Hey phat, howecome you haven't had your faith ripped apart by the debates you have watched in this forum? Not that it is ripping my faith apart. Actually, the kind of evidence they give me kind of proves to me even more that there is a God.

No the arrangments of dots by themselves is meaningless. If there are no humans to understand those arrangments they have no meaning. It is quite different from the forest tree making a sound thing.Did english have meaning before the language was formed? If so, everything has meaning in an infinite number of different ways, and if so, nothing has meaning because everything would stand for everything.

thankyou and I did find it useful.Now I understand a bit more about the brain that I didn't know before.

Exactly. You would have to be insane to feel that your not real.

No you are the one whole lacks comprehension.

Long string of infantile obscenity removed

This message has been edited by AdminJar, 11-08-2005 08:04 PM

---

I believe my redeemer lives

Yes I understand. It is just impossible for me to convey my superiority to these inferior minds. Just kidding lol. Really just kidding. You guys better not reply to this and ATTACK ME AGAIN!Plus, I was NOT in a good mood. I was in a very BAD mood.

First of all, written language IS just a spaciall arrangment. Seccond of all, written language doesn't do anything. It just sits there in an arrangment. It is us who actually interpret it from visual information being carried via photons hitting off the paper and coming to our eyes as electomagnetic waves within the visible color spectrim. Then we interpret that visual data. So we UNDERSTAND it, it doesn't understand itself. So, you cannot use that as an example of how a spacial arrangment can account for consciousness.

Of course it would have an effect on your consciousness since it relies on your brain.Also, if we don't have a soul, then we shouldn't have free will.Can anyone give me a theory on how free will works from a physical materialistic view. And don't give me any quantam randomness crap because that is not free will that is sparatic particles acting totally randomly.BTW, I don't think you would feel it if someone touched your brain. I think I heard that the brain doesn't have pain receptors but I not entirely sure. I think thats why they are able to keep people awake during brain surgery.This message has been edited by Guidosoft, 11-13-2005 06:45 PM

Therefore we don't have free will according to materialistic views.

OK, I just want to ask you a question because I am curious. Read the whole thing here.So let's assume that time travel is possible. If time travel is possible then the world in which I leave should co-exist with the destination time. So 1943 should co-exist with 2005. You see?And if so then if I go back in time to 5 minutes ago and talk to my mother is the mother I'm talking to the same consciousness as the mother from when I left?I am quite certain that the answer to this one would be NO!And according to relativity, I believe it is, certain time for certain places with less mass go quicker, like in space, than places with greater mass.Therefore, if your father, an astronot, goes into space, and time goes ever so slighty quicker for him, meaning he moves a bit quicker in time, then when he returns to you, are you talking to the father with the same consciousness as the one who left?I think the answer is the yes, same person.This message has been edited by Guidosoft, 11-17-2005 05:33 PMThis message has been edited by Guidosoft, 11-17-2005 05:34 PM

quote:

---

Consider an original idea from 1000 years ago that someone wrote down and nobody else has read before. You find the paper and read the words and then have the idea. Now, while thinking of the idea your brain is firing nuerons and atomic interactions are causing (or 'allowing') the idea. But I would say that the idea, itself, is not a spatial arrangement of atoms, would you? and the words on the page (a spatial arrangement of atoms) allow for the idea to exist. Therefore, a spatial arrangement of atoms has allowed for something other than a spatial event.

​

As a side thought...what about when the idea is dormant? Does the idea still exist? It has the potential to exist but it isn't existing...weird.

---

They allow for the idea to exist spatially in the brain in a spatial form.What you need to explain is how the spatial movement of particles in the brain account for consciousness of that idea.As for the idea existing before you understand it.....It exists in the brain of the person that has the idea. So, if no one understood english, english would not exist. It is because there is a mind to understand english, that english exists. Otherwise I can say that ookapopo a language that might be invented in a billion years from now, already exists. An idea exists in a persons mind, not by itself. Of course if you believe that other times exist parralel to the present then you could say all kinds of things exist that don't exist yet as long as your reference transcends time.This message has been edited by Guidosoft, 11-17-2005 06:28 PM

Ok, first of all. I program in C++ and VB and I know alot about how computers work and I am telling you that AI cannot produce consciousness , period. K? Good.

Ah, but if time travel is possible and if you go into the past then those people in the past will not be the same consciousness as the same people in the present.

I'm starting to want to be a writter now.

First of all Consciousness is a built in concept that everyone has internally, but do not have a word for. However Consciousness is a good word for it. You do not need computers to know what consciousness is, since sillicon and electricity will never produce consciousness, and neither can physical celliar organisms alone.Also, Java is crap, and I know this for certain.
Lisp, I assume, but don't know for sure, is crap.
PHP is good. (I don't program in it but I know it.)Also, Object Oriented Programming can simulate a neural network no?What if I made a neuron class and a neuron manager class. On a super computer, would I not be able to simulate the workings of a physical neural system? Certianlly this simulated system would be able to do anything the real system could do, but virtualy. It could learn, because it IS a neural system, just a virtual one. Therefore, if physical neural systems can produce consciousness, I would imagine that a virtual neural system can produce consciousness, since you seem to deny that particles only act spatially in time. So then virtual spatial movements should be able to produce the same effect.Besides that, I read alot of science articles, from the evolutionists side, and that is where I get most of my scientific knowledge. The only thing I disagree with is the Big Bang because it occurs at of no where, and the accidental appearance of the first cell. It is completley idiotic.So, I know that computers have nothing to do with congnitive science, except of course, you learn about electromangetism, and conductors.This message has been edited by Guidosoft, 11-19-2005 10:25 AM