Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-12-2015, 12:55 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

The MOA + arguments against infinite regress.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  No thanks. I already know how inadequate your argumentation is on that topic.

Cool, because I feel as if the opposing side offers a great deal of inadequacies...so hey.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

But the difference is simple: We've identified what is cooking...the turkey is cooking, right? But we haven't identified what exactly is "sad" in the scenario, have we?

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Are you getting it yet?

No. Because in the turkey scenario, if you ask the question "What is cooking in the oven right now", and the answer is "The turkey is cooking in the oven right now". The turkey, every part of it that is in the oven, has been identified as "cooking".

But when you ask the question "What is sad when a person is sad", what is the answer? It isn't the molecules, it isn't the brain, so what is it?

Something has not been accounted for here, and that is the inner self, the immaterial self.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  "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.

Hey, you can get as scientific as you want but the problem is, my question remains unanswered. You are telling me what being sad is, but you are not telling me who is sad. If the electrochemicals and the brain isn't sad, then what is experiencing the sadness??

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

But your brain isn't sad!!! Your brain doesn't get angry. Your brain doesn't get jealous, or hurt. But you do. If you and your brain were the same thing, then what is true of your brain should also be true of you (law of identity).

But this isn't the case, which means you and your brain are NOT the same thing.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

You are still making the distinction between the two, which is actually my point. There is a such thing as an empty hard drive, ya know. The program is a separate entity than the hard drive...yet together, there is a correlation between the two that makes the use of a computer more user friendly to the individual that is using it.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

Fine, but that doesn't answer the question of who is experiencing any given emotional state. You say "I", but you aren't the electrochemicals, and you and your brain are not the same thing , so who exactly is experiencing the emotions??

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

Still doesn't answer the question...

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

Let me let you in on a secret: There Was No Heat Before the Universe Began to exist.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

Said of all that, yet, my question remains unanswered.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Consciousness is a process that arises within sufficiently complex brains: once a creature has evolved a sufficiently complex brain, that brain will possess consciousness.

Well, at this point, I will try my best NOT to point out the fact that there is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever to back up your claim. We will put that to the side for a moment. Instead, based on what you just said, imagine you are a scientist and you have an infinite amount of brain matter at your disposal. You follow?

Now, lets say you possess the ability to shape and mold all of this brain matter into a human brain, and you make this brain as complex as you like. Now lets say you've just shaped, molded, and created the perfect human brain. Congratulations, you've did it!!

Now, it is time to get this brain to start thinking. You want this brain to think of a cat. Please explain to me how you will get this brain to think of a cat. How will you do it? Where would you go to get the thought of a cat? Is it in a deep freezer? Is it in a safe? Is it buried underneath the sea? Is it at the bottom of a volcano?? Where is it? Where will you get the mere thought of a cat so that the brain can think of the cat??

Not to mention the fact that not only do you have to get the thought, but you also have to get the attitude towards the thought as well. After all, the brain has to have an attitude towards the cat? Will it like the thought of the cat? Will it hate the thought of the cat? Will it want to kill the cat? Will it want to molest the cat??

But never mind the attitude towards the cat, because first, lets just get the cat thinking, for starters. So, please explain to me how you will get this newly formed complex brain to begin the thought process.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

Please explain how one can go from unconsciously responding to stimuli, to consciously responding to stimuli. See, what you've done is the same thing that most naturalist do, which is hide behind a bunch of technical jargon. You are telling me what happened, but you are not telling me HOW it happened.

Ok, the thinking process began by reacting to stimuli, got it...so how do you go from reacting to stimuli unconsciously, to thinking about cats...consciously. Please explain.

Remember, you are the science guy, here. So I expect you to be able to scientifically demonstrate this stuff...or at least EXPLAIN it

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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

Nonsense. You've yet to demonstrate how consciousness originated, but yet you have the nerve to bypass that big question mark and dive right into the evolution of the brain? Cart before horse fallacy.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

If you already believe in evolution, of course you will allow your presupposition to be the driving force behind your theories. Such is the case here. There is no evolution of the brain and before we even talk about evolution of anything, my question is where did it come from in the first place?

Again, cart before the horse fallacy. Typical naturalist stuff. It is as if the motto is "prove nothing, but assume everything".

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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...

Science fiction fantasies Laugh out load

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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

You've been watching too much tv, son.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  The patterns within the brain, at a sufficient level of biological complexity. Are you even listening?

Nonsense. When you think of a cat, the pattern itself isn't the cat, and the cat itself isn't the pattern. I ask again; where would the thoughts come from? And a "sufficient level of biological complexity" is just a "filler" word for saying "I don't freakin' know".

You may evolve as much of an complex brain as you like, but the consciousness will be no where to be found.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

You are drifting, dude. Because none of that has anything to do with the origins of the brain or consciousness.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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?

Can you come up with a half way decent refutation of anything?? You're the one that have this notion that consciousness is a BYPRODUCT of the brain. I am saying that both the tv and remote control are separate entities, and each one could have been made without the existence of the other one.

The fact that the with the tv came an eventual need for remotes is irrelevant, because then, all I have to mention is the fact that it requires INTELLIGENCE to make those two distinct things correlate, which is precisely the case with the mind and the brain.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  And if nobody can explain it, your magic answer must be right? Argument from ignorance at its finest. Rolleyes

Um, if nobody can explain it, then it isn't a scientific fact now, is it? Contrary to what you seem to be implying. Let me just hear you say it: "With our current scientific knowledge, we do not know how consciousness originated from non-thinking material".

Can you say it? Will you say it??

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  There is evidence to support all the claims that I'm making, and none at all for yours.

Um, what evidence? All you've done is talk about computers Laugh out load

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Your petulant demands for certainty are fit for children, not adults working with evidence in a probabilistic field like science.

All talk, no evidence.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  ... 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.

Yeah and I also understand that there have been documented cases of people that have had near-death experiences after being considered brain dead. And when I say "near-death", I mean actual out-of-body experiences...such as an individual being on the operating table, yet being able to see a shoe on top of the roof of the hospital and such.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

Just show me a brain that can actually bring forth consciousness and we can squash this whole thing Cool

Is that asking for too much? You know, for a science guy to be asked to explain a supposed natural phenomenon by using the scientific method? You know, that kinda shit?

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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?

Because as true as that may be, it doesn't answer my question regarding origins. You are telling me what happened after the system was already set in place, which was for the physical brain to correlate with a non-physical mind. That is the system that is now in place. How each one (brain/mind) got here in the first place is a question that you cannot answer, amigo.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

Give me what I ask for, not what I didn't ask for.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  ... It wasn't meant to. Do I seriously need to remind you of your own questions?

My main point is the origin of consciousness and how the argument from consciousness does a great job of demonstrating how a transcendent, immaterial causal agent is necessary for the origins of human consciousness.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

Yeah, it was "off the cuff", and I was obviously asking for clarity on something that has absolutely nothing to do with the primary beef that I have with your worldview.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  A self aware pattern stored within the brain.

Dude, I asked who is the "self" that is experiencing the emotions, and your answer is "a self aware pattern stored within the brain" Laugh out load

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

I will ask again, because apparently you ain't gettin it. I am asking you simply; when a person is sad...if the brain isn't sad, and the electrochemicals aint sad...then who is actually "sad".

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

Again, who is the "me"? You just can't answer it, can you?

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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

The only thing "current evidence" suggests is correlation, which no one is foolish enough to doubt. Theists can grant this, and still maintain our position. So our position is in no way tainted by your constant reminders of how much they correlate.

Tell us something we don't know.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

I've seen no evidence presented by you or anyone else that demonstrates how consciousness originated.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

So basically, you are telling me that a mindless and blind process was able to do something that human beings with intelligence haven't been able to do? Got it. Thumbsup

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

Still not willing to sit down at the table with me to discuss origins, huh?

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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?

More straw man? I never said that the neurochemicals don't play a role, did I? I said that the "self" in any scenario you give has yet to be identified, and that the physical brain cannot be the primary source for immaterial thoughts.

Now what part of that don't you understand, or will you keep attacking positions I never held?

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  How, exactly, did you determine any of that? Dodgy

By thinking critically, and by negating one of the only two possibilities that it could be...either God did it, or nature did it...and the nature option can be safely disregarded as unproven, unscientific, and illogical...while the God hypothesis can be regarded as proven, and in compliance with laws of logic.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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?

I don't know, and rely on faith that even if something like this was to occur, God, in his omniscience, knows the "true person" and the "true self" regardless of what goes on with the brain. I also maintain a position that even if that was the case, that this is something that only takes place in earth realm. Once your soul leaves your body, that is your true "self" anyway, and such disconnects will no longer occur.

There is no physiological problems with spirits, those are all physical things.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  What about people who suffer head injuries and become completely different people, like Phineas Gage

Wiki's article on the guy:

"Gage certainly displayed some kind of change in behavior after his injury,[M8]:12-15 but the nature, extent, and duration of this change have been difficult to establish. Only a handful of sources give direct information on what Gage was like (either before or after the accident),[c] the mental changes described after his death were much more dramatic than anything reported while he was alive, and few sources are explicit about the period of Gage's life to which their various descriptions of him (which vary widely in their implied level of functional impairment) are meant to apply"

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  , 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?

I don't know. Good questions. But what I do know is, God won't judge people based on things they can't control. According to Christian theology, God is in control, and he is fair...and none of that stuff is beyond his control and if he allows it to happen, then there is a method to the madness.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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

Still no evidence regarding origins, eh?

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

"....then that brain will develop consciousness over the generations" Laugh out load

You know...sometimes, it just ain't worth it lol

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Brains grow more complex through evolution

Unsupported assertion.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  , 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.

Who is self aware though? Laugh out load

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

Again, who is self aware? The brain isn't self aware. Who is?

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  I know you won't, but look up Farah Focquaert and Steven M Platek's work with mirror neurons to learn more.

Good call Thumbsup

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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

Um, they are related. But we need not get into the subject of evolution, I was just making a broader point.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

That is the theory. Thanks for telling me your theory as to where consciousness came from. I will tell you mines...

"What started the system was the clear manifestation of a supernatural Deity that had the power and will to create intelligent human beings. Since this supernatural Deity was a mind, it should come as no surprise that here on this earth would exist creatures that have the ability to think, reason, and learn."

That is my theory. You've told me yours, and I told you mines.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Consciousness doesn't "emerge," because it's not a discrete entity.

Um, yes consciousness is a discrete entity. We've already made the distinction, remember? If there is something true of your brain that isn't true of your mind, then that alone suggests distinction/

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  It's an experience undergone by a collection of neural networks and chemistry called a brain that is, yes, mere matter.

Where is the "self" that experiences feelings and emotions?

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Why are you assuming that matter can't produce consciousness? Where did you derive that conclusion?

Because of the argument of intentionality and the aboutness of our thoughts...as all thoughts are about something. Just think about it; if you are a mad scientist in a lab shaping and molding brain matter into human brains....how can you get the physical brains to think about something else??

Right now, I am thinking of a basketball. How can my brain (a chunk of matter) be about something that is completely independent of it??? Chemical evolution will never get you abstract thoughts.

And since you believe that matter can produce consciousness, then tell how, if you were to go in your brain-making laboratory, will you get the brains to "produce" thoughts.

Just tell me how would you do it??

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

Ok, but if you wanted to get the thought inside of the brain, how would you do it. Look, you are the one that is stating that it could be done...and I am trying to get an idea as to HOW it could be done.

Your brain is just a chunk of matter, no different than a block of wood. You wouldn't be able to naturally get a block of wood to began thinking, would you? No, you wouldn't. So why would you think that a brain would be able too (without divine intervention).

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

If there was no "self", then there wouldn't be any conceptual experiences, would there. But then the question would be "what is the self, and where did it come from"....which are questions that you are obviously having a difficult time answering, otherwise this wouldn't be my umphteenth time asking.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  ... 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?

Ok, so show me a video of someone whose brain is being examined, and scientists are able to make out what the person is seeing...such as me thinking about the sunrise or the sunset.

I am not talking about some bullshit ass experiment that you are conjuring up...I am talking about an actual case of someone being able to read someones thoughts...their actual thoughts.

You can't provide that, can you? So why are you talking???

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Do you think that only people are conscious?

So, you can't answer the simple freakin question...got it.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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?

Yeah, and the Nintendo is a simpler game console than the PS4...I guess that means that the Nintendo evolved into the PS4 some 25.5 years ago, huh??

Pathetic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2015, 12:57 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(29-11-2015 01:35 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  There were humans long before there was logic.

Po' child...po, po, child Laughat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2015, 01:06 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(01-12-2015 06:15 PM)SYZ Wrote:  It makes no difference whether you've styled yourself as an apologist for 15 years or 55 years.

Styled? More like Certified.

(01-12-2015 06:15 PM)SYZ Wrote:  Did it never occur to you that nobody had the time or the inclination to debate your specious arguments?

No, that never occurred to me.

(01-12-2015 06:15 PM)SYZ Wrote:  If I told you I believed in leprechauns, and that there were numerous written eye-witness accounts of their sighting and devious acts, held in the journals of various churches in Ireland, how much time would you waste investigating in order to disprove these accounts?

That depends...if I was a Christian, I would call "bullshit"...if I was an atheist, I wouldn't give a damn.

(01-12-2015 06:15 PM)SYZ Wrote:  And as most of those eye-witnesses are now deceased, how could you prove they were either lying, or delusional?

I would ask for evidence.

(01-12-2015 06:15 PM)SYZ Wrote:  Although the legend of the leprechaun is well over a thousand years old, there was an alleged "sighting" as recently as 1989 reported by a local businessman named P.J O’Hare in Carlingford, County Louth. He was climbing on Carlingford mountain when he heard a scream coming from the area beside the Wishing Well. Being curious, he went to investigate and found a patch of burnt ground. Beside this patch he found a small hat, a jacket, and trousers with four gold coins in the pockets.

But no alleged sighting of the leprechaun..got it Thumbsup

(01-12-2015 06:15 PM)SYZ Wrote:  So... every one of the people that contributed to your holy book are dead

So did everyone that contributed to signing the Declaration of Independence.

(01-12-2015 06:15 PM)SYZ Wrote:  , so why is it that you take their word as gospel (pun intended).

Faith + Evidence.

(01-12-2015 06:15 PM)SYZ Wrote:  Like the people who believe(d) in the existence of leprechauns, could not the authors of the new testament—James, John, Jude, Luke, Mark, Matthew, Paul, Peter etc—have been deluded or even lying, just as Mr O'Hare apparently is?

Neither lying or being deluded explain the empty tomb, nor do they explain the origin of the belief of Paul and James.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2015, 01:21 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(03-12-2015 12:55 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Yeah, and the Nintendo is a simpler game console than the PS4...I guess that means that the Nintendo evolved into the PS4 some 25.5 years ago, huh??

Pathetic.

[Image: 97990e326adb10ad17197351c54f9270.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2015, 02:51 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(03-12-2015 12:55 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

The MOA + arguments against infinite regress.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  No thanks. I already know how inadequate your argumentation is on that topic.

Cool, because I feel as if the opposing side offers a great deal of inadequacies...so hey.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

But the difference is simple: We've identified what is cooking...the turkey is cooking, right? But we haven't identified what exactly is "sad" in the scenario, have we?

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Are you getting it yet?

No. Because in the turkey scenario, if you ask the question "What is cooking in the oven right now", and the answer is "The turkey is cooking in the oven right now". The turkey, every part of it that is in the oven, has been identified as "cooking".

But when you ask the question "What is sad when a person is sad", what is the answer? It isn't the molecules, it isn't the brain, so what is it?

Something has not been accounted for here, and that is the inner self, the immaterial self.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  "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.

Hey, you can get as scientific as you want but the problem is, my question remains unanswered. You are telling me what being sad is, but you are not telling me who is sad. If the electrochemicals and the brain isn't sad, then what is experiencing the sadness??

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

But your brain isn't sad!!! Your brain doesn't get angry. Your brain doesn't get jealous, or hurt. But you do. If you and your brain were the same thing, then what is true of your brain should also be true of you (law of identity).

But this isn't the case, which means you and your brain are NOT the same thing.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

You are still making the distinction between the two, which is actually my point. There is a such thing as an empty hard drive, ya know. The program is a separate entity than the hard drive...yet together, there is a correlation between the two that makes the use of a computer more user friendly to the individual that is using it.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

Fine, but that doesn't answer the question of who is experiencing any given emotional state. You say "I", but you aren't the electrochemicals, and you and your brain are not the same thing , so who exactly is experiencing the emotions??

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

Still doesn't answer the question...

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

Let me let you in on a secret: There Was No Heat Before the Universe Began to exist.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

Said of all that, yet, my question remains unanswered.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Consciousness is a process that arises within sufficiently complex brains: once a creature has evolved a sufficiently complex brain, that brain will possess consciousness.

Well, at this point, I will try my best NOT to point out the fact that there is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever to back up your claim. We will put that to the side for a moment. Instead, based on what you just said, imagine you are a scientist and you have an infinite amount of brain matter at your disposal. You follow?

Now, lets say you possess the ability to shape and mold all of this brain matter into a human brain, and you make this brain as complex as you like. Now lets say you've just shaped, molded, and created the perfect human brain. Congratulations, you've did it!!

Now, it is time to get this brain to start thinking. You want this brain to think of a cat. Please explain to me how you will get this brain to think of a cat. How will you do it? Where would you go to get the thought of a cat? Is it in a deep freezer? Is it in a safe? Is it buried underneath the sea? Is it at the bottom of a volcano?? Where is it? Where will you get the mere thought of a cat so that the brain can think of the cat??

Not to mention the fact that not only do you have to get the thought, but you also have to get the attitude towards the thought as well. After all, the brain has to have an attitude towards the cat? Will it like the thought of the cat? Will it hate the thought of the cat? Will it want to kill the cat? Will it want to molest the cat??

But never mind the attitude towards the cat, because first, lets just get the cat thinking, for starters. So, please explain to me how you will get this newly formed complex brain to begin the thought process.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

Please explain how one can go from unconsciously responding to stimuli, to consciously responding to stimuli. See, what you've done is the same thing that most naturalist do, which is hide behind a bunch of technical jargon. You are telling me what happened, but you are not telling me HOW it happened.

Ok, the thinking process began by reacting to stimuli, got it...so how do you go from reacting to stimuli unconsciously, to thinking about cats...consciously. Please explain.

Remember, you are the science guy, here. So I expect you to be able to scientifically demonstrate this stuff...or at least EXPLAIN it

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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

Nonsense. You've yet to demonstrate how consciousness originated, but yet you have the nerve to bypass that big question mark and dive right into the evolution of the brain? Cart before horse fallacy.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

If you already believe in evolution, of course you will allow your presupposition to be the driving force behind your theories. Such is the case here. There is no evolution of the brain and before we even talk about evolution of anything, my question is where did it come from in the first place?

Again, cart before the horse fallacy. Typical naturalist stuff. It is as if the motto is "prove nothing, but assume everything".

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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...

Science fiction fantasies Laugh out load

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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

You've been watching too much tv, son.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  The patterns within the brain, at a sufficient level of biological complexity. Are you even listening?

Nonsense. When you think of a cat, the pattern itself isn't the cat, and the cat itself isn't the pattern. I ask again; where would the thoughts come from? And a "sufficient level of biological complexity" is just a "filler" word for saying "I don't freakin' know".

You may evolve as much of an complex brain as you like, but the consciousness will be no where to be found.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

You are drifting, dude. Because none of that has anything to do with the origins of the brain or consciousness.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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?

Can you come up with a half way decent refutation of anything?? You're the one that have this notion that consciousness is a BYPRODUCT of the brain. I am saying that both the tv and remote control are separate entities, and each one could have been made without the existence of the other one.

The fact that the with the tv came an eventual need for remotes is irrelevant, because then, all I have to mention is the fact that it requires INTELLIGENCE to make those two distinct things correlate, which is precisely the case with the mind and the brain.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  And if nobody can explain it, your magic answer must be right? Argument from ignorance at its finest. Rolleyes

Um, if nobody can explain it, then it isn't a scientific fact now, is it? Contrary to what you seem to be implying. Let me just hear you say it: "With our current scientific knowledge, we do not know how consciousness originated from non-thinking material".

Can you say it? Will you say it??

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  There is evidence to support all the claims that I'm making, and none at all for yours.

Um, what evidence? All you've done is talk about computers Laugh out load

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Your petulant demands for certainty are fit for children, not adults working with evidence in a probabilistic field like science.

All talk, no evidence.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  ... 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.

Yeah and I also understand that there have been documented cases of people that have had near-death experiences after being considered brain dead. And when I say "near-death", I mean actual out-of-body experiences...such as an individual being on the operating table, yet being able to see a shoe on top of the roof of the hospital and such.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

Just show me a brain that can actually bring forth consciousness and we can squash this whole thing Cool

Is that asking for too much? You know, for a science guy to be asked to explain a supposed natural phenomenon by using the scientific method? You know, that kinda shit?

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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?

Because as true as that may be, it doesn't answer my question regarding origins. You are telling me what happened after the system was already set in place, which was for the physical brain to correlate with a non-physical mind. That is the system that is now in place. How each one (brain/mind) got here in the first place is a question that you cannot answer, amigo.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

Give me what I ask for, not what I didn't ask for.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  ... It wasn't meant to. Do I seriously need to remind you of your own questions?

My main point is the origin of consciousness and how the argument from consciousness does a great job of demonstrating how a transcendent, immaterial causal agent is necessary for the origins of human consciousness.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

Yeah, it was "off the cuff", and I was obviously asking for clarity on something that has absolutely nothing to do with the primary beef that I have with your worldview.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  A self aware pattern stored within the brain.

Dude, I asked who is the "self" that is experiencing the emotions, and your answer is "a self aware pattern stored within the brain" Laugh out load

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

I will ask again, because apparently you ain't gettin it. I am asking you simply; when a person is sad...if the brain isn't sad, and the electrochemicals aint sad...then who is actually "sad".

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

Again, who is the "me"? You just can't answer it, can you?

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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

The only thing "current evidence" suggests is correlation, which no one is foolish enough to doubt. Theists can grant this, and still maintain our position. So our position is in no way tainted by your constant reminders of how much they correlate.

Tell us something we don't know.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

I've seen no evidence presented by you or anyone else that demonstrates how consciousness originated.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

So basically, you are telling me that a mindless and blind process was able to do something that human beings with intelligence haven't been able to do? Got it. Thumbsup

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

Still not willing to sit down at the table with me to discuss origins, huh?

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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?

More straw man? I never said that the neurochemicals don't play a role, did I? I said that the "self" in any scenario you give has yet to be identified, and that the physical brain cannot be the primary source for immaterial thoughts.

Now what part of that don't you understand, or will you keep attacking positions I never held?

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  How, exactly, did you determine any of that? Dodgy

By thinking critically, and by negating one of the only two possibilities that it could be...either God did it, or nature did it...and the nature option can be safely disregarded as unproven, unscientific, and illogical...while the God hypothesis can be regarded as proven, and in compliance with laws of logic.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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?

I don't know, and rely on faith that even if something like this was to occur, God, in his omniscience, knows the "true person" and the "true self" regardless of what goes on with the brain. I also maintain a position that even if that was the case, that this is something that only takes place in earth realm. Once your soul leaves your body, that is your true "self" anyway, and such disconnects will no longer occur.

There is no physiological problems with spirits, those are all physical things.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  What about people who suffer head injuries and become completely different people, like Phineas Gage

Wiki's article on the guy:

"Gage certainly displayed some kind of change in behavior after his injury,[M8]:12-15 but the nature, extent, and duration of this change have been difficult to establish. Only a handful of sources give direct information on what Gage was like (either before or after the accident),[c] the mental changes described after his death were much more dramatic than anything reported while he was alive, and few sources are explicit about the period of Gage's life to which their various descriptions of him (which vary widely in their implied level of functional impairment) are meant to apply"

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  , 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?

I don't know. Good questions. But what I do know is, God won't judge people based on things they can't control. According to Christian theology, God is in control, and he is fair...and none of that stuff is beyond his control and if he allows it to happen, then there is a method to the madness.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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

Still no evidence regarding origins, eh?

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

"....then that brain will develop consciousness over the generations" Laugh out load

You know...sometimes, it just ain't worth it lol

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Brains grow more complex through evolution

Unsupported assertion.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  , 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.

Who is self aware though? Laugh out load

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

Again, who is self aware? The brain isn't self aware. Who is?

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  I know you won't, but look up Farah Focquaert and Steven M Platek's work with mirror neurons to learn more.

Good call Thumbsup

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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

Um, they are related. But we need not get into the subject of evolution, I was just making a broader point.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

That is the theory. Thanks for telling me your theory as to where consciousness came from. I will tell you mines...

"What started the system was the clear manifestation of a supernatural Deity that had the power and will to create intelligent human beings. Since this supernatural Deity was a mind, it should come as no surprise that here on this earth would exist creatures that have the ability to think, reason, and learn."

That is my theory. You've told me yours, and I told you mines.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Consciousness doesn't "emerge," because it's not a discrete entity.

Um, yes consciousness is a discrete entity. We've already made the distinction, remember? If there is something true of your brain that isn't true of your mind, then that alone suggests distinction/

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  It's an experience undergone by a collection of neural networks and chemistry called a brain that is, yes, mere matter.

Where is the "self" that experiences feelings and emotions?

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Why are you assuming that matter can't produce consciousness? Where did you derive that conclusion?

Because of the argument of intentionality and the aboutness of our thoughts...as all thoughts are about something. Just think about it; if you are a mad scientist in a lab shaping and molding brain matter into human brains....how can you get the physical brains to think about something else??

Right now, I am thinking of a basketball. How can my brain (a chunk of matter) be about something that is completely independent of it??? Chemical evolution will never get you abstract thoughts.

And since you believe that matter can produce consciousness, then tell how, if you were to go in your brain-making laboratory, will you get the brains to "produce" thoughts.

Just tell me how would you do it??

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

Ok, but if you wanted to get the thought inside of the brain, how would you do it. Look, you are the one that is stating that it could be done...and I am trying to get an idea as to HOW it could be done.

Your brain is just a chunk of matter, no different than a block of wood. You wouldn't be able to naturally get a block of wood to began thinking, would you? No, you wouldn't. So why would you think that a brain would be able too (without divine intervention).

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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.

If there was no "self", then there wouldn't be any conceptual experiences, would there. But then the question would be "what is the self, and where did it come from"....which are questions that you are obviously having a difficult time answering, otherwise this wouldn't be my umphteenth time asking.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  ... 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?

Ok, so show me a video of someone whose brain is being examined, and scientists are able to make out what the person is seeing...such as me thinking about the sunrise or the sunset.

I am not talking about some bullshit ass experiment that you are conjuring up...I am talking about an actual case of someone being able to read someones thoughts...their actual thoughts.

You can't provide that, can you? So why are you talking???

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Do you think that only people are conscious?

So, you can't answer the simple freakin question...got it.

(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  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?

Yeah, and the Nintendo is a simpler game console than the PS4...I guess that means that the Nintendo evolved into the PS4 some 25.5 years ago, huh??

Pathetic.

You are badly in need of an editor, son. (1) You don't have to respond to every sentence. Really, you don't. (2) Nobody is going to bother to read a post that's 5 screens long. That's why I don't read most of your stuff. I don't have that much time to waste.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2015, 03:06 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(03-12-2015 12:55 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Cool, because I feel as if the opposing side offers a great deal of inadequacies...so hey.

But YOU are not an atheist on an atheist site. "But hey" doesn't cut it.

(03-12-2015 12:55 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  But the difference is simple: We've identified what is cooking...the turkey is cooking, right? But we haven't identified what exactly is "sad" in the scenario, have we?

There is no "we". YOU are totally ignorant of neuro-science.
See the ignorant statement below.

Quote:But when you ask the question "What is sad when a person is sad", what is the answer? It isn't the molecules, it isn't the brain, so what is it?

Facepalm

Quote:If the electrochemicals and the brain isn't sad, then what is experiencing the sadness??

Look genius. Think "pain" Your brain responds to neuro-chemical impulses.
What is "experiencing pain" ? Facepalm

Quote:But this isn't the case, which means you and your brain are NOT the same thing.

Name ONE human that is a human without one. Idiot.
(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  [quote='Call_of_the_Wild' pid='908909' dateline='1449168901']

Yeah, and the Nintendo is a simpler game console than the PS4...I guess that means that the Nintendo evolved into the PS4 some 25.5 years ago, huh??

Pathetic.

Yet another false analogy.

Tell your Jebus to send a competent apologist. You are simply laughable as one.

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
04-12-2015, 01:25 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(03-12-2015 12:55 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  But the difference is simple: We've identified what is cooking...the turkey is cooking, right? But we haven't identified what exactly is "sad" in the scenario, have we?

What is sad? The self-aware process derived from the physical brain is sad. There: does that answer your overly simplistic, irrelevant question now?

Quote:No. Because in the turkey scenario, if you ask the question "What is cooking in the oven right now", and the answer is "The turkey is cooking in the oven right now". The turkey, every part of it that is in the oven, has been identified as "cooking".

"Sad," is a modulation to the process of consciousness that arises in the brain. By analogy, sad is to consciousness, what baking is to cooking: a specific subset of an overarching concept.

Quote:Something has not been accounted for here, and that is the inner self, the immaterial self.

It's been accounted for, you just continue to misunderstand the basic terminology of what you're attempting to discuss.

Quote:Hey, you can get as scientific as you want but the problem is, my question remains unanswered. You are telling me what being sad is, but you are not telling me who is sad. If the electrochemicals and the brain isn't sad, then what is experiencing the sadness??

I am. I'm not disputing the idea that there's a consciousness, just what the origin of that consciousness is. But "I" am a process derived from my brain, which is the organ responsible for holding and modulating how that consciousness feels.

Quote:But your brain isn't sad!!! Your brain doesn't get angry. Your brain doesn't get jealous, or hurt. But you do. If you and your brain were the same thing, then what is true of your brain should also be true of you (law of identity).

But the turkey isn't cooking! Where's the cooking?!

Quote:But this isn't the case, which means you and your brain are NOT the same thing.

I agree: I'm derived from my brain, and encoded within my brain's neurochemical makeup, but I am not my brain. I'm not a discrete entity at all: I am something my brain does, not something it creates. A verb, not a noun.

Quote:You are still making the distinction between the two, which is actually my point. There is a such thing as an empty hard drive, ya know. The program is a separate entity than the hard drive...yet together, there is a correlation between the two that makes the use of a computer more user friendly to the individual that is using it.

What makes you think that consciousness is a separate entity, exactly?

Quote:Let me let you in on a secret: There Was No Heat Before the Universe Began to exist.

And how, exactly, did you determine that? I'm sure the top cosmologists in the world would love to hear how some untrained layman knows more about the pre-planck time universe than they do.

Quote:Well, at this point, I will try my best NOT to point out the fact that there is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever to back up your claim.

One of us actually went out to look that up before we opened our mouths just now. It wasn't you.

Quote:Now, it is time to get this brain to start thinking. You want this brain to think of a cat. Please explain to me how you will get this brain to think of a cat. How will you do it? Where would you go to get the thought of a cat? Is it in a deep freezer? Is it in a safe? Is it buried underneath the sea? Is it at the bottom of a volcano?? Where is it? Where will you get the mere thought of a cat so that the brain can think of the cat??

Well, given what we're currently able to do with predictive algorithms and brain scanning hardware, all we'd need to do is scan a pre-existing brain for recall of a cat, find a way to artificially replicate that brain state with a high degree of accuracy, and then reproduce that brain state in the created brain. Given that we can scan a brain now and recreate the image it was thinking about using computer programs, it's not some impossible feat.

Quote:Not to mention the fact that not only do you have to get the thought, but you also have to get the attitude towards the thought as well. After all, the brain has to have an attitude towards the cat? Will it like the thought of the cat? Will it hate the thought of the cat? Will it want to kill the cat? Will it want to molest the cat??

Attitudes are reactions formed by prior experiences. Without having lived in the world, with no experiences or necessary evolved instincts, the brain would not naturally have an attitude toward the cat at all.

Quote:Please explain how one can go from unconsciously responding to stimuli, to consciously responding to stimuli. See, what you've done is the same thing that most naturalist do, which is hide behind a bunch of technical jargon. You are telling me what happened, but you are not telling me HOW it happened.

Ok, the thinking process began by reacting to stimuli, got it...so how do you go from reacting to stimuli unconsciously, to thinking about cats...consciously. Please explain.

Random mutation- within the framework of prior mutation- just like every other evolutionary change. What, did you want an exact, physical example, a "well, fifty million years ago these was this specific organism, that I have right here, that..." answer? The exact sort of answer that you yourself cannot provide for your position, nor have any interest in providing?

Quote:Remember, you are the science guy, here. So I expect you to be able to scientifically demonstrate this stuff...or at least EXPLAIN it

And yet when I do, as I had earlier for some other elements of this, you refuse to follow my links to actually educate yourself on my explanations. Facepalm

Quote:Nonsense.

Again, what, exactly, are you disputing? Did you even look up the experiments I was talking about before you disagreed with them?

Quote: You've yet to demonstrate how consciousness originated, but yet you have the nerve to bypass that big question mark and dive right into the evolution of the brain? Cart before horse fallacy.

So if you found a body filled with bullet wounds, with a gun on the floor beside them that had recently been fired, you would refuse to conclude that this person had been shot? Because that's the sort of logic you're engaging in right here.

Quote:If you already believe in evolution, of course you will allow your presupposition to be the driving force behind your theories. Such is the case here. There is no evolution of the brain and before we even talk about evolution of anything, my question is where did it come from in the first place?

Evolution is a scientific fact. It's not my problem that you want to chuck aside well established concepts that are cornerstone, universally accepted scientific theories, while demanding scientific evidence from me. If you want scientific evidence, then step fucking one is actually accepting and acknowledging the efficacy of science. You don't get to demand scientific evidence, while dismissing whatever science you personally disagree with.

Quote:Again, cart before the horse fallacy. Typical naturalist stuff. It is as if the motto is "prove nothing, but assume everything".

... Said the man who literally refused to go look at evidence when provided with it, later on in this exact post. Dodgy

Quote:Science fiction fantasies Laugh out load

Mocking is not a rebuttal.

Quote:You've been watching too much tv, son.

Mocking is not a rebuttal.

Quote:Nonsense. When you think of a cat, the pattern itself isn't the cat, and the cat itself isn't the pattern.

... When you think of a cat, the cat itself isn't anywhere. Thinking is a conceptual activity, that's literally why we have the word conceptual. What, did you think that when you think of a cat, it creates an actual, objective cat or something?

Quote: I ask again; where would the thoughts come from? And a "sufficient level of biological complexity" is just a "filler" word for saying "I don't freakin' know".

We can already reconstruct thoughts from brain states. All it would take is the ability to take that brain state and apply it to another physical brain. Nothing special... in fact, we can already do that, too.

Quote:You may evolve as much of an complex brain as you like, but the consciousness will be no where to be found.

What are you basing that claim on?

Quote:Um, if nobody can explain it, then it isn't a scientific fact now, is it? Contrary to what you seem to be implying. Let me just hear you say it: "With our current scientific knowledge, we do not know how consciousness originated from non-thinking material".

Can you say it? Will you say it??

Why would I say anything at all to you? You don't actually care what our scientific knowledge is, because when told where to find some you cheerfully admitted you wouldn't look at it. You don't give a damn about the contents of scientific knowledge, all that matters to you is getting us to say that there's a gap where you can shove your god. Hell, I could literally link you to science that shows your claim to be wrong and you'd just do what you always do: dismiss it out of hand, refuse to read it, and then make huge, overreaching fiat claims that it doesn't exist.

What the hell would even be the point?

Quote:Um, what evidence? All you've done is talk about computers Laugh out load

Mocking is not a rebuttal.

Quote:All talk, no evidence.

... Evidence that you refuse to look at when provided. Please do remember to finish the sentence next time.

Quote:Yeah and I also understand that there have been documented cases of people that have had near-death experiences after being considered brain dead. And when I say "near-death", I mean actual out-of-body experiences...such as an individual being on the operating table, yet being able to see a shoe on top of the roof of the hospital and such.

And yet, when scientists actually go to test those claims, what they find is, uniformly, that the person has no special knowledge that they would logically have, had they actually left their body. I can provide you with studies on this for you to dismiss baselessly, if you like.

Quote:Just show me a brain that can actually bring forth consciousness and we can squash this whole thing Cool

Is that asking for too much? You know, for a science guy to be asked to explain a supposed natural phenomenon by using the scientific method? You know, that kinda shit?

Part of the scientific method involves not accepting conclusions based on no evidence. We have no evidence for a disembodied consciousness, and so we don't accept that. We have evidence, all of neurology in fact, that demonstrates that consciousness is situated in, and wholly reliant upon, the brain. It's not surprising that you don't know this, since you clearly don't give a shit about the scientific method beyond using it as a cudgel to silence dissent.

Quote:Dude, I asked who is the "self" that is experiencing the emotions, and your answer is "a self aware pattern stored within the brain" Laugh out load

... Um, obviously whatever it is would be self aware, that's sort of a necessary condition for consciousness. That said, there were, you know, other words in that sentence that actually pertained to what, precisely, was self aware, but you've apparently opted to ignore the rest of the sentence in order to grandstand over a single, self-servingly interpreted, word. Rolleyes

Quote:I will ask again, because apparently you ain't gettin it. I am asking you simply; when a person is sad...if the brain isn't sad, and the electrochemicals aint sad...then who is actually "sad".

The process that the brain and the chemicals within it support.

Quote:The only thing "current evidence" suggests is correlation, which no one is foolish enough to doubt. Theists can grant this, and still maintain our position. So our position is in no way tainted by your constant reminders of how much they correlate.

Without any evidence of disembodied consciousnesses, even if it were only a correlation, one still wouldn't be justified in holding a theist position, and that correlation would therefore suggest a natural, physical origin for consciousness. Science is probabilistic, it isn't a binary "proposition true/all other propositions are equally possible," equation. We can not have perfectly, flawlessly demonstrated the origins of consciousness and still have a higher probability of natural causes over supernatural ones, which we do as a matter of course until you can provide a shred of positive evidence for the supernatural at all.

Quote:I've seen no evidence presented by you or anyone else that demonstrates how consciousness originated.

That is because you refuse to so much as click on it when you're presented with it. You won't even do a goddamn google search when prompted, exactly how much stock do you think people should place in what you have or have not seen?

Quote:So basically, you are telling me that a mindless and blind process was able to do something that human beings with intelligence haven't been able to do? Got it. Thumbsup

Why is it that you think the capabilities of modern day human beings are in any way relevant to whether or not something can occur naturally?

Quote:By thinking critically, and by negating one of the only two possibilities that it could be...either God did it, or nature did it...and the nature option can be safely disregarded as unproven, unscientific, and illogical...while the God hypothesis can be regarded as proven, and in compliance with laws of logic.

Okay, so, first of all, false dichotomy: you have no evidence at all that there are only two options, turning your argument false before it even gets off the ground.

Secondly, disproving one option- which you didn't do anyway- does not prove another even if you, with your limited knowledge and obvious biases, can only envision one other option. Positive evidence is what demonstrates a claim to be true, not merely negation of other claims. You can't reach a positive number from zero only by subtracting.

Quote:I don't know, and rely on faith that even if something like this was to occur, God, in his omniscience, knows the "true person" and the "true self" regardless of what goes on with the brain.

So much for all that bluster about evidence and science, eh? Rolleyes

Quote:Wiki's article on the guy:

"Gage certainly displayed some kind of change in behavior after his injury,[M8]:12-15 but the nature, extent, and duration of this change have been difficult to establish. Only a handful of sources give direct information on what Gage was like (either before or after the accident),[c] the mental changes described after his death were much more dramatic than anything reported while he was alive, and few sources are explicit about the period of Gage's life to which their various descriptions of him (which vary widely in their implied level of functional impairment) are meant to apply"

Gage is the most famous example, one I picked because it's possible you may have heard of him. He's not the only example of what I'm talking about.

Quote:I don't know.

Which, according to the way you were strutting around trying to assert that science doesn't know, means that you're wrong. Or is not knowing only a problem when it's people who disagree with you?

Quote:Still no evidence regarding origins, eh?

You're willing to accept faith as a justification for a position, why all this stress over evidence? Why is it that only people who disagree with you have to shoulder these expectations of yours? Double standard much?

Quote:"....then that brain will develop consciousness over the generations" Laugh out load

You know...sometimes, it just ain't worth it lol

Mockery is not a rebuttal.

Quote:Unsupported assertion.

Literally supported via experimentation. I did mention a few of them earlier, you know.

Quote:Who is self aware though? Laugh out load

The process undergirded by the brain.

Quote:Again, who is self aware? The brain isn't self aware. Who is?

The process of consciousness sustained by the brain.

Quote:
(28-11-2015 12:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  I know you won't, but look up Farah Focquaert and Steven M Platek's work with mirror neurons to learn more.

Good call Thumbsup

So, yeah: you spend all this time crowing about how you've been presented no evidence, and then when you're explicitly given evidence to look at, you're really proud of the fact that you won't look at it. Hypocrite. Dodgy

Quote:That is the theory. Thanks for telling me your theory as to where consciousness came from. I will tell you mines...

"What started the system was the clear manifestation of a supernatural Deity that had the power and will to create intelligent human beings. Since this supernatural Deity was a mind, it should come as no surprise that here on this earth would exist creatures that have the ability to think, reason, and learn."

That is my theory. You've told me yours, and I told you mines.

No man, you told me your unsupported hypothesis. Theories have evidence behind them.

Quote:Um, yes consciousness is a discrete entity. We've already made the distinction, remember? If there is something true of your brain that isn't true of your mind, then that alone suggests distinction/

It could also suggest that consciousness is a process, in which case things can be true of the brain without being true of consciousness. Cook something on a fire, and the fire is cooking the thing, but the fire is not cooking itself, despite cooking having originated from the fire. That's because fire is a noun, yet cooking is a verb.

Quote:Because of the argument of intentionality and the aboutness of our thoughts...as all thoughts are about something.

Ugh, more meaningless philosophical distinctions, asserted by fiat to be significant, in the hopes that people will forget you've provided nothing real. Rolleyes

Quote:Just think about it; if you are a mad scientist in a lab shaping and molding brain matter into human brains....how can you get the physical brains to think about something else??

Assuming you can get the brain to behave precisely like a human one, just scan the pattern from one and port it over to the other. Easy.

Quote:Ok, but if you wanted to get the thought inside of the brain, how would you do it. Look, you are the one that is stating that it could be done...and I am trying to get an idea as to HOW it could be done.

We've literally done it in experiments with magnetic coils attached to the skull. Stimulate the correct areas of the brain, and you produce a thought. Seriously.

Quote:Your brain is just a chunk of matter, no different than a block of wood. You wouldn't be able to naturally get a block of wood to began thinking, would you? No, you wouldn't. So why would you think that a brain would be able too (without divine intervention).

Because we've literally placed the thought "I want to move my arm in this specific way," into a human brain from outside before.

Quote: Ok, so show me a video of someone whose brain is being examined, and scientists are able to make out what the person is seeing...such as me thinking about the sunrise or the sunset.





Uh oh, how sad for you! Like I said, it's blurry, but this is a new technology, it's gonna take a while to attain perfect clarity.

Quote:I am not talking about some bullshit ass experiment that you are conjuring up...I am talking about an actual case of someone being able to read someones thoughts...their actual thoughts.

Here's an article of that experiment happening, two years ago. There's even a video.

Quote:You can't provide that, can you? So why are you talking???

Are you sad yet?

Quote:So, you can't answer the simple freakin question...got it.

... He said, while avoiding answering a simple question. Rolleyes

Quote:Yeah, and the Nintendo is a simpler game console than the PS4...I guess that means that the Nintendo evolved into the PS4 some 25.5 years ago, huh??

Pathetic.

... You are aware that many of the traits present in the PS4 first appeared in, and were inspired by, Nintendo consoles, yes? Those traits that were successful- controller formats, game types, and so on- were in actual fact passed down though console generations because they were successful. It's not a one-to-one replication of evolution, but the parallels are certainly there.

Oh, and also? Mockery is not a rebuttal.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Esquilax's post
04-12-2015, 10:25 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(03-12-2015 02:51 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  You are badly in need of an editor, son. (1) You don't have to respond to every sentence.

Yeah, I don't. But then again if I don't, the person I am quoting will probably think that since I didn't address any specific point, that the point was somehow granted and/or perhaps I wasn't able to offer a response....so I make sure I cover all grounds as best as I can.

The person that I am talking to doesn't mind this, only individuals that aren't in the conversation are the ones that are complaining (you).


(03-12-2015 02:51 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Really, you don't. (2) Nobody is going to bother to read a post that's 5 screens long. That's why I don't read most of your stuff. I don't have that much time to waste.

That is the problem. See, instead of looking at it as "wasting time", you should look at it as "learning something" Cool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2015, 10:55 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(04-12-2015 10:25 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  That is the problem. See, instead of looking at it as "wasting time", you should look at it as "learning something" Cool

We learned everything worth knowing from you about 830 posts ago.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
04-12-2015, 11:20 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(04-12-2015 10:25 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  That is the problem. See, instead of looking at it as "wasting time", you should look at it as "learning something" Cool

As in learning how to post bad apologetics?

In order to learn something, the post in question has to contain information that is accurate and verifiable. At the very least it should be an entertaining read.

If you ever post anything like that, someone will be sure to notify you.

Lol - ad hominem - evolution - ontological

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: