If you are HONEST, you are AGNOSTIC

[ding]

“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.

The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”


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

You are now shown that you said that you are a scientist....... Since the program here provides the text in this post no link is needed.

The fact that you forget so quickly is because u r changing personalities as schitzos do

I’m pretty happy with our exchange.

You proved your inconsistencies well. Mr. Scientist

You misspelled point.

And you said in one post that you are a scientist, then you said that u were not. Poiint being you are schizzooooo

Wrong. Prove it. Link to it. You can’t.

 

[Frannie]

“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.

The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”


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

Here is the post where you claimed to be a scientist, lol you really should take your meds

 

[ding]

“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.

The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”


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

Here is the post where you claimed to be a scientist, lol you really should take your meds

It’s a quote from George Wald.

 

[ding]

“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.

The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”


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

Here is the post where you claimed to be a scientist, lol you really should take your meds

You didn’t see the quote marks? You didn’t see the citation at the bottom?

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

 

[ding]

I’ve done some stupid things but I never stepped into it like that.

 

[Frannie]

I’ve done some stupid things but I never stepped into it like that.

Yea I was stupid for buying apple and Google

Now tell us more mr bachelor of science in engineeeeeering

 

[ding]

I’ve done some stupid things but I never stepped into it like that.

Yea I was stupid for buying apple and Google

Now tell us more mr bachelor of science in engineeeeeering

Stupid people can be lucky or liars.

 

[Frannie]

I’ve done some stupid things but I never stepped into it like that.

Yea I was stupid for buying apple and Google

Now tell us more mr bachelor of science in engineeeeeering

Stupid people can be lucky.

Not you though mr scientist

 

[ding]

I’ve done some stupid things but I never stepped into it like that.

Yea I was stupid for buying apple and Google

Now tell us more mr bachelor of science in engineeeeeering

Stupid people can be lucky.

Not you though mr scientist

You need to lash out. I understand. Get it out of your system.

 

[Frannie]

I’ve done some stupid things but I never stepped into it like that.

Yea I was stupid for buying apple and Google

Now tell us more mr bachelor of science in engineeeeeering

Stupid people can be lucky.

Not you though mr scientist

You need to lash out. I understand. Get it out of your system.

Lash out at you claiming that the universe was created by a spirit? I'm not lashing, I am laughing

 

[ding]

I’ve done some stupid things but I never stepped into it like that.

Yea I was stupid for buying apple and Google

Now tell us more mr bachelor of science in engineeeeeering

Stupid people can be lucky.

Not you though mr scientist

You need to lash out. I understand. Get it out of your system.

Lash out at you claiming that the universe was created by a spirit? I'm not lashing, I am laughing

No. The beat down that followed.

 

[Frannie]

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

You are proving my point that the universe is effectively nothing more than information and information is the domain of consciousness and intelligence.

But putting that aside, you never addressed my point. Are you denying that red shift and cosmic background radiation is not evidence of the beginning of the universe and its subsequent expansion?

The only thing you ever beat was your meat.

Tell us more about how the universe is nothing more than information..... clue you are part of the universe so are you just info

Beat on

 

[ding]

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

You are proving my point that the universe is effectively nothing more than information and information is the domain of consciousness and intelligence.

But putting that aside, you never addressed my point. Are you denying that red shift and cosmic background radiation is not evidence of the beginning of the universe and its subsequent expansion?

The only thing you ever beat was your meat.

Tell us more about how the universe is nothing more than information..... clue you are part of the universe so are you just info

Beat on

Weren’t you the guy arguing about information in DNA?

What was it you were saying about that?

 

[Frannie]

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

You are proving my point that the universe is effectively nothing more than information and information is the domain of consciousness and intelligence.

But putting that aside, you never addressed my point. Are you denying that red shift and cosmic background radiation is not evidence of the beginning of the universe and its subsequent expansion?

The only thing you ever beat was your meat.

Tell us more about how the universe is nothing more than information..... clue you are part of the universe so are you just info

Beat on

Weren’t you the guy arguing about information in DNA?

What was it you were saying about that?

Dude you do understand that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999989999999999999999999999999999999 percent of the universe is not DNA

Jesus

 

[ding]

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

You are proving my point that the universe is effectively nothing more than information and information is the domain of consciousness and intelligence.

But putting that aside, you never addressed my point. Are you denying that red shift and cosmic background radiation is not evidence of the beginning of the universe and its subsequent expansion?

The only thing you ever beat was your meat.

Tell us more about how the universe is nothing more than information..... clue you are part of the universe so are you just info

Beat on

Weren’t you the guy arguing about information in DNA?

What was it you were saying about that?

Here it is.

The simplest single celled organism has hundreds of thousands of lines of dna that have to be in the perfect order for the cell to exist, and the single cell has to exist first in order to split. What you claim is impossible to any known science. Tell us how would hundreds of thousands of lines of dna write themselves one day out of nothing.

 

[ding]

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

You are proving my point that the universe is effectively nothing more than information and information is the domain of consciousness and intelligence.

But putting that aside, you never addressed my point. Are you denying that red shift and cosmic background radiation is not evidence of the beginning of the universe and its subsequent expansion?

The only thing you ever beat was your meat.

Tell us more about how the universe is nothing more than information..... clue you are part of the universe so are you just info

Beat on

Weren’t you the guy arguing about information in DNA?

What was it you were saying about that?

Dude you do understand that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999989999999999999999999999999999999 percent of the universe is not DNA

Jesus

Yes. My point is you proved my point about how everything in the universe is information by your beliefs about DNA.

Where did that information come from?

 

[Frannie]

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

You are proving my point that the universe is effectively nothing more than information and information is the domain of consciousness and intelligence.

But putting that aside, you never addressed my point. Are you denying that red shift and cosmic background radiation is not evidence of the beginning of the universe and its subsequent expansion?

The only thing you ever beat was your meat.

Tell us more about how the universe is nothing more than information..... clue you are part of the universe so are you just info

Beat on

Weren’t you the guy arguing about information in DNA?

What was it you were saying about that?

Here it is.

The simplest single celled organism has hundreds of thousands of lines of dna that have to be in the perfect order for the cell to exist, and the single cell has to exist first in order to split. What you claim is impossible to any known science. Tell us how would hundreds of thousands of lines of dna write themselves one day out of nothing.

DNA is clearly info, and had a creator. That said I created this post but did not create the universe. Why would God create a 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent useless universe?

 

[ding]

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

You are proving my point that the universe is effectively nothing more than information and information is the domain of consciousness and intelligence.

But putting that aside, you never addressed my point. Are you denying that red shift and cosmic background radiation is not evidence of the beginning of the universe and its subsequent expansion?

The only thing you ever beat was your meat.

Tell us more about how the universe is nothing more than information..... clue you are part of the universe so are you just info

Beat on

Weren’t you the guy arguing about information in DNA?

What was it you were saying about that?

Here it is.

The simplest single celled organism has hundreds of thousands of lines of dna that have to be in the perfect order for the cell to exist, and the single cell has to exist first in order to split. What you claim is impossible to any known science. Tell us how would hundreds of thousands of lines of dna write themselves one day out of nothing.

DNA is clearly info, and had a creator. That said I created this post but did not create the universe. Why would God create a 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent useless universe?

Let’s test that. Who do you believe created DNA?

 

[ding]

Why would God create a 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent useless universe?

Because that’s what it takes to produce intelligence.

 

[Frannie]

You are proving my point that the universe is effectively nothing more than information and information is the domain of consciousness and intelligence.

But putting that aside, you never addressed my point. Are you denying that red shift and cosmic background radiation is not evidence of the beginning of the universe and its subsequent expansion?

The only thing you ever beat was your meat.

Tell us more about how the universe is nothing more than information..... clue you are part of the universe so are you just info

Beat on

Weren’t you the guy arguing about information in DNA?

What was it you were saying about that?

Here it is.

The simplest single celled organism has hundreds of thousands of lines of dna that have to be in the perfect order for the cell to exist, and the single cell has to exist first in order to split. What you claim is impossible to any known science. Tell us how would hundreds of thousands of lines of dna write themselves one day out of nothing.

DNA is clearly info, and had a creator. That said I created this post but did not create the universe. Why would God create a 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent useless universe?

Let’s test that. Who do you believe created DNA?

I have already answered that. Your claim is that since DNA contains info, so must a pile of sand

Koock00