CDZ Three unanswered yet interesting questions pertaining to life

[sakinago]

Sure there are some smart animals out there, but they do not hold a candle to human intelligence.

The only intelligence we humans can understand is human intelligence. Judging the intelligence of different species by evaluating how closely theirs resembles our own is an exercise in provincial chauvanism.

"We can imagine what it is like to be a cat, but we cannot imagine what it is like for a cat to be a cat."

No other species is sufficiently "intelligent" to destroy millions of its own young and to systematically destroy the habitat necessary for its survival. How intelligent is that?

A ridiculous statement. We are on the verge of creating intelligence greater than our own, but we can't understand animal intelligence? Well I guess that leaves the whole fields of zoology and behavioral psychology moot. And animals eat their own young all the time!!! They have no clue what they do to their own habitat!!! Outside of a handful they cannot purposefully manipulate the environment around them to their advantage. Nor can they hypothetically think.

Hmmn, dunno about that last statement. Dolphins cannot hypothesize? How can you know that? Cetaceans have a different order of intelligence than humans, and I'm not sure that we can quantify or qualify the differences or similarities so easily.

Dolphins actually do show signs of hypothetical thinking, culture, and even speech, which is why I chose them as an example for comparison. While they show these signs, it is still at a rudimentary level. While it's difficult to puts oneself in the mind of a doplhin, it's not impossible to measure their levels of cognitive thinking, or what is going on for the most part in their brain. And while yes, they are very smart creatures, compared to us they still fall well behind.

When we can claim to understand their communication (and parts of that communication take place in frequencies we can't hear) we can make more meaningful evaluations of their true intelligence. The divergence of our environments and physiologies makes it difficult to make meaningful comparisons about our standard ambitions and drives. What would our intelligence be without our thumbs, let alone our hands and arms?

It's true that it can be hard to measure cognitive abilty on a creature without thumbs, so we might not know the full extent of their ability. But those same pysiological limitations also put limitations on their brain power. The ability to cook food, and help break it down before ingestion, gaining greater energy for brain power is one of those limitations. Having no thumbs creates less of a need to hypothetically think for things like tool making, so would a dolphin that hypothetically thinks better necessarily be a better fit for survival? More importantly, would there be a constant need to develop greater hypothetical thinking for our thumbless friends?

 

[sealybobo]

Sure there are some smart animals out there, but they do not hold a candle to human intelligence.

The only intelligence we humans can understand is human intelligence. Judging the intelligence of different species by evaluating how closely theirs resembles our own is an exercise in provincial chauvanism.

"We can imagine what it is like to be a cat, but we cannot imagine what it is like for a cat to be a cat."

No other species is sufficiently "intelligent" to destroy millions of its own young and to systematically destroy the habitat necessary for its survival. How intelligent is that?

A ridiculous statement. We are on the verge of creating intelligence greater than our own, but we can't understand animal intelligence? Well I guess that leaves the whole fields of zoology and behavioral psychology moot. And animals eat their own young all the time!!! They have no clue what they do to their own habitat!!! Outside of a handful they cannot purposefully manipulate the environment around them to their advantage. Nor can they hypothetically think.

Hmmn, dunno about that last statement. Dolphins cannot hypothesize? How can you know that? Cetaceans have a different order of intelligence than humans, and I'm not sure that we can quantify or qualify the differences or similarities so easily.

Dolphins actually do show signs of hypothetical thinking, culture, and even speech, which is why I chose them as an example for comparison. While they show these signs, it is still at a rudimentary level. While it's difficult to puts oneself in the mind of a doplhin, it's not impossible to measure their levels of cognitive thinking, or what is going on for the most part in their brain. And while yes, they are very smart creatures, compared to us they still fall well behind.

When we can claim to understand their communication (and parts of that communication take place in frequencies we can't hear) we can make more meaningful evaluations of their true intelligence. The divergence of our environments and physiologies makes it difficult to make meaningful comparisons about our standard ambitions and drives. What would our intelligence be without our thumbs, let alone our hands and arms?

It's true that it can be hard to measure cognitive abilty on a creature without thumbs, so we might not know the full extent of their ability. But those same psychological limitations also put limitations on their brain power. The ability to cook food, and help break it down before ingestion, gaining greater energy for brain power is one of those limitations. Having no thumbs creates less of a need to hypothetically think for things like tool making, so would a dolphin that hypothetically thinks better necessarily be a better fit for survival? More importantly, would there be a constant need to develop greater hypothetical thinking for our thumbless friends?

My friend gets mad when I tell him dolphins brains have been developing for millions of years longer than us and they rule most of the planet. He says let him know when they land on the moon.

Are we smarter because we can go to the moon? Arent we destroying the planet? How smart are we?

 

[sealybobo]

Funny to think there might be more intelligent life right here on this planet. Ever see a cuddlefish? Sometimes I wonder about them.

 

[Elvis Obama]

"Just want to point out that atheism is a religion, based on faith as much as any other."
No, not if you're doing it right.

Sure it is. No god = belief. That's a statement of faith, not science.

Atheist is often used as a blanket term for all forms of non-belief in a deity. There are atheists who profess a knowledge of the non-existence of all deities. They are stating an opinion based on their reasoned beliefs or their prejudices. Others state that they cannot know one way or the other whether there are such entities, and most importantly, neither can anyone else. This is agnosticism. The most rational approach is to realize that we lack the semantic capacity to address this question. God is indefinable, and therefore cannot be discussed in any meaningful way. This is ignosticism, and it is simply an acceptance of the limits of human consciousness. It's an outgrowth of logical positivism. Without logical or empirical verification, a question such as "God exists" is without meaning. If you want to remain true to your own intellect, and only to say that which is logical and within the capacity of human consciousness to address, then you will adopt the ignostic position.

It is impossible to exist without faith. The person who keeps faith with their own intellect is the person who attempts to live with the least amount of faith possible.

 

[sakinago]

I get this might not necassarily belong in CDZ, but since I can't stand any of the other forums, this is where I'm posting it. I hope that this becomes a fun conversation

First question: How did chemicals from lifeless reactions, turn into life?

Second: How did the early simple, single cell prokaryotic forms of life that had reached their available energy threshold, jumped to a higher energy threshold and turn into a eukaryotic form. A much more complex cell, that becomes the building block for complex life.

Finally: How did the jump happen from standard animal intelligence to human consciousness? Sure there are some smart animals out there, but they do not hold a candle to human intelligence.

You got me to read up on how and why we became more intelligent. Fascinating stuff. Human history goes back 7 million years but modern man is only the last 50,000. When we stood up to walk and look out for predators we started using our hands. Started making tools and using our brains more. And they said monkeys or great apes show signs of being intelligent if left alone for 7 billion years and how Neanderthal man may have been smarter than us still we killed them.

We are the only intelligent species because the others died out. Maybe we wiped them out 6 or 4 or 2 million years ago.

It is very fascinating stuff, so are the other 2 questions if your looking for extra reading. Another one I mentioned in my previous post was the discovery of fire, not only as protection from every other animal whose natural instinct is to run from fire, but also the ability to cook food, and the additional breakdown of nutrients requiring less energy for digestion.

And yes how we beat out the stronger and possibly smarter Neanderthal man is another mystery, it's also possible we just mixed and there's some of us with a bit of Neanderthal in them

 

[sealybobo]

Athiests and agnostics are certainly not evil for not believing. And maybe there is an eternal creator who created and rules over the eternal cosmos but is not believing there is really the greatest of sins? Of course not. Only a religion would say it was.

This is what agnostics and athiests have in common. We both call bs on all religions. That's what an agnostic says to the Jesus Mohammad and moses stories. Not buying it. Other than that it's just a maybe

No, an agnostic may sit on the fence regarding a particular religion. He is saying he doesn't know. Being agnostic doesn't automatically rule out any religion.

The atheist is different. They claim their is no god but they can't know it so it too is a matter of faith. That apparently others them but the inconsistency is all on them.

That's why the most rational position is agnostic atheist.

You either believe Mary was a virgin or not. Agnostics go to hell with atheists.

There's no such thing as a agnostic atheist. Someone made that up to feel better about their atheism. I've told you at least 20 times I'm not religious. It's simply too much for you to grasp.

I am an ignostic. Agnosticism is a subset of atheism. Ignosticism is a subset of agnosticism. Yes, all these schools of thought do exist.

No, agnostic means you don't know. The words are in the dictionary. I am well familiar with the attempt by atheists to massage meanings.

Caveman knows hot and cold. Caveman not understand cool warm or perfect temperature.

 

[sakinago]

I get this might not necassarily belong in CDZ, but since I can't stand any of the other forums, this is where I'm posting it. I hope that this becomes a fun conversation

First question: How did chemicals from lifeless reactions, turn into life?

Second: How did the early simple, single cell prokaryotic forms of life that had reached their available energy threshold, jumped to a higher energy threshold and turn into a eukaryotic form. A much more complex cell, that becomes the building block for complex life.

Finally: How did the jump happen from standard animal intelligence to human consciousness? Sure there are some smart animals out there, but they do not hold a candle to human intelligence.

What do you mean by lifeless reaction? The planet first became habitable before life inhabited it. There were billions of years our planet didn't have water it was a hot ball. Have you seen the cosmos series' with Sagan and Tyson? They explain all this stuff. You should watch them both twice.

I meant from what took us from whatever the primordial soup was to the emergence of life

 

[sakinago]

A ridiculous statement. We are on the verge of creating intelligence greater than our own, but we can't understand animal intelligence? Well I guess that leaves the whole fields of zoology and behavioral psychology moot. And animals eat their own young all the time!!! They have no clue what they do to their own habitat!!! Outside of a handful they cannot purposefully manipulate the environment around them to their advantage. Nor can they hypothetically think.

Hmmn, dunno about that last statement. Dolphins cannot hypothesize? How can you know that? Cetaceans have a different order of intelligence than humans, and I'm not sure that we can quantify or qualify the differences or similarities so easily.

Dolphins actually do show signs of hypothetical thinking, culture, and even speech, which is why I chose them as an example for comparison. While they show these signs, it is still at a rudimentary level. While it's difficult to puts oneself in the mind of a doplhin, it's not impossible to measure their levels of cognitive thinking, or what is going on for the most part in their brain. And while yes, they are very smart creatures, compared to us they still fall well behind.

When we can claim to understand their communication (and parts of that communication take place in frequencies we can't hear) we can make more meaningful evaluations of their true intelligence. The divergence of our environments and physiologies makes it difficult to make meaningful comparisons about our standard ambitions and drives. What would our intelligence be without our thumbs, let alone our hands and arms?

It's true that it can be hard to measure cognitive abilty on a creature without thumbs, so we might not know the full extent of their ability. But those same psychological limitations also put limitations on their brain power. The ability to cook food, and help break it down before ingestion, gaining greater energy for brain power is one of those limitations. Having no thumbs creates less of a need to hypothetically think for things like tool making, so would a dolphin that hypothetically thinks better necessarily be a better fit for survival? More importantly, would there be a constant need to develop greater hypothetical thinking for our thumbless friends?

My friend gets mad when I tell him dolphins brains have been developing for millions of years longer than us and they rule most of the planet. He says let him know when they land on the moon.

Are we smarter because we can go to the moon? Arent we destroying the planet? How smart are we?

A dog will never hurt itself riding a bike, it doesn't make it smarter than us

 

[sealybobo]

I get this might not necassarily belong in CDZ, but since I can't stand any of the other forums, this is where I'm posting it. I hope that this becomes a fun conversation

First question: How did chemicals from lifeless reactions, turn into life?

Second: How did the early simple, single cell prokaryotic forms of life that had reached their available energy threshold, jumped to a higher energy threshold and turn into a eukaryotic form. A much more complex cell, that becomes the building block for complex life.

Finally: How did the jump happen from standard animal intelligence to human consciousness? Sure there are some smart animals out there, but they do not hold a candle to human intelligence.

What do you mean by lifeless reaction? The planet first became habitable before life inhabited it. There were billions of years our planet didn't have water it was a hot ball. Have you seen the cosmos series' with Sagan and Tyson? They explain all this stuff. You should watch them both twice.

I meant from what took us from whatever the primordial soup was to the emergence of life

I think science has a video where they show how it happened. First a fungus maybe, no one knows where it got started. Then that bacteria built up and one morphed into a different thing then the one fed off the other then fins formed and limbs and eyes and hearts and everything living is related to that life. Crazy. Hard to grasp. What started that first life? I think it was a comit that brought amino acids that spewed out of a star that blew up billions of years ago.

 

[Never3ndr]

As far as your OP, I've already given my answer...random chance. Attempting to assign reason or meaning when we currently have no evidence to support such theories may be popular (I mean Zeus worked for explaining and giving reason to lightening for hundreds of years) but that doesn't make it any more true.

...which requires a HIGH degree of faith. Too much for most folks. You are a deeply faithful believer indeed. Dismissing other faiths doesn't change it.

Okay, maybe I'm missing something...explain how, given our current evidence and knowledge base...that this is deeply faithful. Perhaps I am a devout believer. Perhaps I lack all of the facts. Please, provide reasoning for your argument instead of just stating your conclusion. Where, specifically, am I being faithful and believing where there is no evidence?

I said it several times already, I cannot understand it for you. We don't have "evidence" that life, or the universe for that matter, simply jump started itself into existence. You are demonstrating a high level of faith to believe so. No evidence, no facts but a firm belief = faith. How many times does it need to be explained to you?

To my knowledge, all we do have is evidence that life jump started...from the Big Bang Theory to going from primordial soup to our first forms I've life I've heard no scientific evidence actually claiming that life has been anything but chance. Now, maybe I'm mistaken. If so, please lend some credence to your argument by actually EXPLAINING WHY you think something instead. I've just pointed towards the Big Bang and our primordial soup as perfect examples of going from one state to another with seeming randomness. If you happen to be a scientific authority and know something that I haven't seen published...please, feel free to enlighten us by linking us to a scientific backed study on how such events are not random. If you cannot provide a valid study to back your claims that such events were not random, you do know that the default explanation is random chance...as entropy (or chaos) is a very real variable in our world as we know it.

If you keep refusing to provide more reasoning for your conclusion I'm just going to have to assume you have no reason for your conclusion.

 

[sakinago]

I get this might not necassarily belong in CDZ, but since I can't stand any of the other forums, this is where I'm posting it. I hope that this becomes a fun conversation

First question: How did chemicals from lifeless reactions, turn into life?

Second: How did the early simple, single cell prokaryotic forms of life that had reached their available energy threshold, jumped to a higher energy threshold and turn into a eukaryotic form. A much more complex cell, that becomes the building block for complex life.

Finally: How did the jump happen from standard animal intelligence to human consciousness? Sure there are some smart animals out there, but they do not hold a candle to human intelligence.

What do you mean by lifeless reaction? The planet first became habitable before life inhabited it. There were billions of years our planet didn't have water it was a hot ball. Have you seen the cosmos series' with Sagan and Tyson? They explain all this stuff. You should watch them both twice.

I meant from what took us from whatever the primordial soup was to the emergence of life

I think science has a video where they show how it happened. First a fungus maybe, no one knows where it got started. Then that bacteria built up and one morphed into a different thing then the one fed off the other then fins formed and limbs and eyes and hearts and everything living is related to that life. Crazy. Hard to grasp. What started that first life? I think it was a comit that brought amino acids that spewed out of a star that blew up billions of years ago.

I assume your referring to the 2nd question posed. And one theory is the a bacterium and arkea were each exhaling the gasses that the other preferred, and had a symbiotic relationship. They combined, but what we've always seen happen is one consumes the other, or does not allow the other to inspire, or does not allow the other to replicate, and one always dies out. What happened on this extremely rare occurrence was that their DNA combined and jumped into the realm of a eukaryotic cell.

 

[Iceweasel]

This is why scientists waste zero time debating the God hypothesis. It's OK you can't believe the eternal cosmos exist without the need for a creator and it's OK I don't believe a God exists.

But you people do care. Google pot smoking philanderer more electable than atheist and look how your Muslim brothers behead non believers.

I think it's a fun debate up until people insist God visited their ancient ancestors. Fucking liars

I have no idea what you are talking about. You went full retard.

 

[Iceweasel]

No, an agnostic may sit on the fence regarding a particular religion. He is saying he doesn't know. Being agnostic doesn't automatically rule out any religion.

The atheist is different. They claim their is no god but they can't know it so it too is a matter of faith. That apparently others them but the inconsistency is all on them.

That's why the most rational position is agnostic atheist.

You either believe Mary was a virgin or not. Agnostics go to hell with atheists.

There's no such thing as a agnostic atheist. Someone made that up to feel better about their atheism. I've told you at least 20 times I'm not religious. It's simply too much for you to grasp.

I am an ignostic. Agnosticism is a subset of atheism. Ignosticism is a subset of agnosticism. Yes, all these schools of thought do exist.

No, agnostic means you don't know. The words are in the dictionary. I am well familiar with the attempt by atheists to massage meanings.

You don't know for sure either. You miss the point. We will agree you can't know gods don't exist so no one can be an athiest if it means you KNOW gods don't exist because you can't know. If that's true then you can't be a theist either because you can't know for sure.

Is my invisible pink dragon real? Prove its not

Critical thinking isn't your strong point. I believe in a creator, so I'm a theist. I can't and don't need to prove it, it's a matter of faith, because like I said repeatedly, I don't have enough faith to believe the universe popped into existence on its' own accord.

The inconsistency is with those that pretend they adhere to science, yet call themselves atheist. They are making a claim science can't support. Atheists getting upset over that fact isn't my problem. They can continue to live in a deluded state or embrace honesty. So you miss the point.

 

[Iceweasel]

"Just want to point out that atheism is a religion, based on faith as much as any other."
No, not if you're doing it right.

Sure it is. No god = belief. That's a statement of faith, not science.

If science doesn't have any evidence there's a god what should it conclude?

What about my pink dragon. No pink dragon = belief? Is that faith?

You are free to be as deluded as you want. Science should continue doing what it does and ignore statements of faith. Those that misuse science as faith only delude themselves.

 

[sealybobo]

I get this might not necassarily belong in CDZ, but since I can't stand any of the other forums, this is where I'm posting it. I hope that this becomes a fun conversation

First question: How did chemicals from lifeless reactions, turn into life?

Second: How did the early simple, single cell prokaryotic forms of life that had reached their available energy threshold, jumped to a higher energy threshold and turn into a eukaryotic form. A much more complex cell, that becomes the building block for complex life.

Finally: How did the jump happen from standard animal intelligence to human consciousness? Sure there are some smart animals out there, but they do not hold a candle to human intelligence.

What do you mean by lifeless reaction? The planet first became habitable before life inhabited it. There were billions of years our planet didn't have water it was a hot ball. Have you seen the cosmos series' with Sagan and Tyson? They explain all this stuff. You should watch them both twice.

I meant from what took us from whatever the primordial soup was to the emergence of life

I think science has a video where they show how it happened. First a fungus maybe, no one knows where it got started. Then that bacteria built up and one morphed into a different thing then the one fed off the other then fins formed and limbs and eyes and hearts and everything living is related to that life. Crazy. Hard to grasp. What started that first life? I think it was a comit that brought amino acids that spewed out of a star that blew up billions of years ago.

I assume your referring to the 2nd question posed. And one theory is the a bacterium and arkea were each exhaling the gasses that the other preferred, and had a symbiotic relationship. They combined, but what we've always seen happen is one consumes the other, or does not allow the other to inspire, or does not allow the other to replicate, and one always dies out. What happened on this extremely rare occurrence was that their DNA combined and jumped into the realm of a eukaryotic cell.

I just read a little about eukaryotic cells. The don't have to have sex to reproduce. Did you know that?

 

[sealybobo]

"Just want to point out that atheism is a religion, based on faith as much as any other."
No, not if you're doing it right.

Sure it is. No god = belief. That's a statement of faith, not science.

If science doesn't have any evidence there's a god what should it conclude?

What about my pink dragon. No pink dragon = belief? Is that faith?

You are free to be as deluded as you want. Science should continue doing what it does and ignore statements of faith. Those that misuse science as faith only delude themselves.

That's why science doesn't talk about God. There's zero science behind the hypothesis.

 

[Iceweasel]

As far as your OP, I've already given my answer...random chance. Attempting to assign reason or meaning when we currently have no evidence to support such theories may be popular (I mean Zeus worked for explaining and giving reason to lightening for hundreds of years) but that doesn't make it any more true.

...which requires a HIGH degree of faith. Too much for most folks. You are a deeply faithful believer indeed. Dismissing other faiths doesn't change it.

Okay, maybe I'm missing something...explain how, given our current evidence and knowledge base...that this is deeply faithful. Perhaps I am a devout believer. Perhaps I lack all of the facts. Please, provide reasoning for your argument instead of just stating your conclusion. Where, specifically, am I being faithful and believing where there is no evidence?

I said it several times already, I cannot understand it for you. We don't have "evidence" that life, or the universe for that matter, simply jump started itself into existence. You are demonstrating a high level of faith to believe so. No evidence, no facts but a firm belief = faith. How many times does it need to be explained to you?

To my knowledge, all we do have is evidence that life jump started...from the Big Bang Theory to going from primordial soup to our first forms I've life I've heard no scientific evidence actually claiming that life has been anything but chance. Now, maybe I'm mistaken. If so, please lend some credence to your argument by actually EXPLAINING WHY you think something instead. I've just pointed towards the Big Bang and our primordial soup as perfect examples of going from one state to another with seeming randomness. If you happen to be a scientific authority and know something that I haven't seen published...please, feel free to enlighten us by linking us to a scientific backed study on how such events are not random. If you cannot provide a valid study to back your claims that such events were not random, you do know that the default explanation is random chance...as entropy (or chaos) is a very real variable in our world as we know it.

If you keep refusing to provide more reasoning for your conclusion I'm just going to have to assume you have no reason for your conclusion.

Somehow what you said makes sense to you. There is no evidence that random chance started the universe and life. That's called speculation. A theory. I said many times I don't have enough faith for that. You sitting on your perch claiming the intellectual high ground are fooling yourself. You misuse a theory and accept it as fact. That's called faith. You have more faith than I do.

It isn't anybody's job to disprove your faith. However, we can safely point out your inconsistency and lack of intellectual honesty.

 

[Iceweasel]

"Just want to point out that atheism is a religion, based on faith as much as any other."
No, not if you're doing it right.

Sure it is. No god = belief. That's a statement of faith, not science.

If science doesn't have any evidence there's a god what should it conclude?

What about my pink dragon. No pink dragon = belief? Is that faith?

You are free to be as deluded as you want. Science should continue doing what it does and ignore statements of faith. Those that misuse science as faith only delude themselves.

That's why science doesn't talk about God. There's zero science behind the hypothesis.

So don't use it.

 

[sealybobo]

That's why the most rational position is agnostic atheist.

You either believe Mary was a virgin or not. Agnostics go to hell with atheists.

There's no such thing as a agnostic atheist. Someone made that up to feel better about their atheism. I've told you at least 20 times I'm not religious. It's simply too much for you to grasp.

I am an ignostic. Agnosticism is a subset of atheism. Ignosticism is a subset of agnosticism. Yes, all these schools of thought do exist.

No, agnostic means you don't know. The words are in the dictionary. I am well familiar with the attempt by atheists to massage meanings.

You don't know for sure either. You miss the point. We will agree you can't know gods don't exist so no one can be an athiest if it means you KNOW gods don't exist because you can't know. If that's true then you can't be a theist either because you can't know for sure.

Is my invisible pink dragon real? Prove its not

Critical thinking isn't your strong point. I believe in a creator, so I'm a theist. I can't and don't need to prove it, it's a matter of faith, because like I said repeatedly, I don't have enough faith to believe the universe popped into existence on its' own accord.

The inconsistency is with those that pretend they adhere to science, yet call themselves atheist. They are making a claim science can't support. Atheists getting upset over that fact isn't my problem. They can continue to live in a deluded state or embrace honesty. So you miss the point.

Im just telling you that I don't believe in God because you can't provide any scientific evidence.

Science and God don't mix so yes, neither does atheism and science. Us atheists just use science to explain why we don't believe.

Without science prove my invisible pink dragon isn't real

 

[sealybobo]

"Just want to point out that atheism is a religion, based on faith as much as any other."
No, not if you're doing it right.

Sure it is. No god = belief. That's a statement of faith, not science.

If science doesn't have any evidence there's a god what should it conclude?

What about my pink dragon. No pink dragon = belief? Is that faith?

You are free to be as deluded as you want. Science should continue doing what it does and ignore statements of faith. Those that misuse science as faith only delude themselves.

What about people who use science to justify their doubts? Why are they deluding themselves?