What is life?

[Dilip Panjwani]

Why do you believe that this energy is not conscious?

Maybe, maybe not...

[Brad Thomson]

Maybe, maybe not...

The astounding order of the universe leads me to conclude the existence of intelligent design rather than blind natural laws.

[Pargat Perrer]

No. Other than one leading to the other by interacting with the brain, there is no similarity whatsoever between the physical nature of what produces a sound or sight and the sound or sight itself. One just needs to calmly think about the details of it to realize this fact.

Dilip, I did not say that sound and heard sound have similarity. I agree they are different things. I am just discussing the language we use to differentiate them, so we can discuss one versus the other. If you insist that "sound" is defined as what I am calling "heard sound", then you need a term for the physical sound that I am defining as "sound". They should not both be called "sound". That is my only point. Likewise with light.

Having said that, what is very very difficult to believe, but nevertheless true as per modern physics, is that the stuff that we see and feel (through intermediary physical processes of transmission of information, and the latter are easily obvious as being different) is very very different from what our consciousness tells us it is!! We seem to see and feel particles, but in reality, particles do not exist... what exists outside our consciousness is just energy...

Yet if we bang out head hard enough against a car windshield, the windshield breaks and so does our head, and indeed our life may end in that instant.

So if our consciousness tells us through our brains that the windshield is hard and we should not bang our head against it too hard, that may be our consciousness acting in self-preservation survival mode. Our consciousness tells us about our surroundings in ways we need to survive, even if our consciousness is fully aware that it's existence is certain to be of a finite length of time only.

So in the question of whether the universe is intelligently designed or not, which I see in another post Brad brought up, the consciousness seems to be designed to provide us an interpretation of our surroundings for the purpose of keeping us alive long enough to procreate and continue the species.

[Sid Belzberg]

Thank you, Sid. Whether particular consciousness is an inherent property of particular shapes of brain's electronic waves or particular combinations of Orch OR, is a minor point. I just find the former simpler to understand (and hence more elegant) than the latter, and the vast majority of quantum physicists say that Orch OR just cannot occur at brain temperatures...

I just find the former simpler to understand

I do, too; however, although Dr. Tucker's case history data is very compelling, he does not understand basic definitions of Quantum physics. He tries to rationalize the observer effect on the results of the classic double-slit experiment, but he incorrectly defines the observer as "consciousness". The observer of the double slit experiment are physical objects like photon detectors used to quantify measurements. When the instrument is deployed, it interferes with the outcome of the experiment.
If we place an observer behind a door with a peephole where the double slit experiment is being done you will find that the "observer" in the case will have no impact whatsoever on the experimental outcome.
Dr. Penroses Orch-Or theory is based on rigorous reproducible data. Not as elegant but it holds together experimentally.

[Dilip Panjwani]

The astounding order of the universe leads me to conclude the existence of intelligent design rather than blind natural laws.

Darwinian evolutionists, based on their theory very well supported by the subsequent discovery of genetic mutations, believe differently. Intelligent Design theory has been around much much longer, and its proponents, the theologians of the world, are still looking for some supportive evidence...
And please ask the Ukrainians about the so called astounding order of the Universe.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Yet if we bang our head hard enough against a car windshield, the windshield breaks and so does our head, and indeed our life may end in that instant.

That conclusion is drawn by the neuronal framework in our brains... AI, apparently devoid of consciousness, would also lead to exactly the same conclusions.

[Brad Thomson]

If consciousness is a byproduct of the interactions of matter, can it effect the causal chain or are all of the events determined? In other words, are we free, or is our consciousness only epiphenomenal, something that falls off of the end of the causal chain into nothing without the capacity to kick back into the chain?

[Brad Thomson]

Darwinian evolutionists, based on their theory very well supported by the subsequent discovery of genetic mutations, believe differently. Intelligent Design theory has been around much much longer, and its proponents, the theologians of the world, are still looking for some supportive evidence...
And please ask the Ukrainians about the so called astounding order of the Universe.

What genetic mutation lead to the sun, the moon, the earth and the entire order of the non-living cosmos?

[Dilip Panjwani]

Is our consciousness only epiphenomenal, something that falls off of the end of the causal chain into nothing without the capacity to kick back into the chain?

That is what it appears to be, does it not?

[Dilip Panjwani]

What genetic mutation lead to the sun, the moon, the earth and the entire order of the non-living cosmos?

If there is any evolution (which involves reproduction) in these, then it must involve non-genetic mutations, of course...
The physical world has been going through the cycles of big bangs and dark holes for ever; and if you postulate an Intelligent Designer for creating these cycles, the obvious question arises: who designed the Intelligent Designer?, and if you say that no one needs to have designed Intelligent Designer, then why not say that for the physical world itself?

[Fred Henderson]

For now ... mostly Carbon.

Silicon ... is on the rise.

Yes, very good. Carbon is at the very core of molecular biology. A little H²O helps also

[Fred Henderson]

I did take a stab at one of Chopra's books in the late 20th. The only useful thing I learned was that that first cup of coffee in the morning lubricates the bowels, so you better have a plan for the next half hour so, especially if you are a street person. Chopra recommends having your big meal in the early afternoon, so that you can take a dump before you go to bed, instead of in the morning.

p.s. Are we talking about #1 or #2? i can never remember which is which.

[Fred Henderson]

Hey Bob A., What Brad says should relieve your anxiety: Climate change is a thought of Nature, and humans, just another thought, cannot change that thought...
(just kidding, but nevertheless, your anxiety is not justified...)

You remind me of Pargat, except a little less ... blatant.

:)

[Brad Thomson]

That is what it appears to be, does it not?

Matter appears epiphenomenal to me.

[Brad Thomson]

If there is any evolution (which involves reproduction) in these, then it must involve non-genetic mutations, of course...
The physical world has been going through the cycles of big bangs and dark holes for ever; and if you postulate an Intelligent Designer for creating these cycles, the obvious question arises: who designed the Intelligent Designer?, and if you say that no one needs to have designed Intelligent Designer, then why not say that for the physical world itself?

I do not believe that Time can theoretically be traced backwards forever, I believe that it had a beginning, and that it could come to an end. I believe that what 'big banged' into existence was One mind, and that this has happened once, inexplicably.