Thread: Model Of Determinism.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

1) What the camera has isn't attention. It's just a machine working. What I mean by attention is attention in the neurological/physiological/cognitive sense. You probably know this, but you came up with this shit of an argument anyway because you had no other.

Explain the difference.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

2) You're mistaking consciousness with self-consciousness.

No I'm not.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Explain the difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention

Read it this time. There's a major difference.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

No I'm not.

Yes you are and I explained why. Reply to my explanation, not to my preamble.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention

Read it this time. There's a major difference.

Wikipedia does not address the question. Explain it yourself.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Yes you are and I explained why. Reply to my explanation, not to my preamble.

Your explanation has nothing to do with anything I've said in this thread.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Wikipedia does not address the question. Explain it yourself.

Yes it does. Stop being lazy. If you're not here to learn and become better, I don't have any reason to keep discussing with you. Wikipedia is as short as I can make it. Usually people study neuroscience for 2 years before they understand this.

Your explanation has nothing to do with anything I've said in this thread.

Yes, it has not. I was targeting a specific misconception of yours. That misconception is the basis of all your arguments in this thread. But perhaps you don't realize this.

Kromoh, either contribute to the discussion by actually explaining your assertions or admit you don't know what you are talking about. Your ego-tripping is pathetic and doesn't further the discussion at all.

Otherwise, just leave. If you think it is because I am too stupid that I don't just accept your point of view with no evidence or even any explanation then that is your deal. If that is as much as you are willing or able to contribute then fine, you have done it and you can go now.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Consciousness on the other hand, means knowledge or acknowledgement. A man can be conscious of his potential, of his social class, of his problems... etc etc etc. It's a much more macroscopic and humanistic concept.

That is just one of the meanings.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consciousness

The word mainly means the same thing as "mind". How exactly would you say the workings of the brain manifest the mind? The issue is one of the grand giants of philosophical and scientific mystery. What is your view on how the mind is manifested by the brain?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

The onus of proof is up to you. Your argument is a joke. Thus, I will not waste my time disproving something I don't really need to. You don't even know what consciousness is.

Hmm... but what have you to say? Nothing more?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

No, I don't. Explain? Consciousness and the fundamental forces are all part of something else, but you'll have to explain how the fundamental forces are part of consciousness.

What do you mean "part of something else" though?

I said a few posts back, that it is within all things as life-force / intellegence etcetera, but I'm sure you're familiar with all that? Perhaps you have a different take on it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Of course a historical analysis requires an observer. That is completely beside the point.

It's not beside the point if you're asking somebody about "who were the first observers of evolution" and such.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It's not something that got us here? Then what are we doing here? Is part of your overall point that the present is just some random WTF while the past is some wild thing we create with our minds in the present?



Just sum why in the Hell humans are on this planet. What got us here? What is the cause of the present?

Does causes exist in the quantum reality? You tell me.

Yes, causes exist in quantum reality. I do not believe in uncaused events.

So tell me if my understanding of your view is correct. The present is some random WTF, and the past is just something we create with our minds in the present. Is that your view?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yes, causes exist in quantum reality. I do not believe in uncaused events.

Really? Ok explain why causality exists in a quantum physics paradigm. Maybe give an example?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So tell me if my understanding of your view is correct. The present is some random WTF, and the past is just something we create with our minds in the present. Is that your view?

The past is a projection of perception. I've already explained. The present as a complete totality of everything, is uncaused. I don't express it as "some random WTF" but you can if you like. I guess "some random WTF" is the mind's weak efforts to explain something that doesn't require explanation.

Consciousness on the other hand, means knowledge or acknowledgement. A man can be conscious of his potential, of his social class, of his problems... etc etc etc. It's a much more macroscopic and humanistic concept.

Modern philosophers have equated consciousness with 'experience' or 'awareness'. Knowledge is a subset of things you can be aware of, but you can be experience other things too, the canonical example being 'red'; something which does not really involve knowledge or acknowledgement.

Where would my awareness be? Hmm... Your question is misleading. One's awareness is not located somewhere specific. It's similar to your desires. Where are your desires located? They are located nowhere, they are produced by your brain. Add an exact copy of your brain and you'd have an exact copy of your desires. Same is for your awareness/attention.

My question was not intended to me misleading. I agree that there is location of consciousness but that's not what I'm asking. Clearly the two brains will go on to have different experiences if you were to put them in different bodies. By asking 'where' your consciousness will be I'm asking which if any set of experiences will be yours.

You surely don't. Thing is, you think you know more than you actually do. You're barely at 20% and you think you're at 70%.

Of course I don't. The more you learn the smaller your breadth of knowledge becomes. I don't know why you're saying this when I was the one claiming ignorance.

Originally Posted by really

Really? Ok explain why causality exists in a quantum physics paradigm. Maybe give an example?

I have driven that into the ground in this thread. How much of it have you read? Go back to page 1.

Originally Posted by really

The past is a projection of perception. I've already explained. The present as a complete totality of everything, is uncaused. I don't express it as "some random WTF" but you can if you like. I guess "some random WTF" is the mind's weak efforts to explain something that doesn't require explanation.

That is absurd, and your insult is just your weak effort to insult me when you know my label illustrates how preposterous your claim is.

Uncaused events:

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Kromoh, either contribute to the discussion by actually explaining your assertions or admit you don't know what you are talking about. Your ego-tripping is pathetic and doesn't further the discussion at all.

Otherwise, just leave. If you think it is because I am too stupid that I don't just accept your point of view with no evidence or even any explanation then that is your deal. If that is as much as you are willing or able to contribute then fine, you have done it and you can go now.

I am contributing, a lot. The thing is people don't really want to read about the subject and learn -- they want to continue arguing over it out of sheer ignorance. If you really wish so, I could copy&paste wikipedia text here to save you the work of clicking the damn link. Once again, wikipedia is as concise as I can make it for you. There are also books, but you and I both know you'll never read them.

Also, stop being butthurt and be a man. If you don't understand the topic, go learn it and come back. Nothing's stopping you. You're pretty capable of learning this subject. You only haven't yet. Which is called ignorance. Also, you refused to read the explanation I provided you with, and repeated a mistake because of it. Which classifies you as hard-headed. I've been expecting you to prove me wrong and show me that you have potential, but huh, nothing so far.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is just one of the meanings.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consciousness

The word mainly means the same thing as "mind". How exactly would you say the workings of the brain manifest the mind? The issue is one of the grand giants of philosophical and scientific mystery. What is your view on how the mind is manifested by the brain?

Define mind. Neuroscience never defined mind. "Mind" is a simplification of the actual processes performed by the brain. This term was made when people didn't know enough neurophysiology to explain the brain's functioning. Just because the term exists doesn't mean the thing exists. Look at the term "God", for example.

That said, I insist you guys go learn neuroscience instead of continuing to argue out of sheer ignorance.

Originally Posted by really

I said a few posts back, that it is within all things as life-force / intellegence etcetera, but I'm sure you're familiar with all that? Perhaps you have a different take on it.

Show me anything scientific about a possible life-force, and how it affects the functioning of the human body. I mean, I could introduce you to a few hundreds of scientists in my college who think the idea of a life-force is bullshit. And here between us, I think they are right.

So now I've put in completely unambiguous terms the question you originally equivocated away, you flat out ignore it.

And half of your above post seems to just be complaints about the intellectual dishonesty of others. Incredible.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I am contributing, a lot. The thing is people don't really want to read about the subject and learn -- they want to continue arguing over it out of sheer ignorance. If you really wish so, I could copy&paste wikipedia text here to save you the work of clicking the damn link. Once again, wikipedia is as concise as I can make it for you. There are also books, but you and I both know you'll never read them.

Also, stop being butthurt and be a man. If you don't understand the topic, go learn it and come back. Nothing's stopping you. You're pretty capable of learning this subject. You only haven't yet. Which is called ignorance. Also, you refused to read the explanation I provided you with, and repeated a mistake because of it. Which classifies you as hard-headed. I've been expecting you to prove me wrong and show me that you have potential, but huh, nothing so far.

Kromoh, you are not contributing. You are assuming you are smarter than everyone else and behaving like a child without even really paying attention to what is going on in the thread. We didn't come in to this thread so that we might be "educated by Kromoh" or so that we could be shown what we need to go and read by a self absorbed teenager who doesn't want to actually put his reputation on the line by trying to articulate what it is he believes. We came in here to discuss. This is a discussion board.

If you are incapable of going more in-depth than what wikipedia has to offer than you are far less intelligent than you seem to believe. No matter how many times you assert that you are right and we are wrong, wikipedia does not sufficiently address the issue, and does not answer many of the questions that we are presenting at all.

Like I said before If you would like to participate in this discussion, then participate. What you are doing now is grand standing and attempting to puff up your own ego by calling other people stupid. Calling someone else stupid no more proves your own intelligence than it proves the other person's stupidity. All it proves is your inability to interact with other human beings in any sort of respectful or meaningful way.

Because you are too cock sure of your position and seem incapable of taking the time to examine any issue from someone else's perspective, I will spoon feed you another perspective by showing you that I have read what wikipedia has to say on the subject (before you so condescendingly posted it here) and why exactly it does not support your position.

This is how wikipedia attempts to define attention;

* Focused attention: This is the ability to respond discretely to specific visual, auditory or tactile stimuli.
* Sustained attention: This refers to the ability to maintain a consistent behavioral response during continuous and repetitive activity.
* Selective attention: This level of attention refers to the capacity to maintain a behavioral or cognitive set in the face of distracting or competing stimuli. Therefore it incorporates the notion of "freedom from distractibility"
* Alternating attention: It refers to the capacity for mental flexibility that allows individuals to shift their focus of attention and move between tasks having different cognitive requirements.
* Divided attention: This is the highest level of attention and it refers to the ability to respond simultaneously to multiple tasks or multiple task demands.

Motion sensing cameras are capable of fulfilling all of these requirements.

Focused attention: Cameras can pick specific moving targets and track their progress across its field of vision.

Sustained attention: Cameras can remain focused on a target for as long as it remains within their field of vision.

Selective attention: Cameras can separate a moving target from the background stimuli. They can also separate a specific moving target from a group of moving targets.

Alternating attention: Cameras are capable of switching between motion sensing functions and shape/facial recognition functions.

Divided attention: Cameras are capable of tracking multiple targets through their field of vision simultaneously.

Cameras also display overt and covert attention which is also mentioned in the wikipedia article. They can either track a target by physically rotating to pan the field of vision, or they can track a target across their field of vision without moving.

So, what is the difference between the attention that a camera displays and the cognitive function of attention that you believe is synonymous with consciousness? Wikipedia obviously does not address this question, as I stated earlier. Perhaps you would like to take a stab at it?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Define mind. Neuroscience never defined mind. "Mind" is a simplification of the actual processes performed by the brain. This term was made when people didn't know enough neurophysiology to explain the brain's functioning. Just because the term exists doesn't mean the thing exists. Look at the term "God", for example.

That said, I insist you guys go learn neuroscience instead of continuing to argue out of sheer ignorance.

Look at how belligerant you are over a totally relevant and politely asked question.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

How exactly would you say the workings of the brain manifest the mind? The issue is one of the grand giants of philosophical and scientific mystery. What is your view on how the mind is manifested by the brain?

Any way, here are some major dumb asses who connect neuroscience to the mind. They are professors from the MIT Retardation Camp and Bowling Green State University for the Mentally Handicapped.

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item...pe=2&tid=12128

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item...pe=2&tid=12128

Since you want to stall the conversation by asking me what the mind is, I found something on it. After hours of searching, I came across a rare type of reference source called a dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mind

That very same book, coincidental as it may be, also has definitions of consciousness.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consciousness

Now, in very direct and stable personality terms, how does the brain manifest the phenomenon of the mind (or consciousness)? How does matter have conscious experience? If you think there is no such thing as mind or consciousness, then you can explain that. If you hate this conversation too much to have anything to say, then you don't have to post anything at all. Snapping at people and calling them stupid for asking one of the major questions of philosophy and science is worthless.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Look at how belligerant you are over a totally relevant and politely asked question.

??

I just stated my point. Your question was akin to "how does God listen to our prayers?". He doesn't.

It's not that God is evil, he just doesn't exist. Thus, the question is misleading.

Since you want to stall the conversation by asking me what the mind is, I found something on it. After hours of searching, I came across a rare type of reference source called a dictionary.

Not again. Dictionary writers are not Neurology PhDs. Search for the word "God" on your dictionary. It's there, it's defined, but nevertheless God doesn't exist.

My point stands. Consciousness doesn't exist, only attention.

PS: the links you cited. The author proposes a definition to the term "mind", a definition that is usable in science (contrary to the usual one). If you'd actually read what it says, instead of just googling the words "neuroscience" and "mind", you'd see the author uses the word more artistically than scientifically.
Also, both links lead to the same page, I hope you figure.

Finally, the idiot who teaches me neurophysiology has two published books, and works on the highest-ranking university in the southern hemisphere.

-------------------------
Xaqaria

You didn't even read the wikipedia article. You don't understand basic stuff that's said there. My going more in-depth would do serve less than just posting the wikipedia link did.

You're just unwilling to admit you have never read a single paragraph about neuroscience. It's not about intelligence (in fact, you don't even know what intelligence is). It's about knowledge.

Also, yes, I can see how a camera's working is analogous to the brain's working. Also, it's important to point out that the brain is a machine, just like the camera, may you like it or not. HOW-fucking-EVER, when I said "attention", I meant biological attention, as in, attention of objects composed by organic cells. I'm not trying to define attention or say what things have attention. Attention, on its most basic definition, is the reception of stimuli, and the potential to react. Yes, cameras may be considered to have attention. It's all a matter of personal definition. I'm yet to understand how a camera's attention defies my statement.

Stop thinking you're more special than the camera. Abandon all emotion when dealing with science.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

??

I just stated my point. Your question was akin to "how does God listen to our prayers?". He doesn't.

It's not that God is evil, he just doesn't exist. Thus, the question is misleading.

Then there we go. You don't believe in the mind. That's all you had to say. Instead, you babbled about what the word means and insulted me. I hope med school turns you into an adult.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Not again. Dictionary writers are not Neurology PhDs. Search for the word "God" on your dictionary. It's there, it's defined, but nevertheless God doesn't exist.

Uh, you didn't know that I posted the link because you asked for a definition, not to prove the existence of the mind? Of course you knew that.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

??My point stands. Consciousness doesn't exist, only attention.

What about pain, pleasure, emotions, reminscences, dreams, and self awareness? That's consciousness. How does the brain make it happen? That is the million dollar question.

If cameras were programmed to write stories, could they tell true war stories about the horrors they went through? Could a camera be programmed to write about how madly in love it was with another camera? Could it be programmed to be happy or enjoy a movie? If so, please explain it. I think it could happen in theory. I just don't know the explanation for how such things happen. Please teach us, Dr. Kromoh. So far, you haven't come across like a doctor. You have been much more like a pissed off football coach.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

??PS: the links you cited. The author proposes a definition to the term "mind", a definition that is usable in science (contrary to the usual one). If you'd actually read what it says, instead of just googling the words "neuroscience" and "mind", you'd see the author uses the word more artistically than scientifically.

Is it usable in science or not? Usable in science is what I was going for.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

??Also, both links lead to the same page, I hope you figure.

Woops. Here, more dumb idiot talk...

http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/nmb/

Originally Posted by Kromoh

??Finally, the idiot who teaches me neurophysiology has two published books, and works on the highest-ranking university in the southern hemisphere.

I'm sure. Does Mr. Da Vinci teach his students how to clear up issues?

omglol he ignored me again. :V

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Stop thinking you're more special than the camera. Abandon all emotion when dealing with science.

You know that old saying don't you? You continually make an ass out of yourself by assuming that you already know everyone else's position. Is a camera conscious? You never answered that question. I never differentiated between a camera and a human being, but you did when you said that a camera is "just a machine". Actually what you said was is,

What the camera has isn't attention. It's just a machine working. What I mean by attention is attention in the neurological/physiological/cognitive sense.

Which is an obvious contradiction to what you just said. So which is it? Does a camera have attention or doesn't it? If it does, is a camera conscious? Notice I am not saying one way or the other, I am asking you what you think.

I find it funny that you keep condescending us all and saying that we don't know the first thing about neuroscience, but then you also said

Usually people study neuroscience for 2 years before they understand this.

Tell me, how many years have you studied neuroscience, first year college student?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What about pain, pleasure, emotions, reminscences, dreams, and self awareness? That's consciousness. How does the brain make it happen? That is the million dollar question.

Not, that's not consciousness, that's the human brain. Just because science doesn't yet describe it fully doesn't mean it's something godly or paranormal.

If cameras were programmed to write stories, could they tell true war stories about the horrors they went through? Could a camera be programmed to write about how madly in love it was with another camera? Could it be programmed to be happy or enjoy a movie? If so, please explain it. I think it could happen in theory. I just don't know the explanation for how such things happen.

You're mistaking plenty of functions performed by the brain, you know. Seriously, learn some neuroscience before you join an argument. It'd do your arguments wonders.

Many other cognitive process are involved in the process of writing, apart from attention. Including, but not limited to: memory, linear sequencing, speech, motor coordination, imagination and modelling of scenarios, emotion, empathy, abstraction, etc etc.

Is it usable in science or not? Usable in science is what I was going for.

Yes it is, but the definition is completely different from the usual one. Stop arguing over semantics. Just because what you said could be wildly interpreted so as not to be incorrect, doesn't mean you know what you're talking about.

Woops. Here, more dumb idiot talk...

http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/nmb/

Find me a scientific article about the mind, not a word in a website. Aka, stop typing "neuroscience and mind" on Google. The word "mind" is a generalization, much like many others used to shorten scientific speech. Many are used when describing evolution, for example. You know, survival of the fittest is not really survival of the fittest, but survival of the most adapted.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

You know that old saying don't you? You continually make an ass out of yourself by assuming that you already know everyone else's position. Is a camera conscious? You never answered that question. I never differentiated between a camera and a human being, but you did when you said that a camera is "just a machine". Actually what you said was is,

Define conscious scientifically. Then I can answer you. An analogy for you: are the preacher's shoes sacred? I don't know, define 'sacred' and I'll tell. Sacredness is unfortunately not well-described by science.

Unless you're asking if the camera has the ability to observe and react. I would then say yes, the camera has "attention", but much less attention than an animal brain. It's not attention as a cognitive function, but attention as a programmed behavior.

Tell me, how many years have you studied neuroscience, first year college student?

I never said I understand it fully. But seriously, you guys should learn something about the subject, then come back to this thread, look at the stupidities you said and laugh.

Finally, don't accuse me of insulting people. Coming from you, it's very cynical.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I have driven that into the ground in this thread. How much of it have you read? Go back to page 1.

You don't understand what "random" really means, or what it means for an a priori system to be "illogical" (what Xei/Xaq were talking about). Just because causality is limited, doesn't make things ultimately random or absurd. Random is related to perception. When the relativity of perception or observation is no longer adhered to, the apparent randomness disappears, as do causes. Both are unreal.

That is absurd, and your insult is just your weak effort to insult me when you know my label illustrates how preposterous your claim is.

Uncaused events:

It wasn't an insult. The mind is useless when it comes to conceptualizing something in order to understand what it means non-conceptualized, no matter who's mind it is.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Matterial objects exist, and they exist with varying amounts of matter. Thus, matter exists with varying mass. Therefore, mass exists.

See? What can you say about the existence of matter? Even energy, for that matter (pardon the pun)? This doesn't really teach you anything.

It's like asking why the sky is blue. You say "Because such and such is the wavelength of blah blah and the cones in our eyes perceiving light." It still doesn't answer the question. Now you must investigate what it actually means to reason about things, one of the key issues in this topic of quantum reality.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Show me anything scientific about a possible life-force, and how it affects the functioning of the human body. I mean, I could introduce you to a few hundreds of scientists in my college who think the idea of a life-force is bullshit. And here between us, I think they are right.

That's funny, you say all these scientists think my idea is bullshit, so maybe you can tell me what I'm talking about?

Xaqaria

You didn't even read the wikipedia article. You don't understand basic stuff that's said there. My going more in-depth would do serve less than just posting the wikipedia link did.

The thing is Kromoh, you haven't elaborated. Who says you have to go in depth? Summarize what you have to say. That's better than posting Wikipedia links and telling people to read them.

really, a "cause" is but a consequence from a different perspective. If something happened at a specific position in time and not another, then it was a consequence of something else. If things really do happen without a cause, what's stopping them from happening all the time? Something surely is, and that something is its cause, whether it is observable or not -- simple logic.

The thing is Kromoh, you haven't elaborated. Who says you have to go in depth? Summarize what you have to say. That's better than posting Wikipedia links and telling people to read them.

I have explained sometimes, man, but it's like explaining calculus to a person who hasn't learned linear equations. And don't ask me to teach linear equations ¬¬

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Not, that's not consciousness, that's the human brain. Just because science doesn't yet describe it fully doesn't mean it's something godly or paranormal.

I know it's the brain. Consciousness is a function of the brain. Nobody is questioning that. We are asking how the brain creates it. Instead of answering the question, you are just getting belligerant and insulting people. Why even post at all? Is it really pissing you off that you don't know the answer? It's okay to not know the answer. Join the club. Like I said, it is one of the great mysteries of philosophy and science.

When did I ever say anything about consciousness being godly or paranormal?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

You're mistaking plenty of functions performed by the brain, you know. Seriously, learn some neuroscience before you join an argument. It'd do your arguments wonders.

Asshole, what have I said that disagrees with neuroscience??????? You keep throwing that accusation at everybody, but you have not backed it up a single time. What the Hell? I know the functions are performed by the brain. Why did you make that point? It doesn't answer the question.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Many other cognitive process are involved in the process of writing, apart from attention. Including, but not limited to: memory, linear sequencing, speech, motor coordination, imagination and modelling of scenarios, emotion, empathy, abstraction, etc etc.

Is attention ever involved in any of those?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Yes it is, but the definition is completely different from the usual one. Stop arguing over semantics. Just because what you said could be wildly interpreted so as not to be incorrect, doesn't mean you know what you're talking about.

That is not even a coherent point. What in the Hell are you talking about? What does that last sentence even mean? You asked for a defintion, and I gave it to you. How is the definition different from the usual one?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Find me a scientific article about the mind, not a word in a website. Aka, stop typing "neuroscience and mind" on Google. The word "mind" is a generalization, much like many others used to shorten scientific speech. Many are used when describing evolution, for example. You know, survival of the fittest is not really survival of the fittest, but survival of the most adapted.

"Most adapted" and "fittest" mean the same thing, and the articles I linked are scientific.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Define conscious scientifically. Then I can answer you. An analogy for you: are the preacher's shoes sacred? I don't know, define 'sacred' and I'll tell. Sacredness is unfortunately not well-described by science.

You know what consciousness is, especially since I told you the definition and linked you to it. This is absolutely ridiculous. If you want to find some scientific dictionary on line and approve it by Kromoh standards, go right ahead. Tell us about it.

Where are your answers to my questions about a camera being programmed to be able to experience the horrors of war and the strong emotion of being in love? Learn the difference between a question and an argument. I asked questions. Give me your answers.

By the way, what are you so pissed off about? You started pissing fire at me as soon as I asked you a question. What's your deal?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I never said I understand it fully. But seriously, you guys should learn something about the subject, then come back to this thread, look at the stupidities you said and laugh.

I have an idea. Why don't you prove to us that you know jack shit about neuroscience. Putting your nose in the air and accusing us of not knowing much about it is not convincing at all.

Originally Posted by really

You don't understand what "random" really means, or what it means for an a priori system to be "illogical" (what Xei/Xaq were talking about). Just because causality is limited, doesn't make things ultimately random or absurd. Random is related to perception. When the relativity of perception or observation is no longer adhered to, the apparent randomness disappears, as do causes. Both are unreal.

I was just characterizing your personal philosophy. I asked you why humans are on this planet, and you said there is no cause. If you have changed your mind, then change your response. Why are humans on this planet? How did we get here?

Originally Posted by really

See? What can you say about the existence of matter? Even energy, for that matter (pardon the pun)? This doesn't really teach you anything.

It's like asking why the sky is blue. You say "Because such and such is the wavelength of blah blah and the cones in our eyes perceiving light." It still doesn't answer the question. Now you must investigate what it actually means to reason about things, one of the key issues in this topic of quantum reality.

Saying such and such wavelength blah blah answers the question. It might raise more questions, but it answers the question. You have not even begun to answer my question.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

really, a "cause" is but a consequence from a different perspective. If something happened at a specific position in time and not another, then it was a consequence of something else. If things really do happen without a cause, what's stopping them from happening all the time? Something surely is, and that something is its cause, whether it is observable or not -- simple logic.

I've already explained that "happening" is also arbitrary.

Is existence itself "happening?" Is the universe "happening?" If yes then you are asking for infinite causes. The universe is not caused, so neither is anything within it (in the big picture). What about things outside time and space?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I was just characterizing your personal philosophy. I asked you why humans are on this planet, and you said there is no cause. If you have changed your mind, then change your response. Why are humans on this planet? How did we get here?

You're ignoring what I said. You sent me to page 1 and I am reflecting your problem therein (and throughout) of understanding the paradigm in which these question do not seem to consider. That's what I'm talking about.

Saying such and such wavelength blah blah answers the question. It might raise more questions, but it answers the question. You have not even begun to answer my question.

It doesn't entirely answer the question, but if it does to you, then merely "evolution" also answers your other questions about the origination of life on the planet. I am saying it is unfulfillable because it leads to the question of the "origination" of the universe by paradigm, not by gathered data.