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
03-06-2013, 01:37 PM
I came up a theological/philosophical argument and I want it debunked.
(03-06-2013 07:44 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  MOAR!

Quote:Most genes are tightly packaged by a chromatin structure – chromatin being what compacts DNA so that it fits inside the nucleus of a cell. That compaction mechanism represses gene expression. Baf53b, and the nBAF complex, physically open the chromatin structure so specific genes required for long-term memory formation are turned on. The mutated forms of Baf53b did not allow for this necessary gene expression.

“The results from this study reveal a powerful new mechanism that increases our understanding of how genes are regulated for memory formation,” Prof Wood said.

~from http://www.sci-news.com/biology/article00969.html

Tried to find a full version of the research paper, but it's from March.... prolly too soon for freebies. Big Grin

And!

http://sweattlab.neurobiology.uab.edu/Fr...0paper.pdf

I've lost sight of the original question. Perhaps I misunderstood Bucky's claim near the beginning of the thread.

I understand that these genes are absolutely involved in the process of memory formation. However, are we suggesting that the actual form of an explicit, cognitive memory (e.g. remembering the floor plan of your old childhood home) is encoded into actual strands of DNA, such that should the neurons used to recall that memory be damaged and require replacement, said memory can be reconstructed verbatim using only that DNA?

Are you suggesting that, had we the technology, we could examine only the DNA of the cells in someone's brain after death (before total cellular collapse), and access and translate that DNA into an intelligible memory (like a floor plan)?

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2013, 02:54 PM
RE: I came up a theological/philosophical argument and I want it debunked.
(03-06-2013 01:37 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  
(03-06-2013 07:44 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  MOAR!


~from http://www.sci-news.com/biology/article00969.html

Tried to find a full version of the research paper, but it's from March.... prolly too soon for freebies. Big Grin

And!

http://sweattlab.neurobiology.uab.edu/Fr...0paper.pdf

I've lost sight of the original question. Perhaps I misunderstood Bucky's claim near the beginning of the thread.

I understand that these genes are absolutely involved in the process of memory formation. However, are we suggesting that the actual form of an explicit, cognitive memory (e.g. remembering the floor plan of your old childhood home) is encoded into actual strands of DNA, such that should the neurons used to recall that memory be damaged and require replacement, said memory can be reconstructed verbatim using only that DNA?

Are you suggesting that, had we the technology, we could examine only the DNA of the cells in someone's brain after death (before total cellular collapse), and access and translate that DNA into an intelligible memory (like a floor plan)?

What part of dynamic methylation are you failing to understand? Big Grin

All of it? I'm kinda there, but the dynamic part indicates that... no. Thumbsup

[Image: 10289811_592837817482059_8815379025397103823_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2013, 02:40 AM
RE: I came up a theological/philosophical argument and I want it debunked.
My understanding is the cells that make up the nervous system, including the brain, do not get replaced. However, biology is not my field of expertise. Is there a biologist here who can confirm this?

Some say the world will end in fire
Others say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I side with those who favor fire.
But then ice is also nice
And would suffice.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2013, 03:02 AM
RE: I came up a theological/philosophical argument and I want it debunked.
It's called "epigenetics". It affects the way the genome is expressed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (KJV)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2013, 12:12 AM
RE: I came up a theological/philosophical argument and I want it debunked.
(31-05-2013 04:37 AM)tear151 Wrote:  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"

I'm sure syllogisms are tough for a 16-year-old so let me help a bit with my own suggestions for the construction:

Premise 1: The matter that makes up a human being is replaced over time.
Premise 2: The soul is made up of matter.
Conclusion: Therefore, the soul is replaced over time.
Premise 3: The Christian idea of the soul is of a permanent part that never changes.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Christian idea of the soul is incorrect.

Your arguments, such as the statistic of atom replacement, are just arguments that you would make to support the truth of these premises. I voted "no", though, because it doesn't make sense. My Premise 2 (your Premise B) is not one that atheists or theists would agree with. The Christian concept of the soul is one of a "spirit" that floats somewhere outside of the body and the body merely communicates with it via supernatural radio waves of some fashion.

Here's a better argument, perhaps. I wouldn't call it "airtight", but it will give a Christian food for thought...

Premise 1: Any part of the human body can malfunction.
Premise 2: When the human body malfunctions, the soul does not replace that function.
Conclusion: The soul does not appear to add a function to the human body.
Premise 3: An imaginary body part does not add any function to the human body.
Conclusion: There is no visible difference between a soul and an imaginary body part.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2013, 09:13 AM
RE: I came up a theological/philosophical argument and I want it debunked.
A) Do you really believe you are the same person now that you were 7 years ago? Do you believe you are even the same person you were a day ago? I hate pictures for this very reason. Any picture taken of me, is of a former me. Who I am now is necessarily different from who I was then, no matter how long ago then was.

B) I am not entirely sure what a memory is to be perfectly honest. But if it is anything like the words I am typing here on this screen of mine, it is some form of information that is encoded via electrical impulse. I can share it with other people via some form of communication, but I would fail in communicating all the details. I also fail in remembering all the details (I am sure my dinner before my high school graduation was special, but I can't remember what it was or its smell or taste). If you change out the components of your computer but transfer your operating system and program files to a new hard drive when it is replaced, then physically your computer is different, but functionally it isn't (ignoring that it may process information faster or slower depending, but one could argue that happens with us too.). It has the same operating system, the same files, the same programs, the same users, etc. Now, once you use your new computer, it immediately beocmes different, as it will have some new information on it that your old computer did not. But this is why I bring up my example of the photograph. Functionally, I am basically the same as any picture of me that is recent enough (let's say the last few years). Same basic processing speed, same basic functions, but different information/more information. In that sense, I am completely different, nevermind the fact that atoms have come and gone from my physical structure.

C) As has already been pointed out too, the individual atoms themselves store no such information. Otherwise, I could blame my moments of agression on the atoms I share with T-rex and my moments of sloth with the atoms I share with a vegetable.

D) The fact that ones atomic strucutre is recycled every few years, doesn't lead me towards any notion of a nonphysical self anyways. It is a non sequitor. I get a new liver every few years but it is still unique to me, it doesn't mean there is a nonphysical portion of my liver. I don't understand how my atoms being replaced, necessarily means that my thoughts, memory, and self, must be nonphysical. And if they are, it should be measureable and quantifiable. Why? Because these things clearly interact with the physical world. I've seen no evidence to suggest this is the case.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2013, 04:35 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.

Scientific conclusions (probabilities) cannot transcend a possibly higher and ethical cosmic intelligence and none of us can categorically prove it can.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2013, 05:02 PM
RE: I came up a theological/philosophical argument and I want it debunked.
(11-06-2013 04:35 PM)Mr Woof 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.

Scientific conclusions (probabilities) cannot transcend a possibly higher and ethical cosmic intelligence and none of us can categorically prove it can.

There is no evidence for any such intelligence. None.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2013, 10:12 PM
RE: I came up a theological/philosophical argument and I want it debunked.
tear, you're a young man who is asking the some of same philosophical questions that the Greeks of antiquity were asking. Fortunately, we have made great strides in science to help us understand the "how", but unfortunately we've got a ways to go still. No one can disprove a soul anymore than one can disprove a god, or an invisible pink unicorn, but there is no evidence to support any of those claims, at least not any verifiable evidence. That isn't likely to change either. You either believe it is so because you wish it to be so, or you take the pragmatic approach and say "There isn't sufficient evidence to support this hypothesis yet. Therefore, we should not assume it is so, rather we should make no assumptions simply because, due to the very nature of the hypothesis, it cannot be disproved". That's my take on it anyhow. Good luck with your soul searching. See what I did there? Big Grin

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: