Refusing to think is not an excuse in a conversation that is supposed to use rational arguments. Also, complexity of life is not a random occurence, this is one of the biggest misunderstanding of Darwinism and one of the lies perpetuated by Creationists and those who favor what I call "Stupid Design".

I think you are in confusion about the concepts of "reason" and "cause". Reason means that somebody created you for a purpose, "cause" means that your existence has an explanation, reason and cause are not the same things. If you choose to believe in things that you don't see and have no proofs for it's your choice, please don't bring them into the discussion. It's already hard to discuss with somebody who claims there's a "soul" that's given by "somebody" and that has some "properties" that science can't touch. This way I could bring whatever arguments I want into this discussion and just say that I have no proof for them, I don't know what they mean, but you can't understand them by definition.

First, I don't make "excuses". As you support me, I don't believe Life is a random occurrence. I also don't believe that it is a simple brain function, the same thing that drives our sense of smell and taste and touch.. the thing that tells us "Hey, you're hungry! Go eat!".

You are asking me to use rational arguments to explain something that nobody can explain or prove or disprove. How am I supposed to do that? I'm not making an "excuse" as to why I can't make the argument... I simply can't. What am I supposed to say? Can you use a rational argument to prove to me that there is no Creative Force that set everything into motion? No. I can't prove to you that there is, either. Like I said, that is not knowable to us.

However, since I personally define "Life" as being a part of "Spirit", and that "Spirit" is a part of a Higher Force... I cannot tell you what "Spirit" is, where it is, what makes it up, why it is there, or even if it really is. It is simply what I believe.

I mean "reason for being" as "reason as to why we are here" as in "what put us here", which could be translated as "what caused us to be here?". Sorry for the confusion.

To put it simply.. I don't believe in science having the ability to "teleport" a person, because I believe that person has a Spirit, and that science will never have the ability to understand it, because we can never understand it, and therefore, science cannot be made to work upon it.

Not true. You cannot bring "whatever" arguments into any discussion, just as I cannot say "Hey.. the sky is really green!" We have defined the colour "blue" and denoted that the sky truly is blue.

You can bring arguments about religion and philosophy into question, and say they are not definable and therefore unknowable. You could say: "The Universe was created by the omnipotent and omniscient entity known as 'Scruffy the Cat', and that cat wanders the earth today as an immortal pet to some blessed human."

You know what? For all I know, you could very well be right. It sounds absurd, but I can't say, "Pffft... that's bologna."

It's hard to discuss this matter, yes. But not a single person here can tell me that I am in the wrong for not having faith in science to be able to do "something" with my very being, in which my whole person ceases to exist, even for a scant millisecond, and believing that we, in our limited human capacity for thought, have the ability to recreate me just as I was somewhere else.

I simply do not believe that science.. that we, have the capacity to make something like that happen.


Gandalf

No, but I could say: there's no God (don't ask me, I just know, I can't prove there isn't, but you can't prove there's a God either) there's no soul as you define it, humans are the result of a billion of year transformation of matter and soul is just something that's closely tied to the "hardware" and dies once the hardware cease to function, soul is only hardware+software+data that we have inside our brains, my only proof for that is that you can modify memories and feeling with material things (namely drugs, a hit in the head, or electrodes stuck into the brain), but I actually don't need any proof because I declare it so. So there we are, on different positions, you with no proof and no need for any, me with some partial proof but being asked for more... I guess this sums the unequal fight for reason in this world.

Honestly, if that is what you are comfortable in believing, then who am I to say that you are wrong?

Can I tell the Arabs that they are wrong? Can I prove that Christianity is false? No. I can't. Did I say it hurts for us to seek a deeper understanding? No. We'll always be trying to figure out things, because there are always going to be people that are curious enough to try to find out. We will gradually increase our understanding of science, and of physics, and of quantum mechanics, and what have you.

However, in the end... no person is going to be able to disprove the existence of a God (or other Higher Power), nor prove it (unless the skies open up and a bunch of angels come flying down from above saying "Hello!"). I believe in a Higher Power for a reason. That reason is because I believe that everything that happens has a cause. I don't believe that everything just sprang into existence all of a sudden. I believe that there was a cause for it. Ergo, the Higher Power.

Because I don't believe that "Life" is a result of a random coincidence, and that it is also not a brain function.. then what am I to think of it as? I believe it is because of a "Spirit" that was given to me by that Higher Creative force. Because it stemmed from and has its origins in something that cannot be defined, I cannot tell you what "Spirit" is.


I am not trying to argue the point of what put us here. We could go in circles around this topic for an eternity and never get anywhere with it. To paraphrase "The Kybalion", we would be like the squirrel running endlessly on the treadmill wheel in his cage, running ever yet reaching nowhere, at the end a prisoner still, and standing right where he started.

Science is brought about as a result of our capacity for thought. Before we knew what "acids" and "bases" were, we couldn't work controllable changes upon them because we didn't know what they were. Once we understood their nature, we started to be able to experiment with them and working changes upon them.

For sake of argument, if we had a black hole we could experiment with, we could not work changes upon that black hole, because we do not yet have a full understanding of it. We don't know what makes it tick. Once we had the nature of it defined and what made it work, and what things stemmed from it when we worked upon it, we could perhaps turn it into a massive power source... but we have to understand it first.

Our minds are limited. This is a given fact. We strive to improve, as we always will, and some things that are currently beyond our ability to explain will eventually be simple to us. However, the nature of "Life" or "Spirit" will always be unknowable to us. We can disprove "Allah" and we can dispove the Christian God... and any other pantheon known to exist. Even if we did, we still wouldn't know just what it is that makes us "alive", would we? We just know that we are. You don't have to argue whether we are truly alive or not. Our very existence makes us self-aware. We know we are alive. What caused us to be alive.. what makes that true... we will never be able to truly define or explain.

And that is why science, no matter how advanced it gets, will never be able to work changes upon that aspect that makes us alive. We will simply never be able to understand it enough to make it work.


Gandalf

Edit:

Before this causes a bunch of confusion: The Higher Power would be the Absolute. Something happened eons ago that caused life to spring into existence. Science currently defines that as the "Big Bang". I go one step beyond that and place the Absolute as the cause for the Big Bang and for Life, because I do not believe that science can define or explain "Life", as I have been arguing in my posts.

That Absolute would be the Law from which all other Laws commence. It is the Law, and is not subject to Law, because It is Absolute. For this, it has always existed, since before Time began, and needs no "Cause" to explain its Being. It simply "is".

Then for sure you shouldn't believe in a Higher Power because what's the cause of that? If you don't believe that everything "just sprang into existence" it's even less normal to believe into something that was able to make everything "just sprang into existence". EDIT: I see that you already amended that so it won't create this confusion... oh... well... here you go again placing something outside the reason and understanding, how does that explains anything that's beyond me.

I see that you still use the same faulty expression when we already agreed (or so I had the impression) that Theory of Evolution doesn't claim that.

As for not being able to disprove God or Flying Spaghetti Monster that's irrelevant, only the fact that you can't disprove Flying Spaghetti Monster should give people a clue that's not something that's worth even discussing, the point here is not to attribute to God or to Flying Spaghetti Monster things for which there is other more normal explanation (no need to introduce somebody into a discussion especially that you don't know anything about that "somebody")

Here I think you are wrong, scientists can already create artificial viruses (compose them from molecules) While is debatable if viruses are "alive" I think this show something...

In conclusion to make it clearer, I'm perfectly fine with you believing in God, The Law, or Flying Spaghetti Monster, just don't use it as an argument to justify life or anything, you can't prove something bringing an argument that cannot be proved or explained.

Read my edit.

But you haven't offered me a "normal" explanation. You've just been saying "You're wrong."

Tell me then.. explain to me: "What caused us to exist? What makes us what we are?" Obviously, as logic would dictate, you must have the reason, or else you could not tell me that I am wrong.

We can also take a sperm, inject it into an egg, and make a -*test*-('")-tube baby. That doesn't mean that we understand "Life". That we can take some molecules and create an artificial virus doesn't prove that we have a grasping understanding of "Life". OK.. we made a living virus. Now.. let me see science, based on the triumph of making a virus, make a fully grown man, with his own unique identity and personality, out of some molecules.

While similar in scale, the two are vastly different in degree.

The only question that needs to be asked to answer my question: "Would you risk death, would you risk having your whole identity erased, as the first human being to attempt a teleportation transport?"

Do you believe that your "life" is a result of the way your brain is built and the chemical properties of the molecules that make up your body? Do you believe the electrical impulses that travel around your brain as your memories can sustain your body being torn into a group of atoms and "rematerialized" somewhere else? Would you even wake up from your journey remembering who you are?

The first person to attempt this and prove me right ends up losing memories, losing those cherished moments that we hold in our thoughts, losing their sense of self. When they re-appear, they are a wholly different person, because the "essence", even in a small amount, of their being has been ripped apart and tossed into the Astral Winds (for want of a better term). Or, worse yet... they end up a vegetable and have to re-learn everything they knew. You'd have a 30 year old infant, that wouldn't even know how to speak.

Do you honestly believe it is worth the risk?


Gandalf

But I stated that I don't trust science to be able to teleport a human being. The reason why is because I don't believe they can ever understand what gives us "Life" in order to be able to work a controlled change upon it. By ripping the person apart, and causing them to cease to exist, they end up destroying the person, even if they successfully make a live person on the other side.

You're right. I can't prove it. What I have is a Theory. My Theory is based on my belief that that which makes us "alive" is not simply "energy" that can be manipulated, because I don't believe it is something that we can understand. I don't believe that anyone, anytime, anywhere.. will ever be able to stand up and with irrefutable proof proclaim: "This is what caused us to exist! I have discovered why we all live today!"

If we can't understand that... then we can never understand "Life", because we don't even know "why" it is. We just know "it is". As a result, anything that attempts to work a change upon the very fabric of our being will be a coin toss between miraculous luck and catastrophic failure.

It's like the very first person however long ago, taking a flask of one liquid (which was a base), and a flask of another liquid (an acid) and pouring the two of them together. He probably didn't know that he was about to have something blow up in his face. For all he knew, he was mixing the "Elixir of Eternal Youth". That was a coin toss.

When my very existence is at stake... I won't wager it on a 50/50 chance. I want that to be a 100%, without a doubt, no chance of failure, proven win.


Gandalf

PS: On that note, I will have to bow out. My work shift is almost over, and I won't be around to debate this until tomorrow. I will continue, if there is anything left to debate by the time I arrive. I wish I could stay longer, but really... I've been at work for 12 hours and I only have 12 more before I have to be back here again.. I'm going to go to sleep.

Isn't that a little bit to ask from me? I'm not a scientist, take a biology book and read. If you interested about Cosmology take a Physics book and read, however understand that not everything is known, but that also doesn't mean to invent a God in order to explain things that are not known.

The point of this discussion was teleportation, it's not about designing and constructing a human being -- also teleportation as I understand here works more like a copy machine, you don't need the skills of DaVinci to make a copy of Mona Lisa.

We could always -*test*-('") on convicted criminals And if every particle with its properties is moved then I'm pretty sure the person would live and remember everything, the problem is that you envision the process as a butchering and reconstruction (so the person is killed and a similar one is reconstructed in other place) not as only moving a person -- I understand why, that's because quantical stuff is hard to get and it's close to philosofical stuff, so I wouldn't say that I understand the process, however I'm open minded in considering that that process might not be more different than taking a bus in its ontological implications.

I will acknowledge that it "might" work. I just don't believe in the ability to "Xerox" a person.

The reason I mention it as "butchering" is because you actually do cease to exist. Your atoms are scattered, moved, and reassembled somewhere else. Or, they are "copied", then you are "erased" as the new "copy" comes into existence. Either way, you, for a moment, cease to exist. It is in that brief moment that I believe that science will fail, because I don't think we have the means to manipulate whatever it is that "life" is.


As for inventing a "God".. that is my means to explain what caused us to be here. I can't prove it with actual hard evidence, but it is what makes sense (and in some senses seems logical) to me.

In a sense, it is about designing and constructing a human being, because that is the final step to making the teleport work. They have to make their equipment take the -*test*-('") person's atoms and re-form them into the person.


Gandalf

PS: Now I am done. I typed this up during the changeover brief. Hehe.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, "Life" is pretty well understood, scientists know in general how the mechanics of life work, sure there are unknown things, but nothing like "what was before Big Bang"... What exactly do you consider mysterious about life? Life is just chemical processes that are becoming better and better understood. Yes, even "simple" organisms like bacteria are pretty complex because they are the result of billion of years of evolution, there are still many things that need to be studied, however I don't see any "black hole" in the knowledge about life that is bound to remain a "black hole".

Just something in between guys... I am very pleasantly not surprised you are not bashing each other's heads in. I have seen people discuss things much differently in the past..

New take on the subject:

I believe it is possible for science to be able to teleport things. We've already started with it, managing it somehow. I believe that it is possible for science to teleport a human being, as the fundamental things that create a person are all fairly similar.

As Eadwine said, we are all made of the same stuff, and we all have the same basic "construction".. medical science depends on us being "built" the same.

However, I don't believe that it is possible for science to replicate, duplicate, copy, or transcribe someone's personality.

Identical twins are made of the exact same genetic material. There is hardly anything different about them at all, and yet, their perceptions of the Universe and the world around them will probably vary wildly. Their attitudes, their likes, their dislikes, and their personal beliefs are not defined by genetics, or by bodily impulses.

That is what I am terming as "Spirit". That which makes me me. Science may be able to take my physical body, do whatever it is they do to it, and make it reappear somewhere else. But I don't believe that they can, or that they will ever be able to, duplicate or produce a "replica" of someone's personality, because we cannot, do not, and will not ever understand exactly what it is that that personality comes from, where it is "stored" in a person (or if it is "stored" at all), how it works, and why it is the way it is.

If we can't grasp those concepts about what it is that makes us unique, how can we ever hope to reproduce it? It would be like someone trying to rebuild a car without having any knowledge of what a car is, or what the parts to the car do, or how they work, or where they would be placed. Tinkering with it over the course of however many years, and probably after many failed attempts, they might be able to succeed, however... car parts are a concept that we -can- understand... whereas the source of our individuality is something we will never be able to truly comprehend.


Gandalf


Long Edit: Adrian is saying, "If you take everything that makes up a person, duplicate it precisely, and move it to another place, then reassemble it, then you will have the same person because nothing has changed.. everything is still the same."

I am saying, "The personality of a person and the things that make each individual unique is beyond the scope of genetics and medical science, that mankind can never hope to comprehend why every person is unique, or where the source of our personality comes from. I don't believe that it is limited to simple "energy" or "matter" that can be copied and transferred, because even identical twins, who have the exact same genetic build and are made in precisely the same way (with some minor exceptions for things like "fingerprints"), they are still different.

Think of it this way: when science looks at an atom from one person and an atom from another person, they see the chemical compounds that make those two atoms. They are made exactly the same way. They have so many protons and so many neutrons, with so many electrons that orbit around it. That's all they see.

When you take two atoms from the same person... they have the same genetic build. They have the same protons, the same neutrons, the same electrons. They are identical. One atom is the same as the other. They can't look at one atom and say, "This one carries the subject's memory of his first date." These kinds of experiences are not carried simply as "energy" within our minds. When a person is teleported, and is "copied", I don't believe those experiences, and memories, and individuality would get "copied" with him. Ergo, when the person is recreated, they would have no knowledge of themselves, or any memories of the past.

And even if "memories" are transferred, I don't believe that our personality is a result of "just memories". There is more involved that we simply can't explain. If two people have identical experiences, they can still be completely different at the end. It depends on how they interpret those experiences that molds them. The experiences only have a hand in "setting the stage" for someone to make a decision for themselves on what they learn from it. That choice is theirs alone to make, and it is that aspect of themself that cannot be duplicated or copied.. that aspect that defies reason and logic, that mankind simply cannot understand.

To take an example from an RPG, "Fable".. this boy's family is murdered when he is a kid. That experience sets a point of choice for him. On one hand, he can look at it as "I learned that the only Truth in existence is power. You can be the weak and be manipulated by the powerful, or you can be the powerful and manipulate the weak. I decided that I would be powerful, that I would take what I want and kill whoever stands in my way.".. or he can look at it as: "Even though I was only a small boy, my family was taken from me. I mourned their loss and decided I would do my best to honour their memory by living the life they have taught me to live... to help the needy and to protect the weak. I know their spirit is still with me, and I do not want to shame them."

That choice is not made by the experience itself, or the person's "mind" or his body. The thing, whatever you want to call it, that pushed him to choose one or the other (or even other possibilities not listed) is not definable by science or by mankind. We don't know what it is, or where it came from. It is just there. Because we don't understand that, we can't reliably make something that can duplicate it... we don't even know where to begin to even try.

Isn't that a double negative?


Gandalf

Sorry for skipping many of the points you made, let me address this one:

Again you seem to know how the experiences and memories are carried, and strangely enough this seems to me to contradict what the scientists say and what experiments show. Do you have any special insight or knowledge into this or this is just "gut feeling"... maybe we should all start to make judgements with the gut. (a la Colbert, if you saw his sketch )

Twins example is a "red herring" in this discussion and I think I explained why.