# what is a god

## Recommended Posts

On 5/5/2018 at 4:15 PM, Gees said:

Koti;

This is not true.

They may be incapable of reproducing another person, but they are very capable of reproducing more cells. We regularly and routinely reproduce the cells in our bodies. We call it growth until we reach our maturity, then we call it maintaining our bodies. When cell growth stops or slows, as in old age, it forecasts death. When we stop reproducing cells, we die and lose consciousness.

Gee

Bender;

I'm thinking that CharonY has that covered.

On 5/5/2018 at 4:15 PM, Gees said:

Fine. I am not going to argue Biology with you.

Gee

Fine, argue it with me... Gee you are correct, Bender, show me a toaster that seeks out a source of bread and you might have a point.

On 5/5/2018 at 4:15 PM, Gees said:

Ten oz;

Well, that was the third down vote, so I am out of here. I intended to respond to your questions because I think you sincerely want answers, so if you are still interested send me a PM.

Gee

I'd like to see those answers you are speaking of, should you assume the content of the minds of everyone here?

• Replies 233
• Created

#### Popular Posts

Eise; We meet again.   So you think that Feynman knew what he was talking about? Then why did he have such contempt for Philosophy? After I realized how brilliant he was,, I wondered

I'll be generous and let you in on a little secret about Magnetism;   Length of Verse = 14.65 billion light years Time until our Magnetic Cage fully formed = 78,000 years(Earth Years)

Kindly summarize Benjamin Franklin's contribution to the discipline of Philosophy. Also note that strangely, pretty much everyone reading your and Eise's post side by side, comes to the conclusio

CharonY;

26 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Many cell cultures that can be cultivated indefinitely have been obtained from cancerous tissues. HeLa, one of the most famous cell lines that are currently still being cultivated have been isolated from Henrietta Lacks, who died 1951.

I am aware of the case of Henriette Lacks, not from a medical standpoint, but from a legal one. Although many people have benefitted from Henrietta's cells, she and her family did not. I believe there was a lawsuit, but don't think it was successful, and am not even sure if her medical expenses were paid.

What I want to know is how long our cells continue to produce after death without some kind of artificial support.

Quote

I also disagree that a cell has anything that we would associate with consciousness in any common usage of the word.

I would expect nothing else from a Science person. The medical definition of 'consciousness' is different from the philosophical definition.

Quote

Our inability to create a fully synthetic cell is more due to the complexity of the system rather than the strangely defined quality that you want to impart to them.

Yes. I have heard this argument before. In another forum a member was going on and on about the need for complexity in AI in order to make it conscious. I tired of his explanations and finally asked, "Just how complex does AI have to get before it can equal the consciousness of a blade of grass?"

All life has a specific characteristic that causes it to work at it's own continuance -- we call this consciousness. It is unique in that it does not only ignore entropy, it seems to reverse it.

Quote

And again, as others have mentioned your definition of the term goes more into the metaphysical rather than what one would normally use it (which generally is associated with a nervous system of a minimum complexity).

Well this is the Philosophy forum, and metaphysics is part of Philosophy.

Gee

Moontanman;

52 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I'd like to see those answers you are speaking of, should you assume the content of the minds of everyone here?

No I shouldn't. I hate it when I find that I have made an assumption, because it can cause mistakes.

On the other hand, if I just receive down votes and disagreements, it is evidence that no one is really in the discussion except me. A little positive feedback and support helps.

My understanding of consciousness and "God" concepts came to me through a lot of different types of investigations over several decades. If you are truly interested in what I think I have learned, then I will try to explain it. Give me a day or two to organize my thoughts.

Yes, dimreepr, it will no doubt be lengthy.

Gee

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gees said:

What I want to know is how long our cells continue to produce after death without some kind of artificial support.

Depends, most likely not terribly long as the once the blood stops flowing cells will undergo hypoxia and depleted of nutrients, which limits their ability to proliferate. In mice mitosis was observed from biopsied dead mice about 60 hours or so postmortem (less if you keep temperatures high, which facilitates bacterial decomposition). Cells do remain viable for quite longer than that, if we ignore or reduce bacterial activities.

Note that you argued the opposite, that death occurs because of cessation of cell division. If cell division stops, the organism will die, however I cannot think of many scenarios where that could theoretically occur. There is basically cell division happening not only until the point of death, but also for a little bit after that (after which bacteria take over and basically have  large snack).

1 hour ago, Gees said:

I would expect nothing else from a Science person. The medical definition of 'consciousness' is different from the philosophical definition.

Quite some philosopher have approached conciousness from a materialistic and include neurophysiological aspects. But I doubt that there are a lot of metaphysical approaches that would attribute consciousness on the cellular level (perhaps Eise can comment on that).

##### Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Gees said:

Ten oz;

Apparently I don't have three down votes, so I can respond; although, I am rethinking my position on that matter.

You asked some difficult questions. I can give you simple answers, but unless you understand how I arrived at my conclusions, you will have no reason to believe my answers. The problem is that explaining it will be lengthy, and that seems to tick people off. So what do you want? Simple answers or elaboration?

Gee

I have not down voted you in this thread, if that is what you concerned about. Simple or elaborate I can not speak to how your answers might be interpreted by others. Ultimately you either have a perspective you'd like to share or don't.

##### Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gees said:

Apparently I don't have three down votes, so I can respond; although, I am rethinking my position on that matter.

31 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I have not down voted you in this thread, if that is what you concerned about.

I gave you one of the neg reps: not for any content but for laughing down at what i thought was a perfectly reasonable question (about a toaster) and what i perceive as a holier than thou attitude very common in spiritual/religious communities despite them usually claiming to know better.

However, i wouldn't want to stop dialogue between people because of my actions.

##### Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Bender, show me a toaster that seeks out a source of bread and you might have a point.

Why is that that relevant? Many bacteria do not seek out anything.

##### Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bender said:

Why is that that relevant? Many bacteria do not seek out anything.

Yep, thats why I think that the whole fuss around consciousness/awareness is complete bs.

##### Share on other sites

john lennon said god is a concept

##### Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Gees said:

I would expect nothing else from a Science person. The medical definition of 'consciousness' is different from the philosophical definition.

There is a "the" philosophical definition? I would say there are dozens of, sometimes contradicting, definitions with varying degrees of vagueness.

I doubt there is even a clear universally agreed on medical definition.

17 hours ago, Gees said:

"Just how complex does AI have to get before it can equal the consciousness of a blade of grass?"

About as complex as a toaster (and I'm not even talking about a fancy toaster with a clock and wifi, which would be a lot more "conscious" than a blade of grass).

17 hours ago, Gees said:

All life has a specific characteristic that causes it to work at it's own continuance -- we call this consciousness. It is unique in that it does not only ignore entropy, it seems to reverse it.

Perhaps you call that conscious  (didn't you previously define consciousness as awareness, to later define it as the ability to replicate cells?).

But hey,  now fire is conscious, crystals are conscious, stars are conscious, ecosystems are conscious...

Life definitely does not ignore entropy but increases overall entropy.

15 hours ago, CharonY said:

Note that you argued the opposite, that death occurs because of cessation of cell division. If cell division stops, the organism will die, however I cannot think of many scenarios where that could theoretically occur. There is basically cell division happening not only until the point of death, but also for a little bit after that (after which bacteria take over and basically have  large snack).

Wouldn't single cell organisms also be considered alive while not currently in the process of division?

Edited by Bender
##### Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bender said:

Why is that that relevant? Many bacteria do not seek out anything.

Bacteria seek out nutrient gradients, will move away from bad conditions ect.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bender said:

Wouldn't single cell organisms also be considered alive while not currently in the process of division?

Sure, although I have lost track of what the original line of argument (from anyone really) is.

8 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Bacteria seek out nutrient gradients, will move away from bad conditions ect.

And they do it by using relatively simple molecular mechanisms that could be emulated with electronic circuits. Again, I  am not sure what the argument is really about.

Can something react to stimuli in fairly simple ways? Yes. Do we need a consciousness for that? No, simple biological or electronic circuits can do that. Are cells more complex than toasters? Yes. Are cells conscious? Nope, unless we define it as merely reactive to something, which brings the toaster into that area. Or get a more complicated device with a camera or any other sensor that reacts to it. I doubt that the toaster is the important bit. Or the bread. Or if it is then just ... just use a bagel, I don't care. I am pretty sure the analogy train left the station a few hours ago.

##### Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Bacteria seek out nutrient gradients, will move away from bad conditions ect.

Correction: some bacteria can move. Are those bacteria which cannot move less alive/conscious/aware/whatever than those who can?

Besides, I could build you a toaster that moves towards bread with similar intelligence as bacteria. Seriously, I'm an engineer, if you give me 50.000$I will make you one for real. I can probably do it cheaper, but then I need you to give me an advance payment for a more detailed quotation. ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 3 minutes ago, Bender said: Correction: some bacteria can move. Are those bacteria which cannot move less alive/conscious/aware/whatever than those who can? Besides, I could build you a toaster that moves towards bread with similar intelligence as bacteria. Seriously, I'm an engineer, if you give me 50.000$ I will make you one for real. I can probably do it cheaper, but then I need you to give me an advance payment for a more detailed quotation.

Until you can make a toaster do that along with reproduce (I know moving the goal posts) but reproduction with variation is a big part of the idea that toaster is as alive as a bacteria...

##### Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Until you can make a toaster do that along with reproduce (I know moving the goal posts) but reproduction with variation is a big part of the idea that toaster is as alive as a bacteria...

1

I thought we're talking about consciousness, alive is a different question.

##### Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I thought we're talking about consciousness, alive is a different question.

I may have missed the point as well, I did read a paper many years ago that asserted that protists were as aware of their environment as small mammals but to be honest I thought it was quite a stretch...

##### Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Until you can make a toaster do that along with reproduce (I know moving the goal posts) but reproduction with variation is a big part of the idea that toaster is as alive as a bacteria...

Yeah, I never said toasters are alive. I never even mentioned they are conscious, only that they are as conscious as bacteria.

##### Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Bender said:

Yeah, I never said toasters are alive. I never even mentioned they are conscious, only that they are as conscious as bacteria.

I cannot agree, a bacterium at the very least can react to its environment, can a toaster react its environment without lots of tweeking? I know my toaster does not do this...

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

can a toaster react its environment

Of course. The metal expands and contracts with temperature changes. The plastics go brittle in low humidity spaces. The wires change their electron flow when around magnetism. The springs lose pliability and bounce through the seasons. The heating elements oxidize and rust. The static buildup collects dust particles, etc.

In some ways, one could say the toaster interacts w it’s environment EVEN MORE than bacteria.

Edited by iNow
##### Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I cannot agree, a bacterium at the very least can react to its environment, can a toaster react its environment without lots of tweeking? I know my toaster does not do this...

Don't overestimate the reaction of bacteria. The interaction is usually limited to absorbing chemicals which accidentally hit their membrane or doing nothing until eg a higher temperature activates some chemical reactions.

On top of the reactions described by iNow, there are also some "functional" reactions: a led goes on when it is pluggen in; the heating starts when the environment presses the on button; the better toasters will even detect in which slots there is bread or (indirectly) adjust to ambient temperature and humidity.

##### Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bender said:

Don't overestimate the reaction of bacteria. The interaction is usually limited to absorbing chemicals which accidentally hit their membrane or doing nothing until eg a higher temperature activates some chemical reactions.

On top of the reactions described by iNow, there are also some "functional" reactions: a led goes on when it is pluggen in; the heating starts when the environment presses the on button; the better toasters will even detect in which slots there is bread or (indirectly) adjust to ambient temperature and humidity.

We react to things according to chemical reactions. At it's most basic all life is just chemicals, emergent properties like consciousness cannot be separated from the basic chemical reactions of life...

##### Share on other sites

I've gotta get a new toaster...

##### Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, MigL said:

I've gotta get a new toaster...

Me too, mine barely toasts bread...

##### Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Moontanman said:

We react to things according to chemical reactions. At it's most basic all life is just chemicals, emergent properties like consciousness cannot be separated from the basic chemical reactions of life...

I completely agree, which is why I think equating chemical reactions to consciousness  (and thus to God, as Gees suggested; and to get back on topic), is pretty silly.

I also agree with Koti's earlier remark that there is nothing particularly special or interesting about consciousness.

Edited by Bender
##### Share on other sites

'God' is mostly an emotional 'crutch' for people, these days.

I have found personal responsibility much more useful in my life.
What was it Conan the Barbarian used to say ?
" crom helps those who help themselves "

Then again, he was a barbarian...

##### Share on other sites

CharonY;

On ‎5‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 1:27 AM, CharonY said:

Depends, most likely not terribly long as the once the blood stops flowing cells will undergo hypoxia and depleted of nutrients, which limits their ability to proliferate. In mice mitosis was observed from biopsied dead mice about 60 hours or so postmortem (less if you keep temperatures high, which facilitates bacterial decomposition). Cells do remain viable for quite longer than that, if we ignore or reduce bacterial activities.

Thank you for the information. This is why I came to a Science forum -- to get facts. Years ago, I read a story about a boy who drowned in a river and was "dead" for at least 15 to 20 minutes before being found and resuscitated. The emergency team worked on him and brought him back, but it was not expected that he would make a full recovery. Many others do not recover, or have brain damage, under the same or similar circumstances even when they were not "out" as long. But this boy did fully recover, which was a puzzle. Some called it a miracle, but most attributed the freezing temperature of the mountain river to the preservation of his body/brain, and others thought that the motion of the river water also contributed.

The truth is that some people can die of shock when the body seems to be fully functional and can not be brought back, others are brought back when the body is not fully functional, so the idea that bodily death and conscious death happen together seems to be not quite as cut and dried as thought. There are too many exceptions, which makes me wonder what causes those exceptions.

In reviewing Dr. Ian Stevenson's work on reincarnation, I noted that he found an average of 15 months between incarnations. Although bonding, emotion, was always a player in reincarnation, I have not yet found his research material that might tell me about the disposition of the bodies, and how that may or may not influence the 15 month average. Although I do not doubt that many of the cases he studied were actual reincarnations, I doubt that all people reincarnate with the wholeness of mind/spirit that is indicated in his studies. If all of us reincarnated, and we knew it, then there would be no doubt about reincarnation.

Quote

Note that you argued the opposite, that death occurs because of cessation of cell division. If cell division stops, the organism will die, however I cannot think of many scenarios where that could theoretically occur. There is basically cell division happening not only until the point of death, but also for a little bit after that (after which bacteria take over and basically have  large snack).

I think what I stated was that the cessation of cell division "forecasts" death, but thank you for the additional information. I can't really say that I like the "large snack" idea, but it was funny.

Quote

Quite some philosopher have approached conciousness from a materialistic and include neurophysiological aspects. But I doubt that there are a lot of metaphysical approaches that would attribute consciousness on the cellular level (perhaps Eise can comment on that).

Then you would be surprised. There are many theories of consciousness that have the whole world, all matter, and even the entire Universe as being conscious, but that is too much for me to absorb.

I try to limit my studies to life forms.

Are cells alive? Yes.

How do we know? Well, for one thing, they can die. They also work at their continuance.

How do we know they work at their continuance? Because they show evidence of survival instincts.

How do survival instincts work? All survival instincts work through feeling or emotion.

Are feeling and emotion part of consciousness? Yes.

All life is conscious to some degree -- consciousness, is what empowers it.

Think of it like magnets. The magnet on my refrigerator can not pick up a car. It actually can't do much of anything but stick like tape. But the magnet across town in the salvage yard can pick up a car. So does this mean that my refrigerator magnet is not really a magnet -- just tape? No. It means that the magnet across town (representing humans) is a whole lot more powerful than my magnet on my refrigerator (representing bacteria). Does this explanation help at all?

Gee

On ‎5‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 5:53 AM, Ten oz said:

I have not down voted you in this thread, if that is what you concerned about. Simple or elaborate I can not speak to how your answers might be interpreted by others. Ultimately you either have a perspective you'd like to share or don't.

I was not concerned about you down voting me. Do I have a perspective that I would like to share? Yes. Would I like to beat people over the head with this perspective? No. Do I want to be beaten over the head with uninformed denials? No.

Gee

On ‎5‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 6:32 AM, Prometheus said:

I gave you one of the neg reps: not for any content but for laughing down at what i thought was a perfectly reasonable question (about a toaster)

You think a toaster is a life form? When Bender made his first post about the "toaster", he was responding to my statement where I specifically stated that I was talking about life forms. I laughed because I thought he was making a joke. When he reposted, I knew he wanted me to respond, so I did. You can put all the gadgets you want on a toaster, but that will not make it a life form. I used humor to try to show him that a toaster is not a life form.

If he were joking, or just not following the thread, my humor might have worked. But Bender is one of those people who is so enamored with the idea that Religion is wrong, that he will deny Science (Biology) in order to prove that Science is right. It is an impossible and ridiculous position, but the evidence that this is the case is all over Page 4 of this thread.

Quote

and what i perceive as a holier than thou attitude very common in spiritual/religious communities despite them usually claiming to know better.

Holier than thou? Religious communities? I don't know who you are talking about, but it sure as hell isn't me.

Gee

## Create an account

Register a new account