Either there is a God, or there isn't.

[Kilroy]

So once you have modeled the biological part and then transmitted one person's experiences of his/her lifetime into that model which has cabability identify itself and adapt to the conditions of simulation automatically, you might get some kind of view of complete human sexuality.

Are you agreeing with me here? How is this different from what I said before?

 

[C~G]

Are you agreeing with me here?

You could say so.
I just stated how complex and difficult producing such model is.
We could almost say that in sense science wouldn't be only imitating the art of life but cloning it in such level that only God could be believed able to do so. Currently we could refer it only as magic.

How is this different from what I said before?

It's not really. It was mainly misunderstanding.
Reading your latest post made me realize we are on the same page with this issue.

We call it Voight-Kampff for short.

 

[Kilroy]

Currently we could refer it only as magic.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Arthur C. Clarke

 

[Mirc]

There is no other way out (strangely enough). Both possibilities are frightening. If there is a God then we'd better find out who he is and what he wants!

If there isn't a God, then we are hurtling through space at 66,000 MPH with nobody to care about us.

Which side do you take?

I believe there is a God, because whichever way you believe, it is by purely faith. There is no imperical evidence to support the (non)existence of a God. Frankly, I would rather believe that we were created by a loving God who has a purpose for us than to believe we came from a rock and are getting better progressivly. In effect, evolution teaches us that we are Gods. We are slowly becoming more and more like perfect Gods through a slow process.

What is your take? If you don't believe in a God (Atheist) then tell me, in some relative detail, what (or who, more specifically) defines right from wrong? The government?

No personal attacks please.

You are a genius and this are exactly my thoughts.

 

[Sidhe]

Did Diablomar get an answer to that quesiton?

What governs and atheist to discern right from wrong,done this before, society basically religous(I'll explain this) legal and societal conformity dictates what is right and wrong?

Easy and I'm not even an atheist.

Same as everyone else, the only difference is the religous influence is subtler than on the God fearing person.

If you like philosophy you can look at ethics too to guide you, this can be as religous or ireligous as you like, the finest thinkers on the philosophy of ethics were either agnostic or atheistic so if you chose this route your in good company.

There is no difference between a moral religous type and a moral Atheistic type essentially it all depends on the sum of your experiences.

 

[YNCS]

Personally, I get a little tired of the religious folks saying "you don't believe in God, so there's nothing to keep you from immoral behavior." I'll just note three points about this:

1. Religious folk indulge in immoral behavior all the time. The pedophile priests all believed in God, at least professionally. So it appears that religion may not be completely effective against immorality.

2. Morality is a philosophical concept as well as a religious one. The Golden Rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, does not require a religious promulgation.

3. Most moral rules are determined by society. In many socities, murder is immoral, but killing someone because they insulted you or your family is not considered murder. Blood feuds are more common than many people think. Religion often is a factor in these feuds, as in the Northern Irish of a few years ago killing people because they belonged to the wrong religion.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I wasn't referring to present-day technology in any of my above posts, sorry if that was the impression.

So all of what you said is based on some yet to be discovered technology.

You aren't familar with neuroscience at all then. The neural network that is your brain sends signals from one node to the other via chemical reactions across the synapses that connect your brain cells to one another. That is how the brain functions at the most basic level, and there is no indication that there is anything more to it than that. Belief in something like a soul which "guides" the functioning of the brain must be sustained entirely on faith.

Since your case is all speculation, you should keep in mind that science marches on in spite of what we believe at the moment. Much of what we take for granted now was not even dreamed of 50 yers ago. Are you also predicting what we won't discover in the future?

You can do your own research though. That's what Google and Wikis are for. You're asking me to link you to the entirety of neurobiology.

Usually here (OT) when people make claims of a scientific nature they are willing to post a link that supports their claim. After all, the claimant should already have those somewhere. I am certainly not asking for links you to the entirety of neurobiology. You made the statement that chemical reactions in the brain determine what decisions people make and what actions they do. That the chemistry comes first and the action or decisioin second. I am asking you to support that claim. If you cannot then please, just say so.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Culture shapes and is shaped by biological processes. If I can map a human brain and reproduce a model of it, using that model to make predictions, then any influence culture has had upon that brain will necessarily affect my model all the same.

If, if, if, if, if.....But you cannot map the brain, model it and predict the influence of culture on behavior. If I could travel back in time and video Joseph and Mary having sex, I could disprove the virgin birth. So what? I can't do that just like you cannot do any of the things you claim.

Yes, you could program a robot to properly raise children. You could do it so well that the children would not even know it is a robot raising them.

Total BS. You haven't a clue about raising children and obviously cannot support such a ridiculous statement. Now if you were to write a sci fi story, you could pretend that in the future this is the way life is.

Let me put it another way. Show me a problem that can not, even in theory, be tackled using the scientific method, with the one caveat that it not be a null hypothesis (and I grant you that, for certain folks at least, this might be a biggie). You can assume that our current technological sophistication is not a limiting factor.

I have no idea what you are talking about in regards to the null hypothesis (even wiki didn't help), but that said I did notice that you said "in theory" and "tackled"; you didn't say solve. That means to me that you think the scientific method can be used to speculate about anything whether or not it can actually resolve the issue. Well, duh.

 

[El_Machinae]

You made the statement that chemical reactions in the brain determine what decisions people make and what actions they do. That the chemistry comes first and the action or decisioin second. I am asking you to support that claim.

Are you asking if the brain changes (at the place the decision is made) before the person becomes conscious of making a decision, then yes, the chemical signal comes first. Even up to 0.5 seconds earlier.

 

[C~G]

This fact that our brain works secretly faster than our conscious thought and perceiving eye always reminds me about phrase from Doyle's A Study In Scarlet when Sherlock Holmes states during introductions that Watson have been in Afghanistan just after perceiving his doctor friend for the very first time.

From long habit the train of thoughts ran so swiftly through my mind that I arrived at the conclusion without being conscious of intermediate steps. There were such steps, however...The whole train of thought did not occupy a second.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Are you asking if the brain changes (at the place the decision is made) before the person becomes conscious of making a decision, then yes, the chemical signal comes first. Even up to 0.5 seconds earlier.

Yes, but the key point made by Kilroy was that the chemical processes determined what was decided or done. That is what I question.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

I much prefer 'I think therefore I am' to 'I secrete, therfore I think'.

 

[Birdjaguar]

This fact that our brain works secretly faster than our conscious thought and perceiving eye always reminds me about phrase from Doyle's A Study In Scarlet when Sherlock Holmes states during introductions that Watson have been in Afghanistan just after perceiving his doctor friend for the very first time.

From long habit the train of thoughts ran so swiftly through my mind that I arrived at the conclusion without being conscious of intermediate steps. There were such steps, however...The whole train of thought did not occupy a second.

I would agree, a lot goes on before we realize it. Sometimes we label it intuition or an epiphany or whim. They are all ways to tag a process we do not fully understand. Our "subconscious" is a morass of stuff we haven't a clue about. What we might discover there is very exciting.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I much prefer 'I think therefore I am' to 'I secrete, therfore I think'.

Men tend to want to "secrete before they think". It gets us into lots of trouble.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

No arguing on that score. Our secretions can launch a thousand ships.

 

[Eukaryote]

I'm a Chirstian but I'm still pissed that theres no Agonstic option.

Anyway, I find it weird that in an age where there's more archeological evidence of God than ever that more people are atheist or agnostic that ever, IT'S CRAZY STUFF PEOPLE!

 

[Birdjaguar]

Anyway, I find it weird that in an age where there's more archeological evidence of God than ever that more people are atheist or agnostic that ever, IT'S CRAZY STUFF PEOPLE!

There is no archaeological evidence for god. There is archaeological evidence for belief in god. The two are not the same.

 

[Sidhe]

I'm a Chirstian but I'm still pissed that theres no Agonstic option.

Anyway, I find it weird that in an age where there's more archeological evidence of God than ever that more people are atheist or agnostic that ever, IT'S CRAZY STUFF PEOPLE!

No way, you religous types of got way more crazies than us, we're all scientists and scholars honest with not a shred of insanity anywhere.

 

[Spartan117]

so far its like 60% are atheists, 40% believe in god, no amount taken for agnostic beliefs....

how do you think these percenatges are in real life?

i would think generally alot more people believe in god..

 

[Sidhe]

I can't vote

 

[Birdjaguar]

so far its like 60% are atheists, 40% believe in god, no amount taken for agnostic beliefs....

how do you think these percenatges are in real life?

i would think generally alot more people believe in god..

140 self selected voters on an internet site dedicated to a single game is not in any way a valid sampling of the general populace of western nations, let alone the world at large. I would guess 75% of the world would say they believe in god or gods.