• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolution based on random mutations and natural selection

Unification

Well-Known Member
Because the Aristotelian ladder of progress view is two millennia old, does not mirror basic Darwinian principals and is dead wrong.
No laws need be broken and there is not evidence of anything else. The "mind" like the "soul" appears to be an artifact of the internal communication of the brain, there is no basis for it except the time delay between the two hemispheres.

No, you are playing semantic games as your are with (4) below.

1. Moving from left to right in the collective intelligence/knowledge evolution from Darwinism to Phylogenesis over two millenia and becoming more advanced with the discovery of new things, such as DNA, etc. This just proves true, that's it is all "accepted," "supported," and "assumption" until a better model is found. Rinse, recycle, repeat. The greatest and best scientific discoveries are yet to come, such as that humans themselves, as a small new tiny branch on the phylogenesis/evolutionary tree... That our spirits have been not just the new tiny branch, but have been the whole tree of life going from body to body, species to species, reptile to mammal, mammal to human, human back to microbe/worm, etc.

Here is where you're wrong. Let's assume what you state is true. The mind doesn't exist and that it is just a part of the brain with two hemispheres and time delay, all is physical, internally and externally.
This breaks the first law of thermodynamics, that you can't get something out of nothing.
The brain/mind must then also only be able to create/imagine/think/know what already exists. Illusion, imagination, reality/deception, true/false, etc would all have to be TRUE. There would be no wrong. The unicorn would also have to be true, as well as Santa Claus, etc. The brain/mind would only be able to manipulate what already exists. PHYSICAL CANNOT CREATE NON-PHYSICAL.
Indirectly and unaware... You have no choice but to believe in God, unicorns, and Santa Claus, and everything else mindkind has created in their imaginations based upon an all-physical universe.
This is just one law, we can couple this into Newton's laws, relativity, and mathematical principles as well if you'd like to peacefully discuss.

"Semantics" using your logic regarding this matter would become irrelevant because all logic and knowledge and language would have to be true and reality in the all physical world "belief."


New age still wasn't defined. Your definition would have to involve what "old age" means as well.
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
1. Moving from left to right in the collective intelligence/knowledge evolution from Darwinism to Phylogenesis over two millenia and becoming more advanced with the discovery of new things, such as DNA, etc. This just proves true, that's it is all "accepted," "supported," and "assumption" until a better model is found. Rinse, recycle, repeat. The greatest and best scientific discoveries are yet to come, such as that humans themselves, as a small new tiny branch on the phylogenesis/evolutionary tree... That our spirits have been not just the new tiny branch, but have been the whole tree of life going from body to body, species to species, reptile to mammal, mammal to human, human back to microbe/worm, etc.
You were doing pretty well backing away from the ladder and accepting the bush model until you stumble, tripping on the body to body metaphor and discussion of spirits, which is just so much hokey.
Here is where you're wrong. Let's assume what you state is true. The mind doesn't exist and that it is just a part of the brain with two hemispheres and time delay, all is physical, internally and externally.

This breaks the first law of thermodynamics, that you can't get something out of nothing.

The brain/mind must then also only be able to create/imagine/think/know what already exists. Illusion, imagination, reality/deception, true/false, etc would all have to be TRUE. There would be no wrong. The unicorn would also have to be true, as well as Santa Claus, etc. The brain/mind would only be able to manipulate what already exists. PHYSICAL CANNOT CREATE NON-PHYSICAL.
That's just your ego pretending that you are something more important in the universe than you are, your premise that thought is "non-physical" is demonstrable claptrap, thought can be easily detected and localized in the brain.
Indirectly and unaware... You have no choice but to believe in God, unicorns, and Santa Claus, and everything else mindkind has created in their imaginations based upon an all-physical universe.
Strawman.
This is just one law, we can couple this into Newton's laws, relativity, and mathematical principles as well if you'd like to peacefully discuss.

"Semantics" using your logic regarding this matter would become irrelevant because all logic and knowledge and language would have to be true and reality in the all physical world "belief."
Pelion piled on Ossa.
New age still wasn't defined. Your definition would have to involve what "old age" means as well.
Try wiki:

The New Age movement is a religious or spiritual movement that developed in Western nations during the 1970s. Precise scholarly definitions of the movement differ in their emphasis, largely as a result of its highly eclectic structure. Nevertheless, the movement is characterised by a holistic view of the cosmos, a belief in an emergent Age of Aquarius – from which the movement gets its name – an emphasis on self-spirituality and the authority of the self, a focus on healing (particularly with alternative therapies), a belief in channeling, and an adoption of a "New Age science" that makes use of elements of the new physics.

The New Age movement evolved from an array of earlier religious movements and philosophies, in particular nineteenth-century groups such as the Theosophical Society and Gurdjieff. It also incorporates strands from metaphysics, perennial philosophy, self-help psychology, and various Indian teachings such as Buddhism, Hinduism and Yoga[1] In the 1970s, it developed a social and political component.[2] Its central precepts have been described as "drawing on both Eastern and Western spiritual and metaphysical traditions and infusing them with influences from self-help and motivational psychology".[3] The term New Age refers to the coming astrological Age of Aquarius.[4]

The New Age movement includes elements of older spiritual and religious traditions ranging from monotheism through pantheism, pandeism, panentheism, and polytheism combined with science and Gaia philosophy; particularly archaeoastronomy, astrology, ecology, environmentalism, the Gaia hypothesis, psychology, and physics. New Age practices and philosophies sometimes draw inspiration from major world religions: Buddhism, Taoism, Chinese folk religion, Christianity, Hinduism, Sufism (Islam), Judaism (especially Kabbalah), Sikhism; with strong influences from East Asian religions, Esotericism, Gnosticism, Hermeticism, Idealism, Neopaganism, New Thought, Spiritualism, Theosophy, Universalism, and Wisdom tradition.[5]

Though the Urban Dictionary is more amusing and carries more of the flavor:

new age

1. What many hippies of the 60s and 70s turned into in the 80s and 90s with the best intentions, except without drugs or any attempt to change the world. They almost all live in the Southwest, are obsessed with Egypt, India, or someplace else that's exotic, they mix the worst parts of all Eastern and Pagan Religions and say "I'm spiritual, not religious." Almost all are sold out baby boomer women that are not quite fat, have orange hair, and have overbites. They would probably say to this definition, in their draining whisper, "I'm picking up on a lot of hostility here. Can I do Reiki on you?"

2. The music they play while meditating on why Native Americans and Asians don't all love them even though they have the respect to drain their traditions.

"I had a vision from the Spirit I was at the Pyramids and suddenly Isis blanketed me inside a blanket of warm healing energy. You know what that means, I was Nefertiti in a past life. Oh, and these Tibetan monks were giving me prayer flags. And there was some Enya song in the background."

Pronounced to rhyme with "sewage", "New Age" is a term used to refer to the spiritual practices of a sizable fraction of the populations of California and New Mexico.
Dude! I like _so_ totally can't attend that anti-capitalist rally in Berkeley until I've like totally balanced the energy flow in my loft, polished my mood crystals, and had my $15 thimbleful of Kopi Luwak.

Slack off hippies who don't even have the tits to actually stand for a cause. The believe that the best way to become one with the earth is to buy mass produced books, tapes, crystals, cloth, and other crap that probably were responsible for the death of at least one species of exotic tree and a few dozen monkeys.

They also like to be lazy "vegetarians", lazy activists, and generally holier-than-thou twats who hate any emotion that isn't about sprinkling flowers and love or ****ing your cat.

New Agers like to live in pricey lofts that are especially equipped for white people, drink frappuccinos, and denounce anyone who actually cares about the environment as "extremists". They are usually pacifists, so they're great for the beginner gun enthusiast.

Beth: "Holy s***, look at that New Ager!"

Jessica: "Yeah, I got that beauty a few nights ago. He kept screaming about me disrupting his "chi", so it was a little difficult to concentrate and aim properly."
 
Last edited:

Unification

Well-Known Member
You were doing pretty well backing away from the ladder and accepting the bush model until you stumble, tripping on the body to body metaphor and discussion of spirits, which is just so much hokey.
That's just your ego pretending that you are something more important in the universe than you are, your premise that thought is "non-physical" is demonstrable claptrap, thought can be easily detected and localized in the brain.
Strawman.

Pelion piled on Ossa.

Try wiki:

The New Age movement is a religious or spiritual movement that developed in Western nations during the 1970s. Precise scholarly definitions of the movement differ in their emphasis, largely as a result of its highly eclectic structure. Nevertheless, the movement is characterised by a holistic view of the cosmos, a belief in an emergent Age of Aquarius – from which the movement gets its name – an emphasis on self-spirituality and the authority of the self, a focus on healing (particularly with alternative therapies), a belief in channeling, and an adoption of a "New Age science" that makes use of elements of the new physics.

The New Age movement evolved from an array of earlier religious movements and philosophies, in particular nineteenth-century groups such as the Theosophical Society and Gurdjieff. It also incorporates strands from metaphysics, perennial philosophy, self-help psychology, and various Indian teachings such as Buddhism, Hinduism and Yoga[1] In the 1970s, it developed a social and political component.[2] Its central precepts have been described as "drawing on both Eastern and Western spiritual and metaphysical traditions and infusing them with influences from self-help and motivational psychology".[3] The term New Age refers to the coming astrological Age of Aquarius.[4]

The New Age movement includes elements of older spiritual and religious traditions ranging from monotheism through pantheism, pandeism, panentheism, and polytheism combined with science and Gaia philosophy; particularly archaeoastronomy, astrology, ecology, environmentalism, the Gaia hypothesis, psychology, and physics. New Age practices and philosophies sometimes draw inspiration from major world religions: Buddhism, Taoism, Chinese folk religion, Christianity, Hinduism, Sufism (Islam), Judaism (especially Kabbalah), Sikhism; with strong influences from East Asian religions, Esotericism, Gnosticism, Hermeticism, Idealism, Neopaganism, New Thought, Spiritualism, Theosophy, Universalism, and Wisdom tradition.[5]

Though the Urban Dictionary is more amusing and carries more of the flavor:

new age

1. What many hippies of the 60s and 70s turned into in the 80s and 90s with the best intentions, except without drugs or any attempt to change the world. They almost all live in the Southwest, are obsessed with Egypt, India, or someplace else that's exotic, they mix the worst parts of all Eastern and Pagan Religions and say "I'm spiritual, not religious." Almost all are sold out baby boomer women that are not quite fat, have orange hair, and have overbites. They would probably say to this definition, in their draining whisper, "I'm picking up on a lot of hostility here. Can I do Reiki on you?"

2. The music they play while meditating on why Native Americans and Asians don't all love them even though they have the respect to drain their traditions.

"I had a vision from the Spirit I was at the Pyramids and suddenly Isis blanketed me inside a blanket of warm healing energy. You know what that means, I was Nefertiti in a past life. Oh, and these Tibetan monks were giving me prayer flags. And there was some Enya song in the background."

Pronounced to rhyme with "sewage", "New Age" is a term used to refer to the spiritual practices of a sizable fraction of the populations of California and New Mexico.
Dude! I like _so_ totally can't attend that anti-capitalist rally in Berkeley until I've like totally balanced the energy flow in my loft, polished my mood crystals, and had my $15 thimbleful of Kopi Luwak.

Slack off hippies who don't even have the tits to actually stand for a cause. The believe that the best way to become one with the earth is to buy mass produced books, tapes, crystals, cloth, and other crap that probably were responsible for the death of at least one species of exotic tree and a few dozen monkeys.

They also like to be lazy "vegetarians", lazy activists, and generally holier-than-thou twats who hate any emotion that isn't about sprinkling flowers and love or ****ing your cat.

New Agers like to live in pricey lofts that are especially equipped for white people, drink frappuccinos, and denounce anyone who actually cares about the environment as "extremists". They are usually pacifists, so they're great for the beginner gun enthusiast.

Beth: "Holy s***, look at that New Ager!"

Jessica: "Yeah, I got that beauty a few nights ago. He kept screaming about me disrupting his "chi", so it was a little difficult to concentrate and aim properly."


I apologize that you're not understanding the contradiction problem. I'll try and simplify even more, using an all physical model and scientific law:

There is a brain.

It is physical. It is all matter.

It produces chemicals that become thoughts, ideas, emotion, knowledge, etc. Thoughts, ideas, emotion, and knowledge would then be considered physical matter also, coming from a physical brain.

First law of thermodynamics: something can't be created from nothing.

A thought made of matter would have to exist already as matter.

An idea made of matter would have to exist already as matter.

An emotion made of matter would have to exist already as matter.

Any knowledge made of matter would have to exist already as matter.

The thought as physical matter of Santa Claus would already have to exist as Santa Claus physical matter somewhere in the universe.

If Santa Claus doesn't exist in the universe as physical matter, it is impossible for the thought to be physical matter.

That would be creating a physical thought of matter Santa Claus out of nothing, which is impossible.

Santa Claus must then be true and reality. Unless one created a physical matter of thought from nothing, defying and breaking scientific law.

A new chemical that only you know about would have to exist to create something physical out of nothing.

The first law of thermodynamics and a delusional brain easily proves that there is a mind.


Another assumption. I am no better or worse than anything or anyone. There is no partiality. Everything is an extension of one another, as Phylogenetics says.

Only an ego that is proven wrong, yet relentlessly holds on to scientific law but adds their very own self created laws on top of them, reasoning with themselves and using excuses to justify hypocrisy is an ego. The first step of reality is getting real with ones own self, and truly understanding the laws they cling to. Same with religion.

Thank you for the new age definitions, and the bottom one was rather humorous. What is Old Age, and why would Polymath be "superior" to New Age?
 

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
I apologize that you're not understanding the contradiction problem. I'll try and simplify even more, using an all physical model and scientific law:

There is a brain.

It is physical. It is all matter.

It produces chemicals that become thoughts, ideas, emotion, knowledge, etc. Thoughts, ideas, emotion, and knowledge would then be considered physical matter also, coming from a physical brain.

First law of thermodynamics: something can't be created from nothing.

A thought made of matter would have to exist already as matter.

An idea made of matter would have to exist already as matter.

An emotion made of matter would have to exist already as matter.

Any knowledge made of matter would have to exist already as matter.

The thought as physical matter of Santa Claus would already have to exist as Santa Claus physical matter somewhere in the universe.

If Santa Claus doesn't exist in the universe as physical matter, it is impossible for the thought to be physical matter.

That would be creating a physical thought of matter Santa Claus out of nothing, which is impossible.

Santa Claus must then be true and reality. Unless one created a physical matter of thought from nothing, defying and breaking scientific law.

A new chemical that only you know about would have to exist to create something physical out of nothing.

The first law of thermodynamics and a delusional brain easily proves that there is a mind.


Another assumption. I am no better or worse than anything or anyone. There is no partiality. Everything is an extension of one another, as Phylogenetics says.

Only an ego that is proven wrong, yet relentlessly holds on to scientific law but adds their very own self created laws on top of them, reasoning with themselves and using excuses to justify hypocrisy is an ego. The first step of reality is getting real with ones own self, and truly understanding the laws they cling to. Same with religion.

Thank you for the new age definitions, and the bottom one was rather humorous. What is Old Age, and why would Polymath be "superior" to New Age?
VERY VERY VERY false. Where do you get some of this stuff? For us to hold a concept in our mind with a physical brain does not in any way mean that that exact physical thing has to exist anywhere in the world to exist as a concept. What does need to exist is our brains and the chemicals that allow it to function. Nothing more nothing less. Without this to lean on your argument has nothing.
 

Unification

Well-Known Member
VERY VERY VERY false. Where do you get some of this stuff? For us to hold a concept in our mind with a physical brain does not in any way mean that that exact physical thing has to exist anywhere in the world to exist as a concept. What does need to exist is our brains and the chemicals that allow it to function. Nothing more nothing less. Without this to lean on your argument has nothing.

Untrue. Any intelligent scientist keeps quiet on the mind-body problem due to their own laws and knowing this. They "do not know." If a human randomly preaches them and doesn't know what they mean, let them be deceived. In any way shape or form possible for your argument to be true, you have to bend and break laws, and indirectly refer to non-physical matter. If you're unaware of this, I apologize. Know scientific laws before preaching them. If you don't know, simply say nothing or "I don't know." The greatest delusion and deceit is someone pretending to know something when they don't. It's a disease.
 

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Untrue. Any intelligent scientist keeps quiet on the mind-body problem due to their own laws and knowing this. They "do not know." If a human randomly preaches them and doesn't know what they mean, let them be deceived. In any way shape or form possible for your argument to be true, you have to bend and break laws, and indirectly refer to non-physical matter. If you're unaware of this, I apologize. Know scientific laws before preaching them. If you don't know, simply say nothing or "I don't know." The greatest delusion and deceit is someone pretending to know something when they don't. It's a disease.
I know the scientific laws pretty well. Which laws are being broken? I heard you mention the law of thermodynamics. The biggest issue with that is people who often try to tack this on to their argument forget there are other laws. Do you know what happens when force is exerted on an object in the Y axis when it has momentum in the X axis? It creates a curve that is a different path than either simple one direction forces. Similarly laws that are in place work off of each other to create results that wouldn't be possible if there were simply one law.
 

FearGod

Freedom Of Mind
VERY VERY VERY false. Where do you get some of this stuff? For us to hold a concept in our mind with a physical brain does not in any way mean that that exact physical thing has to exist anywhere in the world to exist as a concept. What does need to exist is our brains and the chemicals that allow it to function. Nothing more nothing less. Without this to lean on your argument has nothing.

What makes our brain conscious ?
Can we invent an object to be conscious ? and why can't we but the inanimate nature can ?
 

Parsimony

Well-Known Member
The thought as physical matter of Santa Claus would already have to exist as Santa Claus physical matter somewhere in the universe.
This is where your argument breaks down. From a materialist standpoint, the "Santa Claus physical matter" you speak of would just be the material that the brain itself is made of at the time that it created the thought.
 

Unification

Well-Known Member
VERY VERY VERY false. Where do you get some of this stuff? For us to hold a concept in our mind with a physical brain does not in any way mean that that exact physical thing has to exist anywhere in the world to exist as a concept. What does need to exist is our brains and the chemicals that allow it to function. Nothing more nothing less. Without this to lean on your argument has nothing.

Show reason please and prove it false, rather than just "saying so" because one "believes."

How can a physical mind create something that doesn't exist physically?
 

Unification

Well-Known Member
This is where your argument breaks down. From a materialist standpoint, the "Santa Claus physical matter" you speak of would just be the material that the brain itself is made of at the time that it created the thought.

"Just be the material that the brain itself is made of."
"At that time"
"Created the thought"

You have no choice but to add "non-material" before brain.

Does the physical brain at certain times switch from non-material to material and back and forth?

The brain itself is made of.... Material or non-material or both?
 

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
What makes our brain conscious ?
Can we invent an object to be conscious ? and why can't we but the inanimate nature can ?
The ability for it to react to outside stimulus on an advanced scale. Nothing is required beyond the physical. How can something react to a hot iron when touched? Does that require a soul? If not it is the same process just more advanced.
 

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Show reason please and prove it false, rather than just "saying so" because one "believes."

How can a physical mind create something that doesn't exist physically?
No burden shifting. You have come out with some preposterous idea that for us to conceive of something it must have existed in a physical sense. This is nonsensical and ludicrous. I can think of an infinite number of things that do not and cannot exist physically. I know for a fact they do not exist physically. This alone disproves your argument. However it is your burden of proof to support your argument as it goes counter to every observable evidence we have seen.
 

FearGod

Freedom Of Mind
The ability for it to react to outside stimulus on an advanced scale. Nothing is required beyond the physical. How can something react to a hot iron when touched? Does that require a soul? If not it is the same process just more advanced.

And how to react to a joke ?
 

Unification

Well-Known Member
Why?

No, why would it?

Given that brains can be physically examined, it is made of material.

Back to the law. One cannot create something from nothing. A physical thought, a physical idea, a physical emotion.... The brain would only be able to replicate what already exists physically, and have no ability to create a delusional thought from a physical brain, unless that delusional thought is true and physical.
 

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Back to the law. One cannot create something from nothing. A physical thought, a physical idea, a physical emotion.... The brain would only be able to replicate what already exists physically, and have no ability to create a delusional thought from a physical brain, unless that delusional thought is true and physical.
One cannot create something from nothing. But what is it made of? The thoughts in our head are only made of chemicals and atoms already in our head working together in a complex system. There is no need for my ideas to represent real physical things in the universe. The physical aspects of my brain are what it is made of. Nothing outside my brain required.
 

Unification

Well-Known Member
No burden shifting. You have come out with some preposterous idea that for us to conceive of something it must have existed in a physical sense. This is nonsensical and ludicrous. I can think of an infinite number of things that do not and cannot exist physically. I know for a fact they do not exist physically. This alone disproves your argument. However it is your burden of proof to support your argument as it goes counter to every observable evidence we have seen.

I think you're misunderstanding. Think for a little before responding.
If you know for a fact that they do not exist physically, which I do as well... we have no choice but to succumb to the fact that non-physical things can only create non-physical things. An all physical brain cannot create something that doesn't exist. It would be creating something from nothing.
 

Parsimony

Well-Known Member
Back to the law. One cannot create something from nothing.
What law are you speaking of? If you're talking about the first law of thermodynamics, then all that states is that matter and energy cannot be created from nothing. It says nothing about the creation of ideas.
A physical thought, a physical idea, a physical emotion.... The brain would only be able to replicate what already exists physically, and have no ability to create a delusional thought from a physical brain, unless that delusional thought is true and physical.
The the thing that "already exists physically" is the brain itself. Computers create plenty of things that don't exist in the physical world (such as the landscapes in a computer game). Is an immaterial mind required to explain that too?
 

FearGod

Freedom Of Mind
A complex relay of information based upon high tier reaction and storage mechanisms that eventually develop into cognitive systems that have become advanced enough to appreciate what we now call humor.

Why we can't create something to do the same while the inanimate nature did ? Can we invent a robot to think and make a decision by his own without being programmed for a specific job ?

What makes us conscious ? storing information alone won't make us conscious, how
such complexity evolved by the inanimate nature ?
 
Top