This is What Consciousness is:

Author: Reece101

Posts

Total: 196
#91
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
Well yes.

But still a philosophical Ebuc.

In so much as the necessity of complexity will only have a limited and appropriately conditioned audience.


"Is equality good" is either a general question for a mass audience,  or a philosophical question for a select few.

Though the basic definition and general understanding of equality and inequality is still the same.

And the basic definition and understanding will inevitable stimulate other considerations, providing the potential for a broader discussion for the appropriate audience.

I would imagine that most people here on DebateArt have an understanding of the factors that might affect social status.
#92
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
@Lemming
@FLRW
@Critical-Tim
....It is a multifaceted phenomenon, with various levels and dimensions,....

Minimal consciousness entails twoness ergo other-ness { O---O } ergo awareness

1} A1--------B2 is twoness, I think about my occupied space finger { A1 }, with my occupied space brain { B2 } via sight { EMRadiation occupied space photons }, or sound { occupied space air moleules, tapping }, smell { occupied space chemicals, nasty }, taste { occupied space, sweet },

2} A1--------B2 three-ness via the line-of-relationship{ ----- } or as Gravity  (   )  as geodesic lines-of-relationship between the two ex (O)(   )(   )(   )(O),

3} four-ness via the background context { ..... }, by within which the above takes place ex  ........(A1)(   )(   )(   )(B2)........

....background.............A1---line-of-relationship-----B2....................background.....

or as,

......background 4.............(A1)(   )(   )attractive/contractive-geodesic-line-of-relationship-3(   )(   )(B2)....................background 4......

Ergo,

Four-ness [   ]  aka square { 2D area enclosed } is the minimal,  geometric,  systemic { operational 90 degreen-ness } set

Three-ness ... /\....aka  triangle { 2D enclosed area } is minimal, geometric, integral structural { diagonal 60 degee-ness } set

Two-ness .....*  *.... is the minimal Meta-space { abstract concept } and linear set aka unity is plural { Bucky Fuller }

One-ness is not a set?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When XYZ is is abc, then d is the 45 degree volumetric/body diagonal { /  } of 90 degree cube, aka as the first dimension of hyper-space. See Micho Kaku's Hyper-space book.


#93
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@zedvictor4
In so much as the necessity of complexity will only have a limited and appropriately conditioned audience. 

"Is equality good" is either a general question for a mass audience, or a philosophical question for a select few.

It's true, and that's precisely the problem. Attempts to simplify complex philosophical debates often lead to an oversimplified version lacking the accuracy and context of the original statement. Such questioning becomes pointless and devoid of definitiveness. In essence, those who lack the capacity to comprehend the words and philosophies necessary to understand something cannot grasp the complexity of the real idea without investing the time to learn and understand.

Though the basic definition and general understanding of equality and inequality is still the same.
Although a basic definition is lacking, I believe I understand your intentions. Every idea and concept has a certain threshold beyond which simplification causes degradation, loss of original meaning, and reduced value, definitiveness, and utility. At times, even simplifying an idea to its most basic form without losing resolution proves too complex for some to understand. In a desperate attempt to foster understanding, some oversimplify the idea, leading to problems such as miscommunication, lack of definitiveness in questions and answers, and pointless arguments due to the inability to understand each other. Essentially, those who engage in philosophical debates to explain oversimplified problems are incompetent and incapable of arriving at a genuine solution due to their inability to grasp the true complexity of the ideas involved.

I would imagine that most people here on DebateArt have an understanding of the factors that might affect social status.
This is the very problem. Assuming that others are refer to the effects of social status when that may not be the case, leading to misunderstandings and unproductive dialogue. Failure to define commonly misunderstood or interpretable terms and other necessary components of the debate inevitably leads to disagreements from miscommunication. I have even witnessed two individuals arguing for the same point without realizing they were essentially saying the same thing, but referring to different aspects of the same topic. Assuming that the other's subjective interpretation of a word is the same as one's own leads to communication breakdowns present in almost every controversial debate today. Such breakdowns occur because the parties lack the competence to engage at that level of intellectual discourse.

I'm not being disrespectful or trying to direct this case towards you, but rather stating it so that all can be aware of this and fraign from making the same mistakes. Therefore, cultivating a more competent debating community.
#94
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@ebuc
Your mode of communication was quite convoluted and challenging to comprehend with certainty, as I haven't read Micho Kaku's book. Additionally, could you confirm if the following is what you intended to convey?

The concept of minimal consciousness has different levels and dimensions. It involves twoness, which is awareness of oneself and others. This can be experienced through the senses, such as sight, sound, smell, and taste. Threeness is experienced through the line of relationship or gravity, while fourness is experienced through the background context. Fourness can be represented by a square, which is a minimal geometric and systemic set. Threeness can be represented by a triangle, which is a minimal geometric and integral structural set. Twoness is represented by a linear set and is the minimal meta-space or abstract concept. Oneness is not considered a set. Additionally, in hyper-space, the first dimension is represented by the 45-degree volumetric or body diagonal of a 90-degree cube.
#95
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Critical-Tim
The concept of minimal consciousness has different levels and dimensions.

Varying degrees conscious-ness from most simple two masses, to Universe { may parts }, black holes { complex coding }, female woman being most complex biologic.

involves twoness, which is awareness of oneself and others.

Two parts of occcupied space. Read my lips/text as stated, and best to address what is state.  Brain and finger, toe and moon, tomatoe and black hole, so on. Not complex to grasp to occupied space parts that have a third part as the line-of-relationship between the sense other with photon, sound etc. Read my lips/text as was presented  post #92.

Fourness can be represented by a square,
Yes but seperate topic { geometry }. You may be doing the convoluting here above in latter.

from the four aspects in which to have consciousness, as I clearly laid out in post wh#92. Square is differrent topic of Meta-space geometry/pattern/shape.

Yes four-ness is best symbolism at fundamental levels of consideration, as systemic { operational } integrity.

Threeness can be represented by a triangle, which is a minimal geometric and integral structural set.
Yes at most fundamental levels of consideration in Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and in occupied space { ex 2x4's } as I thought I stated. ---maybe that was in seperate thread---  a house wall is made structurally stable via triangulation. Old news.

Cubical table salt is stabilized via the triangulations of atoms in faces of  the cube.

Twoness is represented by a linear set and is the minimal meta-space or abstract concept.

Yes but clarity here. Meta-space is abstract, mind/intellect/concepts and ego.

Occupied space fundamentally cannot be less than the four aspects i mention in post #92. Read again my lips/text in that post, and none of those four is Meta-space.

You, I, we and others need to grasp these distinction between Meta-space and occupied space. All occupied space is complemented by Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts/shape/pattern/geometry etc.

Finite, occupied space Universe, composed of its many parts and lines--of-relationship { also a part } has its limits in various ways.  Meta-space physical laws of absolute this or that, just complement the the occupied space. They do not govern Universe. This  is how it IS , eternally. --humans have to get over it--

There is not Meta-space secret code as in a bilateral Meta-god, that created eternally existent { eternally transforming within the known absolute limits } Universe.

Same goes for the Meta-space, Cosmically Absolute Principles. i.e. they only complement the eternally existent occupied space Universe

Oneness is not considered a set.

One-ness as occupied space never ever exists. Occupied space is never less the systemic four-ness that, I laid-out clearly in post #92. Read  my lips/text as presented in those regards and grasp them comprensively as the minimal operational set, that can ever exist.

Additionally, in hyper-space, the first dimension is represented by the 45-degree volumetric or body diagonal of a 90-degree cube.
Yeah, much of this I learned specifcally from Kaku's book in 90's Hyper-space. Old news for me. :--) and loved it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.
C-tim , I have a thread around here, Cosmic Scenarios in personal catagory.  And there is two three point 5, or foure cosmic scenarios Ive presented over last 20 years.

The first one was has the 2ndary symbolism like this {   O|O  } to represent what may happened --at ' entropic heat death ' ending and or begining of next B Bang cyclic transformation of occupied space Universe,when,

8 icosahedra bonded/valenced with  8 triangular faces of the Vector Equlibrium { VE }ka cubo-octahedron, and it jittterbug as contraction to a flattened set of 8 triangles, with four congruently bonded/valenced, as seeingly one icosa hedra on each side of the flattened VE { 8 seemingly as one } . See this first LINK to grasp the jitterbugging transformations of the VE and here is the final 2nd LINK.


The VE transforms to at least exotic geometric shapes that ive been listing for 30 years.


The above is Euclidean based, ergo, their may exist a more conceptual curved geometry as spherical/spheres instead of the straight edge version I present.

The these early scenarios evolved, when I realised that, Fullers 87 - 73, primary great circles { 2D } defined by trajectory geodesic line, are 3D tori.

So basically the bilateral { O|O } ending-beginning of Universe cyclic transformations ---the really deep sleep ;--D---  except not Euclidean, not 2D great circles rather, now 3D great tori. The icosahedrons primary set is 31 great circles{ now 3D tori }. The icosahedron has a a left and right-skew version so actually primary set of 31 left-skes great circles { 3D tori } and 31 right-skew set of 31.

This is because if you look and the first LINK in the above, take note that when the VE contracts, its first phase of transformation to the semi-complete, icosaheron, can take place when the VE jitterrbugs left or right on conceptual axis.  Understand? See that first LINK.  This contraction left or right makes the icosahedron set of 120 potential right-triangles --in its 20 faces, skewed opposite from the left-skew axis contraction.

O|O is the four icosahedra on each side the line in the middle O | O   is the VE flatttened as 8 triangles as seemingly one. Now 2nd LINK above only shows  flattened set of four double-valenced triangles, however, if you build the Jbug model as Ive done maybe 8 of them, you can fold the those four into each as seemingly one triangle. Think of this like Hypers-space it helps you any.

If you want grasp more, go to that Cosmic Scenarios thread in Personal.
#96
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@zedvictor4
@ebuc
I agree that Michio Kaku's book on Hyperspace presents a truly fascinating perspective. I haven't heard of it before, but it seems to be in line with metaphysical constructivism, a concept I am familiar with. I recognize the metaphysical realm is where we can gain a better understanding of our three-dimensional universe through ideas and concepts.

Metaphysical constructivism is a belief that the metaphysical realm is a product of human thought and imagination. According to this philosophy, the metaphysical realm only exists conceptually and is not a physical reality in and of itself. However, this does not mean that the metaphysical realm is useless or irrelevant. In fact, metaphysical constructs can be incredibly useful in understanding and predicting the behavior of the physical world.

One example of metaphysical constructivism is the concept of time. Time is a construct of the human mind and is not a physical object or force in the universe. However, it is an incredibly useful construct for predicting and understanding the behavior of physical objects and events. Without the concept of time, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to make sense of cause-and-effect relationships, and to develop technologies like clocks and calendars.

Metaphysical constructivism can also be seen in the concept of ideas or strategies. Ideas and strategies are constructs that are created by human thought and vary from person to person. However, they are extremely useful tools for problem-solving and achieving goals. Ideas and strategies can help individuals and groups to innovate, create, and improve upon existing systems. They can also be used to communicate and share knowledge with others.

In summary, metaphysical constructivism holds that the metaphysical realm is a construct of human thought, but this does not diminish its importance or usefulness, and can be an incredibly powerful tool for understanding and predicting the behavior of the physical world. Would you agree?

#97
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
Yep, that's one way of looking at things.

Though one might simplify that by saying that the metaphysical realm is a thought or thoughts.

I would suggest that philoso-speak has it's own necessity to to exceed necessity.


In terms of human function, the body and it's onboard computer are wholly self-contained and process data within the confines of the body.

The ability to communicate data relies upon external physical properties, whilst the management of data always remains internally contained.

Consciousness and thought are seemingly amazing. But we can do no more that accept this as our reality, and continue thinking and communicating ideas for some reason maybe.

I'm not convinced that metaphysical constructivism is any more than this.


I think.
#98
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Nice posts ZED
#99
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@Critical-Tim
Nice posts Critter.
#100
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
@zedvictor4
@ebuc
I apologize if my language seemed overly technical. Sometimes it is necessary to use technical language to eliminate ambiguity and provide sufficient context and clarity. Failing to do so can result in drawing invalid conclusions based on oversimplified factors, similar to rounding numbers before solving a math problem. In essence, my words weren't overcomplex, but necessary. However, I will attempt to simplify the idea of metaphysical constructivism a bit further.

Metaphysical constructivism is the idea that the metaphysical realm - which refers to things that are not physical, such as concepts and ideas - is created by human thought and imagination, rather than being a physical reality. According to this philosophy, the metaphysical realm exists only conceptually and is not a physical object. However, this does not mean that the metaphysical realm is useless or irrelevant. Metaphysical constructs, such as ideas and strategies, can be very helpful in understanding and predicting the behavior of the physical world. Metaphysical constructivism emphasizes that our understanding of the world is shaped by our own thoughts and imagination, and that we can actively construct our own understanding of reality through our experiences and interactions.

Going back to my original point, I was attempting to draw a connection between Michio Kaku's book, where he employs hyperspace as a tool for comprehending reality, and the concept of metaphysical constructivism, which utilizes the metaphysical realm to better understand our own reality.
#101
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Me and ebuc are probably the hardest two to understand.
The reasons however are much opposite 
I can't spell very godly .

And ebuck the complete opposite  has elevated past this mere spelling out  of the letter things 
He talks in  depths widths  and hights.
A reallllll shapes and numbers guy if you will . 
Some think his from another dimension
Others say.   CRYSTAL METH , is a hell of a drug. 

Anyway. 
What we are alllll doing here on site in every post is . 
Playing the. 
○○○○○○○○      Try proving that Zeds wrong in something he says .   ○○○○○○○○○○○ 
Game ..
Show. 

Any day now his going to slip up and state., Something,  or  some process  that you are 85% certain  he his not correct about..  

(    Pull him up on it  , ya get    (  ☆  1 POINT IS AWARD.       )    
(  Proving Zed to be irrational in any ( way shape and or form  )  is the  ⊙⊙⊙《SNITCH》⊙⊙⊙   

So keep a eye on him.

Good luck 
And.
Good game
Ive read a bit of the miko book . 

#102
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Everyones thinking. 
Hang on a sec 
ive seen that block writing no full stop or commas like style before. 

○○○○○○○○○○○○Sour milk has been  detected  ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙
I repeat. 
Sour milk detected.  

See how he added the comas and full stops to a little  bit in an attempt to disguise 
And see where the added comas and full stops are placed.
Thats something you do with a quick scroll up , end off the last parra .


Ive never seen nor meet one buttt
I SENCE  A SMART THEIST MAY BE AMONG US.  
There is 3 plus billion of them, so that a good few hanfulls of " SMART  THEISTS  " 
#103
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
But  Deb , out of a good few hanfulls , for one of these what was it again smart  thearst , for one  to be on this site  is highly fucking unlikely.  

Your right there. 
Its just.
well i thought it would be cool to like, see one , to chat with one. 
Please remember,   The  ads of everd aint the everd of abss.,

Lucky the religious forum is interchangeable  with the philosophy forum .

#104
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,608
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Critical-Tim
 In the human brain, 100 billion neurons simultaneously fire and transmit signals to thousands of destinations.
In the frontal cortex — the part of the brain housing abilities such as language that distinguish us from other animals — the neurons look beautiful, like trees. They can have 10,000 or more synapses on their branching dendrites, each of which may receive information from a different cell.
The activity at those thousands of inputs gets added up to cause the neuron to fire — or not — and that’s how information is transferred in the brain. This kind of information transfer, across complicated networks made by the 120 billion neurons in the human brain, allows for complex thoughts.
Axons and dendrites can move around, especially when the brain is young. The way in which they connect individual neurons creates the network pathways. During development, the 100 trillion synapses in the human cortex form at a rate of an estimated 10,000 every 15 minutes! Together, all these synapses create a giant network. And that gives us consciousness.
#105
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
@zedvictor4
@ebuc
@FLRW
Regarding FLRW:
I agree that consciousness is a physical product created by billions of synapses. I am familiar with this concept as I have worked on artificial deep neural networks during my programming career. Thank you for commenting on the forum topic.

Regarding Deb-8-a-bull:
Please let me know if I am mistaken, but it seems that you may have been expressing some pride in your and ebuc's difficulty in being understood. However, I would like to point out that this is not necessarily a desirable trait. While someone may possess great intelligence or knowledge, if they are unable to effectively communicate their ideas, they will be of little use to society.

Therefore, if you find that you are frequently misunderstood in debates or conversations, it would be beneficial for you to work on improving your ability to communicate clearly. Just as someone who is fluent in Portuguese would not benefit from communicating in that language in an English-speaking environment, it is important to adjust one's language and style to fit the situation and audience.

Of course, it can be challenging to translate one's thoughts into coherent speech or writing, but if it cannot be done effectively, it is unlikely to be useful or productive for anyone reading or listening. It is worth noting, however, that if one is seeking help in gathering their thoughts and communicating effectively, then seeking the insights of others can be a valid reason for posting an unclear comment. If you or ebuc believe that you have a valuable contribution to the conversation, but are struggling to express your idea clearly, I would be more than happy to help you restructure it in a way that is more easily understandable.

Additionally, I am uncertain whether you are challenging Zed's ideas or conspiring against him, though it seems the first. Criticism is vital, and it helps to break down an individual's ideas, leading to further strengthening and evolution of those ideas. Therefore, challenging ideas are significant in their development, as continued criticism will help them evolve and become more robust. Hence, it is crucial to question concepts and beliefs held by all individuals, including oneself.
#106
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
@zedvictor4
@ebuc
@FLRW
In regard to Deb-8-a-bull:
Assuming this is what you meant to say.
I have never personally encountered a smart theist but given that there are over 3 billion theists in the world, there must be at least a few who are intelligent. However, it is highly unlikely that such a person would be on this site. Nonetheless, it would be interesting to talk to one.
I assume you were referring to me since you didn't mention anyone in your post. While many don't consider me religious, I am a theist. I believe that God is not supernatural, but rather a part of nature itself. I don't think God is conscious, but rather acts intelligently as all things in the universe tend to develop and evolve in a seemingly advancing way. I understand that people interpret their beliefs in many different ways, but I find my view to be the most logical and rational.

I also believe that many atheists were once religious but became skeptical of the illogical supernatural aspect of religion as they grew older and wiser. According to statistics, 2/3 of atheists were once religious, which supports my theory.

In the Christian context, the explanation for good and bad events is that God is either punishing or blessing us. While this may be reasonable, I believe that God is more accurately reflected in the universe itself, without the supernatural aspect. As for the afterlife, I see it as a reflection of one's existence that is imbued into the consciousness of others who knew the person. The closer the relationship, the stronger the transmitted consciousness grows within them, affecting their decisions as they continue to remember the person emotionally. In conclusion, I don't believe in such a thing or being as God but rather that God is a concept that we use to describe the universe as a whole.

I would be pleased to attempt to answer your questions, as it would stimulate my thought process on the matter and keep me logical and coherent in my understanding of the world. Please be critical of my understanding as I enjoy challenges to my beliefs, it helps solidify my understanding of the world by aligning it with natural processes. This allows me to create a more effective tool for understanding the world and navigating life.
#107
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
I know someone who needs a hug.
' stands with arms open. ' 
 
#108
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@Critical-Tim
Fuckkkk.
Again nice post #106.

Critical tims  clinically  crucial  critiquing services. 


#109
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
@FLRW
@Critical-Tim
I am an atheist.

Though I accept that there maybe a GOD principle.

In so much, that a universe has a purpose relative to material evolution.

We, are participants in that process.

A.I. (An alternative intelligence) instigated by it's predecessor is the next logical phase of the process.

God, as in a spiritual prop, was probably  an inevitable biproduct of human overthink.


Do you think that A.I. will need  metaphysical constructs as coping strategies?

Or will it be purely logical?


I think that it's also reasonable to propose, that this evolving and purposeful material universe, was therefore not the first and won't be the last.


Despite metaphysical overthink, I would nonetheless suggest that old Gods were/are a naive but reasonable metaphor.





#110
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Thats code for i am agnostic .
But i ain't saying i am . 


For All  most every " Atheists " on this sire ie.  
Atheist means ,,,, i am agnos. 

Sometimes  ( agnostic  atheist  )   is used to cover I am Agnostic. 

I fluctuate from agnostic to anri -theist never stoping at atheists 
Ergo
Im a  Atheist 
HaHa
The fucked up thing is thats how it works .

TELL ME IT DOESN'T. 

ALSO THE RELIGIOUS FORUM year one and year two 
pulls one to agnosticism. 

I want get started on  " position " 

Long and short. 
all atheist  on this site are cough cough . Agnostic
So shhhhhhhhhhhh. 

I still however think.
we have a better chance at proving god is not real more then  you lot have proving  god exists . 
We cant prove unicorns non existence yet .

And who knows  the atheists could one day receive  a book  .  From like a god .
We know gods do books 
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

Sorry theists. 
The atheists are particularly to blame  by not asking  you lot to prove god exists .
We dont ask for bible links. 
So sorry guys. 

P.S.  Do not rush . Proving gods existence as the last thing we want is for you guys to  accidentally skip over some important . 

THE CLOSEEST  TO PROVING GOD EXISTS IS MOPAC. 

THE ULTIMATE TRUTH EXISTS  THUS GOD EXISTS.  

THAT TOOK  5000 YEARS OR SO .

2ND BEST IS.... JESUS APPEARING  ON A PIECE OF TOAST.  

No seriously.  Take your time .

Im happy with giving you lot another one or two thousand years .



Ps..   What else do you believe in SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO MUCH BUT CAN'T PROVE. 
you guys put this thing at the very top of the most important things in life. 
This thing that youve never come no wher near cloes to proving.
You follow it word to a T . 
You worship it . 

Atheists,  all though nothing directly  to do with each other,  as an example .
don't lay our lives on the line when it comex to evolution. 
Some may but . ( atheist rule book says )   
Some Athiests dont all belive in EVO some do . 

'      Give Agnostic hand signals.   
Ok guys , please  Keep pretending we are atheists . 
Mother fucking werd .
On the count of tree .
1
2
3.   closet agnostics. Hooooooooo.  ( clogs ) 

 



 
 
Topic's author
#111
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). Who fits that criteria? The answer is agnostics. Agnosticism falls under the umbrella of atheism whether you like it or not. 
#112
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
...— the neurons look beautiful, like trees....

Nobel winning scientist discover torus and hexagonal aspects of brain

.." where abstract mathematics meets neurons...brain uses a torus to navigate physical systems "

Go to 3:21 for the first rereferenc hexagonal grids in the brain.

There is also another LINk regarding these above findings and others involved with the research. Go to 4;50 or just before for the first references.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My  numerical geometric explorations led me to hexagonal patterns and torus ergo my quantum space (   )(    ) and time /\/\/\/, invaginated  tori (> * <)(> * <) where  { observed time { quantised } time { ^v^v ]  leads to complex bilateral critters {  * * } in Universe, within context of physical reality is the volumetric body inside each torus.

...space(> * <) i  (> * <)space or as.....space(>^v^v<)(>^v^v<)space...or as...space(/\/\/)(/\/\/)space..wherein the sine-wave is associated with our physical reality { Spirit-2 fermions and  bosons   } --is body/volume inside each torus---  and the geodesic outer positive (   )  and inner negative )(  are Meta-physical { Spirit-3 and 4 }.

Meta-space is Spirit-1 and identifies with the i ergo ego and is concepts of Space, Time etc, not an actual occupied space or truly non-occupied space.  Until others can make these distinctions they are not truly grasping the most fundamentals, of the most wholistic set, I label as  Cosmic Trinary Set of Existence.

Here below is 2D lattice of a 3D torus [ no graphics created by me yet }. The first nucleated hexagonal pattern is 0-1-5p-6-4-2p with nucleus 3p. p is for prime number.

...1.........................5p..........7p.......................11p.........13p.....................17p.......Gravity
-
-
0......................................6.......................................12.....................................18..observed { quantised } time reality
.................3p......................................9.......................................15.........................observed { quantised } time reality
-
-
...........2p.........4............................8..........10.........................14........16.....................Dark Energy

The 13p is in bold because it is the minimal set as the minimal quantum of Universe, the quantum of gravity aka the  graviton, however, my research shows that Gravity and Dark Energy are two sides of the same coin ---i.e. torus-- so the this minimal quantum I label as graviton-darkEon.

It is 14 nodal events and that equals 91 lines-of-relationship ----14^2, minus 14 / 2 = 91 LINK--- and that is one short of 92 regenerative chemical elements. Uranium being the 92nd chemical element. the elements beyond 92 have a distinction from the 92 and are labeled trans-uranium.

#113
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@ebuc
It's fascinating to learn about your research and theories regarding the torus and hexagonal patterns in the brain. I'm curious, how do these findings relate to your quoted statement about neurons looking beautiful like trees? Is there a specific aspect of the torus or hexagonal pattern that resembles the structure of neurons?
#114
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@zedvictor4
I am an atheist, though I accept that there maybe a GOD principle.

I think that it's also reasonable to propose, that this evolving and purposeful material universe, was therefore not the first and won't be the last.

Despite metaphysical overthink, I would nonetheless suggest that old Gods were/are a naive but reasonable metaphor
Yes, thats what I'm trying to convey. I am attempting to acknowledge "God" as the universe itself; it is merely the a metaphorical concept of reality and its inner workings. I also concur that primitive gods were naive, but we must recognize that they served a purpose in maintaining indoctrination for the sake of uniformity and stability in society as their unanimously agreed moral standard. However, as we continue to evolve, it is important that our view of God also evolves.

Do you think that A.I. will need metaphysical constructs as coping strategies?
Or will it be purely logical?
I am uncertain if robots will ever be capable of experiencing sentience. It is possible that in the future, as neural networks become more complex and are integrated with external awareness monitors, robots may become sentient. However, with current robots and technology that I am aware of, this is not possible, as they are purely logical and structured.
#115
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
@zedvictor4
@Reece101
I recognize your attempt in forming a correlation between my view, and agnosticism. However, there is a strong distinction between the two, mine being naturalistic pantheism.

Naturalistic pantheism is a belief system that sees the universe and nature itself as divine, and that all things in the universe are interconnected and part of the divine whole. It does not posit a supernatural deity or god, but rather sees the universe as the highest form of divinity. Naturalistic pantheism holds that everything in the universe, including human beings, are connected to each other and to the divine whole.

Agnosticism, on the other hand, is the view that the existence of a god or gods cannot be proven or disproven. It is not a belief system or a specific religious philosophy, but rather a stance on the question of the existence of a deity. Agnostics typically hold that it is impossible to know whether a god or gods exist, or that the evidence is insufficient to make a determination one way or the other.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. It is the rejection of the claim that a god or gods exist due to a lack of evidence or logical reasoning. Atheists do not believe in a deity, but this does not mean they claim there is no god, only that there is no sufficient evidence to believe in one.

While it is true that we cannot be certain about the existence of supernatural beings, I don't believe in fairies or other such entities either. My worldview is based on rational and logical principles, using scientific and philosophical methods to understand the world. I rely on science to study the physical realm of tangible objects and use philosophy to explore the nonphysical realm of intangible concepts such as emotions, ideas, and thoughts. While some may consider my perspective a form of agnosticism, I see it as a combination of scientific and philosophical inquiry. In other words, I believe in what is believeable, and not, what isn't.
#116
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
God either. 

1. Exists 
Orrr 
2.  Does not exist.  
It Has to be one of them right ? 

HAS TO 
1 .   Atheists. 
2 .  Theists or believer. 
3 .   Agnost6

Now rule one out.
Remembering.  
Exist 
Orrrrrr 
Does not 



I fucking know that doesn't mean to rule out agnostic. wait for it..

Thus bringing us  and it to " positions " 

Agnostics 
Have won the religious forum for at least 4000 years running 
Yearly
#117
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@zedvictor4
Zed .
Im still havinv trouble seeing AI Looking at a 100 million  painting and shara  grade 5 from clontarph .

Its over 100 mill for one of them half painted one color this side and one the othef. 
 
Then the poliks . 
Squiggly lines  my nephew can do it better . 

AI  standing there , a polik in one hand , a grade 5 girls in the other. 

antique dealings.  
The 101100101 needed for that

I cant fathom a good antique dealler . 
I kind of can but , 
Hard job that one right zed ? 

Say it now deb . NOOOOO
OK.
You know antique furniture or moden . Back in your day big fella. 

The Antique road show zed . 
Youve been haven't you? 

And No the age of canvas and paint doesn't  realy mean shit. 
 
Apart  from Pre -nuclear 

I have you down as a lover of landscape paintings ?
And out door model trains

#118
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
@zedvictor4
@Reece101
In regards to Deb-8-a-bull:
I think in your example, you are trying to distinguish that agnosticism is closer to theism than atheism. Instead of making a vague comparison by saying 'well it's closer than this,' (which by no means deems it similar, as its merely a comparison) it would be more helpful to compare the attributes of each one and acknowledge them for what they are.

 Moreover, it is crucial to establish a precise definition of God. One can contend that God does not exist, as they define him as a supernatural being of injustice. Conversely, another can argue that God does exist, as they view him as a metaphysical concept rather than a conscious entity. By stating that the topic is simply about whether God exists or not, you oversimplify a complex issue. One cannot even begin to prove or disprove the existence of God if they do not have the same understanding of God's nature and attributes. This is precisely why I took the effort to define my precise understanding of what I mean by the term "God" before I went to prove his existence. I wanted to avoid any potential confusion of which you're clearly demonstrating. Please be sure to fully read the comments before replying and if you have any trouble understanding, I would be more than happy to try to explain better.
#119
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@Critical-Tim
Yeah ,but. 
But . 
IT'S ONLY COMMEN SENSE A GOD THING DOESN'T EXIST.  
#120
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
@zedvictor4
@Reece101
Yeah ,but. 
But . 
IT'S ONLY COMMEN SENSE A GOD THING DOESN'T EXIST.  
It would have been better if you had clearly stated your intended message rather than leaving it open to interpretation. Your statement, "God doesn't physically doesn't exist", which isnt necessarily true. It is important to understand that people may have different definitions of God. For some, God could be an idol or a moral concept, which would mean that the form and existence of God would differ. Therefore, it is necessary to be specific about what you believe when discussing commonly misunderstood ideas and concepts, instead of assuming others will understand your subjective perspective.