Argument for God(s) Second Edition - please critique

[9-10ths_Penguin]

2 is demonstrated in you being unable to physically show me a single thing from your IU.

So if I can't show you a thing, this means that physical laws don't apply to it?

I can't show you Jimmy Hoffa's corpse; is Jimmy Hoffa's corpse therefore supernatural?

 

[sayak83]

Because there's nothing even close to an explanation as to how the mind may arise from matter.

There isn't a good explanation from first principle how water freezes into ice. Therefore phase change is an immaterial process...

The number of physical systems for which a complete explanation is lacking number in the billions.

 

[sayak83]

2 is demonstrated in you being unable to physically show me a single thing from your IU. The axiom is that the self exists. Add these two together and you're reductionism has no foot to stand on.

Scientists can do this. They don't because the procedure currently is too invasive to be accepted by bio-ethics committees.
http://www.livescience.com/51496-animal-brains-linked-into-networks.html

scientists are now one step closer to the Borg of "Star Trek," wiring brains together into "brainets" that can solve problems as teams, new experiments with monkeys and rats suggest.The researchers say these so-called brain-to-brain interfaces could lead to "organic computers" made of multiple animal brains wired together.

Now, Nicolelis and his colleagues have used brain-to-brain interfaces to create what they call brain networks, or brainets, that can work together to complete simple tasks.
In one set of experiments, the scientists linked rhesus macaque monkeystogether into either a two-brain brainet, a B2, or a three-brain brainet, a B3. The primates all sat in separate rooms, sharing brain activity relating to their senses and movements.

Over time, rat brainets learned how to complete the simple computational task of pattern recognition. The rats recognize different patterns of brain stimulation, synchronizing their brain activity when they received one kind of stimulus and desynchronizing it if they received another, the researchers said.

In 30 years time people will access each others IU directly through interfaces like these connected through the internet and synced directly with the brain (i.e. mind).

 

[Koldo]

Because there's nothing even close to an explanation as to how the mind may arise from matter.

And for that reason you assume that the mind is not bound by the physical laws ?
That's a huge assumption.

 

[1137]

And for that reason you assume that the mind is not bound by the physical laws ?
That's a huge assumption.

I believe I provided the example of dreams and imagination to illustrate the mind irrelevance to things as they are in the objective universe. Hell, all progress starts in the mind and works outwards. If I asked you to show me your emotions, you'd either have to somehow create a representation, which aren't your emotions themselves, or show me a brain scan, which shows chemicals and not emotions. In fact, things like temporality, gravity, the speed of light... none of it plays a role in things like memory, imagination, brain storming, etc. So yes, when absolutely everything suggests X I accept X.

 

[atanu]

Basic biology 101

Try restarting a burnt and broken car engine by putting in more gas.

What basic biology? What is objective knowledge for a fully constrained intelligence? Is it difficult to understand that intelligence generated from an unconscious process is constrained and controlled by the process. The created intelligence cannot have any independence,

I am fully constrained by the brain since I am an aspect (or a dynamical property) of the active brain. .

 

[atanu]

Oxygen and various nutrients. Without them, you die.

No doubt there. But oxygen and nutrients do not create living beings and their consciousness. If you think material processes give rise to intelligence, tell me the mechanism or actually demonstrate such a thing.

OTOH, all our science happens because we are conscious. Without consciousness who is even going to see a brain? Furthermore, a brain is absent in 1st person dream consciousness and 1st person sleep consciousness but consciousness is never missing -- eleven in deep sleep, else you would not return a Kelly, on waking up.

 

[atanu]

Actually there is no point in debating on this inane issue.

We can control brain/mind with our volition. We can mediate and control our conscious and subconscious processes. That is all that is required -- to live peacefully and happily.

A consciousness generated and constrained by material processes cannot have that option. A consciousness born of material interactions is controlled and constrained by unknown processes that the created intelligence can never penetrate, even as a movie character cannot control movie director.

But we are not movie characters. We are aware actors playing roles.

 

[sayak83]

What basic biology? What is objective knowledge for a fully constrained intelligence? Is it difficult to understand that intelligence generated from an unconscious process is constrained and controlled by the process. The created intelligence cannot have any independence,

No I do not have any independence from the brain processes that generate me. No argument there.

 

[Koldo]

I believe I provided the example of dreams and imagination to illustrate the mind irrelevance to things as they are in the objective universe. Hell, all progress starts in the mind and works outwards. If I asked you to show me your emotions, you'd either have to somehow create a representation, which aren't your emotions themselves, or show me a brain scan, which shows chemicals and not emotions.

Did you merely mean that imagination can be used in a way that we can conceive of a world with different laws ?
I thought you wanted to argue that IU exists independent from EU.

In fact, things like temporality, gravity, the speed of light... none of it plays a role in things like memory, imagination, brain storming, etc. So yes, when absolutely everything suggests X I accept X.

Everything suggests the mind requires a brain of some sort to exist.
Also, can you explain how exactly 'memory' doesn't require 'temporality' ?

 

[1137]

Did you merely mean that imagination can be used in a way that we can conceive of a world with different laws ?
I thought you wanted to argue that IU exists independent from EU.



Everything suggests the mind requires a brain of some sort to exist.
Also, can you explain how exactly 'memory' doesn't require 'temporality' ?

I think it is your turn to do some supporting and demonstrating.

 

[Koldo]

I think it is your turn to do some supporting and demonstrating.

Gladly I will. What do you want me to support or demonstrate ?

 

[sayak83]

Actually there is no point in debating on this inane issue.

We can control brain/mind with our volition. We can mediate and control our conscious and subconscious processes. That is all that is required -- to live peacefully and happily.

I, being a physical process, can influence other physical processes in my body and brain in accordance with the laws of physics. That is what is happening when aspects of consciousness states affect the quality of life. Consciousness is a REAL physical phenomenon in the brain (like a fire burning in bundle of wood) and has real effects on the brain and the body. Its not a fiction or an illusion.

 

[atanu]

Everything suggests the mind requires a brain of some sort to exist.
Also, can you explain how exactly 'memory' doesn't require 'temporality' ?

And have you experienced any matter in absence of consciousness?

 

[atanu]

No I do not have any independence from the brain processes that generate me. No argument there.

Agreed. As you wish and will.

 

[Koldo]

And have you experienced any matter in absence of consciousness?

I haven't. Why do you ask ?

 

[atanu]

Everything suggests the mind requires a brain of some sort to exist.
Also, can you explain how exactly 'memory' doesn't require 'temporality' ?

And have you experienced any matter in absence of consciousness?

I haven't. Why do you ask ?

Yeah. No one has. It is funny that how the same consciousness that enables us to see/imagine/create material forms, also deludes us into believing that the material forms are truer than the consciousness.

 

[Koldo]

Yeah. No one has. It is funny that how the same consciousness that enables us to see/imagine/create material forms, also deludes us into believing that the material forms are truer than the consciousness.

Truer ?
I haven't claimed that material forms are any 'truer' than consciousness. What are you talking about ?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think it is your turn to do some supporting and demonstrating.

Unless you're giving up on your argument in the OP, it's still your turn... and it will continue to be your turn to demonstrate your position until each premise is fully supported and you have demonstrated that each step in your argument logically flows from the previous steps. Until you do this, it's perfectly reasonable to give your argument no weight whatsoever. This how logical arguments work.

 

[sayak83]

Agreed. As you wish and will.

That which is true is not subject to what is wished.