Chukka

You ought to watch me'n'my girlfriend sometime. :lol:

 

Grimmhatter, you've misunderstood me completely, sorry.

Blinky: It seems I haven't been clear enough in my previous posts, so instead of writing a lot, this time I'll try to be as clear as possible.

I don't know if amoebas actually swim away from dangerous things, maybe GrimHatter does know?

Anyway, amoebas swim (or float around) and when they happen upon something, they eat it, like an atom would react with what it hits (if it's something it's able to react with).

Aren't for example electrons reacting to "stimuli" all the time? If they notice something with negative charge, they fly away from it, and if they notice something with positive charge, they fly towards it. So there really is no difference between for example an electron moving around, "passively collecting" protons, and an amoeba "gathering" food, except for their different sizes.

And, like Grimmhatter said, amoebas don't choose when to divide. I really should have written "What about the reason mitosis happens doesn't remind you of the involuntary bonding of atoms?"

By constantly bringing up the fact that we don't understand why mammals mate, your trying to bring the focus away from were it ought to be. Of course it is impossible to understand why more complicated organisms mate until we know why the simple ones do.

 

No, they don't 'notice' anything. They are forced into certain courses of motion by physical force. Ameobas are a bad example, because they're such simple organisms; an ameoba might swim into its own death because the source of its death is releasing stimuli it perceives as positive, and we can't really tell if the ameoba wouldn't eat something, since ameobas eat everything.

So let's take a cat, or a lizard. Not as complicated as a human, and yet, the cat will run away from something that scares it, or towards something it likes. The cat will, however, seek out food when hungry, but at the same time, the attraction is not the same as a physical force, because physical forces don't work like that. If the cat wants to eat a mouse, the cat might wait patiently for the mouse to run by and then pounce on it.

Also, the same basic stimuli might attract or repel a cat, given the cat's perceptions. If I'm nice, the cat comes over to me. If I appear mean or angry, the cat runs away and hides. This type of discernment is not present in the atomic case, because atoms are simply physical bodies subject to the pulls and pushes of physics.

The ameoba might not consciously choose when to divide, much like a women doesn't will herself pregnant. However, the ameoba still gathers food towards the ends. Atoms have no ends, they have no instinct. They don't perceive, they react.

"What about the reason mitosis happens doesn't remind you of the involuntary bonding of atoms?"

I'll answer your question, as I have several times already through the argument. The fact is, despite the fact that ameoba reproduction is by one definition 'involuntary', it is a different sense of the word. An ameoba doesn't reproduce solely by being around energy. If an atom needing an electron happens near one, they bond, and if a calcium ion and a chlorine ion happen near each other, they bond, due to simple physical laws. If an ameoba floats by a piece of food, it doesn't automatically reproduce. It seeks the food out and then eats it.

Ameobas are simple creatures, and so the process takes very few steps, but this is a two-step operation that atomic particles don't partake in. The ameoba gathers energy to put towards a future use. That future use happens almost instantaneously, but the instinct that tells the ameoba "I will need this later" is wholly different that what atoms possess.

From that instinct arises all the complex forms of behavior that leads to mammals breeding, and despite your insistance, that is exactly where the focus should be; where this argument started. All life has 'instinct' which encourages it to survive and to reproduce.

 

Yes, this discussion started at large animals, but to not go down towards what they're made up from and move towards their ancestors is like trying to understand a computer when you don't know anything about electricity or any of the parts that make up a computer.

Looking at a computer as something different than a lot of parts put together will make it seem like it has some weird force in it that drives it to do things that none of its components do (when in reality, its components all do similar things, but on a much smaller scale).

Now, since I don't know enough about amoebas to know whether it's true or not, do you agree that IF amoebas aren't really thinking, or having an instinct, that says "I will need this later", and instead, whenever they happen upon a piece of food (are hit by it), eat it. No matter whether it kill them or is bad in any other way. And whenever they have enough energy in them to mitose and happen upon a protein (or whatever trigger), they split. THEN they act like atoms and other non.living particles.

 

Yeah but that's like saying "An apple...and an orange...they're both round! That means they're both fruit!"

Then saying, "An apple...and a turnip...they're both round...they're both round and therefore they're both fruit too!"

Or let's use a quote from my favorite literary character for further insight:

You must apply some logic to what you're observing. I agree they're similar, but that's different from saying these similarities implies it's the same process. Very often in science you'll discover that just because something looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it very likely may not be a duck.

 

Re: My two cents on the 'God the doing Big Bang' concept

What you're refering to is called Pre-Destination, and I was under the impression that Christanity was opposed to it based on the belief that God DID in fact grant us free will. Therein lies the ability for us to accept or reject the Good/Evil dichotomy He based the world upon. But this leads to a good point you make...

If I was on the side of religion, Christianity to be specific, I would use this as the basis for the "instinct" we witness in less intelligent creatures. Maybe instinct is the "code" you refer to that lead the lesser species to evolve into the human species we are today. Now with our higher intelligence, more profound self-realizations, and fear of God, we no longer need to rely on this code called instinct anymore since we are now his image.

I don't have the patience to go over this a third time. I've explained this before so I'll just quote myself:

Here's something people making this claim are also forgetting. These molecules we're all speaking of....they're already in their lowest state of energy for the environment they're in. These bonds are formed because of the physical property that negative forces attract positive forces. When these forces bond, energy is released and the bond stablizes the molecule. Molecules don't just fall apart as if their individual atoms would be in a lower energy state. That is a very wrong assumption to make. It actually would take more energy to break the molecule apart because of the interaction of the electrons and protons holding the molecule together. If you've ever tried to pry two magnets apart, you know what I mean. This is the same concept here.

If the world really progressed from a state of higher to lower energy the way some people here claim it to do, then water would never exist. Water molecules (H2O) are held together by hydrogen bonds. H bonds to a OH molecule because O is very electronegative. So it acts like the negative pole of a magnet and attracts the positive H atom. That's why we have to heat water to get it to boil and create steam. The heat provides the energy required to break apart these bonds. But as you'll notice, when the temperature resides, water condences and reforms its liquid state because that is the most stable, read: energy efficient, state under the conditions our world resides in.

You're forgetting something we've covered several times. In the case of the amoeba, it does not choose when to reproduce. Here's what I said about it earlier:

And my explanation of instinct:

EDIT: Let's use an example inspired by a wikipedia article that covered Fixed Action Patterns. The red-bellied sticklefish turns a redish/blueish color, a fixed action pattern, that is triggered by the elongated length of daylight when spring comes around, also the same time as breeding season. That pigment change is a chemical reaction. The fish has an instinct to compete for female mates and therefore reacts violently to anything with a redish color to it, especially other fish.

What is the explanation for this instinct? Specific rod-shaped and cone-shaped receptor cells in the fish's eyes absorb light rays that reflect off an object with a red color to it. This reflected light ray has a specific wavelength that makes it appear red when the eye's receptor cells pick it up and send the signal to corresponding area of the brain related to sight. That signal then tells the fish the object is red and the instictual, psychological area of the brain that triggers fight-or-flight responses identifies the red object to the fish as a potential threat. Since this condition, breeding season, implies the fish is in competition to mate, that fight-or-flight signal tells the fish to fight in order to compete to pass on its genome to future generations. And thus the instinct of life to reproduce is enacted.

I do agree with you on this. I stated before that explosions were random. That wasn't really what I meant to say. What I meant was that the blast is distributed uniformely. That is, it doesn't shoot up in a hot torrent and do a couple backflips then do some swirlies in mid air, like you do with July 4th sparklers, then explode in a fancy fireworks style pattern for everyone to "ooooh" and "aaaaahh" at. Explosions, unmanipulated/unrestricted explosions like what the Big Bang would have been like, expand in a uniform distribution across all open space, throwing any debris that resided in it in a random direction within that space. That doesn't mean we couldn't predict this pattern. I'm saying that's the nature of an explosion. It encompasses as much open space as possible. We could easily control, and therefore predict and/or manipulate ths distribution by restricting the space the explosion has access to, but this wasn't the case with the Big Bang. Unless you mean to contest that God controlled the Big Bang in some way like this. But that obviously wouldn't be an argument I'd make since I'm trying to refute the existence of God.

If I did believe in God, this is the same view I would share. In fact, it is the same view I had up to the point I became convinced otherwise. But like I said, I'm an open-minded individual and I think it entirely possible that my views can change down the line.

 

Well, you can't really do a simulation of something if you don't know the effects of it. Simulating the entire universe's growth would be feasibly impossible, because the computer system would have to be the size of Nebraska, but even if we could, simulations still only tell us that which we basically know. The simulation helps us visualize the effects, but if you input a theory into a computer, the computer will simulate it as fact. That still doesn't change the fact that it's a theory; so a simulation can be used to gain better understanding of what we do know, or explore hypotheticals, but it couldn't answer the question itself.

The assumption about God I'm always curious about is that God would want to bend his rules. God, by his nature, can't be applied certain human characteristics, perhaps those questions should be backwards. If God is eternal, why would he care if the Universe is created in an instant or not? 'Why doesn't he do things on a schedule we comprehend?!?' is a frail argument (no offense intended) because it's implying God is as impatient as we are, and if God was THAT similar to us, would he really care if we COMPREHENDED His plan?

Perhaps there's a divine reason why he wanted things to be done a certain way. Perhaps he wanted to obey the laws he created so that we could learn the laws (science). Perhaps it gave Him more time to smoke with his angels and plan His next moves, we'll never know, and it's foolish to try. We can question His actions, but questioning His motives is usually a dead end, because, being God, His mindset, even if it was human-like, would still be radically different than ours.

That is a good question, whether God had predicted the actions of humans and planned accordingly. I tend to think that was his experiment, although I also believe that we're not alone in the Universe, so perhaps he has many experiements.

What you're describing is actually a religious theory called the predestination of souls. God has already decided who will go to Heaven and who will go to Hell, because He already knows what we'll all do. It's not a belief many subscribe to, it's mostly tied with Calvanism, although I doubt many practitioners have thought into it as thoroughly as you have.

I do have to hand it to you, the "whales and fat people" example is probably the best one I've heard in a very long time. That example is precisely why I believe in the 'life instinct'. I'll give a better explanation of my thoughts on it if you want.

I must also agree with you on another point, Bob, that I too am anti-established religion. As George Carlon said in his new stand-up: (paraphrased)

'In a Catholic church, the men aren't allowed to wear hats. Catholic women, on the other hand, have to wear hats. Jewish temples are the opposite though, men have to wear hats, whereas Jewish women are forbidden from covering their heads. Don't you think one of them got it completely fucking backwards?'
'I don't want to be part of any institution where you either have to or cannot wear a hat.'

 

Why is that so hard to accept? Protons and electrons attract. Electrons from one atom contribute to the bonding with another atom and you have a molecule. Molecules bond with molecules and you have compounds. Enough compounds bind to the functional groups or other compounds and suddenly you have a organelle, or a nitrogenous base, or a strand of RNA or DNA. You have enough DNA and you have a chromosome. Other compounds bind to other functional groups of compounds and you have cytoplasm, mitochondria, Smooth and Rough endoplasmic reticulum, or a membrane that provides the right condition or all these organelles to function properlly and in sync to form the first cell. You get enough cells together of the same type performing the same processes and you get an organ (example: liver, heart, pancreas). Organs lead to bodily systems (example: Nervous system, skeletal system, skin system, etc). Suddenly you have a complex organism, or cat if you will. Within all of us is literally another universe populated by organs, down to cells, down to compounds and molucules, down to atoms, and down to electrons transporting the very energy we use to survive. Where did God come in?

I strongly suggest you borrow a Molecular Biology, Microbiology, Early Earth/Space History, or Genetics college level text book and find out for yourself. Or enroll in one these college level classes and speak with some professors and grad students on the subject. Several thesese and speculations have been published accompanied by experimental data meant to emulate what early Earth was like. The fact Urea, an organic compound (the "building blocks" of life) was artificially synthesized in a lab further demonstrates that life could have come from these early molecules. Now how did the right organic compounds congregate to form the first living cell? I don't remember the specifics from my studies. If you really do want to know, I urge you to read a book, take a class, or ask a professor because the answer is within one of those forms of knowledge. I can say this from what I remember:

The membranes of all cells, plant or animal, prokaryotic and eukaryotic, are semipermeable. Waste and malicious things are excreted from the cell and nurishment and energy is taken into the cell through this membrane. But not just anything can pass through. Certain conditions and processese of the cell are met that dictates what goes out or comes in. Some cells have been known to be parasitic. They actually feed on other cells, some dead and some alive. This is the basis for one theory of how cells evolved into the more complex forms of life we are familiar with. At one point, maybe a cell ingested another cell, but instead of becoming the ingester's nurishment, it helped to benefit both of them. Suddenly you have the advent of organisms with fully functional organs. I'm hazy on the specifics. But the facts are there if you dig deep enough. Don't let my ignorance disuade you from the point I'm trying to make.

 

Your mind wander as it may, when did I say or imply ANY of that. I'm as convinced as a logical person could be that there is alien life, and I never implied that we are our God's only children/project. Our God is the God of everything, He is the God of Jew, and Muslim, and Catholic, and alien. Fuck, Shintoists worship God, albeit the separate aspects that make Him up. Lightning might be a natural phenomenon, but nature is a product of God, and so worshipping thunder is worshipping a creation of God.

Also, you're implying I have any fucking inclination to try to convert people to my faith. I'm curious where you came up with that idea, frankly I don't give a fuck if you're wrong. If you want to get in a conversation about it, I'm all for it, but if you want to believe in something I disagree with, good for you, rock it out, here's hoping you end up in Heaven as well.

Despite your presumptions, I don't assume the world was created FOR humans, I believe that God has no reason to break his rules for trivial reasons, such as human understanding. Upon eating the apple from the tree of knowledge, the Lord said, "They are like us now," referring to man's newfound ability to think, reason, and understand. When the tower of Babel was built, it almost reached Heaven. Humans are capable of understanding the natural laws; perhaps not all, for there are current limits to our knowledge, but we have little evidence to disprove our ability.

---
My theory on the life instinct is this, please comment with your thoughts.

To summarize it, Atman is the life force. The Buddhists have a phrase saying, Atman is Brahman, and Brahma is Atman. Brahma is the Buddhist and Hindu concept of entirety. The gods, the people, the world, the entire cycle of existance makes up Brahma, which I can only equate to: God. Considering myself a Buddhist Christian, Brahma is God.

Atman is this sort of undersoul that all life possesses. A human is consisted of three protions; a body, the physical shell we reside in; a soul, the spirit that goes to God, and with it, our mind and emotions (these things are born out of are physical brain, but are not the same thing, I would argue that the foundation builds to something greater, although I doubt I would convince many of you); and finally, Atman, which is to say, the Self.

In defining Atman, as I can guess you would all like to to better, I can give a close approximation. First, we must understand that Atman is eternal, it does not die. Reincarnation is the process of our Atman, our true self, being trapped on the earthly realm, in the great circle of life. To your Atman, your death is merely a transition to a new physical body, just as your birth was.

The path to enlightenment in Buddhism is less about finding something that makes you enlightened as it is searching in yourself until you can see past the restrictions of your mind to what lies beneath. There is a famous metaphor of a chariot which served me very well in understanding this.

There is a chariot riding along the road, and your mind is the driver; the chariot itself is your body. The road is life, much like the commercial, and the destinations on the road are things which are to be pursued. The horses pulling the chariot are your senses and desires, which pull your chariot along towards things that are pleasing; sex, drugs, money, food. The reins you use to restrain these horses represent your reason and self-control, and you might steer the horses away from dangers and peril. You might want to snort coke out of a hooker's asshole, but your reason will, hopefully, restrain you.

That being said, I've left out one vital character in the metaphor, which I'll return to in a moment. The pursuit of the objects of the senses, those things on the road, is altogether unsatisfying; you eat, and later, you must eat again. You blow a line or smoke a bowl, and once that wears off, you want to do it again; in the case of doing coke, you might even be less satisfied once your teeth start grinding. You want sleep, you sleep, tomorrow, at some point, you will want sleep again. Physical pleasure does not provide eternal satisfaction. There is no end to desire found in the objects of sense.

Atman, however, is the path to release from physical desire, and that is the last actor in the metaphor. Atman is sitting in the seat of the chariot, behind the driver. Most drivers, being obsessed with steering their chariots along the road, chasing objects and objectives, don't even realize that Atman is there. Atman, being a component of the perfect Brahma, and being absolute in its understanding of reality, is the only thing that can release you from earthly desires.

That is my belief. Disagree with it, but no that, despite your assumption, I won't get into a screaming match with you over it.


Grimm, my friend, you know where I feel God comes in, I am rather unclear as to where our friend is trying to squeeze him into, or out of.

 

Yes that's what I've been trying to figure out myself. I can usually tell where you stand as you make your points very clear. But I think Bob may require a little more elaboration.

 

The closest way to describe something so unfathomable (for, indeed, to be able to fathom it would make you like Budda, enlightened) is to say that it's sort of a sliver of the divine. Atman doesn't gain life experience, because it's already 'perfect', so to speak. To be one with it is to accept and understand the nature of life and death, existance and non-existance, and all such questions of metaphysics. Life experience is left in the realm of mortals, Atman has little to speak of on it.

I wouldn't say that Atman is there to allow us to search for enlightenment, because it makes Atman causal on human perception. I'd merelyy say it exists, as God does, for no purpose inherent.

 

Also, could the Devil just be a scapegoat for humanity own faults?.

 

It could be. But it could also be said, through nothing more than our collective wills, that each scapegoat or source of salvation we believe in is real. All of this is real enough for people to argue over its validity, so the safest route I've seen is to have an open mind, despite my stubborn nature.

 

And how is that working out for you?

 

Not well. I hear another person's opinion, and the first thing that comes to mind is, "Fuck you! I think my own way!"

Since I don't actually say it out loud, I think I'm safe. But they all know what I really think, just like that bitch who told me demons aren't real. And she proceeded to tell me that vampires, werewolves, and dragons are. She asked me to tell her what I thought about religion, and I said my piece, which segways into the crazy dreams I had at my old house involving demons and how I feared going to sleep because I'd wake up with cuts and bruises. I thought they were demons, and the girl nonchalantly says,
"Hon, demons aren't real."
Fuck her and her fat face.

 

Demons aren't real. Nothing transcendent (spelling?) is real. It's stuff made up by one of the most powerful computers known to man: your brain. You say you saw a ghost, or an angel? I say you saw something completely else, and that you hallucinated.

 

I know of two places in southern Ohio that would have you singing a different tune real quick.

One's in the center of Orville Hollow and the the other one's were Wolf Creek empties into Paint Creek. Both are just east of Bainbridge, both are very haunted places and the ghosts are not only visible, they are not friendly.

I've been to the edge of both places in the daytime and I've seen misty forms moving against the breeze.
You'd have to talk long and hard to convince me that was all in my head.

Also - I just remembered. The Wolf Creek place is now at the bottom of Paint Creek Lake.