An Analytical Framework For Creativity Utopian Aesthetics Design And Atheism?

I am a physicist and I explain why current physics leaves not room for the possibility that brain processes can be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness. The hypothesis that consciousness emerges from, or can be identified with physical, chemical or biological processes is incompatible with current physics. It is a scientifically established fact that a mental experience is associated with numerous distinct microscopic physical processes that occur at different points; there is no physical entity that connects all these distinct microscopic processes, therefore the existence of mental experience requires an element of connection that is not described by current physics. This missing element of connection can be identified with what we traditionally refer to as the soul (in my youtube website you can find a article with more detailed explanations). Emergent properties are often thought of as arising from complex systems (like the brain). However, I argue that these properties are subjective cognitive constructs that depend on the level of abstraction we choose to analyze and describe the system. Since these descriptions are mind-dependent, consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property. Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what can exist objectively are only the individual elements.

What a nice way Richard Dawkins remembered his friend, the great Dan Dennet. I like to listen to Richard and you too, Brian, and Sam Harris and other great thinkers because I want to raise my consciousness and try to see life through the lens that you people do with your minds. On the origin of life, one person has changed the river-of-thought that I used to have about how life began and that is Jim Tour of Rice University. For Jim, he talks about the simplest cell like this. It is composed of carbohydrates, lipids, nucleic acids DNA and RNA and amino acids. It has 19 amino acids of one sort and 1 of another. The lipids, which are the membranes are interesting because the outer membrane has 10 to the 78 billion possible combinations and only one will work. That is 10 with 78 billion zeros after it. If carbohydrates caramelize, they have to be re-created. Jim says it this way. Nature does not have a lab book, if carbohydrates–sugars–caramelize they cannot be reproduced on the fly. Equally so, the lipids, nucleic acids, Amino acids and carbohydrates must all come together at the same time and at the right temperature or nothing will work. The carbohydrates on the outer membrane are more complex than the DNA and the RNA combined. What am I saying here? Boys and girls, for the simplest cell to come together it is beyond understanding how it could have happened on a summer day in a prebiotic pond in the distant past. This is the simplest cell and no one has also said if you were given all the components in a lab and they were put together right, then where does the spark come from to make it ‘come alive’?

One centres oneself – (by complex thought) – and researches – that topic – thought about In yoga meditation – ‘You become – what you think about’ Questions – of individual will, identity, attachment, likes and dislikes etc – also play a part. So many centres – individual or otherwise – some tech, historical, social – simply anything – we think about. ‘Science isn’t everything’ – Ram Chandra. Mr Dawkins – sits on a throne-like chair – in science and considered royalty – there. Science – has application in so much of human life. But ….. not Divine – in scope or effect. Fare thee well – in life’s journey.

(*´；ェ；｀*) We need to popularize the idea of getting God married. Getting God married is a good use of someone’s time. You are supposed to make the environment intelligent so no God is needed. We fixed the article and audio for the best experience possible. Cameras are supernatural and all of them captured 3D that not a gimmick. The audio loud don’t make violence so has depth. Nobody has to buy anything for it to work.

( *´・ω)/(；д； ) Natural selection is the character flaw in evil that is integrity is more important than life otherwise evolution is tragic circumstances with nothing intelligent happening. Almost everyone survive until they reproduce. Nothing is getting selected except for the character flaw in evil. I found a replacement for the character flaw in evil that I liked but God makes me forget things that will cause me trouble.

Humanity has an either/or perspective rather than an and/both perspective. The religious perspective is true and the evolutionary perspective is true. Humans evolving from a uniquely human prototype in each universal cycle. Why is it so hard to grasp that? The truth is that there are three separate dimensions not just one. The religious perspective is Consciousness; Mind; Elements. The materialist perspective is elements only and from the elements arise consciousness and mind. Chinese philosophy has it that nothing happens without three, and that is the case. In Christianity there are three: Father (creator); Ideational. Son: Intelligence; (the intelligence within the creation. Holy Ghost: The motion or force; the vibration that enables creation, or all things, to manifest at the conscious; mental; and elemental levels. Materialism is limited and it leaves unanswered questions Today we have the ‘hard problem of consciousness’ for philosophers. The mental is also elemental; subtler than the gross elemental; both emerging with quantum events. Consciousness owes no debt to matter or the elemental; being fundamental. As consciousness is not elemental how can it be accounted for as arising from elements? That is the hard problem for philosophy today, which only the religious perspective of three dimensions, not just the one dimension, posited by atheistic materialism, can answer.

( ´-ω-) This is an artistic proof of a created universe. When you paint a shadow it’s the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it.

One has to respect Dawkins, he’s smart and consistent but isn’t omniscient; did his first replicating cell really take that action by chance in only 13.8 g.a., or more like an approximate 9.8 g.a. using our present sun-earth system clock? Why is the male sex drive so strong? How does one measure a quantum of desire, this more primary quality? It’s like the universe, time pun intended, longed itself into existence like a 2D ethereal bosonic observer forever stuck and timeless, like a Flat Stanley gazing out at a mirror or through a looking glass and wanting more, longing itself into a “real existence” where it could step out into a 3D space and tumble about like a foal, pup or an already Hamiltonian aware future flying feathered bird chick, all employing a binary serial regeneration of time, action & experience, that is a fermionic “reality” that arises out from a bosonic binary, for better or worse? Getting down to the zero dimensional point- could an unconscious, unobservant universe really exist, and if it could, how would it know?

The definition of “Meme” given in this discussion reminds me of how people talk about spirits or gods/pantheons. However the term “Meme” provides a perspective that doesn’t have the religious connotations. I wonder if “Meme” would be the better definition of a “spirit,” and can be further reduced to concepts in Chaos Theory. Maybe a “spirit/god” is a “meme” which is a pattern within chaos theory that has a deterministic path of expression but is also influenced by a currently unfathomable amount of variables.

I have always admired Richard Dawkins for his use of reason, evidence, and critical thinking to support not only his scientific work but also what appeared to be his deep empathy for others. But reason and evidence now lead me to conclude that he has strayed far from that path. His recent comments on Imane Khelif have been made without evidence, critical thinking, and, most saddening to me, without empathy.