Evolution and Mind/Body Dualism

[Bunyip]

So just because you didn't understand it, it is a pointless argument? And then you tell me to read neuropsychology books? You sound no different from a young earth creationist. Bravo! :clap:clap

No need for the childish tantrum. I read and understood the book, you are the one who clearly did not.

The physical substrates and the conscious experience are two completely different things. There is no explanation for qualia or intentionality.

No explanation does not infer or evidence any necessity for anything beyond matter and energy.

Most physicalists believe in something called strong emergence. It means that consciousness just somehow poofs into existence when the brain works in a certain configuration. Philosophically sounds a lot like magic to me.

LOL, yeah right.

I have read and studied more about the Hard problem than you have, considering the poor arguments you have set forth.

Clearly not.

 

[Bunyip]

You seemed to have missed his point completely now didn't you? That paragraph actually is the reason why physical explanations don't make sense. I always find that atheists have a much harder time understanding the hard problem.

Chalmers is a dualist, a property dualist at that. Next time you try to put forth an argument, I suggest you read a little further before embarrassing yourself.

David Chalmers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Chalmers' 1996 book, The Conscious Mind, was described by The Sunday Times as "one of the best science books of the year".[4] In the book, Chalmers argues that all forms of physicalism (whether reductive or non-reductive) that have dominated modern philosophy and science fail to account for the existence (that is, presence in reality) of consciousness itself. He proposes an alternative dualistic view he calls naturalistic dualism (but which might also be characterized by more traditional formulations such as property dualism, neutral monism, or double-aspect theory)."

"Instead, Chalmers argues that consciousness is a fundamental property ontologically autonomous of any known (or even possible) physical properties, and that there may be lawlike rules which he terms "psychophysical laws" that determine which physical systems are associated with which types of qualia."

Here I'll even quote Sam Harris, die hard atheist and materialist. The Mystery of Consciousness : : Sam Harris

"It seems to me that just as “something” and “nothing,” however juxtaposed, can do no explanatory work, an analysis of purely physical processes will never yield a picture of consciousness."

Buddy, that long winded rant did not even make sense. That you can not EXPLAIN consciousness in purely pyhsical terms DOES NOT INFER THAT THERE MUST BE SOMETHING MORE.

I can not adequately explain the Mona Lisa in purely physical terms either - that does not mean it must therefore be magic.

 

[MD]

Yes, thank you for the anesthesia correction.

But you didn't address the main point. Can you tell me how positing an additional "non-physical aspect" helps us to deal with the hard problem of consciousness?

You either accept material monism to explain mind, which implies the emergence of something completely different from its physical substrate, or you look into other positions out there (idealism, neutral monism, etc) which all attribute mind as its own property.

Suggesting that consciousness is a property on its own is an attempt at trying understand the hard problem. Of course it's a god of the gaps argument, but it makes a lot more sense than material monism ever will which is pretty faith based as well. Consciousness is ontologically distinct, as such it is separate from the matter which gives rise to it at some level.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

And music is not the same thing as a piano.

And?

But I still see no evidence that the mind cannot be the result of the brain in the same way that the piano produces sounds. I see no reason to assume the existence of additional entities that have not been shown to exist.

But just because you have a piano doesn't mean you have sound. Neither the piano nor the sound that a piano makes can be used to explain the origins of themselves. You can't use the piano to explain the existence of the piano, and you can't use the sound to explain the existence of the sound.

You believe that the brain developed naturally and began thinking, which is similar to believing that a piano assembled naturally, and began playing itself. I don't see how either one can be considered plausibly true.

Both require external causes.

Yes that is exactly what I believe, if your brain could be remove and put in a vat, where life support could be maintained, and signals could be input, your brain could be happy, or sad, or excited, or fascinated, or creative etc.

But my question is, if your brain was removed and placed next to your body and there are two physical entities placed side by side, where would "you" be...would you be your body, or your brain?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Let's try to keep this civil. If there is something you think I missed I am happy to go back and take an other pass at it.

Oh, it is civil.

Earlier in this thread you used the example of "Animorphs" to explain the concept of the mind being independent of the brain. Now I am not actually familiar with this program but I understand the concept.

Yeah, it was first a series of damn good books. Four teenagers who stumbled across an wounded alien who gave them the power to transform into any animal that they touched.

I like the way they did the books too...for example, each book was a first-person view of one of the teenagers perspective. So for example, your book would be a picture of you slowly transforming into whatever animal...like this..




So the "I" in the book would be you. And my book, the "I" would be me. I just thought it was an interesting way to do things, kind of like V.C Andrew's style.



I would have said Cassie (above) was the token black girl, but Marco was hispanic, so I can't say that lol.

Fantasy fiction is full of such examples, bodymorphs, mind transfers, disembodies minds etc. But let's be fair, if you can go to this well so can I. Fiction is also replete with examples of artificial intelligence (Lt. Commander Data comes to mind). And again I am not claiming to prove anything, but I think this qualifies as hypothetical scenario in which this could occur. And before you decide to mock me for using science fiction, remember you used "Animorphs". And there really is current work being done in the field of artificial intelligence. It is extremely crude, I think it holds much more promise than "Animorph" research does.

Um, ok.

Right, there is correlation. And this does not prove causation. I admit that, and I am not claiming to have proof. But I see no evidence to show that "God created the mind", I see no evidence of anything other than the brain that could cause the mind.

Well, what is your evidence that the brain is the ultimate source of the mind? If you "see no evidence of anything other", then tell me what is the evidence that you see.

It is fine if you what to hypothesis the existence of an entity separate from the brain. And again I am not claiming that I can disprove the existence of such an entity. But I see no evidence of it, and it does not advance our understanding in anyway that I can see. As I see it you are multiplying entities beyond necessity.

I am not multiplying entities, only one entity is needed/necessary. I'd like a naturalistic scenario at which a brain that was formulated over millions of years can suddenly begin to start thinking? Whether suddenly or gradual, I'd just like a scenario, and so far, that isn't what I've been getting?

I think I have dealt with this, twice. But in brief, I do believe that happiness, sadness, anger, frustration, excitement etc are the result of neurological processes occurring within the brain. I see no evidence of any other entity that can create these experiences, and I see no mechanism that could make it possible for an non-physical entity to create these experiences.

Ok, so when you are happy, what is HAPPY? If the brain is happy, then the brain will have the sense of a first person view of "I am happy", right? If there is no inner "I" that is attached to the brain, then the brain cannot be happy.

I am not sure what you mean by "ignition". Our bodies are powered by an electro-chemical process. I cannot see how this is an obstacle to an artificial life form (Lt commander Data had a positronic brain)

The ignition is whatever mechanism that you can think of that will change a person from being alive, to dead...or dead, to alive. Or not living, to living. If there was a point at which there was absolutely no life or consciousness whatsoever, and there is presently life and consciousness, that would mean that the inanimate matter came to life and began thinking...so my question is, what is the ignitor...what is the mechanism...what is the process that will allow the change from one state to the next?

Conscious is something that could have developed in incredibly small increments.

I understand that that is the theory, but what I want is evidence for the theory.

Few would claim that a single celled organism possesses consciousness. But it can detect changes in it's environment and react accordingly. And btw so can a thermostat, an artificial device that can detect changes in temperature and react. Insects can detect a much larger variety of sensory input and have a much wider variety of reactions. But are insects conscious? This is debatable, but certainly not on the level of human conscious that we are talking about, I don't believe insects are self-aware. So now we move on to reptiles and mammals. And here we see greater and increasing levels of consciousness.

Well, then you've just pushed the question of origins a few steps further, because now you have to explain the origin of conscious for ALL living things.

So yes I believe the Brain did evolve naturally, and conscious did not proceed the brain, but was created by the brain.

Then give me a natural scenario at which this could have happened.

Now I know that you will be tempted to just label all this "nonsense". But remember that I am not trying to prove this to you, I am asking if you can prove to me your assertion that this is not possible.

What? You are claiming that something occurred naturally, so I am saying...PROVE it using science. Science is supposed to be a method which is used that can prove natural occurrences, well, you claimed it happened naturally, so PROVE it using science. Can you? No you cant. So you are exercising FAITH when you make these claims.

I don't think they were created simultaneously in the way you seem to think, but then again I admit that I am not sure what you mean by that. I believe the brain evolved naturally from very simple structures and developed more and more complexity, and along with that the mind became more and more complex.

Again, you are telling me the theory, when I am asking for evidence for the theory. I am asking you for a scenario at which a brain developed from prexisting matter, and then began thinking...just give me the scenario. You can't even give me a SCENARIO at which this could have happened, yet you believe it is true..you believe it happened?

I am not going to argue theism with you, beyond the point that I still see no evidence or necessity for any non-physical cause for the brain or the mind.

You don't even have evidence for what YOU believe to be true, so how are you asking for evidence for other beliefs when you can't even substantiate your own?

Now I hope I have dealt with everything. I have put in more time than I frankly think this deserved. If there is something specific that you think I missed or did not deal with sufficiently please let me know.

I am asking for specifics...a specific scenario...we can end the conversation by you simply stating "I dont know...I believe what I believe based on faith."

That is honesty...integrity.

 

[idav]

And?



But just because you have a piano doesn't mean you have sound. Neither the piano nor the sound that a piano makes can be used to explain the origins of themselves. You can't use the piano to explain the existence of the piano, and you can't use the sound to explain the existence of the sound.

You believe that the brain developed naturally and began thinking, which is similar to believing that a piano assembled naturally, and began playing itself. I don't see how either one can be considered plausibly true.

Both require external causes.




But my question is, if your brain was removed and placed next to your body and there are two physical entities placed side by side, where would "you" be...would you be your body, or your brain?

Call, do you do this strawman stuff on purpose? It's an excellent way to avoid the actual debate.

 

[idav]

Then give me a natural scenario at which this could have happened.



What? You are claiming that something occurred naturally, so I am saying...PROVE it using science. Science is supposed to be a method which is used that can prove natural occurrences, well, you claimed it happened naturally, so PROVE it using science. Can you? No you cant. So you are exercising FAITH when you make these claims.

Without Miracles: Brain Evolution and Development: The Selection of Neurons and Synapses

 

[idav]

You don't even have evidence for what YOU believe to be true, so how are you asking for evidence for other beliefs when you can't even substantiate your own?

Evidence has been presented by many but still nothing from the "mind first" camp.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Call, do you do this strawman stuff on purpose? It's an excellent way to avoid the actual debate.

I don't avoid debates, I start them :beach:

 

[Riverwolf]

...screw that point-by-point discussion. It's just too unwieldy, now.

"Because there is no evidence that a man commits a crime, it follows that the man didn't commit the crime".

Fallacious.

Quite fallacious, and not at all what was said.

The statement ends with "there is no evidence that a man committed a crime", and the default state in a court of law is innocent until proven guilty. The state of innocence in a court of law doesn't mean that the person did not actually commit the crime, but simply that there's no evidence for it, and so there is no reason to declare the man guilty.

The scientific equivalent to an accusing a person of a crime is the hypothesis. A scientist asks, or observes, a question, and then hypothesizes a potential answer, and then tests against it using appropriate methods. For the record, not all scientific experimentation requires a lab; the scientific method can be performed in the home, provided it's not something that requires handling of dangerous substances. The default answer to the hypothesis is "no" (innocent), unless the results of the experimentation, along with adequate re-experimentation, determines the answer to be "yes" (guilty).

In this case, the question is: are there any other ways by which consciousness can arise without the need of a brain?
Your hypothesis: yes, an external, non-material consciousness. (If I've misunderstood you here, feel free to correct.)

Problem is, unless you can show me with experimentation that it's true, then the default position is that it's false, because no evidence, or experimental methodology, has been presented that can demonstrate it to be true.On the other hand, consciousness is clearly dependent on the brain, as every single experiment on the subject has demonstrated, and so it follows naturally that consciousness cannot exist without the brain. It's therefore the result of natural biological processes in individuals (as it does not exist, so far as we can tell, in embryos but develops slowly over time as the brain develops in and out of the womb), and so not unreasonable to conclude that it arose through natural selection, like all other biological processes.

Or do you believe that an accused should be considered guilty until proven innocent?

 

[Riverwolf]

But my question is, if your brain was removed and placed next to your body and there are two physical entities placed side by side, where would "you" be...would you be your body, or your brain?

Neither. "I" would be dead.

Let's use an example of convergence rather than divergence, since what I'm thinking of actually happens.

Embryos develop from an egg and a sperm, and we were all embryos at some point. So, before we were embryos, which one were we, the egg or the sperm? If neither, then "where" and "what" are "we"?

 

[fantome profane]

First I want to appologize to Call_of_the_Wild for the length of time it took me to reply. I am just a world class procrastinator.

Well, what is your evidence that the brain is the ultimate source of the mind? If you "see no evidence of anything other", then tell me what is the evidence that you see.

I am sure I have gone into this. You acknowledge there is a correlation between the brain and consciousness. I see that correlation as evidence that the brain is the source of consciousness. Please note again I am not claiming it is proof, but it is evidence. You can now argue about how strong you think the evidence is, or you can argue that you think that evidence points to a different conclusion. But we all agree that the brain exists, and it is the only thing that I know of that could possibly be the source of consciousness. And that is why I find the evidence compelling.

I am not multiplying entities, only one entity is needed/necessary.

You do acknowledge the existence of the brain, and you do acknowledge that it plays some kind or role in consciousness. That is one entity. But you find this insufficient and so you must add another. I see no need to add an additional element. I hope you understand the the phrase I use "multiplying entities" is a reference to Occam's razor - "Do not multiply entities beyond necessity". And as I said to shahz in this thread I don't see how any additional non-physical element is necessary, or how it is helpful. If we can't explain how the brain produces conscious, how can we explain how some other thing that we can't even prove exists produces consciousness.

I'd like a naturalistic scenario at which a brain that was formulated over millions of years can suddenly begin to start thinking? Whether suddenly or gradual, I'd just like a scenario, and so far, that isn't what I've been getting?

The whole point is that it didn't suddenly start thinking. You acknowledge that it could be gradual, but you don't seen to understand what gradual means in this case. And this is the same lack of understanding that creationists in general and you specifically have shown in so many other debates. I gave you the example of a single celled organism that can detect changes in its environment and react. No one would call this "thinking", but it is something "like thinking". I don't believe insects really "think" either, but they do something that is more like thinking than single celled organisms. And so on and so on, we get things that are still not "thinking" but are more and more like thinking. The process would be so gradual that it would be impossible to distinguish a single point where something that was very close to thinking becomes something we would call thinking.

I know this has been explained to you over and over again in different contexts, and with different illustrations. To the point that I am confident that people will continue to explain this to you in the years to come. I don't expect you will suddenly understand it now. But your inability (or unwillingness) to understand it is not a compelling argument that it is not possible. Your lack of understanding is not a flaw in evolutionary theory.

Ok, so when you are happy, what is HAPPY? If the brain is happy, then the brain will have the sense of a first person view of "I am happy", right? If there is no inner "I" that is attached to the brain, then the brain cannot be happy.

Here we come to the meat of the issue. I do not believe there is an "inner I". I believe that what we call the "self" is nothing more and nothing less than a conglomeration of elements. It is a convenient idea, but it is a fiction. It is like the Ship of Theseus, that is the ship that Theseus sailed on to return to Crete, but since then every sing plank has been replaced as it decayed. So if every single part has been replaced is it still the "Ship of Theseus"? Or like the Axe that Abe Lincoln had as a young man, but since then the axe head has been replaced twice, and the handle three times. This is what I think the "self" is. Nothing more than a label. Every cell in your body dies off (some kinds of cells live only a few days, others may last for longer than a year), so over time every single cell that makes up "you" is replaced. Much like the way every part of the Ship of Theseus was replaced.

Trying to point to some separate distinct self as evidence that consciousness cannot come from the brain simply does not work for me, as I don't believe there is any separate distinct self. If you could show me that such a thing as the "self" does exist, then I could concede that that is evidence for your model of consciousness. But I don't see it.

The ignition is whatever mechanism that you can think of that will change a person from being alive, to dead...or dead, to alive. Or not living, to living. If there was a point at which there was absolutely no life or consciousness whatsoever, and there is presently life and consciousness, that would mean that the inanimate matter came to life and began thinking...so my question is, what is the ignitor...what is the mechanism...what is the process that will allow the change from one state to the next?

It is interesting that you have chosen the word "ignition". That suggests an obvious analogy. Picture a pile of wood arranged for a campfire. There is a point at which there is absolutely no fire there. But look latter in the evening and you will see people roasting marshmallows. Life is really just a chemical process, much more complicated than simple fire, but not different in essence. The food that you eat is not alive, it is not conscious (at least I hope not). But it becomes "you". The process through which this inanimate matter comes to life and starts thinking is well known, and no miracle is required.

What? You are claiming that something occurred naturally, so I am saying...PROVE it using science. Science is supposed to be a method which is used that can prove natural occurrences, well, you claimed it happened naturally, so PROVE it using science. Can you? No you cant. So you are exercising FAITH when you make these claims.

At this point I am just going to remind you one more time that I have never claimed to be able to prove anything. I believe you on the other hand have made claims that you could prove something. And I don't believe you have succeed.

Furthermore your statement that "Science is supposed to be a method which is used to prove natural occurrences" is absolutely false, and just shows your lack of understanding of what science is. Science can provide evidence, and can provide explanatory frameworks for observed natural phenomena. But science can never "prove" anything.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Neither. "I" would be dead.

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.

Embryos develop from an egg and a sperm, and we were all embryos at some point. So, before we were embryos, which one were we, the egg or the sperm? If neither, then "where" and "what" are "we"?

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.

But I believe that all life comes from God

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

...screw that point-by-point discussion. It's just too unwieldy, now.

Word.

...
Quite fallacious, and not at all what was said.

The statement ends with "there is no evidence that a man committed a crime", and the default state in a court of law is innocent until proven guilty. The state of innocence in a court of law doesn't mean that the person did not actually commit the crime, but simply that there's no evidence for it, and so there is no reason to declare the man guilty.

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.

...
The scientific equivalent to an accusing a person of a crime is the hypothesis. A scientist asks, or observes, a question, and then hypothesizes a potential answer, and then tests against it using appropriate methods. For the record, not all scientific experimentation requires a lab

Hey, suit yourself. Wherever you need to go to answer the question at hand.

...
In this case, the question is: are there any other ways by which consciousness can arise without the need of a brain?
Your hypothesis: yes, an external, non-material consciousness. (If I've misunderstood you here, feel free to correct.)

Oh, that is absolutely my position.

Problem is, unless you can show me with experimentation that it's true, then the default position is that it's false, because no evidence, or experimental methodology, has been presented that can demonstrate it to be true.

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.

...
On the other hand, consciousness is clearly dependent on the brain, as every single experiment on the subject has demonstrated, and so it follows naturally that consciousness cannot exist without the brain.

This is the cart before the horse fallacy. You want to conveniently bypass the part about origins, which is what I keep having to bring you guys back too. I am talking about ORIGINS..you want to fast forward and talk about what happened after consciousness got here...I am asking you how could mere matter get to the point where it starts thinking. It is no different than a chair beginning to think. A chair is made up of matter, right? So is the brain, so what is the difference? Neutrons, electrons? Eyes? What? What is the difference...they are both made up of matter, so why is one able to think and the other one can't? What is the origin of mental states? The ORIGIN. Tell me the ORIGIN..not what happens after the fact, because that doesn't solve anything.

You say the mind is dependent upon the brain. I agree, it is dependent upon the brain as long as the mind occupies the body. Once the mind is removed from the brain, it is no longer dependent upon the brain. Christians believe that God is a mind, and guess what, God doesn't have a brain. That concept is certainly conceivable, as Christians conceive it all the time, as we believe that God hears our prayers, and thinks about us, all without having a brain.

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.

It's therefore the result of natural biological processes in individuals (as it does not exist, so far as we can tell, in embryos but develops slowly over time as the brain develops in and out of the womb), and so not unreasonable to conclude that it arose through natural selection, like all other biological processes.

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.

...
Or do you believe that an accused should be considered guilty until proven innocent?

Innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

First I want to appologize to Call_of_the_Wild for the length of time it took me to reply. I am just a world class procrastinator.

I am too, on most things.

I am sure I have gone into this. You acknowledge there is a correlation between the brain and consciousness. I see that correlation as evidence that the brain is the source of consciousness.

There is a correlation between my remote control and my tv. What does that have to do with the origins of either? The remote control may not even be made in the same factory as the tv. Correlation does not imply identity.

Please note again I am not claiming it is proof, but it is evidence. You can now argue about how strong you think the evidence is, or you can argue that you think that evidence points to a different conclusion. But we all agree that the brain exists, and it is the only thing that I know of that could possibly be the source of consciousness. And that is why I find the evidence compelling.

That is just fine!!! The only problem is, you have to be able to scientifically prove it. If it happened naturally, it should be able to be explained scientifically. I don't even see how it is even a viable theory, because as I said, just because they correlate don't mean that one is the source of the other, and that is the only reasoning you offered. I am just asking for the scenario, because I can't even conceive of a scenario at which inanimate matter can begin to think, which is why, if you can think of such, give me the scenario.

You do acknowledge the existence of the brain, and you do acknowledge that it plays some kind or role in consciousness.

Absolutely. God wanted man to dwell in a physical realm, and in a physical bod, but since mental states are not the same as physical states, the only way God could carry this out was to make a way for the immaterial to integrate with the material, which is by placing our immaterial "selves" into our physical "selves".

That is one entity. But you find this insufficient and so you must add another. I see no need to add an additional element. I hope you understand the the phrase I use "multiplying entities" is a reference to Occam's razor - "Do not multiply entities beyond necessity". And as I said to shahz in this thread I don't see how any additional non-physical element is necessary, or how it is helpful. If we can't explain how the brain produces conscious, how can we explain how some other thing that we can't even prove exists produces consciousness.

Occam's Razor would apply only if you had a viable scientific theory as to how the brain itself is enough to demonstrate the origin of consciousness. However, you don't. So in actually, you don't have a clue as to how consciousness arose, so at best, you should be agnostic on the subject, but instead of being agnostic on the subject, you want to claim that nature is the culprit; nature caused consciousness. But you can't empirically substantiate this claim, you just believe it because you don't like the idea of God...plain and simple. Your belief that naturedidit has nothing to do with evidence. It has to do with personal tastes. You don't like the idea of God, so you are avoiding the God hypothesis at all costs, no matter how implausible the default position is.

The whole point is that it didn't suddenly start thinking. You acknowledge that it could be gradual, but you don't seen to understand what gradual means in this case. And this is the same lack of understanding that creationists in general and you specifically have shown in so many other debates. I gave you the example of a single celled organism that can detect changes in its environment and react. No one would call this "thinking", but it is something "like thinking".

See, here is where the voodoo science starts to creep in. Watch the wording here.

Keyword: React

"detect changes in its environment and REACT". What does "react" mean in this scenario? If it isn't thinking, what is it doing? It doesn't know that it is reacting, does it? So what is going on here.

"detect changes in its environment" what does that mean? The scenario has to be explained.

I don't believe insects really "think" either, but they do something that is more like thinking than single celled organisms. And so on and so on, we get things that are still not "thinking" but are more and more like thinking. The process would be so gradual that it would be impossible to distinguish a single point where something that was very close to thinking becomes something we would call thinking.

Right, the process started as slow and gradual and simple as an insect, but "over time" it gradually became so complex and sophisticated that it spiraled out of control into intelligent human beings that does math, paint, build space shuttles, writes books, etc. Religious folks aren't the only people playing the faith game.

I know this has been explained to you over and over again in different contexts, and with different illustrations. To the point that I am confident that people will continue to explain this to you in the years to come. I don't expect you will suddenly understand it now. But your inability (or unwillingness) to understand it is not a compelling argument that it is not possible. Your lack of understanding is not a flaw in evolutionary theory.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, snakes produce snakes.

Here we come to the meat of the issue. I do not believe there is an "inner I". I believe that what we call the "self" is nothing more and nothing less than a conglomeration of elements. It is a convenient idea, but it is a fiction. It is like the Ship of Theseus, that is the ship that Theseus sailed on to return to Crete, but since then every sing plank has been replaced as it decayed. So if every single part has been replaced is it still the "Ship of Theseus"? Or like the Axe that Abe Lincoln had as a young man, but since then the axe head has been replaced twice, and the handle three times. This is what I think the "self" is. Nothing more than a label. Every cell in your body dies off (some kinds of cells live only a few days, others may last for longer than a year), so over time every single cell that makes up "you" is replaced. Much like the way every part of the Ship of Theseus was replaced.

Origins!!!!

Trying to point to some separate distinct self as evidence that consciousness cannot come from the brain simply does not work for me, as I don't believe there is any separate distinct self. If you could show me that such a thing as the "self" does exist, then I could concede that that is evidence for your model of consciousness. But I don't see it.

Ok, I have a question for you. We will take this step by step. If there is a big bang, and eventually, the first brain started to develop...at what point would the brain begin to think "I exist".

Simple, right?

It is interesting that you have chosen the word "ignition". That suggests an obvious analogy. Picture a pile of wood arranged for a campfire. There is a point at which there is absolutely no fire there. But look latter in the evening and you will see people roasting marshmallows. Life is really just a chemical process, much more complicated than simple fire, but not different in essence. The food that you eat is not alive, it is not conscious (at least I hope not). But it becomes "you". The process through which this inanimate matter comes to life and starts thinking is well known, and no miracle is required.

Neither the fire, nor the wood, nor the marshmallows are thinking, are they?

At this point I am just going to remind you one more time that I have never claimed to be able to prove anything. I believe you on the other hand have made claims that you could prove something. And I don't believe you have succeed.

You have not provided any evidence for your position, in the slightest bit.

Furthermore your statement that "Science is supposed to be a method which is used to prove natural occurrences" is absolutely false, and just shows your lack of understanding of what science is. Science can provide evidence, and can provide explanatory frameworks for observed natural phenomena. But science can never "prove" anything.

Look, what I said is simple. If something happens naturally, it can be scientifically explained. That is the holy grail of science, explaining CRAP that happens naturally. When scientists go in a lab, or wherever, they are not experimenting on the unnatural, or supernatural...they are experimenting on the NATURAL. All branches of science are about NATURALISTIC things.

You claimed that the brain gave rise to consciousness...well, that is a NATURAL occurrence, so I expect how the brain gave rise to consciousness to be explained to me NATURAL. If you can't use the scientific method to come up with a viable theory to what you believe, then as a naturalist, you shouldn't believe it.

But it isn't about that, though. It is about denying the Almighty God at all costs. That is what it is really about.

 

[idav]

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.



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.

But I believe that all life comes from God

There is nothing to say there is something more that is outside the brain. If a computer goes out and we cant get windows 8 to work anymore when lights go out then must be something more but not outside the broken machine.

Yes where it starts is a good question like looking at a light spectrum and deciding when a real color starts. Nothing metaphysical about it just blurry lines. Saying god did it just hides in the gaps of knowledge which just argue details while missing the big picture.

Ok life comes from god has little to do with emergent consciousness.

 

[fantome profane]

I am too, on most things.



There is a correlation between my remote control and my tv. What does that have to do with the origins of either? The remote control may not even be made in the same factory as the tv. Correlation does not imply identity.



That is just fine!!! The only problem is, you have to be able to scientifically prove it. If it happened naturally, it should be able to be explained scientifically. I don't even see how it is even a viable theory, because as I said, just because they correlate don't mean that one is the source of the other, and that is the only reasoning you offered. I am just asking for the scenario, because I can't even conceive of a scenario at which inanimate matter can begin to think, which is why, if you can think of such, give me the scenario.



Absolutely. God wanted man to dwell in a physical realm, and in a physical bod, but since mental states are not the same as physical states, the only way God could carry this out was to make a way for the immaterial to integrate with the material, which is by placing our immaterial "selves" into our physical "selves".



Occam's Razor would apply only if you had a viable scientific theory as to how the brain itself is enough to demonstrate the origin of consciousness. However, you don't. So in actually, you don't have a clue as to how consciousness arose, so at best, you should be agnostic on the subject, but instead of being agnostic on the subject, you want to claim that nature is the culprit; nature caused consciousness. But you can't empirically substantiate this claim, you just believe it because you don't like the idea of God...plain and simple. Your belief that naturedidit has nothing to do with evidence. It has to do with personal tastes. You don't like the idea of God, so you are avoiding the God hypothesis at all costs, no matter how implausible the default position is.



See, here is where the voodoo science starts to creep in. Watch the wording here.

Keyword: React

"detect changes in its environment and REACT". What does "react" mean in this scenario? If it isn't thinking, what is it doing? It doesn't know that it is reacting, does it? So what is going on here.

"detect changes in its environment" what does that mean? The scenario has to be explained.



Right, the process started as slow and gradual and simple as an insect, but "over time" it gradually became so complex and sophisticated that it spiraled out of control into intelligent human beings that does math, paint, build space shuttles, writes books, etc. Religious folks aren't the only people playing the faith game.



Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, snakes produce snakes.



Origins!!!!



Ok, I have a question for you. We will take this step by step. If there is a big bang, and eventually, the first brain started to develop...at what point would the brain begin to think "I exist".

Simple, right?




Neither the fire, nor the wood, nor the marshmallows are thinking, are they?



You have not provided any evidence for your position, in the slightest bit.



Look, what I said is simple. If something happens naturally, it can be scientifically explained. That is the holy grail of science, explaining CRAP that happens naturally. When scientists go in a lab, or wherever, they are not experimenting on the unnatural, or supernatural...they are experimenting on the NATURAL. All branches of science are about NATURALISTIC things.

You claimed that the brain gave rise to consciousness...well, that is a NATURAL occurrence, so I expect how the brain gave rise to consciousness to be explained to me NATURAL. If you can't use the scientific method to come up with a viable theory to what you believe, then as a naturalist, you shouldn't believe it.

But it isn't about that, though. It is about denying the Almighty God at all costs. That is what it is really about.

I think we have gone around and around on this a couple times. I see no point in continuing.

If you think there is something to be gained I will go over it again, but it a this point I think we are done.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I think we have gone around and around on this a couple times. I see no point in continuing.

If you think there is something to be gained I will go over it again, but it a this point I think we are done.

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

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

There is nothing to say there is something more that is outside the brain. If a computer goes out and we cant get windows 8 to work anymore when lights go out then must be something more but not outside the broken machine.

But the computer itself cannot be used to explain the origin of windows 8, idav. Not only can't it be used, but it doesn't even follow that just because you have the computer, therefore you have windows 8. So how do you get the point point where window 8 is in the hard drive? You need an EXTERNAL entity that places the product in the hard drive...an external entity that transcends both the computer and windows 8.

Yes where it starts is a good question like looking at a light spectrum and deciding when a real color starts. Nothing metaphysical about it just blurry lines. Saying god did it just hides in the gaps of knowledge which just argue details while missing the big picture.

Lmao ok, idav.

Ok life comes from god has little to do with emergent consciousness.

You can't have consciousness if you don't begin with preexisting life.

 

[idav]

But the computer itself cannot be used to explain the origin of windows 8, idav. Not only can't it be used, but it doesn't even follow that just because you have the computer, therefore you have windows 8. So how do you get the point point where window 8 is in the hard drive? You need an EXTERNAL entity that places the product in the hard drive...an external entity that transcends both the computer and windows 8.

No we know how reproduction works and ir takes years of experience to develop who we are. Our personality doesnt fall from the sky it takes years physical interactions with out environment. We see this as we study the development of the first year of a babies life.

Lmao ok, idav.

Then refute it.

You can't have consciousness if you don't begin with preexisting life.

So youve been aware of y our consciousness since you were born? Doesnt depend on the memory of experience? We are what we are through physical experience.