

    Where is our @Epicurus when you need him? From his past posts, and his special areas of study, I'm pretty sure he could jam on this one pretty well for you.

    My point was simply that it seems clear to me that consciousness cannot ultimately have been what created matter (if I've understood you correctly), since, from everything we know, or probably can know, consciousness is not possible without it.

  238. dewflirt

    That's a whole lot of post! Might have to read through a few times. I've had this stuff explained to me a hundred times on here and to be honest a lot of it goes way over my head. It seems everybody pretty much agrees that our universe is not unique which begs the question of those that believe in a creator, is the god you have chosen the god of all the universes or just ours? Or is it only a god of our world, or mankind or even just one man? Either impersonal, occasionally interfering or stalker-ishly personal ;) If our beautiful universe is just a petty kingdom, then we have a petty god or a god that is vast, old and decrepit and outside of all the multiverses. I watched a doc on tv last week, What Happened Before the Big Bang. It gave a brief description (thankfully with pictures!) of membranes, rippling sheets of stuff bumping into each other and creating bubble universes, like clingfilm.......or bubble wrap? Its difficult enough to imagine our own infinity, let alone an infinite number of them and even more difficult to imagine an intelligence that could create them all. Why not just Bang, then butterfly effect? Stuff joins with stuff and makes new stuff ad infinitum, I see no reason why consciousness can't evolve along with everything else. Time for a bit of Elbow I think, it's looking like a beautiful day ;)

  239. robertallen1

    No need to waste your time trying to make sense out of FundamentalClude's incoherent ramblings. Notice how coherently Epicurus, Over_the_Edge, Achem, and a number of the more knowledgable posters manage to convey concepts and information. Thus, FundamentalClue's inability or unwillingness to write clearly, is simply a smokescreen to cover up the poverty of his thoughts. In short, it's not you; it's he.

    P.S. I was reading about the Catholic and Protestant demonstrations against the abortion clinic which recently opened in Belfast, a fine example of what makes both religious groups so despicable.

  240. oQ

    I think you get a point here. Fundamentalclue is writing that in his opinion consciousness created matter as oppose to matter having created conciousness.
    I don't think science has arrived to the day where it can answer this question without a doubt. The opinion of scientific men may point towards the later as pointing towards the former would inevitably associate science with some sort of creating "thing" and therefore end up having to collaborate with a lot of irrational religious mumbo jumbo, man in the sky, of this present era (or former ones).
    What is conciousness? What would a better word be? Although consciousness is synonyme to awareness, mindfullness, essence, perception and many others, none describe consciousness the way the word god could. The problem with that is that the word God has been used in too many bad soups over the milleniums and continues to be.
    The absolute or the theory of everything represent that word in two different field, one is spiritual while the other is scientific.
    Then what's the absolute theory of everything...other than the carrot we race behind in circle.
    It reminds me of the question who was created first a man or a woman?

  241. Achems_Razor


    Basically I understood all that you have said, but all that you have said are mere supposition only without anything to back them up, mere words without any backbone, if you said only opinions that probably would fly, but you have offered claims, so if you can, at least back everything up with sources, links, quotes etc: so might help all of us to understand what you are talking about.

  242. Vlatko


    Science almost never answers any question without doubt. There is always doubt, except of course on some occasions where the case is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Even then science is open to new evidence and ready to revise.

    As of now, the data shows that there is no entity, God, consciousness, necessary for the creation of matter.

    You remind me of Deepak Chopra who loves to throw around words like quantum physics, spirituality, theory of everything, God, as if they're somehow connected or as if they work towards the same goal.

    But I also remember one occasion when Deepak was "slapped" by Sam Harris about his ramblings. Sam told him that, unlike him, he would never be comfortable enough to "instruct" people about the workings of the quantum mechanics or physics in general because he's simply not a physicist. Basically he told him that he is charlatan.

    Deepak on every occasion uses superficial physics jargon mixed with esotery and spirituality to achieve his pseudo-scientific points among the gullible.

    Every time I see science and spirituality, theory of everything and God, consciousness and quantum, in the same sentence I get goose bumps.

    You have to understand that it is very easy to say what you actually say. It is very easy to throw around words but it is very difficult to study quantum physics, string theory, theory of everything, etc. People are spending their entire lives studying in their fields, and suddenly comes Deepak with his "understanding" and says: "Nah, quantum non causality proves that there is consciousness."

    Apparently before making any kind of educated statements related to the questions of quantum, string, or theory of everything, you need to intimately understand the following:

    General Relativity, Quantum Field Theory, Special Relativity, Fourier Analysis, Electrodynamics, Statistical Mechanics, Probability, Tensor Analysis, K-Theory, Vector Calculus, Linear Algebra, Abstract Algebra, Topology, Differential Geometry, Riemannian Geometry, Calculus, Real Analysis, Complex Analysis, Ordinary Differential Equations, Algebraic Geometry, Lie Groups...

    Having said that I would never be comfortable enough to talk about physics that way. As if you know something that scientists do not know.

  243. robertallen1

    Exactly, which is why I impugn FundamentalClue's (Deepak Chopra Jr.'s) anfractuous sentences and lack of coherency and intelligibility.

  244. oQ

    I can't find that quote where Deepak Chopra says as you write (as a quote):
    "Nah, quantum non causality proves that there is consciousness."
    Please provide a link.
    As for the rest of your post, I will answer later as i am called to go to work.

  245. Vlatko


    As @Pysmythe said, you're just making one big anthropomorphic argument, nothing else. And all that without one shred of tangible evidence, which @Achems already pointed out. Basically you argue God of gaps. We don't understand certain things therefore God (read consciousness) did it.

    1. We don't know why waves propagate. Does that mean an existence of higher force called "consciousness"? Of course not.

    2. Energy is ability to do work. That is the simplest explanation. Having no other explanation that will suit your reasoning doesn't mean that consciousness created matter.

    3. Molecules do transfer encoded information and to a certain extent we understand the mechanism how they do that, especially the molecules in our bodies. We don't have an ultimate underlying explanation how is that done, but that doesn't mean we should promptly believe in intelligent force behind the process.

    4. At this point you've corrected yourself. You in fact offer hypothesis. I guess you know what follows. In order to be scientific hypothesis it needs to be testable, and I'm afraid none of what you've said satisfies that criteria.

    Now, since we've established that you only speak philosophically, we can continue in that fashion, but in my opinion there is no significant point doing that. We will just pile up speculation upon speculation.

  246. robertallen1

    Watched the video. I especially liked the moment at 1:04 with the theoretical physicist who basically told Deepak that as far as physics, he does not know what he's talking about, thus echoing Sam Harris' earlier statements. There is no doubt that Michael Shermer and Sam Harris have a lot more to offer than Deepak Chopra who apparently receives princely sums for the type of unsupported drivel the viewer was treated to in this documentary and which bears a disquieting similarity to FundamentalClue's posts on consciousness. Is it possible to have this video placed on TDF?


  247. Vlatko


    Spot on. It is very rare theoretical physicist to plunge in conversation wit a charlatan. But well done.

  248. lakhotason

    It's just that ol' Deepak tells people what they want to hear. There's a lot of money in that. Seems the truth has a very low exchange rate.

  249. robertallen1

    But don't you think it would be a good idea to have this placed on TDF?

  250. robertallen1

    You're right. There's a lot of money in that; it's called religion. Catholics have been doing it for years.

  251. lakhotason

    Read an article on Longform the other day that placed the holdings of the Catholic Church in the USA at one hundred billion dollars. It's a lucrative business my friend.

  252. robertallen1

    That amounts to about four Bill Gates. I guess being against birth control and abortion really pays off. Think of what the taxes on that sum could do.

  253. lakhotason

    Stuns me. One hundred billion for a fairy tale. Mickey Mouse should hang his head in shame.

  254. FundamentalClue

    Thanks for the feedback :)  I was more specifically trying to hint at DNA. I think with regard to the lemonade comparison, a dissolved solution of lemons, sugar and water doesn't equate to the specific combination of amino acids in chains giving rise to an intelligible "instruction manual" for lack of better words, for complex molecule to molecule communication. This characteristic of chemistry points closer to intelligence than a lemonade solution. I get your point though.

    And yes, you understood me correctly: I assert that consciousness ultimately DID create matter, but in that regard it's not you or I individually or collectively that created it. Consciousness at its most basic and root platform of existence, I believe, can be more acutely described as awareness. That initial spark of any form of consciousness is awareness. And I believe that awareness is neither created nor destroyed. So energy, in this line of thinking, would be a creation derived from the existence of awareness mixed with intention. That, in my opinion, would have been the root cause of energy, the propagation of waves and entropy

  255. robertallen1

    So consciousness ultimately created matter. Consciousness of what? Where is your proof? Belief, opinion and dizzying amorphousness do not cut it.

  256. FundamentalClue

    Ok, I get everyone else's point too. For the record I'll first state that my belief in "God" might have started with religion as a young child but the stench of their contradictions had me walking away in early adolescence. I don't agree with  organized religions on many fronts, especially fundamentalist ideas; they're outright ridiculous. That being said, all the information I've acquired or crossed over the passed 20years  has not given me enough elbow room or convinced me to drop the notion of something knowing and intelligent being responsible for the initial events and circumstances that brought this and/or any universe into existence. The mechanics of nature and reality are fascinating, I love learning about them. But they didn't dispel the idea of creation for me. Actually, the fact that something we call energy gave rise to vibrations of various forms and eventual mediums and through geometry built the universe we exist in with conscious things thinking about it all, full of emotion, only hardened my rationale of the probability that something of great proportion an magnitude had to have caused all of this... And why not consciousness? It seemed to be one of the natural phenomenon that has more room for definition and interpretation giving it ample reason to be a leading candidate for initial cause.

  257. Achems_Razor


    "And I believe that awareness is neither created or destroyed."??

    "SO energy, in this line of thinking, would be a creation derived from the existence of awareness mixed with intention"??

    Intention??...Okay now you are sounding like Carlos Castaneda in "the teachings of Don Juan"

    "You say that consciousness did create matter"??

    Mighty big claims, but again no proof, sources, links, nothing! It won't fly with me, and with most others on TDF.

    By the way are you a proponent of ID?

  258. robertallen1

    Conjectures are a dime a dozen. Proofs are something else and not one have you offered in any of your posts. "And why not consciousness?" followed by a stream of unintelligibility doesn't wash and neither does your essay into more uninteligibility " . . . something we call energy gave rise to vibrations of various forms [what are these?] and eventual mediums [what are these?] and through geometry built [how does one build through geometry?] the universe we exist in with conscious things thinking [are things conscious and do they think?] about it all . . . "

  259. robertallen1

    He obviously is. Read his next post beginning with "OK, I get everyone else's point too." And like all creationists, he can offer no proof, only conjecture followed by unintelligibility and pseudointellection.

  260. Achems_Razor

    Yes, I thought even from his first post he may be an ID proponent or creationist, forgot to ask if he believes in a 6000 year old earth, probably not, seems a little to smart for that.

  261. FundamentalClue

    The point everyone is missing is you all seem to act as though I am the only one who needs to come up with evidence to support their claims. As I've said before: The argument against me doesn't hold any more weight or merit. Its only way of doing so is by ASSUMING it is right before conducting the inquiry, resulting in a gross bias.

    I have no problems with dropping my ideas as soon as they can be definitely disproven. I'm not stuck in one way of thinking, I'm on the fence. Leaning towards conscious creation though, as opposed to, "well...we don't really know...it just happened". As you all like to adamantly proclaim; I feel the same: it won't fly with me, it doesn't cut it, I'm not convinced.

  262. FundamentalClue

    Vibrations of various forms:
    Electromagnetic waves
    Gravitational waves
    Light waves (all spectrums of it)
    Radio waves

    ??the Ether?? Or whatever it is that light waves and electromagnetic waves travel through in the vacuum of space.

  263. FundamentalClue

    Building through geometry:

    The geometry of circles and triangles brings the study of trigonometry which relates to the building, construction, creation, interpretation, etc., of waves.

    Tetrahedron - underlying geometric shape behind the Earth's magnetic field.

    ...building through geometry...

  264. FundamentalClue

    Are things conscious and do they think? About it all...

    As long as you agree that you are conscious and that you think, then yes... Yes they are and yes they do.

  265. robertallen1

    It's still no more than a lot of conjecture with no proof which makes it worthless.

  266. robertallen1

    Then its using geometry to build. or building geometrically You've still offered no proof, only worthless conjecture.

  267. robertallen1

    Since when is the term things applied to animate objects?

  268. robertallen1

    It's very simple. You're the one making the claims; it's up to you to support them.

  269. FundamentalClue

    I find the arguments related to ID half thought out, weak. Though I will use some of their initial postulations and revise them. Their explanations always seem to miss the mark. And though I've struggled to write out my ideas as uniformly and succinctly as a mathematics text book, I know I can argue points well beyond what I've heard being debated thus far. My only excuse is that the number of subjects that make these correlations are a wide range. Making a complete statement in one post would require me to divide the post into chapters and write 200 pages worth. I'm not here to write a book.

  270. robertallen1

    And you're obviously not here to prove what you posit. So keep the snow on the sidewalk. You're not fooling anyone here. You simply have nothing concrete to offer.

  271. FundamentalClue

    Okay answer one question for me please. At exactly what point and with what incontrovertible evidence was science able to discredit a conscious beginning to reality? To what scientific breakthrough do I owe my thanks to resolvIng the issue of 'initial cause'?

  272. robertallen1

    By assuming that science has discredited a conscious beginning to reality (whatever that means), you've asked the question wrong. The question is really does science discredit a conscious beginning to reality (again whatever that means) and if so, on what evidence is this based?

  273. FundamentalClue

    Oh come on Robert! You're being thick. I don't have to frame my dialogue according to your preferences. I'm sure you can gather what I'm asking. I framed the question two ways, the second part should clarify my question.

  274. Kateye70

    I don't recall any scientist actually claiming to have *resolved* any issue of "initial cause."

    As far as I know, no one's managed to prove or 'resolve' that any level of consciousness existed at the time of 'initial cause,' either.

    If you're just 'blue-skying' your way to a hypothesis, have at it!

  275. FundamentalClue

    That's exactly my point. Science hasn't deciphered one way or the other how the universe started. Along with many other mysteries; dark matter and energy being among them.
    My other point is that people who believe this universe to be purely mechanistic and not created by any form of intelligence, parade around as if science ever made a concrete discovery eliminating the millennias old belief in the presence of something greater than this universe that would account for its very existence.
    I have just as many issues with the loosely drawn conclusions of atheism using science as I do with creationists using doctrine.

  276. dewflirt

    What about atheism born of logical thought from an ordinary, average mind, or from philosophy? Would a personal belief that there is no higher consciousness rather than a belief based on science seem more honest to you?

  277. FundamentalClue

    Honesty is great, and I respect your beliefs. I mean what can I really say to that; I'm an average mind using my powers of logic too and happened to come to the opposite conclusion. I just figured that through discussion we might eventually find common ground - Using our logic and reason to discover exactly how and why our views differ.

  278. FundamentalClue

    An interesting philosophical view of consciousness and perception can be found in Ken Wiber's "A Brief History of Everything".
    An interesting view on biology can be found in Bruce Lipton's "Spontaneous Evolution", a PHD geneticist and former tenured professor. He pioneered much of the earlier genetic research

  279. FundamentalClue

    An observation of reality reduces quantum probabilities to a single defined state. Consciousness defines reality by virtue of its observation of it. Before a conscious mind observes any portion of physical reality it remains in a state of probabilities. Only when it is observed does it reduce all probabilities to a single outcome. Without the observer effect the universe is left to its undefined and infinite probabilities. The short of it is this:   Consciousness IS... Everything else was made. Matter did not spawn consciousness. It can't. Predicated by the divide between seer and seen. Matter as it turns out does not define itself. It is defined by the consciousness observing it and hence therefore cannot be responsible for the existence of that consciousness.
    Can someone explain how this is not a valid point to argue?

  280. FundamentalClue

    There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.

    - Max Planck

  281. dewflirt

    When out at night and in a place dark enough to see all the stars that are usually hidden, if I tip my head right back 'til I almost lose balance I get that giddy, vertiginous feeling that kids get from being on a swing. In those moments I can almost understand how people would believe there must be something more. I can also get that feeling when looking out over a moody sea, all that deep dark unknown and I'm only hanging on by the skin of my feet! It doesn't last though, when I look back to the ground its still there, honest and real and in its own way no less wonderful. This tangled, haphazard, scruffy little reality is enough after all. Even if it occasionally seems to good to be true, surely that's just me feeling that of all the possibilities, I am lucky enough to be one of them. Somehow more humbling than being here by design :)

  282. Vlatko


    Science isn't there to discredit your conscious being reality (whatever that is). It is also not there to discredit the spaghetti monster. Why? Because your "conscious being reality" and the "spaghetti monster" are both NOT FALSIFIABLE.

    It is up to you (or whoever makes the claim) to provide evidence for your claims. In order your hypotheses to be valid it needs to be testable.

    You should read my previous reply to you. Your whole argument boils down to: We are not certain how some things happened, therefore God did it. Classic use of "God of the gaps" argument.

  283. dewflirt

    What I'm saying is that our slice of life, the universe and everything is as awe inspiring for us atheists as it is for anyone else, whatever shape their god is. We don't love it less, just differently ;)

  284. FundamentalClue


  285. FundamentalClue

    Did you read my last three posts???
    I'm talking about the characteristics of quantum mechanics and how that translates into it not being possible for matter to create the mind.

  286. FundamentalClue

    I never doubted that. You still haven't addressed my argument though.

  287. dewflirt

    You don't really have one.

  288. dewflirt

    Yep, but I managed to fit mine into a paragraph whereas you have a half written book if it! ;)

  289. Vlatko


    Yes I did, and all of them fall into the God of the gap argument.

    1. Are you a theoretical physicist? Probably not.

    2. Do you really understand the quantum world, including all mathematics behind it? Of course not.

    3. Are you trying to speculatively insert your God (consciousness) into science areas where we don't know much about? Yes.

    4. Is your hypothesis testable? No.

    5. Is it only vague speculation? Yes.

    Case closed.

  290. FundamentalClue

    Yes thats exactly what it states but you've missed the point. A probability WAVE exists that shows all possible positions for a given PARTICLE. Well actually, a little more accurately, a probability wave doesn't SHOW all possible positions, it EXISTS as ALL possible positions. A decent description can be found on Wikipedia. My argument stands.

  291. FundamentalClue

    I'm not making vague speculations, it's called deductive reasoning. My hypothesis is testable insofar as anyone's ability to utilize deductive reasoning. In fact, mathematical proofs have been arrived at through this process. I have a fair understanding of the quantum world, yes, though I haven't done math in years - it would probably be pretty choppy. And my enthusiasm to understand theoretical physics has got me to read a stack of science-based books on the subject by the very physicists who pioneer in it. Given my accredited education in physics, I can confidently say that I DO understand it.

  292. over the edge

    it only exists in all positions mathematically not physically.

  293. FundamentalClue

    And no, I haven't inserted God anywhere in that argument. Don't know where you get that from (with regard to most recent arguement/statement).

  294. FundamentalClue

    Actually it does exist physically. Mathematics merely describe the properties and characteristics of nature, they don't take the place of it. The probability wave is real. Scientists can actually map this wave and show its path and patttern in real-time.

  295. over the edge

    just for clarity are you stating that a particle exists everywhere physically at all times?

  296. robertallen1

    You framed the question poorly and that's it. And just what is a conscious beginning to reality?

  297. robertallen1

    Once again, conjectures are a dime a dozen. If you are contending some superior being, force or whatever, it's up to you to prove it.

  298. robertallen1

    More gibber-jabber. "Before a conscious mind observes any portion of physical reality it remains in a state of probabilities." A lot of claims with no proof, hence worthless.

  299. robertallen1

    Quotes from authority prove nothing.

  300. robertallen1

    Another wistful recital demonstrating the idiocy of bringing in a third party into the cosmos.

  301. robertallen1

    It's a lot more solid and coherent than anything you've written.

  302. robertallen1

    And just what is your argument--couched in plain English?

  303. dewflirt

    Thank you Mr Allen, but sometimes I just can't help myself. Must be the optimist in me, always hold a hope that poking a hornets nest might yield honey rather than sting. No such luck thus far! You are a man tenacious enough to dig through a thought that sprang to my mind regarding Fundy and his theory, Implicate Order. As far as I can make out its one of those strange hybrids of quantum-ness and spirituality. In all things quantum I am a baby and for spirituality I am a dismissive and tired mother ;)

  304. robertallen1

    So failing to provide any support for your conjectures, you are now trying to deduce a supreme being into existence. To do that, you must first demonstrate the validity of your premises (in mathematics this often amounts to a description of conditions) and this requires the type of backup you are unable to provide which renders your deductions no more than useless abstractions.

    And just what is your "accredited" education in physics?

  305. robertallen1

    Not by name by certainly in concept.

  306. robertallen1

    Right. We need a god like we need a third leg.

    P.S. I would appreciate your comments on the demonstrations by Protestants and Catholics against the abortion clinic which recently opened up in Belfast.

  307. over the edge

    as you know more than i on this subject. am i wrong in stating that the particle only exists in multiple places at once in mathematical probabilities?

  308. over the edge

    you are not "poking a hornets nest" looking for honey. you are rattling a monkey cage. experience has shown me that approach yields a lot of feces being thrown at you ;)

  309. Achems_Razor

    Absolutely, since we cannot see the particle it is "mathematically" defined to exist in all places at once.

  310. Pysmythe

    Yes, I understood it was DNA, or other processes that could be called akin to it, that you were getting at. Reading it, the image that came to mind was of the double-helix, and immediately after that, an image of pistons in a gasoline engine instructing it what to do, over and over. And of cogs in a gear matching up precisely. I realized those analogies weren't really good enough (not that the lemonade one was), which is why I didn't use it, and which is why I lamented @Epicurus not being around to answer this one for you very specifically. In the past, with this kind of question, in particular (DNA, chemical processes, etc.), everyone here has seen some very good explanations from him. And I really would like you to have a more detailed answer to your question, instead of a rebuttal without any real substance to it.

    @Dewflirt's mentioning membranes is something else I thought about bringing up in one of my earlier posts. It may well be that there is an eternal procession of universes, and with each collision of membranes touching off another universe somewhere else, that would seem to me to rule out any need for consciousness/awareness as an explanation of an initial cause... Obviously, I don't KNOW this, but I have a pretty good bit of faith that this, or something similar to it, will prove to be the case in the end. In essence, I think that there has always been something somewhere.

    On the other hand, consciousness hasn't baffled so many for so long for no reason, has it? I may just say that, if it ever does prove possible someday to prove your contention, I don't think I would be TOO surprised, and on THAT day would modify my views accordingly.

  311. dewflirt

    There are some men that claim to have a third leg already ;)

  312. robertallen1

    Cute, but what about the part on the demonstrations against the abortion clinic which recently opened up in Belfast?

  313. robertallen1

    Considering your expertise on quantum mechanics, I would like to ask you where the quantum world ends and the macro world begins or is there a continuum between the two. Perhaps I have envisioned them incorrectly and I would appreciate being set straight.

  314. Achems_Razor


    Ha,Ha, am hardly an expert, know very little about QM, am just like a babe lost in the woods concerning quantum mechanics, my take is the quantum world and the macro is a whole, one and the same, but humans cant envision quanta as such with our macro senses/existence, have to rely on machines and math, and that quanta runs the macro so physicists are trying to figure out how the sub-atomic micro quanta is doing that, trying to get to the basic level.

  315. robertallen1

    And as I understand it, the reason we in the macro world (a term of convenience more than anything else) don't sense what is happening in the quantum world is proportion, e.g., the difference between one ton and one ton + 1/100 of an ounce. Is this correct?

    By the way, what's this I read about scientists now feeling 99.99........% sure of the existence of the Higgs Boson particle?

  316. oQ

    Achems is often referred to as our expert on quantum this and that. This makes me wonder what his education in the field is? This question seem important to many here but i never read anyone ask his credential in the matter.
    Has Achems studied and get accredited in "General Relativity, Quantum Field Theory, Special Relativity, Fourier Analysis, Electrodynamics, Statistical Mechanics, Probability, Tensor Analysis, K-Theory, Vector Calculus, Linear Algebra, Abstract Algebra, Topology, Differential Geometry, Riemannian Geometry, Calculus, Real Analysis, Complex Analysis, Ordinary Differential Equations, Algebraic Geometry, Lie Groups..." or does he have opinions based on reading books (which is a part of what educating oneself is).
    Just curious in the same way others are about every one who posit opinions deducted from pure interest on the subject.
    So Achems what is it?

  317. robertallen1

    And you have also made a lot of statements, especially about science, which have been refuted time and time again by various posters on this site. Let's have your qualifications as well.

  318. robertallen1

    It was in an article by Cerin Perkins and Nick Collins in The Telegraph (Telegraph dot co dot UK) dated 7/4/12.

  319. Achems_Razor


    Won't tell you, love to keep women guessing! lol

  320. oQ

    You keep asking the same question i have answered several times.
    I do not have any credentials taken from universities and i never tried to pretend i do either.
    You think you get it this time?
    What about your credential in sciences?


  321. oQ

    Don't worry Robert won't hijack you brain, he loves you too much for that.
    Come on, come clean, it is very liberating! Plus on TDF it's at least 33/1 men versus women, not too many of us to impress.

  322. robertallen1

    At least when you make statements, they're on subjects you obviously know something about, as you generally support your assertions with references, often in the form of links to reputable (i.e., educated, knowledgable) sites.

    On the other hand, oQ often simply keyboards off the top of her head on subjects of which it is obvious she has not the faintest understanding.

  323. robertallen1

    Then if you don't have the academic credentials or haven't done any independent research worth considering, what makes you think that you can offer worthwhile opinions on any academic subject such as science?

    I admit to not being credentialed in the sciences which is why I either conduct independent research or ask questions of those more knowledgable in these fields BEFORE asserting.

  324. robertallen1

    Oh, so now it's a sexist issue. I'm certain that I can speak for TDF in stating that it openly welcomes posters regardless of sex and if there turns out to be a disproportionately higher percentage of male posters, this says something about the general mindset of women in our society, especially since they've never had as much freedom and opportunity as they have now.

  325. oQ

    My "statements" as you call them, are opinions. I, most of the time, express them along with words such as could, may, if, perhaps and similar other words, and most often will start my comment with In my opinion....
    TDF is an INTERNATIONAL site where people are welcomed to write their opinions on several subjects in English even though it may not be their first language.
    As far as i can remember there is no prerequisite of holding any kind of certificate to do so.
    On the abortion doc, you had the most "opinions" even though you were never pregnant or ever impregnanted anyone and as far as i know you are not a woman. So yes people do post opinions.

  326. dewflirt

    They might argue that we are very difficult to please and therefore equivalent to at least 10 men each ;)

  327. oQ

    I didn't make it a sexist issue, i responded to one... take a breath and scroll down.
    And i would still like to have an real answer from Achems. Don't you?

  328. robertallen1

    Calling something an opinion does not render it sacrosanct and immune to attack or excuse the ignorance or lack of intellection behind it.

  329. robertallen1

    "It's at least 33/1 men versus women . . . " So you didn't make this a sexist issue.

  330. oQ

    Scientific minded people do answer without doubts, with trust in what they read, a trust similar to faith as many of them have never even entered a lab, looked through a telescope, or put a formula on paper themself.

    As of now, consciousness could be all there is and the physical reality a dream dreamed by that same electromagnetic consciousness embodying senses...no physicallity needed for that to continue. But that is a BIG IF.

    Funny how you associate me with Deepak Chopra...is it because i once lived in California....never even read a book by the guy and can't remember when i ever quoted him.

    My perception of life existed inside of me way way way before the word Quantum was popular, way before you were born.

    And now if you read the post you are replying to here....your post is trying to corner me on things my post doesn't even mention.

    I still think we and science is not done with the race behind the carrot. So with this said, i totally agree with you on this.

    1000 yrs from now reality will be very different, even 100yrs from now. That is a very comforting thought.


  331. robertallen1

    1. And just how do you know that most scientifically-minded people have never even entered a lab, etc? By equating science with faith and confounding trust with reliance, you display your ignorance of both and by extension your ignorance of science. All this amounts to is another statement off the top of your head.

    2. You're right, your statement about what consciousness could be is a BIG IF and thus meaningless.

    3. How do you know when Vlatko was born? Has he ever told you? I certainly don't recall reading any post of his which provided that information. And of what consequence is it that your perception of life existed "inside of you" [where else could it have resided?] before quantum became popular (whenever that was)?

  332. Achems_Razor

    You gave reference to dreaming in your last post to Vlatko, here is a link, might be right up your alley.


  333. oQ

    All i needed was to have seen his photograph before his avatar became a blue square with TDF on it.
    Simple even to me.
    OF course that is if the photograph was of him and not a fake.

  334. oQ

    I am aware of the writings of this man....have travelled solo through Southern China for a month....quite a beautiful place and while there, i was curious about the chinese philosophers.
    Right up my alley? More like right up my valley.

  335. over the edge

    not sure why this was posted to me. as far as i know i never asked for anybodies credentials. i have questioned others when offered on occasion. i have not and will not give mine to anybody. the reason i asked achems is he has been consistent with the facts i have double checked (when i understand them)

  336. Vlatko


    @Achems only transfers the existing knowledge in physics. Nothing spectacular, outrageous or new to trigger the question: What is your background in physics?

    That question becomes very important when someone is presenting unsubstantiated claims.

  337. robertallen1

    Once again, an assertion not backed by hard evidence--how typical.

  338. robertallen1

    True about Achem as well as Over_the_Edge, Epicurus and yourself and especially true regarding unsubstantiated claims which go against the mainstream (and I don't mean in some intradisciplinary matter).

  339. Vlatko


    You say: Scientific minded people do answer without doubts, with trust in what they read, a trust similar to faith as many of them have never even entered a lab, looked through a telescope, or put a formula on paper themself.

    You deeply know that what you've just said is completely dishonest. Not just dishonest but utterly wrong. It looks like some proto-religious argument shot from the flat earth time.

    Scientific minded people trust science not because ONE man told them to, but because thousands of other scientists repeated the experiment, double checked/confirmed the formula, and looked through a telescope several hundred times (peer-review in a nutshell).

    Further more if you don't trust thousands of scientist around the world you can try to refute what you chose not to believe. For example you can try and see if water boils at 100 Celsius. Or you can buy or borrow a simple cheap telescope and see if Saturn, Galilean moons and The Orion Nebula is really there. You can also try to check if Pythagorean theorem is correct.

    So, without entering a lab, looking through a telescope, or putting formulas on paper I can assure you that you can be comfortable enough that science is telling you the truth.

    Truth to be told you didn't mention anything quantum but you've mentioned "theory of everything" being spiritual and scientific.

    Quote: "the theory of everything represent that word in two different field, one is spiritual while the other is scientific.

    That is typical Deepak Chopra cliche. And not just his cliche, but a cliche of every other new age charlatan. You don't have to know the man to share the same ideas, especially if they're repeated ad nauseum through every medium possible.

  340. Achems_Razor

    I agree, I merely transfer all the knowledge that I garnered over the years from the leading edge scientists in many fields concerning said subjects from peer related reviews and scientific reviews.

  341. robertallen1

    And you do a fine job. I only wish I knew as much about res scientificae as you do.

  342. Achems_Razor

    Thank you.

  343. robertallen1

    A fine post, but if you will allow me to be pedantic. If I wanted to find out the freezing and boiling points of water, I would use Farenheit, for the Celsius scale artifically sets the former at 0 and the latter at 100.

  344. robertallen1

    One more thing. If I wanted to, I could spend years studying medicine to find out for myself if what my internist is telling me is the truth. Instead I RELY on him based on his years of experience and his peer-reviewed education. This runs parallel to your opening few paragraphs defining the nature of reliance as opposed to faith and it's poor cousin belief.

  345. FundamentalClue

    No I am not stating that a particle exists everywhere physically at all times. I am speaking about waves if you look closer at my comment.

  346. oQ

    Wrong again, you don't seem to be able to read properly when you want to put your twist on my words.
    I suppose my being French and you being "_________" (i won't assume anything as i would be in the wrong), puts us on different level of English expression.
    The whole sentence is: "The absolute or the theory of everything represent that word in two different field, one is spiritual while the other is scientific."
    The absolute being used by spirituality and the theory of everything being used by science.

  347. Vlatko


    Right, which makes my previous reply to you even more compatible.

    The same old religious argument: Science and Spirituality are trying to find out the same truth, but with different means and methods.

  348. robertallen1

    No, Vlatko has your number perfectly. So don't play the language card. Your sentence reads like a cheap imitation (if that's possible) of Deepak Chopra and is worth just as much.

    For someone who knows next to nothing about science, as demonstrated by so many posters, you sure comment a lot on what it is.

    P.S. There are two grammatical errors in your quote. Can you spot them?

  349. FundamentalClue

    Deductive reasoning, also called deductive logic, is the process of reasoning from one or more general statements regarding what is known to reach a logically certain conclusion.[1] Deductive reasoning involves using given true premises to reach a conclusion that is also true. Deductive reasoning contrasts with inductive reasoning in that a specific conclusion is arrived at from a general principle. If the rules and logic of deduction are followed, this procedure ensures an accurate conclusion.

    My argument still stands until, my reasoning is proven to be false.

  350. robertallen1

    Once again, you can't deduce a supreme being into existence. So your argument does not have a scientific leg to stand on and is thus specious.

  351. Pysmythe

    I'm assuming that by theory of everything, you're referring to GUTs (Grand Unified Theories)? If one of those ever is found, my understanding is that it would "merely" reconcile all discrepancies between the physical phenomena of the quantum world and the macro world, in a single equation, or (more likely?) set of equations, without deigning any consideration for the metaphysical one way or the other... Indeed, how could it?

    I guess you probably know that, anyway.

    But if you intend it in a broader sense, I have to say that I can't believe any scientist, or group of scientists, anywhere could ever reach a time when they feel they have a firm grip on any kind of theory of everything, even if it were somehow possible to combine all their different fields into a single whole. And it seems simple enough to conclude that one group is always going to seek to augment a TOE it already believes (CB), anyway, while the other, if it is honest, will only seek to augment what it has been able to learn thus far.

  352. robertallen1

    You're 99% right and oQ's 100% wrong (nothing unusual). Now for that final 1%, what do you mean by "without deigning any consideration for the metaphysical one way or another?" Are you asserting that this formula or set of formuals will not bother with the metaphysical?

  353. Pysmythe

    It probably could've been said better... I lingered over that choice of words a long time, actually. Longer than any other part of my post. But, yes, I don't think that such a set of equations would directly state one way or the other, as far as metaphysical ideas are concerned... But implications are certainly another thing: Einstein's Relativity never says there are no gods, while placing a clear limit on precisely how quickly Jesus could fly.

    Mostly what I meant, however, is simply that I can't imagine that any honest physicists seeking an answer to that ultimate physics question will allow such supernatural, spiritual notions, unprovable things, etc., as are found in metaphysics to factor into their thinking at all... That they will go where the mathematics alone takes them, and that what broader implications there may be will only come afterwards, of course.

  354. robertallen1

    Another 99er. Suggest changing "mathematics" to "science and mathematics."

    But you're right. Einstein's relativity says nothing about a supreme being which really pisses me off when those of a ridiculously religious bent try to make a theist out of Einstein, as if doing so has any effect on the validity of his theories.

  355. over the edge

    if that is the case could you explain how this part of your premise is not flawed? " The basic premise is that these particles, not only can but DO, occupy more than one position in space and time spontaneously (at the exact same time)" and " all the electrons in this entire universe, technically could be, the exact same one. " .if you are talking about waves that second statement is impossible an again flawed.

  356. over the edge

    thanks. every time i think i have the basics of this figured out i realize i do not. frustrating and invigorating at the same time. i appreciate the corrections if i wander off of the path. thanks again

    edit:fyi the link in your second post is also contained in the first. at least you know that i am reading them lol

  357. Achems_Razor

    Yeah I know, only found out later. lol

  358. Vlatko


    Your argument stands in the sense that you've came to conclusion by employing "God of the gaps." Whether that conclusion is sound, true, supported by evidence, or even testable at all is something different.

    In fact your conclusion is arbitrary. You can't define what it is, you can't test it, you can't observe it, you can't mathematically prove it. It is only a wild speculation. It is not falsifiable.

  359. FundamentalClue

    I am not deducing a supreme being into existence. I am deducing that physical matter at the macrocosm scale cannot be responsible for the rise or existence of the mind, consciousness, awareness.
    Because at the quantum scale, where everything in the macrocosm translates from, it is the act of the mind, consciousness, awareness that collapses the wave function. Quantum decoherence is technically irrelevant here and doesn't interfere with this interpretation because quantum decoherence does not generate actual wave function collapse. It only provides an explanation for the appearance of the wavefunction collapse. This leaves the probable cause of collapse with the act of observation.

  360. FundamentalClue

    So hold your horses. An in-depth explanation is waiting to get approved. Can't imagine why?

  361. Achems_Razor


    Please read the comment policy above if you are wondering why your comments with links have to be approved! Patience?

  362. Achems_Razor


    Nothing is as cut and dry as you portray, "quantum decoherence" is gaining popularity and throws everything out of whack concerning entanglement, and the observer effect.


  363. Pysmythe

    As impressive sounding as all this is (not just this post, but everything you've said), I can't help thinking it's a great example of what is called quantum woo... (see: RationalWiki, Quantum woo) Way back in the early 80's, I fell under the spell of a book called The Dancing Wu-Li Masters for a while, read it a couple of times, and at the impressionable age I was then, really took to its mixture of Western science and Eastern mysticism. It was the first book I ever read on the subject of quantum physics. Your ideas sound exactly like the ideas found in that book. Subsequent reading in the subject eventually broadened my understanding, at least a little bit: I'm afraid that, deductive reasoning or not, if you don't have the mathematics to directly support these conclusions, they are invalid.

  364. robertallen1

    Again, you take refuge in jibber-jabber, slinging terms around to support what you can't scientifically prove. Once again, you're not fooling anyone, least of all Vlatko who obviously knows a god of the gaps argument when he sees one.

  365. Kateye70

    I realize I'm coming very late into this discussion, and from a completely different slant than has been going on for the last day or so. I realize there has been plenty of discussion on quantum theory and mathematics. But I went back to your answer to my post to you, and realized you said something very interesting:

    "My other point is that
    people who believe this universe to be purely mechanistic
    and not created by any form of intelligence,
    parade around
    as if science ever made a concrete discovery
    eliminating the millennias old belief
    in the presence of
    something greater than this universe
    that would account for its very existence."

    In parsing through this sentence, I see some interesting things.

    First, you appear irritated that people who use science as a basis for their world view seem to be dismissive of long-held belief systems in the existence of god ("something greater than this universe").

    I can understand that, but people are people. Some are irritatingly certain of their own ground. Persons of religious persuasions are every bit as irritating when they insist there *is* such a being--whose existence cannot be demonstrated as real by even the most devout worshipers--and that 'nonbelievers' will be punished in some horrible way.

    Second, that science has yet to make a specific, or concrete discovery, that would eliminate these belief systems. Sadly, this is absolutely true. My feeling is that it will continue to hold true as long as there are secular rewards for religious power.

    Further: People, particularly children, have a need to believe in authority figures. This is basic psychology. All you have to do is follow early childhood development through adolescence into young adulthood to understand why reliance on authority is a survival trait in a species with delayed maturity.

    However, that authority is only supposed to teach young humans how to survive into reproductive age; not substitute itself for the critical thinking skills which are the hallmark of our human minds. These skills are what have allowed us to make use of the natural world around us to survive and thrive as a species.

    That the beliefs you mentioned are 'long-held,' whether for millenia or not, is not proof that they are correct. It simply means that either there was nothing better to take its place, or that some non-scientific (read: emotional) need was/is being met.

    So, back to the beginning of your sentence. Again, you appeared to be offended that some people (scientist or not) could hold a mechanistic view of the universe and not need there to be a god (however you choose to define a 'being').

    Is this analagous to your own view? That you have an emotional need for there to be a 'something greater than this universe to account for its (our) being'?

  366. Pysmythe

    "Now I will attempt to show you how deductive reasoning uses these facts to definitively prove that consciousness cannot arise or be manifested by matter (ie. the brain). Proving it to be paradoxical and not true."

    If this is true, where is consciousness before you are born? Or what is the use of a brain at all, therefore, seeing that you don't think its material purpose is for generating consciousness?

  367. robertallen1

    Good point and expressed clearly. Now watch FundamentalClue respond to you in gibber-jabber.

  368. FundamentalClue

    That's a very good point and I apologize if I went off tangent there. I have made other comments though stating my disagreement with religious fundamentalists and organized religion in general. My position in all this is that I am trying to make a complete and fully encompassing understanding of reality. Religions are mostly ignorant of science which is very irritating. But to me, no less irritating is science claiming any real and full understanding of how this universe works without including the most critical component; the existence of that which is doing the studying. I am merely trying to reconcile the part of this universe science avoids explaining. And I understand how ambiguous the argument can get. But scientists exploring the universe with the convenient exclusion of themselves is not in any way an understanding of this universe. So if mathematics can't touch it, we are left with cognitive logic and deductive reasoning, which might I add can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt, ANYTHING. So long as we stay within the boundaries of logic.

  369. robertallen1

    They call it objectivity. However, whatever it is you're trying to explain, you're not doing a very good job.

  370. Pysmythe

    He ought to simply go ahead and state outright, in no uncertain terms, just what it is he believes... Something like the following: All higher functions/purposes of the brain must be merely some sort of illusion. Every consciousness that exists only does so because it is but an extension, if you will, of The Primal Godhead, the Awareness from which all other awareness flows, etc., etc.

  371. robertallen1

    Sounds like a mongrelization of Deepak Chopra and Emmanuel Kant, hardly a winning combination.

  372. Kateye70

    I think the real difference between scientists and religious fundamentalists is that scientists are willing to start with "I don't know."

    That's not a statement I've heard very often from religious fundamentalists. Generally, the less well-educated or well-versed in biblical scholarship they are, the more certain they are of their 'facts.'

    Whenever I've heard a scientist make a definitive statement, it has been backed up by research.

    As far as claiming real and full understanding of how this universe works, again, most scientists I've read are pretty clear about what is known and what is still being worked on.

    I'm not terribly clear what you mean by 'the exclusion of themselves' when it comes to scientific research. I believe humans are one of the most studied and interesting subjects of study by scientists, out of all the fields of science.

    It seems, though, that you are proposing that scientists study themselves. One cannot be the subject of one's own investigation and still claim objectivity.

    Even more, your proposed 'something greater than this universe,' by which you seem to mean an entity of some sort, by that very definition cannot be studied.

    If it is 'greater than' this universe, how can it be contained within it? You see how quickly we get off into metaphysics and spiritual thinking here?

    I think you are going to end up going in mental circles. You can't even define 'everything,' much less get the answer to the question of life, the universe and everything. The closest anyone ever got to an answer was 42. And even that was wrong.

    Maybe "I don't know" is the correct answer.

  373. Kateye70

    This deserves its own post: "I am trying to make a complete and fully encompassing understanding of reality."

    There's no such thing as 'fully understanding reality.' You can't even come up with a full and complete definition, much less understand it all.

    No matter how much you learn, there will always be more to learn. The more you learn, the more you will realize how little you have learned.

  374. FundamentalClue

    If you want to argue with my last statement, you need to disprove (or falsify) any one of my points or my assumed facts that lead to the points. I have made an argument that seems to run with logical consistencies. If I have erred at any point of my argument and this can be shown, then either I find a way to reconstruct my argument to satisfy that error or we can throw out my argument. If not, I have proven something that is considered to be fact.

    >> I'm also writing a reply to your questions as well. Sorry I'm just really busy, please be patient.

  375. robertallen1

    No, if you assert (as in assumed facts), you must provide the proof. You are no different from anyone else.

    P.S. Have you read "A Modest Proposal" of Jonathan Swift? It too is logically consistent.

  376. Pysmythe

    If you can prove to me a person can have consciousness in some other way than with brain-matter, I'll be willing to take everything else you have to say much more seriously. To me, your argument appears to depend upon that, more than anything else.

    Looking forward to your answers.

  377. Achems_Razor


    Why are you giving these links to me? do you think I do not know that stuff, you better check closely on decoherence, which can be viewed as a de-stabilizer a loss of info into the environment as heat-bath and also presents a challenge to quantum computers because the quantum coherences are disturbed, again I say decoherence will throw everything you have said so far out of whack. Scientists do not really know and I do not really know the wacky world of QM, QP. so you can not really use that as your perspective, unless you know more than all of us.

  378. FundamentalClue

    I believe the proof is given with the links I provided in my stated (proposed) FACTS. It works like this:
    Under the heading FACT:, is a statement proposing to be a fact. With it a link I believe corroborates the statement, giving it merit. Except the last two where I believe they are facts in and of themselves. If you disagree with any one of those statements individually, state and prove the error in it. If you do this the argument comes back to me. If not, we continue to the second part.
    The argument is broken down into statements or assertions. The basis for these statements is labeled in brackets at the end of each statement. Once again, if you disagree with any single statement, show how the statement is false. Doing so brings the argument back to me. We can continue the argument in cycles as long as I can satisfy the error. In the end I am either, found to have made critical errors in which case the argument ends and the proposal turns out to be false and you have the satisfaction of proving a point definitively using logic as I learn something vital. Or, I am shown to have made a logically consistent assertion, which would bring us a few steps  closer to a new known fact.
    Just be careful to look at each statement individually, without regard to any other statements. That's the only way deductive reasoning actually works.
    If you have any questions regarding the method of deductive reasoning please refer to the Wikipedia definition.

  379. FundamentalClue

    No I have not yet read "A Modest Proposal". I'll look it up.

  380. robertallen1

    "I am trying to make a complete and fully encompassing understanding of reality." Well, quite frankly, you're not qualified to and neither is anyone else. The only difference between you and others is that others own up to this inability while you attempt to pass off your jibber-jabber as some type of profound answer. Now, in plain English, just what are you getting at? "Since 'I' experiences observation, it therefore must be independent of that system" does not cut it. You're as phony as Ezra Pound and I'm not the only one on this thread who thinks so.

  381. FundamentalClue

    I will. I'll take a close look and study it. Could you do me a favor though and answer my deductive reasoning post. I'd like to get to the bottom of this. I don't mind being wrong. I just want to know where I'm wrong, if it turns out I am.

  382. Achems_Razor

    Your deductive reasoning is strictly an opinion without any scientific methods applied therefore just words without any real meaning.

    "Nobody" knows everything about all the quantum theories, and I am also talking about QM, QP, string, multiverse, M theory, parallel universe, probability, chaos, any many more can't think of all right now.

    Not withstanding the Big Bang theory with inflation etc: etc:

    So until you have come up with some jaw dropping sourced experiments and tested empirical evidence with published papers that are peer reviewed at the highest level, then I will bow down to you, right now you don't even offer credentials, or any evidence of anything which is okay really, just talking only, but everything you are saying is "OPINIONS ONLY" not even thought experiments! In other words we all need PROOF!

  383. FundamentalClue

    As far as the conclusion of my deductive reasoning is concerned, "Since 'I' experiences observation, it therefore must be independent of that system.", you can't dismiss it whatsoever until you can prove one or more of my statements to be false. It doesn't cut it to say, "does not cut it".

  384. FundamentalClue

    Start with the four proposed FACTS. Do you disagree with one or more of them? If so, why?

  385. Achems_Razor


    Just because you are quoting from authority and presenting links from authority does not mean you are offering any new evidence to further your own specific agenda, whatever the hell that is, none of us really have a clue as to what you are getting at, maybe it is the god of the gaps as Vlatko says.

    Come clean and tell us point blank the bottom line what you really mean, no more p@ssy-footing around!

  386. lakhotason

    And just as "Modest Proposal" it is only logically consistent if you start with a false premise. "Modest Proposal" 's false assumption was that humans actually would eat their children. I'm with you. Swift needs to be read.

  387. Samuel Morrissey

    Your statements of 'FACT' rely on a particular interpretation of QM being the only correct one, and there is not one scientist who would even dare suggest this is the case. Out of all possible interpretations, (and we are probably missing some still to come) there may even be a greater interpretation that our current interpretations are simply a subset of. All provide the same experimental results, so they are all correct at least in the functional sense. I personally favor the relational interpretation currently, which would demolish your view of wave functions collapsing into particle objects. They are neither particles or waves, they are something much stranger that exhibits qualities of both. And they are this strange thing at all times, they do not transform from one quality to the other. There is no 'Collapse' other than by appearance when it is measured. At any single moment, the thing itself actually has a definite location but this information is unavailable to us until we measure it, at which point the wave like probability of where it might be appears to 'collapse' into where it is.

    So before we try to analyse each 'FACT' for its merit, would you like to provide proof that the Copenhagen Interpretation is in fact the only correct one?

  388. robertallen1

    Agreed. FundamentalClue is obviously unaware that you cannot just blindly deduce, but that you have to take into consideration what's being deduced and what it's being deduced from. In the 1840s, after analyzing perturbations in the orbit of Uranus, using Newtonian mechanics ,Urbain Le Verrier deduced the position of the then-undiscovered planet Neptune which later hard evidence (i.e, falsifiability) proved correct. Subsequent observations of Neptune in the late 19th century caused astronomers to speculate that Uranus' orbit was being disturbed by another planet besides Neptune and again using Newtonian mechanics, the existence of Pluto was deduced and verified. So you have deduction followed by hard evidence. While mathematics differs somewhat in that only logic, not hard proof, is needed, the conditions under which the deduction is made are of paramount importance, i.e., do they adequately describe/represent what's being worked with.

    P.S. Suggest you change "unless" in the last paragraph to "until."

  389. robertallen1

    I cannot prove or disprove gibberish.

  390. robertallen1

    A fact is not proposed. A conjecture is.

  391. robertallen1

    I've tried my damndest to get FundamentalClue to burp up. Maybe you'll have more success.

    P.S. I don't think pussy-foot is a forbidden word.

  392. robertallen1

    And it's nice to see that you've obviously read this essay. Now, as I advised Mr. Nutzac, why don't you try Mark Twain's essay on masturbation which you'll find on the internet and report back.

  393. robertallen1

    I'm impressed. And you can even express your thoughts clearly.

  394. FundamentalClue

    Very good question Psymythe, and that's what I'm trying to prove through deductive reasoning. And yes, I'm trying to do it indirectly by proving the opposite is not true.
    Ever heard the saying: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

  395. FundamentalClue

    Achems, I value your opinion and appreciate your replies. I agreewith everything you said except that deductive reasoning in no way whatsoever, is an opinion. Not even close!
    Quoting the definition: Deductive reasoning, also called deductive logic, is the process of reasoning from one or more general statements regarding what is known to reach a logically certain conclusion.
    Deductive reasoning involves USING GIVEN TRUE PREMISES to reach a CONCLUSION THAT IS ALSO TRUE.
     If the rules and logic of deduction are followed, this procedure ENSURES an ACCURATE conclusion.

  396. robertallen1

    And you're not doing a very good job, but with such a ridiculous premise, how could you?

  397. Pysmythe

    Sure, it's a favorite of mine. The great "deductive reasoner" Mr. Sherlock Holmes first said that, though I've sometimes heard it attributed to other folks.

    Not quite satisfied with that answer, though...

  398. robertallen1

    Again, you need to read Swift's "A Modest Proposal" because you obviously don't get the point.

  399. robertallen1

    It's called a proof by contradiction, but before such a proof can be attempted, it must be conclusively determined that there are only two choices.

  400. FundamentalClue

    Thank you! I appreciate your type of response. No I won't be proving Copenhagen's Interpretation at the moment. Perhaps in time I might try but I'm definitely out of the QM interpretations loop as of late. I used to study this stuff feverishly and had a grasp, even mathematically, of much of it. But I will admit that was a long time ago. Just now I've been looking over more of the links Achem provided. Some very interesting new interpretations. I'll need time to thoroughly investigate. Somewhere in the back of my mind I'm certain I'm on to something. But given what I've been reading today, there's no way I'm prepared to actually provide the kind of proof that would satisfy. Thanks again for being diplomatic

  401. Pysmythe

    Is this really as much of an answer as I'm going to get to any of the questions I've asked you? I understand you're busy (so am I), but I was seriously hoping for a bit more than this.

  402. FundamentalClue

    No Psymythe I have more to say. But between my job, my kids, my projects and taking time to study quantum theory, I definitely need time to formulate my responses. I'll have something worthwhile posted before this day is done.

  403. Achems_Razor


    Okay, but before you get all gung-ho, you have to find the "Graviton" the carrier for quantum gravity, if you cannot find the Graviton then makes invalid, string, super string "M" theories, loop quantum gravity theories, if you can find the Graviton you have to marry quantum gravity with GR gravity, you will be famous!! Otherwise all you say about us as conscious units that can collapse the waveform and envision the reality of our collective making is a pipe dream, invalid.


  404. robertallen1

    He seems to be using something which he does not fully understand to prove something which he understands even less which explains the gibberish.

  405. FundamentalClue

    Can I ask, what methods are used to measure quantum activity and how does that effect the system?

  406. FundamentalClue

    Also with your first counter to my post that particles don't have a definite location until they interact with the rest of the universe. What you said is still implied by the whole statement that was made. I copied a direct quote from a physicist and the link to the quote and the rest of the article that goes with it. If you disagree, you might want to inform the actual physicist I got the information from. Beside that, my statment was slightly misconstrued because I agree with what you say, but give myself fault for not being clearer.

  407. Patrick Donoahue

    I want to make a documentary called "Why I Don't Care Whether You Do Or Don't Believe in God or Whatever You're Going On About"

  408. FundamentalClue

    All the power to you.

    I'll be sure to make a documentary, reviewing your documentary and other sources, called "Ignorance At Its Finest"

  409. FundamentalClue

    By the way, if you haven't noticed, you just posted that comment in a forum whose main function was to discuss the existence or irrelevance of God. Just an observation

  410. Achems_Razor


    Here you go, knock yourself out.

    Measurement in quantum mechanics.


  411. robertallen1

    So who or what's stopping you?

  412. FundamentalClue

    Thanks :) I was hoping to find a description of the actual procedure scientistists undergo and the apparatuses they utilize, but informative nonetheless. It points out a couple things I was guessing at:
    "...despite the considerable philosophical differences, they almost universally agree on the practical question of what results from a routine quantum-physics laboratory measurement."
    "...Nevertheless, there remains less than universal agreement among physicists on some aspects of the question of what constitutes a measurement."
    "...The question of whether (and in what sense) a measurement actually determines the state is one which differs among the different interpretations of quantum mechanics. (It is also closely related to the understanding of wavefunction collapse.)"

  413. Vlatko


    Of course you're not clear (intentionally or not). Particles are not literally in many places at once.

    Don't dance around. Have your say about the latest discoveries in quantum physics. It turns out you can "observe" particle and wave-like behavior at the same time.

    @Achems gave you a link on what is "measurement" and you still dance around. It is clear that your consciousness is not "measuring" neither "observing" the photons in the experiment.

    Ask any physicist whether your consciousness decides what happens at quantum level and you'll get a laugh, nothing else.

  414. oQ

    This thread makes me wonder how REAL physicists go about having conversations between themselves. Do they only talk about what is already suggested and if not, how do they dare suggest the unsuggested.
    What do they answer each other when that happens? "prove it".
    Before anyone jumps on me saying that Fundamentalclue IS NOT a physicist, just know that i suspect (not to say know) that myself.
    What is interesting on TDF threads is that when someone write something already suggested by science, he's (few she's) acclaimed and given a like and often times the exchange stops right there.
    But when someone suggest something not suggested by science, he's (few she's) ridiculed and the posts keep coming.
    In a way if we all repeated and copy/paste what science has already published this would be a very boring blog.
    Fundamentalclue may not be right but i must say he is very entertaining and in a way pushes people to think for themself or at least pushes his mind to think for himself.
    Who knows what the readers may learn from his participation, but what is sure is that everyone may get a bit of this and that...i was the first to encourage his conversation many days ago. Success!

  415. robertallen1

    Those who suggest something not suggested by science are in general those who, like FundamentalClue, know little or nothing about their topic, and thus deserve the ridicule.

  416. oQ

    That's an opinion you have suggested NUMEROUS times. I could copy/paste from many threads.
    I happen to think that FundamentalClue although not a physicist has a great interest in Quantum this and that....and has done a lot of reading (perhaps more than you have done).
    He seem to push aside the idea of a (classical) GOD but keeps a hand on the idea that consciousness may have been before matter.
    There are scientists in theoritical physic who seem to have pondered on that also.
    I do find it interesting to read about one's personal view, i also find it interesting to read Achems, who most of the time will repeat word to word what is already written in science articles. Both make me think.
    I must admit though, i get the feeling Achems does not dare to extrapolate (hypothesize) from the already suggested theories of sciences perhaps by fear of being ridiculed by TDF or may be just a lack of imagination. His very earlier posts used to denote more freedom.

  417. robertallen1

    Comtrast the lucidity of those who have responded to FundamentalClue, such as Vlatko, Achem and Epicurus, to the gibberish which emanates from this poster, a clear sign that he does not understand what he thinks he does.

    Being either encapsulations or direct quotes from the scientific mainstream (the only sources that matter), Achem's contributions to this thread, along with his scientific knowledge (complete with extrapolations therefrom). have enhanced this thread to no end,far outstripping anything uneducated little you has to offer.

  418. Vlatko


    Everything would have been OK if the proposed was not completely ridiculous. It is juts a new age stuff. Nothing new, nothing that will push people to think for themselves, not at least in a rational scientific way. In fact that is why you like it.

    It is enough one to pick up a book by Watts, Osho, Krishnamurti, Gurdjieff, Eckhart, Deepak, etc. and read a few lines at random. All the same cliches used over and over again, just slightly repackaged.

    I'm afraid creationists are also starting to use this vehicle (consciousness) to justify their claims.

    Nothing new happens in that domain. What was said almost a century ago by these "new agers" stays the same without any kind of progress whatsoever. What is interesting, many more messiahs sprout every day like mushrooms willing to sell their "snake oil" to the gullible.

    Science is the hard and the boring way for most of the people. Who is willing to spent a day (or a lifetime) doing mathematics and physics? It is just too damn hard. Why would you do that when someone can give you an "instant magic". Consciousness created matter." Voilà.

  419. Pysmythe

    I agree he's entertaining, but have you, has anyone, noticed that he hasn't even really attempted to answer ANY of the questions I've asked him? Busy or not, his earlier posts were of some length, so I'm not so sure I buy that as a good enough reason now, all of a sudden. I suspect I haven't heard anything because I'm certain those questions can't BE answered with anything like certitude, which is precisely why I asked them. I'm not an expert in quantum physics... but the man actually plainly states that our brains are incapable of originating consciousness, and I have a real difficulty with that. I mean, that IS a BIG claim, isn't it? You'd better be prepared to back something like that up with one terrific argument, something a lot more substantial than any kind of clever deductive chain of reasoning, which in and of itself gives the lie to the very claim he's making, as far as I can tell. I'm not academically astute enough in the subject to make an effective argument utilizing quantum physics (and I'm not really convinced Clue is, either), but I'm glad there are those here who can, which is why I gave their comments a like. So... I'm stuck with what questions I feel qualified to ask, and thus far haven't received any direct response.

  420. Achems_Razor


    "I don't dare to extrapolate (hypothesize)"?? well then you were not around when I had major battles with @Hate Machine: over quantum theory. I almost got stuck in the rabbit hole. I do not think anyone of us could even argue like that anymore on TDF. lol

    I have just learned more over the years since my days of delving into New Age gunk. I can guarantee you the latest scientists know more about this subject than all of us put together.

  421. oQ

    Good reply!...

  422. oQ

    I may have scrolled down too fast, but i don't see any replies to FundamentalClue from Epicurus, in fact Epicurus rarely adds anything to the subject of Quantum Physics as it is not his field of expertise.
    And you forgot Samuel and Over the edge and Kateye...lol
    I was at work this morning laughing to myself trying to imagine what replies i would get from people about my post.
    Glad to see Achems didn't get mad....i was trying to push him a bit for a testosterone booster.
    With you and Vlatko it's much easier. LOL

  423. FundamentalClue

    My post should be up soon, thanks for your patience.

    oQ, thanks for your comments :) You have a better grasp of where I'm coming from than the rest. I apologize Psymythe, I hope this next post answers those questions. Robert, nothing new from you. You seem to be more of a commentator than anything. Vlatko it's not just new age stuff. I am only going for the explanations that make most sense of everything. If an explanation only makes sense when excluding other relevant parts, it's not a full explanation. I choose to believe whatever answers the most questions with plausibility. Achem, I hope you find this next one entertaining. Sorry if I missed anybody, cheers!

  424. FundamentalClue

    Also another point Vlatko is that I haven't come to these conclusions from reading a few random lines. When I pick up a book I read it cover to cover. I often will re-read complicated material to come to an understanding before I continue, and... I like to keep an open mind... To ALL possibilities.

  425. robertallen1

    Another wall of jibber jabber which you term your theory of everything. You can't prove any of your claims, much less the existence of what you term the spiritual, except with philosophy which never proved anything. So once again, you have nothing to offer except your own bloated view of your intellectual abilities.

  426. robertallen1

    You're right, but at least I can write clearly and so can those with a lot more knowledge than you who have replied to you . One way or the other, I and a number of others on this thread know jibber jabber (and that's the polite term) when we read it.

  427. robertallen1

    Now, apologetics.

  428. Pysmythe

    Surely you can see you're making quite a number of HUGE LEAPS (as in: Assuming connections between phenomena) in this without ANY good reason for doing so, can't you?! In a large chunk of this, it seems to me you've thrown true deductive reasoning completely out the window! I don't wish to be rude... But, no, I can't say this answered my questions at all. On the other hand, now that you've spelled it out this way, I have to admit it does have exactly the appearance I suspected it would from the start.

  429. FundamentalClue

    I probably should have mentioned that the explanation I gave is not the end all - be all to my way of thinking. It's a philosophical viewpoint that CAN explain away the anomalies we can't wrap our heads around and leaves only thing for our heads to be wrapped around - the notion that awareness, at it's core, is a constant.

  430. FundamentalClue

    A universal constant.

  431. robertallen1

    The phrase began with "such as" which means that it was not intended to be all-inclusive. So while your accuracy is hardly anything to write home about, try a little harder in this direction next time. One way or the other, your last three lines indicate an underlying lack of sincerity in your former post.

  432. robertallen1

    As I've told you before, you do just fine. And you're right the latest scientists know more about quantum theory than all of us put together, including oQ and especially FundamentalClue who as you've probably noticed by now has posted a new wall of gunk "explaining everything."

  433. robertallen1

    Once again, philosophy never proved anything and you're going to have to do much better than your latest wall of unintelligibility.

  434. FundamentalClue

    Not even close! Please don't make comparisons between me and that guy. His interpretations of reality are very different from mine. Its similar to the difference in quantum theory interpretations. They both speak about quantum theory but their approaches differ and are therefore in contrast of eachother. I'd more aptly compare my relation to Carlos in this way.

  435. FundamentalClue

    Perhaps in most cases not unequivocal proof but it's nonetheless been at the core of intellectual progress.

  436. FundamentalClue

    I'm starting to get the feeling that most of you guys are just skimming through and tying my general phrases with something similar you heard before? Well don't please! Read with care and utilize critical thinking in my exact choice of phrasing. I have ground to stand on, but every aspect of what I said would take due care in explaining... Which once again would take a lot of space writing and time to do so. I'm happy to get into Semantics with you on this because it would seem necessary at this point. Unless anyone would care to take due diligence and explain exactly how and why what I am saying is gibberish or impossible or unintelligent or irrelevant or anything else you might be implying. And only in fair dispute I ask you also provide objective and empirical evidence to support your claims. Thank you :)

  437. FundamentalClue


    What I wrote was a start and a generalization of the overall premise. I am fully aware of the areas my descriptions conflict with modern rationale. But I do have good reason for making the connections I do. And deductive reasoning wasn't completely thrown out the window but the truth of the matter is, as we all know, no one has all the answers and there are holes in every theory no matter where you look. There are anomalies and enigmas in every conceivable interpretation of reality. Let me start by asking a sincere question: what exactly bothers you about my interpretation?

  438. FundamentalClue


    I know there are a lot of holes to fill in getting to a TOE. I'm happy to try and fill them through deliberation with you all. I'm also aware of my viewpoint being passed down to me with my own tweaks, but that statement includes everyone. No one on Earth isn't using passed down information tweaked to their own perception. Also a much better and credible source to eastern philosophies would be Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche. Look him up :)

  439. dewflirt

    So before the big bang there was nothing and then the nothing became aware of itself (how, why?) The awareness realised it was aware and that thought caused the big bang. From the big bang onwards, everything is just the same as science describes?
    Also, are we observers not already in the mix? We are no less part of everything than that which we observe, why try to make a theory of everything but miss us out of it? If things observed alter somehow, maybe that's how it should be? If you are in some way trying to measure something, the true or relevant measurement is the one you get whilst measuring. Doesn't matter what a thing does when you're not interacting with it, as long as it's behaviour is predictable while you are. Are we not supposed to be here, are we a spanner in the works? Hope that makes some sense :)
    Edit, Sorry forgot to ask, what about non conscious observers, or can the observed tell the difference?

  440. robertallen1

    ONe way or the other, it is still not proof.

  441. robertallen1

    It's gibberish because it is for the most part incomprehensible. Also, you haven't provided any empirical evidence so why should others?

    "I have ground to stand on but, every aspect of what I said would take due care in explaining." You sure seem to have a high opinion of yourself.

  442. robertallen1

    Let me ask you a sincere question. Why does everyone write clearly except for you?

  443. robertallen1

    Your first paragraph would make a great cartoon.

  444. Achems_Razor


    Good questions, in this link may lay some answers.



  445. Achems_Razor


    Alright, so you are a practising Buddhist? you could of said so right from the beginning.

    What does buddhism have to do with science though?

    Will put the link on for the others to peruse if they want.


  446. Pysmythe

    In this reply, you've really answered your own question to me. And like Achems said, what does all this have to do with science? But initially, you dressed up these fundamentally mystical ideas in the garb of scientific language to lend them credibility you've finally as much as admitted they don't actually have. It's all good if you're a Buddhist... But I do think it's very clear that what you've done here is the same thing many creationists are guilty of, in that you've taken a less than perfect or complete understanding of the science behind reality (as it's known so far) and attempted to use it to justify a belief about the nature of reality that you would claim is perfect and complete.

  447. dewflirt

    What a can of worms! Or maybe not, and even if we agree that the can of worms exists, maybe the can I see is not the same as yours! Now here I am in the 'real' world and chatting in a virtual world ...:)

  448. FundamentalClue


    Awareness is a constant in my view and expressed as a fractal. Which means that there never was a time where nothing became aware, it's infinite through time and space and so awareness simply always has been (even before time) and will be ever after (ad infintum) in both directions. Also as in the nature of fractal geometry we are all expressions of awareness on a different scale and are not separate from the over-arching awareness but autonomous and whole in our own right - once again keeping with the nature of fractal geometry. So I agree with the middle section o your post. I'm a little confused at the last question though. I'm pretty sure I can say with confidence that observation can only be made by something conscious. So I'm not sure what you mean by unconscious observation. Because interactions can and do occur without our observation. But if and until something conscious observes it, it remains unobserved.

  449. robertallen1

    Awareness is a constant in my view and expressed as a fractal . . . There never was a time when nothing became aware . . . " and just what does that have to do with geometric fractals which I've studied and "We are all expressions of awareness on a different scale and are not separate from the over-arching awareness but autonomous and whole in our own right" is sheer gibberish as is the remainder of your post. Why does everyone here write clearly except for you egotistically bloated little you?

  450. dewflirt

    Fractal consciousness, as in start as an ant and work your way up to the infinite consciousness? Reincarnation? Are you saying that as the consciousness grows that so does its influence on matter which changes its reality or its future realities?
    Non conscious, video or anything that records/measures :)

  451. oQ

    such as, still excludes Epicurus.

  452. oQ

    I can appreciate what you wrote here, i have been writing in this direction for quite a few years on TDF under a different name. Makes as much sense as saying there was no time before the big bang which is science's guess.
    Plus....what i like most is that it takes all RELIGIONS out of the equation.
    If the religious population (Miiiiiiiiiillions) could make a similar turn towards a new way to see our reality, it would be a very good step in the right direction.
    TOE? unproven, but certainly a better theory than God the man in the sky who will punish us for behaving like bad kids.

  453. Epicurus

    awareness requires a physical brain. where is there any evidence of consciousness or awareness outside of a brain?

  454. oQ

    Watch out TDF is addictive, it'll get you in trouble with the lady, just ask Pysmythe.
    Why is he impatient, he should know better with his kids and wife and music and projects and and and. lol
    So far 68 comments and still no one has admitted one truth out of all your posts. At least most seem to be able to read you by now, of course there is always the one exception...you know the one that likes to attack your intellectual ability. An ability that appears to be in good health to me.
    Nice to see you keep your calm.

  455. oQ

    Bingo, we finally got you to come for a chat.
    You'll have Robert brake dancing. lol

  456. robertallen1

    Obviuosly you're having a problem with simple English. "Such as" does nothing of the sort.

  457. robertallen1

    Considering the level of your education, you really have nothing to say.

  458. oQ

    "Comtrast the lucidity of those who have responded to FundamentalClue, such as.....Epicurus"
    Yes it does....simple English alright!
    But happy for you, he has landed!

    Contrast and obviously ...is also simple English.

  459. robertallen1

    And your point is?

  460. oQ

    scroll down, you'll see the point i made between your two eyes about Epicurus having responded to FundamentalClue. A point you were blinded by until now.

  461. robertallen1

    I still don't see your point.

  462. Pysmythe

    Are you getting just a tiny little bit snarky with me, missy? :)
    I started to tell Clue you'd take to these ideas like a duck to water. A good bit of it has you written all over it. Imaginative, but not...TOO...reliant... on the FACTS, sometimes. (sorry, lol)
    And, well... that's not always a bad thing, is it? From what I understand, the very greatest scientists ever, without any exceptions I can think of, had good intuition, good instincts... But it all eventually must come back around to what they can prove.

  463. Emanouel

    There is an interesting documentary here on "Top Documentary Films" regarding near- death experiences. A woman who needed brain surgery was considered clinically dead(with no brain waves) during the surgery. After the surgery, she was able to convey many details of the surgery such as the surgical tools used. The surgeon and theatre staff confirmed all this occurred and could not offer a rational explanation as to how the patient could be conscious of all the events in that operating theatre whilst being brain dead. Could this be evidence of consciousness or awareness outside of the brain?

  464. FundamentalClue


    This doesn't have to only do with science but science is definitely part of the discussion. Overall, this discussion is about whether "God" (in any definition) exists. I previously was using scientific theories to explain my point of view. Given I can't prove which interpretation of quantum theory is correct, I've opted to discuss the issue on a philosophical basis instead. Unless I missed something, I technically still have grounds with that scientific argument in some interpretations of quantum theory. And since none have been proven, all of them are on the table for dispute. Meaning my argument is still valid until all interpretations of quantum theory that allow for my argument are disproven outright.
    Now just because I know about meditation (and yes I do meditate) and provided a link to a Buddhist who's more qualified to define eastern philosophy, doesn't mean I'm a Buddhist. I have dabbled in Buddhism, Taoism, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Judaic beliefs, among others. On the science front I have studied physics, some chemistry, some biology, astronomy, cosmology, some psychology, sociology, history, among various other dabblings including philosophy. Besides, I don't know what you or others here know about meditation, but just in case some are not too aquatinted with it... I find descriptions of meditation (especially in the west) usually far off course. Meditation is an exercise for your mind, similar to exercising your muscles but instead, this kind of exercise is designed for your mind. If you practice meditating, your mind gets stronger in the same way your muscles get stronger. The faculty of the mind that is exercised in meditation is focus. In meditation you learn how to focus your mind. The object of focus in meditation is always the breath, for a number of reasons. For the purposes of this discussion two are more relevant than others: The breath is always happening in the present moment and breathing doesn't involve conscious thinking. Here's the basics without getting too technical. You sit down, close your eyes and focus on your breath (don't force the breathing just pay attention to it). The mind incessantly comes up with thoughts. Thoughts are a distraction. So if you have a thought in your mind you're not focused on your breath. Dismiss the thought and bring your attention or focus back to your breath. Rinse and repeat. The point of this is to strengthen your minds ability to focus and eliminate distracting thoughts that cloud judgement. After a few months or years, a time comes when you have the strength of mind to focus on the breath without thoughts distracting you, for long enough, that you get an actual glimpse of the real essence that is "you" the "observer", the one that is aware of the thoughts as they come and go. At this point you realize that you are not the thoughts but something else, something that is witnessing the thoughts. Beyond this, you can delve deeper into the "essence" of "you", which believe it or not, is thoughtless.
    So why did I explain all that, why is it relevant or important. Because of the problem of objectively studying the subjective experience. The scientific method falls apart at the seams of consciousness, so to speak. Regardless of what can be measured in the brain, none of it can be translated into the expansive awareness that is the human mind. Meditation however, is the practice of strengthening focus in order to move passed the incessant thoughts to a clearer experience of your essential conscious makeup. Years ago, after reading more about it, I eventually tried it myself. I've since become convinced there is no better way to study the "Subject" the "Observer" "Me" the "I Am". Also should mention there is a difference between the state of "I Am" and the identity of "Who I am".
    Outside those references, there's apparently a little paradox in neuroscience where the speed of transmission in the brain doesn't suffice for the speed of cognition (trying to find the article I read that in). I can't recall all the details but it was mentioning something along the lines of (and this is summarizing); neural transmissions travel at 120m/s and computer circuits have electrons traveling at half the speed of light. Meanwhile the most powerful computers ever created pale in comparison to the speed at which the brain actually resolves computations, not exclusively but also including, the resulting consciousness. As I understood it, the researcher/author of this article expressed a bewilderment at the fact, despite all the acquired knowledge of neurosciences and the complexity of neural networks.
    Also there was a documentary, probably on TDF somewhere, that spoke about tests regarding precognition (haven't double checked these ones, so if anyone has, please let me know). The test was setup with subjects sitting in front of a TV screen. The subjects had their brains and hearts being monitored. Pictures were displayed on a screen randomly. Some pleasant, some unpleasant. Apparently the subjects' brain would react up to 1 or 1.5s before the next slide came up. While the heart apparently reacted even sooner, a few seconds or so (sorry forget the exact number, been a while since I saw it). 
    So to wrap it all up, meditation is the best way to study the actual attributes of consciousness. There are still many questions and enigmas concerning the brain-mind problem. I personally hold fast to science but where science does not tread, I have to come up with my own educated, unbiased conclusions.

  465. robertallen1

    I notice you did not provide the name of the documentary.

  466. robertallen1

    I'll take the scientific method any day to your walls of groundless and meandering jibber-jabber. And speaking of groundless, you should first look up the reference before describing the article and if you can't find the reference, don't describe the article, the same with the documentary to which you allude.

  467. Emanouel

    "The day I died" ...

    ....is the name of the documentary for anyone interested

  468. Epicurus

    no it would more likely be evidence that our equipment to detect brain waves is not delicate enough.

  469. oQ

    Had to look up the word snarky. No, not even the tiniest bit (hum) but i will pinch you on the side with a joke or two.
    How about you?
    It takes a brain to see a brain, but what does it take to feel consciousness? What is consciousness? Perhaps no word exist to represent that dimensionality. How can it be proven as it is an individual fact to the one who ingress although to most a connectivity to all.
    It is not proven the same way that no-time is not proven. Who knows may be both will be proven simultanously....and may be not.
    TO me, it is an interesting way to focus my mind on a dot, the one on my personal i, and it happens that FundamentalClue has a way to describe in words a similar experience but i bet if we talked we would find that we have very different path.

  470. Pysmythe

    Absolutely! :) We've always been on good terms, and I certainly intend to keep it that way. I knew snarky wasn't really an accurate choice for what I meant, anyway, but I went ahead and chose it mostly because I think it looks and sounds funny... like a benign cartoon shark, all teeth and raised eyebrows.

    I LIKE Clue's latest post to me, because it's more of a specific answer to what I'd asked him. And "what is consciousness" is a very good question, indeed! I've got several things I need to take care of right now, but I intend to make some kind of contribution a little later on in the day.

  471. oQ

    Looking forward to that contribution....see i know you too are a busy man. lol
    I probably won't read it tonight as i am off to a get-together with a bunch of fun people.... busy too, but in a party way.....but if i do, i 'll make sure i don't answer anything until i'm totally sober.
    Snarky was ok but Missy was .....lol

  472. Pysmythe

    I may not even get around to it tonight. I'm kind of ragged out.

    Yeah, I was a little surprised you let missy pass the first time around, lol. But (no offense to Achems) it can't really be any worse than "toots," can it? :)

    edit- At least I'm sure I intended it affectionately.

  473. FundamentalClue


    As far as your rough description of fractal consciousness (as you framed it) is concerned, I believe there would be much more involved than the simplicity implied in your description. First off, all conscious organisms are part of the chain of developing consciousness built into the material framework, starting with the smallest I'm aware of which is a virus. Following that, there is a distinct difference between cognitive awareness, unconscious awareness and pure awareness (as I would label them). Cognitive awareness is just as implied, the cognitive processes of awareness; thoughts, feelings, rationality. Where unconscious awareness is related to the volition of consciousness with respect to the biological imperative. This form of consciousness is distinct because it is almost identical for all living organisms, whereas cognitive awareness is distinctly different in each organism as it matures and evolves. Finally, pure awareness is best described by those two very words. It stands as the platform in which unconscious and cognitive awareness stem from. It is, as eastern mystics describe it, emptiness. It could be referred to as a singularity (as long as it's not confused with black holes - it is used as an adjective).
    So I'd say that conscious is emulated and evolves, more so than grows. With regard to its influence on matter, I'd have to say, more or less, yes it does increase. This can get complicated to explain (and maybe I'll have to) but I'll save it for another post.
    As for reincarnation, I remain neutral. I haven't determined whether it is logically consistent to be an integral part of nature. I don't vote for or against the notion. I'm still contemplating...
    Lastly, no I don't believe video/recording/measuring equipment can observe, and therefore would not affect reality in the same way as conscious observation. These things don't possess awareness so they might be able to capture the experience or measurement of a moment in time but they nonetheless are inanimate, no capacity to be the observing entity.

  474. robertallen1

    " . . . all conscious organisms are part of the chain of developing consciousness built into the material framework, starting with the smallest I'm aware of which is a virus. Where is your proof?

    "Cognitive awareness is just as implied, the cognitive processes of awareness; thoughts, feelings, rationality. Where unconscious awareness is related to the volition of consciousness with respect to the biological imperative." Gibber-jabber.

    "This form of consciousness is distinct because it is almost identical for all living organisms, whereas cognitive awareness is distinctly different in each organism as it matures and evolves." Where is your proof?

    "Finally, pure awareness is best described by those two very words. It stands as the platform in which unconscious and cognitive awareness stem from. It is, as eastern mystics describe it, emptiness. It could be referred to as a singularity (as long as it's not confused with black holes - it is used as an adjective)." Where is your proof?

    "So I'd say that conscious is emulated and evolves, more so than grows." What you say doesn't count. It's what you can prove.

    "Lastly, no I don't believe video/recording/measuring equipment can observe, and therefore would not affect reality in the same way as conscious observation. These things don't possess awareness so they might be able to capture the experience or measurement of a moment in time but they nonetheless are inanimate, no capacity to be the observing entity." At least video/recording/measuring equipment produces physical evidence which is a lot better than anything you've come up with.

    By proof, I mean hard evidence, not some philosophical crap and not more gibber-jabber.

    Why is it that Dewflirt can write clearly and you can't? Is it because she has a good idea what she's writing about and you don't?

  475. oQ

    I am sober as i cautiously remained a good girl tonight. I have to work tomorrow and Saturday is often my busiest day depending on the "achalandage" tonight.
    Nothing like a nice comment to send me to sleep with a smile.
    Though i wonder what you will add to the thread....i bet FundamentalClue is on his toes too.

  476. oQ

    Achems' s TOOTs reminds me of Betty boob to which i have no ressemblance what so ever, but the character was originally created as an anthropomorphic French poodle and Achems knows i am French. Upon more reading on wiki , i also see that Betty Boop is regarded as one of the first and most famous sex symbols on the animated screen.
    lol...Ok...may be i'm not that sober.
    good night!

  477. Pysmythe

    I quote Daffy Duck (my personal favorite) in reference to Betty: "So round, so firm, so FULLY PACKED." (lol)

    I'm going to have to try to assemble whatever little bit I've got to add tomorrow. I've been sporting a low key headache for a few hours now, and my thinking has been pretty vague and diffuse all day. Honestly, though... that's kind of the default state for me, until I finally sit down and start writing something. And I'd like to give him a little bit more than the short and sweet I'm tempted to...
    I don't know, we'll see. There are a whole lot of people here who can (and have) comment(ed) on these things better than I can. And I could wish we had an actual neurologist or psychiatrist in the house to add to the discussion about consciousness, you know it? That would be bound to broaden everyone's understanding about the issue.


  478. Achems_Razor


    Right, Betty Boop is hot!

    Do you have an inkling of what Fundamental is talking about, I don't have a clue!

  479. dewflirt

    Sorry but I'm struggling to understand, now I have the impression that you are suggesting that all matter has consciousness and we as observers sort of enhance it? Why stop at viruses, why not inanimate objects too? If your fractal consciousness is infinitely big and infinitely small, does the big become so diluted as to become nothing and the small so small as to become nothing also? I struggle with the idea of nothing, isn't nothing a something? Wouldn't nothing need a place to be? What would a complete absence of everything be like, not light, not dark, not even see through! I bet even a vacuum or emptiness has...force fields in it or something physicsy and complicated :)

  480. robertallen1

    Neither does Fundamental.

  481. robertallen1

    You should not have to struggle to understand. If FC really wanted you or anyone else to understand, this poster would write clearly. As it is, this poster is simply trying to camouflage his inability to offer anything of substance through the use of dizzying amorphousness, giving the impression of a profundity which he lacks.

  482. dewflirt

    I know you're right but I grew up listening to stuff like this. It rankles me the same way it might for an atheist that has grown up in a religious community :)

  483. Vlatko


    That is basically trolling. Posting something (bait) and hoping, waiting, and imagining what kind of emotional response you'll provoke.

  484. robertallen1

    Your many posts have demonstrated you to be down-to-earth, level-headed and delightfully whimsical (must be the Irish in you). Unless the work in question is highly technical, i.e., requiring previous knowledge, such as a math text or a treatise on advanced physics or biology, if you with all your qualities can't understand it, it's not worth understanding.

  485. Vlatko


    As I've suspected. New age gibberish.

    You have been cornered about your deductive reasoning and your understanding of the quantum mechanics and you've decided to come out of the closet. And you did. Nothing new... just watch any clip with Deepak Chopra and you'll see an extreme resemblance with your post.

    Just a barrage of scientific terms mixed with words like "meditation", "subjective", "spirituality", etc.

    I wonder why people do that? But on the second thought it is clear. It makes money.

  486. robertallen1

    "Gibberish," my word exactly.

    Another reason: it creates a false sense of profundity.

  487. dewflirt

    Thankyou Mr Allen, that made me laugh, I really should be able to get my head around this though. Maybe I should light a joss stick and put Sounds of India on, set the mood :)

  488. robertallen1

    Your posts clearly indicate that you've already got your head around this. So there's no reason to argue with yourself, except of course whimsically.

  489. oQ

    How come you know so much about Deepak Chopra? Were you a fan at one time?

  490. Pysmythe

    Obviously, you are free to believe whatever you like, and to me it seems clear that with all this, in whatever way you've chosen to slice it, you haven't actually done anything more than that: Exhibited a belief. There's far too much still unknown about the mind for the extrapolations you've made based on altered states of consciousness (among other things) to be anything other than that. You mentioned all these religions you've studied, and I wonder if there isn't some part of you that has a need for something like this. You take the mystery of consciousness too far. Take the physical brain out of the equation, and how would it be possible to prove anything you've said?

    Don't you see the difficulty?

  491. Vlatko


    Yes, and not just him, but I was a fan of almost any new age guru you can think off. And I must say, their sermons are quite appealing (modern religion), until you really make an effort to cross check what they're actually saying.

  492. Pysmythe

    Have we lost you...?
    You should come back some time when you've got some free time and get into some other topics, if you're done with this one.

  493. FundamentalClue


       Evidence that awareness exists outside of the brain is in the correlations of all existence - reality's intrinsic value - the universal properties of purpose - the fact that, the conjunction between entropy and homeostasis is an axiom of intelligence and intelligence does not exist without the presence of awareness.
       This universe is comprised of parts from the size of quantum particles to galaxies. Each and every aspect ratio of this reality has a purpose, each also is subject to entropy and homeostasis. To surmise that the universe as a whole has no purpose or that human existence has no purpose is tantamount to declaring there is no reality. Of course reality exists! Of course the universe, as a whole, has purpose! Of course human existence has purpose too! If these two things didn't have a purpose, they'd be the only two things in all existence without purpose.
       The particular fact that we see consciousness arising from the material world has me surmising that consciousness is the most advanced spectrum of existence that has developed in this vast universe. This, among other things, points to a linear incline in the complexity of the universes functions. If those functions eventually spawned consciousness, there was a reason behind it. All this begs the question, "if everything exists for a reason and has a purpose, how can purpose and reason be supported without intelligence?"
       The whole universe and everything about it is a delicate intertwining . Each scale of parts exist as their own autonomous, homeostatic expressions (quantum particles, atoms, molecules, cells, organisms, planetary bodies, solar bodies, galactic bodies, galactic clusters,[potentially more scales in between], the whole universe). Yet each part, no matter which scale, is only a part in a larger homeostatic scale. This seems to be a common theme in nature, universally.
       If u ever grapple with the mathematics of nature, you know to look for patterns, sequences and processes (algorithms). Fractal expressions comprise a large portion of this. Following that logic, with all the evidence supporting it; it is relatively safe to assume that what we consider the universe as a whole, is but a homeostatic part in a larger expression of the greater whole.
       This follows just the same, with regard to awareness. Awareness can be witnessed in varying degrees in nature - from single celled organisms, to plants, to humans. There is a myriad of levels or expressions of awareness. Following the way awareness is expressed in this universe, it only follows "logic" (in the mathematical sense) that the universe's way of expressing awareness is a fractal - which means - as above, so below. 
       The parts, regardless of scale, always produce an expression of reality that transcends the properties of the scale at which the parts are made of. For example, quantum particles are a scale of reality that exhibit their own properties that are unique. They are the parts that create an atom which exhibits wholly different properties than that of quantum particles. Molecules transcend the properties of single elemental atoms, and so on.
       The same goes for the evolutionary increase in the expression of awareness in organic matter. Single-celled organisms (prokaryotes), are aware bundles of physical matter (which is miraculous in itself, in comparison to inanimate matter). They transcended their structure and abilities by eventually producing clustered communities which they collectively surrounded with a biofilm for mutual protection and increased awareness of the surrounding environment. Reaching a maximum capacity for mutual benefit, the clusters eventually did something miraculous by evolutionary standards - the transition between prokaryotic cells to eukaryotic cells occurred. I have yet to find any decent evidence detailing this transition. The birth of eukaryotic cells was the beginning to multi-celled organisms, such as plants and animals. 
       Each unique structural scale of reality has it's own list of purposes, the reasons for which it exists. This obviously includes the structure that all the parts are meant to make. Eventually all those parts transcend one another until consciousness emerges.
       Each and every scale of reality was a precursor to the eventual emergence of consciousness. The emergence of consciousness in physical reality was premeditated. The universe is designed to produce self-aware consciousness. As it was designed to produce living organisms, cells, molecules, atoms, quantum particles, dimensions, planets, solar systems, galaxies, and so on. Each and every last speck of the entirety of reality is designed...
       Now before you all go screaming at me about how I'm a proponent of intelligent design, know this. This universe was designed... And yes, some form of intelligence is responsible for it. But I'm not impressed myself with the explanations I've heard and read by those who support it. Every thing I've ever heard and read always falls short of explaining its own conclusions.
       I hope to do a better job of it, but it is a difficult and arduous topic to cover. Hopefully you're following me closely so far because it's the correlations with all that I say that paint the picture. Dissecting one comment I've made without incorporating the rest of what I've said is the usual rebuttal I'm dealing with, so please try and refrain from doing that, thank you.
       Trying to objectively study the subjective experience really is the crux of the situation here. Measuring brain waves, chemical processes and transmissions and the like...do not...in any way, suffice to address the expansiveness of human consciousness. The only way to argue this is to be ignorant of your own capacity for imagination, intuition, deep thought (contemplation, in the true sense) and thoughtlessness. What the brain does is translate an intangible signal into a physical one. The physical correspondents of brain matter produce networks and subsequent chemical reactions (that mind you, are made from smaller homeostatic parts that had the purpose of producing these very chemicals), that assimilate consciousness into physical substance.
       Seeing how awareness really is the underlying platform before anything else CAN come into existence, really is about seeing the correlations between multitudes of patterns and following the sequence. When you eliminate the impossible, whatever left, however improbable, must be the truth. Science never proved awareness could not be the precursor to physical reality - it just assumed it. Based on partial understandings of the intricate weave of reality. All of these assumptions ignore the placement of that which is making the assumption...themselves, in the overall scheme.
       Homeostasis and entropy. The two causal laws of this universe and the existence of reality. One without the other doesn't exist. At every scale and at every turn, homeostasis and entropy work hand in hand. Homeostasis takes clusters of disarray and binds them in organization and balance. Entropy takes organized, balanced clusters and throws them in disarray. The entire format of reality is based on these two principles.
       The conjunction between entropy and homeostasis is an axiom of intelligence. The methods utilized in all scales of reality to achieve homeostasis adhere to properties only described in terms of intelligence - Calculating, retaining, planning, problem solving, communication, creativity, learning, memory, etc.. At any given scale of reality and with any state of homeostasis, a number of these properties are at play in order to produce the organization and balance that characterizes this state. Entropy, on the other hand, is generally described as an expression of disorder or randomness. But before we get ahead of ourselves, let's keep in mind that in thermodynamics, the overall attribute of entropy is to produce thermal equilibrium (or homeostasis).
       This marriage between these two principles is an intelligent endeavor. This isn't about the "how" it works, which we humans are apt at solving, but "what" exactly "is" at work and "why" does it do what it does. The natural correspondence towards equilibrium is intelligent in itself. Scienctists struggle with this because all answers are always left to "how" things work not "why" things work. "It's simply a constant," they'll say, without endeavoring to discover how this constant exists at all; why it exists. "It's neither created nor destroyed" - oh that's an easy assumption to make. But where did it come from? Why does it exist? Why is it that the general, reductionistic, materialistic scientist cannot see the prevalence of his perceptive faculties in conjunction with the observed?
       What is logic and what is it, to perceive? Where does geometry come from without logical inception? Where does logical inception come from without intelligence? Where does intelligence come from without awareness?
       I'll leave you with these questions to answer before I continue. I need to know what you understand before I know how to explain the rest.

  494. FundamentalClue

    Don't remember which one. I watch a lot of documentaries Robert.

  495. Pysmythe

    It suddenly dawns on me that you read an awful lot like one Christopher Langan, both in style and content.
    Do you know who I'm talking about?
    You're not actually HIM, are you? :)

  496. FundamentalClue

    Was that directed at me Psymythe? I've never heard of him.

  497. FundamentalClue

    Any scientist trying to wrestle with the questions of consciousness without learning hot to engage their own conscious minds and study them is like holding your breath under water and trying to study the ocean. Not gonna happen! The method of meditation I described before is without question the best method for studying consciousness and the closest we can get to knowing what it is. Period.

  498. FundamentalClue

    What better way to know something other than experience?

  499. Pysmythe

    Not many people have, it seems. And he's a bit of a controversial figure among those that know about his work, to put it mildly. I admit I was being a bit cheeky with my post, but quite serious, too. Mr. Langan has developed a theory that he calls the 'Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe' that should be pretty easy to find online... I tried going through it about a year ago, and I admit it was just about completely beyond me in every regard, but... from what I could garner out of it, I have a feeling you would find his ideas very deeply fascinating... and quite possibly more than a little familiar.

    You really should look him up and see what you think. If you do, forget about the hype, the allegations of fraud, the "world's highest I.Q.," and all of that bullsh-t, and just go straight to the paper about the CTMU (I just checked, and Wikipedia has a link to it).

    edit- If you go to the CTMU link, on the homepage, at the bottom, you'll see the 'CTMU Primer' link. I do think it would be especially advisable in this case to look that over before moving on to the paper itself.

  500. FundamentalClue

    I notice in the first paragraph of the introduction, Berlinski already missed the bigger picture: Where does the information come from to produce collectively encoded molecules in the first place?
    He takes notice that a part of matter must interact with and read a corresponding part of matter, otherwise formation is meaningless. that's all fine and well but... Where did the language come from? What was controlling what meaning was given to repeating patterns of four amino acids? What characteristics do these acids have that give them a quality suited for information encoding... And what determined that?

  501. robertallen1

    More jibber jabber. Not one word of this makes any sense which means you don't know what you're talking about.

  502. robertallen1

    Then don't refer to a documentary if you don't know which one it is.

  503. robertallen1

    More jibber jabber in an attempt to gloss over your own ignorance.

  504. Epicurus

    im sorry but im in the last month of this semester at school and after reading your first two paragraphs, i figure it will be a waste of my time to read the rest.

    basically be more lucid and concise.

  505. FundamentalClue

    Robert, until you retain any critical thinking skills, I would advise you don't even bother reading my posts. I've done way too much study in a large array of subjects to be slandered by someone as nieve and ignorant as you.

  506. FundamentalClue

    The problem Epicurus is that there's way too much to cover. I've spent time to write it, I would appreciate you taking th time to read it. I have a personal life that keeps me up 20hrs a day almost 7 days a week for yrs now. I don't exactly have free time either. If anything skip to the last half of it

  507. Epicurus


    "What is logic and what is it, to perceive? Where does geometry come from without logical inception? Where does logical inception come from without intelligence? Where does intelligence come from without awareness?"

    geometry is merely a mathematical system used to describe the relationships of shapes and such. there is no physical GEOMETRY that exists. it is just an explanation or a way of understanding a certain type of phenomenon.

    "Evidence that awareness exists outside of the brain is in the correlations of all existence "

    what do you mean by "the correlations of all existence?" and how does that lead on to conclude an awareness outside the brain?

    "This universe is comprised of parts from the size of quantum particles to galaxies. Each and every aspect ratio of this reality has a purpose, each also is subject to entropy and homeostasis."

    depends on what you mean by purpose. sure they play a role. but purpose can imply intent.

    "To surmise that the universe as a whole has no purpose or that human existence has no purpose is tantamount to declaring there is no reality. "

    no it is not.

    "Of course reality exists! Of course the universe, as a whole, has purpose! Of course human existence has purpose too! If these two things didn't have a purpose, they'd be the only two things in all existence without purpose."

    not true. once again i think you are equivocating the term "purpose"

    "The particular fact that we see consciousness arising from the material world has me surmising that consciousness is the most advanced spectrum of existence that has developed in this vast universe. "

    why does that lead you to surmise THAT? and what are the other spectrums of existence?

    "This, among other things, points to a linear incline in the complexity of the universes functions. If those functions eventually spawned consciousness, there was a reason behind it."


    " "if everything exists for a reason and has a purpose, how can purpose and reason be supported without intelligence?""

    but not everything exists for a reason or has a purpose.

    "This follows just the same, with regard to awareness. Awareness can be witnessed in varying degrees in nature - from single celled organisms, to plants, to humans. "

    this is where im sure you are equivocating awareness as plants and single celled organisms do not have awareness. they merely react to stimuli. wouldnt one need a sense of self to be aware?

    " They transcended their structure and abilities by eventually producing clustered communities which they collectively surrounded with a biofilm for mutual protection and increased awareness of the surrounding environment. "

    you completely anthropomorphized single celled organisms. well done. unfortunately it is not true that they did those things because they were AWARE.

    and now you can see why i didnt want to read the entire thing.

    it all sounds like arguments from incredulity to me. thats fine. make your assumptions and leaps of faith. i will admit that we dont know.

  508. robertallen1

    Considering all your study on a large array of subjects, why is it you don't know the difference between slander and libel and why they don't apply to this matter?

    Considering all your study on a large array of subjects, why can't you spell naive?

    Considering all your study on a large array of subjects, why can't you write clearly? See Epicurus' latest response to you.

    Considering all your study on a large array of subjects, why do you keyboard such gigantic walls of text which say absolutely nothing?

    I ask these questions because my critical thinking skills lead me to conclude that you're a phony plain and simple. You're not fooling anyone on this thread and don't worry, I'll keep watching for your posts and commenting as I think appropriate.

  509. robertallen1

    Did it ever occur to you that:

    1. Epicurus is too busy constructively studying to give your twaddle any of the head-of-the-line consideration you feel it deserves? While I disagree with him on several issues, I have no problem understanding him, but he and I, along with a number of others, have a problem making heads or tails out of your gibber jabber.

    2. Nobody cares about your personal life, so you really don't need to use it as an excuse.

    P.S. Have you ever watched the documentary "The Four Horsemen," with Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris? They don't speak in gibber jabber and they're far more educated than you.

  510. robertallen1

    A fine rebuttal (or at least a partial one considering that you did not respond to the entire post--and I can see why). However, I would like to add:

    1. The word "geometry" denotes not only the mathematical system employed to describe objects, but the shape of the object itself as in "The object has a pleasing geometry." In this sense, there is a physical geometry. One way or the other, the "logical inception" described by FundamentalClue puts the cart before the horse.

    2. "This universe is comprised of parts from the size of quantum particles to galaxies. Each and every aspect ratio of this reality has a purpose, each also is subject to entropy and homeostasis." As this assertion is based on nothing, a definition of the term "purpose" is irrelevant.

    3. "To surmise that the universe as a whole has no purpose or that human existence has no purpose is tantamount to declaring there is no reality." This is a textbook example of non sequitur. What does no purpose have to do with no reality?

    4. "Of course reality exists! Of course the universe, as a whole, has purpose! Of course human existence has purpose too! If these two things didn't have a purpose, they'd be the only two things in all existence without purpose." "Of course" doesn't cut it, even in terms of reality which exists by definition. By contending that if the universe and human existence didn't have purpose, they'd be the only two things in all of existence that didn't, he is claiming not only he can distinguish the purposeful from the purposeless, but that he has considerable experience in this regard with everything in the universe.

    5. "If everything exists for a reason and has a purpose, how can purpose and reason be supported without intelligence?" Another non sequitur, this time couched as a questionm which renders the existence of reason and purpose irrelevant. Even the contrapositive makes about as much sense: If there were no reason or purpose to everything, intelligence would not be needed to support them.

    In short, the poor man's Depak Chopra (if there is such a thing)

  511. Achems_Razor


    Tom Cambell, "Expert on consciousness"?? I will try to watch your link, but it smells of snake oil! new age gunk.

  512. Giacomo della Svezia

    Might seem strange to react to a comment already a month old but I only stumbled upon it today.
    I can agree completely on the subjective experience being the only reliable experience we, as individuals, can have.
    Also the discrimination between what 'I' am and who 'I' am is as I see it as well.
    I hesitate to agree on the awareness or consciousness existing before the universe came to be. The universe is that vast and we are next to nothing compared with it I wouldn't dare to make such presumptions.
    Don't compare the human mind with computers. Before you know it they do everything faster than we can, but we have one advantage: we can experience it, computers can't.
    Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

    Forgot to mention: I came to the same idea that you had: that time is a delusion, just as quantum mechanics tell us.

  513. Achems_Razor

    Yes, a lot of physicists say that spacetime is an
    complete illusion, but per @FundamentalClue: link, when a person such as 'Tom Cambell' says in his intro that he is a consciousness expert. I halt to even look at his link, don't like to waste my time. There is no consciousness expert! That means Cambell has TOE. Want to see his published peer reviewed papers in that regard.

    Have dealt into basically everything pertaining about all the new age scenario, eastern philosophy about consciousness et al. And what you are suggesting about your quantum consciousness is "Quantum Woo" that "woomeisters" fall back on. NOBODY knows the answers.

  514. robertallen1

    Philosophy never answered anything and by the scientific definition of theory, TOE is an impossibility. Hoever, if we gathered together everything currently known about everything and came up with what we thought was a unifying theory (TOE), any new discovery in one area would probably cause our TOE to topple like a house of cards, forcing us to start all over again--and from what?

  515. Achems_Razor

    I agree, philosophy bakes no bread.

    And probably if they found 'TOE' it would instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. So would have to start all over again.

  516. robertallen1

    The second paragraph sounds a little like quantum mechanics, particle physics and string theory all baked into one.

  517. FundamentalClue

    To say that the universe is vast and we are next to nothing compared with it, only takes into account the physical size of our bodies in relation to the physical size of the universe. But since we are speaking about consciousness, I believe it's more accurate to say that you can't make any relations to it regarding size. Consciousness is non-physical and therefore is not subject to being described in terms of size. Your consciousness might be localized inside your head but its potential for expansivenes is only limited by our imagination, i believe. What it is exactly, in relation to the physical universe, is still a mystery.
    As far as computers are concerned, the most powerful super-computers in the world may make computations faster than the conscious mind but pale in comparison to its total computational power. No computer anywhere can do anything remotely as complicated as the human mind.
    And thanks for sharing your thoughts too

  518. FundamentalClue

    Halting to look at information only inhibits your ability to form a stronger position for your beliefs. I don't always like or agree with the information I rummage across but I have to look at what I'm disagreeing with in order to know why I position myself with the beliefs I hold. Otherwise I'm just agreeing with someone else's opinion without forming my own.
    Also, look at the credentials of someone before deciding whether they have anything of value to offer. I don't think it's wise to automatically ignore the opinions of a person who does large systems simulations and risk analysis for one of the worlds largest and prestigious science organizations, NASA. Because if his opinions were not of high quality he'd be an immense risk to his own line of work, which would quickly run him out of work. You can't do risk analysis and not be credible.

  519. FundamentalClue

    If philosophy never answered anything could you please explain to me what Platonic ideals are doing at the roots of modern science. If you don't believe me inquire into what Sir Roger Penrose, professor of mathematics at the university of Oxford, thinks about philosphy's role in modern science

  520. FundamentalClue

    I do however agree that a complete TOE is an impossibility and that any attempt at one will always have to rely on at least a few assumptions. The best test for this, of course, is achems razor. Because the answer with the fewest assumptions or the fewest contradictions is likely to be the "correct" or more technically the best one.

  521. robertallen1

    Your "Platonic ideals" are simply codifications, nothing more. They are not science.

  522. FundamentalClue

    I wasn't implying that they are science. What I was implying is that philosophy does provide some answers. Mainly a format with which to utilize reason in the search for truth. All I was saying is that philosophy, far from being abstract, is of great use to modern science in its quest for the truth. And aren't codifications basically clarifications? Which in a technical sense is answering something. Just wondering

  523. robertallen1

    Tell me what direct contributions philosophy has made to biology, physics, chemistry, etc.? The only people whose contributions are worth anything are the doers.

    Now, what "truths" has philosophy come up with?

  524. FundamentalClue

    The main assertion of platonism is of the existence of abstract objects. That in itself is a widely accepted "truth". This "truth" came directly as a result of philosophy, not science.
    The understanding of the existence of abstract objects has led to the development of many disciplines, i.e., numbers, sets, truth values, properties, types, propositions, and meanings. These faculties have developed mathematics and the discernment of language.
    Without the knowledge of abstract objects, where would mathematics be today? And if that never developed to the extent that it has, where would our other disciplines of biology, physics and chemistry be today? Without the knowledge of abstract objects our view of modern physics would not exist. Likewise, the acceptance of abstract objects has allowed our mental capacities to form the field of psychology by giving us the wherewithal to understand the mirage of things occurring in the psyche. The list goes on...

  525. robertallen1

    And just what is an abstract object as opposed to an abstraction?

  526. FundamentalClue

    They are similar concepts and the word "abstraction" is used with abstract objects. The main difference between the two, I believe, is that abstraction is more acutely defined as a process and abstract objects are the concepts that abstraction is processing. All in all, seems like two sides of the same coin

  527. Giacomo della Svezia

    Everyone is his own concsciousness expert. : )
    No one can say with certitude that his perception of consciousness is exactly the same as someone else's, because consciousness is a purely subjective experience.
    I watched some videos of Eckhart Tolle some time ago, but I didn't find them very instructive. I will take a peek at mr Campbell's videos in spite of him saying he's an expert.

    What did I suggest about "Quantum consciousness"? The term is unfamiliar.

  528. Giacomo della Svezia

    No, I didn't just mean our physical size. My consciousness is limited as everyone else's. One cannot begin to conceive the vastness and complexity of the universe and there's nothing wrong with my imagination.
    What would you say concerning the (larger) part of the universe we cannot see because its light hasn't had the time to reach us? Maybe we can travel there with our imagination, but then we still don't know an iota of what is there.
    Science has given us some insight. I take my virtual hat off to the work of all the astronomers and physicists that made this possible. Their efforts really helped me develop my ideas.

  529. Achems_Razor

    You were suggesting Quantum Woo.


  530. Achems_Razor

    Sorry, but to put your post on, had to eliminate your link which went nowhere, you may put a more viable link on if you want.

  531. robertallen1

    Therefore an equation is both--seems to be a difference without distinction.

  532. robertallen1

    So do I, as these people are the doers.

  533. FundamentalClue

    Oh ok, sorry I misread you.
    I agree our consciousness is limited. Though I do believe there is much we can do to minimize those limits.
    I get your point too. Understanding the vastness and complexity of the universe is an ongoing challenge that will continue for a long time, perhaps indefinitely.
    On that note, What do you think about the vastness of human consciousness?

  534. Giacomo della Svezia

    I didn't mean to: My thoughts about consciousness led me to the idea that time may be an illusion. Later I read in the NewScientist and elsewhere that time does not exist on the quantum level. I will call it a coincidence until I find out it is not, which may never happen.

  535. Giacomo della Svezia

    There's no need to apologise.

    I think the consciousness of the individual increases. Meditation may be a way of speeding up this process, but so far I haven't had success with it, so I can't say that with certainty.
    Given my personal experience with self-awareness, I am contemplating about buddhism, but before I venture further I really want more certainty by finding things out for myself.

  536. robertallen1

    To attempt to find out things for yourself is admirable and you'll achieve more success if you stay in the temporal realm.

  537. Giacomo della Svezia

    I'll admit right away I didn't start there. I've always wanted to believe in the supernatural, but the conditio sine qua non has always been there must be a firm basis in reason and possibly facts for what I allow myself to believe. The supernatural phenomena haven't survived scrutiny. Our consciousness or self-awareness is the only non-material phenomenon left to be explained by science, if possible.
    Religious experiences have been explained adequately by neuropsychologists like Oliver Sacks, whose books I appreciate very much. Consciousness is still a mystery, I'm certain.

    Edit: Did anyone else here read his latest book about hallucinations? I found it a 'revelation'. ; )

  538. robertallen1

    Conquering your desire to merely believe by judging from the facts and drawing well-reasoned conclusions therefrom is beyond admirable.

  539. Giacomo della Svezia

    To be honest: it didn't take any effort. I may have lost something but I got something in return that is worth more.
    Maybe people are inclined to religion or to reason, by birth, education, or something else - I don't know, but it seems to me an interesting field of enquiry. : )

  540. FundamentalClue

    As Robert pointed out your approach is admirable. I hope you find success in your ventures. I have studied Buddhism and meditation from a skeptical but open-minded point of view, starting a little over a decade now. Success with it took some considerable time. As Eckhart Tolle says, "the incessant thinking of the mind is an obstacle not easily overcome."
    I practiced breathing meditation for months before I was able to control the focal point of my mind and keep it from being distracted constantly. It took almost two years before I experienced what Buddhists refer to as emptiness. It is, from my experience, a life changing experience. I feel that my view of consciousness has forever changed since that first experience. Through all the literature concerning meditation, I found a book titled, "Turning the Mind Into an Ally", a simple and concise book to follow. I would urge all serious thinkers to take up the practice of meditation. Not for some mind shattering experience, but to raise their strength of focus. Beyond any potential mystical experiences (if that's even a good way to phrase it), I feel breathing meditation is very practical for strengthening the mind's ability to focus and concentrate without being distracted. Which is beneficial to anyone who uses their mind to think ;)... Which should be just about everyone :)

  541. FundamentalClue

    In furthering my comments regarding philosophy and science:

    "if you believe that philosophy has nothing to do with science, then what you are saying is that rational thinking is not necessary (or even possible) for scientists."

    "Consider the following seemingly simple questions. What is a 'law of physics'? Are the laws of physics real? If they are real, then why can't you touch them or perceive them like other physical objects? If you say they are not real, then why can't you make up your own law of physics in any way you please, as if you were writing a novel? When attempting to answer these challenging questions, we will soon find ourselves entering into the realm of ancient philosophy. Any philosopher or physicist who says that such questions are meaningless will be admitting ignorance about some of the most important questions underpinning the whole discipline of physics. Even the claim that philosophy is irrelevant to physics is itself based upon philosophical assumptions."

    - John H Spencer - The Eternal Law: Ancient Greek Philosophy, Modern Physics and Ultimate Reality

    >> "Enormously Refreshing" - Sir Roger Penrose

  542. robertallen1

    The reason we can't make up our own laws of physics is because doing so would put the cart before the horse. Nothing difficult or profound about that and nothing particularly compelling about the quote, i.e., nothing to show that physics needs philosophy, much less the ancient Greek type.

  543. Giacomo della Svezia

    I'm not sure a connection is necessary, but my guess is there is one.
    In my view philosophy is thinking about what we think, the way we think and why. That must have an influence on the way we practice things like science, which is not only research, but thinking rationally or critically before, during and after the experiments and research, to prevent making mistakes in the procedures and to come to well founded conclusions.

    I think the questions in the quote are wrong. Laws of physics are not physical objects, but they are real. We cannot perceive the laws themselves, but we can perceive the phenomena that are described in those laws.
    One can make up any law of physics, but wether it can predict anything regarding a phenomenon remains to be seen.

  544. FundamentalClue

    I wasn't actually posing that as a question. And why would you choose to reply to the most inconsequential part of the quotes?
    The first quote sets the stage for the point I'm getting, which is one point that could be discussed.
    The second quote is just one example (of many) of areas that concern philosophy and not science. In the second quote, the first two questions are pertinent (What is a 'law of physics'?/Are the laws of physics real?). The other two questions are only consequential questions that arise from the original second question (Are the laws of physics real?). Regardless, the book is a good read. And not just in my opinion, many prominent academics like it too. You should pick it up.
    In response to your comment, you did come to the same conclusion most of us would agree on, albeit using a simple metaphor that could use some clarification to avoid misinterpretations. But since we agree, I think it's hardly necessary.
    Unfortunately you seem to have some misunderstanding as to what exactly philosophy is. The first quote points to the problem with this assumption.

    Philosophy is a study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality and existence.

  545. FundamentalClue

    The author never claims the laws of physics are physical objects, he just poses the question. He actually continues on a similar path of rational thinking that you are expressing. With what you wrote in your comment, I believe you would find the author's perspective rather refreshing and perhaps enlightening. I encourage you to read the whole book, it's actually quite good. As I said in my earlier comment, many academics enjoyed this book including Sir Roger Penrose, professor of mathematics at the university of Oxford - whose opinions I hold in high esteem, but don't necessarily agree with all his beliefs.

    Also, I personally enjoyed 'A Brief History of Everything' by Ken Wilber. An honest display of rational thinking.

  546. FundamentalClue

    In a sense, philosophy is rational thinking.

  547. robertallen1

    If I'm looking for the cure for a disease or exploring some new avenue in physics or biology, I'm first going to consult the doers, not the philosophers.

    As for the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality and existence, one guess is as good as another.

  548. robertallen1

    Or when it comes to someone like Leo Strauss, irrational thinking.

  549. FundamentalClue

    That's great! I'm glad you can make that distinction. I wouldn't go to a philosopher for cures either. Nor would I expect a philosopher to be an expert in physics or biology, though many are. Yet I wouldn't hold back from consulting a philosopher about the rationale behind theories in those fields, if he or she specializes in that field of science. But that has nothing to do with the fact that philosophy underpins the arena of scientific inquiry. And the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality and existence can't be as good as anyone's guess because that would end the sciences right then and there.

    I'm not familiar with the work of Leo Strauss

  550. robertallen1

    I do not see why I would ever need to consult anyone regarding the rationale behind theories in certain scientific fields, but if I did, I would consult only the doers.

    The last sentence of your first paragraph is a non sequitur.

  551. FundamentalClue

    Adamantly denying yourself knowledge will never serve you. As I said to Achems_Razor, halting to look at information only inhibits your ability to form a stronger position for your beliefs. I'd like to know why you object to knowledge offered by philosophers? You should consider that most arguments you have, involve at least one aspect of philosophy. So using philosophical statements and assumptIons doesn't bother you, just admitting that they're of use is?

    And I don't involve non sequiturs anywhere in my comment. I'd like to know how you came up with that rationale.

  552. FundamentalClue

    Btw, your last comment reads a lot more like a non sequitur than anything I wrote.

  553. robertallen1

    The only knowledge worth talking about comes from the doers not the philosophers.

    "And the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality and existence can't be as good as anyone's guess because that would end the sciences right then and there." Just what does one thing have to do with the other?

  554. FundamentalClue

    Who exactly are the doers? And how do you exempt philosophers from that position? Considering everything they've contributed for us to even be in the rational frame of mind we all so avidly admire.

    When I made the statement about, "the fundamental nature of...", I was responding to you saying that one guess is as good as another regarding these fundamental concepts. If that were true, there would be no way to gain knowledge, because everyone's just guessing. We couldn't utilize reality to our benefit, i.e., technology, because guessing about reality wouldn't provide any substantial information to base technology from. And the nature of existence is under investigation by some of the greatest minds on earth; let's hope they're not just guessing.

  555. robertallen1

    The doers are simply the hands-on people--and this exempts philosophers. As for a rational frame of mind, the philosophers were merely codifiers. So you are putting the cart before the horse.

    There is a fine way to gain scientific knowledge--empiricism which involves no guesswork at all and the conclusions to be drawn therefrom. We don't need philosophers to tell us the distance from the sun to the earth or even how to calculate it. We don't need philosophers to help us find cures for whatever diseases assail us or even how to go about it.

    And when it comes to the nature of existence, guessing is all these "greatest minds on earth" are doing--by the way, who are these "greatest minds on earth" and how do we know that they are the "greatest minds on earth?"

  556. Giacomo della Svezia

    Although I'm not a 'professional' philosopher, I take the most important rule of philosophy at heart: know yourself. I'm thinking rationally about the nature of existence, therefore I will never allow myself to guess.

  557. quisanum

    To shift naive trust from religion to science, the modern day religion, is not a viable solution to the troubles of humankind. Research everything, find your own answers the best you can, question the motivations of 'leaders', trust only your conscience and reasoning, do not blindly follow. (Incidentally there is ample paleanthropological and archaeological evidence that Neanderthals, a now extinct human species, although their physique somewhat differed from that of, say Cro Magnon, were in no way inferior as to their inventiveness and capabilities in the use of tools, fire, even music and burial rituals. They also had more brain than most people around today. We are in no position to deride them only because someone obviously succeeded in killing them off. If we are not very careful, we might share their fate - read Agenda 21, eugenics program of elitists, and all their plans already in use to bring about a scientific global tyranny with a drastically culled down destitute world population that will have no rights, no privacy and no say in whatsoever).

  558. oQ

    Thank you, i had not seen this conference.
    Your comment says it all.

  559. FundamentalClue

    Thanks oQ! I appreciate it :)

    I just want to add to my previous comment by saying a few more words.

    When people are reluctant to view information in detail that they currently disagree with, they form a bias that becomes ever more difficult to overturn. And not because they are correct, but because they are closed to informing themselves of contradictory ways of thinking and in that way become ever increasingly uninformed overall. I often notice those who argue opposing views stick to arguing about the most rudimentary ideas they oppose - the ones that are obviously wrong and wouldn't take anyone with much intellect to understand the flaw in that particular way of thinking. To fully understand the correctness or incorrectness of an idea, one must be willing to go deep into the trenches of another's way of thinking.

  560. robertallen1

    If an idea is unscientific, such as creationism, that's as far as you need to go.

  561. FundamentalClue

    Lol Robert! That depends on how you define creationism. If by creationism we assume the universe is only 6 thousand years old, then yes we need not go further... Because that assumption is ridiculous! Not to mention that it is unsubstantiated and based on more than a few assumptions. If however, by creationism we mean that something created this universe outside the laws of physics, then we are still on track to explore the possibility. Because wherever this universe came from, it had to come from outside space-time and therefore may be a product of something outside the laws of physics as we know them.

  562. robertallen1

    Maybe doesn't count. A fact is a fact and a conjecture is a conjecture and ne'er the two shall meet, except in the creationist's mind and obviously yours. "Because wherever this universe came from, it had to come from outside space-time and therefore may be a product of something outside the laws of physics as we know them."

  563. FundamentalClue


    Are you always this antagonistic?

    Despite your opinion, every serious scientist would admit to this unknown and very possible dilemma concerning our limit to knowledge and understanding

  564. robertallen1

    The unkown of today is the commonplace of tomorrow. So what? You have tried to pass off conjectures as facts. Let me refresh your memory. "Because wherever this universe came from, it had to come from outside space-time . . ."

    Now, how do you know this about "every serious scientist" or is it just another of your conjectures?

  565. FundamentalClue

    This universe is comprised of everything in space-time... Including space-time itself! In order for the universe of space-time to come into existence, an obvious "fact" at this point becomes that the initial cause must be outside of space-time.

  566. robertallen1

    And just where is the empirical evidence that the universe is comprised of everything in space-time? And why must the initial cause be outside of space-time. Calling it obvious says nothing and calling it a "fact" is deceitful.

  567. FundamentalClue

    That's simply the definition...

    Universe: space-time and everything in it.

    Now, since the universe is defined as the whole encapsulation of space-time and all its contents, it is impossible for it to come "from" space-time since that would be a direct contradiction. Space-time cannot come from space-time because that implies a previous space-time which means space-time already exists... Which isn't the case.

  568. FundamentalClue

    If you look into the Big Bang theory you will see that the universe is not described as matter expanding in space-time but the expansion of space-time itself, from the infinitesimally small singularity. You see, as we understand it, space itself expanded from the singularity. Which means that neither space nor time had any relevance beyond the boundaries of the singularity of space-time at the very beginning of our universe.

  569. robertallen1

    First you subjectively define the universe and from your definition posit, "Space-time cannot come from space-time because that implies a previous space-time which means space-time already exists... Which isn't the case" as a statement of fact, rendering your post as non-sensical as all your previous ones--but at least you're now writing clear English.

  570. robertallen1

    And just who is describing the big bang as an expansion of space-time as opposed to space? "Which means that neither space nor time had any relevance beyond the boundaries of the singularity of space-time at the very beginning of our universe." One way or the other, it's back to gibberish.

  571. FundamentalClue

    Robert, there's nothing to argue here. That is what the universe is defined as. You're simply choosing not to think about what the words mean, what that implies and follow the logical consequences. I'm happy to debate but not if you start running around in circular arguments.

  572. FundamentalClue

    What I wrote makes perfect sense.

  573. FundamentalClue

    First off, it is an expansion of space... Not as opposed to.

    Those who describe it as such include: Albert Einsteinn, Max Planck, Erwin Schrodiger, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli and many more.

  574. robertallen1

    What you wrote is gibberish as usual.

  575. robertallen1

    A definition is only a convenience, not an empirical statement.

  576. robertallen1

    That's right. It's an expansion of space, not space-time.

  577. FundamentalClue

    Space is inseparable from time, hence space-time. In that way if you speak about space, that's just a simplified way of referring to space-time.

  578. FundamentalClue

    Robert... I emplore you to move beyond your comfort zone of knowledge and explore what is really being said and discussed outside comfortable science. By that I mean science that avoids tackling larger pictures and bigger questions. By that I mean, the succinct, discreet and foundationally coherent theories of existence. They are currently plentiful and yes, many are complete hogwash. But don't let that discourage you! Many theories, if unbiastly applied as scientific hypotheses, drive comprehensible, derivable, plausible; and yes, even probable explanations to our current discourse. If you could at least suspend what you think you know long enough, to research in depth, that which seems counter intuitive, you might find yourself standing on the shoulders of giants.

  579. robertallen1

    See response from Achems Razor. You don't know what you're talking about.

  580. robertallen1

    And what type of research do you have in mind? And don't you mean unproven conjectures about existence rather than theories of existence?

    P.S. The word is implore.

  581. FundamentalClue

    Thank you Achems_Razor, I'm well aware of it. All of it. What you said works in addition to what I said, it doesn't nullify it.

  582. FundamentalClue

    Robert, you could start with the link I added on an earlier post that began with, "For all intensive purposes, watch this." if you haven't watch it yet. And thanks for being my spell check!

  583. Kateye70

    Ok, you brought up the spell check...by "all intensive purposes" did you really mean "all *intents and* purposes"? It's been nagging at me every time I see it!

  584. FundamentalClue

    Lol kateye70! Yes... Yes I did. Thank you for pointing it out. I should have caught that... Oops!. Sorry it nagged at you this long.

  585. Achems_Razor

    No, you are not aware of all in my link, you have basically dismissed it out of hand as most religee's are wont to do, to be aware of all the info in my link means a "lot of studying", say for one "entropy for instance" not counting the other scientific endeavors, so as other posters have said, "you do not know what you are talking about"!

  586. oQ

    There are a few words in Achems's latest reply that are naggingly exposed. lol
    See if you spot them?

  587. FundamentalClue

    Achems_Razor, excuse me but I have not dismissed anything. I looked at your link and I read it. I'm already familiar with it. I've been studying for the majority of my life. I am not unfamiliar with entropy and the principles of thermodynamics among many other scientific endeavors. I know exactly what I'm talking about!

  588. Achems_Razor

    which words, is it wont? wont is a word, look it up.

  589. Achems_Razor

    Really, how many gods are there then, 10^500 universes as in many worlds theory, (Hugh Everett 111)
    and as we flip the universe every Planck sec, (Schrodinger)...(Julian Barbour) can your gods keep up?

  590. robertallen1

    You've not ony fooled me, but just about everyone on this site.

  591. oQ

    The goal is not to convince everyone who appears to be listening on TDF, the goal is to convince one self by searching, reading, talking, writing, exchanging, bounding ideas until an other step is reached.
    You seem to think you're at the top level, if i remember well your knowledge based on studies in Quantum physics is inexistant. A couple months ago you were telling Achems how you were interested in learning about the subject. How come you know so much so fast?


  592. oQ

    "religee's are wont to do", is cute. I make similar funny English twist and turns.
    But really my comment was a joke to Kateye70.
    I might have missed it but where did FundamentalClue talk about god or gods?

  593. FundamentalClue

    If there is a God, then there would only be one, regardless of how many universes u add. The planck second would be our best attempt at reaching God's pace not the other way around. But as Oq pointed out, I never mentioned God or Gods anywhere. I believe consciousness is foundational to existence. If we'd like to refer to that foundation as God I'm fine with that but that's not in any form attached to dogmatic scriptural beliefs. I don't follow any religious ideology in forming my beliefs in this regard. I have read some scriptural books only to see what they say. I don't believe in any religion and am opposed to how most of them prey on people of lesser intellect. The only thing they have in common with my beliefs is that something conscious and intelligent is responsible for existence in general.

  594. oQ

    I sent you a link but it was not accepted by moderators.
    To reach the link i went to Achem's link down to The White World and at the bottom of The White World page go to God's math...very interesting.
    A phrase that caught my attention at the end of the article is "Symmetry math shows us that the infinite is real and exists in a realm greater than our sense of time and place"
    Funny all this god stuff on Achems's page, He is reading about god afterall. lol

  595. FundamentalClue

    Btw Achems_Razor, I'm just wondering if you watched the link I provided earlier that discusses the unified field and consciousness? I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on what the physicist in the lecture proposes.

  596. robertallen1

    Who are you to be stating what the goal is for everyone?

    I know so much so fast because I make an effort to. You obviously make none which is why you in your various incarnations have been called down for your ignorance so many times.

  597. robertallen1

    "If there is a God, then there would only be one, regardless of how many universes u add." How do you know this or is it only by definition which is to say not at all?

    "The planck second would be our best attempt at reaching God's pace not the other way around." Again how do you know this or is it merely speculation passing for fact?

    Once again, what you believe is of no consequence; it's what you can SCIENTIFICALLY prove and you cannot SCIENTIFICALLY prove the existence of some supervening conscious and intelligent being. This is what makes all of your posts only so much philosophical trash.

  598. oQ


    "You've not ony fooled me, but just about everyone on this site". How can you speak for everyone on this site? Robert you sure make me laugh!

    "The goal is not to convince everyone who appears to be listening on TDF, the goal is to convince one self by searching, reading, talking, writing, exchanging, bounding ideas until an other step is reached."
    That's always been the way to learn and will continue to be.

  599. FundamentalClue

    Robert, you obviously have not watched the link I provided earlier. Which seriously brings into question how much effort you're really making to know so much so fast, as you yourself stated.

    Btw, from your earlier comment... A definition is not just a convenience, it's the act of "defining" what something is. To define something is to comprehensibely describe the principle characteristics of a "thing". Which isn't simple convenience, it's how we understand anything about anything... By their definitions. The definition of words gives meaning to audible sounds. The definition of a star brings understanding to what lights our world. The definition of quantum particles brings an understanding of one of the smallest forms of reality that underlies all of physical existence... Etcetera...

  600. robertallen1

    I wrote "just about everyone," not everyone. Get your eyes checked, lady and while you're at it, take your own advice.

  601. FundamentalClue

    Oh and don't bring back your misunderstanding of philosophy to the table. Achems razor itself is philosophy. It is a logical deduction. It's not an empirical statement but a crafty observation that utilized a logically deduced formula to arrive at what could be considered the most likely truth. That my friend is philosophy. It is generally regarded as a competent method of weeding out incorrect ideas. As far as I know, the scientific community still utilizes this principle. So if you don't mind, try refraining from referring to philosophy as trash. We covered this already but you seem to not get it. The scientific method was reached through philosophy.

  602. FundamentalClue

    Well how could you speak for "just about everyone" either, Robert? Have u asked just about everyone? Do you have empirical evidence to support your claim? Or is this just conjecture?

  603. robertallen1

    Definitions are created and used merely so one person can understand what the other is talking about. As such they are merely conveniences or as you put it in your gibberish-like way "words that give meaning to audible sounds." (By the way, just what is an inaudible sound?) Despite what you might try to make of it, that's it.

    As far as "defining" what something is, your definition of the universe simply conforms to what you think it is. As you know no more about the universe than my neighbor's pet doodle and as all your statements about it based on your subjective definition, they are complete and utter speculative drivel.

    Not once have you presented any solid evidence for your many conjectures and assumptions which means that you are claiming knowledge that you don't have, except perhaps for the knowledge of making conjecture and assumption seem like fact.

    Achem has your number as well as a number of posters.

  604. FundamentalClue

    So you haven't watched the link I provided...

  605. robertallen1

    The scientific method is merely a codification AFTER THE FACT i.e., an observation, as is Achems Razor which is a far cry from a logically deduced formula and breaks down when applied to areas such as particle physics and quantum mechanics. Claiming the two concepts to be contributions of philosophy is beyond misinformed.

    "As far as I know, the scientific community still utilizes this principle [Achems Razor.]" You obviously don't know enough, for Achems Razor fails miserably in particle physics, quantum mechanics and higher mathematics or are these some of the "incorrect ideas" that this philosophical concept is to weed out?

    As philosophy proves nothing and consists of no more than speculation, conjecture and opinion, it has made no real contribution and thus is only so much trash, as your posts have so well demonstrated.

  606. FundamentalClue

    Since I first posted a comment here, I have added much to be deliberated with serious thinkers. Your lack or others' lack of investigation into my comments and links is only a testament to the ignorance that prevails most fundamentalist positions. Whether it be religious or scientific fundamentalism.

  607. robertallen1

    Go back through the comments and see for yourself. That's my empirical evidence.

  608. robertallen1

    "Your lack or others' lack of investigation into my comments and links is only a testament to the ignorance that prevails most fundamentalist positions." And you wonder why few find your comments worthy of any serious investigation, not that any serious investigation can be undertaken considering that your comments consist mostly of conjecture, supposition and assumption.

    "Since I first posted a comment here, I have added much to be deliberated with serious thinkers." What ineffable conceit.

    Now, why don't you go into a corner and have a good cry.

  609. oQ

    I personally think they reason few people get involved in this exchange with FundamentalClue is because they don't want to have to deal with you and your rude approach in all discussions. (It has been pointed to you by many including Epicurus and others on different docs)
    You have over taken this doc with your insolence and since you have a couple moderators in your pocket, they tolerate it.
    Makes for very unintelligent discussion alright!

  610. FundamentalClue

    I didn't say Achems razor is universally applicable everywhere. Can you please stop making assumptions and stick to only what I write? And what is it with you always pointing out the obvious without making any headway with the core concepts at hand. Of course the scientific method is a systemized organization of methods, i.e., codification - which was reached through the form of thinking and rationalizing we call philosophy. You have obviously made no attempt at learning anything about philosophy. Your mind seems closed off from learning because you seem to think you already know it all. Take my advice, look deeper into the ways of thinking you don't agree with. You will either find a better way of describing why you were right or find out that you were wrong about a few points you held as true. And don't worry, I'll take my own advice.

  611. FundamentalClue

    Btw, none of you have ever even attempted to falsify my deductive reasoning regarding Copenhagen's interpretation and consciousness. Which I most definitely followed the stringent rules with which to arrive at a certainty. With that in mind, I came back with a link from a physicist who showed experimental data explaining why decoherence was not at play in the double-slit experiment. I don't think any of you watched that either. And then you ignorantly profess that I haven't offered anything. I offer, you ignore, and then you think that equates to me not having a leg to stand on. I'm sorry but if you can't look into the links and evidence I offer, you have nothing to stand on or any point to argue until you can prove what I've already provided is false. Which none of you have. Give me a break!

  612. robertallen1

    You have yet to learn that what you "think" is of no consequence. it's what you can prove which in your case is generally nothing.

  613. FundamentalClue

    And I agree with Oq. You have an extremely unpleasant approach to having a conversation.

  614. robertallen1

    "As far as I know, the scientific community still utilizes this principle." Sounds like a pretty general statement to me. In other words, I stuck to what you wrote, only you don't like it.

    Once again, you give philosophy far more credit than it deserves which is to say none.

    Considering that, as mentioned previously, your posts consist primarily of conjecture, supposition and assumption, who would consider your advice worth taking?

  615. robertallen1

    Following stringent rules of logic (deductive reasoning) is not going to help you arrive at a certainty, except on paper.

    Now, one again, go into the corner and have a good cry

  616. FundamentalClue

    I rest my case... You have not even looked at everything I've provided.

  617. robertallen1

    And you have an extremely phoney approach to knowledge--and please note, I'm not the only one on this thread who thinks so. You have only go to back through the posts for verification.

  618. FundamentalClue

    It was a general statement. And it's still true in as far as it is useful. And I don't mind.

  619. FundamentalClue

    And I'll rest my case on philosophy too... You have no idea what it is.

  620. FundamentalClue

    What??? Are you serious??? Deductive reasoning doesn't arrive at a certainty? You obviously have no idea what deductive reasoning is either.

  621. robertallen1

    What was a general statement? It's hard to tell what you're referring to when you don't respond to a post directly.

  622. robertallen1

    And you have no idea what anything is although you claim to.

  623. FundamentalClue

    I don't really care what you or anyone else thinks. I just want to have a discussion about what we know, what we think we know and where we can find a consensus. Beyond that, keep your opinions to yourself.

  624. robertallen1

    Without hard evidence, the "certainties" arrived at by deductive reasoning are only in the abstract, i.e., good on paper and nothing else.

  625. FundamentalClue

    Anything arrived at through deductive reasoning, regardless of hard evidence, is a certainty. That is precisely why the method was developed. If the rules are properly applied, the outcome is always a FACT. There's no way around that FACT Robert.

  626. robertallen1

    If you don't care what I or anyone else thinks, why are you posting?

  627. FundamentalClue

    The general statement I was referring to was your comment about what I said about scientists utilizing Achems razor

  628. robertallen1

    If deductive reasoning is so infallible, what accounts for the geocentric theory which has been disproved? What accounts for Lamarckian evolution which has been disproved? Eugenics was also thought to be the product of deductive reasoning as was phrenology, astrology, etc. Once again, the certainties obtained through pure deductive reasoning are merely on paper. Why don't you read up on the Higgs-Boson particle, the existence of which so far has been merely deduced through theoretical physics and mathematics, but not proven? In short, as usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

  629. robertallen1

    Considering that you refuse to respond to posts in the normal way, I still have no idea what you're talking about?

  630. FundamentalClue

    I'm posting to have a discussion about reality and find a consensus and maybe learn a few things myself. Which has nothing to do with your opinion of me. I have to admit though, it's hard to learn anything when others don't respond to my comments with real earnest critical thinking before replying. I'll admit some things I wrote don't hold up to scrutiny but many things I've posted do. And I'd appreciate someone looking into them, thinking about them and commenting when, and only when, they've actually looked into the links I provide.

  631. robertallen1

    Well, first why don't you respond to posts in the normal way, by clicking on the appropriate link.

    Again, the weeping wall is to your right and the wailing wall to your left.

  632. FundamentalClue

    If anything derived by deductive reasoning turns out to be false then a mistake was made in the process. That's human error not a problem with deductive reasoning itself. I have done a little bit of reading on the Higgs-Boson particle, I find the postulation interesting. Are you aware that Wolfgang Pauli deduced the existence of the neutrino a couple decades before it was discovered? If done properly, it arrives at facts. Of course misusing the process will produce false statements. Wolfgang Pauli is a scientist I highly admire and was a person who used deductive reasoning on very regular basis. He was somewhat revered by his peers for his sharp mind and reasoning skills.

  633. robertallen1

    Why don't you read "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift (it's on the internet) and then tell me about if something derived by deductive reasoning turns out to be false, then a mistake has been made in the process?

  634. FundamentalClue

    But enough about semantics. Can you just look at the link I provided in a post I made earlier. It was 3 days ago and my comment starts with, "For all intensive purposes, watch this..."

    And I realize the error in that phrase in quotations. Just check the link, and let me know what you think.

  635. robertallen1

    For your information, LaMarck was proved wrong, not because he misused the deductive process but the information from which he made his deductions was insufficient. The reason Darwin was wrong about genetics was not due to any defect in his deduction, but rather to lack of information.

    So once again, pure deduction results only in a certainty on paper which is say either none at all or a limited type.

  636. FundamentalClue

    Right, so if we lack the information that would provide further reasoning in our deductions, then our results would be falsifiable. That makes sense. That comment I appreciate. I get it. I see where your coming from now.

  637. Achems_Razor

    Good try, but no, the link is not pushing any gods, it is only a point of reference same as Einstein mentions gods without believing in such as the prime mover.

  638. Achems_Razor

    "and since you have a couple of moderators in your pocket, they tolerate it." which moderators are in the pocket?

    Does it hurt your sensitive ears the way men talk man talk, that is where men and women differ Toots.

  639. Achems_Razor

    Since I basically do know what unified field theory and consciousness is about and because have respect for Hagelin as a theoretical physicist, have bookmarked the link to watch later, to see what John has to say.

  640. robertallen1

    It's still just a definition and as such is synthetic. Now, who's doing the defining?

  641. oQ

    The link does not, but the site writes about spiritual science. And again...you are stuck somewhere with the definition of god, i've moved on, a long long long time ago, in fact i never believed in it pass the age of Santa Claus because i was raised with freedom of spirituality.
    Best represented by a part of that FundamentalClue write here: "I believe consciousness is foundational to existence. If YOU'd like to refer to that foundation as God I'm fine with that."

    The ones that do not believe in God of scriptural beliefs tend to hang on to that meaning unnecessarily in these threads.


  642. Achems_Razor

    "Freedom of spirituality"? you lost me , do not know what that means.

  643. FundamentalClue

    Has anyone watched the links I provided yet???

  644. FundamentalClue

    Robert, I'm not sure I follow your line of thinking. What's just a definition? And what are you referring to with "who's doing the defining?"

  645. robertallen1

    I've already explained what a definition is--and when it comes to the universe, you seem to be the one doing the defining then trying to pass off your definition as reality from which you draw your boeotian conclusions. In short, it won't wash. And speaking of something that won't wash, it's obvious that no one here seems interested in your link. Ever wonder why?

  646. FundamentalClue

    I'd like to also start on another approach with which to posit my position... Mind you, I have already begun this approach in earlier posts.

    Neural-scientists have taught me that when a human is born, the brain is wired with the highest number of neural networks and endings it will have for its entire life. As the infant develops, the experiences it has shapes how the brain begins to shape those networks. Active networks become stronger with more connectedness while unused networks diminish and eventually are eradicated from the brains structure altogether. So for now, let's just keep in mind that the human brain begins its journey with immense complexity and refines itself to suit its life experiences. What those unused networks are designed to be applicable for is still a mystery to me.
    During the course of a human life we now know that brain plasticity allows for reconfigurations of neural networks for the duration of that life. Now, when a human has novel thoughts it increases its propensity for constructing new neural pathways. If we assume consciousness is derivative of brain matter, we run into a dilemma here. Mainly, if you can't have conscious thoughts without the brain matter that provides for it, then how can you have novel thoughts that cause the construction of new pathways that didn't exist before? How can a brain that doesn't yet have the neural network necessary for particular thoughts, have thoughts that cause the production of necessary pathways for those thoughts? Put another way, if consciousness is only an illusory product of brain activity, then how can you have thoughts that encourage the construction of new neural pathways that

  647. FundamentalClue

    "it's obvious that no one here seems interested in your link. Ever wonder why?"

    ... Because you're ingnorant?... You're lazy?... You're incompetence to conduct research?... You're inability to step outside you're tiny little box?...

    I don't know... I could write a list a mile long.

  648. FundamentalClue

    Accidentally sent that... I'll finish it later... Too late for me in my time zone...

  649. robertallen1

    And your point is?

  650. robertallen1

    You could and it would be entirely self-serving. Did it ever occur to you that it is because you have nothing to offer much less anything to say?

  651. Achems_Razor

    Are you hinting on spirituality? or are you hinting that consciousness forms everything that is, matter et al, are you hinting that we collapse the waveform from the quantum foam, that we flip the universe "Barbour", Schrodinger, or as in Feynman's "sum over histories" if so then even the gods are a product of the mind, not real.

    Please make yourself clear and say precisely what is on your mind.

  652. robertallen1

    As you've probably noticed by now, clarity has never been FundamentalClue's strong point. Could it be because he has no idea what he's talking about?

  653. FundamentalClue

    ... Continued...

    Put another way, if consciousness is only an illusory product of brain activity, then how can you have thoughts that encourage the construction of new neural pathways that, according to reductionistic neural science, required those pathways to exist in order to have those thoughts. That is putting the cart before the horse.
    You want to believe that consciousness is derivative of brain matter but what we are directly seeing, unequivocally, is that brain matter is derivative of consciousness. This is directly exemplified by the observation of neural pathways being constructed after the fact of having conscious thoughts. Think about it...

  654. FundamentalClue

    And I'm not hinting at anything beyond the specific point I'm trying to make regarding which is derivative of the other. If what I'm saying turns out to be correct, then that would simply mean we require a shift in perspective for ongoing study. I'm not making speculations to what it all entails or implies but simply trying to show how our own research is demonstrating that the brain is not creating the actual consciousness we are the experiencers of.

  655. FundamentalClue

    And John Hagelin explains the rest eloquently...

  656. robertallen1

    More gibberish. Is it merely a cover-up for having nothing to say?

  657. docoman

    But how would that explain something like auditory hallucinations with people that have schizophrenia?

  658. Achems_Razor

    Watched your link, nothing new, for me anyway, basically knew about this stuff many years ago, except the twist on super strings.

    John Hagelin pushing transcendental meditation that's new.

    People would have to watch the doc if they want and deduce for themselves

  659. FundamentalClue

    Not sure, I'd have to look up schizophrenia to see what we know about it already. Also take a closer look at any anomolies in the study and assumptions doctors might be making about schizophrenia and hallucinations.

  660. FundamentalClue

    Not exactly new for me either. The lecture is but not the ideas.

    So you haven't shared your stance. Are you guessing he's wrong? Has something worth investigating? Or guessing he's right?

    Btw, don't know what you know about meditation but it is a substantially beneficial exercise. I'm not familiar with exactly what "transcendental meditation" entails though. I've only ever practiced shamatha meditation, or simply, peaceful abiding or breathing meditation. That practice led to practicing meditative contemplation. That's as far as my meditating has gone. I don't do mantras or chants. I just sit quietly and self-reflect. Separate myself from thoughts.

  661. Achems_Razor

    Stance? my stance is for science., and I do not guess stuff. Need empirical evidence.

    Apparently there "may" be benefit to the body from meditation, cardiovascular, stress relief, don't know, just saying from what I have read. people need to form their own conclusions and not rely on others.

  662. docoman

    I have discussed auditory hallucinations with a person diagnosed with schizophrenia. I completely believe he was being honest with me.

    They're not assumptions from doctors, or anomalies in a study. To him, they were very real. I couldn't hear it, others with schizophrenia will hear a different version, if at all, apparently.

    That goes against your hypothesis that 'brain matter is derivative of consciousness.'
    The sounds/voices were all in his head, no basis in reality outside his mind. His mind created the voices, not the other way around as you're suggesting.

  663. FundamentalClue

    Yes I perfectly understand you are for science and I admire that. That doesn't exactly describe your position with John Hagelin's explanation. He is basing his theory on empirical evidence. I'm curious to know how you feel about his theory with respect to his evidence?

    As far as not "guessing stuff" and "needing empirical evidence", you recently remarked to my earlier post about initial cause and stated that hawking had written a book explaing how the universe could have started from nothing. Despite hawking's reputation and his endeavor to explain away initial cause, his book ultimately bases his final assertions on theoretical presumptions and not empirical evidence. All I'm saying here is that using Hawking's best guess doesn't constitute a valid argument to objectively discredit my position.

    People definitely need to form their own conclusions and not rely on others. Through personal experience, I feel confident enough to say for myself that meditation is beneficial in more ways than only what you mentioned. Personally speaking, I believe the core benefit and purpose of meditation is to better understand "the observer", so to speak. I think it would be impossible to form a written explanation that could suffice to bring to light the actual experiences of self-reflection. Therefore, the only way for anyone to know what could possibly be known about the "self"; each person needs to do it for themselves... It can't be taught. As I once heard remarked, "instead of shutup and calculate, it's more like shutup and meditate".

  664. robertallen1

    It would also be impossible to put in writing the actual experiences of relieving oneself. So what? The jury of medical professionals is still out on transcendental meditation which, as it is grounded in nothing concrete, I suspect to be no more than a placebo.

  665. FundamentalClue

    Sorry I wasn't trying to imply that his experiences aren't real, at least to him anyway. But my question here is, exactly how do the mechanisms in the brain function for a schizophrenic as opposed to someone declared to have no disorders. I can't say right now whether your claim that it goes against my hypothesis is correct. Do we know how the subconscious plays a role here? Are the voices he hears signals from the subconscious, that has amassed enormous amounts of data we can't readily access consciously? Basically, are they existent signals from other parts of the brain he is unconscious of? And if so, how did that develop? So even if we prove here that the brain is responsible for him experiencing voices that have no basis in reality, that doesn't automatically infer that the brain derives consciousness. It could simply be that he hears voices due to sense perceptions that occurred long ago that got stored in the subconscious that surface as conscious present experience by some misfiring in the brain. There are many other possibilities as well. But that doesn't explain whether or not consciousness, at its core, was responsible or not for producing those subsequent networks in the first place.

  666. robertallen1

    Anyone can ask a lot of questions interlarded with conditionals? So what type of double-blind clinical tests do you propose to determine these issues?

  667. docoman

    No apology needed mate, I took no offense. It is one of my brothers that has schizophrenia, he doesn't like me telling people he has it.
    I'm no expert on it. I've talked a fair bit with him, trying to help me understand and be more appropriately supportive.
    Sometimes that I've been around him when he's ill, I can see there are some connections to earlier 'thoughts'. Sometimes I just can't understand wtf he's on about, they're 'out of nowhere'. It can come from something as simple as something said in normal conversation, from people he can trust.
    He describes it sometimes like having too much input, everything is linked, everything has meaning in some way. It builds, and when he's bad, that's when the voices start. He's told me a couple things, like the news reader on TV is talking about him, ect. It can be as simple as a bird landing on the lawn that starts it, or it can come from seemingly nowhere, no outside trigger.
    He doesn't like sleeping without a light on, I think his visual helps him with his auditory.
    Some things seem to be a build up, some seem to be new thoughts, from what I can tell. It's a pity he can't talk/trust others more, he'd be able to explain it much better then I can.
    No wonder it's scary for him, I honestly don't know how I'd handle that.
    I agree, there is still much to be learned about how our minds work, my brother is into that for obvious reasons. I don't know if you're right or wrong. It's an interesting topic to me though.

  668. FundamentalClue

    Incredibly interesting to me as well! I'm curious if it has very close ties to our imaginative capacity and our particular states of perception. For instance, when I was speaking about brain development in early life and brain plasticity during the course of it; I feel I've been particularly keen on trying to understand how the the immense complexity of experiences develops perceptions and how perceptions double-back to develop experiences. This spontaneous back and forth influence, from what I understand, explodes the probabilities of what the imaginative capacity for any particular individual is. In this way from the moment we are born, being submerged in experiences, every moment of our lives we exponentially expand the possibilities of what our perceptions might be. This in turn expands the possibilities of what our experiences might be.

    All in all, this means that even if we all shared the exact same initial experiences, an infinite number of experiences and perceptions would most probably be the outcome. Even small inconsequential things make vast differences over time, such as color perception. Some people are color blind while its also quite possible that many people vary in the degree of our perception of hues of color. For example, when we look at a blue sheet of paper, is the particular hue exactly the same in everyone's eyes? What if it's darker for one person over another, or more lustrous or pale. This might change the deciding factor on whether it was your favorite color or not. This in turn could change the way certain foods appeal to you. The car you decide to buy. The clothes you like. This could influence the people that are attracted to you or not. Which people you date or marry. And on and on...

    In terms of schizophrenia or even bipolar disorder and many others; what play did early and ongoing experiences play in our perceptions that lead to the development of these so-called disorders? To what extent is it genetic predisposition? To what extent can that change through epigenetic control factors?

    One thing I've noticed about a few of these mental states of perception is that it usually involves an over active imagination and an acute perception (if not obsession) with patterns. Combined, we can kind of see how someone could get lost in a sea of connectedness where connections are seen in elaborate ways that sometimes cross all known boundaries of logic and reason. This crossing of logical boundaries, I believe, in part is due to the indvidual's subconsciously rooted belief system and the knowledge and understanding they can impart on their own experiences. Of course, the subconscious beliefs overrule conscious knowledge and understanding, but that can be changed over time with the incessant repetition of the updated wiser conscious beliefs based on a better understanding. Old habits die hard, but old beliefs die much harder.

    I personally have a friend I've known my whole life who is diagnosed bipolar. He talks about grand delusions he's had, all kinds of coincidence, sychronisities and way over-the-top paranoia of things that were happening around him. After many years of speaking with him, I firmly believe he has simply been plagued by an over active imagination that didn't know where or how to draw the line on reality. Small nuances of subconscious beliefs created an experience that held to those beliefs despite their contradiction to reality. Small beliefs perhaps about the meaning of patterns. How he picked up this belief is unknown but I believe it plays a central role in his experiences. I know this is different from schizophrenia but thought it was interesting enough to share as an example and a way to share my line of thinking.

    I don't know... What do you think?

  669. docoman

    You've thought about it much more then I have by the looks mate. :) My brother has shown me a couple talks/lectures on neuroplasticity, I found very interesting. (I can't remember the Dr.'s name, sorry) It seems we have the ability to change our minds, in the literal sense. I don't know that much about it though.
    My feeling would be that although we (humans) have the best brains on the planet, we're still an animal. I wouldn't put too much into our 'thoughts' being what 'makes' our brains, we're just a slightly more complicated primate. I could be way wrong, as I said, I don't know much about it. There might be some good info here on TDF, I've not looked at that subject on here.
    I'm sorry my ignorance on the subject makes it impossible for me to have a more interesting input mate.

  670. FundamentalClue

    First I'd have to determine if tests have already been done. Otherwise that's a good question. I have to think about it.

  671. FundamentalClue

    What do you mean? Your doing fine mate. You're thinking about it! That's more than I can say for a lot of people. I don't know 100% if I'm right either, but I do know I'm pretty insatiable when it comes to trying to grasp how everything fits together. I feel I've been fair with the diversity of topics I research for both sides of all kinds of arguments, perceptions, beliefs and the like. There's so much I don't know, but I've tried to be persistent and thorough.

    A couple things I want to say... Yes I agree we humans are animals that have the most advanced brains on the planet. I believe we not only have the ability to change our minds in the literal sense but that our minds are 100% completely and totally moldable. Who we are as individuals, or who we think we are, is nothing more than a persistent figment of our imaginations. You're not who you are today because you were genetically predisposed to have your personality and belief system and way of thinking. We all start with a general outline or framework for ourselves as individuals genetically, but who we become as people is almost entirely formed by experience and subsequent perception of that experience. Who you are, who I am, is all just what we believe it to be, it's part of our belief system. You can be anybody you want, just believe that's who you are. Once you believe yourself to be something, the rest of you falls in line and acts accordingly. You don't have to believe me, just believe in yourself. That's why "know thyself" is considered a very powerful statement to many people.

    When I said our consciousness is responsible for deriving the brain matter, I wasn't clear about this, but it's specifically "consciousness" that is responsible for deriving the brain - not the actual thoughts. Thoughts are also a product of consciousness. Breathing meditation proves very easily that consciousness is much more than just the thoughts that arise in it. From my point of view, consciousness is the foundation. Which gives rise to the mind. The mind gives rise to thoughts. And thoughts direct how exactly consciousness will shape the brain. To get down to the nuts and bolts of it... I believe consciousness is the source of, or driving force for, the existence of waves - which means everything. Since everything that exists originates from waves.

    So also from my point of view, consciousness is responsible for all of evolution. It seems to me that the first "physical" link consciousness made to this universe, started as single cells. As we progress through evolution, we see rise in the complexity of physically bound consciousness. All the way from single cells to us (humans). Of all the developments that progress through all the stages of evolution, I'll point out two that seemed to grow hand in hand - conscious faculties and empathy. As organisms became more developed they became more conscious; as organisms became more developed they became more empathic.To back me up on this I'll call on Jeremy Rifkin's book "The Empathic Civilization", and Bruce Lipton's book "Spontaneous Evolution". Rifkin is or was the president of the foundation on Economic trends in D.C., an advisor to the EU and heads of state around the world, among other things. Bruce Lipton has a Ph.D, has been a cell biologist for 30-40yrs, one of the first to study stem cells decades ago, a tenured professor, who taught cell biology and genetic determinism to students for over 20yrs - which he evidently found out genetic determinism was flat out wrong. What fascinated me about Lipton's research was his discoveries about how cells communicate and signal processing. I'd reccomend both books. And don't judge a book by its cover because I personally feel Lipton's book was one of those books.

    Getting back to what you said... Though we are simply "more complicated primates" as you put it, I don't believe consciousness is somehow born out of the matter that coagulates and we call a body/brain. It sounds ludicrous to me that elements, no matter how you configure them, could ever amount to the conglomerated experience we call "being conscious". However, it makes perfect sense to me how consciousness, at it's fundamental core, could be the very fundamental source for what we call energy. In that way, what we are as humans is perfectly described as evolved consciousness. And it makes sense how evolution landed us here - with a species that is instinctually animalistic and consciously empathic, compassionate, mindful. It's all part of evolution. At least that's how I see it.

  672. robertallen1

    " . . . but it's specifically "consciousness" that is responsible for deriving the brain - not the actual thoughts." Just what is this supposed to mean or is it simply more gibberish?

    "Breathing meditation proves very easily that consciousness is much more than just the thoughts that arise in it." Where is your proof?

    Once again, no one cares what you believe. It's what you can prove and so far you've proved nothing nothing of any substance. Your posts consist of merely screenfulls of gobblegook about "consciousness" which goes absolutely nowhere and fools absolutely no one.

  673. AntiTheist666

    I beg to differ Mr. Allen but don’t expect your rigid, dogmatic, fundamentalist and obviously complete mind to comprehend this fact.

  674. robertallen1

    You're right. My rigid, dogmatic, fundamentalist, complete mind will not accept something without hard evidence, not just a lot of speculation and jibber-jabber.

  675. docoman

    G'day mate, wow. Got me on a bit of a rough day today, my pain is high and so is my medication level. I'll try though mate, excuse me if I'm wrong though, I'm not at my peak. :(
    I don't 'get' everything, but pretty much follow along I think.. Correct me if I'm wrong, but basically your saying energy and matter were created from consciousness. A kind of creationism argument? They came from a wave ? Are you talking about physics there? Quantum? I"m not 100% with it, could well be me mate, sorry, very drowsy.

    I don't agree (I think;) with all of your conclusions with the 'nature v's nurture' argument. I've seen a doco where some twin girls were split up at birth, I think one in Mexico, the other to the US. They never knew of each other, until something like mid 30's. They had a lot of similarities, they way they dressed, the type of men they married, number of children each had, ect. Even though they were in quite different situations, some striking similarities were there. That would suggest some genetic element is still involved to me. (sorry I can't quote the doco, I saw it on TV awhile ago. I could have some things wrong, but I think that was it's gist.)
    I think the jury is still out isn't it, I'm not sure. But my feelings are that it's a bit of both genes and environment, plus our belief systmes we form through experience and education, that mostly influence who we are., from my observations. I agree that 'knowing yourself' is a very important part in a person, if you don't you won't be able to honestly self evaluate your motives and choices in life, and learn from what you do.

    I'm not so sure consciousness is so much of a 'cause', but more a result. There are lots of life that pretty seems to act on 'autopilot', bacteria and virus ect.
    Sorry If I'm not making sense too much mate.

  676. FundamentalClue

    Robert, seriously... You're about as sharp as a marble! Your first question is answered in the same paragraph. Second question - you'll get your proof when you actually practice breathing meditation for at least 3 months, 10 minutes, once a day. If you want proof of something purely subjective?... Well you're going to have to delve into it subjectively!

  677. robertallen1

    "Well you're going to have to delve into it subjectively." Which is to say anecdotally, which is to say not at all. What a load of crap!

  678. FundamentalClue

    Very basically speaking, yes I believe energy and matter were created by consciousness. To clarify about waves; waves are a form of energy and we know through physics that all matter originates as waves. So I see it as, consciousness is the base non-physical form of existence. It is the source for the existence of energy that comes in the form of waves to produce physical reality as we know it. The link I added with the lecture from John Hagelin explains, for the most part, why I think it works this way.

    With regard to the nature vs nurture part, everything you said seems to be on the right track. What I was talking about works with what you're saying. My statement was more specifically referring to our capacity, potential, possibility and probability. It makes sense that twins would hold characteristics similar to eachother. My statement merely points out the possibility of how different they potentially could/could have become. And this brings in our 100% moldability. About genes, environment, belief systems, experience and education mostly influence who we are... I completely agree. And we both agree on the importance of knowing yourself.

    I don't see how consciousness 'can' be a result. I 'can' see how matter can be a result. Life acting on what you called autopilot is a perfect example of an underlying consciousness at work.

  679. docoman

    See, that's just a round about way of saying intelligent design. But you don't explain how the 'consciousness' started, or got there, to 'cause' matter to arrive. You have no 'first cause', or no evidence, other then what seems to me to be your misinterpretation of wave forms somehow being a consciousness. Light can be both wave form and particle, so is it somehow aware too?

    Mate, you lost me when you tried to pervert science to make it fit your religious ideas. You're welcome to your opinion and beliefs dude, I have no worries with that, as long as that's what they stay.
    Thanks for the chat mate, (i'm a little short tempered today as I'm sore, don't take it personal)

  680. robertallen1

    So all matter originates as waves. How do you know this? Where is your evidence? Just saying that we know it through physics isn't enough.

    So you think that energy and matter were created by consciousness. Whose consciousness?

    Once again, what you think doesn't count. It's what you can prove and in that department, you've offered nothing except jibber jabber such as the following, "So I see it as, consciousness is the base non-physical form of existence. It is the source for the existence of energy that comes in the form of waves to produce physical reality as we know it," coupled with the affectation of putting the modal can in quotes.

  681. robertallen1

    You see through him too. That's why I asked him whose consciousness. He's simply trying to hide his creationist beliefs behind a smoke screen of pseudoscientific jibber jabber, a la Dwayne Gish and Depak Chopra.

    You do well for someone in pain.

  682. Kateye70

    @Robert, docoman, et al: I posted a link on the "Why I am no longer christian" doc (still waiting approval), to a Reddit page. (or just go to reddit and search for "in a debate about my atheism, I was asked if god doesn't exist" and it should take you to that page.)

    I think y'all might be interested in the ensuing conversation, particularly if you scroll down to where a poster puts in big blue letters, "Why do our physical laws exist the way they do?" and then answers that question, which sparks a sub-debate. It goes into physics in a way I'm not qualified to judge, but which you and others might enjoy. The original poster gets involved, too.

    (Edit: referenced wrong doc above)

  683. docoman

    Thanks mate. I was a tad more under the weather then I thought, I just now got back from a short visit to the hospital. The thought occurred to me as the morphine started to dull the pain last night, I bet no prayer ever felt this comforting when in 'real' need.
    Thank you to the people who invented that 'science send

  684. FundamentalClue

    Robert, it seems you have a great divide in you. You cling to the 'objective' like a babe to a breast, while denying either the validity of or perhaps even existence of the 'subjective'. Meanwhile... The only experience you have as an individual, conscious, breathing human being is completely subjective. That's all any of us have to go on. Regardless of what you experience with your five senses, or by your minds volition, it's ultimately ALL subjective. Our study of science ultimately all rely's on subjective processing and interpretation. Your opinion, right now, is merely subjective... So is mine.

    You don't think the observer of scientific inquiry; the conductor and concocter of scientific experiments; the only known thing in this universe that can experience and appreciate reality, doesn't merit a closer look into what it is? And if you do? How would you propose we gain insight or understanding of this "I" that observers reality and ponders endlessly to understand how it all works? Objectively speaking, of course. Explain to me how we objectively delve into the subjective?

  685. FundamentalClue

    Your first question with how consciousness started or got there, is best answered by the link I provided where John Hagelin, theoretical physicist, explains it. There is much more to the explanation, John and I both know that. But he gets the main argument across and he has mountains of scientifically based data to support it. He even has statistical probabilities on his side. Which is a good sign in trying to prove a scientific theory. So as much as some might prefer to just toss my ideas to the wind, they are part of an ongoing 'scientific' investigation.

    Once again, I am not posing wave forms as being consciousness. As I said before, consciousness is non-physical. Wave forms on the other hand are the very foundation of what we consider physical. The propagation of waves is the starting point to physical form. That is the heart of quantum mechanics.

    No, light particles are not aware.

    So as it turns out, I haven't perverted science and I'm not doling out religious ideas. I base all of my theories and beliefs in science. Please watch the link... I will provide it again in my very next post but send this one so it doesn't have to get approved by a moderator.

  686. robertallen1

    "You don't think the observer of scientific inquiry; the conductor and concocter of scientific experiments; the only known thing in this universe that can experience and appreciate reality, doesn't merit a closer look into what it is?" What stops you from identifying this "only known thing?" And if you don't know what it is or can't identify it or for that matter don't even know of it exists, then everything you write about it is nonsense and as several other posters have pointed out to you, you don't know what you're talking about.

    And why don't you phrase it correctly? Our study of science relies and processing and interpretation BASED ON OBJECTIVE FACTS.

    You're the one who fills up screens with unverifiable and often idiotic claims, such as biological evolution being the product of consciousness, the burden rests with you to come up with some objective method of verifying them--neither I nor anyone else is going to do your homework for you--and if you can't, then your claims are only so much hogwash.

  687. FundamentalClue

    As I've mentioned to Docoman, matter originating as waves is the heart of quantum mechanics. Do you really need more evidence than that? Because if you do, then you're discounting and discrediting the entire field of quantum mechanics. For all this quick learning you mentioned you've done, I'm wondering?... What do you even understand or know about quantum mechanics?

    "So you think that energy and matter were created by consciousness. Whose consciousness?"... I provided a link that answers your question. Do watch it this time. It's a scientist so you shouldn't have any trouble understanding him.

    **For after you watch the lecture**
    So as you see, it's not just what I think but what a lot of serious, accredited, and respected scientists think. Sorry but just because you lack the ability to understand what I write doesn't make it jibber-jabber or gibberish or whatever. You obviously have a lot more to learn.

    ... I'm not saying I don't though. I'm not one sided as you very much seem to be.

  688. robertallen1

    From "Quantum Mechanics" - Wikipedia.

    "A mathematical function called the wavefunction provides information about the probability amplitude of position, momentum, and other physical properties of a particle. Mathematical manipulations of the wavefunction usually involve the bra-ket notation, which requires an understanding of complex numbers and linear functionals. The wavefunction treats the object as a quantum harmonic oscillator, and the mathematics is akin to that describing acoustic resonance." Now just where does this say that the heart of quantum mechanics is matter originating as waves. As a matter of fact why don't you look up the article and then tell me where it says that matter originating as waves is at the heart of quantum mechanics. In short, it's your understanding of quantum mechanics that needs to be called into question.

    Again from "John Hagelin" - Wikipedia.

    "Hagelin's linkage of quantum mechanics and unified field theory with consciousness was critiqued by University of Iowa philosophy and sociology professors Evan Fales and Barry Markovsky in 1997, in the journal Social Forces. They wrote that Hagelin's equating consciousness with the unified field relies on a similarity between quantum mechanical properties of fields and consciousness, and that his arguments rely on ambiguity and obscurity in characterizing these properties. They dismiss Hagelin's parallels between the Vedas and contemporary unified field theories as a reliance on ambiguity and vague analogy supported by constructing arbitrary similarities. . . . " In other words, one person does not constitute "a lot of serious, accredited, and respected scientists."

    If you can't write clearly, you are merely trying to cover up for your lack of anything to say--and by the way, I am not the only one who has brought this to your attention.

  689. docoman

    I haven't looked at your link yet mate, so I can't comment on it yet. I'll have to re-read the conversation to get back up to speed, I'm not able to at the moment, I've not slept and still medicated.

    I'm far from an expert in the area even when rested. But if I understand you correctly, I can't agree that consciousness came first. It seems like putting the cart before the horse to me. As I said, a weird sort of creationism it sounds like, with claims to be based om quantum physics. I'll have a look when I'm rested mate.

  690. FundamentalClue

    To answer your first paragraph, it's consciousness. I thought that was pretty obvious. You know... The observer... So I hope we can both agree that it exists. Otherwise you're claiming you don't exist and I hope we're not heading for that argument. My arguments are anything but nonsense... Please refer to the links I provide for proof and clarification!

    2nd paragraph... Thanks for watching out for my spelling mistakes. I hope you can catch yours in the same paragraph. And far as your point goes, you're putting the cart before the horse. "Based on objective facts,"... These 'objective facts' are a product of the subjective perception. Without the subject, there are no objective facts to be had. The subject observes, processes, interprets and defines objectivity. So primarily, the source of objective facts is the subject, the observer, 'I', consciousness. Which is worth an investigation.

    I'll just ignore your 3rd paragraph since I add links from time to time to back up my claims or have referred to the scientist or author of books to justify what I'm saying. If you're not verifying the references to my claims... Well it's on you then. I can point you to the book, I'm not going to read it for you.

  691. FundamentalClue

    "harmonic oscillator" - waves. "acoustic resonance" - waves. Re-read what you posted with that in mind. Need I say more?

    2nd paragraph, one opinion doesn't discredit another. From what it sounds like, those two didn't really look into all of his evidence nor piece it together properly. Btw, since when did you listen to what philosophers or sociologists have to say?

  692. FundamentalClue

    No worries mate! Get some rest! We'll debate it later.

    It's funny though, you think consciousness first is putting the cart before the horse, while I think putting matter first is putting the cart before the horse.

    You have your good reasons for thinking so and so do I. But I like talking about it because it gets both sides explaining their reasoning and looking at both sides. Which hopefully teaches us both something while we get closer to the truth. Which I believe is somewhere in between both schools of thought.

  693. docoman

    Thanks for the suggestion mate.

    Some interesting points in there.

  694. Kateye70

    I read the link, and this particular line jumped out at me:

    "...the more the claim that life comes from the outworking of undirected evolutionary process..."

    The word "undirected" is what caught my eye.

    I thought (no expert here) that the process of evolution isn't "undirected" at all, but is instead "directed by natural selection."?

    TBH, I find the whole argument that just because a natural process such as DNA encoding is now analagous to the recent human activity of computer coding, it therefore must mean a human-like intelligence is at work, doesn't make sense.

    In fact, to me it seems it would be the other way around--we would able to conceive of and apply a concept such as coding information simply because such a process is already at work within our very own cells, even if we hadn't been conscious of it previously. A predisposition based on our own biology, so to speak.

    Maybe I'm not expressing this well, and it certainly is pure speculation on my part, but then so is applying the idea of a supernatural cause to an observed effect.

    (Edit to complete a thought)

  695. docoman

    Sorry mate, but I'm struggling with it pretty quick. Not because I can't follow along, but because he seems to contradict himself and also make some assumptions.

    0:40 "what science has discovered in exploring deeper levels of reality is that our universe is structured in layers of creation"


    And from about 1:07 to 1:30 he mentions (talking about physics) Classical, Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Field Theory, and finally the Unified Field Theory.
    1:36 "These theories locate a single, universal field, a unified field of Nature's intelligence at the basis of the surface diversity of the universe."

    Assumed nature's intelligence.

    About 1:50 " And so the world is superficially complex and enormously diverse, the deeper you go into the structure of reality the simpler nature becomes, leading ultimately to the emergence of the discovery of fundamental unity at the basis of the surface of the complexity of the world."

    He goes on a bit about how he calls this unified field, he calls it 'an ocean of intelligence at the basis of the emergence of the diversity of the universe. It's like an ocean of being...'

    But then at 3:21 "Quantum Mechanics says, the uncertainty principle, the deeper you go the more dynamic nature becomes.......... at the plank scale, the ultimate time and distance scale, at the foundation of the universe, and hence is virtually infinitely dynamic."

    He shortly after goes on to explain why he calls it the unified field a 'field of intelligence'.
    "It is the origin of the laws of nature. It is the unified source of the diverse laws of nature governing the whole universe at every level. And the laws of nature, are the orderly intelligent principles, governing the universe."

    One minute he says the deeper you go the simpler it becomes, then later says Quantum says the deeper you go the more dynamic.
    He jumps to a conclusion that there is an intelligence behind the order he sees.

    I'm sorry mate, but I'm not going to watch anymore. I may well be wrong, and forgive me if I am, but this just sounds like a more complicated argument that complexity implies intelligent design, which is itself just a creationist argument.

    He's already contradicted himself enough for me, and assumed intelligent design.

    I find neuroplasticity very interesting. I'm very interested in science, (which to me means the search for truth, leaving out a preconceived bias. What I watched of that lecture I'm not sure is science).

    I don't have a problem with your right to believe as you wish. I'm sorry mate, I'm not the one you're looking for to get a good conversation from on John Hagelin's work. I'm not a fan of his already in just 5 min viewing, although I will concede it was a fast judgement and I may well be incorrect.

  696. docoman

    I find at the heart of pretty much every argument I've ever seen for intelligent design, is basically the assumption that complexity equals design.
    Your arguments were better, dare I say more cleverly put, then most I've seen, but at the heart it still seems the same argument.
    Which I don't agree with. That complexity HAS to mean design. I'm agnostic, so when it comes down to it I believe there may well be a 'deity' behind the laws and existence of our Universe and us, but I've yet so see anything I find compelling, or even what I'd call evidence to suggest to me this is the case.
    If you do find it convincing, that's cool mate, you may be correct.

  697. Achems_Razor

    Waves you say? here is a "link full of links" all about waves for you, @robertallen1 and others who are interested, with some simple math even.
    Knock yourselves out. lol

    Wave packet.


  698. docoman

    Umm, yeah, I'll grab a pencil and get straight on it....not. lol. :)

  699. robertallen1

    Like Docoman, I too watched the first ten or so minutes of the documentary and like Docoman, I was far from impressed, particularly due to Dr. Heglin's dishonesty in not informing his audience that the term string theory is a misnomer and that it should be called string conjecture, as it has not been proved and as there are many highly respected mainstream theoretical physicists, such as Laurence Krauss, Peter Woit and Sheldon Glashow, who dispute it. Instead, Dr. Heglin treats it as fact and goes from there. In addition to what Docoman's observations, Dr. Heglin states without rhyme or reason that the Unified Field interacts with itself and that it is non-material. He goes on to equate the Unified Field with transcendental meditation which seems senseless as the Unified Field the way he explains it is external to man while transcendental meditation (for whatever it is worth) is internal. In short, the criticisms cited in the Wikipedia article on him seem more than justified.

    Also, I suggest you read Kateye's comments.

    Consciousness exists, but your claim that it created matter is as patently ridiculous as "these 'objective facts' are a product of the subjective perception." Twelve inches equals a foot. Zebras have stripes. Bronze contains copper and tin. Docoman and others are right. You have it backwards. One way or the other you offer no solid proof.

    Quite frankly, what you post is not worth the while to investigate, as there is no way to investigate it and thus any attempted "investigation" is more than likely to lead to nothing, as your posts have so well demonstrated.

    P.S. Now where are these spelling mistakes in the post to which you are responding.

  700. robertallen1

    You sure do. Your entire first paragraph makes no sense.

  701. robertallen1

    So what. It proves nothing.

  702. robertallen1

    This is my understanding of waves in quantum mechanics, i.e., they don't create matter.

  703. FundamentalClue

    I see what your saying. The problem I see with that is the biology doesn't exist at all before the encoding takes place. So it doesn't make sense to say that the encoding is a part of our biology or something cells are predisposed to do. The cells themselves don't exist until the encoding is first complete in order to have the instructions to build the cells. So DNA or RNA even, must predate the existence of cells. And I believe the anomaly here is how did an information storage system come into existence before the so-called intelligence of living organisms. Because the fact is, those organisms don't exist before the DNA in order to have any part in its construction. Does that make sense?

  704. Kateye70

    The final sentence in the article you linked said that evolution is "undirected."

    The title of the article was "Reason to Believe" (in a supernatural origin for life, which seemed to be why it was written at all).

    I just said that my understanding of evolution that it is "directed natural selection".

    I thought RNA came before DNA and then the cells came after that. But I'm no biologist.

    Exactly how the encoding system came to be I have no clue, but then, neither does anyone else at this point, as best I know. And quite frankly I'll never be the one to find out.

    But my point wasn't *how* the system came into being.

    It was that the conclusion drawn in the article you posted the link to, about DNA data storage and possible applications, contained a flaw in logic.

    The rest, as I thought I made clear, was pure speculation on my part to show that an opposite conclusion could be drawn from the information we currently possess, as referenced in the article.

  705. Kateye70

    "So DNA or RNA even, must predate the existence of cells. "

    Yes, I thought that was the current scientific thinking, that RNA got started before DNA, then cell structures came about for protection. Or something like that.

    I don't 'assume' intelligence at the origin of life; nor do I think any scientist does, either.

    Once you've made an assumption like that, and started looking for evidence to fit the assumption (rather than a test to prove its validity), you've left science.

    Or, as one of my favorite 'southern speak' quotes goes, "You done left preachin' and gone to meddlin.' "

  706. robertallen1

    Exactly. I did not immediately respond to FC's post in reply to yours, for I wanted to see if someone else picked up on what I did although FC did not state it directly. What FC refuses to understand is that the order in which these developments occurred is no indication of the existence of a supernatural creator and if FC has given the correct order-- and I hope one of our biology experts responds--it can easily be explained through natural processes--as a matter of fact, it seems that FC has already and unwittingly done this.

    Also, as Docoman and I have pointed out, like FC, Dr. Hagelin makes too many assumptions and jumps to too many conclusions to suit either of our tastes. So you might want to check out at least the first few minutes of the documentary.

  707. Achems_Razor

    Right! matter at the smallest fundamental level is composed of waves and particles both, but when measured can only be measured as a wave or a particle, but not both at the same time. in quantum jitters the peaks of the waves which can be measured form the probability only...

  708. robertallen1

    So waves don't create matter any more than hydrogen creates water. Therefore, Fundamental Clue is just dead wrong and doesn't know as much about physics as he thinks he does.

  709. Kateye70

    I actually did begin to watch the Hagelin video, but my knowledge of physics beyond the mere basics, much less wave theories and quantum stuff, is minimal at best. I listen, and after a few minutes it becomes words without meaning to me. I just don't have the background to make sense of it. =(

    As seems obvious with most of the people who commented on the youtube link, the idea of a unified field of reality (he's giving the 'guitar chord' analogy as I type) leaves me with, "Oh, if that's true, it sure makes me feel good about the universe!"

  710. Achems_Razor


  711. robertallen1

    Thanks. As your knowledge of physics exceeds mine, could you please critique my comments and Docoman's concerning the Hagelin documentary. Mine begins with "like Docoman" and Docoman's begins with "Hmmm." Thank you again.

  712. robertallen1

    As I mentioned befoe, what really bothers me is that Dr. Hagelin did not inform his obviously lay audience that string theory is only conjecture and that a number of highly-respected mainstream theoretical physicists, Lawrence Kraus among them, disagree with it. Instead he treated string theory as fact and went from there, which is plainly dishonest.

    Also, the Wikipedia article on unified field theory is quite different from what Dr. Hagelin described--and nowhere in the article is it stated that this field is non-material as Dr. Hagelin claims or that it is somehow akin to the results of transcendental meditation, which seems absurd. In addition, mainstream physicists differ considerably as to the constitution of the unified field, which Dr. Hagelin failed to mention, merely treating his version, like string theory, as fact and going from there. This again is dishonest.

  713. FundamentalClue

    Don't assume that the word creation automatically assumes theology. We can easily say the universe was created whether through mechanical processes or anything else. Molecules 'create' proteins, while proteins 'create' lvivng cells, living cells 'create' living organisms, and so on. The word create as used in his expression I believe is an adjective for the process, not a theological presumption.

    Technically, it's not an assumed nature's intelligence. Whatever the laws of this universe, they stem from the unified field. Those laws and principles that make this universe what it is, can be described as nature's intrinsic intelligence. Once again, that's not a theological statement.

    Sorry, but I think you misconstrue his explanation. The rest of your post doesn't show any contradictions in his statements. At the macroscale the world is complex and diverse. As we break it down, that complexity diminishes until we reach the unified field which is as simple as it gets since it's just one thing. Being infinitely dynamic doesn't counter the fact that it's simple. Dynamic simply means that the field is not static. It's not dormant. It is simple and dynamic. That's not a contradiction.

    And I'm sorry mate but to be honest, I'm not impressed when people refuse to listen to something because they have a preconceived bias and feel what they are hearing is wrong. I'm sorry but that is being ignorant. If you're seriously interested in the search for truth, you won't stop yourself from hearing every piece of evidence that exists, in its entirety, in order to develop your own well informed opinion. You certainly do have a preconceived bias of your own otherwise you wouldn't have stopped listening while holding an opinion of its invalidity so early in the explanation.

    I'm not trying to be rude and I hope you don't take offense. I just know its difficult to hear out the opposite side of a school of thought and not be judgmental. Which unfortunately, you've done. I find it hard to constrain my preconceived notions of what is true and hear out another point of view. But I know I do and force myself to continually do so. That is why I sincerely feel I'm giving this topic a less bias point of view than most.

  714. FundamentalClue

    Could I just ask you, in your point of view, what is intelligence? Fundamentally speaking, what is it?

    Also John Hagelin's theory doesn't base complexity as a direct sign of intelligent design. He poses the idea that the similarities between what the unified field is known to be and what consciousness is known to be is proof of something. The uncanny congruence between the two provides a reasonable position to hold that they might be one in the same.

  715. FundamentalClue

    You understand so little, yet believe you know so much. It's a pity really.

    Read my response to Docoman regarding the lecture. Also, Hagelin is well aware that string theory is not proven and his ideas don't fall apart with or without string theory. I'm not going to bother trying to explain why Hagelin said the field interacts with itself and is non-material. If you'd like to know why you don't actually understand what he's talking about take some physics courses. I'm not wasting my time with you.

    And the rest of your post is gibberish too! But I don't expect your objective brain to subjectively understand that...

  716. FundamentalClue

    You're ridiculous! You don't understand quantum mechanics at all!!!

  717. FundamentalClue

    I don't jump to some conclusion of a supernatural creator from the order of biological development.

    I didn't unwittingly explain these natural processes by mistake or miss the implications of such processes. You unfortunately are still missing my point by leaps and bounds.

  718. docoman

    "Don't assume that the word creation automatically assumes theology." I didn't assume, but when Dr. Hagelin started calling it different levels of reality, then 'smoothly' changed that to creation, it is an attempt to subtly insert his opinion.

    When ever I see someone doing what I feel are deceptive things like that, it says to me their theory doesn't have enough evidence to stand on it's own, it needs 'support' with 'deceptions'. Like his failure to properly explain exactly what string theory is, but quickly 'fudge' the math, and the real facts that don't fit his thinking.

    So no, I'm not listening just because I happen to think differently, I don't like it when I'm BS'd, which is exactly the feeling I got in the first few minutes.

    I'm not impressed with people that try to 'slide' facts by hoping it'll not be noticed.
    You asked my opinion, and that's it. If you don't want to hear it, don't ask for it.

  719. docoman

    What is intelligence?
    Well, from my observations, I've never seen anything not alive display anything near what I'd consider intelligence. But with most things alive I could see at least an argument for intelligence.
    So, I'd say intelligence is most likely a product, or by-product of biological functions.
    Which is why I disagree with your original proposition, that reality 'forms' our brains, not the other way around.
    But that's just my opinion, and I'm no 'brain surgeon'. ;)

  720. robertallen1

    Maybe when you start presenting hard evidence and not conjecture and gibber-gabber that docomen and others will start to take you seriously.

  721. robertallen1

    Perhaps Hagelin's audience, which I gather was a general audience, should have taken some physics courses as well and judging from what Achem writes, you sorely need them. One way or the other, Hagelin dishonestly withheld important information from his audience, thus taking unfair advantage of them.

    The reason you're not going to bother trying to explain why Hagelin said the field interacts with itself and is non-material is probably because you really don't know which is consistent with your pretense at understanding manifested in the conjectures, suppositions and downright drivel which fill your posts.

  722. robertallen1

    I suggest you read Achem's posts before lying any further.

  723. robertallen1

    If I am, it's because you can't write clearly--and I'm not the only one here who thinks so.

  724. robertallen1

    And you're no scholar or scientist either.

  725. robertallen1


    I meant this reply for Fundamentalist Clue. Sorry.

  726. docoman

    No apologies needed mate, your statement was true for both FC and myself. :)

  727. robertallen1

    You claim to be misunderstood. As previously requested some time back (and I can't remember by whom), how about encapsulating what you're getting at in a FEW CLEAR, SENTENCES.

  728. robertallen1

    But at least you're honest and aboveboard and don't write gibberish.

  729. robertallen1

    Achems_Razor, Epicurus and, of course, everyone.

    Would one of you please watch a 10-minute video called "Refuting Ken Miller on Chromosome 2" by TChapman500. I suspect that it's trash from beginning to end, but as I don't have the technical knowledge, I would appreciate your thoughts.

  730. robertallen1

    With Kent Hovind in temporary storage and his son Eric but a shade of his infamous and irgnorant father, for someone to sneer and jeer at, I suggest you check out Ian Juby, a number of whose videos appear on You tube. He's every bit the liar and ignoramus that Kent Hovind is/was and believe it or not, does not possess even half of Hovind's "credentials."

  731. Giacomo della Svezia


    It seems you're mixing up two different concepts: intelligence and consciousness. I agree with what Docoman wrote on intelligence.

    I'd like to believe the unified field has something to do with a universal consciousness, but I was not convinced by Hagelin. On the other hand, I do not want to dismiss everything he said as rubbish. But analogy is not an adequate tool to make an argument with.

  732. Giacomo della Svezia

    The former crocoduck nominee?

    For those who don't know him yet, go to youtube and type "potholer54 ian juby" and I recommend starting witch 'Epic creationist fails of our time -- #1'. Lol!

  733. robertallen1

    And a very good way to start.

  734. Kateye70

    Thanks for a lunchtime laugh!

  735. FundamentalClue

    Lol, no that's fine. I don't mind your opinion at all. I'm glad you expressed yourself more clearly this time.

    I still feel you misconstrued his expressions but that's just my opinion. And isn't it just your assumption that he 'fudged' the math or did u catch actual mistakes in his mathematical expressions?

    I guess I feel the same though in respect to when I feel like I'm being BS'd. So despite the fact that I feel you misconstrued him, I respect the fact that you felt he was being misleading. He is a known theoretical physicist and been a good one too. It's a shame he's either misleading or just accused of because he ventured into the land of taboo.

  736. robertallen1

    Had Hagelin informed his audience that string theory is only in its conjectural stage and that different theoretical physics have different ideas about the unified field, this would have been honest, but instead he treated string theory as fact and did not explain that his interpretation of the unified field was not shared by a large number of his peers--this was clearly dishonest.

  737. FundamentalClue

    Ok, fair enough. Would you consider the DNA or RNA molecule, alive?

  738. FundamentalClue

    Maybe you at least need an open mind first, Robert. Because I notice a lot of scientific fundamentalists accepting status quo science explanations that are based loosely around facts and stretched to fit their explanations. It's funny that you or others will accept these conjectures as proven facts even though they have as many holes as some of these taboo subjects. Basically you're not as critical of conjectures that follow what you want to believe is true. And then go ahead and call them facts. Tsk tsk, that's a lobbyists job.

  739. robertallen1

    When you start presenting facts, not conjectures, not suppositions, not jibber-jabber, I--and I'm sure I can speak for others in this respect--will start giving you serious consideration. Until then, you are no more than someone who claims knowledge that he does not have and when called on it, answers with non-responsive posts such as this one.

  740. FundamentalClue

    I didn't see Achem point out some flaw in my understanding of physics. And not bothering with that explanation because I have better things to do than teach you physics. If you had any common decency I'd be happy to, but such is not the case.

    From what I see, Hagelin explained what he could given the hour he had. Providing more information would obviously take more time.

  741. robertallen1

    Then if Hagelin could not give an adequate explanation in the time allot, he should not have even tried. Instead, he resorted to dishonesty, just as you do with your opening statement. See my post to which Achem responded "Correctomundo!" and Achem's post beginning with "Right!"

    You couldn't teach physics to me or anyone else because you lack the knowledge to do so.

  742. docoman

    You may well be correct, I may have misunderstood some of what Dr. Hagelin was saying. And I agree, that just dismissing something without examining it is not a good way to learn new things. I did say I was quick to judge. My mood has an effect too, I've been a bit sore so I'm not at my most patient. I'm not meaning to be rude mate, my apologies if I've come across a bit short.

    What I mean by 'fudge' the math part of string theory, I didn't actually look at the math (probably beyond my education anyway), because he only had it on screen for a little bit, while he gave his very brief explanation of what it was. (He didn't allow any examination, but got 'shifty' in language, both verbal and body I felt at the time)

    As far as I'm aware, (again I concede I'm no expert), String Theory is actually little more then a mathematical concept, a 'possible' answer, that is yet to have any experiments conceived and performed to help dismiss or confirm the idea/math.
    That's where I very much felt he 'fudged' the reality of the strength of his ideas, wasn't being completely honest, or more accurately 'skimming' through what he should explain is theory/conjecture still and not a 'given'.

    I get turned off/suspect an agenda when I hear words like 'reality' changed to 'creation' without any explanation, and see what really is a foundation of the argument, is what I believe to only be a theory, and then it's very briefly, inadequately addressed. My BS detector goes off. :)
    If he'd explained some parts are yet to be confirmed, but IF it's correct, here is an idea... I could have gone along for the 'ride', to see where it leads.

  743. Achems_Razor

    Your number one flaw in understanding physics is saying that you even have any clue of understanding quantum mechanics, and by "stating" in your post to @robertallen1: 13 hours ago..."You're ridiculous! You don't understand quantum mechanics at all!!!"
    If you do, then believe me, you are the only person in the "WORLD" that does!

    For your information, "The full string theory has not yet have a satisfactory definition in all circumstances",... still a progress in the making!

    So can not be cited as TOE! or anything even close.


  744. docoman

    Lol, again you're pushing my knowledge limits. :) As far as I'm aware no, they're acids. (the A) They are molecules, not living things. They are parts of living things, but not alive in themselves.

    A bit like the calcium in your bone is a part of you, but not in itself alive. They're some of the 'building block's' that make up something living.

  745. robertallen1

    Forgive my ignorance, but what does TOE stand for?

    Also, as I mentioned earlier, I would appreciate it if you would provide your input on a short documentary (10 minutes) on You Tube by TChapman500 entitled "Refuting Dr. Miller on Chromosome 2." Thank you.

  746. robertallen1

    For those of you who might be interested, talkorigins dot org/ indexcc is a great compendium of refuted creationist claims.

  747. docoman

    TOE = Theory Of Everything.
    Thanks for the link mate.

  748. Achems_Razor

    Watched Miller link, shows what lying weasels the creationists are. Epic should watch this, biology is his forte.

  749. robertallen1

    I have already seen docoman's post. Thank you.

    Looking forward to your comments. I should have had the forethought to include the link. So I thank you for doing it.

  750. robertallen1

    I'm hoping he does. Can you add anything more specific to your comment?

  751. Achems_Razor

    From Wiki..."chromosome 2 presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes"


  752. robertallen1

    The reason I was asking about this "refutation" was because it is highly technical. I hope Epicurus comes to the rescue.

  753. FundamentalClue

    I don't exactly disagree with what Docoman wrote about intelligence either but I don't think that it appropriately accounts for the beginning of biological development. I'll ask you the same thing I asked him. Would you consider the DNA or RNA molecule alive? Since intelligence is seen as a product or by-product of biological functions and only living things express intelligence.

    Also, I'm not sure I get what you mean by me mixing up these two different concepts. I understand they are not the same thing but don't they go hand in hand as characteristics or traits of living things? So I'm just not sure how you feel I've mixed them up?

  754. docoman

    What intelligence is, and how life started are two different questions. :)
    As far as I know, no one has a definitive answer to how life started, hopefully yet.

    I have some thoughts if you're interested. I'm not saying I'm correct, just thinking aloud. ( just a little medicated, so could be FOS :)

    Evolution shows us that life was once simple, and become more diverse and complex over time. So obviously, the first life would have been very simple, so we're not making a 'dinosaur' from scratch, something more similar to a very simple bacteria probably.
    It makes sense to me that the earth, before life, was fairly different in some ways to how it is now. A 'primordial soup', or whatever you want to call it, but there must have been the basic 'ingredients' that life needs, as we have them here now. (I recall possibly oxygen was created by early life ?)
    Living things, in my understanding, fundamentally function using chemistry and electricity.
    Chemistry works all by itself given the right conditions, reactions will occur. Add a regular 'mixing' agent like our moon's pull/tides, the right elements, possibly a lighting bolt or 2, and it's 'possible' that a very basic life eventually began from what was essentially just chemistry before that (possibly cyclical). How it became self replicating, I have no idea, something to do with a regular cycle over time possibly. But I feel that is closer to what probably happened then any 'deity' needing to be involved. But, being agnostic, I'm not completely against some 'influence', but I'd need some good evidence. Religion is BS in my opinion.
    Once you have the first life started, the rest is fairly straight forward from the evidence.
    I recall reading about an experiment where a scientist made a 'primordial soup' in the lab, zapped it with electricity, and apparently some very basic acid compounds were created by the reaction. I'm sorry I can't recall who or when, so yeah, it's anecdotal unless I can find it again. :) I found it interesting though.

  755. FundamentalClue

    I'll admit I was being short tempered. Maybe I should have been more clear but my claim to understanding quantum mechanics is the claim that I can comprehend what scientists are trying to explain and test and the results they share. I'm sure you would feel that you have some understanding of quantum theory, which wouldn't be to say that you are the only person in the world to feel they understand the concepts to some degree or another.

    You reminded me of Neils Bohr's quote, "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory, has not understood it."

    Off topic a bit but another quote I particularly like from Neils Bohr, "The great extension of our experience in recent years has brought light to the insufficiency of our simple mechanical conceptions and, as a consequence, has shaken the foundation on which the customary interpretation of observation was based."

    Now Robert posted a quoted portion of wikipedia's description on quantum mechanics in response to me stating that matter originating as waves was at the heart of quantum mechanics. A part of the quote states, "The wavefunction treats the object as a quantum harmonic oscillator, and the mathematics is akin to that describing acoustic resonance."

    We have an 'object' being described as a harmonic oscillator... Harmonic oscillation is waving, it's waves; which is how the 'object' is described. We don't have an object being described in tangible terms. Instead we have objects being described in terms of propagations. That sounds like matter originating as waves to me. Not to mention that the mathematical formulations are trigonometric.

    Beside all that, when you get down to the nuts and bolts of describing this universe we run into waves everywhere. Electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity. Which part of this universe, at its fundamental core, has no relation to waves being responsible?

    Haven't kept up with the latest on string theory but I was never really a fan of it. I know it hasn't reached a satisfactory definition overall, I'm sure I would've heard about that at least. Also, I never cited it as a TOE and wouldn't personally.

  756. Achems_Razor

    Off the top of my head, waves do not make matter, the "harmonic oscillator" does not make matter but only probabilities/potentialities, on the peaks of the waves where the probabilities are the highest, called among other things,"quantum jitters" forms the probability of matter which is already viable by the subatomic particles/atoms that flicker in and out of our existence, where the waves come in they are supplying movement in the static quantum foam therefore "TIME" without which there would be nothing. Called spacetime.

  757. robertallen1

    It certainly does not sound that way to me or obviously to very many other people, Achem among them. And what trigonometry has to do with it is beyond me. Sounds like cheap Depak Chopra, if you'll pardon the tautology.

  758. robertallen1

    That's my understanding. Is there much of a difference between FC and Depak Chopra?

  759. Giacomo della Svezia

    I have really no idea where life begins, most probably with the
    simplest DNA-strings that we know, viruses. But a virus in itself is not a viable form of living, it depends on a host. A DNA molecule is not a string, the molecule itself cannot be alive.

    An improvised definition of intelligence:
    The ability of a living being to make associations and calculations, based on observations of the senses; to learn information and abilities quickly and to remember them, by observation and practicing.
    Intelligence requires interacting brain cells: it is determined by the amount of connections of each neuron with other neurons in the brain. Intelligent design of the universe is impossible with this definition: a living body is needed, unless someone has a quite different idea of what it is.

    But that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with consciousness, which concept is as far as I know still unclear, scientifically spoken. Maybe Hagelin will in the end turn out to be right, but to convince a scientific audience will take more than he had to offer.

  760. FundamentalClue

    I would agree! They are molecules, not living things. But contrary to what you said about intelligence being a function of living things, I see molecules (non-living things), displaying acts of intelligence.

    At least it seems intelligent to me. I mean I'm no expert in biochemistry but I've read a bunch of papers on it. I've taken some biology and chemistry courses in the past, so I feel I understand the jist of the papers I read. If you've ever covered any of it, I feel it makes perfect sense that amino acids were created through chemical processes utilizing thunder storms to catalyze the process. Polymers jumbbling around, successively getting longer. The phosphates, the sugars... All of it makes sense. What boggles my mind is not the construction of these bonds but the fact that the bonds stand for something, they have a meaning, a code, beyond what they are as compounds. Alone they are meaningless complex chemical compounds. Start arranging them in particular sequences and suddenly we have the characters to meaningful instructions. Which molecules decided what the meaning behind the sequence was going to mean? After all, they're technically not intelligent. So what made the decision to how the code was supposed to be interpreted by other molecules that also aren't living and have no intelligence?

    I know there are no answers here, just a lot of questions. But I think this seriously puts into question the idea that intelligence is something only expressed by living things. It appears that intelligence was necessary at some level before the existence of life in order to produce the biochemical code that represents a kind of language which is necessary for producing the building blocks of living organisms. Does that make sense?

  761. FundamentalClue

    Yes I agree again! Lol I just wrote a similar start to my last comment before I read this one. I believe it was the Miller-Urey experiments that produced amino acids in a lab using an electric current.

    But I guess I'll let you respond to my other comment because it spells out my line of thinking.

  762. robertallen1

    "It appears that intelligence was necessary at some level before the existence of life in order to produce the biochemical code that represents a kind of language which is necessary for producing the building blocks of living organisms. Does that make sense?" Without any hard evidence, it makes no sense at all and reads like a cheap fairytale co-authored by Depak Chopra.

    With all your drivel about bonds standing for something, having a meaning, possessing some metaphysical code, etc., none of which you can prove in any scientific fashion, you still haven't answered the basic question which has been asked several times: In a few well-chosen sentences WRITTEN IN CLEAR ENGLISH, what are you driving at with all of your posts? So far all I see is idiotic, unprovable creationism or intelligent design, if you prefer.

  763. docoman

    Thank you for your reply. It would seem ultimately the difference between yours and my understanding, is that where you see order, a 'complexity which must imply an intelligent designer', reactions leading to biology, or as you said it,;
    "I feel it makes perfect sense that amino acids were created through chemical processes utilizing thunder storms to catalyze the process. Polymers jumbbling around, successively getting longer. The phosphates, the sugars... All of it makes sense. What boggles my mind is not the construction of these bonds but the fact that the bonds stand for something, they have a meaning, a code, beyond what they are as compounds. Alone they are meaningless complex chemical compounds. Start arranging them in particular sequences and suddenly we have the characters to meaningful instructions."

    When you see order you assume intelligent design, I just assume there are 'rules' being followed.

    Why, if we had so much time, and so many 'rolls of the dice', could it not happen to jumble the 'correct' sequence together leading to the first life?
    It's a mathematical probability, as you accepted, there were the available 'codes' being jumbled and randomly put together, it is possible the 'jigsaw' one 'roll of the dice' did something unique and started the 'snowball rolling'.

    IF you look at the opposite, which you seem to propose?, there is some 'deeper, or underlying intelligence' that decided to 'arrange' things 'just so'.' At this time, there is no evidence, other then 'psychological wish's', plus multiple different versions of 'questionable' scriptures to 'wade through', which ultimately amount to BS.
    As I said in a post earlier to someone, 0 evidence x's billions of people wishing it, still = 0.

  764. Hollis

    religions provide unprovable assertions that are mistaken for answers; science and reason add to the growing collection of beautiful questions that surround us and prod at us, like the Socratic gadfly or midwife. if all you want is comfort, don't grow up. read Voltaire's Story of a Good Brahman, and be that contented old woman. not for me.

  765. robertallen1

    Good post.

  766. FundamentalClue

    True... But science also provides unprovable assertions for answers. Such as String Theory, the Many Worlds Theory, a singularity, etc... String theory may or may not ever get proven. Regardless of what we can prove in this theory, it makes a number of assertions that are unprovable. For example, an infinite number of universes and 10+ dimensions. The many worlds theory also has the same problem of answering questions with proposals that can't be tested. A singularity is but a metaphorical presumption that can't be clearly defined and is beyond proof. Yet most people clearly accept these ideas as answers while they hold no more provable validity than the idea of a deity.

  767. robertallen1

    In this instance, theory is an unfortunate choice of words. String conjecture is far more accurate. One way or the other, who are these people who accept the ideas to which you allude as answers? "Most people" doesn't cut it. There are several scientific definitions of singularity depending on the field. Which one are you referring to? And by the way, mathematically you can have as many dimensions as you want.

  768. Achems_Razor

    Good link, plus has other links about quantum mechanics, what i liked most, it is free from God stuff.

  769. FundamentalClue

    Refer to the article I posted above for examples of people who do and people who don't accept some of these ideas. For singularity I'm referring to physics, gravitational. This includes the explantation for black holes as well as the Big Bang. Neither of which can be verified but are widely accepted as facts. Just about any science article or show speaks about singularities as if they were a given. Which in fact, it is not. It's a mathematical postulation that fits a way to describe the phenomenon. But there is no proof that it actually exists. And by the way, mathematics is a tool or language used to describe the properties of our universe and everything in it... But there's a lot of mathematics that can be expressed that doesn't have anything to do with our universe or physical reality.

  770. robertallen1

    "It's [a singularity is] a mathematical postulation that fits a way to describe the phenomenon." If you mean that it's a mathematical way of describing a phenomenon why not just say so? If you don't, then once again, why can't you express yourself clearly?

    How do you know that mathematics describes everything in the universe? Are you somehow privy to the entire contents of the universe? And while we're on mathematics, what branch or type of mathematics can be expressed but has nothing to do with the universe or physical reality and explain just how you know this.

  771. FundamentalClue

    Other examples of science making assertions that are mistaken as answers include Dark Matter and Dark Energy. These are once again ideas that have no verifiable proof to back them up with. Yet they are routinely discussed as if they were things we have proven and understand how they operate. The truth is, no one knows if there is even such a thing as Dark Matter. It's a convenient assumption to explain away the anomaly of how galaxies manage to hold themselves together. The outward force produced by the centripetal acceleration of the galaxy's rotation, exceeds the inward force of gravity we know is being exerted based on the mass we see present. The assumption?... There must be some invisible form of matter to account for the extra matter required to produce a sufficient gravitational force to hold the galaxy together. Well ain't that convenient!! Invisible, undetectable matter! Without a smidge of evidence there is such a thing. And just so we're clear, pointing to the effects of galactic rotational homeostasis, doesn't, in any way, provide proof for the existence of Dark Matter. For all we know, there could be undiscovered forces or laws of this universe that have so far eluded our detection.
    Dark Energy is simply another explain away phenomenon. The universe is expanding... At an accelerated rate... Once again, let's assume there's an undetectable energy powering the accelerated expansion. We haven't the slightest clue what's causing the universe's acellereted expansion. Calling it Dark Energy and discussing it as if it's an understood phenomenon is entirely misleading. Besides that, there's reason to believe the expansion hypothesis could be wrong and based on false assumptions.

  772. robertallen1

    First of all, your post is non-responsive. As for the existence of dark matter, I suggest that you read up on the Bullet Cluster HST. At least dark matter and dark energy are not passed off as fact, but rather as hypotheses, hence not assertions. This makes you a liar. .

  773. FundamentalClue

    I did just say so... Rephrasing it was kindof pointless.

    Mathematics is the language of logic. Our purpose in utilizing these expressions of logic is to quantify and find relations between observable phenomena. That's how we use mathematics to explain our universe. That's all I'm referring to when I mentioned mathematics being a tool or language used to describe the properties of our universe. That's not the same as saying mathematics describes everything in the universe.
    Just about any branch of mathematics could be used to create expressions that are consistent with the laws of mathematics but would have no relevance to any part of the known universe. Whether it be simple algebraic expressions, or quadratic functions, or algorithms, etc...

  774. FundamentalClue

    You're missing the point... This was about someone having an issue with religious people passing off unprovable assertions as answers. I'm merely pointing out that we do the same in science. You would completely dismiss the hypothesis that God exists because there's no proof and you can't prove it. Meanwhile not extending the same dismissal to ideas that bare no better chance of being proved, just because they were thought up by some scientist. That's a materialistic, reductionistic, deterministic bias.

  775. FundamentalClue

    I don't think that's accurate. Every property of reality no matter where we turn breaks down to waves. Electromagnetic waves being a large part of that. The sub-atomic particles themselves are not convincingly proven to be solid objects of any kind, despite their action as discreet objects.

  776. FundamentalClue

    So I'll bring back the question: where did the intelligence, in the information embedded in DNA come from?

  777. docoman

    And I'll give you the answer again, DNA is an acid, a combination of elements, that obey the rules of physics and chemistry. Which are basically observations of 'how things work in our universe'. Neither imply design, that's your misconception.

    You have/are asserted that being 'organised', or displaying a pattern, means there is a 'intelligence', which means a god, behind DNA.

    Your version of the watchmaker argument. Which has repeatedly been debunked.

    Google the watchmaker fallacy mate, you'll find multiple explanations on why what you're saying is incorrect.

  778. docoman

    No FundamentalClue, there is a big difference between science and religion.

    Science will observe then come up with ideas, based on available evidence. Then continue to investigate and if shown to be incorrect will immediately self correct.

    Religion states it is correct, then causes people to lie, manipulate, deny, intimidate, murder and do untold wrongs in it's name. It struggles to hold on to it's 'divine' assertions even after they're shown to be incorrect, or if really pushed and forced to, change their story to try to fit in.
    One seeks knowledge, one claims it owns it.

  779. jackmax

    No fundamental clue, I think you have mistaken Electromagnetism, it is the branch of science that one of the four threads of nature, gravity being another off the top of my head ......:)

  780. Achems_Razor

    No, every property of reality does not break down to waves only, read "wave particle duality" breaks down to a wave or a particle, but not both at the same time. "Wave particle duality" applies to all objects. Macro down to micro.


  781. robertallen1

    Strictly strawman. I for one treat a hypothesis as a hypothesis until it is either proved/disproved or something better comes along. On the other hand, religion merely asserts and expects and demands acceptance.

  782. robertallen1

    This is what you wrote:
    " . . . mathematics is a tool or language used to describe the properties of our universe and EVERYTHING IN IT" [emphasis added]

    "But there's a lot of mathematics that can be expressed that doesn't have anything to do with our universe or physical reality . . . "

  783. Giacomo della Svezia

    Why do you suppose there is intelligence embedded in the DNA-code?

    Having written that, I'm reading the answer that docoman gave you: DNA is an acid. I agree with him that, though it's extremely complex, it's all chemical reactions happening in cells. If it were design, you haven't proved it.
    The question why the cell is 'living' remains unanswered; the chemical explanation doesn't provide the answer, neither can I.

  784. robertallen1

    Something is wrong with this new system. A post from Fundamental Clue from 11 hours ago about DNA along with Giacomo della Svezia's answer does not appear although according to my E-mail it should. When I click on the link in my e-mail, I am taken to somewhere else on the thread. In addition, not all posts on the relevant threads are being forwarded to my E-mail.

  785. robertallen1

    You're right. You don't know and admit you don't know, but neither does FundamentalClue--again who knows what the future may bring?

  786. robertallen1

    How do you know there is intelligence in DNA and that it's not just natural processes at work? Again, one of your many suppositions.

  787. docoman

    G'day mate,
    On re-reading the question again, and our two answers, I can see there may be another answer/angle FundamentalClue is looking at.
    The genome, the 'code in our DNA'. Genome is, from wiki;
    "the entirety of an organism's hereditary information. It is encoded either in DNA or, for many types of viruses, in RNA.[1] The genome includes both the genes and the non-coding sequences of the DNA/RNA"

    So our code that makes us what we are, Fundamental see's intelligent design.
    So a 3rd answer for him is,
    The complex combinations we have and see in the world today are the result of evolution, not intelligent design. Earlier life had fairly simple, shorter genomes, and as that's evolved we've gotten to more and more complex life forms/genomes. We can see a pattern in DNA, which shows that what we have now is a result of evolution since life started. (which we still don't know how it started, or exactly what 'life' is.) The more complex combinations around today are the result of combining, mixing, mutating, from a very simple life/genome, eventually getting to the combinations we see today.

    It's not intelligent design that has come up with the genome codes we see today, it's the results of trial and error over the last 3.6 billion years or so.

  788. Achems_Razor

    yes, but the observer is not a human, but an electron detector that is observing/measuring.

  789. oQ

    When responding to a comment instead of pressing reply, write it at the top and identify who it is a reply to...it will post the comment at the top of the thread.

    I don't like this new system either,very hard to follow.

  790. FundamentalClue

    I'm glad to hear you're not one to jump on the bandwagon without proof. I didn't mention religion, but I understand what you're saying. I believe it's still true though that may people, on this site and otherwise, leap to believing many things science proposes which can't be proven while absolutely dismissing the very idea of a God. I feel people, such as yourself perhaps, won't even entertain the idea of a God because of what you mentioned above and the many varying interpretations that come with it. Science may have an approach with which to analyze reality with thorough determination, but isn't without its own dogmas.

  791. robertallen1

    I'm no different than scientists.
    And other than hard evidence, what are these dogmas.

  792. FundamentalClue

    Of course there's big differences. When did I say there aren't? There's no need to defend science here and bash religion. That wasn't part of the discussion. Science is explorative, religion is faithful. Two completely different approaches. But science doesn't immediately self-correct, even scientists are sometimes stubborn to leave behind outdated beliefs. What you say about religion is completely accurate, but only in a limited sense. What you described is not how religions unanimously operate or conduct themselves. Yes there are many flaws in how people interpret information and how they can twist it to their benefit. But that is not the fault of the fundamental belief system, but character flaws in the individuals who rise to be leading figures of it. Basically, just as there are religious fundamentalists, there those who cling to science religiously. To the point of using my above mentioned examples of unprovable scientific ideas as answers. More pressingly, as answers used to refute the existence of God - such as the Big Bang Theory. To this date, no person, no idea, no fact; has in any way, proven that God doesn't exist. If you have it please show me irrefutable evidence that God doesn't or cannot possibly exist.

  793. over the edge


    are you familliar with "Russel's Teapot" ? if mot please look it up. if so do you understand the fallacy contained within this statement "To this date, no person, no idea, no fact; has in any way, proven that
    God doesn't exist. If you have it please show me irrefutable evidence
    that God doesn't or cannot possibly exist."

  794. FundamentalClue

    That doesn't mean we HAVE described everything. It just means it's the tool we use.

  795. jackmax

    Your statement. '' What you say about religion is completely accurate, but only in a limited sense. '' It's either completely accurate or it's not as I don't think there are any limits on completely accurate. And science is always self correcting, even when individual scienctist are being stuborn, as the evolving truth must still be peer reviewed before the correction can be accepted as truth

  796. FundamentalClue

    over the edge

    No I'm not familiar with "Russel's Teapot". But I am aware of the fallacy in my statement. I was being sarcastic. I'm glad someone picked that up. I was trying to subtly make a point. Which of course you would need to first see the fallacy within my statement. Because my earlier point was that many use unprovable assertions in science as answers. Its the same as, but from opposite perspectives of, someone claiming God doesn't exist using the Big Bang Theory as evidence. You can't prove me wrong using evidence that is unprovable or unfalsifiable. That is a fallacy itself.

  797. FundamentalClue

    I thought I explained, "only in a limited sense", in the next few sentences. It means there are limits to the perspective in which the statement is accurate.
    It's like saying, "water is a liquid". And I could reply, "that's completely accurate but only in a limited sense". That means it's completely accurate to say water is a liquid but it's limited in the sense that it excludes the fact that water can also be a solid or gas.
    Also, I didn't say science doesn't self-correct but that it doesn't IMMEDIATELY self-correct. And sometimes these self-corrections can take generations.

  798. FundamentalClue

    What about elementary particles being described as vortices or wave packets? And the four fundamental forces of the universe are waveforms... Are they not?

  799. FundamentalClue

    weak and strong nuclear forces are the other two

  800. FundamentalClue

    Well then it's an intelligent natural process...

  801. jackmax

    water is water, frozen water is ice and boiling water creates steam. so it would appear that your arguement is also incorrect..

  802. Giacomo della Svezia

    Well done, mate.

    That's a nice expansion of the first answer, it might evolve even further. : )

    I think that not all of our hereditary information is stored in the genome, but also in our memory and our body.
    Being part of an identical twin I can tell you that apart from the resemblances there are quite a lot of differences, which are not caused by differences in our genomes.

    As to how it started: What I learnt is that given the right conditions, complex amino acids will start to form 'spontaneously'. This must happen because of the affinity between all elements and molecules involved in the process. No invisible clockmaker necessary there.

    (Which of course still doesn't explain what life is and why it exists, if there is a reason.)

  803. FundamentalClue

    I like the way you posed your question. I'll do my best to answer it succinctly.

    DNA is a code. Which means that sequenced patterns have a distinct definition that correspond to actions to be taken. For example the sequence: TACG - ATGC - ATCG, could define protein synthesis parameters for a receptor protein. Meanwhile a number of similar sequences might have no meaning at all. Proper sequencing yields meaning, while random sequencing yields nothing. This is similar to writing. Proper sequencing of letters yields words, which have meaning, and proper sequencing of words yields sentences, once again which has meaning. Random sequencing of either of these sets will yield nonsense, nothing intelligent - like monkeys mashing on typewriter keys. What seems like intelligence to me is the molecule to molecule interface of recognizable definition patterns. Which is to say that molecules can 'interpret'. What stands out for me is this: in order for words and sentences to have meaning, an intelligence must be present to interpret what is written. Showing a monkey a page of writing or random strings of letters typed on a page, would make no difference to the monkey. You need a certain level of intelligence to interpret which page has meaning. Similarly, I feel intelligence must be present in order for an interpretation of the DNA code to occur.

  804. FundamentalClue

    I know how evolution works and I agree with 90% of its assertions. Evolution is a process... And I think intelligence designed it beautifully ;) lol.
    Check out my reply to Giacomo. Maybe that clears up the way it looks from my perspective. Cheers mate!

  805. Giacomo della Svezia

    Rereading my question I see it wasn't properly formulated. Intelligence in the information embedded in DNA/RNA is something different.

    Still you are suggesting intelligence was needed to form such complex molecules with their even more complex functions, which can still be replied to with the answer that it has very gradually evolved that complex.

    I think I mentioned it before, making comparisons is tricky. You run the risk of jumping to conclusions without proper argumentation. The comparison of DNA molecules with letters or words does not prove intelligence. What seems to be going on doesn't have to be really going on.

    If intelligence is involved, it would have to be part our own intelligence because it's our bodies in which the DNA processes occur, so why aren't we aware of it?

  806. jackmax

    Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr
    the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat
    ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll
    raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey
    lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

    Did you understand the above statement from Cambridge University

    It seems your statement may not be correct from the information I found at Cambridge University.

  807. jackmax

    It states:
    According to research at Cambridge University, it doesn't matter in what order the letters in a word are,the only important thing is that the first and last letter be in the right place. The rest can be a total mess and you can still read it without any problem. This because the human mind does not read every letter by itself, but the word as a whole.
    Can you see how I find your reply to be incorrect.

  808. Giacomo della Svezia

    You misspelled iprmoatnt. ; )

  809. robertallen1

    " . . . religion is faithful," that is to say idiotic and hence deserves to be bashed.

    So in other words, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch burnings were simply due to character flaws in certain leading figures. What about the followers? Your apology falls flat. .

    Now, how many modern day atheists have asserted that god absolutely does not exist? Rather, they are hindered from belief in a supreme being due to the lack of convincing evidence. So this is just another of your strawmen. On the other hand, anyone who claims that a supreme being exists, must provide scientific proof and assertion and logical casuistry which you practice don't even begin to qualify.

    Once again you mischaracterize certain scientific hypothesis as being statements of truth, but haven't come up with one; even string theory, an unfortunate name as I have mentioned earlier, is still treated as a hypothesis. As pointed out, this is merely a strawman. One way or the other, science changes with the influx of evidence (the rate of change is irrelevant); religion remains static and attempting to bring science down to its level of ignorance is demeaning and fraudulent.

  810. jackmax

    I didn't have my dictionary close handy.....:)

  811. robertallen1

    Better self-correcting at some time, than not at all.

  812. robertallen1

    That's not what your statement means on its face. Why not trying cleaning it up for clarity.

  813. robertallen1

    So it's now the "I was just testing you ploy." Won't wash.

  814. Giacomo della Svezia

    Shouldn't that be "I dnid't hvae my dintociray csloe hdany"? ; )

    Edit: Oops, typo: dintociray should be ditnociray. ; D

  815. robertallen1

    How do you know that it's an "intelligent" natural process? Another supposition.

  816. robertallen1

    And a well done to you.

  817. robertallen1

    Did it ever occur to you that this sequencing is also the result of natural processes--once again no creator needed.
    "Similarly, I feel intelligence must be present in order for an interpretation of the DNA code to occur." What you feel is worthless; it's what you can prove and throughout your many posts, you have proved nothing. .

  818. robertallen1

    And which 10% do you disagree with?
    Once again what you think is only so much garbage; it's what you can prove so far your proof of an overweaning intelligence has consisted merely of supposition and logical legerdemain.

  819. robertallen1

    Kudos again--and by the way, your English is superb. I'm curious. Have you ever been to the United States?

  820. robertallen1

    You're right, the human mind does not read every character, but it also has a tendency to self-correct which explains those embarassing uncaught typos.

  821. over the edge


    i have to say i have never witnessed someone using the BB theory to claim god doesn't exist (see false dichotomy). i have seen it used to show how a god might not be necessary to explain things. it is not up to the non believer to prove god doesn't exist it is up to the claimant to prove god does. i do not claim god does not exist (and few if any here do ). there are too many god claims for me to investigate and understand well enough to make that claim. i will claim that as our understanding grows god becomes more and more unnecessary and irrelevant . i am curious though. of the 28 000 000 gods that have been worshiped what one in particular do you claim exists?

  822. Giacomo della Svezia

    Thank you very much. : )
    No, I've never been there, but there are some places I'd like to pay a visit. One obstacle is the 'Patriot' Act that violates some very important fundamental rights.

    I'm very fond of languages, and english is one I can easily relate to, as there are even traces of frisian in english.
    To hear how it is spoken by all kinds of nationalities is a great delight. I'm thinking right now of Roberto Benigni in 'Down by Law'.

    On youtube: /watch?v=7rK3s_BP9kE
    ; )

  823. robertallen1

    The Patriot Act is a disgrace--and to elaborate, there are more than just traces of frisian in several of the dialects of Old English and, of course, knowing the history explains why.

  824. Giacomo della Svezia

    I've watched the first two parts of the documentary on the history of English here on TDF. Very interesting, as there are many connections between my country and both the UK and the US.

  825. robertallen1

    Indeed there are.

  826. docoman

    "There's no need to defend science here and bash religion."

    Actually, there is. When you 'inject' a 'creator' into where it's not required, it inevitably allows religion back into what it has been doing throughout it's history. Trying to coerce 'science' into 'discovering' things in favor of religion above truth. Science cares about what it can discover to be true, religion claims it already knows, and tries to 'infect' science with it's version.

    Science needs to be allowed to work as independently, within accepted ethics / guidelines, as possible.

    Saying 'there COULD be some sort of creator', is very different to saying 'there IS some sort of creator', which is what you, and many religious advocates argue, incorrectly at this time.

  827. FundamentalClue

    Lol, I picked the 17,483,263rd one! He's got the best costume! But seriously... I've watched and read numerous people make such claims and similar claims over the years. For the most part by average people and not professionals, but I thought we were talking about people in general. It's obvious you're not one of these people. It seems you reserve your judgement for things that can be proven.
    One thing you mention helps me make my earlier point. You mention that it's up to the claimant to provide proof. Which I agree with! It's up to scientists to prove the Big Bang Theory or that a singularity exists. It's not up to anyone to disprove them directly. My earlier point was a response to Hollis saying, "Religions provide unprovable assertions that are mistaken for answers." I was making the point that science also makes unprovable assertions that are mistaken for answers. Which in the case of The Big Bang, for instance, has been mistaken or misconstrued as an answer by many in the general population while it is based on unprovable ideas. A singularity falls in the same category. So does String Theory. I'm not saying you and many others mistake these theories as answers but I was specifically responding to how Hollis framed his comment. Which is just to say that, among the general population, many do mistake theories, hypotheses and ideas as answers long before they're proven.

  828. robertallen1

    As others have pointed out, you are woefully ignorant of physics. The Big Bang Theory is as accepted by mainstream science (the only type of science there is) as evolution. As has been pointed out to you ad nauseum, the other things you have mentioned such as string theory are take as conjectures by mainstream science, not as facts. What the general population (whatever that is) accepts is of no consequence. In short, your attempt to denigrate science to the level of religion is as great a failure and a fraud as the creationism which you espouse.

  829. FundamentalClue

    I'm not personally injecting a creator where it's not required. I'm using a plausible hypothesis to fill the holes that science either can't or hasn't been able to explain. But what religious lobbyists have done and still do, as you described above, is despicable and I agree that it's wrong.
    I'm advocating that there COULD be some sort of creator. I feel confident in my position and it's not based on faith. I could never blindly believe in anything. My parents were mildly religious but it never really caught onto me. Religion always rubbed me the wrong way. I needed good reason to believe something, I could never take anything on hearsay. I apologize if I come across like I'm positing a fact but I guess I have a tendency to frame things like a formal debate where my position in the argument would be framed as if it's true.
    I made comments to a few others regarding where this discussion stemmed from. Check them out if you like. If it helps clear anything up.

  830. FundamentalClue

    Your first sentence is my point minus the explantation of different perspectives and how statements are framed. Which means your second statement is incorrect.

  831. FundamentalClue

    Touché! It's always nice to have an open mind to new ideas.

  832. FundamentalClue

    From the link you provided:

    "In essence, the particle is really behaving like a group of interacting waves (a wave packet)."

    This statement is telling me that despite our tendency to want to view elementary particles as billiard balls, like the common analogy, in essence, they are not. They behave like a group of interacting waves. Which brings in the potential implication that they actually are tightly bound wave packets and not solid objects but constructs of wave patterns. This tells me that solid states are really the sense perception of the interaction of forces that come in waveforms. Not objects in the literal sense but perceived as such due to the way the forces interact. Where the interaction is in the form of waves.


    "This concept may be strange to those used to thinking of subatomic particles as billiard balls – billiard balls 
    interact by physically colliding with one-another. However, on the atomic scale the atoms in the surfaces of two colliding balls have electric charges and these charges repel one-another when the balls approach to minute distances – the electrons in the atoms of one ball repel the electrons in the atoms of the second ball (since electrons have negative electric charge and like charges repel) so that there is no real physical contact as such. Indeed there is nothing physical to contact in the intuitive sense – atoms behave like wave packets (vibrating energy) and the force of repulsion between the approaching electrons is mediated by virtual quanta. In the case of this electric interaction, the virtual quanta are virtual photons."

    Here again I see, "...nothing physical to contact in the intuitive sense - atoms behave like wave packets (vibrating energy)..."

    So are you saying that even though there is nothing physical to contact because atoms behave like vibrating energy in the form of wavepackets that interact through forces that are waveforms; that it's still a physical object that isn't created by the virtue of energetic waveforms that it exhibits the properties of?

  833. docoman

    I agree that nothing has ruled out that there could be a creator. I would argue that the need for one has been negated by what we've discovered using science. There could be, there doesn't have to be though.

    Even though you now say you only argue there could be a creator, your statements about intelligence in DNA say otherwise. Claiming there is intelligence inherent in DNA by necessity require a designing intelligence. So your statements do imply there IS a creator, not COULD be.

    As others have said to you, read up on Russell's teapot. It seems you're using a combination of that and the 'god of the gaps' argument.

    Both have been shown to be logically incorrect arguments.

  834. FundamentalClue

    The Big Bang Theory may be accepted by mainstream science but that doesn't change the fact that it cannot be proven. It may not be baseless, but it relies on assumptions that cannot be tested or verified. So it's still just a theory, not a fact. Most likely will have to stay that way because it's impossible to verify some assumptions it's based on.
    Btw I'm not denigrating science to the level of religion. And I'm not espousing creationism. All this extra arguing started from a simple observation I made with how Hollis framed his statement, which I explained in the last comment.
    I hold a hypothesis that our reality is caused by some form of intelligence. As opposed to being causeless or random. Check out the link I provided just below where Achems replied, "good link..." after that look for the link I provided months ago with Tom Campbell

  835. over the edge


    do you think this"intelligence" that caused our reality is one of the religious gods? if so which one? also do you have any demonstrable and positive evidence for this "intelligence" ? you could disprove every scientific theory and still be no closer to proving this god. i ask because it honestly dumbfounds me that someone can believe something without evidence.

  836. docoman

    Everything alive has DNA. If there was an intelligence in DNA, it follows it would be in all DNA in everything that's ever lived.
    I guess if you say 'life' is a form of intelligence you could say that all DNA has/is part of 'intelligence'. (The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills) It does this through trial and error though, not conscious choice, which the term intelligence implies. Many mutations/tries don't work. Down Syndrome is an example of a chromosome abnormality that's not a benefit to survival.

    Creationists and you argue, that the code itself is 'intelligence caused', yet nothing we've discovered requires or indicates supernatural or intelligent extraterrestrial forces are involved. Intelligence isn't required to interpret DNA for us to live, DNA is analogous to an 'instruction manual' for the physical body. We don't 'think' ourselves into what we are, it's a natural process. Similar to chemistry, it's just how it works. The fact that's how it works doesn't imply intelligent design. Look up the watchmaker analogy.

    So far, what we know can be explained by natural
    forces/causes, the rest is still to be discovered, so the answer now is we don't know. There may be some as yet unproven intelligent force at work, but to correctly assert there is you need to provide evidence. At this time, there is none.

  837. dewflirt

    I landed in the US a few days ago, very unpleasant upon arrival to have your fingerprints scanned and your photo taken, not to mention the questioning, some of it quite personal. Are lone women from the UK such a threat ? All seemed a little pointless, all that hassle and they let you in anyway! Other than that the people here are deliciously friendly. They write in English but they speak a wonderful mix of mouth harp and bubblegum, none of them know what a bloke is ;) Beautiful, very melodic. One other thing, the men in Alabama are not backwards in coming forwards, wouldn't be hard to catch yourself a husband here, might explain why the women are a little feisty ;)

  838. Achems_Razor

    Will put this in layman terms. Everything that we know, physical/reality, and everything that we see, physical reality, are formed by probability only, probable actions, where the waves come in, they are the precursor to probability they form probable actions from the quantum foam, called "quantum jitters". At the peaks, the highest crests of the waves is one probable action that may come to fruition in our vibrating string this reality that we are in. I suggest that you watch..."The hidden reality" by Brian Greene right here on TDF. scroll to the very top on this page of posts and where it says "search this site" on the top right, write in "the hidden reality" click the search button beside it, and there you have it. EDIT Sorry it seems to be removed due to copyright, I guess you will have to read the book if interested.

  839. robertallen1

    If the Big Bang could not be proven, it would not be accepted by mainstream science as a scientific THEORY as opposed to a conjecture or hypothesis. Now, what are these assumptiont that cannot be tested and verified.? And you should know better than using the term theory the way you have in your post.

  840. Pysmythe

    Well, now, I just have to respond to this one! I suspected that might be where you'd at last disappeared to, and started to ask you about it. ;)
    Have a great time, Dewy!

  841. robertallen1

    What's a nice Irish girl like you doing in Alabama?

  842. Giacomo della Svezia

    Apparently you don't know half how dangerous you are. ; )

  843. docoman

    I can't say I blame the border questioning, you have to be careful with Cougars! ;)

  844. FundamentalClue

    I've gone over this in other posts

  845. robertallen1

    And as others have pointed out, you are woefully ignorant of physics.

  846. FundamentalClue

    Go check the links I sent in reply to over the edge at the top of the page. And the one Achems replied "good link" to.

  847. robertallen1

    Your links notwithstanding, you have been corrected so many times on matters pertaining to physics that it's pathetic.

  848. FundamentalClue

    Well I'm going to have to make some implications towards what I'm trying to prove in order to make my statements. I'm not sure how I'd try and prove God exists without implying that God does. Check out the links I provided in response to 'over the edge' at the top of the page. Also look at the link Achems replied "good link" to.

  849. over the edge


    i am listening to your first link. does he ever get to a point? does he ever present actual evidence? i will give it one hour and if there is no proof i will move on.

    your second link makes assumptions but does not back them up. it also builds a strawman then burns it down with claims like " it is hard for skeptics to argue that biochemical information is only a metaphor," it also provides no positive proof.

    finally i asked some specific questions and i am wondering if you have any specific answers? they weren't tough questions and these links address none of them. to use your own words you are using "unprovable assertions that are mistaken for answers"

  850. FundamentalClue

    Check a link I provided in response to 'over the edge' at the top of this page. Both are good but the one that discusses this issue starts with reasons.org

  851. jackmax

    It appears to me that your biggest problem is your pride or your arrogance, will not let you admit you are wrong.

  852. robertallen1

    That's the fundamental flaw in arguments for a supreme being. There seems to be no way to prove one exists without implying that one does (i.e., using a priori assumptions).

  853. robertallen1

    Fundamental Clue does have a point when he states that he cannot think of a way to prove the existence of a supreme being without implying such existence which I take to mean making certain a priori assumptions. Of course, this goes against what he seems to be arguing for, but it certainly one of his better ejaculations. I wonder if the converse is true, i.e., there is no way to prove the non-existence of a supreme being without implying such non-existence. One way or the other, these are mere philosophical speculations and not worth much.

  854. over the edge

    that seems to be the issue doesn't it? i feel that he/she is intelligent and realizes the shortcomings in his/her beliefs. of course this is only an opinion but i am seeing a trend among many that believe in a "creator" they try to be as vague as possible in an attempt to provide some wiggle room in their arguments.

  855. robertallen1

    And it never seems to work, does it? If a person realizes the shortcomings in a belief, why not just abandon it?

  856. docoman

    So you finally admit you are trying to prove God exists. Thank you, it only took a month to say what we all knew.
    You said to me;

    "Well I'm going to have to make some implications towards what I'm trying to prove in order to make my statements. I'm not sure how I'd try and prove God exists without implying that God does."

    Now you have the audacity to request people go and watch 13 hours worth of one guys idea, when you wont do even half an hours reading to understand some rudimentary argument fallacies, which you continue to propose. You said you are not familiar with Russell's Teapot, even though repeatedly requested to read up on it, for your education. Everyone who suggested it recognised exactly why your argument is wrong. Not to mention your lack of action or response regarding other suggestions about your arguments, like Straw man, or 'the god of the gaps'.

    The fact is, you can not prove the existence of A god, let alone YOUR god. Twist and turn, duck and wiggle all you like you are still wrong. There is no evidence, there is no proof. Your god is a human invention, nothing so far in science requires one. Bugger you and your 13 hour request, honor the requests made of you first.

  857. FundamentalClue

    Thanks I'll check it out! Even with what you said though it still sounds like reality is based off waveforms

  858. jackmax

    Science can't dis-prove ''god'', however logic can.

  859. over the edge

    i guess it boils down to comfort or fear

  860. robertallen1

    I guess in most cases it does, but I'm trying to be optimistic in hoping against hope that FundamentalClue takes his post about implication seriously.

  861. over the edge

    me too. i am actually enjoying the talk and the exposure to a unique perspective. he/she does not seem like the typical creationist.

  862. robertallen1

    I agree with you there. At least his writing has become a lot clearer and the sooner he learns that philosophy is not going to help him, the better.
    I only hope I'm not speaking too soon.

  863. robertallen1

    @Over the Edge and of course everyone else:

    Are you familiar with Pat Condell? If not, try "Your Faith is a Joke" along with a number of others on You Tube.

  864. robertallen1

    Obviously it impressed you. Thanks for putting up the link. I guess that's one of the perks of being a moderator.

  865. over the edge

    watched it as well. enjoyed it

  866. robertallen1

    @Achem and Over the Edge--and of course everyone:

    Maybe you could convince Vlatko to put some of his other tapes on TDF. Also are you familiar with LithodidMan? I watched his six-part debunking of Ian Juby's paleontological claims made on Carl Baugh's "show"--and speaking of Mr. Juby who is a disgrace to all Canadians, I can find no information about his educational background.

  867. jackmax

    thank you for that informative piece on faith and I have already tried pass on that information to another gent in another thread for his viewing pleasure

  868. Pysmythe

    He still hasn't answered a few simple questions I asked him several months ago about some of these assumptions of his. Never really addressed them at all, as far as I could tell, as if they weren't really worth his consideration. I'm not too sure whatever anyone else thinks is all that important to him.

  869. robertallen1

    Your welcome.
    P.S. I've enjoyed your posts.

  870. Achems_Razor

    Just click "contact" on the very, very top of page and ask Vlatko if he can add docs you may like and others may like to watch.

  871. robertallen1

    Thank you. But are you familiar with Lithodid Man?

  872. Achems_Razor

    Will check that later, am on my way to work.

  873. docoman

    I suspect you and over the edge are correct. He/she seems to be intelligent enough to make the 'pro' arguments fairly well, but 'feigns' ignorance on why the arguments are not proof of a creator.
    To ask people to invest over 13 hours when they say they haven't invested any, or just refuse to acknowledge some requests is pretty rude really.

  874. Pysmythe

    Smells a whole lot like confirmation bias, doesn't it?

    You know, I have to admit I'm not entirely sure he didn't at least try to answer one or two of my questions, now that I've gone back and looked over some of those posts we exchanged, but I declare I still can't really make heads or tails out of what the hell he's getting at most of the time, and I've read a few physics books for the layman over the years. I don't remember who said it, but someone once said something to the effect that, the better you really understand a subject, the more clearly you're able to explain it to someone else. Then again, I'd have to be one of the first to acknowledge that anything quantum is just about the most incomprehensible goddamned thing there is. Maybe I'm just too thick-headed for the subject in any real depth (hell, I know I am), but I still think what I asked could've been answered a lot more simply, if it was at all.

  875. jackmax

    I'm glad you enjoy my posts, as I've been called repugnant because of what I have to say on other sites. I'll try to keep learning and passing on my knowledge the best I can, and if that's repugnant to some so be it.

  876. docoman

    He/she has some points I don't completely disagree with, but I don't agree with their conclusions. They're not the usual dumb creationist parroting something they've heard, FundamentalClue has a brain. It's why the conversation has somewhat remained interesting this long. I, like you, have read and watched some on physics, I've followed most of what has been said, or looked up some to learn/refresh. Quantum is weird, it's new since my school days. :) I don't understand it all, that's for sure.
    FundamentalClue is pretty good, but arguing an untenable position with the current available evidence. It's in essence the same as YMCA food. (Yesterdays Muck Cooked Again.)

  877. robertallen1

    I'm just curious. Which part of the globe to you inhabit?

  878. robertallen1

    He's certainly head and shoulders above Awful_Truth. Have you seen any of the videos of LithodidMan?

  879. jackmax

    I'm an extremely proud Australian..!

  880. robertallen1

    You and Docoman.

  881. robertallen1

    Considering the uniqueness of the fauna and flora in your country (continent), how can any Australian believe in the flood?

  882. docoman

    I agree. No mate, I haven't seen anything by LithodidMan. I just did a quick google of the name, I assume you mean the biologist? I'll have to check him out.

  883. robertallen1

    A number of his videos is on You Tube. Suggest you start with his debunking of Ian Juby.

  884. robertallen1

    I'm sorry. I don't understand your question.

  885. docoman

    We're about to pass a population of 23 million fairly soon apparently, I don't know what percentage would call themselves proud, but there would be a decent number that would. :)

    I watched a doco awhile back, that said in the previous decade to making that film, India's population had increased by an average of about 20 million per year.
    When I lived in Cairo, an unofficial estimate I heard was 24 million in Cairo during the day, 20 mill. at night, 4 million commuters. A million babies were born every 10 months (keeping in mind infant mortality rates didn't see that many survive)

    Aus is only small in population but big in area. Around 4% of the world economy I've been told. My cig. papers have little facts written on the packets, one I have here says "Aus. has the greatest number of reptiles of any country, with 755 species."
    I don't know how accurate that is, but I know we've got lots of snakes, frogs and lizards.

    How anyone can believe in a worldwide flood or young earth beats me.

  886. robertallen1

    It's not so much the number, but rather the uniqueness. Had there been a global flood, we would have encountered much of your country's flora and fauna outside it.

  887. docoman

    Yes, diversity anywhere on the planet to this degree is inconsistent with a global flood and 'reset' as the Bible claims. Noah couldn't fit the number of species we have now in the Ark, and there hasn't been enough time since the flood for evolution to create the numbers of species we have now. And as you say, especially something out on it's own 'branch' like the platypus. Clearly not enough time to evolve to those degrees of change from a same start only a few thousand years earlier. The diversity number and the uniqueness both point to the story being just that, only a story. Not reality.

  888. jackmax

    Which question would that be mate?

  889. robertallen1

    I had written, "Considering the uniqueness of the fauna and flora in your country (continent), how can any Australian believe in the flood" to which you came back with another question, but now I can't find it.

  890. jackmax

    You also wrote another post that I was replying to, check your e'mail account as I have just done.

  891. robertallen1

    This new system is really terrible. Too often it is difficult to follow the threads. So would you mind starting from square one? To recapitulate, I had written, "Considering the uniqueness of the fauna and flora in your country (continent), how can any Australian believe in the flood" to which you had responded with a question and I can't remember what that question was (and I can't find a record of it) except that I did not understand it and told you so. Then you asked me which question I was referring to.

  892. jackmax

    The question that you wrote and that I was replying was this; Considering the unique of the fauna and flora in your country (continent), how can any Australian believe in the blood? and my question was ''Robert, may I be rude and ask if you meant, uniquieness and flood in your above question?"

  893. robertallen1

    Yes, I did. I also asked your luntsman, Docoman, the same question which I'm sure you realize is rhetorical.

  894. jackmax

    Yes we do have unique floria and fauna in Aust, yet I could say the same of your continent, I don't think that has anything to do with a said "flood" as I think the creationest story is BS.
    Evolution time line disproves their claims of a big flood and facts and provable evidence has no need to distort the truth, as I've seens the creationest do cosistantly.
    I can't speak for all Aussies as that would be wrong of me, however most Aussies bloke talk about football (NRL), Aussie rules football and soccer in the winter and cricket and fishing or other outdoor activity. My personal opinion of that is that they don't really care if the "magic man' story is right or wrong.

  895. robertallen1

    While there are a large number of species unique to North America, it's nothing like the Galapagos Islands, Madagascar and your country, microcosms of botanical and zoological uniqueness, stunning examples of natural selection, punctuated equilibrium, ring species and all those good things and concepts found in biology textbooks..
    You'r right. Most people don't care if the "magic man" story is true. I can't say if that's right or wrong. I couldn't care less about sports of any type, but I've learned not to expect others to be interested in the things that interest me. However, I resent it when others try to force their interests, such as sports which I find as brainless as religion, on me.

  896. FundamentalClue

    No, I do not believe the intelligence that caused our reality is accurately portrayed by any religious denomination. So no, I don't believe in or follow any God or religion. I generally view these portrayals of character, laws and lore as primitive conceptions. Quite frankly, and generally speaking because there are many different variations of how God is defined amongst different denominations, I believe the concepts have been so contorted and idolized that they scarcely have any recognizable truth to them. Where and how those concepts originated is beyond me. But if I were to guess, I'd say it's based on a limited understanding of something that was discovered very long ago. Taken and twisted by subsequent generations to subdue and control growing populations, by those who would call themselves leaders or kings who eventually formed priesthoods. Of course, this idea in itself is based on the questionable idea that the history of human civilizations is far from complete. But there's a whole other discussion here, given the gaps in historical records and the anomolies in archaeological discoveries. When did human civilization really begin? Where did the concept of God come from in the first place? How early in human civilization did it come up? Which version was the first version? How did the idea spread across the whole planet, spawning a myriad of religions. And so on...
    But before I completely get off track here... You ask how someone could believe in something without evidence? I don't... The difference with my view is how I piece the evidence together. My view of reality starts with an intuitive sense that finding a way to explain every phenomenon is the only way to find what is actually true. Any idea that fails to explain other anomolies is either wrong or limited in its scope. So tying together the pieces that don't seem to fit is essential for discovering the truth. A few books that contributed to my view are:
    I guess one that sticks out in particular for this discussion is a book called "Quantum Questions" by philosopher Ken Wilber. This book is a compilation of the leading physicists of the 20th century and their view on mysticism. It covered scientists such as Einstein, Shroediger, Heisenberg, Pauli, Planck and possibly another (can't recall). Also on the list is Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos". Stephen hawking's "A Brief History of Time". Which now reminded me of Ken Wilber's "A Brief History of Everything". "The End of Time" by *something* Bourbon, (I think). A book I can't remeber the title to that put general relativity into question. Bruce Lipton's "Spontaneous Evolution". And a host of others really. Including articles, YouTube and documentaries.
    One thing I guess I haven't made clear is that I'm hypothesizing along side these ideas and not trying to claim them as fact. Sorry if everyone gets that idea by the way I positioned myself.
    I'm going to start another comment to detail what I see as evidence and/or potential for further investigation. To be continued...

  897. Achems_Razor

    Julian Barbour! I have read his book "the end of time" a few times (pun intended) fascinating!

  898. jackmax

    Mate when your refering to, punctuated equilibrium are you talking about the hypothesis? As I agree with the rest of what you said. I don't quite understand when a hypothesis becomes a therory?

  899. robertallen1

    I realize it's a hypothesis, but as I understand it, it means that evolution (natural selection) takes place at different rates depending on the environment and from what I've read about it, it's leaning towards mainstream acceptance. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

  900. jackmax

    I don't know enough about it to say that your wrong, I was just trying to learn from your knowledge and understanding of the difference of the two. What do you mean by "mainstream" are you meaning science or general populous

  901. docoman

    Luntsman! You made me go look up another word. :)

    jackmax brings up an interesting question. I only know a little about punctuated equilibrium, (quick wiki read) but the general idea makes sense to me.

    The interesting question though, is when does a hypothesis become a theory? Is there a distinct 'line' or moment, or is it more of a general perception/acceptance by other scientists?

  902. FundamentalClue

    I guess I'll start with Tom Campbell. The boring 13 hour long presentation isn't definitive and I know that. What catches my attention mostly is the way he views the universe as information based. I agree with this view because I see the universe as a conglomeration of congruent, complimentary and isometric patterns. Which to me spells information. Frequencies, if I'm not mistaken, is how the universe provides information. Patterned waves at specific frequencies is how we distinguish one thing from another. From gravitational waves to electromagnetic waves I see information in the form of waveforms. One particular vibration is an electron, another a proton. Distort the pattern and we lose the information. The same would go for radio waves, brain waves, computer generated information and so on. Only specific patterns at specific frequencies conclude to produce what we experience as physical reality, at least as I see it. Change the velocity of light and the corresponding spectrums of electromagnetic radiation change to fit its velocity, essentially changing the entire spectrum. Which inevitably changes the information available. Most notably to us would be the visible spectrum.
    I also felt he had something to go on with his interpretation of the delayed choice eraser, double slit experiment (in part 2 or 3).
    Beyond that, I'm not sure I agree with all his ideas regarding the implications of an information based universe. One thing though is that despite my uneasiness with some of his ideas, I can't dismiss them on two accounts. One, I'm sure he understands quantum theory better than I and probably many others. Two, I simply don't think it's wise to dismiss the results a 40 year veteran of large, complex systems analysis for NASA and the department of defense comes up with. After all, the universe is a large and complex system. He seems perfectly suited for tackling the problem. Also I'm sure he is pretty good at it considering he wouldn't last a week at NASA or the department of defense, never mind 40yrs.

    Lastly, this isn't worth much but I posted a link to a physics video in YouTube. Achems Razor seems to like it, he replied "good link". I'm not sure if he's aware of it, but the person who created the video is a great admirer of Tom Campbell, as they openly stated in their video. All I'm saying here is that if a number of us can agree or admire the video and how they present the concepts of physics we should pay attention to who they admire and why.

  903. jackmax

    Thank you for your explaination to that question..

  904. over the edge

    i cannot say that you or your links are wrong. as i have stated in many areas "i do not know" is the only answer i can give. to date nobody has given me an acceptable explanation backed by evidence that points to a creator. this in no way means that there isn't one. your views are interesting and i will admit that quantum physics and astronomy/cosmology are not my strong subjects. finally i will look at your other link (the one Achems commented on) but not tonight

  905. docoman

    Thanks for your reply mate. The heart of my question was regarding the last step where as you say, "then the hypothesis needs to gain general acceptance among the relevant fields to be accepted as a theory."

    Is there a way of knowing when that last step has ocurred? Other then someone saying it has and it not being disputed loudly by anyone credible. Punctuated Equilibria could possibly be accepted as a theory now is why I was wondering?

  906. docoman

    An interesting link, thank you. I noticed they called it a theory towards the end.

    It does seem a little strange to me that genetic mutation induced evolution doesn't show up a little more regularly throughout the fossil record. Of course there are many mutations that don't 'work', but no change over millions of years is slightly weird to me, if it is a contributing factor to evolution. Punctuated Equilibria would seem to me to suggest that natural selection is the major cause for change in a life form then?

    Have I got that right?

  907. FundamentalClue

    From a different perspective I'll touch on the research of Bruce Lipton and his findings. He is also been in his field for over 40yrs. A cell biologist, tenured professor and stem-cell researcher (one of the first). He describes how his reaserch has proven genetic determinism is flat out wrong. Meanwhile he taught it for decades, so he knows the field inside and out. I won't get into the details of this because it would correspond more closely to our understanding of evolution rather than any conclusions regarding a creator or intelligent design.
    What is interesting and relevant to our discussion is how he described cell communication, most notably his study on receptor proteins on the cell membrane known as "self-receptors". What intrigued him was how and where was the "self" signal originating. Every cell in our body knows it's a part of us. Remove it from our body and introduce it in someone else and it will be attacked by the host body because the cells in the host know it's not a part of it. The lone cell would also recognize that it is surrounded by cells that are not "self". So the question was, where is the signal coming from that the cell is receiving in order to determine what is self? The brain perhaps? Interestingly enough, it doesn't seem to be the brain. Remove a cell from the body and it still recognizes itself. The receptor proteins are still actively receiving the signal that tells them who they are. But how?...

    I'm sorry... As I'm writing this I'm realizing I can't recall all the details of his findings. I'm at work and I have the book in my car. I'll try and find the part regarding this to explain it further later. Otherwise, I recommend the book to anyone. And don't judge it by its cover... I personally hate the cover and almost never read it, but took a look just because it came from my dad. I was pleasantly surprised by it.

  908. over the edge

    with or without punctuated equalibria you are right "natural selection is the major cause for change in a life form" as for "no change over millions of years" that is not necessarily the case. fossils are the exception not the rule so over long periods we have relatively few fossils per species. those we do have tend to be marine species as they live in the most fossil friendly environment. but a fossil will only tell us of changes to the structure of an animal as once an animal (or plant) is fossilized there is no genetic material left and the remains of soft tissues in all but rare cases is gone. most small changes might not appear in the structure of an organism now this absence of evidence is just that and proves nothing. but remember in evolutionary terms millions of years isn't a long time (cambrian explosion occurred over approx 80 million years). and i do not have a time period at hand for punctuated equalibria. clear as mud lol?

    my personal opinion (backed by absolutely nothing but my basic understanding) is that in a stable environment there would be change but very little. if an organism is introduced to a new environment or an existing one changes then organisms that can more "rapidly" adapt will survive. i feel that there is not only room for both approaches but both together provide a better explanation for the evidence we have

  909. docoman

    Thanks mate, I've learned some new things. :)

    It's interesting that Eldredge and Gould argued it from the standpoint of the stasis apparent in the available fossil record, rather then the relatively faster 'times of change' observed.
    I tend to agree with your take on it, I think (so far) that it's the likely explanation. Change will occur slowly from genetic mutations, and more rapidly with added pressures like environment change pushing/advocating some changes over others.

    Something I finally disagree with Dawkins about. :)

    About the fossil record, at the end of the wiki article section about criticisms, it says;
    "John Lyne and Henry Howe, in a more positive evaluation, states that "re-analysis of existing fossil data has shown, to the increasing satisfaction of the paleontological community, that Eldredge and Gould
    were correct in identifying periods of evolutionary stasis which are interrupted by much shorter periods of evolutionary change."

    It would seem as we find and analyse more fossils, it's tending to bear out what Eldridge and Gould were finding. Even Darwin had thought of the problem, as it says in wiki,
    "In the fourth edition (1866) of On the Origin of Species Darwin wrote that "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form."[68] Thus punctuationism in general is consistent with Darwin's conception of evolution."
    Darwin obviously saw and considered these trends in the fossil record.
    I'll have to look more closely at why Dawkins doesn't like the idea.

    Cheers for your thoughts on when a hypothesis becomes accepted as a theory. Outliving your detractors is one way of having the last word :)

  910. FundamentalClue

    Regarding a global flood, i.e, a flood that covered the entire surface of the planet, I agree to be completely ridiculous. Especially within creationists timelines. Even if all the ice melted and atmospheric pressure changed drastically enough to empty the skies of water vapor, I'm not sure there's enough water on this planet to raise ocean levels that much.
    On the contrary though, according to Graham Hancock, there are over 700 separate flood myths and stories to be found. That would seem to give some credence to a disaster involving water that was global. But by no means the one specifically described by creationists. Mind you, Graham Hancock is a journalist who did a lot of reaserch but not a scientist. His hypothesis is that it could've been a duration of flooding during the melting of the last ice age that caused coastal flooding and considerable raising of ocean levels, desemating coastal regions. This might have caused similar stories of great flooding to be recorded amongst so many of history's separated cultures.
    But that's just a guess... Who knows!

  911. jackmax

    Graham Hancock is a journalist, so what part of his expertise in science should we listen to?

  912. FundamentalClue

    Bruce Lipton has an interesting idea regarding genetic mutations. His book "Spontaneous Evolution" discusses his research findings. When studying stem cells a few decades ago he conducted an experiment where he took a stem cell in a petri dish and let it divide until he had tens of thousands of them. All the cells in the dish are 100% genetically identical. What he did next was to separate the stem cells into three dishes. All he did was change the culture medium in each dish, essentially changing the environmental conditions for each dish. What he found was in one dish they formed muscle cells. In another dish, bone cells. And in the third dish, fat cells. What this was telling him was that the fate of the cells was not being determined by the genes since they were all identical to begin with but the environment instead. In that monent he says he discovered the flaw in genetic determinism.
    This might shed a little bit of light in the lack of evidence for gentic mutation induced evolution in the fossil record. It also might point to the environment as reasons for punctuated equilibria
    I don't know... Just a thought.

  913. docoman

    An interesting experiment, thanks mate. Although I don't agree with with his conclusion that he 'discovered a flaw in genetic determinism', as environmental factors it seems are accepted as a part of the story, and have been for a long time.
    From wiki;
    "Genetic determinism is the belief that genes, along with environmental conditions, determine morphological and behavioral phenotypes.
    The term is sometimes mistakenly applied to the unscientific belief that genes determine, to the exclusion of environmental influence, how an organism turns out. As CH Waddington wrote in 1957, "It is of course a truism which has long been recognised that the development of any individual is affected both by the hereditary determinants which come into the fertilised egg from the two parents and also by the nature of the environment in which the
    development takes place."
    Edit- another poster on here, Giacomo della Svezia, a smart man IMO, was saying just the other day how he is an identical twin, but there are definitely differences between him and his brother.
    I'd also need to know more about the experiment, and rule out other possibilities like a chemical trigger on genes etc.

  914. FundamentalClue

    Over the edge
    I totally respect your position and your view, and you in general. I enjoy discussing this topic (among others). Also, just like you, except on the complete opposite side of the table, I can say, "to date nobody has given me an acceptable explanation backed by evidence that accounts for the existence of this universe, the extraordinary disposition of our planet with all it's organic, biochemical constituents forming the jaw-dropping complexity of life that naturally strives towards global homeostasis and the cognitive capacity and comprehension of the human mind." Keeping in mind the transition of size scales and how they mold into one another. Every scale and every aspect of every scale, dancing between entropy and homeostasis. It's simply amazing and I don't feel satisfied with the explanations thus far. The closest thing I've heard that comes close to the explanation I'm looking for kind of sounds like it might come from the entropic principle, or at least a derivation of. It's hard to tell because it's a little over my head and I can get the jist of it but not the core functions or implications of it. A wee bit complicated if you ask me.

  915. FundamentalClue

    Yeah that's the one! Thanks! It was interesting wasn't it?

  916. robertallen1

    There obviously is. However, is it possible for an environment to be stable for one species and unstable for another. If so, then they would probably evolve at different rates. Which might explain why certain varieties of shark have remained unchanged for millions of years while other forms of life in their environment have changed rapidly (in geologic time, of course).

  917. robertallen1

    The former.

  918. robertallen1

    Thanks for your elucidations on punctuated equilibrium and the evolution of hypothesis into theory. Like Docoman and JackMax, I learned a bit.

  919. robertallen1

    In Las Vegas, there are 2,000 games of blackjack going on at once (probably more since I first read about this some 20 years ago), the odds of a series of games turning out in a particular way are astronomical, yet they are broken every second of every minute of every day. Magnifying that uncountable times to the universe, the way it functions is only one of the myriad ways in which could--nothing extraordinary about it at all, none need for some "intelligence."
    P.S. How do you separate simplicity from complexity and after that, what makes you think that complexity implies some sort of "intelligence?"

  920. Epicurus

    I would say that of those 700 flood stories, they didnt all occur at the same time, AND it is only common that we would have so many flood stories given two facts....1) humans traditionally and wisely set up along rivers and streams and other water sources.....2) water sources flood.

  921. over the edge

    i agree completely

  922. FundamentalClue

    I agree they probably didn't all occur at the same time. The other interesting thing I remember about some of the stories is the similarities some have and the separation of distance and time they are divided by. For instance, south American cultures make up almost half of the stories while being on the other side of the planet. Many of these stories do corroborate with each other in vague detail. It's just interesting, nothin more. Makes me wonder how the stories got passed along and how they spread around the world, considering we don't know of European or Asian cultures sailing to the America's at such early times in history.

  923. FundamentalClue

    What expertise in science? He's just a journalist. Then again, I'm not sure if you're familiar with a guy on YouTube named Potholer54. He's just a journalist too, but I really appreciate his thorough investigation into climate change. But Graham Hancock is not Potholer54 and it's up to us individually to discern how well Graham conducted his investigation. I haven't checked his references personally so I don't know.

  924. Kateye70

    Lol, this is so true! Katrina practically wiped out New Orleans--did they move the city? Nope. Still there, still below sea level...

  925. Kateye70

    Gosh, the Americas didn't have floods? Or indigenous populations to tell their own flood stories? Gotta wonder just how many different ways there are to say "Rained a lot, got flooded out." (I'm guessing the plot gets worn thin pretty quickly...)

  926. FundamentalClue

    Lol, too true! I'm just reiterating something I read in a book by a guy who claims that his research is honest and accurate. Like I said, I haven't checked his references, but I recall his index at the back of the book was roughly 50 pages of references.
    I didn't mention before, and there are many other details I can't recall (read the book many yrs ago), but there's a striking collection of stories in South America, from pre-colonial times that mention a man; or man and a woman; or a man, woman and child(ren); surviving a massive flood on a boat, a raft, a wooden box, on a giant tree, etc.; or man surviving atop a high mountain under a tree; grove of trees; sometimes with animals. And so on...
    I'm not offering this as definitive proof of anything. I want to be clear about this. I just read it, now I'm sharing it... Like I said, haven't checked his references, but he wasn't shy to share them. Tell you all what - if anyone cares, I'll try find some time and check some of his sources.

  927. FundamentalClue

    Thanks for that mention! That exert from wiki makes perfect sense. I suppose it's probably better to hear what I was talking about from the horse's own mouth. I know he went into further detail regarding the process and how it tied to flawed concepts in genetic determinism. It was much more in depth than my crude summary. But he could very well be wrong, missed something perhaps. I only imagine he should have been aware of what you mentioned considering he was a professor teaching genetics for (roughly 20yrs I think). So I think his full explanation was in light of that knowledge. I'll have to check...

  928. jackmax

    One would assume that from your following statement, ''Regarding a global flood, i.e, a flood that covered the entire surface of the planet, I agree to be completely ridiculous. Especially within creationists timelines.'' that you are of the opinion that my statement about the floods are reasonably accuate. And if that is the case how can some journalist writing about creationist ideas have any valid point to a scientific fact. It appears to be another apologetic argument that creationist continually use as a ploy to discredit science

  929. Epicurus

    depends on how far you want to say some of these flood stories go back.

    North Americans are just people who crossed the Bering Land Bridge about 15000 years ago. if there were drastic flood events before that and stories passed on and continued (because thats what humans do) then they might have carried those stories with them by retelling them through generations.

    I personally doubt that. I think every society is set up on water because that is the only way to have a large group of people together. and every water source floods at one time so naturally all peoples will have stories of some great flood that wiped out their cities (which for most people would have been the entire world in their view)

  930. FundamentalClue

    I'd like to see the statistics in that example, but I'll go with it. Regardless though, stating that the universe rolls the dice ad infinitum and by chance landed this particular universe out of an infinite number of possibilities, is not a succinct answer. Really it's the lack of an answer and clearly demonstrates our inability to sort through the complex interactions to define the causes.
    Ummm... Separate simplicity from complexity? I'm not sure I follow your line of questioning but I suppose it's a matter of perspective; a frame of reference, whether something is seen as simple or complex.
    I don't think that complexity implies some sort of intelligence. Not on its own anyway. In my view, it has more to do with the format with which the complexities of this universe have been structured. But more so than any of that, I don't believe it's possible for intelligence to self-assimilate from random chaos. For instance, the profound intelligence that is robertallen cannot come into existence through random processes no matter how long we give randomness to achieve such a feat. Cosmology explains the universe around us, evolution the process life exhibits on this planet, neither of which suffice to account for how intelligence came into existence. Does that make sense?

  931. robertallen1

    It's just one of an infinite number of combinations which happen to turn up. If draw blackjack 2,500 times in a row, it's no more of an accomplishment than anyother combination of cards which might come up in an equal number of deals; it's just that blackjack pays more which is ancillary. Probability is meaningless, especially when there are too many unknown parameters.

    "In my view, it [complexity] has more to do with the format with which the complexities of this universe have been structured. " Back to gibberish.

    "But more so than any of that, I don't believe it's possible for intelligence to self-assimilate from random chaos." What you believe is only so much garbage; it's what you can prove which in this case is nothing. So your statement is meaningless and valueless.
    "For instance, the profound intelligence that is robertallen cannot come into existence through random processes no matter how long we give randomness to achieve such a feat." How do you know this or is it just another groundless belief?

    In answer to your closing question, it makes sense only when you don't try manufacturing an answer which is what you're trying to do now.

  932. Achems_Razor

    According to QM, QP, and many worlds theory by Hugh Everett the III, plus Julian Barbour, the end of time" which you have said you read. You do not need any chance or roll of the dice. Because "everything that is, that was, and will be, already happened, and is static, according to Barbour we are pulling our now's out of our static picture book album of probabilities.

    Hugh Everett III


    Julian Barbour


  933. FundamentalClue

    Yes, I absolutely was agreeing with you. But the journalist wasn't specifically writing about creationist ideas, though I do believe what he was writing is most likely a fact. I'm getting this all from a book he wrote called, "Fingerprints of the Gods - Evidence of Earth's Lost Civilizations". Don't let the title give the wrong impression. He wasn't writing about Gods or religious or mystical ideologies (at least not in the sense to lend them credibility). He was gathering evidence from around the world to try and prove that human civilization may be much older than we have substantiated records of. This idea in itself goes against what creationists believe with their 'young earth conjecture'. He saw the ancient monolithic architecture, that in many cases was very similar around the globe and the records the ancient cultures themselves either wrote, chiseled or verbally passed down, showed evidence that there once existed a civilization or civilizations that predate out current view of when civilization began. Like I said, his view was that these stories regarding a flood might have originated from the melting of the last ice age which was no less than 10 to 12 thousand years ago. Many of the ancient records seem to corroborate with this view, as many of them speak of a time, ancient to even them, when their ancestors were described as being far more advanced or knowledgable than themselves. And of course, many cultures from around the world corroborate the idea that these high civilizations were utterly destroyed by environmental cataclysms. So Hancock posits that some of the greatest monolithic monuments were built more than 6 thousand years ago by civilizations more advanced than the historic cultures we have direct records of. Which I feel is a plausible account, especially when regarding the Giza Plateau... And some other sites that are questionable.
    So to summarize, the journalist doesn't spend any time trying to prove creationist theories. Rather, his approach was to use all known documentation and stories passed down from ancient cultures to show there is much evidence that points to a much longer history than we account for at this time.

  934. jackmax

    You absolutely agree with me....So anything you say after that is either BS or not on the subject being discussed.

    If you would like to explain the time line difference between the creationest's "magic man" hypothesis, compared to the facts of evolution please don't let facts and evidence get in your way to show me how science is wrong.

  935. FundamentalClue

    ya sorry I went off topic there. I was mainly trying to point out that he wasn't making arguments for creationism.
    Not familiar with any "magic man" hypothesis. And I wasn't arguing with science

  936. FundamentalClue

    Yes, and I found his interpretation interesting. I'm not convinced it is correct even though I'm open to the possibility that it might be. I must have read the book around a decade ago. Maybe I'll pick it up to refresh my memory. It's sitting on my bookshelf.
    On the other hand, robertallen1 was making a statement that seemed to be referring to chance and something like the rolling of dice so I was responding to that.

  937. jackmax

    Have you read Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, now from his early studies and his ability to write we began a more in depth study of natural biology to where we are at today. From his theory, biologists like Prof. Richard Dawkins and others that seek the truth without any supernatural "magic man" stories. It's peer reviewed to be shown that each new piece of evidence is free from error and therefore true. Through science we have progressed well beyond the basic incorrect hypothesis the religous/creationest wont let go off because the greatest book of fairy tales that through extremely wealthy religion organisations, have been able to minipulate the weak minded, feeble, guilibile, scared and the just plain stup*d to take as much money as "heavenly" possible, to believe through faith of a "magic man".

  938. robertallen1

    Speaking of the weak-minded, feeble, gullible and just plain stup*d, could I prevail upon you to come forth with your views on Mother Theresa and her defenders.

  939. docoman

    G'day FC, I've read and watched a little of Hancock, Duval and West. I also think there are some very interesting ideas and some evidence towards some of their theories. There are some big problems as well, namely enough physical evidence/remains. I have to agree, the Sphinx at Giza has to be older then Egyptologists say it is. The geological weathering evidence proves it. (not to mention looking at it you can see plainly the head has been re-carved, no other sphinx in Egypt are out of proportion like that.)

    That theory is not good for most traditional religious and creationists ideas. It may help explain the flood myths for starters, no 'god' required.

    It has no relevance to evolution/biology though. Those theories fit well within the lower end of the accepted time homo sapiens have been alive, 100k years.
    Interesting ideas maybe, but that's History, not biology.

  940. jackmax

    Well, my mother was told me if I have nothing nice to say about people don't say nothing at all. But by now you may have noticed I don't list to good advise at times.
    My thoughts are you are on the money with your earlier discription.

  941. jackmax

    I'm a skeptic on all subjects, if you try to bring any supernatural hypothesis in to a discussion and/or debate without any scientific facts within the area of science we are discussing, I owe it to myself to question your true motive behind your posts. As I said earlier when it appears apologetic arguments are the only weapons left it's time to admit your wrong, wouldn't you agree...:)

  942. FundamentalClue

    In my view, it [intelligence] has more to do with the format with which the complexities of this universe have been structured.
    Which is to say, intelligence is evident in the universe's format. The particular way that it did form itself. Not to be confused with an infinite number of ways it didn't.
    Before you get ahead of yourself, be aware that I was only stating my opinions in that last post. I wasn't trying to prove anything.
    You believe everything science has to tell you including its negations to explain phenomena. I believe everything science has to say except its negations to explain phenomena. I say this because you seem comfortable with scientists claiming randomness in anything this universe has done. I'm not comfortable receiving randomness as an answer to anything in this universe because from what I can see, everything in this universe is anything but random.
    And my opinion is as valid as yours - not to be confused with garbage.

  943. robertallen1

    " . . . intelligence is evident in the universe's format." How do you distinguish intelligence from non-intelligence? What is this particular way that the universe formed itself and what link does such a formation have with intelligence? Are you saying that if the universe had formed in another way, there would have been no intelligence behind it? If you can't answer these questions, then intelligence is not evident in the universe's format (whatever that is and whatever that means) and your opinion is not as valid as mine and simply constitutes an attempt to bring some metaphysical hoodoo into the mix.
    "You believe everything science has to tell you including its negations to explain phenomena." Do you mean its current inability to explain certain phenomena? If so, why can't you state this clearly?

  944. FundamentalClue

    It's honestly hard to say how far back these stories might originate. Though it is hard to believe they could date back further than 15000 years, I suppose it must still remain one of the possibilities given the matching storylines I describe below. So I'm in agreement with you about how people settle along water and how they'd get flooded out from time to time an share those stories. But it's still intriguing that many small details corroborate with each other. Like where did an Incan story of a man being spared from a great deluge by surving atop a wooden box come from. The story predates colonial times. I mean it's obviously not Noah's ark an there's no animals in this version, but it's a little uncanny that we're talking about lone survivors on wooden floating devices in both stories. The list of versions is long actually so that makes it more compelling. It's strange but true. Check it out for yourself.

  945. FundamentalClue

    Touché! So Hadfield has credentials, unlike Hancocks questionable authority on his field of inquiry.

  946. FundamentalClue

    Yes definitely some interesting ideas and evidence. But some lofty ideas to boot. I like to ponder the evidence myself without necessarily taking to their theories. I think the Great Pyramid is a bit of an enigma itself. Especially if the precision of its construction is true and not exaggerated. The question of whether it's a tomb or not is interesting as well. Simply based on its lack of hieroglyphs. Also, tryin to remember where on YouTube I saw an interview with a researcher who was claiming that some kind of marine fossils were covering the lower portion of the monument. Either way, interesting but nothing concrete.
    Yeah I think we were discussing evolution/biology somewhere else on this page.

  947. docoman

    I've been lucky enough to go up inside the Great Pyramid of Giza, I've seen it form the outside many times. It's very impressive whoever and whenever it was built, for whatever reason.

  948. FundamentalClue

    Yes I read it a long time ago, back in school. I love science for its ability to discern the truth. It's just unfortunate that there are areas beyond sciences scope to investigate. So what should we do in those circumstances? Just leave it as impossible to know? Or find other means to inquire?

  949. FundamentalClue

    Not yet... :). I'm looking for an explanation to our existence. And as enlightening and vast and thorough science is in explaining so much of the natural phenomena that make up this universe/physical reality, it falls short on many fronts. And it's not to say science won't fill those gaps over time, at least most of them. I know there are certain areas of inquiry that are simply beyond sciences scope to investigate. Question is, how will we inquire and investigate these areas?

  950. FundamentalClue

    Oh and I forgot to mention... I'm not looking for supernatural, just natural.

  951. robertallen1

    And just which areas are you referring to?

  952. Epicurus

    Im aware of the inca flood story and there is no instance of them surviving on floating wood. its two brothers who stay in a cave with their llamas.

    in a flood people will cling to floating debris. i dont think a story about a man saving himself from a flood by holding on to a piece of floating wood is close enough to be compared to a flood story where a man builds a giant boat.

    of course the boat is made of wood, the stories take place when boats were made of wood......so its not an amazing coincidence at all. it should be expected.