Theory of Beginning of Life and "God"

[emessay]

The question is :

 

Who is the most majority of share-holder in "human consciousness" [= jX = shadows of 200 billion neurons works] ?? "God" , "Evil" , or "Free Will" ??

[Erasmus00]

Yes, we have a pretty good idea about how memory formation occurs, and some about its retrieval, as well as what parts of the brain are involved in parsing and constructing certain streams of information, and how information flows through the brain via synapses and how synapses are modulated by excitatory and inhibitor signals, and how temporal and spatial summation affect the firing of synapses, and how groups of neurons are linked together in parallel, or in divergence, or in convergence, or serially, or in feedback loops, in what are called neuronal pools. Now, since memory formation and retrieval and the functioning of neurons and modulation of synapses are some of the mechanisms behind our thought processes, and we know a good bit about them, then it is false to say that we literally have no idea about the mechanisms behind our thought processes.

 

I stand corrected. Also, I apologize, when I said thought processes, I wasn't referring to memory formation and retrieval, and how synapses communicate with each other. I meant the actual process of forming a thought, and right now there isn't any theory of consciousness.

-Will

[C1ay]

I think that the Big Bang is the start of all life.

Nah! It may have been the start of the Universe but not life, that came some time later.

[Biochemist]

Who cares. The things I mentioned are parts of thought processing. Erasmus said that we LITERALLY know nothing about that. He's wrong. I'm right....

Let's see. I read his posts. I read your posts. I understand both. I agree with his. It is not clear why you continualy reinterpret the plain meaning of others' posts.

 

Telemad, your attempts to nitpick word usage out of context are not adding to the discussion.

[IrishEyes]

Whew! This is a fun thread, yeah??!?

I'd like to ask you guys to keep things above the belt, but I'm guessing that isn't going to happen. So, I'm going to tell you guys to be nice.

FYI- word usage does matter. And while it sometimes seems very tedious to use the correct word, when another (sometimes less correct) word seems to do just fine, I will remind you that this is still a science forum. If you are going to make categorical claims ("we know literally nothing"), be prepared that people will try to prove you wrong. They are not usually trying to pick fights, or be a PITA, but trying to be concise.

If you are the one that insists on correct word usage, please do not take an "I'm right" attitude. Point out where the other member was mistaken, show them your proof, then drop it. None of us are above making mistakes. And who knows- next time it may be you that makes one, so be kind.

Now play nice, kids. I don't want to have to send anyone to bed without supper! ;)

[blazer2000x]

According to the Bible, the Big Bang theory could be true I suppose, as the cause for the big bang is unknown. "God said, 'Let there be light', and there was light". This is a very shady explanation. The Bible constantly says God spoke and it happened, it never says how it happened or how long it took. If you have read a Bible, you are probably familiar with God saying, "A thousand years is as a day, and a day as a thousand years." Implying He is not limited by time, at least not in the sence we are. You could easily believe in the big bang, and evolution, and replace randomness and chance with God. It would make both much more feasable. At least in my opinion.

[alexander]

Yes, we have a pretty good idea about how memory formation occurs, and some about its retrieval, as well as what parts of the brain are involved in parsing and constructing certain streams of information, and how information flows through the brain via synapses and how synapses are modulated by excitatory and inhibitor signals, and how temporal and spatial summation affect the firing of synapses, and how groups of neurons are linked together in parallel, or in divergence, or in convergence, or serially, or in feedback loops, in what are called neuronal pools. Now, since memory formation and retrieval and the functioning of neurons and modulation of synapses are some of the mechanisms behind our thought processes, and we know a good bit about them, then it is false to say that we literally have no idea about the mechanisms behind our thought processes.

Once again, i swear you must follow me around to try to catch me say something that you may interpret differently, notice i NEVER said that we have absolutely no idea how our brain functions, i said what we know very little about how our brain works, I was also talking about Psychology, cognition, memory, thought, life, thinking, right before that, plus it would be foolish of me to claim that we know nothing of how our brains function (psychology courses, books, shows and my two month fascination with brain have taught me better), i just thought that the self implication on what i was discussing previously would apply, so i did not feel like i had a need to specify exactly what i was saying, but i guess not for all of us, because i know that we know quite a lot about how our brain works, neural networks, chemical impulses, i know that our brains have been mapped for their functions. I was merely stating that we know little about how the thought forms, how we can have visions, what dreams are, how we perceive what we perceive, how our brain forms relationships, what our memory management is like. So if you want to continue claiming that you know how to type because you know how key stroke signals are interpreted inside the computer, you can continue this pointless ramp, or we can continue discussing the topic... Tele, you know that I'm not a big fan of flame wars, and would rather quit attending this thread then get into flame wars with you, I know that you are an atheist and will flame other people (not implying myself here) here for their beleif in God, but i also would like to remind you to keep it cool, people have perspectives, and you know that not everyone will agree with you, hopefully it is not your plan in life either, so I agree with Irish and also ask you, all of you to keep it cool.

[Qfwfq]

Who cares. The things I mentioned are parts of thought processing. Erasmus said that we LITERALLY know nothing about that. He's wrong. I'm right.

If you guys are going to arbitrarily exclude from the act of thought processing those things we know about, in order to specifically leave only those things we don't know about, then your statement/position is disingenuous.

These are not ways to make people understand your point, if you perceive they have missed it.

 

I might say that "we" know very much about neurophysiology but nothing about how we are able to think.

[TeleMad]

Once again, i swear you must follow me around to try to catch me say something that you may interpret differently,...

 

If you really think that, then you're paranoid and delusional, and you need to seek professional help.

[TeleMad]

TeleMad: Who cares. The things I mentioned are parts of thought processing. Erasmus said that we LITERALLY know nothing about that. He's wrong. I'm right.

 

TeleMad: If you guys are going to arbitrarily exclude from the act of thought processing those things we know about, in order to specifically leave only those things we don't know about, then your statement/position is disingenuous.

 

qfwfq: These are not ways to make people understand your point, if you perceive they have missed it.

 

Those who don't understand my point have already shown themselves unreachable by means of logic, reason, and rational thought.

 

Anyone who insists that we literally know nothing about the mechanisms of our thought processes doesn't have thought processes.

[Tormod]

Anyone who insists that we literally know nothing about the mechanisms of our thought processes doesn't have thought processes.

 

Good one, Telemad. Reminds me that I have to get our quotes forum up.

 

Edit: (Forgot my point) Please listen to the mods and take it easy. Your point is taken.

[Qfwfq]

Those who don't understand my point have already shown themselves unreachable by means of logic, reason, and rational thought.

 

Anyone who insists that we literally know nothing about the mechanisms of our thought processes doesn't have thought processes.

I hadn't missed your point TM, I made the distinction between neurophysiology and understanding thought.

 

It was wrong to pounce on another poster for having said "we know nothing about..."

[Southtown]

In my personal, honest opinion, I'm the result of a long chain of events that leads back to the Big Bang.

 

1) I'm the result of my parents' DNA merging in a process fine-tuned over millions of years.

2) They're the results of the same process.

3) Their parents, the same - all the way back to our tree-climbing ancestors.

4) The tree-climbers can be traced back to the first proto-land animal that came crawling up on land, found it full of tasty morsels, and seeing as there were no competition, they colonized the land to feed on the abundant plant material.

5) And they can be traced back to the very first fish.

6) And they can be traced back to the first animal with a rod in its back which stiffened the bodies and gave rise to the whole chordata

7) ...which can be traced back to the point where plants and animals diverged.

8) ...which can eventually be traced back to blue-green algae

9) ...which can be traced back to the very first molecule able to replicate itself

10) ...to be, in turn, traced back to the atoms in the molecule itself

11) ...which is a direct result of a cloud of stuff (the result of a set of former earlier-generation stars blowing themselves to smithereens) having a gravitational collapse

12) ...and those stars from earlier collapsed clouds

13) ...all the way back to the Big Bang.

Or... at least... that's what you were told.

 

So - we're the result from a lot of earlier processes, and totally random at that. The fact is - if there was a little frog-like creature in a pond that was the individual that gave rise to humans (eventually) and he died of thirst or some other less palatable reason, there wouldn't have been humans today - there might be some other species that took up this specific niche, asking the same question. They'd have their own conceits and chauvinisms, and imagine their God to be benevolent, and also in their shape or form.

Because the idiots just can't get their feeble minds around the concept that "chaos accidentally became order, which systematecally returned to chaos, ad infinum."

 

And the chain of events leading back to the Big Bang stops right there - at the Big Bang. What happened before it, is outside the realm of current science, although we are inching towards structuring better and better models in explaining it. And seeing as it is outside the realm of science, it is fertile ground for metaphysical explanations.

 

The irony will be if we find out one day that the Big Bang was created in a particle accelerator by scientists smashing atoms together, breaking them apart into their fundamental units, and one of them - for some reason unknown to those scientists, and they'll never know either, seeing as they were blown to bits in the resulting explosion - unfurled its curled-up dimensions, inflated, and created the Universe as we know it. That'll be kinda funny, though.

Either something comes from nothing or nothing never existed. Some just can't grasp either concept so, they stay within the realm of the explainable. Safe within the box, no one will accuse you of forming ideas from nothing.

 

"Why, Mr. Anderson, why? Why? Why do you do it? Why, why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you think your fighting for something, more than your survival? Can you tell me what it is? Do you even know? Is it freedom, or truth, perhaps peace, could it be for love? Illusions, Mr. Anderson, vagaries of perception. Temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose. And all of them as artificial as the Matrix itself. Although, only a human mind could invent something as insipid as love. You must be able to see it, Mr. Anderson, you must know it by now! You can’t win, it’s pointless to keep fighting! Why, Mr. Anderson, why, why do you persist?"

 

"Because I choose to."

[Biochemist]

Once again, i swear you must follow me around to try to catch me say something that you may interpret differently, notice i NEVER said that we have absolutely no idea how our brain functions, i said what we know very little about how our brain works, I was also talking about Psychology, cognition, memory, thought, life, thinking, right before that.....

Alex- Your plain meaning was obvious at the outset. If someone was confused by your plain meaning, they could have asked a question about what you meant.

[alexander]

If you really think that, then you're paranoid and delusional, and you need to seek professional help.

paranoia and delusions, do we know how our brain makes these things work?

but I am glad to hear that you are not in pursuit of my eternal suffering and conflicts, i did not think you were, but i thought i'd ask just in case...

Alex- Your plain meaning was obvious at the outset. If someone was confused by your plain meaning, they could have asked a question about what you meant.

Thanks Bio, as long as it was at least sort of clear, I'm good. I usually try not to post things that are not discussion related in the threads (usually discussion at that time or quotes around the idea...

[TeleMad]

let me try to put god in the picture for you, first of all god is really formless, he's never described to be a human or of human nature ...

 

Uhm, didn't some important human dude in the Old Testament physically wrestle with God ... and win?

 

And, uhm, wasn't Jesus God? Jesus sure had a human body, now didn't He.

 

alexander: ... you must be thinking of what is described in the bible and other religious texts, ...

 

So? If God is described as having a human form anywhere - including the Bible - then the statement that God's never described to be a human or of human nature is wrong.

 

 

 

alexander: how about an approach of more what i've been thinking about recently, what if god is a force that controls energy?

 

Ah yes, God could be the midichlorians, giving the Jedi the force.

[IrishEyes]

Glad to see that a few of you are listening...

Nice to see the new JMods trying to keep the peace.

Great to see alex venturing out of the CP cave!

Shouldn't take another JMod, Mod, or Admin to tell you all to be nice.

If it keeps going downhill and straying off topic, this thread will be closed.

Thanks for your participation, guys. Enjoy your discussions. Don't let them deteriorate.