Self-evidence (main q)

Cito di Pense · **#261** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 14, 2012 7:15 pm

Destroyer wrote:I am asking a question (what does simplicity in relation to evolution mean, in your view) which could prove to be illuminating.

All cells need to perform certain functions and some cells perform additional, specialised functions. A single-celled organism is performing fewer functions than a multi-celled organism. The functions that an organism performs are closely related to the diversity of environments in which it makes its living.

Destroyer · **#262** by **Destroyer** » Apr 14, 2012 7:20 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:I am asking a question (what does simplicity in relation to evolution mean, in your view) which could prove to be illuminating.

All cells need to perform certain functions and some cells perform additional, specialised functions. A single-celled organism is performing fewer functions than a multi-celled organism. The functions that an organism performs are closely related to the diversity of environments in which it makes its living.

Yes. But were you not suggesting to Little idiot that simplicity ruled out his ideolgy?!

Cito di Pense · **#263** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 14, 2012 7:26 pm

Destroyer wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:I am asking a question (what does simplicity in relation to evolution mean, in your view) which could prove to be illuminating.

All cells need to perform certain functions and some cells perform additional, specialised functions. A single-celled organism is performing fewer functions than a multi-celled organism. The functions that an organism performs are closely related to the diversity of environments in which it makes its living.

Yes. But were you not suggesting to Little idiot that simplicity ruled out his ideolgy?!

You're confused. Little Idiot proposes something like a Master Mind running the entire universe. To run the entire universe requires the Master Mind to perform many functions, sort of like Santa Claus on Christmas Eve...

Santa Claus not only has to get round to all the chimneys in the world, he has to choose appropriate gifts depending on whether the recipient has been naughty or nice. I don't know where he gets the gifts from. Perhaps they are made by The Great GiftMaker, who Santa hired to work in his workshop at the North Pole. Santa had to review the resumés of many GiftMaker applicants to select the very best one.

Santa Claus has to keep Mrs. Claus happy, so she'll cook for him and the elves and the GiftMaker and the reindeer. And much, much more.

Santa Claus has to get up and down chimneys as well, not a simple task for a fat old elf. He has to communicate with reindeer.

Destroyer · **#264** by **Destroyer** » Apr 14, 2012 7:34 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:I am asking a question (what does simplicity in relation to evolution mean, in your view) which could prove to be illuminating.

All cells need to perform certain functions and some cells perform additional, specialised functions. A single-celled organism is performing fewer functions than a multi-celled organism. The functions that an organism performs are closely related to the diversity of environments in which it makes its living.

Yes. But were you not suggesting to Little idiot that simplicity ruled out his ideolgy?!

You're confused. Little Idiot proposes something like a Master Mind running the entire universe. To run the entire universe requires the Master Mind to perform many functions, sort of like Santa Claus on Christmas Eve...

Santa Claus not only has to get around to all the chimneys in the world, he has to choose appropriate gifts depending on whether the recipient has been naughty or nice. I don't know where he gets the gifts from. Perhaps they are made by The Great GiftMaker.

Santa Claus has to get up and down chimneys as well, not a simple task for a fat old elf. He has to communicate with reindeer.

So; simplicity does rule out the possibility that anything other than chemical impulses could have possibly originated the existence of this universe; in your opinion?

Regina · **#265** by **Regina** » Apr 14, 2012 7:35 pm

Destroyer wrote:

The question is quite simple: Did your brain originate consciousness? You seem to be saying that no other explanation than brains are required. So please explain exactly how brains originated consciousness.

Regina-brain is responsible for Regina-consciousness. No Regina-brain, no Regina-consciousness.
Neurology is not my area of research, so why should I come up with an explanation on that level? Start reading what I linked to. That approach works for me, as I said.
If you don't think your consciousness is a function of your brain, then happy hunting in the big open spaces.

Cito di Pense · **#266** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 14, 2012 7:38 pm

Destroyer wrote:
So; simplicity does rule out the possibility that anything other than chemical impulses could have possibly originated the existence of this universe; in your opinion?

Did I say anything about 'chemical impulses'? Don't put a bunch of fucking words in my mouth I never said. "Chemical impulses" is a nonsense phrase, if you are talking to a scientist. Which you are. Maybe you meant 'chemical signals'. Current models of cosmology rule out chemistry in the early phases of the universe. For chemistry, you need electrons and nuclei.

What I said was that the universe started out very simply, with very simple conditions, and you could perhaps see that nothing very complex was needed to initiate these simple origins of the universe.

Cito di Pense · **#267** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 14, 2012 7:42 pm

Regina wrote:
Regina-brain is responsible for Regina-consciousness. No Regina-brain, no Regina-consciousness.

You say the darndest things, Marina.

http://movie.subtitlr.com/subtitle/show/24846

Destroyer · **#268** by **Destroyer** » Apr 14, 2012 7:47 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
So; simplicity does rule out the possibility that anything other than chemical impulses could have possibly originated the existence of this universe; in your opinion?

Did I say anything about 'chemical impulses'? Don't put a bunch of fucking words in my mouth I never said. "Chemical impulses" is a nonsense phrase, if you are talking to a scientist. Which you are. Maybe you meant 'chemical signals'. Current models of cosmology rule out chemistry in the early phases of the universe.

What I said was that the universe started out very simply, with very simple conditions, and you could perhaps see that nothing very complex was needed to initiate these simple origins of the universe.

Do you think that anyone reading these posts are confused by the phrase 'chemical impulses' as opposed to chemical signals?

Did you, or did you not, imply to Little idiot that evolution ruled out the possibility of anything other than chemical signals being responsible for what we observe to exist??

Regina · **#269** by **Regina** » Apr 14, 2012 7:48 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Regina wrote:
Regina-brain is responsible for Regina-consciousness. No Regina-brain, no Regina-consciousness.

You say the darndest things, Marina.

http://movie.subtitlr.com/subtitle/show/24846

Phew, for a second I thought you were talking about me. :what:

Destroyer · **#270** by **Destroyer** » Apr 14, 2012 7:54 pm

Regina wrote:
Destroyer wrote:

The question is quite simple: Did your brain originate consciousness? You seem to be saying that no other explanation than brains are required. So please explain exactly how brains originated consciousness.

Regina-brain is responsible for Regina-consciousness. No Regina-brain, no Regina-consciousness.
Neurology is not my area of research, so why should I come up with an explanation on that level? Start reading what I linked to. That approach works for me, as I said.
If you don't think your consciousness is a function your brain, then happy hunting in the big open spaces.

Neuroscience, unfortunately, will not help you in the knowledge that brains equate to consciousness. So, you need to be prudent when speaking, unless you are prepared to be challenged and made a fool of!

Cito di Pense · **#271** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 14, 2012 7:54 pm

Destroyer wrote:
Do you think that anyone reading these posts are confused by the phrase 'chemical impulses' as opposed to chemical signals?

Did you, or did you not, imply to Little idiot that evolution ruled out the possibility of anything other than chemical signals being responsible for what we observe to exist??

I think the words you are searching for are 'matter in motion'. RIP, pl0bs. In the current models, matter is something you get sometime after the quarks condense. Try to keep up.

You use the word 'responsible', but you mean to talk about 'causality'. Causality is a human concept, and it is a damn sight less useful than particle physics is for the construction of models.

What can it mean, "responsible for what we observe to exist"? Imprecise language is the product of imprecise thinking.

Cito di Pense · **#272** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 14, 2012 7:56 pm

Regina wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Regina wrote:
Regina-brain is responsible for Regina-consciousness. No Regina-brain, no Regina-consciousness.

You say the darndest things, Marina.

http://movie.subtitlr.com/subtitle/show/24846

Phew, for a second I thought you were talking about me.

Which second was that? The one where you hadn't seen the link? Because 'Marina' looks a little like 'Regina'? Yes, I worried you might take it the wrong way, which was why I included the link and the italics.

Regina · **#273** by **Regina** » Apr 14, 2012 7:57 pm

The link didn't come up immediately. :lol:

Cito di Pense · **#274** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 14, 2012 7:58 pm

Destroyer wrote:So, you need to be prudent when speaking, unless you are prepared to be challenged and made a fool of!

Are you trying to be frightening? The only frightening aspect of your posts is the paucity of intellectual content in them.

Cito di Pense · **#275** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 14, 2012 7:59 pm

Regina wrote:The link didn't come up immediately.

You want immediate gratification? Or should we call it 'foreplay'? Flirting in someone's second language is usually crude, as I've learned from long, hard experience. It's that damned 'experience' thing, again.

Destroyer · **#276** by **Destroyer** » Apr 14, 2012 8:03 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
Do you think that anyone reading these posts are confused by the phrase 'chemical impulses' as opposed to chemical signals?

Did you, or did you not, imply to Little idiot that evolution ruled out the possibility of anything other than chemical signals being responsible for what we observe to exist??

I think the words you are searching for are 'matter in motion'. RIP, pl0bs. In the current models, matter is something you get sometime after the quarks condense. Try to keep up.

You use the word 'responsible', but you mean to talk about 'causality'. Causality is a human concept, and it is a damn sight less useful than particle physics is for the construction of models.

What can it mean, "responsible for what we observe to exist"? Imprecise language is the product of imprecise thinking.

You have a way of diverting from the question at hand, Cito di Pense. But you should know by now that I will take you to task no matter how you try to evade the issue.

"Responsible" is the very word I meant to use. Now. Do chemical signals rule out the possibilty of responsible causality, in your opinion??

I will get there in the end. No matter how slick you try to be!

Regina · **#277** by **Regina** » Apr 14, 2012 8:03 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Regina wrote:The link didn't come up immediately.

You want immediate gratification? Or should we call it 'foreplay'?

What I want varies.
On a related note, is that you in your avatar or some damn good-looking Swiss skiing instructor? :grin:

Destroyer · **#278** by **Destroyer** » Apr 14, 2012 8:04 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:So, you need to be prudent when speaking, unless you are prepared to be challenged and made a fool of!

Are you trying to be frightening? The only frightening aspect of your posts is the paucity of intellectual content in them.

Why should words on the internet frighten anyone?!

Cito di Pense · **#279** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 14, 2012 8:09 pm

Destroyer wrote:Do chemical signals rule out the possibilty of responsible causality, in your opinion??

I think nothing rules out simplicity. Simple beginnings do not require a complex creator. This is one of the meanings of evolution that disturbs the religious nuts. What is ruled out is some (complex) MasterMind being the necessary author of simple beginnings. If you want to make the ex recto assertion of complex beginnings, you are left with the problem of what created the complex creator. Think about it for awhile without posting. I think the vacation for your fingers will do them good.

Cito di Pense · **#280** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 14, 2012 8:12 pm

Destroyer wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:So, you need to be prudent when speaking, unless you are prepared to be challenged and made a fool of!

Are you trying to be frightening? The only frightening aspect of your posts is the paucity of intellectual content in them.

Why should words on the internet frighten anyone?!

The paucity of their intellectual content. You know, worrying that their author might be out somewhere, driving an automobile, and talking on a mobile phone at the same time.

Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Who is online