272 replies to this topic

[DJS]

Forward, backward, or standstill.

Also, another valid question is whether *backward* or *standstill* are even valid options. Excluding catastrophic events, can progress be halted?

[RighteousReason]

What I'm concerned about is that with the way society functions today and the way society is structured - I wouldn't want to live for eternity in that shithole.

You guys take the premise and twist it at an angle. You "hope" that the future society will be devoid of murderers, suicidal people, crime, etc etc when in reality:
a) you can't guarantee any of that, particularly with the way things are today.

And to euphemize it all, you go further proposing some preposterous singularity concept - someone read the Omega Point bullshit a bit too much.

Hmm I don't know what you have been hearing about the Singularity... but you should read some of Yudkowsky's stuff (www.singinst.org).


An old Eliezer quote...

Apotheosis

The Singularity holds out the possibility of winning the Grand Prize, the true Utopia, the best-of-all-possible-worlds - not just freedom from pain and stress or a sterile round of endless physical pleasures, but the prospect of endless growth for every human being - growth in mind, in intelligence, in strength of personality; life without bound, without end; experiencing everything we've dreamed of experiencing, becoming everything we've ever dreamed of being; not for a billion years, or ten-to-the-billionth years, but forever... or perhaps embarking together on some still greater adventure of which we cannot even conceive.  That's the Apotheosis.
If any utopia, any destiny, any happy ending is possible for the human species, it lies in the Singularity.

There is no evil I have to accept because "there's nothing I can do about it".  There is no abused child, no oppressed peasant, no starving beggar, no crack-addicted infant, no cancer patient, literally no one that I cannot look squarely in the eye.  I'm working to save everybody, heal the planet, solve all the problems of the world.

It sounds 'too good to be true', but that's not WHY someone like myself or Eliezer Yudkowsky believes the Singularity is possible/probable (unlike rediculous religious cults and such mystical bullsh**). AGI is the last invention man need create, because if an intelligent entity can design and implement a *more* intelligent entity, its successor could do the same, ad infinitum.

The neural computations that our consciousness is composed of could just as easily be run on a silicon computer as our biological wetware- and the source code would be much more easily modifiable, scalable to the accelerating growth of computer power, and offer a range of cognitive possibilities completely unavailable to humans (the crux of which being recursive self modification of both software and hardware).

This yields an intelligent entity- an optimization process- of such unstoppable and unimaginable power that anything within the limits of one's imagination is within reach.

Yes, this does change everything, and no, the 2020s is not an absurd prediction for the creation of AGI.

[DJS]

the 2020s is not an absurd prediction for the creation of AGI.

You had to add that in at the end, didn't you? [tung]

Why is there this persistent urge within futurism to maintain time frames?

Desire inspiring over confidence is what should be guarded against. If we go back to our logic 101 class, the individual making the claim ("2020 is not an absurd prediction for the creation of AGI") is the one who must substantiate it. For a while now I have abstained from explicitly declaring time frames, therefore I am under no obligation to defend one. However individuals making time frame claims must back these claims up with a comprehensive rationale or admit that their perspective is unfounded (ie, irrational).


[Don awaits the standard exponential tech progress talking points....]

[jaydfox]

Actually, the "standard exponential tech progress talking points", to me anyway, predict something further out, perhaps as late as the 2040's, or pessimistically, as late as the 2050's. To me, anything in the 2030's or sooner assumes a breakthrough in software, not in hardware.

And a breakthrough in software is much harder to substantiate. So while I appreciate that a singularity in the 2020's or late 2010's is possible, I wouldn't say a singularity is probable any sooner than the 2040's. YMMV.

The problem there is that the U.S. and Europe can easily go to hell in a handbasket before the 2040's, due to demographic shifts, retirement/pension/social welfare/security busts, world wars, etc., etc.

[DJS]

The only belief that I assign fuzzy *probable status* to is the eventuality (excluding catastrophe) of a "singular-like" event at some point in humanity's future time line. I tend to view positions of greater specificity as unjustifiably speculative, value-laden and unworthy of philosophical inquiry.

With that said, all minds are free to determine their own confidence levels. And activist betting patterns are unavoidably dependent to a significant degree on intuition. (Intuition is dependent on...?) So the dilemma of the techno-activists is that they've "gotta pay to play". It just amuses me that so many within the movement take such pride- and are so verbal- about the fact that, in terms of their philosophizing, they've shat the bed.

[Lazarus Long]

(Don)
Activist betting patterns are unavoidably dependent to a significant degree on intuition. (Intuition is dependent on...?)

I have come to the opinion that a hunch or *intuition* is essentially a form of precognitive pattern recognition that combines a complex set of values determined by the mind's attempt to balance risk/reward, threat/advantage, experience/learning, familiar/foreign, conscious reason involving all the previous modalities and balancing them all with preconscious emotion (fear/desire). Emotion derives of assigned values that are developed from more factors than I want to list here but basically programed pleasure/pain reflex along with learned standards from culture, family, environment etc.

This is a basic model of our evolved minds since it requires our ability to make decisions for survival imperatives, often without sufficient data to make prior certain *determinations*. Challenge often demands a decisive act of *do or die* and/or *don't do and live*. Critical decision making is more than just probabilities and odds concerning the weighing of determined and indeterminate factors.

IOW's hunches are our survival instinct extended to its rational boundary, when the demand for action is an override for the demand for sufficient data to make the decision. It is not really a *fuzzy logic* it is beyond analytic logic yet depends on it as well.

This ability is so important to the human mind it is embodied in our developmental ethics from the moment we learn to play and can even trigger an addictive response in a gambler that cannot control the urge to experience *the game* and feel the endorphin surge of *winning against odds*. Yet it can also be seen as a kind of binary logic nonetheless but real life does not allow for every decision to be based upon minimal criteria, it is not perfectly determined or it would be predetermined.

So intuition is counter-intuitively where we test free will through choice against determinism. Where we see a future and defy the odds of making it possible or stopping it. It is how we weave the pieces of loose knit observational data into first hypothesis and then test that to build theory.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 04 October 2006 - 02:42 AM.

[DJS]

I have come to the opinion that a hunch or *intuition* is essentially a form of precognitive pattern recognition that combines a complex set of values determined by the mind's attempt to balance risk/reward, threat/advantage, experience/learning, familiar/foreign, conscious reason involving all the previous modalities and balancing this with preconscious emotion. Emotion derives of assigned values that are developed from more factors than I want to list here but basically programed pleasure/pain reflex along with learned standards from culture, family, environment etc.

This is a basic model of our evolved minds since it requires our ability to make decisions for survival imperatives, often without sufficient data to make prior certain *determinations*. Challenge often demands a decisive act of *do or die* and/or *don't do and live*.

IOW's hunches are our survival instinct extended to its rational boundary, when the demand for action is an override for the demand for sufficient data to make the decision. It is not really a *fuzzy logic* it is beyond analytic logic yet depends on it as well.

This ability is so important to the human mind it is embodied in our developmental ethics form the moment we learn to play and can even trigger an addictive response in a gambler that cannot control the urge to test endorphin surge of *winning against odds*. Yet it can be seen as a kind of binary logic nonetheless but life does not allow for every decision to be based upon minimal criteria

going going gone [thumb]

[DJS]

They are less valuable than toilet paper.

I'm sure they must have some amount of historical value.

[Lazarus Long]

The reason many of us are not comfortable with the predictive certainty for future tech concerning a singularity is not only that we see it as harder to get there from here than many of you, or just because we are *pessimistic* or even simply the *voice of experience.* We are not trying to rain on your parade.

It isn't that we do not see the many factors or are unfamiliar with realistic or even fantastic possibilities for technological advance; it is that we have enough experience to recognize a level of requisite complexity for an idea (the singularity) that is far greater than apparently many of you see. Dueling hunches?

[RighteousReason]

My vague assertion was based on the rather arbitrary level of perponderance of evidence I have at this particular time. There are an enormous amount of different reasons, arguments, and intuitive assertions from others that I can refer to that have contributed to this current intuition, from many different people's writings in many different places, none of which are absolute proof (obviously!), and few (but not none) of which are strong indications.

This kind of thing has an extremely large degree of inherent unpredictability. I'm not here to bet 10,000 dollars that the Singularity occurs before 2029 (= Ray Kurzweil)- but I don't believe that assertion is absurd.

[RighteousReason]

Ok, my opinion:

The Singularity depends strictly on who builds AGI, when they do it, and how they do it. I don't think this algorithm being implemented in some form before or during the 2020s is absurd.

(obviously there are other factors, but I think this factor is the dominating one.)

[dimasok]

2050? 2030? 2020? How about you give it a million years and then some...

About the Singularity:
I think that there are two possibilities regarding the consciousness singularity:

1: It is a modern reiteration of apocalyptic religious ideas, analogous to the Islamo-Christian "Paradise." It is as such no more or less real than any of these.

2: All previous apocalyptic religious ideas were merely foreshadows of the Singularity, misinterpretations of the possibility of it mired in the jargon of whatever time they came from.

Either way, perhaps certain personality types are born with an awareness of the possibility of such a thing and the need to express it. Psychological studies have shown that all apocalyptic cult leaders express similar ideas to the Consciousness Singularity, as well as possessing personality traits most commonly observed in sufferers of schizotypal personality disorder.

If 1) is true, then the Singularity, like the messages of Aum Shinrikyo, Heaven's Gate, Jesus of Nazareth and the Prophet Muhammed is simply the fancy of a certain extreme personality type that hungers for a new world.

If 2) is true then perhaps that extreme personality type serves an evolutionary purpose, to make others aware of the possibility of the Singularity and perhaps help them move towards it.

By 2050 none of what we see here today will change, that much I can tell you. The A.I. progress alone is negligent (hell, then can't even make a video game that uses decent A.I. patterns and these Honda robots are laugh-inducing). Now when I think of it, the whole frickin history on Earth has not achieved anything substantial and the Singularity Concept is a major, major flaw of human thinking that wishes to expand itself anywhere and everywhere, when in fact, it is nothing more than an Animal species, with no special reservations in the world and it destined to stay like that, just mark my words. By 2100, if we get flying cars everywhere, i'd be more than happy and would consider this a "natural progress" to a more advanced technological state, but nothing beyond that.

The Singularity is a simple psychological response of the humans to something that is so greatly beyond their understanding, that they're willing to try and conquer it just because their mind serves as an outlet for these sorts of questions. Surely is better to feel like you can become God when in fact you're nothing but a microscopic dot living on a microscopic dust of a planet".

You know what guys, fine, i accept immortality and everything else cause compared to that fictitious singulairty cult-like bullshit, it is plausible. Definetly.

On and need I remind you again and again that consciousness is beyond our understanding so what the hell are we discussing here? Machines can't become conscious, humans can't transcend their limits (achieving immortality wouldn't transcend the limit, but would solely extend the red line to the next disaster, murder, suicide, disease, etc) and singularity is not happening.

You want calculations? at least in temrs of the computing capabilities?
"Statistical mechanics cannot be broken, by any means. It governs the behavior of large numbers of particles without any direct ties to the underlying physics. That is to say, you could change the underlying physics all you want, but the general principles of thermodynamics would remain, as they are nothing more than a mathematical fact.

As for "too tremendous," what I mean is that there's no reasonable way for there to be any computer which has sufficient resources.

For example, there is currently reason to believe that space is quantized on the order of the Planck scale, which is about 10^-35 meters. Now, the dark matter density of the universe is about 1e-27 kg/m^3. If the dark matter particles are 1TeV in mass (a fairly high value), then that makes for about 0.001 particles per cubic meter.

Now, the size of the observable universe is about 15 billion light years, or 10^26 meters (spherical volume: 10^79). So in each direction, to store a proper position we need to store said position to an accuracy of 10^61. If we use trinary storage (the most efficient), this requires about 127 trinary bits. For each particle we would need six such numbers just for position and momentum data, or 762 trinary bits.

Now, if we have 0.001 particles per cubic meter, that's roughly 10^77 dark matter particles in the observable universe. So just to store the dark matter particles we can see, we would need roughly 10^80 trinary bits. And that's just storage. The gravitational potential between the dark matter particles inherently takes N(N+1) time to calculate. So your computer would need to be capable of performing 10^160 calculations within a Planck time (About 10^-44 seconds) in order to do the calculations properly. And that's just what we can see (let alone the nearly infinite universe we can't see), and only the gravitational attraction, only dark matter, etc.

Not happening."

Edited by dimasok, 04 October 2006 - 02:20 PM.

[stephenszpak]

Is it just me or deathists take over the institute?


-Infernity

Infernity (or anyone)

What is a deathist?

P.S. (I may post a number of times on the days that
I post. Which are Wed. Sat. Sun. I think it
all evens out to a reasonable average.)

-Stephen

[stephenszpak]

[quote]stephenszpak
You're kidding me right? Please tell me it's a joke. I hate everything to do with religion. HATE, do you understand what i'm saying? I won't utter the name "Christianity" even if a gun will be pointed in head. God dammit, that was a joke right? I'd rather believe in Santa Claus.

dimasok

To be more specific, I'm talking about Jesus. Have you ever read the Gospel of John?
If you have not, your view of Jesus *may* be totally inaccurate. My personal take, is
that people in general (who don't know Him) have a view of Him that is based on
things they've heard and seen.

I know it's hard to read on-line, but the words He spoke and the things he did are
recorded here.

First few pages of the Gospel of John:

http://www.biblegate...er=1&version=49

First few pages of the Gospel of Luke:

http://www.biblegate...er=1&version=49


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unless Christianity is wholly false, the perception of ourselves which we have in moments of shame must be the only true one."

-- C.S. Lewis

My Best,

-Stephen

[Lazarus Long]

Stephen, "deathist" is a term used by many in this movement to describe people at are not merely *fatalistic* about mortality but make various types of claims for the *necessity* of death.

Often these are religious, sometimes they are associated with various issues of population and even social evolution. Some think it is a type of recycling of spirit or flesh that is required by nature. There are various scientists who think it is not merely programmed into, but somehow counter-intuitively to the idea of Dawkin's genetics that it is necessary and somehow impossible if not just undesirable for them to contemplate reprogramming the DNA and this relates to biological aspects of evolution. E.O. Wilson and Francis Fukuyama to name the more cogent and the President's appointee to lead the Council on Bioethics, Leon Kass for another.

Does that help?

We consider ourselves the original *Right to Lifers* but as so much appears to be today a lot is about packaging for ideas. For us those that oppose longevity tech are "deathists" because they resist progress in this field and that threatens our lives.

[Lazarus Long]

BTW Stephen you are walking a thin line with respect to religion.

As we are all well off topic we have tolerated it up to now but if you want to continue to *preach* about specific doctrines or to evangelize, proselytize or in any manner promote your religious beliefs to others then I suggest you start a topic to that effect in the appropriate area; the Religion Forum.

[Lazarus Long]

(dimasok)
On and need I remind you again and again that consciousness is beyond our understanding so what the hell are we discussing here?

This Kantian premise is not merely an assumption itself, it is based on what is essentially a tautological argument that proves nothing. You may believe this to be the case but you have no evidence of it being the case and in fact there is nothing about the idea or definition of consciousness that defines it as beyond the ability of itself being understood. It does not require god like power, it simply requires sufficient systems logic and data with which to address the analysis.

Those facts are arriving at an accelerating rate, daily. We are unraveling the function of the brain down to the molecular level as well as the core of reason and emotion from developmental and epistemological perspectives. Whether or not consciousness can be understood depends far more on the definition for it being applied. By consciousness are you referring to the intangible idea of a soul?

Or simply how a human mind operates?

One is definable and the other is not because one depends on measurable and observable phenomena and the other depends on mystical ideas relating to metaphysical principles that are untestable.

[stephenszpak]

Lazarus Long


If there is no one you would die for, aren't you dead already?

To put it another way, if someone values their own life above all
others, their life must be worth less than all others. If a man believes
he has no soul he has to make staying alive the most important thing.

I don't oppose longevity or good health.

What is a link to your movements's basic beliefs?




Thanks,

-Stephen

[stephenszpak]

“Nothing is more likely to destroy a species or a nation than a determination to survive at all costs”

C.S. Lewis

http://en.thinkexist...r_a/198606.html



-Stephen

[Lazarus Long]

(hankconn)
The Singularity depends strictly on who builds AGI, when they do it, and how they do it. I don't think this algorithm being implemented in some form before or during the 2020s is absurd.

(obviously there are other factors, but I think this factor is the dominating one.)

The concept of the singularity does not depend on the idea of a singlular creator at all. That is one objective for some involved in that endeavor but clearly another option is for the reality of it to *evolve* out multiple attempts from different designers that become integrated, self aware and self perpetuating independently of a single initialization.

This relates to learning software that at some point begins a auto-evolutionary process generally observed as paralleling the combined technological developments of BOTH software AND hardware.

IOW's you are confusing your desired outcome with the possible outcomes and that is called wishful thinking. Hardware development is also critical to the idea you are promoting as well as the inability to be shut off or somehow superseded by human authority.

There are many factors both social and technological that could easily impede progress in this area, from physically disconnecting it from its power source to unplugging it from all sensory input (including WiFi and weblinks) thus rendering blind, deaf and dumb.

BTW IBM is endeavoring to build such a (eventually quantum) computer "synthetic brain" (the Blue Brain Project to model the neocortex and more) right now not far from me and their goal is human level intelligence within the next ten years. They certainly have a lot more resources to throw at that development than most of us and they are only one of many such projects now underway around the world.

I will not address the observation of cultism in this respect because there is some reason to support it but I do not think that the idea itself requires it. Also there is good reason when applying Moore's Law to expect processing ability by 2020 to be at a threshold level for global application and possibly even human level awareness. To assume such safeguards are not in place prior to its development also ensures a social crisis over the potential risks presented by the technology.

[stephenszpak]

BTW Stephen you are walking a thin line with respect to religion. 

As we are all well off topic we have tolerated it up to now but if you want to continue to *preach* about specific doctrines or to evangelize, proselytize or in any manner promote your religious beliefs to others then I suggest you start a topic to that effect in the appropriate area; the Religion Forum.

Lazarus Long

(Just saw this post.)

Usually when I hear "We have been patient with you..." bad things happen soon.

With a topic titled "Death is..." with Heaven and Hell possibilities, I figured God could be
written about. Obvious this is NOT a poll. If it was it would be over with those on the list
merely picking this number or that. I assumed (incorrectly I guess) that a discussion of
life/death and the afterlife could take place.

-Stephen

[Lazarus Long]

(stephen)
If there is no one you would die for, aren't you dead already?

Please be more careful with my words and your attribution to their meaning. I challenge you to quote me making such a claim.

The issue of self sacrifice happens to be the topic of a different thread but since you assume my perspective incorrectly I will try and clarify it rather than let you falsely describe it.

I do consider self sacrifice an option but I demand it as personal choice and never the right of other's to impose on me.

I have risked my life before in the promotion and protection of my beliefs and rights. I will likely be forced to again in my life and the longer I live the more likely the demand will be made. I certainly experience self sacrifice on a more mundane level since I am the parent of two adolescents. Little can make us more aware of our mortality than having and raising children. I am not a hedonist.

Please refrain from making too many assumptions about our unilateral character among this group. We represent a common interest that crosses a vast number of political, social, cultural, economic, philosophical and scientific perspectives, even theistic, but we are united in our basic objective to change the rules governing human mortality.

To put it another way, if someone values their own life above all
others, their life must be worth less than all others. If a man believes
he has no soul he has to make staying alive the most important thing.

I for one do not profess hedonism, selfishness, OR selflessness; simply the right of self determination with respect to mortality. I might value one person's life as more valuable than another and this is my right both as self defense but also in defense of the innocent or simply those with whom I share the definition of community. However my life above that of all others?

Such an assumption is absurd. It is meaningless to describe human or any life in that manner. I do not credit solipsism with being rational simply because it can be coherently described as a logical concept. Obviously I would defend the lives of those I love with my life, or by perhaps taking the life of another. I do not value violence as more important in this respect than communication however. I frankly consider violence the last resort of incompetence but never approach violence incompetently.

If it was a simplistic choice between giving my life to save all life on earth including that of my enemies or perhaps even all animal and plant life only versus living alone in this universe I would choose the value of continuing life as a whole versus my own being. I do so because of my value for life not because I expect a reward or even protection in some hypothetical afterlife.

Also the belief in soul is not required for altruism or mortality, that is a false association predicated on your specific belief in and about such a thing. However the soul is not the issue here and what it is and if it exists is not really germane to the discussion unless you seek to prove its existence by scientific and not metaphysical argument. Death, according to the vast majority of those that have answered the poll above is either an unknown or oblivian. That is far more like a lose/lose proposition than a Pascal's wager.

I don't oppose longevity or good health.

What is a link to your movements's basic beliefs?

You are at one of the leading global centers for development philosophy in this respect but you can also review the WTA and Extropian site that is no longer as active.

I have advocated that we develop a links page but you can go to our home page and you will find links to other sites like Betterhumans etc that share our basic doctrine.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 04 October 2006 - 04:03 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

(stephen)
Usually when I hear "We have been patient with you..." bad things happen soon.

With a topic titled "Death is..." with Heaven and Hell possibilities, I figured God could be written about. Obvious this is NOT a poll. If it was it would be over with those on the list merely picking this number or that. I assumed (incorrectly I guess) that a discussion of life/death and the afterlife could take place.

Frankly I consider much of the conversation so far to have deviated wildly off topic but aside from your insistence on preaching your beliefs to another individual as somehow a cure all for his ills I do not consider your posts any more deviant in this respect than the discussion of a singularity. )

What I was suggesting is that if you seek to personalize the discussion with religious advice that borders on preaching please take it to a PM or to the appropriate forum.

If other persons here were acting in this manner with respect to the singularity I would make the same suggestion to them. If you seek to objectively discuss souls, afterlife or other aspects of associated arguments for religion or for mortality in respect to this topic then of course they are appropriate. Simply advising someone to find your god for salvation is not such an argument.

Please don't feel singled out. If others went that far I would suggest they do the same. You have simply been the most glaring example of such conduct and this a worthy example to make. Nothing personal I assure you. You have been nothing if not polite and articulate. Certainly nothing you have said so far merits censure. However some of it (and only a small but significant part) does require a more appropriate venue.

[stephenszpak]

Lazarus Long

L.L. wrote:

If you seek to objectively discuss souls, afterlife or other aspects of associated arguments for religion or for mortality in respect to this topic then of course they are appropriate. Simply advising someone to find your god for salvation is not such an argument.

However the soul is not the issue here and what it is and if it exists is not really germane to the discussion unless you seek to prove its existence by scientific and not metaphysical argument.


So you are saying that I can't talk about the 'soul' unless I can prove the
existence of the 'soul'. Sort of limits me doesn't it?

Can you prove that the universe created itself? That *everything* came
from nothing?

Can you prove that a lifeless earth created conscious beings?

Went here to find info on DHEA and thought I found a nice thread.
As you say I should go to another thread. If anyone wants to continue
elsewhere please provide a link where *you* will be posting. If no one
on this thread wants to continue this discussion do NOT provide a link
at this time.

"You have simply been the most glaring example of such conduct..."

Usually am.

-Stephen

[Lazarus Long]

So you are saying that I can't talk about the 'soul' unless I can prove the
existence of the 'soul'. Sort of limits me doesn't it?

Can you prove that the universe created itself? That *everything* came
from nothing?

You are missing the point. I can demonstrate the universe exists even if as nothing more than a common illusion. We can certainly trade observations of empirically derived data and compare notes as to the physical properties of said universe. I do not need to prove OR disprove a creator or even a beginning to have that discussion rationally.

Prime mover arguments are specious without evidence and BTW the Big Bang (or Badda Bing Bang if you prefer my typo [lol] ) does not define the universe as coming from nothing; simply that the space/time continuum we experience and define as the present began with it. Space/time is still a definition in the works.

Anyway, regardless of our present perspective and definitions for space/time having a beginning that does not mean that the universe as it existed as a singularity (the one described by physics) did not exist infinitely before without a beginning and only changed into what we experience now with that event.

However most certainly if you are making claims dependent on these ideas the burden of proof is on you to PROVE them not for me to accept them because they are defined on metaphysical arguments that are not testable.

You can talk about the soul if you want but first you have to define it and the discussion is only meaningful if it is predicated on aspects that can be tested for credibility otherwise it not proof as much as philosophical fancy.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 04 October 2006 - 04:55 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

Can you prove that a lifeless earth created conscious beings?

Would you be happy if I did?

Are you prepared to accept this to be the case if we can synthesize life?

That of course is proof that it is possible and it is becoming an ever more present possibility. Can you tolerate such research or is it heretical by your perspective or simply impossible?

Went here to find info on DHEA and thought I found a nice thread.
As you say I should go to another thread. If anyone wants to continue
elsewhere please provide a link where *you* will be posting. If no one
on this thread wants to continue this discussion do NOT provide a link
at this time.

You can also go to the religion forum and begin a topic of your own in this respect.

I began one somewhere a long time ago called "Soul v Mind" if I remember correctly. It might be a nice venue for the topic if you want but I am not saying you can't talk about the soul or your definition of it, or god, or the afterlife, or any number of associated concepts. I was saying that you should not preach to others about finding salvation in your beliefs as personalized advice in this thread.

You can talk about how you found such solace by anecdotal analogous example if you like and how it has influenced your perspective. Others here have already done as much but that is why I said you were walking a thin line. Or if you prefer; skating on thin ice?

[Infernity]

Can you prove that a lifeless earth created conscious beings?

Ah, light, photosynthesize, oxygen, us...

-Infernity

[stephenszpak]

Infernity

Please continue. How *exactly* do non-living materials come to life?

-Stephen

[DJS]

There are many plausible hypotheses, stephenszpak.

A scientific attempt at explanation:

Abiogenesis

The Christian alternative:

images.google.com

Notice the disparity in information content. [sfty]