The contemporary report on the new living cell created by Craig Winter describes beautiful and important work, but it is a long way from creating life out of thin air.
Metabolism is the engine of evolution. Kidder's new creatures flooded new mutations at a dizzying rate and submitted them to the "advancement committees" of natural selection, which created a rapid evolution that led the primitive single-celled creatures, within a few years, to the ability to overtake man in a round. In Kidder's story, the new creatures were content with being different, and being able to protect themselves from our mistakes. In that sense, it's a story with a happy ending.
.
Kidder created another life, and thus acquired, as Sturgeon described it, too much power. To the new creatures he was God. God. And when they said, or thought or believed that "everything is written", they meant Kidder's chemical formulas,
The contemporary report on the new living cell created by Craig Winter, describes a beautiful and important work, but it is a long way from creating a real life "out of nowhere". Taking the genetic material of one bacterium, and transplanting it into another bacterium from which the genetic material was removed, is an operation that requires a great deal of technical ability, but it does not refer to the different life systems of the bacterium. In fact, this work is not much different from genetic cloning, a process that has already been done in various animals. The fact that the genome of the transplanted bacterium was created artificially does not increase or decrease. Replication of DNA segments is a routine, technical and, how to say, uninspired craft. The statement that "in the future it may be possible to program the receiving bacteria to perform various actions" is true, of course, but the key word in this sentence is "in the future", and its second is the word "maybe". The saying that this is a "milestone" in the annals of science is also true. But this map lacks scale. In order to understand the correct context here, one should ask how many such "milestones" the world science produces per year (the answer is about 50); And how many such milestones must be passed in order to really reach the goal (the answer: about 10,000).
In order to create life, out of nothing, really, you have to reinvent a chemical system that is capable of replicating itself, as it is said in the book of Genesis: "in its image and likeness".
The story of the "God in Little Enfin" takes place on a small island in the Atlantic Ocean, off the coast of Massachusetts. Not far from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT, where, already in the 90s of the last century, the chemist Julius Rebek built a molecular system capable of replicating itself. Since then, several ideas have been proposed regarding systems that are capable of replicating themselves, but Rebek's work is still considered the idea whose application process, in the laboratory, has been the most successful so far.
,
The property of self-replication, while reorganizing the environment and exchanging various components with it, is the property that distinguishes a living system from an inanimate substance. A single molecule that began to make copies of itself, three and a half billion years ago, can be the source of the development of life on Earth. The ancient mother of plants, insects, bacteria and humans alike. What sets this molecule apart from its surroundings? What made her start a process that has not stopped for a moment, from then until today? How was life created from inanimate matter?
.
This question is considered - by law - to be the question of the questions of modern science. The generally accepted concept in this matter says that the evolution in the animal and plant world was preceded by a chemical evolution that took place in the world of inanimate matter. For decades, researchers from different fields, in different parts of the world, have been trying to understand and reconstruct parts of that primordial chemical evolution.
.
The successes achieved so far in this regard have been rather limited. In experiments designed to recreate the contents of the primordial shallow seas, and the atmosphere that hung above them, including the electrical breakdowns that took place in it, various components of essential substances for animals and plants were created, but nothing approaching the ability to self-replicate was achieved.
In 1986, the chemist Gunter von Kiedrowski from the Salk Institute in California, USA, built the first synthetic molecular system, which was capable of replicating itself. To this end, Kidrovsky used the unique recognition properties of the nucleotides contained in DNA and in DNA. That is, he "stitched" to different molecules the recognition sites of DNA and RNA (the nitrogenous bases thymine, adenine, cytosine, guanine and uridyl, which are included in the nucleotides of the genetic material). Thus, in fact, his molecules will duplicate themselves using the tools available in DNA and in DNA.
.
Shortly after, another system was introduced by the chemist Leslie Orgel, also from the Salk Institute. But this system was also based on the existing chemistry of DNA and RNA. After that, Gerald Joyce from the Scripps Institute in California and Jack Chostak from Harvard University in Boston, Massachusetts, USA, presented another system, but it was also based on biological components.
.
All these systems were developed in an attempt to follow the factors that led to the formation of the well-known self-replicating system that exists in nature - that of DNA and RNA. Julius Rabak, on the other hand, looked at the problem from a more general point of view. Instead of asking "how is it done?", he asked "how can it be done?".
.
He believed that if he succeeded in building a molecular system in which relatively simple molecules would replicate themselves, even if in a primitive way, it would be possible to learn from this about the processes that led to the development of other molecular systems that replicate themselves, or those that replicated themselves in the past, and for various reasons stopped doing so, and returned to the field the still Quite a few researchers believe that such systems that existed in the past are the source of the presence of various complex substances in the environment that exists today on Earth. DNA and RNA are molecular systems that reproduce themselves with incredible efficiency, says Rabak, but despite their tremendous success, it is impossible that they realize the only possibility in this field."
.
This way of observing and thinking, led him to search for the minimum conditions necessary for any chemical system, so that it could start producing copies of itself. RNA and DNA probably evolved through a long process of natural selection between random chemical products. Rebekah did not have hundreds of millions of years in which to run an alternative model. Therefore, he abandoned natural selection and began (just like Kidder in Sturgeon's story), to build his system rationally, based on existing knowledge. In fact, none of the molecules that Rebekah worked with were present in the primordial soup in which earthly life was created.
A few years later, Rebek presented the first synthetic molecular system, which replicates itself without any connection, similarity, or the use of tools from the world of DNA and RNA. Life on Earth developed on the basis of water, under an atmosphere that initially contained little oxygen, and then the proportion of oxygen in it increased, until it reached its current rate. Sturgeon's fictional scientist created his system under an atmosphere of giving and ammonia. Rebek preferred the existing atmosphere, but instead of water he used different organic solutions.
If one molecule replicates itself, there are two molecules capable of self-replication. When they realize their capacity, four such molecules are created, which create eight molecules, which create 16 molecules, and so on, when the reproduction takes place at an exponentially increasing rate, until it reaches a stage where a certain slowdown occurs, and the rate continues to increase, but at a smaller acceleration.
It doesn't have to be that way. Rebekah's first system did duplicate itself, but it did so lazily. The molecules that were capable of replicating themselves, were involved in various reactions, which in many cases prevented them from realizing their potential. At this rate, it is hard to believe that any system could have taken over any world, even one that was completely devoid of life. That's how, simply, you don't build a life. A few years later, Rebek presented an improved system, with better chances of "winning" (although the maximum speed of self-replication achieved by this system is also not very high).
In order to force his molecules to concentrate on self-replication and to avoid side pursuits, Rebek took a somewhat manipulative course of action: he added to the solution in which the self-replication took place, various substances that inhibited the molecules with the ability to self-replicate, preventing them from any activity, except for self-replication. In other words, Rabak treated his molecules the way employers of a certain type treat their employees. They tell them: either you will do what I want you to do, or you will sit on the sidelines, do nothing, and in fact, you will be unemployed."
Rebek's system is built from one molecule that is a kind of template, to which two (or more) molecules can bind. The adhering molecules, collected from the environment, create a connection between them and thus actually create a new pattern, which when it separates from the parent pattern, it immediately begins the process of collecting materials in the environment, binding them, creating a new pattern, and so on. This behavior of the molecules is achieved thanks to the careful planning of recognition sites included in them. These sites bind to each other uniquely and through hydrogen bonds (exactly in the way that the nitrogenous bases contained in the nucleotides of DNA and RNA bind to each other). A hydrogen bond is formed between two atoms that are both bonded to one hydrogen atom.
When these processes take place in an environment where there are other molecular systems capable of replicating themselves, this task may prove to be particularly difficult. In the end, the processes of natural selection may give an advantage to the more successful system, while the other systems cease to operate, return to the still domain and leave various complex materials in the field.
One of the ways in which self-replicating molecules are able to gain an advantage over the environment is, simply, to define a fixed volume, and keep all the desired materials inside it, while the unwanted materials are left outside. Such fencing may lead to the development of a primary cell membrane. And the development of a living cell is a necessary condition for the development of life that will be widespread in an entire planet.
If this is how it happened in the ancient past of the Earth, it can be assumed that it can happen again. But a new life system can be based on chemical processes different from those occurring in the bacteria, plants and animals we are familiar with, and on other metabolic mechanisms. As with sturgeon, it is possible that the new life processes will take place at a much greater speed than the processes we know, which will allow the new animals to undergo a rapid evolution, and "overtake us" in the race to pure reason. In other words: beware of molecules that replicate slowly in test tubes - from which Torah will come.
112 תגובות
Machel
It seems that the discussion is indeed over
I really like you (-I'm not an "enemy") not only because you gave me the opportunity to express my opinion but also and above all as a person (albeit not as "Israel" which you insist on not including in its definition) and "a beloved person created in the image"
goodbye
their opinion:
Do I have to tell you that you didn't answer anything or you know it yourself?
Machel
The language of the scripture - "Fifteen fathoms up the waters rose and covered the mountains"
According to autonarrists - this is a global ruin of the existing civilization
The purpose of the flood was - as explained in the scriptures - a new beginning for the world that was ruined by Hamas - and this through - global responsibility - environmental responsibility which is the opposite of "Hamas" which the "righteous" take upon himself who creates a new beginning
their opinion:
All the factual nonsense I pointed out is written in the Torah and they are factual nonsense, so beyond demagoguery and ignoring the facts you have done nothing.
Are you saying that at all it was (contrary to what is written in the Torah) just some valley that was flooded? So all my questions (with the exception of the fish falling from the aquarium which was written as a joke anyway) are still valid.
I repeat - this is not what is written in the Torah, but it is nonsense in itself - in such a case (which is different, as stated, from what is written in the Torah) there was no need to group pairs of animals in order to preserve them, there was no need for an ark (because it was possible to move to live outside the valley) And the dove would return on the first day.
I know this is hard for you to understand but it is only due to the brainwashing you have undergone.
By the way - thank you for the reminder.
In the last few days I have been devoting a lot of time to the (verbal) war against the slanderers of Israel from the outside until I almost forgot about the enemy from within.
Machel
Beyond demagoguery, "factual nonsense" is not found in the Torah in any case
The flood was in the "river valley" so there is no need for an aquarium and the areas that were not flooded were quite far away
their opinion:
It seems to me that Adi Ashkenazi meant what you said when she called her program "What is this nonsense?"
To be clear: I did not need your clarifications to know that much of what is explicitly written in the Torah is wrong.
Indeed - the world was not created in six days.
The Torah says yes, but this is nonsense.
Indeed - the Euphrates and the Tigris do not come from a common source. The Torah says yes, but this is nonsense.
Indeed - the rabbit does not rummage.
The Torah says yes, but this is nonsense.
The alternative rabbit you fabricate for us is also nonsense.
The writers of the Talmud of sacrifices must have started to realize that everything written about the flood is nonsense and therefore started inventing stupid excuses.
I have no interest in starting to argue with every nonsense someone says, but there are some things that are hard to refrain from answering this nonsense anyway:
1. Why was the grouping of the animals in Noah's Ark necessary if the animals in other places were saved?
2. How exactly was the water held in the high mountain areas and did not flow away? Does the whole flood seem to those around like an aquarium? What happened to the fish that reached the edge of this aquarium - did they fall to land?
3. Why didn't the dove sent by Noah find an olive leaf the first time it was sent? After all, there were areas that were not flooded.
4. Why do opinionators stand their ground when they talk nonsense?
The "research" you read before is not research at all but hot air that came out to someone from somewhere.
The issue of indiscriminate spawning is simply the result of a stupid religion combined with irresponsibility and contempt for others, compounded by a forgiving system of laws towards parasites. not anything else.
By the way - the phenomenon of total abstinence and avoiding having children is also a part of some religions, as is the offering of human sacrifices which the Israelites also demonstrated on various occasions.
One more thing - in order for it to be possible to desecrate a heavenly name, it usually has to be consecrated - something that the religious community is the only one who does this - usually
Avi,
(Apologies for the late response) The "achievements of Israeli science" mainly belong to a small group of gifted people whose education does not belong to elementary education
And in the matter of the TLIG, an ancient controversy in Israel is whether they say "the driver in them is a custom through the land" (Rabbi Ishmael) or that "if the Torah is so, what will be on it" and therefore the verse "the book of the Torah shall not pass out of your mouth" is as it simply means (Rashvii). - In the building of our country, it seems that the secular public took the part of the "Derech Eretz" in an extreme way and indeed built and perfected it, while the ultra-orthodox public mainly adheres to the Rashbi method - and since both of them have a main point - the aspiration is to sithize - the education is that each individual strives to win the crown of Torah - May his Torah be permanent and his work guaranteed - except that "many have done and it has not come to their hands" and for the many it is enough that the Torah is permanent in terms of its essentiality, although not in terms of the time devoted to it
One more thing - if it were up to me, I would have canceled the kollemi scholarship from the Ministry of Religion (NIS 500-880) a long time ago, according to what was ruled in Shoa Yore Dea Ram XNUMX, XNUMX, It is a job to make a living from charity, after all, it is a dishonor to God and a dishonor to the Torah that it is forbidden to enjoy the words of the Torah" since it is not given voluntarily (only by him there is a right to take it see ibid) - even though there are traditionalists who are happy with the existence of this Torah culture (due to the sums of money that the "dolls" of sorts)
Machel
In answer to the questions:
The world was not created in six days - and as evidence - the lights were hung only on the fourth day
I am also God's creation - does that mean I was created mature?
One of the rivers is the Gihon (Egyptian Nile) which should not be mistaken for associating it with the sources of the Euphrates - so I don't think anyone has mistaken that the four rivers come from a common source
A rabbit that does not ruminate, there is no need for the Torah to impure, since it does not have a single sign of purity - and of necessity there is (or was) a rabbit that does not ruminate
In the Talmud (Zebhaim XNUMX) it is explained that the flood was not in the Land of Israel and it is explained there that in the places where it did not fall they were not even flooded with water and it is also explained there that there they could save animals that could not enter the ark and in the interpretation of the Toss there he wrote in the explanation of the verse "And they covered all the high mountains that are under all The sky" which means that where the flood came down the mountains were covered
The purpose of the flood according to the Torah is to re-educate the broken world so that it will have a new beginning by a righteous person so that everything will stand up to him - even the animals of the field
Regarding childbirth - I read the distinction before in some research - if it doesn't concern you personally - I'm happy for you
Life as having its own purpose is the only ambition to raise a large family - something that requires great ambition and a willingness to make great sacrifices - especially on the part of the woman
their opinion:
The most amazing thing (I didn't notice it before) is your ability to examine kidneys and heart.
You "explain" to us the secularists' avoidance of the unrestrained promiscuity practiced by the ultra-orthodox like this:
"The lack of ambition to give birth to many children mainly stems from a lack of taste in life itself, which removes the taste for the misery of more children"
Well - as one whose kidneys are the heart you claim to examine, I tell you: not true! As far from reality as the distance between east and west!
The restrained birth has many reasons, one of which is a sense of responsibility.
When a secular person has a child, he has to take into account that this child will be added to the children he has to support (along with the ultra-Orthodox families of ten people who are on his back even before he started having children).
He also needs to give the child an education and train him to be a contributing citizen of the country.
These are all things that the ultra-Orthodox exempts himself from. For him, the child is a substitute (that the seculars will finance for him) for contraceptives.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tMQ2Wg9q3E
Nice dunk
Thanks Apchik, unfortunately my Yiddish is not good enough to write an article. However, the ultra-orthodox learn Hebrew because it is the holy language. The problem is with scientific words that prevent them from knowing.
their opinion:
Of course you didn't answer my words.
I mean - you typed, Barbara, but you didn't answer anything.
And with regard to factual inaccuracies - it is hard to believe that anyone could even ask about this:
Was the world created in six days?
Animals (including man) were created as they are?
Does the rabbit live?
Euphrates and Tigris come from a common source?
How convenient is an ark (probably the size of Herzliya) in which he housed two of each type of animal (and many more animals and plants that will be used as sandwiches for the forty-day and forty-night journey for the animals that were meant for rescue)?
At the time of the flood, the whole world was covered with water at a height of at least 5 km above the current sea level (Arrat) or over 8 km (Everest) and all this water disappeared as if it were not there?
And just - for fun - some examples of the contribution of religion in the fields of morality:
This man went to the synagogue every morning:
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3757590,00.html
This man committed the acts of Sodom and said - "holy commandments":
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3750221,00.html
Here is another thoughtful and nice act - the sidewalks in Mea Shearim are forbidden to women:
http://news.walla.co.il/?w=/1/1529900
Haredi neighborhoods that have become a hiding place for kidnapped children, abuse under the auspices of the Israeli bureaucracy:
http://news.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=654072&sid=126
How does it happen that the name of rabbis is associated with money laundering in the amount of millions and managing a mafia network that rolls black money free of tax? How is it possible that Gezel gets kosher since he was made 'for heaven's sake'"? Israel Wellman with the historical roots of the blasphemy of the Great God:
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3752986,00.html
The mother who had sex with her children aged 7 and 11, while her husband was in the synagogue:
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/54/ART1/918/806.html
The boy continued to rape children when he was under house arrest:
http://news.walla.co.il/ts.cgi?w=/1/1522572
snake bite snake:
http://www.haredim.co.il/ViewArticleVideos.aspx?itmID=898
Rabbis traded organs from Israel
http://news.walla.co.il/?w=//1525303&m=1&mid=71169
The predatory driver is helped by the predatory judge:
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/1,7340,L-3750988,00.html
44 people were arrested, including a number of rabbis. According to the suspicion, money was received from organ trading and also from the sale of fake "Gucci" and "Prada" bags
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3751533,00.html
Dozens of serious complaints about beatings and sexual exploitation of children for repentant families have been filed against Torah Talmud people:
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/920/820.html
This man went to the synagogue every morning:
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3757590,00.html
This man committed the acts of Sodom and said - "holy commandments":
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3750221,00.html
Here is another thoughtful and nice act - the sidewalks in Mea Shearim are forbidden to women:
http://news.walla.co.il/?w=/1/1529900
Haredi neighborhoods that have become a hiding place for kidnapped children, abuse under the auspices of the Israeli bureaucracy:
http://news.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=654072&sid=126
How does it happen that the name of rabbis is associated with money laundering in the amount of millions and managing a mafia network that rolls black money free of tax? How is it possible that Gezel gets kosher since he was made 'for heaven's sake'"? Israel Wellman with the historical roots of the blasphemy of the Great God:
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3752986,00.html
The mother who had sex with her children aged 7 and 11, while her husband was in the synagogue:
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/54/ART1/918/806.html
The boy continued to rape children when he was under house arrest:
http://news.walla.co.il/ts.cgi?w=/1/1522572
snake bite snake:
http://www.haredim.co.il/ViewArticleVideos.aspx?itmID=898
Rabbis traded organs from Israel
http://news.walla.co.il/?w=//1525303&m=1&mid=71169
The predatory driver is helped by the predatory judge:
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/1,7340,L-3750988,00.html
44 people were arrested, including a number of rabbis. According to the suspicion, money was received from organ trading and also from the sale of fake "Gucci" and "Prada" bags
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3751533,00.html
Dozens of serious complaints about beatings and sexual exploitation of children for repentant families have been filed against Torah Talmud people:
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/920/820.html
http://bhol-forums.co.il/topic.asp?cat_id=4&topic_id=2788217&forum_id=771
http://www.mynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3743550,00.html
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3744163,00.html
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3743686,00.html
http://news.walla.co.il/?w=/22/1514662
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/912/007.html
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/1,7340,L-98368,00.html
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1097050.html
Shortening a long link
http://news.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=646627&sid=126
http://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1000474535&fid=2&nl=2
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/907/770.html
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3735958,00.html
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3735758,00.html
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/54/ART1/890/241.html
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3733407,00.html
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3732621,00.html
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3732197,00.html
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/895/077.html
http://news.walla.co.il/?w=/3/1492238
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3718156,00.html
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/892/782.html
http://www.mako.co.il/news-law/legal/Article-be48c1e22e45121004.htm&sCh=3d385dd2dd5d4110&pId=978777604
http://www.mynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3711940,00.html
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3713096,00.html
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3710509,00.html
http://www.mynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3707925,00.html
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3705849,00.html
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3704416,00.html
Avi Blizovsky:
How about an article in Yiddish now and then. This will be your contribution to encouraging scientific curiosity among the ultra-Orthodox.
Why quotation marks? On the website you can read in abundance about the achievements of Israeli science - and it is the result of general education before the cuts caused by your natural growth, which takes resources from everything else in the economy. Not to mention the Nobel Prizes. Simply what needs to be done is to return the general education system to its level in the seventies (with an update of course of the material) and oblige the ultra-Orthodox to study subjects that will allow them to integrate into the creative society. I do not accept Dodi Zilberschlag's refutable argument that if the ultra-Orthodox go to work, then they will shout that they are stealing sources of livelihood. As soon as they are more talented, the snow will rise, the cake will grow and there will be enough work for everyone. If not - we will reach 25% unemployment like in Iran.
Father, the "magnificent" fruits of general education are well known
The low birth rate in the general public is just a matter of personal convenience
The atheists are usually the educated ones who naturally should have taken responsibility for the disordered crowd, which he once again evades for reasons of personal convenience
The lack of ambition to have many children stems mainly from a lack of taste in life itself, which removes the taste for the misery of more children
The protesting minority is a known and permanent minority - it does not change from place to place
Shabbat Shalom
One more thing - if you have specific examples of "factual nonsense" I would appreciate it if you would elaborate
The laws are all for those who believe in them - those who don't - they didn't speak to him
Your opinion, pour more of our billions into poor education and increasing the birth rate at any cost, and we will become an even smaller minority. Atheists are individuals, and usually also environmentally and economically responsible people and do not have more children than they are able to support.
This is why we are a minority (although not a negligible minority - but over 20%). Our other problem is that we are not organized compared to the organized violence on the other side.
It is possible that every demonstration or every event is organized by a small minority (how small, tens of thousands is small enough) but together it is almost the entire ultra-Orthodox public.
Avi:
To be a "kingdom of priests" is to be a "holy nation" (the verse continues there) is to be a global symbol and example - it is not to dictate to other nations what to do
In general, the majority of the ultra-Orthodox public is not in favor of demonstrations - although it is commanded in "Prove, prove your fellow man - and you shall not bear sin on him" but this is only if they have a common language between them - otherwise it is meaningless
You bring exceptional cases that do not characterize anything - maybe some psychopaths - it has nothing to do with religion
In the matter of the bones - from the beginning it was subject to halachic controversy - so it is difficult to stand on this
From:
There is a dispute between the terms Ben Azzai and Rabbi Akiva, what is the main point of the Torah for Rabbi Akiva and love your neighbor as yourself and Ben Azzai the main thing is the verse I mentioned - it is a disagreement between approaches but surely both are the main thing
The child identifies with his mother and likewise the self-identity of each person is his genesis which is a continuation of her - you cannot force another identity on him that he does not have - you cannot force him to be an atheist which is against his basic nature - and the scientific proof - the fact that atheists are a small minority
Regarding morality and death, I have already corresponded with you here before, as well as the matter of legality that cannot be violated
Shabbat Shalom
Avi:
To be a "kingdom of priests" is to be a "holy nation" (the verse continues there) is to be a global symbol and example - it is not to dictate to other nations what to do
In general, the majority of the ultra-Orthodox public is not in favor of demonstrations - although it is commanded in "Prove, prove your fellow man - and you shall not bear sin on him" but this is only if they have a common language between them - otherwise it is meaningless
You bring exceptional cases that do not characterize anything - maybe some psychopaths - it has nothing to do with religion
In the matter of the bones - from the beginning it was subject to halachic controversy - so it is difficult to stand on this
Michael:
There is a dispute between the terms Ben Azzai and Rabbi Akiva, what is the main point of the Torah for Rabbi Akiva and love your neighbor as yourself and Ben Azzai the main thing is the verse I mentioned - it is a disagreement between approaches but surely both are the main thing
The child identifies with his mother and likewise the self-identity of each person is his genesis which is a continuation of her - you cannot force another identity on him that he does not have - you cannot force him to be an atheist which is against his basic nature - and the scientific proof - the fact that atheists are a small minority
Regarding morality and death, I have already corresponded with you here before, as well as the matter of legality that cannot be violated
Shabbat Shalom
their opinion:
It is clear that it is not possible to have a reasonable discussion with you, so I will not prolong things.
A lot of factual nonsense is written in the Torah and you don't refer to it at all.
Instead you say that the main thing is that man was created in the image of God.
Of course, this is also nonsense (especially for those who do not believe in the existence of God, but also for those who believe, and as believers say that God cannot be described - something that follows from the fact that man is created in his image does not mean anything about man), nor is it part of the "scientific" description ” (which can be tested) of the world (and therefore does not at all refer to my understanding of your words), and is also far from being the main point of the Torah (which the elder Hillel summed up in the well-known sentence "What is hateful to you, do not do to your friend").
In relation to morality - of course the banter continues.
It is not clear to me how the smearing of words you made regarding homosexuals is supposed to justify the murder that religion commands.
It is not clear to me if by the word "cruel" you were referring to Shabbat violators (if so - this is of course additional nonsense, and if not - then you did not refer to the commandment to murder them at all).
Regarding the Hayboom - you probably don't know the religion enough.
In 1966 - in the enlightened state of Israel - the rabbinic court forced a deaf widow (deafness is not permitted by the religion to participate in the shameful ceremony in itself called Halitza) to marry for one night her brother-in-law (who was already married to another woman) and to be united with him that night.
The brother-in-law, for his part, ordered to become a bigamist for one night, to have intercourse with his widowed sister-in-law, and to divorce her the next morning.
And regarding the farce - your words are simply a shame for the intelligentsia!
You enter people's beds and plates (the private ones!), and in addition require them to be religious.
For example - they are allowed to drive their car on Shabbat - but only inside their house.
What you call "bad qualities" is nothing more than a rhetorical expression of your bad qualities.
Of course - all this before talking about your demand that they provide for you and shed their blood in your defense so that you can be idle in the tent of Torah with a bull that gored a cow.
The first to publicly desecrate the mitzvot are the ultra-orthodox - and recent examples are not lacking, even national religious rabbis are unable to meet their excessive demands, starting with the bones in Barzilai Hospital, the starving mother, demonstrations regarding Intel, the Karta parking lot whose publication in the world caused image damage and actual damage to the Israeli economy , Elior Chen, a demonstrated takeover that is not even hidden in Ramat Aviv neighborhoods by a group of crazy messiahs who want to increase their cult at the expense of our children, and more and more and too much more.
My suggestion is that anyone who wants to impose mitzvot - especially those that he adds to the trig (most of which are unnecessary by the way) should do it at home and quietly leave the public space.
Leave the crazy pretense to determine for the whole world what to do - to the Iranians, leave our priests alone, and I hope that the Iranian people will also know how to rebel against their priests. Nowhere has religious takeover brought anything good.
And one more thing - whoever does not believe - that he should not only not desecrate the name of heaven on a public level - if he has bad qualities - that he should exercise them secretly - and not spoil others
Democracy is positive because usually kings act out of personal ambitions and it is better to be ruled by the public - and in Israel there has never been only democracy - refer to the books of the prophets
Avi:
Israel was meant to be a "kingdom of priests" and not the majority of the world - although "lovely man created in the image" but Israel "excessive affection is known to them who were called sons of the place" to be "a light to the Gentiles"
It is not known of anyone who was controlled by them - even Moses rebelled against him in his life
The mitzvot are meant for one thing only, to gain control over people. We don't need it today. In a democratic country, things that religions forbid can be allowed. Even in Turkey they make beer and name a basketball team after her.
And one more thing, if the religion that you happen to be a member of and an ardent believer in is a world religion, why are those who belong to it barely one per mille of the world's population?
In relation to homosexuality - if indeed people are dangerous - but for that, you cannot turn the sexual act into something that has its own purpose - not for reproductive purposes - even though it is important and it is a mitzvah - but you cannot create a public reality in which the sexual act is such a main and central part of it
- Today's spoiled creative world is a clear support for the above
Regarding the Mitzvah Yabom - the Mitzvah is the marriage and not the sexual act
The man does not owe them their hearts - and he will not do it if he does not think that he will have a good life (end of the book of Ruth) - in the past this was kindness to the Almighty and to the dead - and since the sages saw that they were not directed to the purpose of the mitzva, they canceled it (Mishnah Yavmat)
From:
Indeed, religion deals with creation, which is the first and basic scientific field, just as a baby knows its mother - every creature knows its creator
The continuation of the recognition is "because in the image of God created man" which is the essence of religion - which is the binding validity of human distinction - whose recognition reflects ("photographs") a decisive truth (in which there is no unnecessary hesitation) of which man is the representative
And "A man created in his image is lovable" - every person has this - and everyone is obligated to it - and that is why he is "lovable"
And this obliges him to "stick to him" - stick to his standards, he is merciful, even you, etc.
"And in the forest of evil from your midst" which is like the commandment of Amalek's life that we must always remember ("Remember...") which is the symbol of cruelty and evil ("And all the retarded after you will tail you and you will be weak and weak") and it lowers humanity to the level of a zoo and we have the duty to preserve the primary reality which is Being "Ben in Eden Mekadem"
- We must exercise the cruelty of XNUMX-XNUMX-XNUMX on the cruel - "so that they may hear and see"
The humanist religion exploits - dishonestly - the "love of man" in order to create anarchy
The Torah of Moses which is the Torah of God is the world religion which is the reality of man which expresses what he really is
Half the world already recognizes him now (albeit in a certain twist - and this includes the humanist religion)
And the other half will also recognize it in the future - because there is no other religion in the world
Shabbat Shalom
Year:
As mentioned - these are the words of a living Oracle.
"If we take the action of throwing a stone, there is no identity between the movement of the stone and the action of man, despite the dependence of the movement of the stone on the action of man
Thanks for the exciting discovery!”
Machal, R.H.,
If I contributed to your enjoyment, probably by actually initiating the debate, I am happy.
This is my last comment on the subject. In my opinion, you did not properly investigate what I said, and if you did, you would see that they are completely within logical and factual areas.
I gave the example of jumping, and said that levitation is different from the process of jumping. You can measure the dimensions of the jump, length, height, speed, and attribute them to levitation, and claim that they express levitation.
But if we take the action of throwing a stone, there is no identity between the movement of the stone and the human action, despite the dependence of the movement of the stone on the human action.
A similar thing is the sound resulting from speaker vibrations resulting from electric currents from some source.
Despite the dependence between the activation processes and the results, the results are different levels from their operators.
In my opinion, what only upset you, is the situation in the thinking system.
The fact that a computer processes information in a manner reminiscent of a brain does not negate my claim. Even in the computer processes, the results we are interested in, such as the possibility of reading your responses, are only found in what I consider to be the top stage of the computer's operation, and not in the early process.
I proposed an experiment that could disprove my opinion: measuring the end result of the thinking process, such as understanding the meaning of a new word. Physicists are now able to measure tiny sizes.
But so far the measured sizes refer only to neural processes.
The fact, which should surprise us every time anew, research already knows how to describe well the structure of brain cells, the structure of its parts, the biochemical processes, the places where the processes occur according to the type of mental activity.
But he does not know how to say anything real about the formation of desire, the formation of actual knowledge as a result of data processing.
The reason for this is that these central things either do not have a physical presence, or their physical manifestation is different from what can be measured and observed today.
At first I thought that the proposed experiment, if it succeeded in measuring any size, would completely disprove my earlier claim, but now it seems to me that finding a size as mentioned above may strengthen some of my claims, but getting into this matter requires a new set of arguments.
I thank everyone who participated in the discussion with me, even though Makhal defined my words as some kind of oracle.
their opinion:
So I finally understand what you want to say and therefore I can say outright that you are wrong.
Your mistake extends to several areas.
The first field It is that of the pursuits of science and religion.
Well, religion deals with everything - including the creation of the world - and its "theories" in this regard are extreme nonsense.
As for the question of morality - not only religion deals with it. Everyone deals with it. The difference is only between honest people (who are looking for the optimal moral laws) and liars who claim that the (bad) moral laws they propose were dictated by God and cannot be changed.
This brings us toThe second area of error - The moral laws themselves:
In your opinion (opinion) the world is moving towards religion, so I allow myself to ask you:
Towards which religion?
Is this towards the religion that commands the stoning of Sabbath breakers and homosexuals?
Is it towards the religion that requires the childless widow to be raped by (well not exactly by) her brother-in-law?
As mentioned - we all deal with morality and as time goes by we understand better what should be considered moral and what is not.
Therefore - as time passes we moving away From the crazy "moral" laws established, for example, by Judaism.
Machel
"A person who grew up among chimpanzees will not develop into a human being" means that a person born in this day and age, which is his environment, will forever remain without any self-awareness - which leads to the conclusion that a person's self-awareness is based on the wisdom he was born with and grew up with - it is not possible for him alone to start everything from scratch - but that the world is in a general process and that even the single and individual small person is a part of the whole and in that overall process
And this does not contradict the fact that the entire world is in stages - on the contrary - this is what I wrote - that the world has a clear direction of development - the distinction between truth and falsehood is a minimal realistic (paramative) distinction
Whereas the distinction between good and bad is an opinionated (advanced) distinction
Science is concerned with the distinction between truth and falsehood - which is also essential, while religion is concerned with something more mature and deeper - with the distinction between good and bad - and this is what I wrote that the world is moving towards religion
Yair,
I agree with Michael, it is not clear what you want to say. You still haven't convinced me where you see a difference between a computer and a brain.
Human brain is a bit too complicated. Think of the simplest minds. The jellyfish has a nervous system without a central brain. It senses and reacts accordingly. Worms already have a central brain that does much more complicated calculations. A more complex life also has a more complex brain up to a person, so as I already argued before, it's all a matter of complexity.
Regarding your jumping example. What is this "when the brain processes data, the summation of the processing will be the creation of new information" then this is clear, even when an irrigation computer analyzes the weather data and decides how much to open the faucets it creates new information. What is so special here?
Year:
We enjoy the debate among ourselves.
In relation to what you say (the disagreeable part) - in fact it is not at all clear to me - it seems to me something between incomprehensible and trivial. Maybe a bit like a Zen koan and maybe like the words of the Delphic Oracle.
their opinion:
It's hard for me to deal with a person who contradicts himself without batting an eyelid.
Reply 69:
"It is not possible for a person to reach a self-opinion except by the wise men of the generations before him - a person raised among chimpanzees will never develop into a human being"
Reply 78:
"I have already written here in the past that I have no problem with a chimpanzee past (and that's what it even sounds like from what I wrote here)"
So it's true - it can be interpreted as saying that there were a number of intermediate stages on the way between man and monkey, but if you interpret it that way, then you really didn't say anything, so it's hard to believe that's what you meant.
Michael, R.H. and others
I think you're starting to enjoy the argument, aren't you?
Whereas I am now in the middle between two movements like pincers, what must I do to get out, not by the skin of my teeth but while my mind is still intact...
The first step would be to agree with some of the above:
The definition, or the method of use that Michael suggests regarding mathematics is acceptable to me, and even his use of abstract and simplified which I initially tended to reject, is accepted in my opinion, although not as an identity.
However, it can be applied to any symbol or symbolic system, as his discussion of the word peace shows. Furthermore, almost anything may also be given a symbolic position, as the arts work.
The comparison made by R.H. Between a computer and a brain, despite the differences, I agree. Well, we are discussing two tools that process information that have a lot of similarities between them.
Now the disagreement phase:
When a person writes and reads, every word and sentence creates in him some kind of knowledge and understanding. As far as I know about computers, the computer I'm writing on now knows nothing about the contents that go through it, and they won't make it want to respond to them.
But that's a minor issue at the moment. The main question when I talk about the computer is whether the result of a word on the screen is found in the electrical currents that operate in the computer. I emphasize - the result, that is, the letters of the word in the shapes and sizes of the fonts. One can also ask this about the example of R.H. Does the computer that produces sounds according to our instructions contain the sounds in its electrical currents, or are the sounds just the end result of the electrical data passage.
I think the correct answer is in the last half of the sentence.
I will give an example:
A man wants to jump. Instructions are created in the processes of the brain and sent via the nerves to the muscles in the body's organs. In accordance with the nerve instructions, the muscles create work, move the limbs, and the person finds himself in the air for a moment.
Can we say that the short levitation is already in the processes of creating the jump? The answer must be negative.
When the brain processes data, the summation of the processing will be the creation of new information, which I think is equivalent to the levitation I presented in the example.
Here I can return to the definition of the abstract, or the simplified presented by Macal: the new data, the result of the data processing process, the preliminary data that constituted the processed material has been removed from it.
As I said at 60, the new data will now join the brain's database, and will be similar to any other data that has reached the brain, including the preliminary data that formed its source.
Machel
Einstein said about Newton (something like) I jump on top of a giant - he only added to my previous words
There is no difference between our brain volume and that of our human ancestors
Today, a scientist cannot express a position other than in the specific field in which he specialized - since the basis of every opinion is the relevant scientific background - something that was equally present with our ancestors - as well as in philosophy and psychology
What is not so in the distinction between good and bad, that adolescence is better than old age in terms of determination and the ability to realize
I have already written here in the past that I have no problem with a chimpanzee past (and that's what it even sounds like from what I wrote here)
Ghost: Thank you
Abi: I don't know why you're just confusing us - you know I'm not him
Rah: As above - I did not expect anything smarter
Rah: b: impersonal, detached which is again the same thing (the theoretical is "described using a system of axioms" and even ties it to abstract science, the "impersonal" is a private case of detachment from the context, which in this case is the context of the specific person, and the detached is... detached)
I explained why the examples you gave are included in my definition and in general I really think definitions 2 and 3 are included in definition 1.
In definition 1 it says disassociated from any specific instance
In definition 2, it says apart from an object, that is, a private case of 1
In definition 3 write theoretical
In short - everything is the same and everything is included in what I said
God,
I looked at what the dictionary says on the subject: http://mw4.m-w.com/dictionary/abstract
Definition 1 corresponds to what you say (more or less because "everything that does not need logical conclusions" is not really mentioned).
Definitions 2 and 3, especially 3 correspond to what I thought.
Besides, leave you out of their mind, don't you see that it's just Moshe the famous thinker making a comeback under a new name?
pleasantness,
When writing a parody, it is very important that the object of the parody is able to understand that it is a parody of him, otherwise there is no point and he will react in a pathetic way as in the case before us.
their opinion:
What is this nonsense?
And why is it not possible for a person to reach a self-opinion other than through the idiots in front of him?
Who exactly did Einstein learn the theory of relativity from? mahzal?
There are endless confirmations for the claim that man evolved from monkeys.
There is no confirmation for any other possibility.
But you say "It's not possible!"
You remind me of the man who enters a zoo, sees a giraffe and says: "Impossible! There is no such animal!”
R.H.:
The examples you gave are examples of what I generalize with the term "simplified" and I even explained it.
I quote myself:
"A logical structure that removed from it everything that is not important for the purpose of the logical conclusions and thereby made it applicable in all kinds of other contexts that obey the same mathematical axioms."
The term "one" is certainly such. We took "one apple" and removed from it everything that is not important for the purpose of the logical conclusions that are drawn about anything that has "one" from it, and we were left with the term "one".
In this context there is also a vector space (which is an "abstraction"/"simplification" of many types of physical things).
There are also different levels of abstraction.
It is possible to refer to an even more simplified entity than a vector space (based on fewer axioms) and talk about a metroid.
The theorems that are deduced about metroids are true for vector spaces but also for other structures that are not vector spaces because they do not fulfill all the axioms of a vector space.
Peace is also such a concept.
You can talk about peace between two peoples, you can talk about peace between two people and you can talk about peace with yourself.
When you talk about the "abstract"/"simplified" term called "peace" you are talking about what is common to all these cases - again - you have thrown away the unnecessary constraints for the purpose of discussing peace and are left with only the essence you wanted to talk about.
Noam
First of all, I want to say that I really did not intend to write here, but your response turned out to be a rebuke of you, yourself, for your personal opinion. how do you ask So here is the answer:
The fact that you wrote and used the same words that you used proves to you that your opinion of the universe has changed, if earlier you mocked me then now even though you wrote it sarcastically, you used the same words that you used and you didn't have to, and you mainly showed yourself that you understood my words, even though you wrote that I myself do not understand them!
I know you understood that too.
opinion,
I agree with what you wrote but I'm not sure that those you write to will agree with you, nevertheless, what you wrote are not stupid things.
Michael, simplified does not equal simplified. Abstract is an idea. It can have an actual representation but the idea behind the representation is the abstract. For example, "peace" is an abstract idea (which as of today does not have such an actual representation), or "1" is an abstract idea that the written number 1 represents. There is nothing New Age here.
Datan, only you were missing here.
Yair (60), take what you said and tell me why it is not true for the computer as well:
It is possible to teach a computer to respond to words (my cell phone, for example, rings according to voice recognition)
It can also be taught to respond to movement or touch.
Now let's take what you wrote in 60:
"This process is indeed carried out through the processes of biology. But if you look for the information in the cell firing, in the electric currents, in the movement of the neurotransmitters, you won't find it there. Just as you will find neither noise nor images in the brain, nor the pain someone feels with a finger."
You can equally argue that the fact that the computer reacts to a sound or shows an image on the screen, plays a piece of music or solves a mathematical problem cannot be seen in the processor or memory, but it is there only in a different way.
I claim that the same is true with the brain. The synaptic connections are the ones that create the feeling of pain, the image and finally the self-awareness and thoughts.
Hello moshe.
First, thanks to all the responders (really)
The wording was indeed vague (after a night that didn't leave the children much time to sleep)
And in a little clearer words
The universe began at a certain point in time - it is agreed
Humanity has progressed from the initial infancy of wood and stone work like a baby who detaches from dependence on familiar objects - to intellectual independence - as he matures
It is not possible for a person to reach a self-opinion except by the sages of the generations before him - a person who grew up among chimpanzees will never develop into a human being
The necessary conclusion and the obligatory recognition from the above -
Knowing ourselves is the continuation of knowing our ancestors - not only the continuation of their material bodies
And one more thing - we are part of a clear process whose beginning is visible today and we can only speculate on the continuation based on the development of the past
and to the practical conclusion -
Life is the creation in it - and in order for us to be partners in the significant creation that is the most real content of our world - we only need to continue in our actions and in our way of life that eternal reality which is the fundamental truth that distinguishes not only between truth and untruth but also, and above all, between good and evil - and to choose the good, And in the life of discernment - which is the life of the mind, which is the choice in the life of the future - "and you chose life so that you and your seed may live"
Hello everyone
Year:
I don't know what you are trying to say.
I am not clear on the meaning you attribute to the word "abstract".
The word "abstract" has two accepted modes of use:
The one that I think is justified is the mathematical one - the one whose meaning is basically the same as that of the word "simplified" - that is - a logical structure from which everything that is not important for the purpose of the logical conclusions has been removed and thereby made it applicable in all kinds of other contexts that obey the same mathematical axioms.
The second is a New Age usage - one that says "I say abstract because I actually don't know what I'm talking about". Obviously - I have no reference to this usage except for the statement I have already said - that it does not say anything about the subject and actually only tells us about the person who uses the word.
The first way is the one I meant and all scientists trivially include it in every description of reality, so there is no point in coming and preaching to them about it.
S.
The order in the concepts you propose is partially acceptable to me, but I will not enter into an argument that requires too much time.
Quote: "In other words, the information of a word is no different from any other information such as the information encoded in DNA"
The first half of your sentence is found in words 60. The second half is incorrect. The information that is processed in the brain has no connection or resemblance to DNA.
Quote: "Is information a "physical" or "abstract" thing?" That's the question I asked. I am fully aware of the problematic nature of this question,
And even though I formulated my argument "abstractly" in a decisive way, I still have a need to substantiate it, and I have not eliminated the possibility that I will admit to a mistake.
Regarding the last part of your words, some of them are acceptable to me, some of them are not. My use of the word recognition exploits one of the senses of the word.
I don't think you have shown that my conclusions are unreasonable.
Machel,
I spoke my mind, I didn't preach to anyone. I read part of your opinion on the words in your article on language, other parts I would love to read from time to time, here or elsewhere.
Quote: "The level of information is considered a real part of the physical world."
True, but that doesn't rule out the possibility of abstraction.
opinion,
With your permission, I would make some minor corrections to what you wrote:
* Soul is a defining word for the concept of global recognition also in the parallel universe and not only in our universe.
* The global content is not the only basis for opinionated thought, one should add to this a quantum content with negative energy, at speeds higher than the speed of light.
* The soul is the eternal constant, but of course there is also an "anti-soul" (like anti-matter), and it is the eternal basis in the parallel universe to the parallel universe mentioned earlier.
* Unfortunately, God functions (partially) only in our universe and not in the parallel universes we live in.
It is possible that you have not yet reached the stage of higher consciousness that will allow you to understand my words - don't worry, it will come to you too
It seems to me that this was an opinion at all
Opinion: You are not on the right site. We cannot work with a pile of meaningless word combinations.
For all those who "understand" and "know"
The term "soul" has never been an expression of a specific physical entity (perhaps for brainless ones looking for the coin under the lamp...)
The word "soul" is a defining word for the concept of worldly knowledge that has no end that we live in and that is where we know ourselves
which is a global constant of which we are also a part and even is a part mainly of our self on which the world content is based and is based, which is the only basis for opinionated thought that has a self-expression that expresses the general recognition in an exhaustive expression that has meaning for our world
And the soul, which is the eternal constant of our cognitive world, is the expression that is our self-relation to the eternal existence of the Creator, who is beyond our power to achieve it.
And that constant is whose creation we continue in the creations of our thoughts and in our creations a world of our own that will have a complete form that will indeed continue our beginnings that "in the beginning God created"
Year:
The fact that I respond to your deviation from the topic of the discussion cannot be called participating in the diversion of the discussion.
You diverted the discussion to avoid answering my words.
The whole issue of words (which believe me - I can talk about it for hours) does not belong in the discussion.
And regarding the subject of the discussion - there is no point in preaching to life scientists about neglecting the level of information.
It's total nonsense.
The level of information is considered a real part of the physical world.
Without the specific organization we could only talk about elementary particles because only the organization can cause some of them to share a carbon atom and another a hydrogen atom.
Tons of words have been poured out on this site about the subject - including its connection to life and thoughts.
Yair,
Let's put the concepts in order.
A word is not part of consciousness. A word is part of language.
Language is a system of symbols for encoding/decoding information (information).
Information is an ordered sequence of meaningful symbols.
The information of a word = the meaning of the word, the information we extract from it.
That is, the information of a word is no different from any other information such as the information encoded in DNA (and here we return to the topic of the article).
So basically you should ask whether information is a "physical" or "abstract" thing? What makes a word different from any other code?
The word is first of all a collection of sounds. It takes a brain to make the sequence of sounds meaningful. This is a "physical" process. You can philosophize and say that the meaning itself, once we have achieved it, is "abstract". For example, if I tell you the name of a person you love, a name that can be completely meaningless to me, you will extract the information from the sequence of sounds and bring up in your mind's eye the image of the loved one. I will argue that this knowledge is also physical, because if I hit a certain part of your brain - you will no longer be able to find the meaning of this sequence of sounds anymore. You won't be able to link it to a person, it won't be informative for you.
Finally, you use the term "cognition" incorrectly or at the very least imprecisely, which leads you to illogical conclusions.
Michael (57)
I agree that the discussion was diverted a lot, it seems to me that in common. In response 42 I included a comment that was not directed at anyone, and it was apparently possible to avoid a response to it.
R.H.
It is not clear to me on what I said that you based your question on the distinction between a brain and a computer.
The fact that to this day no computer actually works like a brain shows that there are still important differences between the two.
In any case, I will try to clarify the thought I raised in 41-42:
When a trained dog is told to sit, come, and he obeys to the satisfaction of his owner, the obedience does not mean that the dog understands the words, but that he has extracted information from the sounds and acted according to the conditioning he was trained for. When I open one of the doors of the house, cats come to get food. They also produce information from the sound they have learned.
The information contained in words about a human being is much more than the information that animals produce from their voices. But in the principle process, the extraction of information from words by a person is similar to the extraction of animals from sounds.
This process is indeed carried out through the processes of biology. But if you look for the information in the cell firing, in the electric currents, in the movement of the neurotransmitters, you won't find it there. Just as you will find neither noise nor images in the brain, nor the pain someone feels with a finger.
All these things, and words like them, are the way in which the biochemical processes process the data and translate it into some super conclusion, which is the information we use in the end and according to which we decide on our actions for the future.
This information exists only when there is someone who is able to produce it, that is, an organism with a brain, and to a lesser extent also without a brain.
This information does not exist at all when there is no one to produce it (and even its recovery in the form of a memory is in the power of production). It has no physical existence.
So is the word: as long as it exists as a physical substance, let's put ink on paper, but no one can read it, it is devoid of information.
The potential information of the word is produced only when someone reads it and knows its content.
The biological process for knowing is a foundation as the soil is for building. The ground enables the existence of the building, but does not contain it, just as the biological process enables the formation of knowledge but does not contain it.
After the new information is created, it becomes another data, different from the preliminary data that led to its creation (such as voices, ink shapes on paper), which is stored through the biological processes in the brain.
In my opinion, words are no different as sources of information from other sources - sights, sounds, touch.
It is impossible to create information without the biological processes, but the information is not the biological process but a product of it, and that is what I meant by the words different level.
Yair, I didn't understand your argument about the words. Why do you think there is a fundamental difference between a brain and a computer? Why is the brain not a sophisticated computer like no other based on countless synaptic connections?
After all, if you take one marrow cell, you will not be unconscious. Take 3 You will still be unconscious. Take the whole brain and now there is consciousness, meaning the amount of cells and the complexity of the connections between them is what created consciousness and there is nothing here beyond biology.
Holy shit, funny, in my response 47 I just copied and pasted from your response in 46. So who is the idiot?
In general, Yair, if you continue to try to divert the discussion - I will stop addressing your words.
Year:
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Your words convinced me that it is necessary to explain to you some things whose level of complexity is really that of the claim that water is wet. Did you know that before? magnificent. It's just a pity that your words did not express this understanding.
Michael (45)
The question I posed in 44 is quite simple. Either the information of the word has a physical existence, or it doesn't, then it is abstract.
Each word has several meanings, depending on the context.
Telling us that the meaning of words is a social convention is about as wet as the water.
By the way, silly spirit:
As long as you "heard" the "voice in your head" you were not completely unconscious.
In a state of complete loss of consciousness there is no sensation - not even of an "inner voice".
I did not repeat in my previous response that your words about "moving to another dimension" - which you said in response 48 and then in response 52 you said you did not say - but you repeated and said them in response 52 as well, are nothing more than a joke that uses the words "high" only to give the stupid software "scientific respectability".
There is no such thing as "moving to another dimension" in mathematics (or in physics - the whole matter of dimensions came to it from mathematics)
Ghost:
You are a liar and I really don't have the strength to argue with you anymore.
A quote from your words in response 46:
"It made me think, when the soul leaves the body, does it exist in another dimension (or something like that)"
Another quote from the same comment:
"This conclusion supports the claim that consciousness moves to another dimension that has nothing to do with our dimension."
Quote from response 52:
"Where did I write that I 'moved to another dimension'?"
I hope that everyone can see the contradiction and I hope that you will learn from this that if you want to lie - you should do it more subtly and not tell lies that everyone can see that they are.
I don't hear anything when I think.
I make a complete distinction between hearing and being aware of my thoughts.
Beyond that - you write in response 48 "But the voice in my head grew stronger in strength"
This definitely points to actual hearing because the thoughts that go through my head have no power at all. Only a real voice has power.
I'm jealous of you?
And why would I be jealous of you?
Do you have anything I want for myself?
After all, every facet of your life and personality that you have revealed to me so far has only disgusted me and the last thing I would want is to resemble you in any way. What a madness of greatness! Now I understand where your audacity comes from talking about things you have no idea about!
I know what a dimension is in physics and of course your words about moving to another dimension do not agree with this definition.
The fact is that you did not quote from that source the meaning of the phrase "move to another dimension" even though that is all I asked you.
It is clear to me that you are not the only crazy person and there have already been cases where people made up the claim about me that you made it up too.
None of them have ever been able to base their accusations on facts and neither can you.
In conclusion:
Contrary to your claim, nothing of what I wrote is nonsense and therefore your claim in this regard is also nonsense.
Avi:
When will you release us from this punishment?!
Machel
When you solve a mathematical exercise for example, and while you solve you are silent, can you still 'hear yourself' in this situation? I suppose so.
When I lost consciousness this voice in my head did not go away.
Even if you don't speak, you can 'hear yourself', when you are silent and humming a tune in your head are you also humming it out loud? No. So how do you hear her anyway?
That's why your question: "Does this mean that you spoke when you were unconscious?", is incomprehensible to me.
No, actually I understand, you try to present me as you like (perhaps out of jealousy?) so you use all kinds of strange techniques of word and sentence distortions.
And I didn't even ask you to introduce me one way or the other!
The truth is, I would prefer you not to talk about me at all and only refer to the content of my words!
The truth is you are also tired of me, and I guess not only me but also others are tired of you.
"What basis do you have for the claim that you "moved to another dimension" other than the fact that you simply decided that it was so?"
where did you wink it from??
Where did I write that I 'moved to another dimension'?
What I wrote was:
"I came to the conclusion that the mind or consciousness exists as long as the mind is active, but, as soon as the mind stops working, consciousness moves to another state, which state cannot be predicted, described, or understood.
But in retrospect, this conclusion supports the claim that consciousness moves to another dimension that has nothing to do with our dimension.
That is, it continues to exist but 'in another place'."
The brain did not stop working, if it had stopped working I would have died.
What you didn't understand is that I came to the conclusion that when the brain dies (and not clinical death), consciousness moves to another (and currently unknown) dimension.
Anyway, that's my opinion and you can disagree with it until your soul leaves and you move to another dimension where there are only Rothschilds who agree with each other.
"In physics, the dimension reflects the number of degrees of freedom of movement in space." (Wikipedia)
If it helps you understand better:
The consciousness moves to a different space from the other known spaces (maybe one of the 11 or 12 or as many dimensions as there are in string theory? Maybe not, who knows.. you?)
It's enough that there is one person who understood my words (and I'm sure there is) and it already refutes your claims as if I don't understand what I'm talking about.
There are people here who have warned you about your rudeness more than once and that you slander and slander.
You claim they deserve it, so I say you deserve it too.
Also your claim: "If you ever become a serious person or even just a "human being" they will stop hurting you"
It is a claim unrelated to reality.
I mean you wrote nonsense (and it's not the first time).
Finally:
Accept this answer however you want, because after all, you demanded it.
And please don't be offended by what I'm going to tell you now:
You are also a genius at writing nonsense.
May you continue to have an interesting life.
Ghost:
Lately you keep saying that you can't expect a serious answer from me and this despite the fact that many times you get serious answers from me even when you didn't earn them through a serious question and even when you did everything to prevent yourself from receiving them by using offensive wording.
So tell me: why do you continue with this lie?
Is it so that he will make you completely sick of me and then you really won't get any serious answers from me at all and then you can claim that you were right?
So I'm really fed up and if it was up to me - your access to the site would have been blocked a long time ago but my father prefers to show mercy to the cruel and thus he is cruel to the merciful.
In relation to your fainting experience - what does it mean and what will I say?
You heard yourself louder. Does that mean you spoke when you were unconscious?
The truth is that there are all kinds of experiences that people experience when they lose consciousness and all of them are due to impaired brain function at the time.
What basis do you have for the claim that you "moved to another dimension" other than the fact that you simply decided that it was so?
Do you think that "I came to the conclusion that so and so" is a reasoning that should convince others that "so and so" is indeed "so and so"?
So know that this is not reasoning at all and when it sounds out of your mouth (and I already know your ability to "draw conclusions") it is convincing in exactly the opposite direction.
You also use the phrase "another dimension" without understanding it at all.
Do you know what "dimensions" are?
Can you explain what the term "to move to another dimension" means?
Before you try to start smearing us with an answer to this rhetorical question, know that in mathematics (the field from which the accepted meaning of the word dimension is taken) there is no such thing as "moving to another dimension", so what exactly are you talking about?
You also continue with additional lies such as the lie that I deny the existence of additional universes.
Where did you get that claim from? It is not true.
I do rule out the delusions you develop on the basis of this concept that you do not understand what it is, but that is another matter.
You ask my father what you should do if you are hurt by other people's words.
I must inform you that you earned the hurt from other people's words honestly by hurting them even before they hurt you and you don't stop doing it.
If you ever become a serious person or even just a "human being" they will stop hurting you.
Finally:
I would not be happy to receive an answer from you at all because it has never happened before that I received a serious answer from you.
Avi,
You're right.
The phrase "the question is just as stupid as you" is offensive.
I guess I should have used phrases like:
"Keep your dirty mouth" or "village fool", which are legitimate and not offensive, yes?
In general, how do you know how to differentiate between what hurts and what doesn't, and who is hurt and who isn't?
You must also have noticed that my responses in the style of "the question is just as stupid as you" come only when I am addressed in the same way.
I've noticed that you're leaning in a certain direction, and it would only be fair if you were honest about this response.
By the way,
What should I do if I have been offended by one or several commenters on this site?
Do I have the option of suing them or the people in the system of this site for allowing that commenter to hurt me and not blocking his offensive response?
Again you call people by nicknames ""the question is just as stupid as you".
You want to be permanently blocked even without being able to disrupt the name that has already been blocked once, which in itself is a violation of the site's regulations. Isn't it a shame that we just turn to abuse to cut you off from the provider?
Please improve your behavior.
This time you cannot blame Michael because in your recent correspondence you have offended at least three other different commenters.
my father
R.H
The information on the computer screen, when I turn off the screen, is saved in the same dimension it was in before I turned off the screen.
It has nothing to do with the soul or any other dimensions. Your question is just as stupid as you.
I wrote in the comment that came before your comment, what I think (briefly) about the soul.
What can't you read? Or do you not understand what you are doing?
Are you trying to look smart when you try to write in my style, thus also siding with Michal's position?
You went out.
Go to sleep, it's late.
Damn, to what dimension does the information on the computer screen in front of you go when you turn it off?
Does the image or article really disappear? Or does she 'disappear' into another dimension?
I guess you will say that it ceases to exist, but as you know (I assume) nothing in nature really disappears but only 'changes its form'. If so, what do you really think happens to the 'soul' when it 'finishes its role' in the human body?
I would appreciate it if you would answer seriously, but as usual you cannot be expected to do so.
Machel
I want to tell you about a case that happened to me:
It happened once that I passed out, and as soon as it happened, I saw darkness (not light), but the voice in my head grew louder, and I could hear myself more clearly than ever, even 'louder' than I hear in a 'normal' state.
I was not able to reproduce this experience (of the 'voice' in the head) it made me think, does when the soul leaves the body it exists in another dimension (or something like that).
I came to the conclusion that the mind or consciousness exists as long as the mind is active, but, as soon as the mind stops working, consciousness moves to another state, which state cannot be predicted, described, or understood.
But in retrospect, this conclusion supports the claim that consciousness moves to another dimension that has nothing to do with our dimension.
That is, it continues to exist but 'in another place'.
What do you think?
Does the mind or consciousness really disappear? Or does she 'disappear' into another dimension?
I guess you will say that it ceases to exist, but as you know (I assume) nothing in nature really disappears but only 'changes its form'. If so, what do you really think happens to the 'soul' when it 'finishes its role' in the human body?
(Regardless, I saw a program yesterday, I think it was on the Discovery Channel, in which Hawking says that our universe is a kind of shell - or bubble as he called it - which is in a shell where other universes are located - they will answer 'multiverse'. That is, the universe is a bubble and there are infinite bubbles Such - a claim that I make and you refute it - if this is the case, then a situation can exist in which the soul is 'preserved' and only moves to another universe after it finishes its role in this universe. That way it does not communicate with this universe either and we have no way - at least at the moment - to decipher this phenomenon.)
I would appreciate it if you would answer seriously, but as usual you cannot be expected to do so.
Year:
To deal with your question you need to understand it and to be able to understand it needs to have meaning.
Therefore, it is difficult to relate to most of your words.
Among other things - you use "recognition" and "consciousness" in meanings that are not familiar to other people. You say that consciousness is the sum of all cognitions and it is not at all clear what "cognitions" are in the plural.
Can you explain what the phrase "loss of consciousness" means? And which of all the "cognitions" are we talking about when we use it?
This is just an example of the terrible vagueness in your words.
You should also read this article:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/awakeness-area-in-the-brain-1609093
In one of the comments, I referred to him because he seems to be backThe above articles I was educated to predict the results of the research described in it.
By the way - in order for you to understand what words are - maybe you should also understand that they are created by humans.
Their meaning is a social convention overall, but the process of creating them and the reason why we have the ability to create them are explained in my articles "The first word"
Machal, and others, are invited to deal only with the claim that the information of the word is abstract (41-42). I would really like to know if this claim is baseless, meaningless, or should be seen as a steam test. Or maybe this information has some physical essence?
Ghost:
You just won't believe.
It's true that you express yourself on topics that you don't understand, but to comment on an article without having read it is already a record, even for you.
Year:
It is easy to ask a question that all humans have asked since time immemorial.
The very fact that I tried to answer her shows that even I thought about her.
Your claim regarding recognition, consciousness and everything else seems to me to be just a baseless and even meaningless statement.
Obviously, I don't see any point in dealing with her.
I understand the question I am trying to answer, and the answer I have for now may not be satisfactory, but it is the best and most well-founded answer available to science today.
I try to deal with the question but there are those who prefer to complain.
A little more about the same thing (41)
The word is a tiny sample of cognition and consciousness.
The information of the word has no substance. The realization of the information of the word is in the meeting of a person who is able to know it and derive its content from it.
So is the recognition information. From the moment a mind thinks (in its physical processes) comes to some conclusion, consciousness is created, and the owner of the mind, not exactly a person, can realize his conclusion through actions.
A ghost question about the nature of consciousness is good. I re-read Machal's article (39), and it does not seem to me that he adequately answers the question. Machal talks about consciousness and not about recognition. Consciousness in my understanding is the sum of all cognitions. He attributes consciousness to brain activity and claims that consciousness is physical. So it turns out that it can be measured with tools designed for physical systems.
I think this is a mistake. Consciousness, or consciousness, does depend on mental and general physical activity, but they are completely abstract. They are not physical. The cognitive information has the same informative value as the word, which is completely abstract.
Consciousness is a different level from the level of brain activity, although it is conditioned by this activity. It seems to me that the life sciences have not given sufficient consideration to the fact that different levels exist in organisms even though they are conditioned by fundamentally different preliminary levels.
Yes yes, I read what you wrote, a long time ago, and I also reminded you who you resemble 🙂
But you still haven't answered my question.
I understand that you think the blood is related to consciousness or something like that, that is:
In your opinion, consciousness (or maybe the soul?) is matter?
(Or are you sticking to your goal: try to ignore me and just sting here and there?)
Ghost:
As usual, it turns out that your "thought" produces the opposite of the truth.
My name is good only because I allow myself to express myself honestly and honestly in every matter.
If there is something I don't know, or I know only partially - I outline exactly the limits of my knowledge.
That's why I wrote a long time ago what you think I can't afford to write.
I'm not mentioning this for you (because I gave up on you a long time ago) but only so that people will see who you are again.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/blood-is-the-soul-0808099/
Machel
I thought about how I could get you to answer the matter, and I will try to ask you a question that I think you can answer:
In your opinion, is consciousness matter or energy? or both?
Please answer the matter, I know you can't write certain things because they can endanger your good name, but at least answer seriously, because when you answer with slanders you are joined by all kinds of crazy people who, like parrots, repeat your words while they themselves do not understand what they are writing.
Year:
Each photon reaches us only once.
If the star emits energy for a long time - the time we will see this energy will be equally long.
Regarding what remains of a person after his death - if we are not talking about a soul, there is no interesting question here.
Obviously, the atoms remain (after all, mass and energy are basically the same thing, so most of a person's energy remains in the environment and you can't do anything that can't be done with the energy left over from his dog or his car)
S:
You made a mistake that almost every sane person who visits this site seems to make once:
The assumption that you can open the eyes of a foolish spirit to the universal fact:
"You obviously have a basic lack of understanding of the terms you use".
I remember at least 3 cases (including me, unfortunately) of attempts of this kind, in all kinds of fields.
Over time you will learn that these attempts are destined to fail in advance, and you will be able to accept him in his true capacity - the village fool.
Machel,
The first two lines may be correct. who knows.
Telepathy – (?)
The rest of the soul - I don't remember ever using this phrase.
Your expansion on aliens - the small yellow circle with two horizontal lines, two dots and a slice of watermelon.
But regarding the one-time question, another question, closely related to our case: stars that have disintegrated and the energy continues to reach us, do we not perceive it for a long time? I've pondered this a few times before, what's your answer?
Ghost:
Please don't give me false illusions!
You want to tell me that I flowered the wilderness of your understanding?
Year:
We would not be able to analyze the energy emitted by a human being for an important aspect and this is because the minds of different people are structured and work differently.
I explained this when I talked about telepathy and mind reading.
But beyond that - even if it were possible to analyze it, there would be nothing between it and the soul remaining, because not the person who died could see it, only others. The dead was dead and that was it. Others would have much more efficient ways of reading his thoughts if he only bothered to write them down.
And even more than that - those who might be able to absorb the radiation emitted by a person's body while alive are only aliens - there is no way to chase after electromagnetic radiation that was transmitted in the past and obtain it for its absorption.
And even more than that - each alien will also be able to absorb this radiation only once (if he even bothers to try to absorb it and if its magnitude, which is already zero on the surface of the earth, will reach his receivers strong enough - which is clearly not going to happen).
Maybe we'll stop dreaming in aspemia?
R.H.R ghosts… keep your dirty mouth.
It seems that in every article that comes out, you are looking for someone to fight with in the comments...
You must be a lifeless person.
Machel 25,
There's no reason you shouldn't understand. From the radiation we perceive from a star we infer its properties. That is, the radiation is characterized - carries information - of the star: hot, cold, solid, made of gas, big, small...
In biology, similar methods are used to analyze living materials.
I propose to apply this principle to the energy emitted by a person: if we could absorb it, would we be able to analyze it for its characteristics?
Aryeh 27,
If you read my conversations with Makal, you didn't have to explain the obvious to me. The strength of the energy emitted by a living body is irrelevant. The researchers know how to absorb a few neutrinos in a bowl of water, definitely a weak energy. If we could pick up the emission of the living body, my hypothesis is that it would carry information about it.
Machel
As usual, you didn't refute, you flourished!
S. (Is it short for ssssssamk?)
you will understand
After first learn and then re-read what I wrote.
R. H. R. Paim,
You seem genuinely interested in the subject. If so, please go out and learn. Michael is right in that he does not try to refute your claim, since it is clear that you suffer from a basic lack of understanding of the terms you use, first and foremost the term "gray matter", which is a term for neurons that are not covered with myelin, and not something mysterious as your words portray. It is also evident that you do not understand the meaning of the term "energy". Beyond that, the accepted interpretations of consciousness and soul do not match, so it is not clear how and why you arrived at your assumption. After you understand the meaning of the concepts (and not from the Hebrew Wikipedia, with all due respect - there is), you will realize yourself that you are very wrong.
Ghost:
You speak without consciousness and if consciousness is the soul then also without a soul.
It is impossible to refute a meaningless slogan based on a lack of understanding and ignorance in any field.
Machel
"...it turns out that loss of consciousness depends on a small group of nerve cells at the base of the brain. These cells control the activity of the entire cerebral cortex and spinal cord."
https://www.hayadan.org.il/awakeness-area-in-the-brain-1609093/#comment-249762
From what I was able to understand about the gray matter that exists in the human body, which is found in the central nervous system, and connects the brain to the spinal cord.
According to the quote I gave, you can understand from the article (in the link) that consciousness depends on a certain area of the body, which area
Also common to gray matter.
If we assume that 'cognition is the scientific interpretation of soul' (if it can be defined that way), then it would be possible to say that the soul exists in the same area of the gray matter, and the gray matter is a product of part of the specific level of energy that is made up of the 'soul'.
And this only strengthens my claim:
"I would 'bet' that 'there is a soul', I also think that from the point of view of 'matter' it connects the brain to the spine and exists within this area, which is also called 'gray matter'."
You're kidding yourself. But wake up for a moment and try to refute my claim.
Yair, the radiation emitted by a living body, including humans (heat and products of electrical activity of the nervous system and other systems as well as light in certain creatures), is extremely weak and the photons of this radiation have long been dispersed in space at the speed of light and do not have any special characteristics. When dead, the body does not emit any radiation.
Imagine that a creature without a spine would write an article: What is a spine? It is probably clear that he would scribble according to his lack of understanding :)
Year:
I don't know what you mean.
If it's because we still haven't solved everything (both in the psychophysical field and in other fields) then this is again a self-evident thing.
I control the fonts using Html
Machel,
I read your article, I could almost sign it.
Not for nothing I meant by the word soul, but - even after writing a book you feel that not everything has been said...
I meant that aspect of the word 'soul' which expresses the feeling that there is some kind of remnant even for the abstract aspect of life.
Is there such a relic, a relic for the dead? I do not know -
At the core of my words is the claim that I don't think you refuted, nor did Adi's toothpaste dolphins - that there is a possibility that the residual radiation of a body is indeed characterized by the strength of the body.
post Scriptum. How do you control font shapes?
Year:
If you mean nothing when you say soul then all you are saying is that there is a law of conservation of mass and energy.
It doesn't seem to me that there was any need for the word soul to describe this law, so I still assume you meant something else.
And as for that something else - in my opinion it does not exist - as I explained in my article "How are you doing?"
Machel
thanks for the detailed answer. I raised a reflection, I did expect ridicule, here are some comments anyway...
I don't actually call anything a soul, but I used the word soul to produce a "spin", I mean some kind of relic that is different from the material relic.
"Not every body emits electromagnetic radiation...
Man too - during his life (and during the eating of his body by the environment, after his death) emits energy...
For our purposes, a producer or an emitter would mean you. The question is whether this radiation has any characteristics of the emission source.
At least light radiation emitted from a body is indeed characterized by the body - otherwise we would not see it.
"This energy does not stay in place but is dispersed in space and mixes with the energy emitted by anything that emits energy" - of course, I did not suggest any other behavior.
"One of the things that is characteristic of electromagnetic radiation just like material bodies is that it has an identity. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to identify stars and materials with it. In other words, it is integrative."
"Untrue or meaningless. decide for yourself. The identity of Karina is at best similar to the identity of a stone and it preserves the identity of a person just like a stone that he threw does."
From two sentences except the first from my response 12, the second from your response 21.
Analyzing the radiation from bodies, is a method to identify them and their contents, is it true or meaningless?
"The radiation of the sun is also "preserved" to the same extent. Does that mean the sun has a soul?"
I already commented in the opening, that the word soul has no importance to me, and all I proposed is that there is some remnant at the level of electromagnetic radiation even for a tiny body like a person, in comparison to the survival of the radiation of large bodies, long after their existence has ceased.
"Interesting how you claimed" I haven't had time to read the link that Machal gave in 10, maybe they say something of the type I say here" if you watched the disagreement. Can you clarify the lie?”
It was a quick comment without checking, I humbly accept your comment except for the word lie (because I was not aware of the content of the things).
Year:
Reply 12:
A dangerous opinion - there is a soul. I haven't had time to read the link that Machal gave in 10, maybe they say something of the kind I say here.
If we are sure that the corpse of a dead organism survives for some time, in the deserts of Egypt and Gobi even thousands of years - are we allowed to dismiss the possibility that the aspect known as soul or soul or spirit also leaves a remnant?
Surely he leaves a residue. This remnant is the remains of the body and this is because what you call the soul was created and maintained by the body and ceases to exist upon its death.
After all, every body produces electromagnetic radiation. And it is resistant to huge distances and times. Well what about the radiation of an organism - let's say a person?
Not every body emits electromagnetic radiation.
A body that is not radioactive and does not maintain chemical activity emits only the energy it absorbs from its environment.
Man also - during his life (and during the eating of his body by the environment, after his death) emits energy.
This energy does not stay in place but is dispersed in space and mixes with the energy emitted by anything that emits energy.
It can be argued that even if such radiation is preserved, it lacks identity, in the absence of the biochemical action of the brain or other organs.
One of the things that is characteristic of electromagnetic radiation just like material bodies that it has an identity. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to identify stars and materials with it. In other words, it is integrative.
untrue or meaningless. decide for yourself. The identity of Karina is at best similar to the identity of a stone and it preserves the identity of a person just as a stone that he threw does.
Well, if a residual radiation from a person is preserved in an integrative way, then there is what is called a soul, or one of the other names.
What's this nonsense?
The radiation of the sun is also "preserved" to the same extent. Does this mean the sun has a soul?
Reply 18:
Since I expected such reactions, I invite you to show that what I wrote is not true
It's interesting how you argued "I haven't had time to read the link that Machal gave in 10, maybe they say something of the type I'm saying here" if you watched the disagreement. Can you clarify the lie?
? Raphael??
I would 'bet' that 'there is a soul', I also think that in terms of 'matter' it connects the brain to the spine and exists within this area, which is also called 'gray matter'.
Michael, since I expected such reactions, I invite you to show that what I wrote is not true,
Year:
The truth is that you were the one who made me laugh.
Since Eddie expressed the feeling I felt too, I smiled back at him.
My dear witnesses
You managed to solve the problem of Makhal's smile, and our gratitude to you is endless. It is clear that he whose mouth is full of cucumbers has no comfort.
jewel:
: )
Ghost:
Your words are also joking even though that was not your intention.
Year:
One of the typical things about toothpaste is just like contact adhesive that it has a tube. Otherwise we wouldn't have been able to get her off the phone. In other words, she is a cucumber.
I would 'bet' that 'there is a soul', I also think that in terms of 'matter' it connects the brain to the spine and exists within this area, which is also called 'gray matter'.
A dangerous opinion - there is a soul. I haven't had time to read the link that Machal gave in 10, maybe they say something of the kind I say here.
If we are sure that the corpse of a dead organism survives for some time, in the deserts of Egypt and Gobi even thousands of years - are we allowed to dismiss the possibility that the aspect known as soul or soul or spirit also leaves a remnant?
After all, every body produces electromagnetic radiation. And it is resistant to huge distances and times. Well what about the radiation of an organism - let's say a person?
It can be argued that even if such radiation is preserved, it lacks identity, in the absence of the biochemical action of the brain or other organs.
One of the things that is characteristic of electromagnetic radiation just like material bodies that it has an identity. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to identify stars and materials with it. In other words, it is integrative.
Well, if a residual radiation from a person is preserved in an integrative way, then there is what is called a soul, or one of the other names.
Very interesting, thought-provoking article.
Nature interviewed 8 scientists in the field of synthetic biology.
Right now The link is available to all But I don't know how long he will stay in this state
Eddie:
The reason I do think that the mind is not an entity independent of the body is mainly related to the fact that I have never seen or been in any contact with a mind without a body. That is, for me at least there is a clear dependence between the body and the mind (therefore the claim that the separation is absolute and that the two concepts are independent is extreme evidence in my eyes).
Now we can ask whether this is absolute dependence, that is, as you say, is it possible to make an absolute reduction from what we call the soul to the physical components of the body, or perhaps the reduction is not absolute and there are aspects related to the soul that are beyond what can be explained by matter.
My answer to this is that I cannot think about such aspects. For example, if we look at various cognitive abilities such as speech, vision, data processing at all levels - for all these abilities that supposedly belong to the soul, it is possible to point to physical/chemical processes in the brain that correspond to them. When there is a brain injury that prevents these physical processes from occurring - so are these abilities in the soul.
This is not true only for 'mechanical' processes, but also for everything related to emotions. It is possible to influence what a person feels by chemically or physically disrupting the processes taking place in his mind.
Regarding the reports of near-death experiences, beyond the personal impressions of the people, I believe that the matter should be examined scientifically. What does that mean?
If we have evidence that shows that a person who experiences such an experience, no processing processes take place in his brain, but rather the brain is completely silent during the experience - this would, in my opinion, strengthen the position that the soul is something separate from the processes that take place in our mind. I have not come across such evidence yet.
Since Eddie mentioned his discussions with me on the subject of the soul, I find it appropriate to comment that his arguments for its existence have never convinced me.
I presented my opinion on this subject in my article "How are you doing?"
Eddie, if you manage to take molecules devoid of any life and create a cell that is indisputably alive then why assume there is something beyond?
If we continue in an inductive way, we will take a collection of such "soulless" cells and combine them into a multicellular creature, then again there is no need to assume the existence of a soul.
I also agree with Itamar's question, why do you think an impressive "return from the dead" experience as much as it points to something?
After all, this is a situation in which the brain is in twilight, and one should not be surprised by any apparent hallucination or experience that one experiences. The fact that many people experience the same phenomenon, let's say light at the end of the tunnel, is again not surprising. All people also experience heat, pain, hallucinations from drugs or alcohol because that's how our brain functions, so what's the surprise that in extreme conditions close to death many see the same thing?
Itamar:
I brought up the philosophical reasons in the past in quite a few discussions (mainly with Michael Rothschild). I don't have time now to get into the thick of it, but if the discussion here develops, I will find time to do so.
In the meantime, as a starting point I will ask you:
1. What makes you think (if you do think so) that the soul is not a defined entity that stands on its own?
2. What makes you think (if you do think so) that mental phenomena can be completely reduced to the physical level?
Regarding the phenomenon of returning from death: following a CVA that happened to me, I was in a state defined as 'clinical death' for several hours. At the time of the event I was aware of the people and events around me, as well as the fact that I was 'dead'. It is important to note that I was also aware of the events that occurred at those hours even when there was no eye or hearing contact with the locations of those events, so I rule out unconscious sensory perception. I was aware of a very defined mental 'I', with an identity, biography and consciousness - awareness, memories and thoughts. I 'perceived' the material reality 'around' me, and there were also non-material intuitions, meaning 'knowing' of people beyond their visible and audible physics.
I will note that in my case I did not experience any 'light' and other phenomena or entities related to such 'light' - and in this sense my personal experience is different from that of many people who have reported similar experiences. However, the special situation was definitely characterized by a feeling of lightness, liberation and a kind of 'enlightenment'.
Personally, I am able to accept certain motifs of similar or identical reports, which repeat themselves (for example: the very identification of the 'light' and the 'conscious' decision to want to return to life) - as believable. But it is difficult for me to accept other reports that tell about miraculous journeys in all kinds of worlds (somehow, I recognize that the Sephors are built on all kinds of mystical or mental or religious theories that can be discovered, as written and spoken, in books) - as reliable. I also tend to suspect that these shors make a living from extraneous and/or self-interested motives, or from an unstable/imaginative mental structure.
Eddie:
What makes you think that the soul exists as an independent entity?
What are the philosophical reasons that support this?
In what way do 'back from the dead' experiences support this position?
R.H.:
I agree with you that this is a great scientific and technological achievement.
I do not agree that regarding the question of the essence of life, or the question of whether it is possible to reduce all the phenomena of life, including the mental phenomena - to the material level - our understanding has been 'jumped'. In this area we remained completely incomprehensible, since the creation of 'life' was not demonstrated here.
My position is that it is not possible to make a total reduction of the phenomenon of life, including the mental aspects - to one material level of reality, and in the past I tried to bring different evidence and claims on the subject.
Descartes at the time tried to anchor the soul in a certain part of the brain, and like him many others also believed that it was possible to point to a spatial connection area/some physical bridge of the 'soul' to the brain/another part of the body, each according to his own style.
It seems to me that everyone was in vain. There is no domain of space/physical bridge as above, neither at the cellular level (as you said in your question - in the 'ribosome') nor at the macro level. The mind and the body are probably parallel phenomena - that maintain mutual relations between them in ways that are not apparent to us, and may never be apparent to us.
In the most personal way, I believe that the soul (and I do not enter into stratified distinctions in it) exists as an independent entity, just as any material body can exist as an independent entity. I believe this, not only because I believe it is true for philosophical reasons, but also based on a large inventory of reports supporting this possibility, and also because I myself had a 'return from the dead' experience.
Bisham Azgad, you are right that if the purpose of the experiment was to create life out of nothing, it was not achieved. However, if we define the goal as testing the possibility of creating life from "non-living" molecules, that is, testing the necessity of some inorganic spark of life, or in other words a soul, the results of the experiment show that it is possible to chemically synthesize molecules and turn them into a living cell without any divine intervention or soul.
You can come and say that they only synthesized the DNA, but if a soul exists, where is it? In ribosomes? They have also been synthesized. in proteins? in membranes? same as above. One can come and say that the soul does not exist at a cellular level, but it exists in a multicellular being. However, this is also not true because the origin of every multicellular is a single cell and there are also the sponges that can be single or multicellular cells.
It is possible to say that the soul does not exist in bacteria, but developed later during evolution, which implies that it is a product of mutations, and if so, then it is simply another biological element.
This is why, in my opinion, this experiment will go down in the pages of history like Dolly the sheep or the human genome project, both of which were merely an application of existing technologies without a breakthrough, but jumped our understanding by hundreds of meters.
No matter how you look at it, it's a big step for science and the proofs are endless, you can't stop the progress.
The truth is that even about the plane and the computer they said "who needs it" in a kind of flightless disdain...