Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-11-2015, 04:50 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(27-11-2015 04:39 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-11-2015 10:28 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Logic is an artifact of human construction. Your god is weak if it can be constrained by a simple paradox. The Buddha sure as fuck ain't.

Oh, so because humans exist, we have logic?

Pathetic.

That isn't what was said. Your reading comprehension is pathetic. Drinking Beverage

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
27-11-2015, 04:53 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(15-02-2015 12:38 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Don't they just assert that god and hence the supernatural realm are eternal, have always been there.

What I have been told forcefully is that "Where did God come from?" is not a valid question, or as they told me when I was a kid, "Let's wait till we get to Heaven and ask Jesus."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2015, 05:04 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(27-11-2015 10:08 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-11-2015 07:42 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  So you think God can manifest itself into the physical form when it wants, but still have other random elements on this magical out of & into physical form being.

I think God can do anything that is logically possible.

(27-11-2015 07:42 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You're saying you're certain it can exist outside the physical form but couldn't create the physical form by existing before/during that physical forms creation, it had to come after which makes the Deity not the creator of all things anyway. Why you limit your God this way is still unexplained.

Makes no sense.

(27-11-2015 07:42 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You make my electro-chemicals sad... very sad

With no regrets.

(27-11-2015 07:42 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Why would you want to remain convinced of anything for some lengthy certainty? Seeking the world & human interaction in some pattern without certainty can lead to a great deal of competing and informing wonders crossing your view routinely. Not sure why you're here posting in the manner you are if you're solely convinced. You should learn how to actually approach apologetics in some manner that would actually interact with people if that's your goal. Because you're just bad at it, and that's not some all Christians are bad at it. There have been other recent posters who are far better engagers and questioners who don't simply revert to showing how woefully uneducated they are scientifically and philosophically in simple manners like you.

How about actually responding to what I said instead of typing meaningless paragraphs of your unwarranted opinion of the subject matter?

Start saying things, then you're gonna have responses. All you do it state random drivel and opinion.

Case in point. You dimwitted argument to a concept is... "Makes no sense" Oh yes, that's a comment with such marvelousness. wow I'm smacked out of my belief. Wow you're a great apologist. You really explored the world for great knowledge and leveled it onto the masses with that one.

You say you think God can do only "logically possible." Based on what? You seem to not be able to think 2 steps beyond your own mind. What is it you use to determine what is logically possible, because your demonstration of scientific knowledge is horrendous. It's not even sophomoric or childish, it's misconception wrong on it's fundamental levels. Your "logic" of what god can or can't do is based on silly made up assumptions you are stating based on things you no nothing about. Look up on neuroscience, astronomy, and biology unless your fine in life "assuming" everything you think is right on point.

What is your goal here?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2015, 05:05 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(27-11-2015 10:57 AM)DerFish Wrote:  It's called the watchmaker theory. If you see a watch you know it was made by intelligence, ...
[Image: fibo2.jpg]
[Image: fibo1.jpg]

Fibonacci must be the watch maker. Big Grin

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
27-11-2015, 06:00 PM (This post was last modified: 27-11-2015 11:56 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(27-11-2015 04:36 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  When I said that, it is based off of background knowledge that I already have regarding the absolute necessity of a first cause . So it isn't as if I just made blank ass statements. No. I have background information which allows me to make such statements.

Wrong. You have no "information". You have erroneous and biased conclusions based on incorrect interpretations of notions that has been shown to be invalid. You are too uneducated to get why they are false. Does that make your brain chemicals sad ? Faith (theologically is a "gift", according to your Babble). There are no "proofs" for the gods. You are just tossing out crap, which you don't even understand.

(27-11-2015 04:36 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  That's because wind is a process created by air molecules, not a distinct entity in its own right.

Wrong again. Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance of science. Air molecules MOVE because of differences in air pressure. It IS a "distinct entity", (an energy force, which is MEASURABLE, by scientists).
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/win...auses-wind

(27-11-2015 04:36 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  You've made my point for me. If the molecules aren't breezy, then what is breezy? What is breezy? If you say "I just came from outside, and it is windy out there". We've identified what is windy and no, it isn't the molecules, it is the state of the air flow outside.

You are so ignorant, it's hilarious. Please stop making a fool of yourself. YOU have made our point for US. You know NOTHING about anything.

(27-11-2015 04:36 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  However, when someone say "I am sad", what is sad? If the electrons isn't sad, then what exactly is sad? What are we talking about?

Your brain releases CHEMICALS. THEY make you sad and happy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorphins

(27-11-2015 04:36 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  But a stove isn't the ultimate origins of heat, just like the brain isn't the ultimate origins of consciousness.

The processes INSIDE the stove produce heat. The processes inside the brain produce consciousness. No one without a heathy brain is conscious. Without a healthy brain, all doctors know that consciousness is impossible. Since you are totally ignorant of Neuro-science, you can't even come up with a real analogy.

(27-11-2015 04:36 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Oh yeah? Well try explaining how consciousness originated in the first place, and then we will get to the magic stuff.

Take a science course some day. You may learn something. I doubt you are capable.
http://www.mindscience.org/research

(27-11-2015 04:36 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  My point is clear: The brain cannot be used to explain any origins of consciousness. You can shape and mold a brain however you like, but where would you get the actual consciousness from?

No. You have no point, and it's hardly "clear". You are dead wrong, as usual, Mr. Bad Apologist.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...ciousness/

(27-11-2015 04:36 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Which doesn't mean a damn thing. This is a correlation between my remote control and my tv, but the origins of the tv has nothing to do with the origins of the remote control, does it?
Correlation means nothing when the question is of origins.

Another fallacy of the false analogy. You have quite a load of those stupid things. You have no clue what it is you're even really arguing about.

(27-11-2015 04:36 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Apparently you are the one with the lack of understanding, because if you weren't ignorant, you would know that there is no neurologist in this world that can explain to you the origin of consciousness, just like there is no cosmologist in the world that can explain to you the origin of the universe.

Unfortunately for you, they are closing in on exactly that, but thanks for admitting your god is nothing but a god of the gaps explanation for things you lack.

(27-11-2015 04:36 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  And you are also ignorant to the fact that neurology is the study of the nervous system and brain activity, or in other words; "what happened after consciousness got here",

It's "ignorant OF the fact", dear, and Neuro-science IS (in part) the study of consciousness, but since you know NO SCIENCE at all, you wouldn't know that.

Give it up. You are an incompetent ignoramus, and a BAD apologist.
It's very humorous that this "mimic" never used the phrase "you made my point for me" until I told him that a couple weeks ago. Now it appears in almost all his posts. Heh heh. Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
27-11-2015, 06:16 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
So CotW how long do you think you can keep lying to us and expect us to fall for it?

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2015, 06:28 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(27-11-2015 05:05 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(27-11-2015 10:57 AM)DerFish Wrote:  It's called the watchmaker theory. If you see a watch you know it was made by intelligence, ...
[Image: fibo2.jpg]
[Image: fibo1.jpg]

Fibonacci must be the watch maker. Big Grin

Fibonacci didn't make the series; the series made Fibonacci.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
28-11-2015, 12:09 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(27-11-2015 04:36 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  When I said that, it is based off of background knowledge that I already have regarding the absolute necessity of a first cause . So it isn't as if I just made blank ass statements. No. I have background information which allows me to make such statements.

.... Except that I already know that your justification for the "necessity" of a first cause is nothing but a load of special pleading, ignorant of the actual science involved. I do actually remember what passes for an argument from you, you know. Dodgy

Quote:Now, if your question becomes "What evidence do you have that God is necessary", then we can talk about that as well.

No thanks. I already know how inadequate your argumentation is on that topic.

Quote:You've made my point for me. If the molecules aren't breezy, then what is breezy? What is breezy? If you say "I just came from outside, and it is windy out there". We've identified what is windy and no, it isn't the molecules, it is the state of the air flow outside.

Yes, it is a particular state or configuration of matter within a specific reference frame. "Breeze" is what air molecules do when flowing in a certain way. We had thanksgiving recently, I figure most of us cooked a turkey for that, but you won't be able to find a single molecule of "cooking" within that bird, because cooking is not a discrete entity, it is a process undergone by food within a specific situation.

Are you getting it yet?

Quote:However, when someone say "I am sad", what is sad? If the electrons isn't sad, then what exactly is sad? What are we talking about?

"Sad" is a specific neurochemical state elicited either by external stimuli, or by chemical imbalances in the brain. There are specific parts of the brain, entire areas that can be shown in an imaging scan, that "create" the feeling of sadness by activating in a specific way. When those areas activate, which they do according to a number of variables, you become sad. We've known about this, had it scientifically proven, for over a decade now; nice to see just how behind the curve you're willing to be. Rolleyes

Quote:Wait, what? You've yet to identify who the "you" is.

I am a process undergone by my brain in its totality. Certain bits of it are responsible for the different emotions and personality traits that make me up, and if you were to damage that brain or alter its chemistry then it's very possible that you could make me disappear, because that's what you'd expect if I were something contained within my meat brain.

Quote:So when you say "...experienced by", who experienced it? You've already made the distinction between the electrochemical patterns and the "you" who've experienced it. So the distinction is already made, now we just have to find out who the "you" is.

Don't mistake (one of) the causes for a thing, for the thing itself. "I," am a perceptual process created within my brain, sort of like a program on a hard drive. The electrochemical signals within that brain are what cause emotional states in response to stimuli that "I" perceive, because, you know, the brain is an organ responsible for a specific set of biological processes, just like any other. In this instance, the brain is responsible for the regulation of emotion; you've heard of an adrenaline rush, right? That's a case where the "I" program perceives a certain stimulus, let's say danger, and the brain reacts to that by flooding the body with adrenaline, which not only causes a series of corresponding emotional changes, but also provides a quick burst of energy and strength to escape the danger, or fight it, which is a distinct survival advantage when compared to a person whose brain does nothing in a similar situation.

Quote:But a stove isn't the ultimate origins of heat, just like the brain isn't the ultimate origins of consciousness.

Heat doesn't have an "ultimate origin," just a specific, contextual origin there on the stove. Same with the brain, as far as we can tell.

Quote:So the stuff that is inside getting chilly is independent from the stuff that is making it chilly? They are distinct. Thanks for making my point for me. That is what mind/body dualism is all about, the notion that the mind is completely independent from the body, regardless of how much they correlate together.

Except that's not what I said at all. There is no "stuff" cooling things in a fridge, dude. Did you not know that? Do you not understand how cold works?

The thing we perceive as cold is actually just an energy state within the molecules of a given object, as they interact with our own molecules. "Cold" is just energy leaving our body and entering the object we are perceiving as cold, it's a transfer of energy from one object that has more energy, to the "cold" object that has less. There is no distinct entity called "cold," cold is a process, it's what objects become when they have less energy within them, as perceived through the lens of our own subjectivity. So I'm not making any point at all about dualism, because my position isn't that there's two things to be dual, just one thing and a set of processes that can occur to it that alters the label we place upon it.

Quote:Oh yeah? Well try explaining how consciousness originated in the first place, and then we will get to the magic stuff.

Consciousness is a process that arises within sufficiently complex brains: once a creature has evolved a sufficiently complex brain, that brain will possess consciousness. The evolution of brains contains the answer to your question: the simplest nervous systems and brains evolved to be reactors to stimuli, little cellular patches that respond to light, say, or heat, or any other environmental factor. The more stimuli they could respond to, the better early organisms were able to survive, and so complexity is a survival advantage.

This is, by the way, scientifically proven: experiments done on a series of organisms with varying degrees of neural complexity shows us that the more evolved an organism is, the higher their tendency to preserve those parts of the brain responsible for basic behaviors, meaning that the evolution of the brain is a process of developing more sophisticated structures over time, not simply adding on a series of different, simple structures, an inference confirmed by the discovery that the human brain still contains within it a hindbrain region responsible for homeostasis that is, to this day, remarkably primitive, being that it's literally present in other, more primitive brains too.

Oh, and just in case you're tempted to just dismiss all that out of hand, what do you get when you try to model a computer network after a biological brain? Oh, you get an artificial neural network capable of learning and adapting to stimuli! And that's just what you get with modern computing power, which still isn't as powerful as a human brain... and older computers had less capabilities... and future computers will have more...

Hmm, it's almost as if, when you attempt to build something that matches the physical configuration of a brain as closely as possible, you get something closer to consciousness the closer you're able to match the computer to the brain! I wonder why that could be? Drinking Beverage

Quote:My point is clear: The brain cannot be used to explain any origins of consciousness. You can shape and mold a brain however you like, but where would you get the actual consciousness from?

The patterns within the brain, at a sufficient level of biological complexity. Are you even listening?

Quote:This would be a clear case of "consciousness sold separately". You will get the brain, but you'd lack the consciousness.

Not what modern computing would seem to indicate: you build a system modeled on a brain, you get learning, you get adaptation, and you get creative capabilities too, as contrasted with normal computers, which don't model themselves after brains, and thus have less capabilities that we would associate with consciousness.

Quote:Which doesn't mean a damn thing. This is a correlation between my remote control and my tv, but the origins of the tv has nothing to do with the origins of the remote control, does it? Correlation means nothing when the question is of origins.

Actually, your remote kinda is entangled, inextricably, with the origins of tv: if tv didn't exist, then there would never have been a manufacturing need for tv remotes. Jeez, can you get one analogy correct?

Quote:The truth is empty?

When all you can do is assert it baselessly, then it's not the truth.

Quote:Apparently you are the one with the lack of understanding, because if you weren't ignorant, you would know that there is no neurologist in this world that can explain to you the origin of consciousness, just like there is no cosmologist in the world that can explain to you the origin of the universe.

And if nobody can explain it, your magic answer must be right? Argument from ignorance at its finest. Rolleyes

There is evidence to support all the claims that I'm making, and none at all for yours. Your petulant demands for certainty are fit for children, not adults working with evidence in a probabilistic field like science.

Quote:And you are also ignorant to the fact that neurology is the study of the nervous system and brain activity, or in other words; "what happened after consciousness got here", but my question is "how did consciousness get here?", so there is no amount of "understanding" one can have at this point in the game that can answer such a question....so basically, the understanding of neurology is irrelevant considering the question that is being asked.

... You understand that you can have a nervous system and brain activity without being conscious, right? In people in vegetative states, the brain still works to regulate their organs and so on, despite there being no consciousness in them.

My point though, which shows just how inapt and hypocritical your accusation of ignorance is, is that consciousness is a brain activity. You just keep presupposing your unjustified conclusion and then applying it to my position, like I somehow have to argue my antithetical position within the assumption that yours is true. It's ridiculous.

Quote:So try again.

So try comprehending before you open your mouth.

Quote:Nonsense.

What part of what I said are you disputing? Is it the idea that your consciousness can be altered by chemicals or brain injuries, two claims readily proven by the existence of alcohol and the entire history of medical science regarding brain injuries? Or the specific case of the split brain patient, overseen by V.S Ramachandran, an actual neuroscientist, whose work is easily verifiable with a simple Google search? What part of the thing I quoted is "nonsense," given that every word of it is verifiable as true?

Or are you just so desperate to disagree that you'll dismiss my words out of hand whether they're true or not? You asked me what I meant, and I told you.

Quote: First off, again, I am talking about the origin of consciousness, and nothing that you've said addressed my points in that regard.

... It wasn't meant to. Do I seriously need to remind you of your own questions?

I made an off the cuff remark about how consciousness can be altered with physical stimuli, which was exactly that, an off the cuff statement in support of, but not vital to, the conversation we were having. You quoted that statement and asked what I meant, and I explained it. None of that quotation was ever about the central discussion, if was me clarifying something you apparently didn't understand.

Quote:Second, you still haven't told me who is this "self" that you are talking about. If consciousness is nothing more than a product of the brain and/or patterns of electrons and neutrons, then who are you?? Where exactly is the self??

A self aware pattern stored within the brain. Like a program run on a computer, but more complex. It's based off of earlier, stimulus/response neurology present in more primitive animals, but a step up from that, which is both what you'd expect from evolution, and borne out by scientific experiments of our brains versus our closest relatives.

Quote:If your emotional state requires a certain pattern of electrochemicals in your brain in order for you to feel sad...once this is achieved, then who is sad? The electrons isn't sad. The neutrons ain't sad. The brain isn't sad. If those things aren't independently sad by themselves, yet, you are sad, then there is obvious an inner you that is independent of any physical phenomenon that made you sad.

The perceptual program which is me feels sad, in response to neurochemical triggers responsible for eliciting that emotion within me. Again, don't mistake the cause of an emotion for that emotion itself.

Quote:Now, now, now, Esquilax...you don't know that.

It is what all the currently available evidence suggests. You got a problem with it, find additional evidence, don't just sit here trying to find regions of ignorance in which you can insert your magic claims. Dodgy

Quote:That is simply what you have to assume based on your naturalistic worldview.

Yawn. It's the conclusion I came to based on rational consideration of all the evidence. If that's naturalistic, that's not my fault, because there isn't any evidence to consider of things beyond the natural. If you want to make it unnaturalistic, to change my mind, then provide positive evidence instead of trying to negate what's currently available.

Quote:If the brain does in fact produce consciousness, then I'd expect you to be able to go in a lab and demonstrate how you can create a brain from mere matter, and also somehow squeeze consciousness into the brain. Can you do that? No, you can't.

You didn't research that at all, did you? Facepalm

Again, I present neural networks: we don't yet have the technology to replicate an actual human brain, but if we model computer systems on them, as closely as we can, then we get something remarkably like consciousness, capable of learning, adapting, and creating. What this suggests is that, as our technology improves and we're able to replicate the brain more accurately with it, we'll get more complex and capable neural networks yet still. We're closer than you think, to this thing you've asserted is impossible.

Quote:Straw man at its best. I never said that consciousness was not reliant upon brain activity. I said that the brain (and any other material substance) cannot be used to explain the origins of consciousness.

If it's reliant upon brain activity then why all this incredulity over the idea that neurochemicals play a role in the emotions you feel?

Quote:God wanted his creation to operate in a three dimensional space realm, and in order to do that, he had to create some kind of mechanism at which the immaterial self can conjoin with the physical manifestation of the self...and the only way he could do that was to engineer a process at which this thing called consciousness could correlate with a physical mechanism (neurological system) that allows the mind to exist correspondingly to the physical self.

How, exactly, did you determine any of that? Dodgy

Quote:Now of course, there are certain instances where there is a disconnect, an issue, between the brain and the mind, which is what one would expect based on the CORRELATION between the two (when one suffers, the other suffers)...however, once the mind no longer occupy's the body, then that won't happen, obviously

So what happened with Dr. Ramachandran's split brain patient? Since I suspect the soul is rather important when it comes to religious beliefs, and his consciousness now has two sets of them, did the soul bifurcate? Are there two souls now? Or two halves of a soul?

What about people who suffer head injuries and become completely different people, like Phineas Gage, among others? Or people that lose their memories? New souls? Or is that so mutable that it's barely important at all, if it can be changed completely and still be considered the "same" consciousness?

Quote:Until you can use your beloved scientific method to answer the questions, then the questions remain.

No, the questions remain because you have no understanding of the scientific method or what it has discovered, no interest in learning, and a vested interest in remaining ignorant and just dismissing it all out of hand. Dodgy

Quote:That was a knee jerk response. You've got nothing, sir.

Go do some research before you open your mouth. It's not my problem that you're ignorant.

Quote:Nonsense. See, that is EXACTLY what I am talking about. It is the same bull crap with evolution. Now what just happened here is simple, you've completely jumped the gun by spewing the good ole "developed in complexity over time" spiel, completely bypassing the question of HOW IN THE HELL DID CONSCIOUSNESS GET HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Okay, I'm going to have to use small words, I see that now: when you have a brain, and that brain evolves according to the traits that would allow an animal to best survive here on Earth, then that brain will develop consciousness over the generations. Brains grow more complex through evolution, this is a well established trend in science, and as those brains grow more complex, the stimulus/response patterns within them grow more complex too, so to better react to stimuli in complex, accurate ways. All that consciousness is, is a stimulus/response package that is self aware, because self awareness is a survival advantage, especially within social species where the well being of other members of their group impacts their own. If you're self aware, you can recognize others as self aware too, and simulate their awareness through a process we've come to call empathy, and this capacity for simulation is an obvious survival advantage. This is another area where there are experimental results in support of this, that you have not seen because you have no interest in educating yourself before you disagree, and you will not see, because you don't care beyond disagreeing with me out of hand.

I know you won't, but look up Farah Focquaert and Steven M Platek's work with mirror neurons to learn more.

Quote:Just like when discussing evolution, the evolutionist bypass the abiogenesis question and jump right too when this alleged evolution started taking place, instead of addressing the question of HOW IN THE HELL DID LIFE GET HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Yes, I know you're dishonestly equivocating between two unrelated subjects, you don't have to parade your lying-ass tactics around here anymore. Rolleyes

Quote:What you've just done, sir, is jump the gun. Cart before the horse fallacy. You are telling me what happens after the system is already in place, when I am asking what started the system.

You obviously don't have a clue. You've got nothing.

What started the system was the clear evolutionary advantage posed by stimulus/response systems, which come in a package we call a nervous system and brain. We can chart the evolution of such systems through the fossil record, and consciousness is just the most advanced version of that system.

Again, it's not my fault that you refuse to learn what the subject is before disagreeing with it.

Quote:How can consciousness emerge from mere matter?

Consciousness doesn't "emerge," because it's not a discrete entity. It's an experience undergone by a collection of neural networks and chemistry called a brain that is, yes, mere matter.

Why are you assuming that matter can't produce consciousness? Where did you derive that conclusion?

Quote:Nonsense. How much does the thought of a dog weigh?

The thought itself is conceptual, it weighs nothing. But the actual brain state could be extracted from the person whole and weighed, I suppose. It'd kill the person, but this question isn't as unanswerable as you ignorantly think it is.

Quote: What color is it?

It doesn't have a color. So do lots of other things. Why? Is this a problem for you?

Quote: How long is it.

Same as with the weight question, I suppose. I love how you think these are some big gotcha questions, it's ridiculous. Rolleyes

Quote: How much space does it occupy?

This can also be measured, using area mathematics applied to the brain scan itself. Not unanswerable.

Quote:You can't answer any of these questions, can you? No, you can't. Because thoughts aren't physical things, which is my very point.

I answered all of them, you insipid moron. And so what if they aren't physical things? They're conceptual experiences brought on by definite physical stimulus. Stop mistaking the result of a thing for its cause.

Quote:And sure, you may see the image patterning, but you can't see the actual thought itself, can you? No, you can't.

... We've been able to do that, approximately, for four years now. You can use an MRI to reconstruct a memory of a viewed object; it's kinda blurry, but the technology was new at the time. Berkeley scientists managed it in 2011. And actually, since 2013 we've had the ability to take someone's thoughts and transfer them to another person in another room using an electroencephalograph and a transcranial stimulation coil. So, not only can I see the actual thought itself, but if given the right equipment I can also think it direct from that person's mind, and act upon it myself.

Are you fucking embarrassed, saying all these things so confidently without knowing a single goddamn thing about it? Facepalm

Quote:All you had to do was say "Hey man....um, I don't know". All of that other nonsense and irrelevency, keep to yourself.

It's you that doesn't know, because you will not learn. That was the point of what you quoted: it's not me that doesn't know, it's you that will not release your deathgrip on your preconceptions.

Quote:Laugh out load Laughable. So this consciousness and this brain that arose together...what person was this consciousness connected to? You can't have consciousness without the person...so, who was the person? Laugh out load

Do you think that only people are conscious?

Quote:Um, the object inside of your skull is what I accept to be a brain.

Okay, but you do understand that other animals have brains too, of differing levels of complexity, right? And that as you go down the line, toward simpler animals, the line between the brain and just the nervous system begins to blur? See what I'm getting at, there?

Quote:Already answered this, tinkerbell Cool

Too bad you didn't bother basing your answer on evidence, Cinderella. Angel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Esquilax's post
28-11-2015, 12:32 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(27-11-2015 04:39 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-11-2015 10:28 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Logic is an artifact of human construction. Your god is weak if it can be constrained by a simple paradox. The Buddha sure as fuck ain't.

Oh, so because humans exist, we have logic?

Pathetic.

Well some of us do. You clearly don't.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
29-11-2015, 12:54 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Quote: You can use an MRI to reconstruct a memory of a viewed object; it's kinda blurry, but the technology was new at the time. Berkeley scientists managed it in 2011. And actually, since 2013 we've had the ability to take someone's thoughts and transfer them to another person in another room using an electroencephalograph and a transcranial stimulation coil. So, not only can I see the actual thought itself, but if given the right equipment I can also think it direct from that person's mind, and act upon it myself.

This is the coolest shit here. I'm wondering how it's done, since when I conceptualize an apple, let's say, the same process of neurons might not light up in the same order as they do in another's brain when they conceptualize an apple. I'd expect some similarities, of course, but to be able to see and understand a thought like that is amazing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes natachan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: