If you are HONEST, you are AGNOSTIC

[ding]

Here's what George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Physiology / Medicine and an atheist to boot, has to say about consciousness:

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science."

George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.​

So he also says he hasn't a clue what consciousness is.

Is that what you believe he said?

No, that is what he said. Did you actually read it?

"There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness."

Right. He said he couldn’t tell if lower order creatures had consciousness. He didn’t say he didn’t know what it is. In fact he believes it is a permanent condition involving all of the senses. There isn’t one thing that makes us conscious. It is the whole being.

You are reading what you want to see and ignoring the rest. He has clearly stated that he hasn't got a clue what consciousness is. In fact, he seems to be saying that he believes (which is not the same thing as knowing) that you can't know what it is.

No. I am reading exactly what he wrote.

"I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception."

He knows what consciousness is. He doesn't believe it is anything science can measure because it can't be measured because it is not one thing. It is everything together.

Consciousness is an artifact of intelligence. Free will is an artifact of intelligence. The ability to choose distinguishes from the rest of the living world. It's the thing that sets us apart.

 

[Frannie]

The desire for a solution is not the same thing as a solution. You are free to make one up it you like, but that isn't going to get me to accept it.

Correct. The solution is the solution. And the only solution to what came before that is something which is eternal.

We know matter and energy cannot be eternal without reaching thermal equilibrium. So the solution must be something which is immaterial. Spirit is immaterial.

Actually what you are saying is that since you do not know the answer as to what the universe is that it was created by spirits.

That belief if staunch is schizzo in nature

No. I am saying that we know matter and energy cannot be eternal or the reason for the creation of the universe.

Therefore, it must be something else. Consciousness, which we know exists, fits the bill. Consciousness can be eternal and since the universe is effectively nothing more than information consciousness can be its source.

First of all there is no we. Second the scientific law of conservation of mass spells out clearly that matter and energy are eternal and merely change form repetitively. You do not know the answers as to where matter and energy came from initially. No human does, therefore you assign a spirit as your god.

Point in fact, before plate tectonics was understood, volcanic eruptions were caused by angry gods and spirits.

Do you know what thermal equilibrium is? Do you understand that as time approaches infinity that all objects will become uniform in temperature? This is simple thermodynamics.

The conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. It merely changes form. But for every matter to energy or energy to matter transaction there is a corresponding los of useable energy. This does not mean that energy is destroyed. The total energy remains the same. It's just that the ability to do thermodynamic works is reduced. Energy flows from higher energy objects to lower energy objects. Eventually all objects will equilibrate. That's how we know that what we see or what created what we see cannot be eternal.

Time and space are undefined, humans can only attempt to describe them. Are you aware that science is claiming that 85 percent of the universe is missing? I can tell you for a fact that it is all there right where it belongs. Nothing about thermal equilibrium explains space time or the creation of matter, so you blame God for their creation. When mocked you go back to another schizzo personality and start referencing science as explaining creation.

Simplified you have no answers, but believe as you choose because you are mentally ill

Tell a shrink that you understand where the universe came from

 

[diver52]

You may well believe that, but I see nothing which supports the hypothesis.

You mean other than the solution to the first cause conundrum.

The desire for a solution is not the same thing as a solution. You are free to make one up it you like, but that isn't going to get me to accept it.

Correct. The solution is the solution. And the only solution to what came before that is something which is eternal.

We know matter and energy cannot be eternal without reaching thermal equilibrium. So the solution must be something which is immaterial. Spirit is immaterial.

As I said, you are free to make it up.

I'm not making anything up. Science tells us that our universe was created from nothing. That it had a beginning. The question of what came before that is a valid question. There is not an infinite number of what came before thats. There is one source. A first cause. This first cause must be uncaused. Therefore, it must be eternal. It's simple logic.

No, science does not. And there is a term in computer logic: garbage in - garbage out.

 

[diver52]

So he also says he hasn't a clue what consciousness is.

Is that what you believe he said?

No, that is what he said. Did you actually read it?

"There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness."

Right. He said he couldn’t tell if lower order creatures had consciousness. He didn’t say he didn’t know what it is. In fact he believes it is a permanent condition involving all of the senses. There isn’t one thing that makes us conscious. It is the whole being.

You are reading what you want to see and ignoring the rest. He has clearly stated that he hasn't got a clue what consciousness is. In fact, he seems to be saying that he believes (which is not the same thing as knowing) that you can't know what it is.

No. I am reading exactly what he wrote.

"I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception."

He knows what consciousness is. He doesn't believe it is anything science can measure because it can't be measured because it is not one thing. It is everything together.

Consciousness is an artifact of intelligence. Free will is an artifact of intelligence. The ability to choose distinguishes from the rest of the living world. It's the thing that sets us apart.

As I said, you are reading what you want to see and ignoring the rest. I can't make you read the entire thing.

 

[Frannie]

You mean other than the solution to the first cause conundrum.

The desire for a solution is not the same thing as a solution. You are free to make one up it you like, but that isn't going to get me to accept it.

Correct. The solution is the solution. And the only solution to what came before that is something which is eternal.

We know matter and energy cannot be eternal without reaching thermal equilibrium. So the solution must be something which is immaterial. Spirit is immaterial.

As I said, you are free to make it up.

I'm not making anything up. Science tells us that our universe was created from nothing. That it had a beginning. The question of what came before that is a valid question. There is not an infinite number of what came before thats. There is one source. A first cause. This first cause must be uncaused. Therefore, it must be eternal. It's simple logic.

No, science does not. And there is a term in computer logic: garbage in - garbage out.

He has his own science based on his erector set

 

[ding]

Point in fact, before plate tectonics was understood, volcanic eruptions were caused by angry gods and spirits.

And has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing.

Ancient man understood that the material world had a beginning and that man arose from that creation.

 

[Frannie]

Point in fact, before plate tectonics was understood, volcanic eruptions were caused by angry gods and spirits.

And has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing.

Ancient man understood that the material world had a beginning and that man arose from that creation.

Why are you referencing ancient man who knew nothing about anything

 

[ding]

Is that what you believe he said?

No, that is what he said. Did you actually read it?

"There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness."

Right. He said he couldn’t tell if lower order creatures had consciousness. He didn’t say he didn’t know what it is. In fact he believes it is a permanent condition involving all of the senses. There isn’t one thing that makes us conscious. It is the whole being.

You are reading what you want to see and ignoring the rest. He has clearly stated that he hasn't got a clue what consciousness is. In fact, he seems to be saying that he believes (which is not the same thing as knowing) that you can't know what it is.

No. I am reading exactly what he wrote.

"I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception."

He knows what consciousness is. He doesn't believe it is anything science can measure because it can't be measured because it is not one thing. It is everything together.

Consciousness is an artifact of intelligence. Free will is an artifact of intelligence. The ability to choose distinguishes from the rest of the living world. It's the thing that sets us apart.

As I said, you are reading what you want to see and ignoring the rest. I can't make you read the entire thing.

What am I ignoring? That he can't tell if a frog is conscious? That he believes consciousness is impervious to science?

No. I understand he said those things. What am I missing and how does that change the fact that he said he believes consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception?

 

[Frannie]

No, that is what he said. Did you actually read it?

"There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness."

Right. He said he couldn’t tell if lower order creatures had consciousness. He didn’t say he didn’t know what it is. In fact he believes it is a permanent condition involving all of the senses. There isn’t one thing that makes us conscious. It is the whole being.

You are reading what you want to see and ignoring the rest. He has clearly stated that he hasn't got a clue what consciousness is. In fact, he seems to be saying that he believes (which is not the same thing as knowing) that you can't know what it is.

No. I am reading exactly what he wrote.

"I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception."

He knows what consciousness is. He doesn't believe it is anything science can measure because it can't be measured because it is not one thing. It is everything together.

Consciousness is an artifact of intelligence. Free will is an artifact of intelligence. The ability to choose distinguishes from the rest of the living world. It's the thing that sets us apart.

As I said, you are reading what you want to see and ignoring the rest. I can't make you read the entire thing.

What am I ignoring? That he can't tell if a frog is conscious? That he believes consciousness is impervious to science?

No. I understand he said those things. What am I missing and how does that change the fact that he said he believes consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception?

Consciousness is one product of the brains functioning

 

[ding]

The desire for a solution is not the same thing as a solution. You are free to make one up it you like, but that isn't going to get me to accept it.

Correct. The solution is the solution. And the only solution to what came before that is something which is eternal.

We know matter and energy cannot be eternal without reaching thermal equilibrium. So the solution must be something which is immaterial. Spirit is immaterial.

As I said, you are free to make it up.

I'm not making anything up. Science tells us that our universe was created from nothing. That it had a beginning. The question of what came before that is a valid question. There is not an infinite number of what came before thats. There is one source. A first cause. This first cause must be uncaused. Therefore, it must be eternal. It's simple logic.

No, science does not. And there is a term in computer logic: garbage in - garbage out.

He has his own science based on his erector set

My science is based on red shift and cosmic background radiation. Do you disagree that both of those are indirect measurements of the birth and expansion of the universe?

 

[ding]

Right. He said he couldn’t tell if lower order creatures had consciousness. He didn’t say he didn’t know what it is. In fact he believes it is a permanent condition involving all of the senses. There isn’t one thing that makes us conscious. It is the whole being.

You are reading what you want to see and ignoring the rest. He has clearly stated that he hasn't got a clue what consciousness is. In fact, he seems to be saying that he believes (which is not the same thing as knowing) that you can't know what it is.

No. I am reading exactly what he wrote.

"I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception."

He knows what consciousness is. He doesn't believe it is anything science can measure because it can't be measured because it is not one thing. It is everything together.

Consciousness is an artifact of intelligence. Free will is an artifact of intelligence. The ability to choose distinguishes from the rest of the living world. It's the thing that sets us apart.

As I said, you are reading what you want to see and ignoring the rest. I can't make you read the entire thing.

What am I ignoring? That he can't tell if a frog is conscious? That he believes consciousness is impervious to science?

No. I understand he said those things. What am I missing and how does that change the fact that he said he believes consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception?

Consciousness is one product of the brains functioning

Consciousness involves the whole being. There is no one part of the brain that controls consciousness. The brain receives feedback from all of our senses.

 

[diver52]

No, that is what he said. Did you actually read it?

"There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness."

Right. He said he couldn’t tell if lower order creatures had consciousness. He didn’t say he didn’t know what it is. In fact he believes it is a permanent condition involving all of the senses. There isn’t one thing that makes us conscious. It is the whole being.

You are reading what you want to see and ignoring the rest. He has clearly stated that he hasn't got a clue what consciousness is. In fact, he seems to be saying that he believes (which is not the same thing as knowing) that you can't know what it is.

No. I am reading exactly what he wrote.

"I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception."

He knows what consciousness is. He doesn't believe it is anything science can measure because it can't be measured because it is not one thing. It is everything together.

Consciousness is an artifact of intelligence. Free will is an artifact of intelligence. The ability to choose distinguishes from the rest of the living world. It's the thing that sets us apart.

As I said, you are reading what you want to see and ignoring the rest. I can't make you read the entire thing.

What am I ignoring? That he can't tell if a frog is conscious? That he believes consciousness is impervious to science?

No. I understand he said those things. What am I missing and how does that change the fact that he said he believes consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception?

I don't think you did understand or you wouldn't continue to insist that he is saying he knows what consciousness is. You are convinced and I don't believe (which is not the same thing as knowing - hint, hint) I am going to change that.

 

[ding]

Point in fact, before plate tectonics was understood, volcanic eruptions were caused by angry gods and spirits.

And has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing.

Ancient man understood that the material world had a beginning and that man arose from that creation.

Why are you referencing ancient man who knew nothing about anything

It's in Genesis 1.

 

[Frannie]

Correct. The solution is the solution. And the only solution to what came before that is something which is eternal.

We know matter and energy cannot be eternal without reaching thermal equilibrium. So the solution must be something which is immaterial. Spirit is immaterial.

As I said, you are free to make it up.

I'm not making anything up. Science tells us that our universe was created from nothing. That it had a beginning. The question of what came before that is a valid question. There is not an infinite number of what came before thats. There is one source. A first cause. This first cause must be uncaused. Therefore, it must be eternal. It's simple logic.

No, science does not. And there is a term in computer logic: garbage in - garbage out.

He has his own science based on his erector set

My science is based on red shift and cosmic background radiation. Do you disagree that both of those are indirect measurements of the birth and expansion of the universe?

Before those were accepted the universe was static, before that it was 2 dimensional, now the brightest minds are claiming that it is a computer simulation.

Now tell us why what ancient man believed is relevant today when they believed that earthquakes were caused by god

 

[Frannie]

You are reading what you want to see and ignoring the rest. He has clearly stated that he hasn't got a clue what consciousness is. In fact, he seems to be saying that he believes (which is not the same thing as knowing) that you can't know what it is.

No. I am reading exactly what he wrote.

"I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception."

He knows what consciousness is. He doesn't believe it is anything science can measure because it can't be measured because it is not one thing. It is everything together.

Consciousness is an artifact of intelligence. Free will is an artifact of intelligence. The ability to choose distinguishes from the rest of the living world. It's the thing that sets us apart.

As I said, you are reading what you want to see and ignoring the rest. I can't make you read the entire thing.

What am I ignoring? That he can't tell if a frog is conscious? That he believes consciousness is impervious to science?

No. I understand he said those things. What am I missing and how does that change the fact that he said he believes consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception?

Consciousness is one product of the brains functioning

Consciousness involves the whole being. There is no one part of the brain that controls consciousness. The brain receives feedback from all of our senses.

So if you remove the brain from a body the body is still conscious.

Kid u r a retard

 

[Frannie]

Point in fact, before plate tectonics was understood, volcanic eruptions were caused by angry gods and spirits.

And has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing.

Ancient man understood that the material world had a beginning and that man arose from that creation.

Why are you referencing ancient man who knew nothing about anything

It's in Genesis 1.

So what

 

[ding]

Right. He said he couldn’t tell if lower order creatures had consciousness. He didn’t say he didn’t know what it is. In fact he believes it is a permanent condition involving all of the senses. There isn’t one thing that makes us conscious. It is the whole being.

You are reading what you want to see and ignoring the rest. He has clearly stated that he hasn't got a clue what consciousness is. In fact, he seems to be saying that he believes (which is not the same thing as knowing) that you can't know what it is.

No. I am reading exactly what he wrote.

"I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception."

He knows what consciousness is. He doesn't believe it is anything science can measure because it can't be measured because it is not one thing. It is everything together.

Consciousness is an artifact of intelligence. Free will is an artifact of intelligence. The ability to choose distinguishes from the rest of the living world. It's the thing that sets us apart.

As I said, you are reading what you want to see and ignoring the rest. I can't make you read the entire thing.

What am I ignoring? That he can't tell if a frog is conscious? That he believes consciousness is impervious to science?

No. I understand he said those things. What am I missing and how does that change the fact that he said he believes consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception?

I don't think you did understand or you wouldn't continue to insist that he is saying he knows what consciousness is. You are convinced and I don't believe (which is not the same thing as knowing - hint, hint) I am going to change that.

If he knows that he is conscious and can ask the question what is consciousness then he knows what consciousness is.

Are you - a conscious being - arguing that YOU don't know what consciousness is? Think, McFly, think.

 

[Frannie]

You are reading what you want to see and ignoring the rest. He has clearly stated that he hasn't got a clue what consciousness is. In fact, he seems to be saying that he believes (which is not the same thing as knowing) that you can't know what it is.

No. I am reading exactly what he wrote.

"I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception."

He knows what consciousness is. He doesn't believe it is anything science can measure because it can't be measured because it is not one thing. It is everything together.

Consciousness is an artifact of intelligence. Free will is an artifact of intelligence. The ability to choose distinguishes from the rest of the living world. It's the thing that sets us apart.

As I said, you are reading what you want to see and ignoring the rest. I can't make you read the entire thing.

What am I ignoring? That he can't tell if a frog is conscious? That he believes consciousness is impervious to science?

No. I understand he said those things. What am I missing and how does that change the fact that he said he believes consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception?

I don't think you did understand or you wouldn't continue to insist that he is saying he knows what consciousness is. You are convinced and I don't believe (which is not the same thing as knowing - hint, hint) I am going to change that.

If he knows that he is conscious and can ask the question what is consciousness then he knows what consciousness is.

Are you - a conscious being - arguing that YOU don't know what consciousness is? Think, McFly, think.

Tell us again that a human without a brain is still concious

 

[ding]

No. I am reading exactly what he wrote.

"I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception."

He knows what consciousness is. He doesn't believe it is anything science can measure because it can't be measured because it is not one thing. It is everything together.

Consciousness is an artifact of intelligence. Free will is an artifact of intelligence. The ability to choose distinguishes from the rest of the living world. It's the thing that sets us apart.

As I said, you are reading what you want to see and ignoring the rest. I can't make you read the entire thing.

What am I ignoring? That he can't tell if a frog is conscious? That he believes consciousness is impervious to science?

No. I understand he said those things. What am I missing and how does that change the fact that he said he believes consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception?

Consciousness is one product of the brains functioning

Consciousness involves the whole being. There is no one part of the brain that controls consciousness. The brain receives feedback from all of our senses.

So if you remove the brain from a body the body is still conscious.

Kid u r a retard

The question is can consciousness exist in and of itself. Right? My answer is not without the source of all consciousness.

 

[ding]

No. I am reading exactly what he wrote.

"I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception."

He knows what consciousness is. He doesn't believe it is anything science can measure because it can't be measured because it is not one thing. It is everything together.

Consciousness is an artifact of intelligence. Free will is an artifact of intelligence. The ability to choose distinguishes from the rest of the living world. It's the thing that sets us apart.

As I said, you are reading what you want to see and ignoring the rest. I can't make you read the entire thing.

What am I ignoring? That he can't tell if a frog is conscious? That he believes consciousness is impervious to science?

No. I understand he said those things. What am I missing and how does that change the fact that he said he believes consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception?

I don't think you did understand or you wouldn't continue to insist that he is saying he knows what consciousness is. You are convinced and I don't believe (which is not the same thing as knowing - hint, hint) I am going to change that.

If he knows that he is conscious and can ask the question what is consciousness then he knows what consciousness is.

Are you - a conscious being - arguing that YOU don't know what consciousness is? Think, McFly, think.

Tell us again that a human without a brain is still concious

That depends on if you believe you are more than just material.