*new* mind is more than brain (???)

I guess I see consciousness creating these forms/structures/laws, just like consciousness creates a painting.

Rich

... ah, but isn't a painting itself a shining example of one of these new forms/structures/laws? ... so while I think I would probably not agree with the cosmology of morphic fields, nor in the primacy of consciousness in creating them, I think we are in agreement on the general concept of consciousness (once it arrives on the scene) as a powerful (addition to the) creative force in the universe

... okay, I'll meet you halfway, as it seems I have been harboring a biological bias with respect to the emergence of meaning ... so consciousness is not an emergent of any arbitrary batch of neurons, but rather is an emergent of neurons hooked up to sensors and effectors (i.e., embodied) within a larger playing field (i.e., world) ... on the other hand, self-perpetuation is not needed to create the meaning we associate with the words "self" and "other" - merely being embodied in a world is enough for a sufficiently advanced "brain" to establish this meaning ... sound agreeable so far?

... I think I see where you're going with this ... your argument is that if self awareness developed in response to the will to live, then when the will to live disappears self awareness should also disappear ...

... actually, the vast majority of mutations are destructive, if not fatal ... it's only once in a blue moon that a mutation has adaptive value ...

I guess I see consciousness creating these forms/structures/laws, just like consciousness creates a painting.

Rich

Huh

I always look for sources that satisfy all situations.

When I am asleep, there is no sense of the material. Just images. So where are they coming from? What is providing the initial impetus for the formation of dream images?

In quantum physics they might call this the wave function collapse by consciousness, which is one interpretation of quantum physics that continues to be debated.

Well yeah they are coming from your brain

Well, we still have to figure out what caused the elementary particles to collapse into a brain form and what causes the neurons to fire off in particular patterns.

Something must get the whole thing started - unless you think that it all just came out of nothing - which I guess is a reasonable form of mysticism.

"When it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images." [Neils Bohr]

"I maintain that cosmic religiousness is the strongest and most noble driving force of scientific research." [Albert Einstein]

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." [Albert Einstein]

I'm pretty sure sensory stimulation is what causes it

Seriously, this is like asking: "what causes letters to appear on my computer screen"

Well you're punching that keyboard and bla bla bla

And when you dream, you recall prior sensory experience

For example, though I don't believe that space aliens are coming to Earth, I still dream about them frequently because they're part of our cultural Zeitgeist.

And the image I have is the one put in our heads more or less c/o Betty and Barney Hill, it's just our (pop) culture and environment, etc. that defines what's in our dreams.

What caused the First Cause?

Have we already descended into the Quote Mines?

Another way to look at it, is that sensory stimulation is the result of it.

Yes, but what starts the fingers going on the keyboard? What is the impetus?

But what starts the process of recalling, if that is what it is?

What Jung might call the collective unconscious.

But what was the impetus behind creating that particular image in the head?

Yes. You have to go back to the beginning.

Absolutely. I have a ton of them:

Well there are feedback connections in neocortex, including in the sensory cortices but I don't think that's what you're saying

Nerves

Nervous activity

That leads to infinite regression

Mostly out of context

What created the feedback mechanism? What causes the feedback to occur?

What created the nerves?

What started the nervous activity?

But some are marvelously on target! I love quoting the creators of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Not the interpreters mind you. The CREATORS. Bless their souls.

Genetics

Sensory input that starts prenatally

I can't find anything about Bohr's religious beliefs, though he was technically Jewish I guess, but Einstein was only religious in a figurative sense.

Even so we shouldn't feel compelled to imitate everything they did by the lump

Also relativity and quantum physics are money-making scientist $cam$. Just look at how much money is going into the Large Hadron Collider

Please define genetics for me? At this point, it sounds a lot another word for God to me.

How did it start?

Sounds to me a lot more than figurative. He seemed to be pretty specific about it.

I agree. But I think one can learn from different perspectives.

I think your words are rather harsh. I would say that everyone is trying to find a way to survive and they do it in their own way.

k

Genetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

as it so happens, a part of our genome dictates the development of the nervous system

In the womb

He didn't believe in a personal God, definitely

Swallowing twisted interpretations of quantum physics and then turning around and blasting the rest of science isn't much of a way to learn

Yes but science is a profit-driven scam

But were did the genome come from and how does it know how to dictate development?

Where did the womb come from?

Kind of harsh on those scientists such a Wigner, Wheeler, Bohm, etc. But I will allow them to speak for themselves.

Again, I think you are being overly harsh. People are just trying to get by in life. We all are. It is like surviving the game of Monopoly.

Scientists are overzealous tinkerers and besides most of them either don't believe in or are agnostic to God and the supernatural

.... about 40 percent of the responding biologists, physicists and mathematicians said they believed in a God who, by the survey's strict definition, actively communicates with humankind and to whom one may pray ''in expectation of receiving an answer.'' Roughly 15 percent in both surveys claimed to be agnostic or to have ''no definite belief'' regarding the question, while about 42 percent in 1916 and about 45 percent today said they did not believe in a God as specified in the questionnaire, although whether they believed in some other definition of a deity or an almighty being was not addressed.

Again rather harsh. In any case,

Survey of Scientists Finds A Stability of Faith in God - The New York Times

Richrf,

I'm pretty sure he is still giving you a hard time for what your summary of science (being a big scam) in the original thread. I had to say it because this is getting ridiculous.

Remember this : 'My summation of all scientific literature:

Scientists have no idea what they are talking about but they say it with so much certainty, vague nomenclature, statistical gobbledygook, and overwhelming wordiness, that they hope no one notices. This way they can keep getting millions upon millions of research dollars.

Recently I read that one researcher wants to classify death as a disease, presumably to gather some research dollars to cure death. Now this is a big marketplace. Gotta hand it too him. Ain't nobody going to top death.

Rich'

All scientific literature would include anything about Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. So this is a jab a the very people you are quoting, whether it was meant to be one or not. If you want to clarify, feel free.

40% - Godbots
60% - not Godbots

A simple majority of scientists, by your figures, are not Godbots

Also, belief varies according to field. In neuroscience, for example, I'd be surprised if the percentage of believers broke 20%.

Personally, I believe every profession should take a look at itself and see to what extent money is affecting the work that is being performed. This goes from sports, to arts, to science, to teaching.

Please review the conclusions of the study again. I believe you are inaccurate in the way you are interpreting the conclusions of the study.