earth, the universe , and matter all has consciousness...

℃ertifed

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
301,774
Reputation
-33,966
Daps
611,302
Reppin
The Deep State
:snoop: you dont need hinduism man I'm not hindu I just like reading the different philosophies and seeing if they mesh with any of my own views. you're caught up in dogmas yourself you just wont admit it.
No. I'm not. At least I try not to be.

and I don't read religious philosophies. Ultimately they're too linked to the supernatural (which is bullshyt) for me to take seriously.

I'm not "llooking" for anything. I see no value in it.
 

℃ertifed

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
301,774
Reputation
-33,966
Daps
611,302
Reppin
The Deep State
By creating... is what makes something a creator and that same act of creating implies intelligence.
Unless someone proves that life and consciousness can form from inanimate matter, then this really isnt a debate. Our side is already proven. We see life create life, and intelligence create daily.
What is the simplest form of life?
 

℃ertifed

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
301,774
Reputation
-33,966
Daps
611,302
Reppin
The Deep State
Lol, dont listen to him.... you are correct.
He's not correct.

He doesn't understand the most FUNDAMENTAL working of a NEURON.

This guy is googling pseudoscience yet doesn't understand how the brain works in the MOST FUNDAMENTAL sense.

Until you can describe saltatory conduction DO NOT fukking talk to me
 

GetInTheTruck

Member
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
15,661
Reputation
-716
Daps
27,687
Reppin
Queens
No. I'm not. At least I try not to be.

and I don't read religious philosophies. Ultimately they're too linked to the supernatural (which is bullshyt) for me to take seriously.

I'm not "llooking" for anything. I see no value in it.

Okay, but that particular philosophy is totally materialist, it's anything but spiritual or supernatural - it rejects the authority of the vedas, which is the basis for the hindu/indian philosophies which deal with spiritual matters, the nature of the soul, death/rebirth etc; but it's cool you don't have to look at it, obviously, but the fact that you are trying to define it on your own terms disregarding the facts demonstrates that you are indeed engaged in your own dogmatic worldview.
 

OsO

Souldier
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
4,784
Reputation
1,035
Daps
10,839
Reppin
Harlem
By creating... is what makes something a creator and that same act of creating implies intelligence.
Unless someone proves that life and consciousness can form from inanimate matter, then this really isnt a debate. Our side is already proven. We see life create life, and intelligence create daily.

it's clear to you and I that there is a level of intelligence involved in the creation and sustainment of the universe. but it's not so obvious to others.

some cannot accept the idea of a primal intelligence because to accept that idea you must also accept there is something (or "someone") in possession of that primal intelligence initiating our entire existence... which tends to leave some :mindblown:

so they stay in a safe emotional space where everything is static, unintelligent, and unconscious.
as if something as complex as the human body came randomly :russ: at no point will we be able to shake up a bunch of metals, screws, and wires in a garage and randomly assemble a ferarri. but if you leave that hydrogen atom floating around too long eventually it's going to create the most sophisticated organic systems we can imagine...

...but on accident though :mjlol:
































































nothing is an accident :demonic:
 

℃ertifed

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
301,774
Reputation
-33,966
Daps
611,302
Reppin
The Deep State
Okay, but that particular philosophy is totally materialist, it's anything but spiritual or supernatural - it rejects the authority of the vedas, which is the basis for the hindu/indian philosophies which deal with spiritual matters, the nature of the soul, death/rebirth etc; but it's cool you don't have to look at it, obviously, but the fact that you are trying to define it on your own terms disregarding the facts demonstrates that you are indeed engaged in your own dogmatic worldview.
I don't need the vedas.

Nor do you.
 

Blackking

Banned
Supporter
Joined
Jun 4, 2012
Messages
21,567
Reputation
2,501
Daps
26,218
What is the simplest form of life?
What is the purpose of this question? Define simple.... because prokaryotic bacteria are even complex, genius.

i'll copy and paste since that what you like to do...

This is what WE BELIEVE so far about how life began on Earth. .....

An often-told origin-of-life story is that complex biological compounds assembled by chance out of an organic broth on the early Earth's surface. This pre-biotic synthesis culminated in one of these bio-molecules being able to make copies of itself.

The first support for this idea of life arising out of the primordial soup came from the famous 1953 experiment by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey, in which they made amino acids—the building blocks of proteins—by applying sparks to a test tube of hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water.

If amino acids could come together out of raw ingredients, then bigger, more complex molecules could presumably form given enough time. Biologists have devised various scenarios in which this assemblage takes place in tidal pools, near underwater volcanic vents, on the surface of clay sediments, or even in outer space.

But were the first complex molecules proteins or DNA or something else? Biologists face a chicken-and-egg problem in that proteins are needed to replicate DNA, but DNA is necessary to instruct the building of proteins.

Many researchers, therefore, think that RNA—a cousin of DNA—may have been the first complex molecule on which life was based. RNA carries genetic information like DNA, but it can also direct chemical reactions as proteins do.
 
Last edited:

GetInTheTruck

Member
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
15,661
Reputation
-716
Daps
27,687
Reppin
Queens
I don't need the vedas.

Nor do you.

I know you have no interest in the Vedas you clown, that's why that philosophy I referenced you to REJECTS THE VEDAS.

In its most generic sense, "Indian Materialism" refers to the school of thought within Indian philosophy that rejects supernaturalism. It is regarded as the most radical of the Indian philosophical systems. It rejects the existence of other worldly entities such an immaterial soul or god and the after-life. Its primary philosophical import comes by way of a scientific and naturalistic approach to metaphysics. Thus, it rejects ethical systems that are grounded in supernaturalistic cosmologies. The good, for the Indian materialist, is strictly associated with pleasure and the only ethical obligation forwarded by the system is the maximization of one's own pleasure.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/indmat/

that's your problem man, you just love to hear yourself talk. You think you know it all, but you know very little.


 
Top