AceOfSpades wrote:You were the one that mentioned that a computer isn't supposed to work with out certain parts, I was merely telling you otherwise.
Take a computer apart and it will cease to function. You can, however, use the RAM storage device to scratch your back if you want to. The RAM, however, was not designed for that purpose. Cut-and-dry.
AceOfSpades wrote:When you talk about how it's supposed to do something it contradicts your Nihilism because According to Nihilism nothing is predestined, it just simply happens. When something is supposed to happen it means that it's predestined. That's hole number one. And by asking me it just merely proves my point that you think you are right about everything that you don't even see the holes yourself.
I think you misunderstood me or you overlooked the word "anthropic" when I mentioned it. You do know what it means, don't you? When you take it on board you will realise that your "hole number one" does not exist. Also, supposing predestination is the case, it can still coexist with nihilism if you include annihilation in the predestination. Otherwise, I don't see where you are going with this. Anyway, I said the universe is deterministic. This does not necessarily mean that it was intelligently planned to follow a pattern. In the cosmological case, it follows cause and effect as we can see in classical physics. No divine agent required.
As for proving that I think I'm right about everything, the same could be said about you. It's very narrow-minded, if you think about it because you are not with me 24/7 to know and vice versa. I could say that the fact you haven't conceded anything in this debate is proof that you think you are always right. If I were to make this statement, however, I'd be wrong because it is an unrealistic one.
AceOfSpades wrote:Hole number two is your Non Living and Living thing Argument. Everything is living. The plastic that makes our toys and technology comes from oil a fossil fuel made up from the pressurized remains of extinct living beings.
Erm... you do know that extinct things are dead, don't you? Dead means dead as opposed to living. Now that's your hole right there. It's okay and honourable to own up.
AceOfSpades wrote:Sea Sponges don't move but are classified as living things.
Living isn't just about moving. Besides, if you think about it, whether autonomously or not, everything moves and changes. Movement is not wholly reliable when distinguishing between living and non-living when even at the quantum level it is apparent that nothing rests. I am, however, saying that you are wrong as you essentially state that everything is alive and non-living does not exist. Your argument is unrealistic.
AceOfSpades wrote:Jelly Fish have no brain whatsoever yet they can still move and attack when provoked. If these things can be living things why not all the so called non living things, Magma, Gems, Stones and Dirt. That's practically a life cycle there.
Jelly fish don't have brains but they do have their own version, so to speak, which constitutes a nerve network full of synaptic connections. Also, moving away from danger doesn't necessarily require consciousness. Even humans instinctively can move their hands away from a hot pan without thinking or being aware of moving. Reportability in consciousness was not required. Anyway, we don't even know what it's like to be such animals. When we talk about human consciousness, to prevent a tangent and take it back to the afterlife hypothesis of this topic, a human brain is definitely required.
Stones are arranged differently and are permanently unconscious, or non-conscious. We living humans (evolved SPONCH arrangements) can be temporarily unconscious sometimes. Then we wake up. There is a noticeable change in cerebral activity. Look into Francis Crick's work on DNA, Giulio Tonomi and the integrated information theory, and Christof Koch's NCOCs for examples. Very rich and insightful scientific body of work.
AceOfSpades wrote:I didn't say stellar Loathing I said Self Loathing, By saying Cells and Atoms are not conscious.
I know you didn't. I was punning.
AceOfSpades wrote:The very building blocks that create all living things are not conscious, you pretty much said living things including us humans were never living to begin with.
That's right! Now you are getting what I said. They "were
never living to begin with. That's right. But as we evolved, so did consciousness emerge and evolve with it. We just have to uncover what causes consciousness to emerge but for that to happen we need to define consciousness. Have you heard of the Turing test? Tell me what you think about it.
AceOfSpades wrote:That we are all practically useless and dead and it's just a matter of time before movement had ceased. You pretty much succeeded where a fictional character named Darkseid failed. Congradulations Summerlander, you pretty much created the Anti Life Equation.
Now this is a misrepresentation of what I said. I'll tell you why. Consciousness, as a byproduct, enables us to know that we are alive and gives us the privilege to experience the universe. That is wonderful and we are lucky in this sense (though it could be argued that those who were never born have been spared of suffering). We are, however, biological clockwork. This doesn't mean that we are useless, though. We
, and this is what I mean by anthropic, can discover how we can be useful and contribute to our prosperity. Anti-life is not really applicable here and I don't have a problem with dead either - it's part of a natural and logical dichotomy. Would you not agree?