Evolution and Mind/Body Dualism

[Riverwolf]

So, "you" would no longer exist? "You" would cease to exist, right? If you will no longer exist, then you are obviously more than your brain and body, because your brain and body is still there, right?

If your brain and body is still there, but "you" are not there, then OBVIOUSLY you are more than your brain and body, because if they were identical, then they would be inseparable.

Not necessarily. As they say, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. A functioning brain and a healthy body combine to help form an identity, both necessary, but lacking one of them a measurable personhood identity does not exist.

Besides, technically speaking, the brain is part of the body: an organ just like the heart or liver. So, to be specific, you don't separate the brain from the body; rather, you separate the brain from the rest of the body.

I don't know at what point does personhood begins, or at what point does life begin. That is a metaphysical question that science sure as hell isn't in the position to tell us.

At least not yet.

Personhood isn't even adequately defined, yet. Kinda necessary.

Right, and if God was on trial for the "act" of creating the universe and life in the universe, I will have reasons to believe that "Goddidit", and would definitely charge him for the act. I have every reason to believe that only a supernatural Deity could have the power to create the universe from nothing and also be the initiator of time...and also have the engineering knowledge to create a fine tuned universe for life...not just any life, but intelligent life.

And based on that, I have no reason to accuse Mother Nature of such an act...I already have my suspect, God..and that is where who I am taking to court.

Well and good, but your specific God isn't on trial here.

I believe that I can, and I did. But first things first....I can say the same thing to you; unless you can show me with experimentation that the brain itself can give rise to consciousness, then the default position is that naturalism is false, because no evidence, or experimental methodology has been presented that can demonstrate it to be true.

Basically, the same thing you just told me, but reversed. You are speaking as if your position has been scientifically substantiated, which it hasn't...so you have a lot of nerve to require that of me. A lot of nerve

.

And not only that, but I've asked you repeatedly to give me a natural scenario at which consciousness could have originated from preexisting material, and your response to this was "natural selection". But that isn't telling me how it is done...that is just "scienceofthegaps" reasoning, which does not fly with me.

If go back in time before there was life/consciousness, give me a naturalistic scenario at which life arose, and began thinking. So far, you've yet to do this.

Through deductive reasoning based on the information that we have (consciousness being wholly dependent on the brain, for example), we can conclude that consciousness is wholly dependent on natural processes, and thus, like all observed natural processes, arose via natural selection. Another situation is that we're still not sure if the dinosaurs died out suddenly or gradually, but we do know they died off.

Just as an accused can be determined guilty via deduction without the need of external witnesses to the act itself.

Once the mind is removed from the brain, it is no longer dependent upon the brain.

There is no empirical evidence demonstrating this, and so this notion has no place in the scientific consensus. There is no scientific consensus on whether or not consciousness can survive death, but all the indications thus far point to "no".

After all, if it's dependent on the brain during life but then somehow that dependency is removed, exactly what is the process of that?

And it certainly does not follow that just because the mind is dependent upon the brain, that the origin of the mind is from the brain. That does not follow. My car is dependent upon an engine inside of it for it to run...but the origin of my engine has nothing to do with the origin of the car, and vice versa. You can show the correlational dependence based on the relationship of the two things, but that has nothing to do with the origins of either thing. So, your reasoning is fallacious...with all due respect.

I am not my argument, so calling my reasoning fallacious is not calling me anything, or being disrespectful to my person.

With that said, your reasoning here is the fallacious one, because your using a false analogy. This is a common mistake I've seen creationists do all the time: comparing natural processes to artificial tools. (Program needing a programmer, house needing an architect, etc.) They are simply not comparable in this regard. Tools are designed with specific purposes, while biological organisms develop over time via natural selection.

Furthermore, artificial tools are static, requiring external driving forces to "do" anything. Living cells, on the other hand, are fully autonomous, capable of acting on their own without any external driving force, in addition to being self-replicating. If life can reproduce without the need of an external intelligence, why can't certain traits in life develop over time in the same way?

Again, cart before horse fallacy. You can't have consciousness without life, and you cannot scientifically prove life from nonlife...so at best, you are relying on presuppositions, as there is nothing empirically factual about anything that you just said.

The sciences don't deal in absolute, indisputable facts. The scientific consensus is the agreed-upon conclusion based on all observations and experiments, where no empirical alternatives have been proposed and reliably demonstrated as a possibility or probability. There is ALWAYS the chance that the scientific consensus is mistaken, but if it is, it's because it currently lacks the information or calculations necessary to recognize and correct the mistake.

Besides, I never said anything about nonlife. Both the egg and sperm are living, autonomous cells. Abiogenesis is an entirely different topic.

Innocent until proven guilty.

And even when "proven guilty", there is ALWAYS the chance that the accused is, in fact, innocent.

 

[Riverwolf]

Cool, we can be done. Now this is what I want you to do...go to another thread, knowing that this one belongs to Call :yes:

j/k lol

In a debate, the prize goes to the defeated, not the victor. The victor has gained nothing; the defeated has gained new knowledge.

Furthermore, a debate is not won by someone refusing to continue. Nobody is victor or defeated in that instance. This is not a sport.

Besides, even using the sport analogy, the referee/judge is the one who declares the winner, not the contestants.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Not necessarily. As they say, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. A functioning brain and a healthy body combine to help form an identity, both necessary, but lacking one of them a measurable personhood identity does not exist.

It is conceivable to think that a person's mind can be in one place, and his/her body in another place. If the mind and brain where identical, then there would be no conceivable way to separate the two..in the same way you can't separate the "wet" from the "water".

Besides, technically speaking, the brain is part of the body: an organ just like the heart or liver. So, to be specific, you don't separate the brain from the body; rather, you separate the brain from the rest of the body.

I fail to see the significance of that distinction.

At least not yet.

Personhood isn't even adequately defined, yet. Kinda necessary.

Isn't defined? Look it up, and let's go with that definition.

Well and good, but your specific God isn't on trial here.

I can see where you are going on that "your specific God isn't on trial here" bit. I peeped it :yes: hahaha.

My God may not be the one on trial, but I have the "profile" of whoever the Creator may have been...and it just so happens that my God fits the profile.

Through deductive reasoning based on the information that we have (consciousness being wholly dependent on the brain, for example), we can conclude that consciousness is wholly dependent on natural processes, and thus, like all observed natural processes, arose via natural selection.

I am sorry, but that just doesn't follow at all. All I have to do is give a contrary example of something that is dependent on another thing to perform a certain function, but both having two different origins...and in this example, the origin of the car's engine had nothing to do with the origin of the car itself.

You have to show why it is NECESSARY for brain to be the origin of consciousness if your argument is based on the fact that consciousness is "dependent" upon the brain.

I don't think you can do that, and if you can, prove me wrong.

Another situation is that we're still not sure if the dinosaurs died out suddenly or gradually, but we do know they died off.

My argument is so strong that it doesn't matter... whether you say it happened gradually or suddenly...doesn't matter at all. Whether you slow it down or speed it up, you won't get consciousness spewing into existence from mere matter.

There is no empirical evidence demonstrating this, and so this notion has no place in the scientific consensus.

There is no empirical evidence demonstrating that the brain is the origin consciousness either, and you seem to have no problem ignoring that fact. There was once a scientific consense that the universe was static and eternal, but we all know how that worked out for that consensus in the long run, don't we?

There is no scientific consensus on whether or not consciousness can survive death, but all the indications thus far point to "no".

It is beyond the realms of science to determine what happens after death, when it can't even explain how life got here in the first place. Tell science to explain to me how life got here first, and then we can focus on the "death" part haha.

After all, if it's dependent on the brain during life but then somehow that dependency is removed, exactly what is the process of that?

My answer is..."goddidit". These questions are beyond the scope of what can be scientifically demonstrated/proven. We need metaphysics at this point....and again, you are asking a question about what happens after the dependency is removed, when you failed to provide an explanation of how it got there in the first place.

Who starts a book or movie from the end? Start from the beginning, and then we can work our way towards the middle, and then the end.

I am not my argument, so calling my reasoning fallacious is not calling me anything, or being disrespectful to my person.

Good. So when I call your reasoning "full of crap", no crybaby stuff

With that said, your reasoning here is the fallacious one, because your using a false analogy. This is a common mistake I've seen creationists do all the time: comparing natural processes to artificial tools. (Program needing a programmer, house needing an architect, etc.) They are simply not comparable in this regard. Tools are designed with specific purposes, while biological organisms develop over time via natural selection.

So tools are designed with specific purposes? Ok, so what are eyes for? Do they not have specific purposes? What is your heart for...does it not have a specific purpose? What are your lungs, kidney, liver, brain...does these things NOT have specific purposes?

Wood itself may not have a specific purpose, but a chair that is made of wood does have a specific purpose.

But with all that aside, until you can explain to me how life can come from nonlife naturally, and how consciousness can come from unconsciousness NATURALLY, then all of this bio-babble and voodoo science, you can just keep to yourself.

I am sorry, but the view that the universe started with a big bang, and eventually all of this matter and energy converted and began talking, thinking, etc, that view is just completely absurd to me.

Furthermore, artificial tools are static, requiring external driving forces to "do" anything. Living cells, on the other hand, are fully autonomous, capable of acting on their own without any external driving force, in addition to being self-replicating. If life can reproduce without the need of an external intelligence, why can't certain traits in life develop over time in the same way?

Again, you are doing the SAMEEEEE thing. Putting the cart before the horse again. You are starting off with life...you said "living cells" and asked "If life can reproduce without the need of an external intelligence..."....if you CAN'T explain how life originated naturally, then you DON'T know whether or not it CAN reproduce without EXTERNAL INTELLIGENCE. You are begging the question in favor of naturalism, which is fallacious reasoning.

The sciences don't deal in absolute, indisputable facts. The scientific consensus is the agreed-upon conclusion based on all observations and experiments, where no empirical alternatives have been proposed and reliably demonstrated as a possibility or probability. There is ALWAYS the chance that the scientific consensus is mistaken, but if it is, it's because it currently lacks the information or calculations necessary to recognize and correct the mistake.

Science is a cool tool..a good resource/method for the understanding of how the world works. But when it comes to the question of ORIGINS, that is where science has its problems, and that is why there is so much difficulty for science/naturalists to explain the origins of life and consciousness.

Besides, I never said anything about nonlife. Both the egg and sperm are living, autonomous cells. Abiogenesis is an entirely different topic.

Not a different "topic", but a difference "problem". You can't have consciousness without life, and right now, neither can be empirically explained. So while you continue to wait on the next "scienctific" discovery to help you explain how these things could have naturally originated, I will continue to "wait" on my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to return...and we will see which one comes first :clap

And even when "proven guilty", there is ALWAYS the chance that the accused is, in fact, innocent.

I will take my chances that I've found the right suspect...God.

 

[idav]

Call, I don't really know if I can take all that seriously. Your comparisons and analogies to counter don't cut it. They are flawed and straw and you keep doing it. You can't be serious.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Call, I don't really know if I can take all that seriously. Your comparisons and analogies to counter don't cut it. They are flawed and straw and you keep doing it. You can't be serious.

LMAO, u are a funny man, idav.

 

[Bunyip]

LMAO, u are a funny man, idav.

You're not making sense at all - so what if science does not have an explanation for abiogenesis yet? That is not a weakness in science, evidence of the supernatural or any sort of 'problem'at all.

Science is just a method for learning, not a claim of ultimate or comprehensive knowledge.

Consciousness is a product of the mind - that is easily demonstrated, and yet you seem to imagine that because scientific knowledge is incomplete, you can somehow pretend that it is not.

How does that make sense to you?

 

[idav]

It is conceivable to think that a person's mind can be in one place, and his/her body in another place. If the mind and brain where identical, then there would be no conceivable way to separate the two..in the same way you can't separate the "wet" from the "water".

Like this for example. So cause you can imagine being somewhere else outside the body, therfore they are separate? That makes little sense and the comparison is even worse.

 

[idav]

You have to show why it is NECESSARY for brain to be the origin of consciousness if your argument is based on the fact that consciousness is "dependent" upon the brain.

Here you just moved the goal posts. Nobody said it is necessary, it is what we have evidence of. You have another source to explain I would love to hear it.

 

[Riverwolf]

It is conceivable to think that a person's mind can be in one place, and his/her body in another place.

That doesn't make it a possibility, especially when all the indications point to it being not the case.

It's also conceivable for me to talk to you telepathically, but that's not possible.

If the mind and brain where identical, then there would be no conceivable way to separate the two..in the same way you can't separate the "wet" from the "water".

Another false analogy. Wetness is the description of the nature of water. The mind is the result of brain activity. There is a difference. All water is wet, but not all brains have minds.

Isn't defined? Look it up, and let's go with that definition.

I said adequately. That means it is defined, but the definition isn't clear enough to be measurable.

You have to show why it is NECESSARY for brain to be the origin of consciousness if your argument is based on the fact that consciousness is "dependent" upon the brain.

Because no other source has been presented that can reliably be falsified. Besides, things don't have to be necessary to be existent. Bio-engineers have successfully created life (kind of) in laboratory settings, but they don't claim that it's how life began on Earth; just one way it could have been done.

There is no empirical evidence demonstrating that the brain is the origin consciousness either, and you seem to have no problem ignoring that fact. There was once a scientific consense that the universe was static and eternal, but we all know how that worked out for that consensus in the long run, don't we?

Yeah. Actual, falsifiable, verifiable evidence was presented to the contrary. All the numbers added up, all the indications were there, that the measurable Universe is not eternal, but started by expanding, and continues to expand at an accelerated rate.

Your argument does not even come close to such qualifications.

So tools are designed with specific purposes? Ok, so what are eyes for? Do they not have specific purposes? What is your heart for...does it not have a specific purpose? What are your lungs, kidney, liver, brain...does these things NOT have specific purposes?

Those are biological organs, not artificial tools. They developed naturally, not artificially. The key word is designed. Tools are not self-replicating.

But with all that aside, until you can explain to me how life can come from nonlife naturally, and how consciousness can come from unconsciousness NATURALLY, then all of this bio-babble and voodoo science, you can just keep to yourself.

No voodoo science or bio-babble. Just concepts that you don't yet understand. I didn't understand them, either, for a while, but after discussing with, and hearing from, more knowledgeable people on the subject, I understood them better. Then again, I actually wanted to understand.

if you CAN'T explain how life originated naturally,

It's not relevant.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You're not making sense at all

I am not making sense? You believe that inanimate matter came to life and began thinking and talking...but I'm the one not making sense?

- so what if science does not have an explanation for abiogenesis yet? That is not a weakness in science, evidence of the supernatural or any sort of 'problem'at all.

Well, talk to me when science does have an explanation for it.

Science is just a method for learning, not a claim of ultimate or comprehensive knowledge.

Philosophy is also a method for learning.

Consciousness is a product of the mind - that is easily demonstrated

Well, easily demonstrate it then. You have yet to do this, so it can't be that easy.

, and yet you seem to imagine that because scientific knowledge is incomplete, you can somehow pretend that it is not.

I am saying something much stronger; the origin of consciousness is beyond the realms of science...and I cannot conceive the "thought" of mere matter as the foundation of consciousness. Plain and simple. If you can, then let me know, until then, I see no reason to think that consciousness is the result of natural processes.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Like this for example. So cause you can imagine being somewhere else outside the body, therfore they are separate? That makes little sense and the comparison is even worse.

It makes a lot of sense. I am saying if I can imagine myself to exist even if my body doesn't, then it means that mind/body naturalism isn't NECESSARILY true, and if it isn't necessarily true, then that mean that mind/body dualism COULD be true, and if it COULD be true, then the naturalistic worldview could be false.

That, followed by the fact that I cannot even IMAGINE how a brain can "begin" to think even if a brain developed naturally over time, or even if an intelligent human being shaped and molded a brain from scratch...I am saying you may get as many brains as you want...but you won't get consciousness...consciousness is a completely different ballgame...and if you think that this could happen, give me a naturalistic scenario at which this could happen...if you can't, then, why are we even conversating?

 

[idav]

.... if I can imagine myself to exist even if my body doesn't, then it means that mind/body naturalism isn't NECESSARILY true,.....

I love if then statements but that just doesn't make sense.

That, followed by the fact that I cannot even IMAGINE how a brain can "begin" to think even if a brain developed naturally over time

,
It may be a fact you can't imagine it but it is hardly inconceivable. The only reason I can conceive of it is through study of biology with evolution. I posted an article about the evolution of the brain. I can put it to you this way. One can conceive of it once you know life has volition that intelligence can evolve from it. (setting aside your non-life to life starwman)

or even if an intelligent human being shaped and molded a brain from scratch...I am saying you may get as many brains as you want...but you won't get consciousness...

Nobody is saying we can manufacture consciousness either so it is irrelevant. We are saying the evidence shows that the mind is the product of the brain. Damaged brain or non-functioning brain equals lights out, no simpler than that.

consciousness is a completely different ballgame...and if you think that this could happen, give me a naturalistic scenario at which this could happen...if you can't, then, why are we even conversating?

No doubt consciousness is a whole different thing.

I can show you a Mimosa plant has long term memory (presented the article) just based on chemical reactions. Can you conceive that memory and learning can take place without a brain or nervous system? Can you conceive how that can evolve to something more complex given the right parameters that allow an organism to remember moment from moment.

I can show you that brains have several types of memory. Each types of these memory are crucial to our very fragile conscious state, you take one out and your self awareness explodes one way or another. People have been studying this and there is no way of getting around that correlation of brain to memory to a self aware conscious being.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That doesn't make it a possibility, especially when all the indications point to it being not the case.

Again, what are those indications? Gotta be something more than dependency, because I've already demonstrated why that isn't the case, and you've yet to say anything in regards to that. So no need in using that as your refutation and act as if I didn't say anything regarding it. Again; dependency does not imply identity.

It's also conceivable for me to talk to you telepathically, but that's not possible.

It is possible. There is a possible world at which you could talk to me telepathically. Just because it isn't true in this world doesn't mean it isn't true in another world. This is "possible world" semantics...read up on it.

Another false analogy.

Really? Lets see whatcha got...

Wetness is the description of the nature of water.

And?

The mind is the result of brain activity. There is a difference. All water is wet, but not all brains have minds.

Ahh here is the meat and potatos. First off, my point was if the mind and brain where the same thing, then there would be no way to conceivably separate the two, in the SAME WAY you can't separate wetness from water. If something is wet, there is a 100% chance that liquid is involved. You cannot separate the two.

And you just admitted that not all brains have minds, so it is OBVIOUS that the brain and mind are not the same thing...but if they were, then it follows that when the mind is gone, the brain would be gone, and vise versa.

When you think about it, that is really what this is all about. A brain would mean absolutely nothing without consciousness attached to it, and if you admit that not all brains have minds, then you have to explain the origin of consciousness. A brain with a mind and a brain without a mind is a night and day difference, because without a mind, there is no sense of personhood...no sense of "I", or "we", or "they".

You got problems.

I said adequately. That means it is defined, but the definition isn't clear enough to be measurable.

Speak for yourself. It is clear enough to me :yes:

Because no other source has been presented that can reliably be falsified. Besides, things don't have to be necessary to be existent. Bio-engineers have successfully created life (kind of) in laboratory settings, but they don't claim that it's how life began on Earth; just one way it could have been done.

Yeah, (kind of). They are still a long way away from life, buddy.

Yeah. Actual, falsifiable, verifiable evidence was presented to the contrary. All the numbers added up, all the indications were there, that the measurable Universe is not eternal, but started by expanding, and continues to expand at an accelerated rate.

But the point is, before that discovery, the consensus was, at least from an empirical perspective, that the universe was static and eternal.

Your argument does not even come close to such qualifications.

Actually it does. My religious book is the Holy Bible, and from the first 5-10 words in the entire book (Gen 1:1), it explicitly states that the universe began to exist. It also states that the universe is expanding/stretching throughout the OT. No other religion, or no science "guys" came even close to this.

It also states that intelligence came from intelligence, instead of the other way around.

Those are biological organs, not artificial tools. They developed naturally, not artificially. The key word is designed. Tools are not self-replicating.

Granted, but there are limitations to what biological phenomena can do. You are claiming that the first thought came from a process that can itself think, and I am at a lost as to how this could have been done. You sure as hell can't scientifically explain it, so why am I to believe it?

No voodoo science or bio-babble. Just concepts that you don't yet understand. I didn't understand them, either, for a while, but after discussing with, and hearing from, more knowledgeable people on the subject, I understood them better. Then again, I actually wanted to understand.

I want to understand it too...remember, I am the one constantly asking people to "give me a scenario". I wouldn't be asking if it didn't want to understand. The problem is...I have more questions than you people have answers.

 

[idav]

And you just admitted that not all brains have minds, so it is OBVIOUS that the brain and mind are not the same thing..

Here is the thing. Brains working proper and functioning correctly do produce mind. Like a machine that doesn't work correctly won't produce what it is intended to. Any number of things can and do go wrong in the brain with direct effect on conscious states.

The problem is...I have more questions than you people have answers.

Such is the way knowledge goes. Every answer produces more questions and so we strive and find yet more answers and get more questions. Can't help you there.

 

[Riverwolf]

Again, what are those indications? Gotta be something more than dependency, because I've already demonstrated why that isn't the case, and you've yet to say anything in regards to that. So no need in using that as your refutation and act as if I didn't say anything regarding it. Again; dependency does not imply identity.

Your demonstrations are false analogies, and I'm constantly addressing them.

The relevant rules for biological organisms are not the same as the rules for artificial tools.

It is possible. There is a possible world at which you could talk to me telepathically. Just because it isn't true in this world doesn't mean it isn't true in another world. This is "possible world" semantics...read up on it.

Now, you're talking about multiverse theory, which is once again beyond the scope of this discussion. When I say that it's not possible, I mean it's not possible for ME to communicate telepathically with YOU, in THIS world, at THIS time.

If both of us got the necessary neuro-chip implants necessary to effectively communicate telepathically via the internet, then we could do it. But seeing as last I checked, the only two people with such implants were its inventors, I'm betting that's not the case.

Ahh here is the meat and potatos. First off, my point was if the mind and brain where the same thing, then there would be no way to conceivably separate the two, in the SAME WAY you can't separate wetness from water. If something is wet, there is a 100% chance that liquid is involved. You cannot separate the two.

And you just admitted that not all brains have minds, so it is OBVIOUS that the brain and mind are not the same thing...but if they were, then it follows that when the mind is gone, the brain would be gone, and vise versa.

When you think about it, that is really what this is all about. A brain would mean absolutely nothing without consciousness attached to it, and if you admit that not all brains have minds, then you have to explain the origin of consciousness. A brain with a mind and a brain without a mind is a night and day difference, because without a mind, there is no sense of personhood...no sense of "I", or "we", or "they".

You got problems.

No, there are no problems, as just like there is no single line between night and day, there is no single line between consciousness and non-consciousness. I already explained that.

I also never said that the brain and mind were the same things.

Speak for yourself. It is clear enough to me :yes:

Then show me your measurements, using the standardized units.

But the point is, before that discovery, the consensus was, at least from an empirical perspective, that the universe was static and eternal.

So what? The sciences make no pretensions to having absolute, unquestionable truth.

Actually it does. My religious book is the Holy Bible

The Bible has no place in scientific inquiry, as no ancient text does. Your argument should be able to stand 100% independent of any ancient text, to the point where you would make it even if that text did not exist.

Granted, but there are limitations to what biological phenomena can do. You are claiming that the first thought came from a process that can itself think, and I am at a lost as to how this could have been done. You sure as hell can't scientifically explain it, so why am I to believe it?

You are to believe whatever you want to believe. Understanding is what I strive for, not belief.

I have more questions than you people have answers.

A trait you share with the greatest of scientists. The problem actually lies in the fact that you're expecting us to have all the answers to all of your questions. After all, if we accept something as factually existent, wouldn't it make sense that we therefore wouldn't have any questions about it?

Thing is, it is, in fact, preferable to have more questions than answers about things accepted factually. That's what motivates us to learn more for ourselves, and constantly keeping open to the possibility of being wrong at any time, so that we can self-criticize and self-correct.

Now my question is this: what are you doing for yourself to answer those questions? There's only so much that I can do to help, since I'm not a biological scientist.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Your demonstrations are false analogies, and I'm constantly addressing them.

The relevant rules for biological organisms are not the same as the rules for artificial tools.

I am not so sure that the "relevant rules" for biological organisms apply to what you think they apply to. If they do, then you should be able to empirically explain, but you can't..so therefore I am inclined to believe that this is scienceofthegaps reasoning.

Now, you're talking about multiverse theory, which is once again beyond the scope of this discussion. When I say that it's not possible, I mean it's not possible for ME to communicate telepathically with YOU, in THIS world, at THIS time.

No I am not talking about the multiverse theory...look up "modal logic" and "possible world scenarios" and then get back with me.

If both of us got the necessary neuro-chip implants necessary to effectively communicate telepathically via the internet, then we could do it. But seeing as last I checked, the only two people with such implants were its inventors, I'm betting that's not the case.

What?

No, there are no problems, as just like there is no single line between night and day, there is no single line between consciousness and non-consciousness. I already explained that.

Actually there is. There had to be the very "first" thought that was ever thought off...and temporally before that, there was no thinking. Plain and simple.

I also never said that the brain and mind were the same things.

Then you have to explain the origins of both, instead of just one...if they were identical then one explanation would have been sufficient to explain both...two birds with one stone. And just because you have the brain don't mean you have a mind, so then you have to explain how can a brain get you a mind...and the problem is, you cant empirically explain either.

Then show me your measurements, using the standardized units.

We are talking about definitions here, not measurements or standardized units.

So what? The sciences make no pretensions to having absolute, unquestionable truth.

But scientific claims are supposed to be able to be empirically verified. Your specific claim has not been empirically verified.

The Bible has no place in scientific inquiry, as no ancient text does. Your argument should be able to stand 100% independent of any ancient text, to the point where you would make it even if that text did not exist.

So a non scientific book made the correct claim that the universe began to exist, and is expanding? Apparently being "scientific" has nothing to do with correct claims of knowledge and truth.

You are to believe whatever you want to believe. Understanding is what I strive for, not belief.

Ok.

A trait you share with the greatest of scientists. The problem actually lies in the fact that you're expecting us to have all the answers to all of your questions. After all, if we accept something as factually existent, wouldn't it make sense that we therefore wouldn't have any questions about it?

Thing is, it is, in fact, preferable to have more questions than answers about things accepted factually. That's what motivates us to learn more for ourselves, and constantly keeping open to the possibility of being wrong at any time, so that we can self-criticize and self-correct.

Now my question is this: what are you doing for yourself to answer those questions? There's only so much that I can do to help, since I'm not a biological scientist.

Say no more.

 

[idav]

It is a tall order to explain consciousness, that isnt what I understand necessary of the op.

Brain makes body move and think. I cannot understand anything simpler than that.

We are at almost 200 posts of debate and I have yet to see one alternative.

 

[Riverwolf]

I am not so sure that the "relevant rules" for biological organisms apply to what you think they apply to. If they do, then you should be able to empirically explain, but you can't..so therefore I am inclined to believe that this is scienceofthegaps reasoning.

Replacing "god" in "god-of-the-gaps" with science indicates a misunderstanding of both science and the god-of-the-gaps concept.

There's no such thing as empirical explanation.

Biological organisms are not designed with specific purposes. Rather, traits that are conducive to reproduction are maintained from generation to generation, while traits that are not are selected out. This is constantly changing in constantly changing environments.

No I am not talking about the multiverse theory...look up "modal logic" and "possible world scenarios" and then get back with me.

Couldn't find anything about "possible world scenarios" as an individual concept, but "modal logic" appears to involve mathematics that are beyond my skills. Nevertheless, what you were describing appeared far closer to multiverse theory, so if it's not, you'll have to explain yourself how it's not.

Actually there is. There had to be the very "first" thought that was ever thought off...and temporally before that, there was no thinking. Plain and simple.

Can you pinpoint such a line in fetal/child-development?

We are talking about definitions here, not measurements or standardized units.

You said you could measure it, so yes we are talking about measurements, and by extension, standardized units for that measurement.

But scientific claims are supposed to be able to be empirically verified. Your specific claim has not been empirically verified.

1. You don't know that because you never looked at the provided links.
2. Not necessarily. Lacking concrete verification, probable hypotheses are used and presented, to be falsified in the future.

So a non scientific book made the correct claim that the universe began to exist, and is expanding? Apparently being "scientific" has nothing to do with correct claims of knowledge and truth.

One semi-correct claim does not erase the many incorrect claims.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Replacing "god" in "god-of-the-gaps" with science indicates a misunderstanding of both science and the god-of-the-gaps concept.

That is basically what you did. You used "natural selection" to plug in your lack of knowledge. Your "natural selection" answer could be false..so therefore your answer is no better than my answer of goddidit.

There's no such thing as empirical explanation.

Ok, so when I am watching Forensic Files on tv, when I see scientists using DNA to prove a person committed a crime, it is all illusory. Gotcha.

Biological organisms are not designed with specific purposes. Rather, traits that are conducive to reproduction are maintained from generation to generation, while traits that are not are selected out. This is constantly changing in constantly changing environments.

Wait a minute, so eyes doesn't have a specific purpose? Just a matter of convenience, right?

Couldn't find anything about "possible world scenarios" as an individual concept, but "modal logic" appears to involve mathematics that are beyond my skills. Nevertheless, what you were describing appeared far closer to multiverse theory, so if it's not, you'll have to explain yourself how it's not.

Possible world - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mathematical skills...what?

Possible world semantics is basically saying things could have been different...or, it is POSSIBLE for things to have been different. For example, there is a possible world at which I wouldn't have joined the military. In other words, "it could have happened", or, "it could have not happened".

What I am saying is, there is no possible world that life/consciousness could have originated naturally. If it is possible, then I should be able to conceive of a possible world/scenario at which it COULD happened, and for the life of me, I can't...which is why I've invited you and others on here to give me the scenario...which, out of about two dozen times, hasn't been answered yet.

Can you pinpoint such a line in fetal/child-development?

No, but then again I don't hold the view that life originated naturally either.

You said you could measure it, so yes we are talking about measurements, and by extension, standardized units for that measurement.

I never said I could measure it, I said it is easily defined.

One semi-correct claim does not erase the many incorrect claims.

Two entirely correct claims. Saying that the universe began to exist and is expanding...thousands of years before this was proven/observed to be true...quite compelling.

 

[idav]

Two entirely correct claims. Saying that the universe began to exist and is expanding...thousands of years before this was proven/observed to be true...quite compelling.

Nothing of what we know of the big bang can spell how where it came from or how it is here. Expanding doesn't say it began. We see a singularity which we know little to nothing about. You can say "oh the singularity, goddidit" but that is not compelling in the least.