Creationists now think it's ok to attack brain...

Originally posted by bbarr
Substance dualists would respond that this claim of yours is confused. Brain damage may restrict our ability to be conscious of this or that; that is, it may narrow the set of possible objects of consciousness, but this does not destroy any part of consciousness itself. You may wonder if it is possible to make sense of phenomenal consciousness without specif ...[text shortened]... ates can causally interact, so establishing such causal relations does not undermine their view.

That's ant mentality. It's perfectly valid to say that our group 'consciousness' serves
a higher purpose than any one of our individual consciousness's but if I were an ant
with a bit of smart on me, I would defo choose the group making an effort to avoid
the cliff top than those marching straight towards it chanting 'this is our destiny'.

Creationistism is just another word for fatalism.

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026793.000-creationists-declare-war-over-the-brain.html
Now they say consciousness is not in the brain. Maybe in our left knee?

What do you care what the creationists think? They're not bothering you, are they? Why don't you take a stress pill and calm down. Better still, grab a tactics book and start studying, we all need a little help in that area....
😏

Originally posted by bill718
What do you care what the creationists think? They're not bothering you, are they? Why don't you take a stress pill and calm down. Better still, grab a tactics book and start studying, we all need a little help in that area....
😏

…What do you care what the creationists think? ....…

The problem is that many people that lack the ability to think for themselves with a critical and independent mind might actually believe their claptrap -it would be a corruption of the intellect.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…What do you care what the creationists think? ....…

The problem is that many people that lack the ability to think for themselves with a critical and independent mind might actually believe their claptrap -it would be a corruption of the intellect.[/b]

Do you mean that if anyone thinks independently for themselves then they would realize everything besides Andrew Hamilton's opinion is claptrap ?

All other views are evidence of a corrupted intellect ?

Are you in school ? Why so if you value thinking independently so highly ? What need of you of books and professors and a degree ?

Where is your independent thinking ?

Originally posted by bill718
What do you care what the creationists think? They're not bothering you, are they? Why don't you take a stress pill and calm down. Better still, grab a tactics book and start studying, we all need a little help in that area....
😏

They are bothering me. They push their anti-science agenda in schools, they push their anti-science agendas in politics and they generally try to encourage people to not think for themselves.

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026793.000-creationists-declare-war-over-the-brain.html
Now they say consciousness is not in the brain. Maybe in our left knee?

The end is nigh.

Sigh.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
When a person has a stroke and part of their brain is destroyed, some corresponding part of their consciousness is destroyed -this can be observed. For example, if the part of the brain known to be important for mentally forming words in one’s head is destroyed, then that aspect of consciousness is also destroyed. In this way, all aspects of consciou ...[text shortened]... troyed, therefore, you should conclude all of your consciousness is also destroyed when you die.

For the most part I would agree with you here. My only problem is that having not actually experienced the debilatative state I'm not ready to comment 100% equivocably on it. It's like newspaper reports saying so-and-so died instantly. How do you really know? You don't.

Originally posted by jaywill
Do you mean that if anyone thinks independently for themselves then they would realize everything besides Andrew Hamilton's opinion is claptrap ?

All other views are evidence of a corrupted intellect ?

Are you in school ? Why so if you value thinking independently so highly ? What need of you of books and professors and a degree ?

Where is your independent thinking ?

…Do you mean that if anyone thinks independently for themselves then they would realize everything besides Andrew Hamilton's opinion is claptrap ?
..…

no -I meant nothing more by that than exactly what I said -although I would also add if anyone thinks independently and critically for themselves then they would obviously be more likely to recognise claptrap when they see it.

…All other views are evidence of a corrupted intellect ? .….

No. In fact, if anything, the exact opposite is true because it can be a sign that at least some people are thinking independently albeit not necessarily critically.

…Why so if you value thinking independently so highly ? What need of you of books and professors and a degree ? ..…

So that we can obtain and benefit from knowledge that was gained by other people’s independent and critical thinking.

…Where is your independent thinking ?…

my brain.

======================================
So that we can obtain and benefit from knowledge that was gained by other people’s independent and critical thinking.
=========================================

So there may be a fine line between "gaining the benefit of others independent thinking" and "not thinking for yourself".


One could argue that that was THEIR independent thinking. One could argue that your being dependent upon them hence not being independent.

I think truth is the most important thing. Arriving there independently or dependently is secondary to arriving at truth.

==================================
…Where is your independent thinking ?…

my brain.
======================================

Right. The reasoning brain that gradually tumbled out of millions of years of fortunate accidents of material randomly interacting without the aid of any know how.

Dependent or independent, I don't believe that.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]======================================
So that we can obtain and benefit from knowledge that was gained by other people’s independent and critical thinking.
=========================================

So there may be a fine line between "gaining the benefit of others independent thinking" and "not thinking for yourself".


One could argue t ...[text shortened]... ting without the aid of any know how.

Dependent or independent, I don't believe that.[/b]

…One could argue that that was THEIR independent thinking. ..…

Correct -so?

…One could argue that your being dependent upon them hence not being independent. .….

I would be dependent upon them to give me THEIR insight but that doesn’t prevent me thinking critically and independently and, with this independent and critical thinking, I will always scrutinise their insight and may sometimes question their insight and even occasionally conclude that it is wrong. -there is no logical contradiction here between thinking critically and independently yourself AND gaining knowledge and insight from other peoples critical and independent thinking.

…The reasoning brain that gradually tumbled out of millions of years of fortunate accidents of material randomly interacting ..…

Not quite -natural selection is not “random”.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…One could argue that that was THEIR independent thinking. ..…

Correct -so?

…One could argue that your being dependent upon them hence not being independent. .….

I would be dependent upon them to give me THEIR insight but that doesn’t prevent me thinking critically and independently and, with this independent and critical thi ...[text shortened]... idents of material randomly interacting ..…[/b]

Not quite -natural selection is not “random”.[/b]

==============================

Correct -so?
===================================

So independence and thinking for yourself is kind of relative.

What are you doing that most of us are not doing?


=====================================
…One could argue that your being dependent upon them hence not being independent. .….

I would be dependent upon them to give me THEIR insight
=============================================

Same with a theists.

===============================
but that doesn’t prevent me thinking critically and independently and, with this independent and critical thinking,
===================================


Same with a Christian. I don't see anything terribly unique yet.

=====================================
I will always scrutinise their insight and may sometimes question their insight and even occasionally conclude that it is wrong.
====================================

Same with a person of faith.

=====================================
-there is no logical contradiction here between thinking critically and independently yourself AND gaining knowledge and insight from other peoples critical and independent thinking.
=====================================

Using the same process, some of what you write, I might consider 'claptrap' - no disrespect intended.


========================================
…The reasoning brain that gradually tumbled out of millions of years of fortunate accidents of material randomly interacting ..…

Not quite -natural selection is not “random”.
========================================

It is atheistically intellegent, at least intelligent enough to make a selection.

You said your independent thinking comes from your brain.

Is that unique to you ?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]==============================

Correct -so?
===================================

So independence and thinking for yourself is kind of relative.

What are you doing that most of us are not doing?


=====================================
…One could argue that your being dependent upon them hence not being independent. .….

I would on.

You said your independent thinking comes from your brain.

Is that unique to you ?

…Correct -so?
===================================

So independence and thinking for yourself is kind of relative.

. ..…[/b]

“relative” to what?

…What are you doing that MOST of us are not doing? .…. (my emphasis)

“MOST”? -I assume it is only a minority that seem incapable/unwilling to ever think critically and independently -so I assume I am just doing what the majority do -reason. This is because the majority at least do not seem to be anti-science or, even worse, anti-reason.

……One could argue that your being dependent upon them hence not being independent. .….

I would be dependent upon them to give me THEIR insight
=============================================

Same with a theists.
..…

On issues about science from those that are not anti-science, yes.

…===============================
but that doesn’t prevent me thinking critically and independently and, with this independent and critical thinking,
===================================


Same with a Christian. I don't see anything terribly unique yet.
…

Correct -if you are comparing Christians with non-Christians that is.
But that is not what I am talking about -where did I mention “Christians verses non-Christians“ or “Christians verses atheists“ or “theists verses atheists“?
-how about comparing those that are anti-science with those that are not (regardless of whether or not they are theists) ? -most Christians are not anti-science so you do not speak for the majority of them here.

….I will always scrutinise their insight and may sometimes question their insight and even occasionally conclude that it is wrong.
====================================

Same with a person of faith.
…

-unless what the other person says supports that blind faith.

……The reasoning brain that gradually tumbled out of millions of years of fortunate accidents of material randomly interacting ..…

Not quite -natural selection is not “random”.
========================================

It is atheistically intelligent, at least intelligent enough to make a selection.
.…

A process doesn’t need intelligence to make a non-intelligent selection. The current of a river may selectively wash away the lighter-weight particles of sand but not be strong enough to wash away the heavier ones -thus you have a process that is selective but which uses non-intelligent selection -no intelligence needed.

….You said your independent thinking comes from your brain.

Is that unique to you ?
…

No -in fact, the majority of theists and atheists alike do it. What is relatively unique is somebody to NOT ever thinking critically or independently -this would be a person with a brain defect worthy of scientific study.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…What do you care what the creationists think? ....…

The problem is that many people that lack the ability to think for themselves with a critical and independent mind might actually believe their claptrap -it would be a corruption of the intellect.[/b]

I corrupt my intellect whenever I play the English opening!
😀

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
…Correct -so?
===================================

So independence and thinking for yourself is kind of relative.

. ..…

“relative” to what?

…What are you doing that MOST of us are not doing? .…. (my emphasis)

“MOST”? -I assume it is only a minority that seem incapable/unwilling to ever think critically and independently - ically or independently -this would be a person with a brain defect worthy of scientific study.[/b]

======================================

Correct -if you are comparing Christians with non-Christians that is.
But that is not what I am talking about -where did I mention “Christians verses non-Christians“ or “Christians verses atheists“ or “theists verses atheists“?

-how about comparing those that are anti-science with those that are not (regardless of whether or not they are theists) ? -most Christians are not anti-science so you do not speak for the majority of them here.

===============================================

I don't think you could be a typical modern atheist if you really felt that most Christians are not anti-science.

IF that is something you have ascertained while being here on the Forum than that is probably a bit of progress.

But from everything else I have seen you write, it appears precisely that your grip is that the Christian faith is basically anti-science. And if the Christians were not, well then, they'd be atheists like yourself.

Isn't it you the atheist which bases your atheism on there being no imperical scientific evidence for the existence of God ?

But, don't let me discourage you from developing into an Agnostic.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
…Correct -so?
===================================

So independence and thinking for yourself is kind of relative.

. ..…

“relative” to what?

…What are you doing that MOST of us are not doing? .…. (my emphasis)

“MOST”? -I assume it is only a minority that seem incapable/unwilling to ever think critically and independently - ...[text shortened]... ically or independently -this would be a person with a brain defect worthy of scientific study.[/b]

========================================

A process doesn’t need intelligence to make a non-intelligent selection. The current of a river may selectively wash away the lighter-weight particles of sand but not be strong enough to wash away the heavier ones -thus you have a process that is selective but which uses non-intelligent selection -no intelligence needed.

============================================

But the simplicity of that example does not quite match the problem. If those washed away particles are accumulated to produce, say, Mt Rushmore, with four human like faces, the THAT is a little more the selection we see in your example.

Or if the silt were washed away and assembled to produce the Saturn Moon rocket PLUS actually go back and forth to the moon, that would be more representative of what nature seems to be doing.

Do have a pretty good grasp of Object Oriented Programming?