Posted by Tyler Bradley on January 10, 1997 at 07:49:08:
In Reply to: Re: GOD...defined posted by Stephen Charchuk on January 09, 1997 at 11:09:58:
: Why not? We are seeing the universe from this end of time. It could have easily been completely different. We only have an example of one right now, who knows, once we move out into the universe we may find out that things are not exactly as we perceive them.
Yes, but isn't the issue about why this way and not one of the other possibilities?
============================
: The Universe doesn't exist for our benefit.
I do not believe that I've ever made an argument for a human preferred place.
=============================
: : I do agree that history has demonstrated repeatedly that what one day is considered to be unexplainable, magical or unthinkable is thinned as time goes by. And I do think that science is far reaching, but is not the endpoint of all knowledge. Science will never be able to predict emotional, interpersonal, and creative thought. Science will not explain how Beethoven would have finished his 9th Symphony, or Mozart his Requiem. It just will not ultimately explain all, as Richard Dawkins would have it. I am skeptical.
: Eventually it may do just that once we learn how RNA is encoded.
This will only address replication, not sentience. Sentience is such a transcendent term, not to mention very unclear, that this research likely will not reveal any clues.
==============================
: All creativity is is an effective neuro-net.
Are you sure? Neuro-nets are good for an electrochemical transmission of information but alas, pathways can be altered from any number of unpredictable events, perceptions and feelings. So much so that I cannot concur...