Identity/Creativity: Necessary Intermediate Stage

[Etritonakin]

If there were no elements, no carbon, no oxygen, no hydrogen, there could be no bodies, our type or otherwise.



Are you somehow unaware that without a brain there is no mind?

No elements - No brain.
No brain - No mind.

Absolutely incorrect!

Really want to respond but busy now.

 

[ecco]

As far as many humans believe, humans are the physical life form most capable of making the physical universe and all other physical things within it subject to itself.

We obviously travel in different crowds. I don't know anyone who believes humans can shape the universe (aside from, I guess, you).

Therefore we would be the present end product of the (physical) universe.
The fact that I believe that the sum of everything became a self-aware self subject to itself before creating other selves within a "universe" to which they were subject means that I am extremely non-egotistical.

That's pretty hard to read, so I may have misinterpreted. Are you saying that:
"Everything" became a self-aware self?
If so, then:
What is/was "everything"?
How did it become self-aware?
How could it become self-aware?

And then the self-aware self became subject to itself
And then the self-aware self created other selves
And then I'm lost.

As the physical universe once did not exist as such -and may not be the sum of all things -it may not be as UNI VERSal as some might expect.
(more later)

Oh.

 

[Etritonakin]

We obviously travel in different crowds. I don't know anyone who believes humans can shape the universe (aside from, I guess, you).



That's pretty hard to read, so I may have misinterpreted. Are you saying that:
"Everything" became a self-aware self?
If so, then:
What is/was "everything"?
How did it become self-aware?
How could it become self-aware?

And then the self-aware self became subject to itself
And then the self-aware self created other selves
And then I'm lost.



Oh.

I said most capable -we are more capable of making things in the universe subject to us -and we have actually increased in that ability. It is presently localized, but... Anyway -a subject for another time.

Back to minds requiring brains, atoms, etc., for a sec.... Wherever there is predictable interaction of any kind, those interactions can be configured to perform logical functions. Even the subatomic/quantum computers being built now show this to be true. A body is an interface between self and environment, so it's a matter of connecting the two.
They still use atoms, but it does prove the point that even any pre-element interaction could be the basis for a mind.
Ironically, the fact that our bodies are made of atoms limits us and makes us subject and vulnerable to things on that level. Existing and interfacing on a more basic level could decrease vulnerability and increase power over (or under, as it were) environment.

Interaction is the basis for awareness/self-awareness.
When two marbles hit each other, for example, they are aware of each and react to each other in a simple way -signal and report, etc.
Awareness and self-awareness are complex arrangements of simple interactions.
Awareness and self-awareness are basically feedback in various configurations.
When one looks into a mirror, there are signals bouncing back and forth.
The same is true of internal "mirrors" -such as would make it possible for a person to model themselves within themselves and consider that image.
If a life form is unable to mirror itself within itself, it will also not recognize itself as itself in a mirror.
Even the use of a second mirror to look at the back of one's head makes one more aware of self.
Memory is essentially a mirror of states or previous states -and crucial to complex awareness.
The basic steps would be the same as that which made us self-aware, but as the present complex environment allowing for many physical life forms once did not exist as such, they could not happen step by step in successive reproductive life forms, but to the one "everything" arising from simplicity.

As for an original creating of other selves essentially from itself...
I call it a multiple personality order -as it would have been intentional, etc.
(A sort of complex self-replication, if you will, by logical separation of parts of the whole into individuals with independent identity and decision-making ability.)

A similar thing occurs within individual humans -but the individual, at least, does not intend for it to happen -and it is (at least was) called a multiple personality disorder.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

1. Quite rude -might want to chill -doesn't bother me, but may affect your stress level.

I'm quite chill, thanks.
I think it's rude to reply to a post with questions and babble on and on without actually answering the questions.

1a. Not correct. I may have lost you, but I am not the one who is lost. Also -you can't really say I am making a bunch of stuff up yet lack imagination -you are contradicting yourself.
2. I wrote some background for the answers which I will provide at my will and leisure. I'm rather busy and don't follow your schedule.

Just saying, you wrote quite a long post. If you would have just answerd my questions, I'ld think it would have taken you easily half the time only.

But let's cut to the chase.
You don't have any answers, have you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

For now (at your will and leisure, of course), imagine the PRESENT course of earth and its life forms -but in the absence of man. Then consider the works of man. Man's capabilities were required for them.

Then consider the entire Big Bang and universe leading up to man -and reference it against initial simplicity.

I don't see what the big bang has in common with the effects of human activity on the planet and its eco systems.

Why don't you explain it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You identify them and measure them by using math and logic in reference to the most simple state possible given what must have been necessary to allow for the present state.

Wouldn't that require to know pretty much everything about everything?
After all, one doesn't know in advance what is and isn't possible, right?

"Intelligence" is actually a fairly vague term -as its various aspects can sometimes exist without other aspects -and many aspects can also be configured together to become a more complex and capable intelligence -or various aspects can be augmented or diminished in relation to each other.

I'ld even say that you use it in such vague contexts that it's actually quite unclear what it is that you mean by it, exactly.

For example.... (DNA-based) "evolution" can actually correctly be described as an intelligent designer...

It can not.
For the simple reason that a designer follows a pre-determined plan, he acts with intent - and he is a "he" (or "she", off course).

Evolution is nothing like that.
Evolution is a natural blind process that inevitably happens, without any intentions or pre-determined planning. No species was ever "meant" to exist. Every species that ever existed and ever will exist, is the result of circumstancial things. None of which have been planned or intended.

The exception being the species that we humans have created through artificial selection in cultivation / breeding programs.

It makes design decisions based on various factors in order to produce a more capable and effective design -there is input, a certain type and level of decision -and output.

There is no decision making taking place at all.
There is natural selection, but there is nobody doing the "selecting".

This can't be called a "decision" at all, on any level.
In evolution logic, it is called a "fitness test", but that's just our conceptual view of it. What this test really is, is just being succesfull in surviving and reproducing. That's not a "decision" and to call it that, is to miss the point entirely.

Being the first time considering a unit of measurement, purposeful complexity is quite accurate for now -

I don't see how it is accurate. For now, it looks like the "purposeful" part is a completely arbitrary parameter that you inject into it.

"Purpose" is something you need to demonstrate - no just declare it.

moving from simple complexity and purpose (or the basic things from which they arose and became possible) to more complex -and eventually to things being purposed intentionally.

Perhaps the most important threshold is separation of self and environment, but it should also be acknowledged that there can be no true separation -only logical separation.

"Everything" can be described as ITself -and "everything" is its own environment.
All interactions happen within the one everything.
We might say one thing interacts with another -but they are both parts of the one.
If we say there are a hundred bottles of beer on the wall, they are actually each fractions of the one whole which exists. We count individual things because they are separated logically.
Humans are not separate from their environment -they are essentially made of exactly the same basic components -and are similarly separated logically -and are similarly fractions of the one whole.

That which allows for logical separation of self and environment is interaction -action (simple self) and reaction (simple environment) -but they are the same whole.

Some believe that the complex environment which is the universe preceded the first separation of what we might call a self and environment.

Considering the human level, that which humans do is indicative of them. Humans act upon their environment (upon which they are also dependent and of which they are composed) in ways which are made possible by their configuration -in ways which are indicative of their configuration -which are considered beneficial to the self. The INHABITANT affects ITSELF and the HABITAT in ways which are generally/usually beneficial to- and indicative of -the inhabitant.
If a human -by ability made possible by configuration -augments its environment extremely (builds a large and complex dwelling, for example) -and then separates itself logically by leaving the immediate scene -another human stumbling upon the scene could determine that one of a suitable configuration necessarily caused the augmentation -even in the absence of the original human.

The singularity/Big Bang/universe is an extremely augmented environment.
Extreme augmentation is possible, but only relatively locally.
Self and environment must always be in general balance overall.
In other words.... The existence of the universe is indicative of some sort of self able to augment environment -and must be at least near the same extremity.
However, that self -from our perspective -is not local.

Furthermore, self-and environment are indicative of each other.
The habitat requires a similar inhabitant.
Even more indicative of the original inhabitant is the preparation of extreme environment preceding and leading up to other inhabitants (by logical separation) -not just itself.


(Will have to check this later -tired)

To be honest with you, all this sounds like some type of new age woowoo word salad to me.
I still barely know what your point is and you seem to be overcomplicating things for no apparant reason.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

An original, however, would necessarily be involved as increasingly able in becoming more complex and able -not able to decide to exist or develop, but increasingly responsible for every possible decision which required identity and creativity -certain things becoming possible only after becoming able to realize "I AM".

And right here is, I feel, the ultimate downfall of your ideas. The creativity process for everything else we recognize as having creativity (admittedly very restricted to human consciousness at the moment) doesn't simply "end", but is ongoing. If we don't like one thing we are doing, or having to accomplish, or the way in which we are having to accomplish it, then we get "creative," and change something about our environment, our activities, or our tools.

Where is there the evidence that any sort of creative intelligence is doing this at all times? Has this creative intelligence simply stagnated? Is it only working in "mysterious ways?" Ways that we are unable to witness, and that don't directly alter our environment/universe? As far as we can tell, only the "rules" in play alter the universe in an ongoing manner - and this is not, at all, a "creative" process from the standpoint of being interesting/differentiated/consciousness-induced.

Does it make more sense to believe that a being with nearly infinite creative potential is NOT changing/developing any further, and is therefore just sitting there metaphorically twiddling its thumbs? Or does it make more sense to suspect that there may be nothing there to be worried about? Nothing there forcing its creative desires into being.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Anyway..... You should -at the very very least -be able to accept that which produced the singularity (defined by scientists as "we don't know", by the way)

I don't get your last "by the way". As if it is some kind of "gotcha!" or something to be ashamed off or something?

/Big Bang/universe was capable of doing so

Obviously. The universe happened. However it happened - it was not in a way that would have been impossible, since it happened.

Seems like a rather pointless thing to acknowledge....
Kind of like "I accept that my birth was possible, since I am alive".

Well, duh.

"Bang" is simply not sufficient -and that particular Bang was as complex and specific as we know to be possible thus far.

Was it?
I don't know. You don't either.
We don't know what happened at T = 0.
We currently have no way to know.

So however it happened, what we also don't know, by extension, is if that process was complex or not.
That's again just you making declarations.

It might have been complex. Then again, it might also be something very simple. Perhaps it will turn out to be describably in a single equation of 1 inch long. Like "E = mc²"
We simply don't know.

You don't either.
Perhaps it was complex. Perhaps it wasn't. Time will tell. Maybe.

It was also as purposeful

Another mere declaration

as it has specifically unfolded to become thus far.

Teleological fallacy.

Perhaps there are an infinity of "big bangs" all resulting in universes with different physical laws. In that case, it would be kind of expected that we existed in the one with the laws that make our existance possible.

No reason, no purpose, no rhyme. Just the way it is.

And it idd does sound like what @ecco said... you seem to believe that this entire universe exists "for the purpose" of us humans existing on this little blue pixel in this random galaxy in this random corner of the vast universe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Absolutely incorrect!

Really want to respond but busy now.

So what are you (incorrectly) disagreeing with?

That without the various elements, our bodies couldn't exist?
Or that without brains, there are no minds?

 

[ecco]

I said most capable -we are more capable of making things in the universe subject to us -and we have actually increased in that ability. It is presently localized, but... Anyway -a subject for another time.

Another time? OK.

Back to minds requiring brains, atoms, etc., for a sec.... Wherever there is predictable interaction of any kind, those interactions can be configured to perform logical functions. Even the subatomic/quantum computers being built now show this to be true.

There is no such thing as a subatomic/quantum computer. There are computers built by humans that make use of quantum theory.

A body is an interface between self and environment, so it's a matter of connecting the two.

A body is many things. The brain/mind of a body takes bits of sensory information (sight, sound, etc) combines them and translates the results.

They still use atoms, but it does prove the point that even any pre-element interaction could be the basis for a mind.

Everything is built up from atoms. Nature assembles atoms into molecules in very specific ways. Molecules assemble in very specific ways to form, "living" things. In living things, some molecules combine in very specific ways to create cells. When you say that "any pre-element interaction could be the basis for a mind" are you implying that a random assemblage of atoms can think?

Ironically, the fact that our bodies are made of atoms limits us and makes us subject and vulnerable to things on that level. Existing and interfacing on a more basic level could decrease vulnerability and increase power over (or under, as it were) environment.

See above.

Interaction is the basis for awareness/self-awareness.
When two marbles hit each other, for example, they are aware of each and react to each other in a simple way -signal and report, etc.

Marbles are not aware of each other. They do not signal each other. The action/reaction between them is the same as the action/reaction between individual atoms and for the exact same reasons.

Awareness and self-awareness are complex arrangements of simple interactions.
Awareness and self-awareness are basically feedback in various configurations.
When one looks into a mirror, there are signals bouncing back and forth.

Awareness and self-awareness are the products of the human mind. When you look in a mirror the nerves in your eyes pick up light. Your brain assembles these many inputs into a "picture". When a marble is placed in front of a mirror it has no nerves to sense light.

The same is true of internal "mirrors" -such as would make it possible for a person to model themselves within themselves and consider that image.
If a life form is unable to mirror itself within itself, it will also not recognize itself as itself in a mirror.
Even the use of a second mirror to look at the back of one's head makes one more aware of self.
Memory is essentially a mirror of states or previous states -and crucial to complex awareness.

What are internal mirrors? Are you referring to introspection?

The basic steps would be the same as that which made us self-aware, but as the present complex environment allowing for many physical life forms once did not exist as such, they could not happen step by step in successive reproductive life forms, but to the one "everything" arising from simplicity.

Are you saying that humans are not the result of natural evolution?

As for an original creating of other selves essentially from itself...
I call it a multiple personality order -as it would have been intentional, etc.
(A sort of complex self-replication, if you will, by logical separation of parts of the whole into individuals with independent identity and decision-making ability.)

I have no idea what you are saying.

A similar thing occurs within individual humans -but the individual, at least, does not intend for it to happen -and it is (at least was) called a multiple personality disorder.

Your post certainly suffers from DID. It went from quantum computers to marbles being aware of each other to the incomprehensible to Dissociative identity disorder. Throughout it was laden with misinformation and delved into woo.

 

[Etritonakin]

So what are you (incorrectly) disagreeing with?

That without the various elements, our bodies couldn't exist?
Or that without brains, there are no minds?

Our particular bodies could not exist without the elements, but an interface of similar function could exist.
If the brain is the hardware and the mind the software, any predictable interactions could be configured to process data.

Similarly, on our level, that which a computer does can be done using various things configured the same way. Whereas we use electrons in conductors and semiconductors, etc., older civilizations used water flowing through systems to perform similar calculations.

Man is presently building subatomic quantum computers which illustrate this principle.

Back to complexity..... It is absolutely understandable that "science" does not see complexity as evidence of design.
After all, it has essentially reverse-engineered the universe to its point of initiation and has not seen where a designer would be necessary. From considered evidence, it would seem that it just happened this way.

However, "science" itself requires scienTISTS. ScienTISTS are essentially considering the part of the iceberg above water -and do not really factor themselves into the equation -as part of the available evidence.

One interesting thing to note is that without their extremely capable creative minds, they would not be ABLE to REVERSE engineer the universe -but a much more simple mind could reverse-engineer something much more simple.

That which is also not usually considered is what was possible before their minds existed, and what became possible after their minds existed. Still -they did not just exist all at once -they developed one way or another (on our level, in many individual successive reproductive physical life forms) -and more became increasingly possible as they became increasingly capable.

It is also very true that complexity did not require a designer INITIALLY -UP TO A CERTAIN POINT (unless you count whatever dynamic components/forces resulted in configurations which were OF a design as a simple designer which became more complex and led to complex, self-aware designers) -but even on our level it is very obvious that it DOES RESULT in increasingly-capable designers which then make things increasingly possible -and DOES result in complex awareness, self-awareness, etc.

(It is NOT the medium which matters, but the emergent pattern made possible by anything which may act similarly.)

(It is also understandable that many are happy just proving annoying religious people wrong about stuff -and that religious people have made many a mind clamp shut at the very mention of a previous creative intelligence)

 

[Etritonakin]

Another time? OK.




There is no such thing as a subatomic/quantum computer. There are computers built by humans that make use of quantum theory.



A body is many things. The brain/mind of a body takes bits of sensory information (sight, sound, etc) combines them and translates the results.



Everything is built up from atoms. Nature assembles atoms into molecules in very specific ways. Molecules assemble in very specific ways to form, "living" things. In living things, some molecules combine in very specific ways to create cells. When you say that "any pre-element interaction could be the basis for a mind" are you implying that a random assemblage of atoms can think?




See above.



Marbles are not aware of each other. They do not signal each other. The action/reaction between them is the same as the action/reaction between individual atoms and for the exact same reasons.



Awareness and self-awareness are the products of the human mind. When you look in a mirror the nerves in your eyes pick up light. Your brain assembles these many inputs into a "picture". When a marble is placed in front of a mirror it has no nerves to sense light.



What are internal mirrors? Are you referring to introspection?



Are you saying that humans are not the result of natural evolution?



I have no idea what you are saying.



Your post certainly suffers from DID. It went from quantum computers to marbles being aware of each other to the incomprehensible to Dissociative identity disorder. Throughout it was laden with misinformation and delved into woo.

We are only talking about "everything" here, so it's a big shop to be all over.

The interface between ourselves and a quantum computer is irrelevant to the point -apparently they do not have it all quite down yet, but subatomic interactions are manipulated and employed to perform similar functions to other computers.
Even if a computer only modeled things which happened at quantum levels, it still proves the point.

Also.... Atoms are not built up from atoms. Subatomic particles are not built up from subatomic particles. Once atoms came into existence, things could THEN be built from them -but they are built from something else.

Anyway -available evidence is not often sufficient -as evidenced by.... life cannot exist in certain extremes, learning cannot happen below a certain physical level, smoking is not harmful, etc.
Just because we're not there yet doesn't mean there doesn't exist or is not possible.

Will try to address the rest later.

 

[ecco]

We are only talking about "everything" here, so it's a big shop to be all over.

That only addressed this part of my post...

Your post certainly suffers from DID. It went from quantum computers to marbles being aware of each other to the incomprehensible to Dissociative identity disorder. Throughout it was laden with misinformation and delved into woo.​

You completely ignored the rest.

The interface between ourselves and a quantum computer is irrelevant to the point

Then why did you bring it up?

-apparently they do not have it all quite down yet, but subatomic interactions are manipulated and employed to perform similar functions to other computers.
Even if a computer only modeled things which happened at quantum levels, it still proves the point.

It proves what point? What is it you are trying to say?

Also.... Atoms are not built up from atoms. Subatomic particles are not built up from subatomic particles.

No one said atoms are built from atoms. So why are you raising the issue?

Once atoms came into existence, things could THEN be built from them -but they are built from something else.

Yes, that is common knowledge.

Anyway -available evidence is not often sufficient -as evidenced by.... life cannot exist in certain extremes, learning cannot happen below a certain physical level, smoking is not harmful, etc.
Just because we're not there yet doesn't mean there doesn't exist or is not possible.

What's your point. In your previous point, you were talking about self-aware marbles.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So let me see if I got this correct. You all believe that intelligence can arise naturally?

But something more intelligent than us could never have arisen?

What is consciousness except Thought or Energy?

Energy apparently was capable of randomly arranging itself into particles that eventually led to human thought. But it can’t arrange itself into thought in and of its own form (energy), which is actually thought????

Why do I sense conflicting ideas and beliefs among you?

 

[ecco]

So let me see if I got this correct. You all believe that intelligence can arise naturally?
But something more intelligent than us could never have arisen?

Given the size and age of the universe the probability that something more intelligent than us has arisen, many multiples of times, is probably greater than 99.999.

What is consciousness except Thought or Energy?
Energy apparently was capable of randomly arranging itself into particles that eventually led to human thought. But it can’t arrange itself into thought in and of its own form (energy), which is actually thought????

That is correct - it cannot arrange itself into thought. There is a long process between energy and particles and atoms and molecules and molecular strings and cells.

Why do I sense conflicting ideas and beliefs among you?

There is only conflict between people who recognize that cells are required for thought and those who want to imagine that energy, in and of itself, can think.

But let's, for the sake of discussion, consider your concept that energy, in and of itself, can think. How would that affect anything?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Given the size and age of the universe the probability that something more intelligent than us has arisen, many multiples of times, is probably greater than 99.999.

Or zero if you go by the evidence.....

That is correct - it cannot arrange itself into thought. There is a long process between energy and particles and atoms and molecules and molecular strings and cells.

In our little limited thinking...... where energy is limited to molecules......

There is only conflict between people who recognize that cells are required for thought and those who want to imagine that energy, in and of itself, can think.

Your cells don’t think...... Thought happens in the spark between neurons.

But let's, for the sake of discussion, consider your concept that energy, in and of itself, can think. How would that affect anything?

How wouldn’t it since energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so has always existed..... that everything comes from energy, energy exists in everything, and everything returns to energy.

It’s that invisible power in all things that we seek to comprehend..... and one day will leave you with no excuses when we do..... Romans 1:20

When the Bible says man was created in the image of God, what do you think was meant?

“the man has become as one of us, KNOWING BOTH, good and bad......”

 

[Etritonakin]

That only addressed this part of my post...

Your post certainly suffers from DID. It went from quantum computers to marbles being aware of each other to the incomprehensible to Dissociative identity disorder. Throughout it was laden with misinformation and delved into woo.​

You completely ignored the rest.




Then why did you bring it up?



It proves what point? What is it you are trying to say?



No one said atoms are built from atoms. So why are you raising the issue?

Yes, that is common knowledge.


What's your point. In your previous point, you were talking about self-aware marbles.

Anyway -if you're not going to be serious -I'll just let it simmer in your mind.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If the brain is the hardware and the mind the software, any predictable interactions could be configured to process data.

That's a fun concept, but in reality there is no difference.
The brain is the hardware AND the software. The software in this case isn't some seperate thing that you can "install" on a brain or move to another brain.
It's the exact same thing. The mind doesnt "run on" the brain. It IS the brain. Or part of it, at least, depending on how exactly you wish to define "mind". In any case, what it physically refers to is physical brain tissue.

Back to complexity..... It is absolutely understandable that "science" does not see complexity as evidence of design

There's no need for quotes.

From considered evidence, it would seem that it just happened this way.

However, "science" itself requires scienTISTS. ScienTISTS are essentially considering the part of the iceberg above water -and do not really factor themselves into the equation -as part of the available evidence.

That makes no sense.

One interesting thing to note is that without their extremely capable creative minds, they would not be ABLE to REVERSE engineer the universe -but a much more simple mind could reverse-engineer something much more simple.

Finding out how stuff works requires some rational ability to learn things, yes.
The harder the problems to be solved, the more advanced that rational ability has to be, yes.

Your point?

That which is also not usually considered is what was possible before their minds existed, and what became possible after their minds existed. Still -they did not just exist all at once -they developed one way or another (on our level, in many individual successive reproductive physical life forms) -and more became increasingly possible as they became increasingly capable.

Point?

It is also very true that complexity did not require a designer INITIALLY -UP TO A CERTAIN POINT

1. What point?
2. What unit do you express that level of 'complexity' in and how do you measure it?

(unless you count whatever dynamic components/forces resulted in configurations which were OF a design as a simple designer which became more complex and led to complex, self-aware designers)

Sounds like gibberish to me.
Rephrase?

-but even on our level it is very obvious that it DOES RESULT in increasingly-capable designers which then make things increasingly possible -and DOES result in complex awareness, self-awareness, etc.

Completely lost me again......
What level? What designers? What the heck are you talking about?

(It is NOT the medium which matters, but the emergent pattern made possible by anything which may act similarly.)

(It is also understandable that many are happy just proving annoying religious people wrong about stuff -and that religious people have made many a mind clamp shut at the very mention of a previous creative intelligence)

No, in this case, I'm losing interest because of the very little sense you make, the hopping of topics, the word salad woo woo,...

It's very hard to follow and most of it doesn't make any sense to me at all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Or zero if you go by the evidence.....

Actually, the little evidence we do have, makes it very plausible that earth is not the only planet where intelligent life eventually evolved.

It’s that invisible power in all things that we seek to comprehend....

By "invisible", do you mean "undetectable"?
Because surely you are aware that that's not correct...

Energy is very detectable.

When the Bible says man was created in the image of God, what do you think was meant?

Stereotype human egocentric narcism. Same old, same old.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Actually, the little evidence we do have, makes it very plausible that earth is not the only planet where intelligent life eventually evolved.

What evidence? Imagination? Wasn’t aware that was evidence.


[/quote
By "invisible", do you mean "undetectable"?
Because surely you are aware that that's not correct...[/quote]
No, I mean not visible. There is energy around you right now. You can detect it but you can’t see it.

[/quote]
Energy is very detectable.[/quote]
Sure it is, but you can’t see it. You can see the effects energy causes.

For analogy take a magnetic field. You can’t see it, but you can measure it and detect the effects it causes. Don’t confuse the two as being the same.

Stereotype human egocentric narcism. Same old, same old.

In other words you didn’t like hearing our capability of thought is what made us like unto God. And so like all evolutionists turn to ad-hominem attack against the poster instead of addressing the subject of the post. Even if you are the one that wanted to imagine the possibility....

When one resorts to attacking the poster instead of the subject of the post, it only shows your concession to defeat.

“When people have actual reasons for disagreeing with you, they offer those reasons without hesitation. Strangers on social media will cheerfully check your facts, your logic, and your assumptions. But when you start seeing ad hominem attacks that offer no reasons at all, that might be a sign that people in the mass hysteria bubble don’t understand what is wrong with your point of view except that it sounds more sensible than their own.”

Just say my point of view sounds more sensible than yours..... saves time in the long run...