Perhaps the IT need not be sentient. But COULD it be? We could only know if it reveals itself and gives us the capacity to understand what it reveals. But let us propose for the moment that the IT is not sentient. If the IT itself is not sentient, then could it give rise to intelligent, purposeful beings who question what the IT is? If the IT is not sentient, then can there be any meaning or purpose in life, beyond our ephemeral moment on the stage? If the IT is not sentient, then why is the structure of nature as we see it? By what principle are there any rules at all? And could such rules permit us to exercise free will, breaking free from the restraint of cause and effect? Okay, now then. let us propose that the IT is sentient, that it does commune with us, that it does give us capacity to understand what it reveals. If so, then does it not become clear why we have notions of moral right and wrong? Does it not become clear why we, in its image and likeness, have free will? Do we then, have moral obligations to our fellow man? There. We have two scenarios. Which is the more plausible explanation for our observations on the universe, on life, and on ourselves? ----------------------------------------------------------------
On Apr 28, 4:26 am, awori achoka <[email protected]> wrote: > The IT need not be sentient---in the manner we understand sentience--the IT > could be in the form of laws and principles that govern the order of > phenomena in the cosmos. > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > > The eventual question is this: > > Is the IT sentient, or inanimate? > > -------------------------------------------------- > > On Apr 26, 8:20 am, awori achoka <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The IT---or what you refer to as the organising principle could be an > > > abstraction of a code---a mathematical code from which---time, > > energy,space > > > and genes arise--IT could be a cosmological order--far beyond our > > > understanding and abstraction---since we are an elemental product of its > > > configuration. > > > > On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 3:27 PM, einseele <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Also, I would add that to see certain "design", and to derive a > > > > "designer" from there is a common place in many instances. > > > > For instance, in language. > > > > Does a two years old boy know grammar? > > > > Yes and no, no because he had no time to go through those classes, and > > > > yes because he is able to talk and express subjects, verbs and the > > > > chain, even if with difficulties. > > > > Languages' rules are not previous to language, nobody seated there to > > > > design language, but they exist. > > > > Everybody can see certain pattern in language, that does not mean > > > > there was a designer > > > > > As there wasn't either in some beautiful little lambs I can see in > > > > clouds shape > > > > > On 22 abr, 23:28, allknowingfrog <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > This discussion has shot through a number of complicated questions > > > > > and > > > > > theories about time, and I would like to voice my own perspective on > > > > > the nature of the beast. > > > > > > If we except the prevailing theory that the universe can be traced to > > > > > a singularity, then I would argue that just as matter began at the > > > > > singularity, so too did time and space, because both are ultimately > > > > > measures of matter. Space is a measure of the distance between bits > > > > > of > > > > > matter, while time is a measure of changes in matter. Without matter, > > > > > both measurements are meaningless. If everything that exists truly > > > > > originated from the singularity, it is meaningless to talk about > > > > > "before" the singularity, because the singularity was static. Without > > > > > change, there is no time. > > > > > > The other issue I would like to address is with the original post. It > > > > > is really just the argument from design, i.e. "the universe is > > > > > designed and must therefore have a designer." I agree that there are > > > > > principles by which the universe is organized, but to conclude that > > > > > those principles must be an intelligent force is a non sequitur. If > > > > > the universe is so complicated as to necessitate an intelligent > > > > > designer, imagine how much more complicated the designer must be. > > > > > Following the same logic, the designer's level of complexity also > > > > > necessitates an even more complicated designer. With that conclusion, > > > > > we've come back to the "infinite progression" that the original > > > > > poster > > > > > so ardently criticized. > > > > > > On Apr 17, 5:36 am, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > What is the Organizing Principle of the Universe? > > > > > > > Obviously, the universe is organized. From quarks, to subatomic > > > > > > particles, to atoms and molecules, to dust and planets and stars > > and > > > > > > galaxies, we can trace a hierarchy of structure. > > > > > > > We can also see that the universe is organized into four contextual > > > > > > components: space, time, energy and mass. These four components > > are > > > > > > so strongly inter-related as to be considered a single thing, > > space- > > > > > > time and energy-mass, or space-time-energy-mass. > > > > > > > Time seems to consist of three components in continual flux--- > > past, > > > > > > present and future. Although in some cosmological models, all three > > of > > > > > > these are really the same thing, and our perception of the passage > > of > > > > > > time is an illusion. > > > > > > > However little we understand the structure of the universe, it > > becomes > > > > > > clear to us that there is, in fact, a structure, an organization of > > > > > > the universe into discernible "parts," so to speak. > > > > > > > This brings us to the question: what principle organizes the > > universe > > > > > > into the way we see it organized? > > > > > > > Remember that prior to the big bang, the universe was > > (theoretically) > > > > > > a point particle, homogenized, with neither discrete components nor > > > > > > passage of time. Nevertheless, in order for the universe to > > organize > > > > > > itself afterward, there had to be inherent in that primordial > > point- > > > > > > particle, the principle which eventually gave rise to what we see. > > > > > > > This is a crucial idea: that there should be some fundamental > > > > > > governing principle which gives rise to observed phenomena. > > > > > > > Such an idea is itself axiomatic, defying definition. And as with > > all > > > > > > axioms, the best proof of its truth is to examine what would be the > > > > > > case if the axiom were not true. > > > > > > > Gravity is a subordinate of the central organizing principle. > > Gravity > > > > > > explains our observation of falling objects (among other > > > > > > observations). If there were no gravity, we would not see objects > > > > > > falling. > > > > > > > In like manner, if there were no organizing principle of the > > universe, > > > > > > we should expect there to be no organization observed. > > > > > > > Then the question proceeds to infinite sequences of principles. By > > > > > > what principle is the principle brought into being? > > > > > > > As always in such cases, we must settle on the idea of an ultimate, > > > > > > self-existent absolute. It simply is. Nothing brings it into being, > > > > > > but rather, it is the final principle upon which all else is > > founded. > > > > > > > Some thinkers deny that there is any final principle, but only an > > > > > > infinite progression of them. But even that begs the question, > > since > > > > > > by what principle is there an infinite progression of principles? > > > > > > > It is axiomatic that there is a final, underlying reality upon > > which > > > > > > all else is founded. Denial of the axiom brings us only to an > > endless > > > > > > sequence of useless conclusions. > > > > > > > But when we admit of a final, ultimate absolute, we are confronted > > > > > > with the question of an inherent life force, an inherent > > > > > > consciousness, intelligence, and supreme being overarching all of > > > > > > nature, all of reality. > > > > > > > We, finite and transient mortals, can never hope to know anything > > > > > > whatsoever about this ultimate absolute except for two > > possibilities: > > > > > > it reveals itself to us, and it endows us with the capacity to > > > > > > understand what it reveals. > > > > > > > We could never reason our way to God. On the contrary, we are > > utterly > > > > > > dependent upon Him to show Himself, and to give us eyes with which > > to > > > > > > see Him. > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > > Groups "Epistemology" group. > > > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > > . > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > [email protected]<epistemology%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > <epistemology%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > > . > > > > > > For more options, visit this group athttp:// > > > > groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > > > > > -- > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups > > > > "Epistemology" group. > > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > [email protected]<epistemology%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > <epistemology%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > > . > > > > > For more options, visit this group athttp:// > > > > groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > > > > -- > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups > > > > "Epistemology" group. > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > [email protected]<epistemology%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > <epistemology%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > > . > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > > > -- > > > > nubiaafrika.blogspot.com > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Epistemology" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]<epistemology%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > . > > > For more options, visit this group athttp:// > > groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Epistemology" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]<epistemology%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
