Evolution states that whatever walks the earth evolved by small steps. Each creature, no matter how "developed" is a kaleidoscope of miniature trial and errors, their successes and failures. If we could find a creature for whom this is not true, so the IDs argue, then we can deduce some kind of "manufacturer" who made this creature which exhibits this "jump" in its evolution.

If we could find a creature sporting a set of wheels, they continue, that would be proof of ID. A nice set of wheels or some kind of rollers would come very handy but don't exist because they cannot evolve in smaller steps where every trial  makes some evolutionary sense. A wheel is an all or nothing proposition.

Our good friends at ID did actually manage to find a bacterium with wheel which turned out not to be but this is not what I want to mention now. What I want to say is that there is the wheel. Look around and you'll see some in a hurry. Is that proof of an intelligent designer of wheels?

Well yes and no. From strictly the wheel's point of view its evolution had to be like that of the rabbits, cockroach and all other creatures in the world. (This will be clearer in robotics.) So what are those small increments where every step seems to make sense? Well, to start with, the mental conception. This seems to be the continuation of the road from nature's laboratory.

Therefore even if we could prove an "intelligent designer" it wouldn't help the superstitious  because  it wouldn't give them the kind of trump they're dreaming about.

Ok, sorry, got in late and didn't read the 100-odd posts, many of which I'm sure are brilliant. Also guilty of replying to Paisley which I know is a waste of time.

I don't understand why you would connect inifinite minds and self-awareness (maybe I need to read above), how many personalities do you have. If your self-awareness has infinite minds, does that mean that you are god?

There is no evidence that self-awareness, conciousness etc have anything to do with god. They are attributes of this wonderful neural computer we have in our head.

And i say "it is the deluded who says there is a god"

Don't you know yet that quoting bible versus at athiests is pointless?

Self awareness is simply the awareness of self as distinct from the environment.  Where's the infinite regression?  Consciousness that is simultaneously one mind and many?  Can you prove that?  And then how did you go from many to infinite, just out of curiosity?  Who ascribes the term "God" to infinite mind?  What exactly is infinite mind here?  I've heard of ascribing omniscience to god, but not god to omniscience, but that still wouldn't be relevant.

I agree that I have seen a lot of fools assert without evidence that there is no god, and I have seen many more fools assert without evidence that there is a god.  but I don't see what's in any way self evident about anything you've said? 

He must be on vacation on he has changed his name to protect the guilty.

You're back ! Yay ! *hugs*

Your response has absolutely no relevance to the OP of this thread.

Hi Paisley. That's a good argument for infinite awareness but I am not sure that answering yes to the inductive step so easy, it's a really difficult concept to think clearly about.

At the point when you realize it would entail an infinite regress.

On second thought, you know, a Yes answer to any iteration is necessarily a yes to the next before you even induct it. I mean if you answer Yes to 'Are you aware?' it necessarily entails n+1 - you're aware that you're aware - and so on so forth.

So of course it comes ultimately down to the base case, Are You Aware? And rest depends entirely on the correct answer to that question. If it's yes, then awareness extends to infinity - and like Nordmann pointed out, at what point does it stop being an iteration of self reflecting awareness and start being God? And if there is a point what then for God? Is he not self aware?

Alternately we can say that there's something wrong with the base case because it leads to infinite regress and doesn't look like what we call awareness at all.

Except of course, that being aware of one's awareness already includes being aware of being aware of one's awareness. After all, it is that awareness that one is aware of to begin with.

If I am aware of my awareness, then being aware of that fact is merely one part of the awareness I am already aware of.

This is why we say you're dealing with recursion, Paisley, not regress.

Eloise ,

Can one remove them self as to not commit recursion ?   

[ EDIT 1-18-09 ]  - What is the definition of recusion spoken here. I really can't find the one I was refering to, caring me?

Nikolaj, the lable "pantheist", while I appreciate much of it's "non-dogmatic, no deity, god just means nature stance", doesn't suite me overall. I'm with Einstein's "g-o-d", who liked Spizzoza's g-o-d ideas, and thought progressive buddhism as the best of major  "religion like philosophies", as it's always renewing and embracing of science.

  I really dig Dawkins and Harris' ideas regarging pantheism etc. It's "Sexed up atheism", said Dawkins."   

Such crapology.

You may or may not be talking pure shite just for the hell of it but either way, every time you press your little finger on the enter button, a shiver of unfathomable gratitude that I still possess at least an ounce remaining of the faculty of reason washes over me like a tsunami.

You poor, poor, man.

As BMcD wrote, it's not regress. You're not going back to a prior state.

You are simply returning to the same state. I don't know if it's recursion or simply infinite iteration.

In your view, this tiny BASIC program

10 ? " I am self aware."

20 goto 10

is self-aware and proves the existence of God.

Wait ... is this iGod in magnificently lucid form? What happened while I was asleep?

That's better!

You poor, poor man.

I assume you're getting help for this? Or is that too big an assumption to make? (Lived in the US - I know how shitty the mental health program works).

That's okay, from what I remember of your math, the devil is also god. So ... actually, no ... that one's weird. That way god would not want god to know what god's religion is (so that god could worship god unbeknownst to god?). It's like a black hole of confusion, where god seriously needs therapy.

The sober iGod had pointed, relevant questions. That's also fun! Okay, maybe just to me.

What I'm saying is that I prefer I AM GOD AS YOU to I AM RUM AS YOU.

Except it's not infinite. You're aware of the completeness of your awareness. Repeating it doesn't add anything. Not one single iota.

That infinite self-reflection also doesn't exist, because again, once you are aware of the whole, saying that you are aware of the part of the whole that consists of the awareness of the whole adds exactly nothing, because it is already part of the set of 'what you're aware of'.

Not infinite. Only circular.

Note that I write "zen-atheist", not "zen-buddhist". I like some of the aspects of zen, but not as a religion. Also, since I made the term up, it means whatever I want.

Still, despite all of your circular argumentation, self-awareness does not prove god. It seems obvious to me that a being that is self aware would then obviously be aware that they are aware. No need for anything mystical, just a well developed neural computer.

To use the mirror example: the light bounces back and forth, creating the illusion of infinity. So what? That is just physics.

Okay. What does "zen" mean in the context of your personal vocabulary? Because the term actually means "meditation" -  the form of meditation that is associated with mysticism. 

So, does my personal computer have "conscious-awareness?"

What it actually creates is an infinite regress. That's the "what."

ZEN , and interesting word. Cool Alan Watts first made me aware of it. I don't know much about it tho .... 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen

to contemplate deeply

experiential wisdom

de-emphasizes both theoretical knowledge and the study of religious texts in favor of direct, experiential realization.

"special transmission outside scriptures" which "did not stand upon words"

Taoism  ~~~~

  Meditation, "free" thinking .....   What is god ? ..... What is not god ?

    Zen:  fix them g-o-d words, in fact fuck them words, no words .... 

  * That's brilliant ronin-dog

"Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana."

You still haven't provided proof for your assertions I asked for in my posts 25, 26, 47, and 85.

The best I can do with your I am aware to ad infintinum is conclude you have partitioned a finite mind into infinite partitions. Kind of a pointless exercise.

I'm sure you'll claim the human mind is not finite because its part of the universal mind. If so prove it. There is debate as to the capacity in TB of the brain but it has a limit.

See: Human brain's storage capacity

and see : Consciouness is finite

And you, Paisley, have still not answered my post #118.

This thread has begun to move in circles, so why don't you break out, by moving on in your argumentation?

Let's just say for argument's sake that I accept your "Consciousness is circular" argument, and now accept that "God" exists. You've won this argument, as far as I'm concerned. Now what? Where does that leave you? All I've done, is accept your use of a word: "God". I haven't changed anything else about myself.

It's time for you to answer my post, to prove that there is some purpose to your argument, other than just playing a word-game with the definitions of the words "Consciousness", "Infinity", and "God".