Poll: Does this argument make sense
Yes
No
I'm not sure
I have no idea what you're going on about
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
I came up a theological/philosophical argument and I want it debunked.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-05-2013, 07:25 AM
RE: I came up a theological/philosophical argument and I want it debunked.
People who have damaged brain structures..ie car accidents, brain tumors, trauma are no longer the same (or don't have "consciousness at all)... why ? Because the molecular structures in their brains are damaged. The same atoms are still there. The cellular and tissue structures have been damaged. Consciousness resides 100% in functioning, healthy brain tissue structure and cellular activity. There is NO evidence for anything else.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
I'm an agnostic. We cannot know if there really is a teapot orbiting the sun.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2013, 07:40 AM
RE: I came up a theological/philosophical argument and I want it debunked.
Does a story change if it's written on paper or in digital form? of course not, what makes you is not your atoms but the particular arrangement of those atoms, aka information. So you can change all your atoms every second if you want, but as long as they're in the same position as before you'll remain the same.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nach_in's post
31-05-2013, 07:42 AM
RE: I came up a theological/philosophical argument and I want it debunked.
(31-05-2013 04:37 AM)tear151 Wrote:  The other conclusion is that the soul is real and that our consciousness trancends the physical

BuckyBall wrote - (I assume someone is trying to argue that if the atoms change, then the "soul" is responsible for consciousness). ???

That's what I'm thinking too.

@tear151 - Let me ask you a few questions. (I am going to equate consciousness with self-awareness and memory of self).

A person is in a car accident where they suffer head trauma. When the person comes to it is discovered that there is a considerable amount of memory loss.

The person, for all practical purposes, has ceased to be the same person they were before. Their consciousness/memory lacks continuity. Is the soul you are proposing damaged as well?

Same person, same accident, all memory is gone. The person comes to with no memory of former self. Is the soul you are proposing gone?

This person had been a believer before the accident, afterwards they renounce any divinity. What happens now to this soul?

Then we have the issue that the brain is not difficult to fool and memory is very unreliable, we contruct our memory. See here

Memory construction [edit]

Although we like to think that our memory operates like recording equipment, that is not actually the case. The molecular mechanisms underlying the induction and maintenance of memory are very dynamic and comprise distinct phases covering a time window from seconds to even a lifetime.[65] In fact research has revealed that our memories are constructed. People can construct their memories when they encode them and/or when they recall them. To illustrate consider a classic study conducted by Elizabeth Loftus and John Palmer (1974) [66] in which people were instructed to watch a film of a traffic accident and then asked about what they saw. The researchers found that, those people who were asked, “How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?” gave higher estimates than those who were asked, “How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?” Furthermore, when asked a week later whether they have seen broken glass in the film, those who had been asked the question with smashed were twice more likely to report that they have seen broken glass than those who had been asked the question with hit. There was no broken glass depicted in the film. Thus, the wording of the questions distorted viewers’ memories of the event. Importantly, the wording of the question led people to construct different memories of the event – those who were asked the question with smashed recalled a more serious car accident than they had actually seen. The findings of this experiment were replicated around the world and researchers consistently demonstrated that when people were provided with misleading information they tended to misremember, a phenomenon known as the misinformation effect.[67]

Interestingly, research has revealed that asking individuals to repeatedly imagine actions that they have never performed or events that they have never experienced could result in false memories. For instance, Goff and Roediger [68] (1998) asked participants to imagine that they performed an act (e.g., break a toothpick) and then later asked them whether they had done such a thing. Findings revealed that those participants who repeatedly imagined performing such an act were more likely to think that they had actually performed that act during the first session of the experiment. Similarly, Garry and her colleagues (1996) [69] asked college students to report how certain they were that they experienced a number of events as children (e.g., broke a window with their hand) and then two weeks later asked them to imagine four of those events. The researchers found that one-fourth of the students asked to imagine the four events reported that they had actually experienced such events as children. That is, when asked to imagine the events they were more confident that they experienced the events.

Just some questions to ponder.

Throughout history conversions happen at the point of a sword, deconversions at the point of a pen - FC

I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's. - Mark Twain in Eruption
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
31-05-2013, 08:37 AM
RE: I came up a theological/philosophical argument and I want it debunked.
Yeah, memory ain't like looking at a picture. It's like running a program to recreate a picture. And the program always fucks up. Big Grin
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
31-05-2013, 08:38 AM
RE: I came up a theological/philosophical argument and I want it debunked.
but memories and such are concepts caused by the neurons, our memories and feelings are not existent in themselves, they are caused by the matter, concepts caused by the neurons. If I run the same program on a different computer it may behave the same but the substance making the image (the person) is different, you all keep saying that somehow the concepts of memories and emotions somehow physically manifest in a consciousness. If all the neurons are now different, aka all the matter has changed in the neurons then it is like getting a new computer but running the same program.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2013, 10:32 AM (This post was last modified: 31-05-2013 10:43 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: I came up a theological/philosophical argument and I want it debunked.
(31-05-2013 08:38 AM)tear151 Wrote:  but memories and such are concepts caused by the neurons, our memories and feelings are not existent in themselves, they are caused by the matter, concepts caused by the neurons. If I run the same program on a different computer it may behave the same but the substance making the image (the person) is different, you all keep saying that somehow the concepts of memories and emotions somehow physically manifest in a consciousness. If all the neurons are now different, aka all the matter has changed in the neurons then it is like getting a new computer but running the same program.

They are not. They are not "caused by neurons", and "caused by matter. They are CAUSED BY EXPERIENCE. The experience is laid down into brain structure, NOT caused by brain structure. They are *laid down* into the genes and brain structures by EXPERIENCE. Then they are "replayed". They are not replayed by "atoms". They are replayed by complex structures, composed of atoms, which REMAIN in the same positions, even when another atom replaces it. They don't just "play anything randomly", or randomly move around. If you never went skiing, you would have no memory of actually skiing. Your memory can only play what is laid down there. How do you think they got there in the first place ? Do You have memories of being the King of England ? No. You have not experienced it. You really need to stop this computer shit, and take a Biology course, and Neurophysiology. The analogy works ONLY so far. You're tripping yourself up in your own analogies, which do not translate to the brain's systems. The neurons are NOT "different". They are the same. Brain cells do not replicate, the way somatic cells do. The atoms do turn over however. The memory does not exist in the atoms. You KEEP making the SAME mistake, telling yourself about computer parts. It's FALSE. Knock it off.
"Recent studies on the turnover of the molecular population within a given nerve [brain] cell have indicated that ... their macromolecular contingent is renewed about ten thousand times in a lifetime.” [In other words, the matter making up each brain cell is completely renewed every three days.]"
~Paul Weiss, “The Living System: Determinism Stratified,” in Arthur Koestler and J.R. Smythies, eds., Beyond Reductionism (London: Hutchinson, 1969), p. 13.

Are YOU a different you, every three days ? No.

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

You are committing the logical error called the Fallacy of the False Analogy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy , comparing brains to computers. They are generally, roughly similar, in some very general ways. They are in no way the same. In fact they are far more different than they are alike. Have you ever taken a Biology course ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
I'm an agnostic. We cannot know if there really is a teapot orbiting the sun.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
31-05-2013, 02:08 PM
RE: I came up a theological/philosophical argument and I want it debunked.
(31-05-2013 04:37 AM)tear151 Wrote:  Hello, I'm a 16 year old from Britain and I have only just really deconverted, as such I'm doing all I can to try and debunk myself and so far I've failed until I came up with an argument in my own head that I cannot debunk, so I need some help :/

Premise A: I read a statistic that 98% of your atoms will change every 7 years so for the sake of the argument lets extend that to 20 years to be conservative here, look this up if you wish and debunk this premise if find a problem with it.

Premise B: The sense of self of a human being is entirely material according to the "materialism"

So it concludes that is your consciousness is entirely physical yet all parts of you which are physical aka. the atoms changes every 20 years how could the consciousness remain the same? It comes down the to the sentiment of a cleaner telling you "I've had this brush for 50 years, it's had 6 new heads and 3 new handles", that obviously isn't the same brush, so if a human tells you I've had 3 new skins a new brain etc... surely that obviously isn't the same person? Surely it would instead be a perfect clone that sort of took over the original person.

The other conclusion is that the soul is real and that our consciousness trancends the physical

Or even that the consciousness is physical but somehow can cling itself to new atoms like a sort of a ethereal membrane?

Now I'm very sorry if this is weirdly written and difficult to understand or even if it looks likes an article on answers in genesis but I tried my best :/ Just think of it as the whole star trek teleportation paradox but more gradual.

In one instance you say that sense of self is entirely physical then later you state that there is a soul (a non physical entity). Contradiction.

Your consciousness isn't purely atoms and neurons, sense perceptions from the outside world and how your brain compartmentalizes and conceptualizes these sense perceptions (memory) makes one not only a conscious being, but a self conscious being.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2013, 02:42 PM
RE: I came up a theological/philosophical argument and I want it debunked.
(31-05-2013 02:08 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(31-05-2013 04:37 AM)tear151 Wrote:  Hello, I'm a 16 year old from Britain and I have only just really deconverted, as such I'm doing all I can to try and debunk myself and so far I've failed until I came up with an argument in my own head that I cannot debunk, so I need some help :/

Premise A: I read a statistic that 98% of your atoms will change every 7 years so for the sake of the argument lets extend that to 20 years to be conservative here, look this up if you wish and debunk this premise if find a problem with it.

Premise B: The sense of self of a human being is entirely material according to the "materialism"

So it concludes that is your consciousness is entirely physical yet all parts of you which are physical aka. the atoms changes every 20 years how could the consciousness remain the same? It comes down the to the sentiment of a cleaner telling you "I've had this brush for 50 years, it's had 6 new heads and 3 new handles", that obviously isn't the same brush, so if a human tells you I've had 3 new skins a new brain etc... surely that obviously isn't the same person? Surely it would instead be a perfect clone that sort of took over the original person.

The other conclusion is that the soul is real and that our consciousness trancends the physical

Or even that the consciousness is physical but somehow can cling itself to new atoms like a sort of a ethereal membrane?

Now I'm very sorry if this is weirdly written and difficult to understand or even if it looks likes an article on answers in genesis but I tried my best :/ Just think of it as the whole star trek teleportation paradox but more gradual.

In one instance you say that sense of self is entirely physical then later you state that there is a soul (a non physical entity). Contradiction.

Your consciousness isn't purely atoms and neurons, sense perceptions from the outside world and how your brain compartmentalizes and conceptualizes these sense perceptions (memory) makes one not only a conscious being, but a self conscious being.

I understand my mistake now and I can go on as an intelectually honest atheist but I was comparing three possible conclusions all of which troubled me apart from three
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2013, 02:46 PM
RE: I came up a theological/philosophical argument and I want it debunked.
(31-05-2013 10:32 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(31-05-2013 08:38 AM)tear151 Wrote:  but memories and such are concepts caused by the neurons, our memories and feelings are not existent in themselves, they are caused by the matter, concepts caused by the neurons. If I run the same program on a different computer it may behave the same but the substance making the image (the person) is different, you all keep saying that somehow the concepts of memories and emotions somehow physically manifest in a consciousness. If all the neurons are now different, aka all the matter has changed in the neurons then it is like getting a new computer but running the same program.

They are not. They are not "caused by neurons", and "caused by matter. They are CAUSED BY EXPERIENCE. The experience is laid down into brain structure, NOT caused by brain structure. They are *laid down* into the genes and brain structures by EXPERIENCE. Then they are "replayed". They are not replayed by "atoms". They are replayed by complex structures, composed of atoms, which REMAIN in the same positions, even when another atom replaces it. They don't just "play anything randomly", or randomly move around. If you never went skiing, you would have no memory of actually skiing. Your memory can only play what is laid down there. How do you think they got there in the first place ? Do You have memories of being the King of England ? No. You have not experienced it. You really need to stop this computer shit, and take a Biology course, and Neurophysiology. The analogy works ONLY so far. You're tripping yourself up in your own analogies, which do not translate to the brain's systems. The neurons are NOT "different". They are the same. Brain cells do not replicate, the way somatic cells do. The atoms do turn over however. The memory does not exist in the atoms. You KEEP making the SAME mistake, telling yourself about computer parts. It's FALSE. Knock it off.
"Recent studies on the turnover of the molecular population within a given nerve [brain] cell have indicated that ... their macromolecular contingent is renewed about ten thousand times in a lifetime.” [In other words, the matter making up each brain cell is completely renewed every three days.]"
~Paul Weiss, “The Living System: Determinism Stratified,” in Arthur Koestler and J.R. Smythies, eds., Beyond Reductionism (London: Hutchinson, 1969), p. 13.

Are YOU a different you, every three days ? No.

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

You are committing the logical error called the Fallacy of the False Analogy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy , comparing brains to computers. They are generally, roughly similar, in some very general ways. They are in no way the same. In fact they are far more different than they are alike. Have you ever taken a Biology course ?

right I get you now, my analogy of a computer was obviously flawed but I knew that already, also again I'm still in high school so my science education isn't exactly... expert.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes tear151's post
31-05-2013, 03:06 PM
RE: I came up a theological/philosophical argument and I want it debunked.
(31-05-2013 02:46 PM)tear151 Wrote:  
(31-05-2013 10:32 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They are not. They are not "caused by neurons", and "caused by matter. They are CAUSED BY EXPERIENCE. The experience is laid down into brain structure, NOT caused by brain structure. They are *laid down* into the genes and brain structures by EXPERIENCE. Then they are "replayed". They are not replayed by "atoms". They are replayed by complex structures, composed of atoms, which REMAIN in the same positions, even when another atom replaces it. They don't just "play anything randomly", or randomly move around. If you never went skiing, you would have no memory of actually skiing. Your memory can only play what is laid down there. How do you think they got there in the first place ? Do You have memories of being the King of England ? No. You have not experienced it. You really need to stop this computer shit, and take a Biology course, and Neurophysiology. The analogy works ONLY so far. You're tripping yourself up in your own analogies, which do not translate to the brain's systems. The neurons are NOT "different". They are the same. Brain cells do not replicate, the way somatic cells do. The atoms do turn over however. The memory does not exist in the atoms. You KEEP making the SAME mistake, telling yourself about computer parts. It's FALSE. Knock it off.
"Recent studies on the turnover of the molecular population within a given nerve [brain] cell have indicated that ... their macromolecular contingent is renewed about ten thousand times in a lifetime.” [In other words, the matter making up each brain cell is completely renewed every three days.]"
~Paul Weiss, “The Living System: Determinism Stratified,” in Arthur Koestler and J.R. Smythies, eds., Beyond Reductionism (London: Hutchinson, 1969), p. 13.

Are YOU a different you, every three days ? No.

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

You are committing the logical error called the Fallacy of the False Analogy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy , comparing brains to computers. They are generally, roughly similar, in some very general ways. They are in no way the same. In fact they are far more different than they are alike. Have you ever taken a Biology course ?

right I get you now, my analogy of a computer was obviously flawed but I knew that already, also again I'm still in high school so my science education isn't exactly... expert.

Well, you're obviously VERY bright. You have a lot of fun stuff to find out about. Brain chemistry is just beginning to be understood. I think 2 men were given Nobel prizes last year for their work on the genetics of how exactly memories get stored. It's very complex, as it involves so many parts ... sight, sound, etc etc. It's a very interesting subject.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
I'm an agnostic. We cannot know if there really is a teapot orbiting the sun.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: