Was There Consciousness at the Beginning of Creation?

27 thoughts on “Was There Consciousness at the Beginning of Creation?”

1. We’re made in the image of God. We are a frequency being broadcasted in this body. His image is consciousness. We are made to act out what our spirits wanted to because we don’t have flesh in heaven.

2. It is a sign, perhaps, of a simple mind that it cannot comprehend other ways of thinking. Other levels. They go outside on a sunny day and feel the wamth, hear the birdsong, smell the growing grass and think, 'If I understood all this perfectly, none of it would be wonderful. It is far better to stay as I am.' But nothing could be further from the truth. Every good scientist I know not only continues to feel that wonder, but if anything they are DRIVEN by it. They can appreciate the fine interplay of predator and prey the produces both the butterflies and the birds, the are in awe at the titanic forces in our Sun which generates the light, and boggle at the ability of a couple pounds of meat in our skulls to be able to react to it all in so many ways. Understanding does NOT diminish the world… it only gives you more and more levels on which to APPRECIATE it!

3. Origin of life is narcissism, and my parents identifying with their sexual organs. It all starts with parents making a human sacrifice(kids), procreation always involving pedophilia and their desire to make you a miserable work slave while pretending wanting the best from you.

4. Penrose is wrong about consciousness, Kurzweil is right. Quantum effects aren't necessary for consciousness. Classical computing is enough to explain neurophysiology.

5. Newton was a firm believer in a soul and god and he liked alchemy

6. And Newton wrote more about the scriptures and religion than about physics. I think he was a man that really got it.

7. I don’t think that’s true about Newton and the romantics at all. I don’t know how this guy came up with this outside of the funny quote. The idea of a hyper logical clockwork universe, “scientifically approached”, exists long before Newton. That’s like the entirety of fucking rationalism, as well as Kant, who is a major reason for the existence of Romanticism.

   For what it’s worth, Newton didn’t even intend for his work to have metaphysical import. It was a description of mechanics with a separate task left remaining to metaphysicians to explain why and how.

8. "I don't understand quantum mechanics, so I'm just going to say god did it…"

9. So many fallacies, they both seem to love thier own utter nonsense and self import, like a good old fart sniffer.

10. Newton was a poseur.

11. Absolute misinterpretation of quantum mechanics.

12. This seems an ignorant take.

13. What's the root word of consciousness?
    Scion/science, look it up.

14. The creation argument is based solely in imagination.

15. It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with primary consciousness will probably have to come first.

16. From ancient times until very recently, people were influenced by pagan and pantheistic superstitions, and they thought that there was soul or spirit in everything and that therefore studying it by cutting it open etc was desecration. It was only when Christianity increased that metaphysical dualism permitted study of the natural world because now the material world was seen as a machine and not holy. This led to science. However, belief in "vitalism" continued up until a century or so ago. It was in fact the Christian view of the material universe as a machine that provided the necessary philosophical preconditions for modern atheism. The atheists denied what the Christians insisted, that you still need to recognize God as the creator and standard for any of it to make sense. It took a while, but now with "climate change," "gender theory," "faucism" etc we see that the Christians were right. You can ride the coattails for a while, but atheism cannot do science, only Christianity can.

17. Consciousness? That's ALL their was.

18. Lot's of fancy talk in the comments. How about you believe what you want and I'll do the same?

19. Two non intellectuals discussing Newton

20. Another portion of verbal diarrhoea 😂😂😂😂

21. Talks like these are what got Spotify in trouble. I think, whatever your profession may be, you should stick to it. Do not talk about stuff you might get wrong just so you can look like an intellectual to lesser informed people.
    As much as I hate the extreme left, it’s videos like these that make the right look stupid.

22. Yet an other instance of conservative misinformation. No there’s no such thing as consciousness on the quantum level, i suspect that he’s referring to the double slit experiment where observing a particle changes its behavior and observer is taken to mean watching when in reality it just means measuring it. This is deepak chopra level mysticism

23. This is Pirsig's romantic vs classical quality.

24. Newton was wrong…. lol. Wake uuuup 💤

25. Science took there enchantment. MAGA makes so much sense now

26. Last year, someone pointed out that map of the human brain looks a lot like the large scale structures of the universe. Now I'm assuming that both of these images have been around for awhile, and it took one astute person to notice the similarities. Is this indeed the case? Anybody?

27. God

Comments are closed.