04 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonshipActually no, I have said no such thing.
You may certainly have a faith in Scientism that it cannot fail to happen.
Meanwhile you are attempting to avoid dealing with the actual argument. You have claimed that it is not possible for humans to create a concious mind. You have given no reasoning to support this. It remains a religious belief on your part, that is all.
I have merely claimed that the fact that we have not yet created a concious mind is not evidence that it is impossible (as you tried to imply).
In the case of deconstructing brain states to get down to the real thinking going on, I at least indicated where we could look - to CERN for previously unknown thinking particles or thinking reactions from subatomic events.
Demonstrating utter ignorance of the science involved at CERN, as well as a deliberate and failed attempt at trying to persuade me that a single 'thinking particle' must be found.
I remember carefully not excluding that a combination might be the thing to look for.
You remember wrong. I several times stated that thinking involves a combination and your response was a demand that there be found a 'thinking particle' and that 'thinking' be included in the definition of matter and that CERN be the best place to start looking for this 'thinking particle'.
This is getting repetitive so I am soon going to give more attention to other aspects of the exchange.
Not surprising given that your argument fell apart.
In summary, I think you have now conceded that no 'thinking particle' is required and that thinking may arise from a combination of large numbers of particles.
We are well on the way to deciphering how thinking works and already know most of the chemical and electrical processes involved - and no, CERN was no help at all.
And? And you'll find that physical brain states are not mental brain states. But there is some close correlation.
And how do you know this?
But I would tell them that that is not ME.
Tell them all you want, it wont make it true or not true. It seems your argument now boils down to 'I don't like the idea, therefore it aint true'.
There were limits to what the old alchemists could do. Why should we find it hard to understand there are limits to our detection of mind states by tracing brain states ?
Once again, all you have is 'I don't think its possible'. You have no actual evidence for your beliefs.
skip some repetitive things ...
me: Do you disagree with that ?
[b]I suggested to you, the one suggesting the consciousness of people is basically the chemical electric activity upon the brain cell neurons, that YOU should go to CERN to see if they uncover "THINKING" going on in some subatomic realm.
Nobody has claimed that thinking goes on at some subatomic realm. In fact, quite the opposite. Repeatedly. Yet you keep on trying very hard to demand that a 'thinking atom' be found.
I think the thinking self aware of consciousness is much more of a challenge then the making of a star.
Maybe so. It remains the case that the fact that we haven't done something is not evidence that it cannot be done.
Whereas you say there are probably NO limits, I say there are limits.
Say it all you like, it wont make the limits appear, nor will it make the limits where you want them to be, nor will it be considered evidence for what you are claiming. It remains a religious belief not founded on evidence or rational argument.
I am not a physicist. But in the case of a water river, I don't think going lower than the water molecule to quarks, leptons, etc. is really necessary.
Yet you repeatedly demanded that be done for the brain.
What to a single H2O molecule to a water river is a subcomponent to mental consciousness ?
The neuron.
I think you are reacting to the difference between the two issues with ridicule and some hostility. This is not terribly impressive.
It is to be expected given your stubborn refusal to listen to what I am saying.
I think your repeated demands for a 'thinking atom' followed by your denials that any such demands were made is dishonest on your part.
I have addressed the 'thinking atom' demand many times now yet you keep repeating it as if you have your hands over your ears.
Get it into your head: the mind is a highly complex organ consisting of many many large molecules which make up cells which only in combination result in conciousness and thought. THERE IS NO THINKING ATOM and thinking is most definitely not a subatomic process.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by twhiteheadMeanwhile you are attempting to avoid dealing with the actual argument. You have claimed that it is not possible for humans to create a concious mind. You have given no reasoning to support this.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the present time it is not possible for us to create conscious mend. You know that.
We also have no perpetual motion machine.
We also have not yet turned lead into gold.
You can always hope we can do these things in the distant by and by if you want.
Meanwhile you are attempting to avoid dealing with the actual argument.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't take seriously you informing me when my job is done.
You have claimed that it is not possible for humans to create a conscious mind.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's right for the present time.
You can always hope for the future.
It comes off as a religious hope.
You have given no reasoning to support this. It remains a religious belief on your part, that is all.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't take seriously my need to be informed by you when I have or have not supported this.
Your hope in the omnipotence of Scientism (stated or passively hinted) is religious.
I have merely claimed that the fact that we have not yet created a conscious mind is not evidence that it is impossible (as you tried to imply).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You not only cannot do it. You don't know where to start.
And I explained that physical brain states are not mind states, though there may be a cause and effect relationship in some cases.
me:
In the case of deconstructing brain states to get down to the real thinking going on, I at least indicated where we could look - to CERN for previously unknown thinking particles or thinking reactions from subatomic events.
tw: Demonstrating utter ignorance of the science involved at CERN, as well as a deliberate and failed attempt at trying to persuade me that a single 'thinking particle' must be found.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're demonstrating utter rhetoric.
And I never said you could be "persuaded" of anything.
I don't expect you to be persuaded by me.
I am not waiting for some stamp of approval from you that your beliefs about what Naturalists can do can be shown as unlikely.
I recognize limitations what Naturalist approach to invention.
If you want to hope man can create an computer with self consciousness, emotion, mind, and volition, you go ahead and hope idealistically in that.
me: I remember carefully not excluding that a combination might be the thing to look for.
tw: You remember wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------------
No i don't.
I don't need to print out a hard copy of all these posts.
i don't need to flip back through the pages. I recall what I wrote.
me:
I several times stated that thinking involves a combination and your response was a demand that there be found a 'thinking particle' and that 'thinking' be included in the definition of matter and that CERN be the best place to start looking for this 'thinking particle'.
This is getting repetitive so I am soon going to give more attention to other aspects of the exchange.
tw: Not surprising given that your argument fell apart.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I am not waiting to be informed by you when my argument did or did not fall apart. I expect you to do just as you're doing - harping repetitively on a minor matter, the substance of which you are not even correct on.
We are well on the way to deciphering how thinking works and already know most of the chemical and electrical processes involved - and no, CERN was no help at all.
No we are not "well on the way to deciphering how thinking works." The reason ? Mind is not matter.
me:
And? And you'll find that physical brain states are not mental brain states. But there is some close correlation.
tw: And how do you know this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know because of the law of identity.
If something is true for A which is not true for B that proves that A is not the same thing as B.
If A and B we the same thing, then everything that is true for one would be true for the other and versa.
You never should me the centimeter length of these stored memories in the brain. Why not ?
me: But I would tell them that that is not ME.
tw: Tell them all you want, it wont make it true or not true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, if they are fanatically religious, telling them all I want is not likely to change their or your obsession. But we know that while science has access to recorded indications of eletro-chemical activity in the physical brain, they don't have access to my conscious mind.
However obsessed you are with Scientism's omnipotence, they simply cannot be conscious of [b]"me" the way I am. I don't care how many synapses they can describe in terms of charges and chemical transfers.
If you want to believe all that activity is YOU, you go ahead and believe that.
It seems your argument now boils down to 'I don't like the idea, therefore it aint true'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not counting on being informed by you what my truthful analysis of the problem "boils down to." Brain states are not mind states though we observe some corrrelation.
By the way, the mind can also effect the physical part of our beings. Some who take the placebo instead of the real medicine can imagine that they have been healed. That is the mind effecting the body.
In short the influence of the mind on the body argues for a immaterial mind / material body dualism.
me:
There were limits to what the old alchemists could do. Why should we find it hard to understand there are limits to our detection of mind states by tracing brain states ?
tw: Once again, all you have is 'I don't think its possible'. You have no actual evidence for your beliefs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All you have done is looked at the evidence and said you're not persuaded. I never believed or suggested you could be persuaded.
You're going to tell us the length in metrics of these stored memories in the physical brain. Do so in your next post.
They attach electrodes to the brain and tell the patient to day dream as they read a series of numbers. Then they stop and ask the patient to remember at some point the number two numbers back. They examine squiggles on the chart recording brain activity at the moment the patient is suppose to be remembering. They subtract out all the other activity to isolate the indication of the when memorizing was taking place. And they say -
"RIghjt there. That is your memory. "
That is not the memory. And insisting that it is is dehumanizing.
It may be a indication of electrical activity being fired off in brain cells. It is not the memory.
And while you may be eager to dehumanize your own being not everyone wants to be obsessed by such folly.
The memory is not material.
You haven't proved that it is.
Describe the weight of any stored memory in your next post.
That's all the time I have this morning.
06 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonshipAnd I have not claimed otherwise. At no point in the discussion has that been a point of contention.
At the present time it is not possible for us to create conscious mend. You know that.
We also have no perpetual motion machine.
For good reason. We know about the laws of thermodynamics that make such machines non-viable.
We also have not yet turned lead into gold.
Wrong:
http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/russian-scientists-turn-lead-into-gold/
You can always hope we can do these things in the distant by and by if you want.
I notice you failed to mention the billion and one things that we have managed to do via scientific discovery and invention. Not having done something is not good evidence that it can't be done. Repeating over and over that we haven't created conciousness does not further your case.
That's right for the present time.
You can always hope for the future.
It comes off as a religious hope.
Why? I have good reasons for thinking it will be possible in future. Why do you claim my reasons are religious and not based on evidence? You have presented no reasoning to support such a conclusion.
I don't take seriously my need to be informed by you when I have or have not supported this.
Huh? Now you are not making sense. Who asked you whether or not you take seriously your need to be informed? The facts remain. Don't like the facts? That's your problem.
Your hope in the omnipotence of Scientism (stated or passively hinted) is religious.
I have never stated nor passively hinted any hope in the omnipotence of Scientism. That is all in your imagination.
You not only cannot do it. You don't know where to start.
Actually I do know where to start.
You're demonstrating utter rhetoric.
In what way? At least try and make some sense.
No i don't.
I don't need to print out a hard copy of all these posts.
i don't need to flip back through the pages.
Not surprising as doing so would demonstrate conclusively, that you remember wrong.
I am not waiting to be iinformed by you when my argument did or did not fall apart.
Nobody has asked if you are waiting, nor suggested that you were. Nevertheless, your arguments did fall apart.
No we are not "well on the way to deciphering how thinking works."
You presumably haven't read the relevant scientific papers or studied the relevant courses. And you are wrong.
If you are interested in learning, Harvard university offers free courses on it. Start here:
https://www.edx.org/course/fundamentals-neuroscience-part-1-harvardx-mcb80-1x
The reason ? Mind is not matter.
A flawed reason given that nobody has claimed that mind is matter, nor does mind have to be matter for us to understand how thinking works.
I know because of the law of identity.
If something is true for A which is not true for B that proves that A is not the same thing as B.
If A and B we the same thing, then everything that is true for one would be true for the other and versa.
Well maybe I misunderstood what you meant by 'brain state' and 'mental state'. I think I probably agree that they are not the same thing. Nevertheless I still hold that the mental state is entirely stored in the brain state and entirely proceeds as a result of changes to brain state.
You never should me the centimeter length of these stored memories in the brain. Why not ?
Because it was a stupid demand, and remains stupid. All it demonstrates is your total lack of understanding of the topic under discussion.
Well, if they are fanatically religious, telling them all I want is not likely to change their or your obsession. But we know that while science has access to recorded indications of eletro-chemical activity in the physical brain, they don't have access to my conscious mind.
What you say constitutes 'access'? The ability to change it? The ability to read it? Both are possible to some degree.
I am not counting on being informed by you what my truthful analysis of the problem "boils down to."
Nobody has suggested you are counting on .....
Your style of response is getting tedious and stupid. I think I'll stop here. Your arguments failed miserably but you can't admit it. What else is new?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by twhiteheadConcerning perpetual motion machines:
For good reason. We know about the laws of thermodynamics that make such machines non-viable.
viable - achievable, attainable, doable, feasible, practicable, realizable, possible, workable
None of these synonyms apply to man creating a device with consciousness. It is non-viable.
Concerning turning lead into gold (if even a few atoms at a time)
Interesting article submitted:
http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/russian-scientists-turn-lead-into-gold/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interestng. Yet the phrase "the limits of science" was used. ie. "pushing the limits of science".
Some synonyms for the phrase "pushing the limits"
twist, injure, weaken, distort, wrench
In "pushing the limits" of science we should be careful that we don't twist or distort reality. IE. claiming that we will one day create a machine the will be conscious - most likely a distortion of reality.
One other webstite that had the story of lead to gold (a few atoms at a time) also contained an article on "out of body" experiences, which indicated some interest in the plausible immaterial component of human beings.
Concerning what scientists may do in the future:
I notice you failed to mention the billion and one things that we have managed to do via scientific discovery and invention.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not everything I chose not to write about was failure to mention. I "failed to mention" the dark side of the moon too.
The brief acknowledgement of scientific accomplishment, if not a Carl Saganness "billions and billions" was my admitting that I liked science as much as you. Good enough.
Not having done something is not good evidence that it can't be done. Repeating over and over that we haven't created conciousness does not further your case.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suggesting that you hope something will be done is no stronger evidence that it will.
Repeating over and over that we haven't created conciousness does not further your case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pointing to past inventions doesn't necessarily further yours.
Concerning your trust that a conscious machine will be invented some day and my saying it sounds like religious hope.
I have good reasons for thinking it will be possible in future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said religious reasons could not be good reasons too.
I have good reasons for expecting the second coming of Christ.
You have presented no reasoning to support such a conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I have. For one we don't even really know what thinking is.
Pointing at some electrical activity in the neurons is a long way off.
me: I don't take seriously my need to be informed by you when I have or have not supported this.
tw: Huh?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You may trust your way of thinking to assertain the situation. I don't. I mentioned above the tendency of some devotees to Scientism on "pushing the limits" which can distort, twist, wrench - this case reality.
Proposing a machine which is self aware, conscious, and capable of first person introspection is most certainly leads to a wrenching and distortion of the reality of human identity.
Now you are not making sense.
--------------------------------------------------
It makes perfect sense. Your undermining the uniqueness of human consciousness to be basically a physical matter does not encourage me that you're realistic. I find the concept fanatically Naturalistic.
I don't trust a fanatically Naturalistic devotion to inform me of the effectiveness of my arguments to explain the reasonable limits of what scientists can do.
You may want to play God. Doesn't me you shall or even that you should. When you invent a machine that is conscious and believes in God, then I'd be impressed. Or are you assuming any conscious mind you create will of course be an atheist ?
The facts remain. Don't like the facts? That's your problem.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That some very limited finding a few decaying atoms of gold were very non cost effectively discovered in working on lead, was a helpful contribution. I haven't seen anything else to seriously challenge that the soul is an immaterial entity.
I have never stated nor passively hinted any hope in the omnipotence of Scientism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would not expect you to acknowledge for you Scientism even exists. This is true in exactly the same way I would not say that God is a "religious" matter.
You have replaced God with your trust in Science. And that to the point that I would definitely call it Scientism.
But the main point to me here is the immaterial nature of the human soul. We have good reasons to believe it is immaterial. I recall you speaking of the physically manipulated brain effecting thoughts. That is true. But the other way around is also true. The mind can effect the physical body.
Whether or not scientists invent a conscious mind or not, this evidence of what some would call "mind of MATTER" argues that the mind is not matter. That means that the mind is an immaterial component of the human being which at times can influence matter of which our bodies are composed.
It is a shame that in the zeal to uphold Atheism such damage to our own humanity must take place. I find it more realistic that our ability of mind to effect matter is because we are created in the image of God.
God created matter. God created the universe and can effect and uphold it. In some reflective yet less powerful way we as immaterial souls, also have some limited influence on matter.
Thinking a certain way can change brain chemistry.
You don't have to be a spiritual person or a theist.
There are ways a person's thinking may effect brain chemistry for better sometimes, for worse sometimes.
I need to stop here. One parting comment for now:
Your style of response is getting tedious and stupid. I think I'll stop here. Your arguments failed miserably but you can't admit it. What else is new?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well if you now withdraw from your cultured and refined posture to ad homs, ok. You're style of writing is not "getting" tedious and stupid and full of failed arguments. It has been that way from the first I read your posts six or more years ago.
You are to me strong example of the suspicion - If Atheism is true it is doubtful that ANY argument can be won.
And furthermore Science seems to be burying Atheism in the 21rst Century.
.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf consciousness is considered part of the soul, then there are two basic problems to deal with:
1. It is undeniable that consciousness is substantially tied to the physical brain. Changing the brain changes the consciousness. The connection is so strong that it seems unreasonable to believe that consciousness would survive without the brain.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- [spelling corrected]
Changing mind states can also change brain chemistry. That argues for consciousness being more than physical brain activity.
2. Continuity. My consciousness of today is not my consciousness of yesterday or 10 years ago.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think that is so. You today are conscious of more things perhaps. As time advances the accumulation of things to be aware of increases. It is still YOU at 4 years old and 15 years old at 25, 35, 45, etc.
I would advize you to view the true story in the movie "The Three Faces of Eve" about a woman who had multiple personalities. It is a true story. And she is helped to unite the three persons in integration from her traumatic split personality.
It has a happy ending. And so do we who realize we one person has continued in each of us from birth and throughout life.
If my conciousness of 10 years ago is placed in heaven, then that is not who I identify as 'me'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are sent to hell it will be you and no other.
You won't be able to say "You have the wrong person."
It is better to confess - " Lord Jesus you have the right person. And I accept the needed forgiveness and redemption You accomplished that I may be saved from judgment and transformed into Your image. "
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
The problem comes in when I get Alzheimers and loose all my memories and my conciousness goes insane and then I die. What conciousness continues after death? The insane memoryless one? The one just two days before Alzheimers started?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alzheimer's diseas, I think can be compared to a man strapped in the driver's seat of a car. Suppose the steering wheel is malfunctioning and only turns to the left. This indeed hinders the driver from going where he wants to go around town. But it does not prove that the driver IS the car.
The mal-functioning brain may limit what the soul can do. The mal-function in the vessel in which the soul is housed does not prove the vessel IS the soul.
The steering may break, the horn may not work, the breaks fail to engage properly, and the ignition may not work right. All these malfunctions hinder the driver from being able to use the car to go where he wants to go. But the driver is not the machine.
I maintain we are like that driver in the car. Parts of my body or brain may hinder me from moving about and acting in a normal way. But I am not my brain. Parts wear down. Parts degenerate. And eventually they will degenerate unto physical death.
This does not prove that I am my body or my brain. The only further question is is the driver REALLY strapped in to the machine? Is there ANY way that he can be let out of the car once it stops working completely. I think yes.
But in the meantime, the driver is securely strapped and in some sense "trapped" in the car. And we as souls are confined securely in our bodies (including the physical brain).
There is Someone with authority to release us from the "seat betls" holding us in our car of this body.
Resurrection, transfiguration are truths taught in the Bible - God's revelation to man of many things which he could not otherwise figure out. God the Creator had to REVEAL them to us.
Christ DEMONSTRATED the most important of these revealed things.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
07 Aug 15
3 edits
Originally posted by sonshipTYPO:
I wrote:
Whether or not scientists invent a conscious mind or not, this evidence of what some would call "mind of MATTER" argues that the mind is not matter.
I meant to write "Mind OVER Matter",
not " of matter" but "over matter".
07 Aug 15
2 edits
Originally posted by sonshipThe distressing thing about you religious folks is this: NOTHING done by man is EVER good enough. We will probably cure cancer within the next 100 years if we last that long as a civilization but to you, no big deal, it couldn't possibly be as great as what your god allegedly already did.
TYPO:
I wrote:
Whether or not scientists invent a conscious mind or not, this evidence of what some would call "mind of MATTER" argues that the mind is not matter.
I meant to write [b]"Mind OVER Matter",
not " of matter" but "over matter".[/b]
We could have colonies on Mars and maybe in a thousand years, colonies on Earth- like planets around other stars but that wouldn't make an impression on you and your ilk either, God is much better than ANYTHING man can do.
That is a really negative attitude, a put down of everything mankind has developed or invented in the last 1000 years.
Calculus, Whoopie, god knew about that when he created the universe, etc.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by sonhouseThe distressing thing about you religious folks is this: NOTHING done by man is EVER good enough.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
While off the subject at hand somewhat - the Good News is that there WAS one man. And what this one man did was more than good enough for the whole world for all time.
The MAN, Jesus Christ, the ONE man, the Son of God, what He is and what He DID, alone is PERFECT.
It is not only perfect. His life can be applied to our lives. We can take HIm --- as our perfection before God. And God is satisfied with Him. We must identify with Him, receive Him, stand before God and one another clothed in His available and applicable Person to be totally justified.
We will probably cure cancer within the next 100 years if we last that long as a civilization but to you, no big deal, it couldn't possibly be as great as what your god allegedly already did.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Curing cancer is great. But what Jesus is and what Jesus DID is greater. You may be cured of cancer in your body and still have a cancer growing in your soul.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
07 Aug 15
We could have colonies on Mars and maybe in a thousand years, colonies on Earth- like planets around other stars but that wouldn't make an impression on you and your ilk either, God is much better than ANYTHING man can do.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Going to Mars or another planet is great. But you will TAKE all your sinful living TO whatever planet you go to. Going to another planet for salvation will not work.
Human beings will take their problems of the fallen soul WITH THEM to whatever distant planet they go. And if they are not sanctified and transformed by Christ they would take those problems even to Heaven itself if such a thing were allowed.
Going to another planet will not save us from our sins.
We need to GO into Jesus Christ.
That is a really negative attitude, a put down of everything mankind has developed or invented in the last 1000 years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are the one with a totally negative attitude. This marvelous invention - the PC and the Internet, make it possible to share the good news of Jesus around the world.
Your outlook is too negative.
Eternity will tell how much these technological inventions will be even needed in a world in which righteousness, love, peace, plenty and harmony under God is realized.
Most of the inventions of man are designed to deal with some aspect of the curse that came upon the earth and man because of his withdrawal from communion with God.
Calculus, Whoopie, god knew about that when he created the universe, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there are indeed laws of logic, God is the source of them too.
I prefer to receive His loving salvation.
God makes Science possible.
And if Atheism is true, I don't think anything can be discovered of truth. And no logical argument about anything can be made, if Atheism is true.
That's what I have come now to believe. From where come the laws of logic if a Mind of God does not exist ?
How did they evolve ?
07 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonshipI never knew I had a 'cultured and refined posture'. Good to know.
Well if you now withdraw from your cultured and refined posture to ad homs, ok. .
My outburst was in frustration at your frankly ridiculous responses to anything I said with something along the lines of 'I never asked you to say that!'.
Clearly, if everyone were to say exactly what you wanted them to, you would be happier, but surely you never really expected that in this forum? I really could not think of a way to respond politely to such obvious rudeness on your part.
Just a few points of clarification:
1. My faith in scientism is not nearly as strong as you claim - and I have given no indications that it is, so its all in your head.
2. I do think we will likely be able to create conciousness and there is nothing religious whatsoever about that belief.
3. Science already knows a lot more about mental processes than you realise.
4. The demand that there be a 'thinking atom' or that we be able to weigh memories only demonstrates either your ignorance of the topic or dishonesty in attempting to argue against a strawman. (yet you have devoted half the thread to such argument).
5. You don't think it will be possible to create conciousness, but give no reasoning whatsoever for this. Even worse, you have actually claimed that the existence of brains points to brains that created them, yet here you are claiming that our brains are somehow incapable of such feats. Somehow there seems to be a bit of a contradiction in there somewhere.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by twhiteheadI never knew I had a 'cultured and refined posture'. Good to know.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In posture only. So you want to resume, I assume.
My outburst was in frustration at your frankly ridiculous responses to anything I said with something along the lines of 'I never asked you to say that!'.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't understand this sentence.
The meat of the matter is that we have good reasons to believe in the existence of the immaterial soul.
We should not be so arrogant to brush aside the fact that varied cultures over millennia have held such a concept. This is not an ad populum argument. This is evidence that to assume there is NO immaterial SOUL is not at all a naturally more default and logical position.
You will say now you didn't say that, perhaps. The general attitude of many new atheists who exalt Science so highly is that it is "Of Course" more intuitive to assume the SOUL as an non-material entity doesn't exist.
Clearly, if everyone were to say exactly what you wanted them to, you would be happier,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My "happiness" is not at stake. Truth is. What's the real truth.
We can adjust our emotions latter.
but surely you never really expected that in this forum?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't expect agreement all the time of this Forum.
Neither do I expect that everything I write is right all the time.
I think it is more evident that there is a soul as an immaterial part of our being.
Shortly, I will go into states of consciousness to try to explain what they are. I don't expect you to take it without a fight of some kind.
I really could not think of a way to respond politely to such obvious rudeness on your part.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But you thought of a way. So you are writing something.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a few points of clarification:
1. My faith in scientism is not nearly as strong as you claim - and I have given no indications that it is, so its all in your head.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But most certainly a conscious machine with self awareness can be invented someday ? If I really wanted to be rude I would say something more insulting.
What I said was that you can always hope.
What will you do if you create a conscious machine that preaches the Gospel to you ? You asked for it.
2. I do think we will likely be able to create conciousness and there is nothing religious whatsoever about that belief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since we have not defined "religious" for now I will ignore that.
But if you begin to start some pitying " Oh you POOR Christian. You have no evidence only blind faith" then I may point out your secular religious devotion to the near omnipotence of mankind.
As for me, I am sure that God makes doing Science possible.
And I think I am in good company - Newton, Galileo, even Einstein (thought his view of God was more Deistic).
Asked if he believed in God he replied that the question was an insult to such a scientists as he. He was a Deist and wanted to know "the mind of God".
3. Science already knows a lot more about mental processes than you realise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm reviewing some things.
4. The demand that there be a 'thinking atom' or that we be able to weigh memories only demonstrates either your ignorance of the topic or dishonesty
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you're back again yet still, on this.
So you're back to I said an atom and not a collection of atoms,
I don't think I will go over again the reasonableness of this approach unless someone else asks me to.
But pulling apart the cell uncovered DNA and the code of life. If we think THINKING is going on in the neurons of the brain cells then it is REASONABLE to drill down lower and lower, deeper and deeper in the chemical and electrical processes going on to isolate where down there the thoughts are.
If there are particles yet undiscovered in these synapses, pulling apart the known particles should reveal them.
Some form of Parapsychology dealing essentially with the immaterial may be an alternative. Please do not expect me to get it out of your like pulling teeth. If you've got some method of detecting how thinking takes place, wrote something about it here,
Don't hold us in suspense as if you're waiting for us to receive revelation about how right you are.
in attempting to argue against a strawman. (yet you have devoted half the thread to such argument).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Do you want me to repeat it ?
I don't look for your approval as to how I present my argument.
Move on if you think you've won that point. People can decide for themselves where the better reasons seem to be.
5. You don't think it will be possible to create conciousness, but give no reasoning whatsoever for this. Even worse, you have actually claimed that the existence of brains points to brains that created them,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More accurately, the existence of minds points to a Ultimate Mind.
yet here you are claiming that our brains are somehow incapable of such feats. Somehow there seems to be a bit of a contradiction in there somewhere.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It appears that what you call a strawman is a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what I wrote.
You will NEVER get me to believe that the mind, any mind, anybody's mind or any animals mind regardless of how primitive, arose from unguilded, un-intelligent processes no matter how much time is involved.
This is not inserting God where we do NOT know something. It is saying that we KNOW things like MINDS do not arrive from matter luckily being arranged in trillions of combinations.
You will say, I think " But I know I have a mind, brains, etc. So it MUST have been so."
Yes you do possess the brain and the thinking consciousness. You can even think about your thinking. Yes you do possess these. Which is more plausible - that it came by accidental, unguided processes ? Or that behind the processes was a planning mind ?
People have to make up their own mind on that. And this brings me to a point about Information. Intelligence produces information.
And I have to suspend further discussion, immediately. Higher priority interrupts are taking place in my home.
08 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonshipLike I said, you dis ALL of the developments of mankind, even though there is a clear increase in level of human health that JC and the boys never achieved, you just go, Yeah but you will lose your soul when in fact the only evidence for a soul is the assumption in your bible and other religious documents.
[b]
We could have colonies on Mars and maybe in a thousand years, colonies on Earth- like planets around other stars but that wouldn't make an impression on you and your ilk either, God is much better than ANYTHING man can do.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Going to Mars or another planet is gre ...[text shortened]... From where come the laws of logic if a Mind of God does not exist ?
How did they evolve ?[/b]
You have zero proof there is even a god and you just ignore the fact that 100 million people died in wars in century 19 and 20 without as much as a whimper from your so-called god.
Your so-called god allows a 2 year old to get cancer, literally thousands of them and it is HUMANS who are working on the cure to that scourge not god but that is not enough, you think no matter what the achievements of mankind, no matter whether we learn to live in peace and harmony and creativity without a god we are still crap in your eyes.
Nothing human is ever good enough for you.
08 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonshipYou may do so, but not 'we'. It is interesting that until this point in the thread you have not presented any such reasons.
The meat of the matter is that we have good reasons to believe in the existence of the immaterial soul.
We should not be so arrogant to brush aside the fact that varied cultures over millennia have held such a concept. This is not an ad populum argument.
In what way is it not an ad populum argument? It sure seems like one to me.
This is evidence that to assume there is NO immaterial SOUL is not at all a naturally more default and logical position.
I think I need to point out here that many people thought you could get gold from lead via the appropriate chemical reactions or spells. Yet you were the first to argue that they were wrong.
You will say now you didn't say that, perhaps. The general attitude of many new atheists who exalt Science so highly is that it is "Of Course" more intuitive to assume the SOUL as an non-material entity doesn't exist.
Please refrain from wasting both our time by arguing against imagined opponents who aren't here. Address me, or make your own points. Don't address arguments that haven't been made by anyone present. (essentially strawmen).
But most certainly a conscious machine with self awareness can be invented someday ?
I think it highly likely.
What will you do if you create a conscious machine that preaches the Gospel to you ?
I would probably respond in the same way I do when humans do just that. I really don't see how this question is relevant to the thread. You seem to be of the opinion that if you ask me something that you think might make me uncomfortable then somehow I will change my views. That is not how it works.
Since we have not defined "religious" for now I will ignore that.
You used the word religious. Clearly you meant something by it. Clearly I also meant something when I used it. Why ignore it just because we haven't defined it?
... I may point out your secular religious devotion to the near omnipotence of mankind.
Go ahead and try to point it out. It isn't there to be pointed at so you will have to make it up as usual.
So you're back again yet still, on this.
So you're back to I said an atom and not a collection of atoms,
Yes. You kept insisting on it over and over and they tried to deny that you had. And you still haven't admitted that from the beginning it was nothing more than a strawman argument.
But pulling apart the cell uncovered DNA and the code of life. If we think THINKING is going on in the neurons of the brain cells then it is REASONABLE to drill down lower and lower, deeper and deeper in the chemical and electrical processes going on to isolate where down there the thoughts are.
Yes it is reasonable. It is not reasonable to demand that the thoughts be at the atomic level or subatomic level or that they be a property of matter. If you do want to know the electrical processes going on in the brain, I have directed you to a course on the matter. The way it works at the chemical and electrical level is pretty much well known and available for anyone interested to learn. It is actually at the higher level where there is still a lot of research to do ie how neurons interact with each other throughout the brain.
If there are particles yet undiscovered in these synapses, pulling apart the known particles should reveal them.
There is currently no reason to think there are any undiscovered particles involved. As I said already, the processes as the atomic level are pretty well known already.
If you've got some method of detecting how thinking takes place, wrote something about it here,
I have directed you to a complete course on the subject which will get you started. I have not done the course myself but do know some of the basics. It would be far too involved to go into here and would mostly be a case of copy/paste from similar sources or wikipedia, so it really doesn't make a lot of sense.
In summary though, the basic chemistry of neurons is pretty much known. It is how neurons interact on the large scale that is still very much a subject of research. No need for new particles or CERN!
It is saying that we KNOW things like MINDS do not arrive from matter luckily being arranged in trillions of combinations.
No, that is not what it is saying. It is actually making a false dichotomy. Either:
1. MINDS arrive from matter luckily being arranged in trillions of combinations.
2. Minds were made by God.
In actual fact, I believe minds arose via evolution which is neither your 1. or 2. and I could think of other ways that minds could arise. Certainly 2. is not a foregone conclusion if 1. is though not to be true. I must also point out that 1. is not known to be untrue so saying that 'we KNOW' is wrong.
Yes you do possess the brain and the thinking consciousness. You can even think about your thinking. Yes you do possess these. Which is more plausible - that it came by accidental, unguided processes ? Or that behind the processes was a planning mind ?
Given that I know of an unguided process that can create highly complex organisms, and do not know of a planning mind, I think the former is more likely. I notice though that you have now changed 1. from 'matter luckily being arranged' to 'a process'. You do realise there is a difference? A very big difference.
Intelligence produces information.
How do you define information?
By the standard definition, every action in the universe produces information. The universe is basically all information.
08 Aug 15
1 edit
It might be instructive to look at how the eye works. The retina has neurons similar to those in the brain, but they are specialised into different types. We are still learning how they work and interact. One such study is:
https://eyewire.org/
They use crowdsourcing to help trace the neurons in a mouse eye.
We do however know a bit about how the eye works and what signal processing goes on and how the information is transmitted to the brain.
I would claim that because the retina does actual information processing, it is a thinking part of the brain. Now the question is whether or not the soul extends to the eye and if it does what does it mean when we create replacement eyes for the blind. Have we made a small part of the soul?
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140923-im-blind-but-i-have-bionic-eyes