Why should a deity exist?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-01-2017, 02:29 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(27-01-2017 04:27 PM)JHaysPE Wrote:  My hypothesis is Intelligence is a "thing", a "force", like gravity. And like gravity, intelligence is recognized by the human mind. It's studied, and it can even be predicted and harnessed. But intelligence is not a product of the human mind. It simply 'is", like gravity simply "is". Our comprehension and our ability to harness it doesn't make us its source or its author.

There is not a single neuro-scientist in the entire world that buys this nonsense.
Anyone who knows anything about neuro-science knows that intelligence is present ONLY as an emergent product of healthy functioning brains. It exists nowhere else and has been observed NOWHERE else. In the presence of damaged brain functions, (injury and disease) it is diminished. It is NEVER observed in any other environment. "It" has never once been observed in the absence of a functioning brain. Ever. This is not an "hypothesis". It's an un-testable piece of religious non-science rubbish with not one observation to support it. Not 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
[+] 5 users Like Bucky Ball's post
29-01-2017, 11:55 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(28-01-2017 07:39 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(27-01-2017 04:27 PM)JHaysPE Wrote:  My hypothesis is Intelligence is a "thing", a "force", like gravity. And like gravity, intelligence is recognized by the human mind. It's studied, and it can even be predicted and harnessed. But intelligence is not a product of the human mind. It simply 'is", like gravity simply "is". Our comprehension and our ability to harness it doesn't make us its source or its author.

We could test the hypothesis, and you are free to rebut the findings.

I am honestly curious how you propose to test this.

By the same method that produced the original results: reach waaaaaaaay back, insert hand into rectum, grab, and pull. Then see if what you get matches the original pull.

Science is all about reproducibility. Tongue

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
29-01-2017, 11:58 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(29-01-2017 11:55 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(28-01-2017 07:39 AM)unfogged Wrote:  I am honestly curious how you propose to test this.

By the same method that produced the original results: reach waaaaaaaay back, insert hand into rectum, grab, and pull. Then see if what you get matches the original pull.

Science is all about reproducibility. Tongue

If he does that he'll probably poke himself in the eye.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
30-01-2017, 06:28 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(27-01-2017 04:27 PM)JHaysPE Wrote:  My hypothesis is Intelligence is a "thing", a "force", like gravity. And like gravity, intelligence is recognized by the human mind. It's studied, and it can even be predicted and harnessed. But intelligence is not a product of the human mind. It simply 'is", like gravity simply "is". Our comprehension and our ability to harness it doesn't make us its source or its author.

My counter hypothesis is that Stupidity is a "thing", a force like gravity and it nullifies those intelligence forces completely.

You are now trapped in an impenetrable box.
You have no access to intelligence.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
30-01-2017, 07:27 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(28-01-2017 02:29 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(27-01-2017 04:27 PM)JHaysPE Wrote:  My hypothesis is Intelligence is a "thing", a "force", like gravity. And like gravity, intelligence is recognized by the human mind. It's studied, and it can even be predicted and harnessed. But intelligence is not a product of the human mind. It simply 'is", like gravity simply "is". Our comprehension and our ability to harness it doesn't make us its source or its author.

There is not a single neuro-scientist in the entire world that buys this nonsense.
Anyone who knows anything about neuro-science knows that intelligence is present ONLY as an emergent product of healthy functioning brains. It exists nowhere else and has been observed NOWHERE else. In the presence of damaged brain functions, (injury and disease) it is diminished. It is NEVER observed in any other environment. "It" has never once been observed in the absence of a functioning brain. Ever. This is not an "hypothesis". It's an un-testable piece of religious non-science rubbish with not one observation to support it. Not one.

They will argue that when you damage the brain you actually diminsh the brain's capability of interacting with this "force".

Yeah... hard to debate when people are not even a bit interested in finding the truth, everything you say becomes just a new obstacle to be "ad-hoc'ed"

That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.”
-P.C. Hodgell - Seeker’s Mask - Kirien
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Velvet's post
30-01-2017, 08:31 AM (This post was last modified: 30-01-2017 10:39 AM by mordant.)
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(30-01-2017 07:27 AM)Velvet Wrote:  They will argue that when you damage the brain you actually diminsh the brain's capability of interacting with this "force".
In fairness I think the "brain as transceiver" hypothesis is the ONLY hypothesis that could even remotely explain experienced reality (e.g., brain damage) in a way that comports itself with the notion that consciousness is not inextricably emergent from biological processes and substrates, and yet would still work if consciousness were somehow separate from the brain. It is at least an attempt to reconcile the two, and I've seen far more flawed attempts to reconcile mystic / spiritual / supernatural beliefs with observable reality.

The main problem with the hypothesis is that there is literally no evidence for it, and quite a lot of evidence against it. It is an example of an explanation that could fit the facts, but gets shot down by evidence (and the fact that the only way to falsify it is to put a living human in a Faraday cage and observe that they become unconscious or at least like a zombie because they are cut off from the "antenna", and this clearly never happens, and you are then reduced to claiming that your hypothesized consciousness "field" is an example of a natural force (or, worse, supernatural force) that we don't yet know how to shield from).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes mordant's post
30-01-2017, 09:22 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(30-01-2017 07:27 AM)Velvet Wrote:  
(28-01-2017 02:29 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is not a single neuro-scientist in the entire world that buys this nonsense.
Anyone who knows anything about neuro-science knows that intelligence is present ONLY as an emergent product of healthy functioning brains. It exists nowhere else and has been observed NOWHERE else. In the presence of damaged brain functions, (injury and disease) it is diminished. It is NEVER observed in any other environment. "It" has never once been observed in the absence of a functioning brain. Ever. This is not an "hypothesis". It's an un-testable piece of religious non-science rubbish with not one observation to support it. Not one.

They will argue that when you damage the brain you actually diminsh the brain's capability of interacting with this "force".

Yeah... hard to debate when people are not even a bit interested in finding the truth, everything you say becomes just a new obstacle to be "ad-hoc'ed"

Provide even a shred of evidence or shut the fuck up. 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
30-01-2017, 10:12 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(30-01-2017 09:22 AM)Chas Wrote:  Provide even a shred of evidence or shut the fuck up. Drinking Beverage

We may never know as JHaysPE appears to have left the building. I was looking forward to his plans for testing his "hypothesis".
Consider

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2017, 12:57 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(30-01-2017 08:31 AM)mordant Wrote:  
(30-01-2017 07:27 AM)Velvet Wrote:  They will argue that when you damage the brain you actually diminsh the brain's capability of interacting with this "force".
In fairness I think the "brain as transceiver" hypothesis is the ONLY hypothesis that could even remotely explain experienced reality (e.g., brain damage) in a way that comports itself with the notion that consciousness is not inextricably emergent from biological processes and substrates, and yet would still work if consciousness were somehow separate from the brain. It is at least an attempt to reconcile the two, and I've seen far more flawed attempts to reconcile mystic / spiritual / supernatural beliefs with observable reality.

cannot ... parse ... can't track no double-negatives ... Weeping

1) "brain as transceiver" is consistent with the notion that consciousness is not an emergent property.
2) "brain as transceiver" is consistent with dualism.

Yes?

What am I missing? The "and yet" bit is confusing me. Is there an implicit assertion that "brain as transceiver" is consistent with consciousness as an emergent property?

(30-01-2017 08:31 AM)mordant Wrote:  The main problem with the hypothesis is that there is literally no evidence for it, and quite a lot of evidence against it. It is an example of an explanation that could fit the facts, but gets shot down by evidence (and the fact that the only way to falsify it is to put a living human in a Faraday cage and observe that they become unconscious or at least like a zombie because they are cut off from the "antenna", and this clearly never happens, and you are then reduced to claiming that your hypothesized consciousness "field" is an example of a natural force (or, worse, supernatural force) that we don't yet know how to shield from).

A compass still works inside a Faraday cage. Doesn't keep all EM out. I don't know if proponents of "mind as a fundamental force" appeal to simultaneous invention but it is a fascinating phenomena.

Stimulating stuff. Thumbsup

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2017, 01:17 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
JHays, just slow down........ And define God for me... in your view, what is the definition of God??

Oh no. He's here - God
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: