Five Reasons to Reject Belief in Gods

[Falvlun]

Wouldn't it be funny if the appendix is the actual source of consciousness!

Nobody believed me when I said I lost my mind after my appendectomy! The scoffers shall eat their words!

 

[atanu]

I am not denying the existence of other things. I am just saying that my existence is contingent on my physical being. When that disappears, so will I. As for the universe, I expect it to continue quite apart from me.

You are obviously wrong. One can, after your brain's death, recreate the exact structures (this is theoretically possible and conforms to your theory that structures exactly is what consciousness is) and then we get Copernicus Version 2. Don't we? Who knows that you are Copernicus nth version?

 

[Falvlun]

You are obviously wrong. One can, after your brain's death, recreate the exact structures (this is theoretically possible and conforms to your theory that structures exactly is what consciousness is) and then we get Copernicus Version 2. Don't we? Who knows that you are Copernicus nth version?

Tantalizing thought. However, environment shapes us as much as our genetics do. One of the common themes with the idea of clones-- genetically, they would be identical to whomever donated the DNA, but we wouldn't expect them to be, personality-wise, behavior-wise, identical, as that is largely a product of your upbringing.

And in a more poetical vein, what makes us who we are is the memories of what we have experienced. And memories will not transfer by simply recreating the physical vessel that had contained them.

 

[Copernicus]

And in a more poetical vein, what makes us who we are is the memories of what we have experienced. And memories will not transfer by simply recreating the physical vessel that had contained them.

I don't think of this as poetical. We are literally nothing without our memories. Memory is key to our sense of identity and our consciousness. The thing about memory is that we have a great deal of knowledge about its dependence on the physical brain. If the brain becomes damaged, memory loss can be permanent. We know that from observing it in living humans. It is not reasonable to expect our memories to persist after death.

 

[lunamoth]

Nobody believed me when I said I lost my mind after my appendectomy! The scoffers shall eat their words!

We have long suspected you of being a zombie. You probably also believe in zombie science!

 

[Copernicus]

Excuse me? The original point pertained to the observation that man could consciously alter his brain states by yoga etc., indicating the person as distinct from the structures.

The mind is constantly modifying itself. At the level of the neuron, that involves facilitation or inhibition. At a higher level, we have feedback loops. We can form new habits and inhibit old ones.

You said that mind alters itself and that similar is seen in higher order process interactions. I asked whether you had ever seen an application program altering the OS, unless programmed to do so? When I pointed out that it required an outside programmer, you retorted that I was changing the goalpost.

Our brains also require an "outside programmer"--inanimate natural forces. Your analogy breaks down where it begs the question of how to construe the "programmer"--as an intelligent designer or evolution by natural selection. There is overwhelming physical evidence that points to the latter.

Clearly state whether higher order processes can change lower order states on their own, if not designed to do so by a programmer or not? Clearly state whether effect can change the cause fundamentally or not.

In every chaotic deterministic system, higher order processes emerge from the behavior of simpler interactions. It is quite another thing to say that the high order processes are actually changing lower order ones. The causal interactions are at different levels. They are what make up the system. When you use Yoga to alter a state of mind, you are not actually causing changes to lower order processes. It is lower order processes interacting with each other that form both your desire to change and your action in bringing about the change. You are more than the sum of your parts.

As per you intelligence is caused by brain structures. Thus when that intelligence is able to change brain structures, it would mean that the effect is changing the cause.

Absolutely not. You are talking about different levels of causation. Does a weather system or a drainage system change the behavior of water molecules? It is the behavior of the water molecules in those systems that give rise to the systems themselves.

And obviously, you had no idea of emergent properties meant. For anything to emerge its cause must be there. The citation of mine from Wiki on the subject has been ignored by you.

Perhaps you understand the concept of emergence better than I do. I see no evidence of that, but I can only see what I see.

The brain itself is an observed object. It can never be observed without consciousness. OTOH, a destruction of single brain does nothing to the the ever flowing life force, indicating that the life force, indicated by its basic characteristic of 'awareness of existence' is distinct. Without life force acting in a body, the brain is just a piece of tissue.

A working brain is something more than a piece of tissue. It is a very complex set of interactions between neurons that gives rise to self-awareness and other mental faculties. When it stops functioning, it is pretty much just a piece of tissue.

 

[Quagmire]

(*sigh* I really hate all the histrionics and posturing before we can talk about what the thread is about. :faint

Then quit doing it.

Yes, it does. Understanding the way the brain functions tells us that brain activity controls consciousness--thought, behavior, mood, emotion, judgemnt, etc. Why would it not be reasonable to conclude that the brain itself generates consciousness?

Again: you're equating functions of the conscious mind with consciousness itself. Consciousness is involved in all the processes you're mentioning, but consciousness itself is more than anything a else the term used to indicate the quality of awareness. All the functions you keep bringing up indicate awareness, but they don't explain it (unless you decide to settle for equating the various brain functions with consciousness, which you keep saying you aren't doing).

We do have some reason to believe that it does,

You keep saying that but so far you've shown nothing.

but do we have any good reason to believe that it doesn't?

Again: you're the one making the positive assertion, the onus of proof is on you.

If you know that I didn't say that, then kindly do not put words in my mouth.

Show me where I actually did say you said that.

You keep imposing a reductionist interpretation on what I say, and then you blame me for my reductionism.

Again: show, don't just tell.

You did when you said I was "equating the physical processes going on in the brain during consciousness with consciousness itself". I was stating a dependency relationship, not an equivalence.

Then why exactly are you submitting this dependency relationship as an indication that the brain is the source of consciousness? No one is denying the dependency relationship, ie., that in order for consciousness to function in the physical realm, as a function or property of physical beings, it would need to rely on physical processes.

This is only an explanation of the way it operates in relation to the physical world. In order for you to submit any of this as evidence of it's source, you would have to equate consciousness with these processes (which is exactly what you've been doing even if you refuse to see that).

Or put it this way: if you were merely demonstrating relationship rather than equivalence, than how exactly does pointing out this relationship qualify as evidence for your argument?

Again? Ok. Mental functions are properties of a mind--self-awareness, sensory input (awareness of non-self), memory, calculation, volition, mood, emotions, etc.

I'm not asking for examples, I'm asking for your definition of "mental function", because until you supply a concrete definition for a term you keep using repeatedly, you can keep hopping from one foot to the other (which is exactly what you've been doing).

I'm not anxious to put words in your mouth, but you did seem to be arguing that the brain is just as likely to be a receiver as a generator of consciousness. Now you seem to be backing away from it.

I'm not responsible for any misinterpretations (intentional or otherwise) that you make in regards to my posts or my intentions. Of course now that I've (at least momentarily) succeeded in getting you to stop putting words in my mouth or assigning arguments to me that I haven't been making, you're going to accuse me of back-peddling. I would have predicted that.

Is it your position that it is equally plausible that the brain is a generator or receiver of consciousness?

Once again, you're trying to shift the onus of proof on to me. I'm sorry, I'm not going to let you do that. In this instance, I actually am refusing to answer your question because it's moot and any answer I could give could only serve to help you let yourself off the hook.

I have never claimed that there were no other alternatives to consider. In fact, I've explicitly denied that repeatedly, so I don't know where you get the idea that I do not see other alternatives. Perhaps my brain transmissions are not being received by yours because of excess spiritual static.

Definitely some kind of static.

If what you mean by "proven" is equivalent to "shown to be the most plausible", then I will agree that it is more plausible that the brain generates consciousness than receives it from an external source. There is no evidence at all to license the latter hypothesis.I am suggesting that your "radio receiver" analogy would look much better if we had some reason to pursue it--

You're still missing the whole point of the analogy: it isn't intended to get you to accept or pursue the external agency hypothesis, it's to demonstrate that we humans have a tendency to assume that the most obvious or apparent explanation is always the most likely (and yes I realize that this is what Occam's razor tells us to do, but practically speaking this line of reasoning, misused, has been shown to be a handicap to discovery rather than an aid).

like images of a special area of the brain that appeared to function as a receiver for an external signal--like the crystals (or diode) in a crystal radio.

So you're saying that if consiousness were dependent on an external agency, we would find cyrstals (or diodes) in the brain?

Really, you aren't even answering my question here: I didn't ask "if the brain were designed to accept an outside signal, what would the function of the components be?" That's a circular and worthless question. Of course if the brain were designed to receive a signal, the structures involved in reception would be designed to receive a signal.

What I was asking was "If there are such structures, what would they look like? How would we recognize them?"

And it's a rhetorical question: you already know we would have no way of recognizing then for what they were unless we they were observed in conjunction with the phenomenon they were designed to accomadate.

It is possible that something like that exists, and we haven't detected it. And that's why the "receiver" analogy violates Occam's Razor.

I don't believe that Occam's Razor was ever intented to be used to draw conclusions (it always leads to incomplete and often misleading answers when used this way), it was intended to insure a healthy level of skepticism while exploring and prioritizing possibilities.

It requires an extra assumption that is unsupported by the facts. It is possible that someone will detect such a physical organ in the brain tomorrow, and then your "receiver" analogy will seem a lot more plausible.

For what it was intended to demonstrate, my analogy is doing just fine already.

So far, you seem to be assuming that I've "ruled out possibilities". If so, that is a fundamental misunderstanding on your part, and I thought that I made that clear in the OP. My position is that "possibilities" need to be ranked in terms of "plausibility". That the brain is a "generator" and not a "receiver" of consciousness is currently the most plausible hypothesis,

No, it really isn't. It still requires a leap of faith that has no solid basis in anything we've discovered about the brain or it's functions thus far. It's merely the default option.

given that scientists have been looking for evidence of external agencies in thought processes and not found any.

Again: you're telling without showing. Which studies or experiments are you refering to here? How were they conducted? What were the conclusions?

This is what I mean when I say that you keep submitting different versions of "Trust me, I know about these things, take my word for it" as arguing points.

I have never said or implied that it was a "closed matter".

Yet, in spite of what you say or don't say, and in opposition to your own disclaimer, your treating the idea that the brain is the source of consciousness as a closed matter by breaking consiousness down to it's various separate functions---thought, emotion, awareness---and submiting the "fact" that these originate in the brain as evidence that consciousness itself must also orignate in the brain.

In order to submit the fact of brain activity during thought as evidence that consciousness originates in the brain, we would have to establish that thought originates in the brain.

If brain activity during emotion is to be submitted as evidence that consciousness originates in the brain, we would have to take it as a given that emotion originates in the brain.

etc. Whether you realize it or not you've been doing all of the above.

Basically what you've been saying is "since thought, emotion, awareness, ect. comprise consciousness, and since we know that all these things originate in the brain, then consciousness must also originate in the brain.

This is completely circular. You're constructing a definition of consciousness that complies with a theory that you already consider plausible in order to assign plausibility to that theory.

 

[PolyHedral]

We've got confused on the matter of burden of proof. "Emotion/intelligence/awareness/etc originates outside of the brain" is the positive assertion, because it implies more entities than the opposite. Copernicus is correct; Unless we have good reason to think that consciousness originates externally, we shouldn't go looking for something that might not even exist.

 

[Quagmire]

We've got confused on the matter of burden of proof. "Emotion/intelligence/awareness/etc originates outside of the brain" is the positive assertion, because it implies more entities than the opposite. Copernicus is correct; Unless we have good reason to think that consciousness originates externally, we shouldn't go looking for something that might not even exist.

Reason 1 in the OP is this:

Minds depend on physical brains. Religions depend on belief in souls--essentially minds that can exist independently of bodies. But experience tells us that minds depend on brain activity to function properly.

This is the positive assertion, therefore the onus is on the author of the OP.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Record of failed explanations. Religions have a historical record of making failed explanations of observed natural phenomena. The most powerful argument for gods--the argument from design--has been overturned by the discovery of evolution by natural selection. This pattern of failure has resulted in a pattern of "God of the Gaps" explanations. That is, natural explanations always trump supernatural ones.

This is probably the most infuriating, as it's really just an insult rather than rationale. All this is trying to do is rule out that science is not in the same boat as religion. Science gets things wrong all the time. It's called trial and error. To point this at religion is hypocritical. There are things that religious people get right, and I am happy to say that I have stated many over the course of my time on these forums, as well as other theists also. 'The pattern of failure' is just an imaginary pale horse.
The fact that there are things science will never be able to explain kind of reinforces this further. The fact that a god is ironically a more logical explanation than everything coming from nothing does the same as well. But the fact science is commonly subjective and does not tend to want to think back to past inquiries is probably the most damning of all. It leaves science often embarrassing itself.
And yet atheist have the nerve to feel as though their logic is superior.

Science is like a leaning tower that is reinforced with patches and theories to keep from tipping over.
Religion is infallible and cannot be destroyed, even by misconception, and it explains what science cannot.

 

[Quagmire]

There is nothing at all wrong with primitive people jumping to that conclusion when first exposed to a radio--a phenomenon they had never seen before--but your analogy lives up to its reputation as a logical fallacy in this case. It fails in several places. We have known about brains since ancient times,

That they exist? that they're involved in consciousness? Yes. Same as any precocious individual who observed a functioning radio might be able to deduce that the radio does indeed have some relationship to the noise coming out of it.

and ancient Egyptians even had a crude form of brain surgery.

And yet, the ancient Egyptians were as immersed in religion and religious explanations for natural phenomenon as any people could be.

We currently do understand the difference between transmitters, generators, and receivers, so we are not like people who lack those concepts.

Which is why I used primitive tribesmen in my analogy rather than radio shack employees.

It is perfectly reasonable to assume that a much more advanced civilization might have completely different explanations that are far more sophisticated than ours for a lot of phenomena we think we understand.

If history is any indication, that's pretty much a given.

That is basically irrelevant.

That depends on what you're trying to do.

Everyone will always be ignorant of some things and have misunderstandings of reality.

The people who realize this, and especially those who realize their own ignorance and misconceptions are usually the people who wind up making valid discoveries and worthwhile innovations.

That is the nature of human/intelligent cognition.

Which is what my analogy is meant to point out.

It is limited by experience. We can only understand new things by integrating them with our current state of knowledge. There is no evidence that brains behave in a way that is analogous to radio receivers.

"There is no evidence". Unless you actually considered the whole thing a closed matter (rather than merely advocating for the most currently plausible explanation as you keep claiming) you would have used something like "we can see no..." or "We've yet to discover any....".

There is plenty of evidence that consciousness waxes and wanes with brain function. Hence, it seems more reasonable to think of the brain as a standalone computer than a radio receiver.

Just as reception waxes and wanes depending on what's going on with the radio. And computers aren't conscious, btw, so I don't quite get the relevance of the analogy.

You could make this same point in arguing for the plausibility of the existence of Santa Claus. We can never be certain that he doesn't exist,

Really? I'm fairly certain he doesn't exist.

so why eliminate the possibility?

Well, for any number of reasons:

• we know that there's no one living at the north pole (we've been there),
• since many of us are parents and even more of us have parents we know beyond doubt that parents are responsible for presents showing up under the tree on Christmas morning
• We can clearly trace the source and development of the Santa legend.
• I never got the red sled I asked for when I was 9.

Let me know if you need any other traditional mythic figures debunked for you.

So what if you have to make a lot of extraneous assumptions to justify his existence? He is still a "logical possibility".

Thing is: I wasn't the one making claims for where the presents (consciousness) come from, you were.

No, you should definitely go back and read the OP, wherein I said: "Note: None of the above reasons is intended as an absolute proof that gods do not exist. These are reasons that make me consider belief in the existence of gods to be highly implausible."

As I've already said: in spite of your disclaimer you're still treating the idea of brain= consciousness as a done deal

And anyway, if you're ignoring your own disclaimer why should anyone else pay any attention to it?

It is a conclusion that takes fewer assumptions to arrive at than your "radio receiver" analogy. Occam's Razor is not about eliminating possible explanations but about establishing plausible ones.

Already mentioned and addressed.

No it would not. There is a large body of literature on the subject of cognition, and I do not think that you are claiming familiarity with it.

And that you are claiming familiarity with.

My point still stands.

On it's hind legs.

You are not knowledgable enough about that literature to make confident claims about how little we know of cognition.

You have no way of knowing this. You're basing this primarily on the fact that I'm disagreeing with you (anyone who disagrees with Copernicus must not know what he's talking about, right?)

I know enough of it to realize that it takes a lot of specialized knowledge to understand our general level of ignorance about brains and the nature of consciousness.

It takes no special knowledge to recognize when someone is treating an assumption as a fact.

Experts are people who understand their level of ignorance. You are no expert in cognitive science.

And you're asking that we accept that you are without any demonstration of evidence to base that acceptance on. Applying Occam's razor to this assertion, I find the idea of pretentious delusion to be the explanation what requires the fewest assumptions.

All I said was that you lacked qualification to claim that you understood our level of ignorance about the mind-brain connection.

Yes, that's all you said. Like I said: don't see much opportunity for a rational debate in that.

I know enough about it to know that you do not know what you are talking about.

*sigh* More showing without telling. More "Take my word for it, I'm right and your wrong". Does this debate strategy ever actually work for you?

I'm not making any grandiose claims here, just that what we know about brains and minds suggests that the latter are dependent on the former for their existence.

And of course, Copernicus says so so we should all just nod and stop talking.

It would be nice if that were not the case, but we have no evidence to support such speculation.

That wasn't the evidence I was asking you for.

 

[Quagmire]

It's adorable how misinformed you are. There are actually tiny people inside the radio playing music. Similar to the tiny people inside my head telling me what to say.

The tiny people in my head are telling me that the tiny people in your head aren't really there (don't worry about it though, I know them and they lie a lot).

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The tiny people in my head are telling me that the tiny people in your head aren't really there (don't worry about it though, I know them and they lie a lot).

Don't worry about it. They're lying for your own good.

 

[Copernicus]

You're still missing the whole point of the analogy: it isn't intended to get you to accept or pursue the external agency hypothesis, it's to demonstrate that we humans have a tendency to assume that the most obvious or apparent explanation is always the most likely (and yes I realize that this is what Occam's razor tells us to do, but practically speaking this line of reasoning, misused, has been shown to be a handicap to discovery rather than an aid).

Wow. I had to wade through a lot of evasion to finally get this answer to my question. You think that I have been "misusing" Occam's Razor to argue against the claim that consciousness has an external source. You do admit that there is a causal relationship between brain activity and consciousness, but you speculate there could be some extra force at play, even though there is no evidence of one. You have not explained how I've "misused" Occam's Razor to deny the plausibility of your "possibility".

So you're saying that if consiousness were dependent on an external agency, we would find cyrstals (or diodes) in the brain?

I am saying that, if the brain is more like a receiver than a generator, we could reasonably expect to find some equivalent to a diode (or crystal in a crystal radio) to receive a signal. So far, nothing remotely like that has been discovered. I'm not ruling out the logical possibility that one exists, but we have no reason to assume its existence.

What I was asking was "If there are such structures, what would they look like? How would we recognize them?"

Don't forget that your hypothesis requires both a transmitter and a receiver, because the communication has to be two-way. So we would be looking for physical structures in the brain that appeared to mediate between sensory inputs and control of bodily functions. Scientists have actually been looking for evidence of an external function like that--a "free will" component in the stream of activity. So far, experiments have failed to justify any such mechanism. Decisions appear to be made before we register conscious awareness of those decisions. Hence, consciousness seems to be an after-effect of brain activity, not something that drives it directly.

And it's a rhetorical question: you already know we would have no way of recognizing then for what they were unless we they were observed in conjunction with the phenomenon they were designed to accomadate.

Oops! Too late. Neuroscientists have wasted a lot of time trying to find an answer, when you could have told them there was not point looking. What a shame.

I don't believe that Occam's Razor was ever intented to be used to draw conclusions (it always leads to incomplete and often misleading answers when used this way), it was intended to insure a healthy level of skepticism while exploring and prioritizing possibilities.

I agree. Your possibility is consequently further down the list of possibilities than mine--i.e. that consciousness is local to a brain. You do know that that was my point, don't you?

Yet, in spite of what you say or don't say, and in opposition to your own disclaimer, your treating the idea that the brain is the source of consciousness as a closed matter by breaking consiousness down to it's various separate functions---thought, emotion, awareness---and submiting the "fact" that these originate in the brain as evidence that consciousness itself must also orignate in the brain.

You keep trying to build this straw man, and you refuse to let me help you knock it over. I have not closed my mind to the logical possibility of your speculation. The "facts" are what we observe--a correlation between brain activity and consciousness. The simplest explanation is that the brain alone generates consciousness, but the speculation of an external source can and has been taken seriously by neuroscientists. So far, there has been no evidence to support an external source of thought or free will. Hence, the simplest argument is that no such source exists. If you believe that one exists, then it is your burden of proof to show it. If you keep insisting that your radio-brain model of consciousness is as plausible as the generator-brain model, then it is you who has the closed mind on this matter.

In order to submit the fact of brain activity during thought as evidence that consciousness originates in the brain, we would have to establish that thought originates in the brain.

Do you have another body part in mind? You are beginning to convince me that it may originate elsewhere in your body.

If brain activity during emotion is to be submitted as evidence that consciousness originates in the brain, we would have to take it as a given that emotion originates in the brain.

No, we take that as experimentally demonstrable. You can change emotional states by changing brain chemistry.

Basically what you've been saying is "since thought, emotion, awareness, ect. comprise consciousness, and since we know that all these things originate in the brain, then consciousness must also originate in the brain.

I would say "must" in the sense of "most likely does". You keep trying to depict me as having a closed mind on the matter, whereas I feel quite willing to entertain other possibilities. I have nothing against speculation, just against treating all speculation as equally plausible.

Really? I'm fairly certain he doesn't exist.

Face it. You have closed your mind to a logical possibility.

Well, for any number of reasons:
- we know that there's no one living at the north pole (we've been there),

Do you honestly believe that Santa can be seen if he can slide down all those chimneys and deliver all of those presents in a single night? Come on, now. The guy has magical powers!

since many of us are parents and even more of us have parents we know beyond doubt that parents are responsible for presents showing up under the tree on Christmas morning

I've heard this one before. You are assuming that Santa is incapable of planting false memories in your mind. Sheesh!

We can clearly trace the source and development of the Santa legend.

In fact, Santa's helpers have been planting false records for centuries now. Why? He wants people to develop their own spirit of generosity rather than relying on his. He actually takes after God in that respect.

I never got the red sled I asked for when I was 9.

Er. Did you never hear of Sant's list? The one that he checks twice? You were on it, you bad boy. No sled for you.

Let me know if you need any other traditional mythic figures debunked for you.

Given what a poor job you just did on that one, I think I'll pass.

As I've already said: in spite of your disclaimer you're still treating the idea of brain= consciousness as a done deal

Unless you've got something more than just the claim that there are alternative "logical possibilities". That is just a game--like the one I could play all day with you over the existence of Santa Claus.

 

[Quagmire]

That was one of the most wonderful demonstrations of dissembling I've ever seen Copernicus:

You took every point I was making, presented it out of context, and then completely neglected to address the conclusion that I was leading up to with these points, but then made up for it by, once again, assigning me a completely different conclusion of your own making.

I'm sorry, but unless you want to go back and address my last post honestly and thoroughly, I'm just going to let that last post of yours stand as a classic example of what desperation looks like in text.

 

[Copernicus]

That was one of the most wonderful demonstrations of dissembling I've ever seen Copernicus:

Well, then, you should go back and reread some of your own posts.

I'm sorry, but unless you want to go back and address my last post honestly and thoroughly, I'm just going to let that last post of yours stand as a classic example of what desperation looks like in text.

If you cannot rebut my arguments, then attacking my honesty is probably your best tactic. I addressed every substantive point you made, and my answers were both thorough and honest. If you disagree, then we can leave it there.

 

[Quagmire]

Well, then, you should go back and reread some of your own posts.


If you cannot rebut my arguments, then attacking my honesty is probably your best tactic. I addressed every substantive point you made, and my answers were both thorough and honest. If you disagree, then we can leave it there.

Why should I let you off the hook that easily?

1. You're still rebutting an argument I didn't make, and ignoring the argument I did make.

2. You've answered none of my questions except in either the most evasive or circular way.

exp: You tried to make the case that if there were structures in the brain designed to receive external signals, we would have found them by now. I asked you "how would we be able to recognize those for what they were? What would you expect them to look like".

You're answer (basically) "they would look like structures designed to receive signals".

Gee, thanks for clearing that up.

3. You keep making accusations against me and then ignoring any requests I make to show me where I was doing what you were accusing me of doing. Obviously, you're just making things up here.

4. I've honored any requests for proof regarding any accusations I've made towards you, even though, strangely, in the post below you request proof and complain that I don't seem to be able to produce it in the same post, as if you somehow expected me to fulfill your request before you posted it:

Get away with what? Where did I say anything like "HAHAHA, I know more about this than you do so take my word for it, you're wrong (so I win)"? I don't think I have, and you don't seem able to identify anything I've said that would warrant that conclusion.

Very odd.

5. You post a disclaimer in your OP saying that you don't consider the reasons you posted to be proof, and somehow think that that should allow you to treat them as proof in your subsequent posts.

This is like someone who slaps a bumper sticker on their car saying "I'm doing the speed limit" and thinking "Great! Now I can drive as fast as I like and if a cop pulls me over for speeding, I can just point him to the bumper sticker".

You're correct when you say that I don't know much about the physical structure and function of the brain, just the basics, but I do know a fair bit about psychology, and I can tell you, I'm seeing a lot of magical thinking here.

 

[Judge Roy Bean]

Of all the above reasons, I consider #1 the strongest, because mind-body dualism seems to underpin all religions. I do not oppose the idea of dualism so much as the belief that minds can exist independently of brains. It seems pretty obvious that our minds depend on the physical state of our brains.

its my understanding we are spirit, mind and body.

on the sub-atomic level, we are all only vibrations in space-time. (are minds and bodies are all software in a virtual simulation.)

we are eternal, like information/data. - go figure !

see a website called: ... patterns of visual math - fractals in nature

 

[Copernicus]

1. You're still rebutting an argument I didn't make, and ignoring the argument I did make.

If that is your perception, then you should feel you've made your point. It isn't my perception.

2. You've answered none of my questions except in either the most evasive or circular way.

This is just false. It doesn't matter how well I answer your questions, you simply claim that you aren't satisfied and I haven't answered them. In fact, you imagine that your assumption of a "radio receiver" brain is something that I need to disprove. You ask how I could make the idea of a putative neural "diode" work. How could I disprove its existence? Well, I don't have to. You are the one with the burden of showing that it plays some functional role in consciousness. You have not done that. The brain appears to work without any need of external input. Sorry if I cannot satisfy your demand that I fill in the exact details of how your gratuitous assumption works and then prove that it can't work. My position is that you are the one who needs to get off his duff and do his own homework. Start doing a little research into what neuroscientists (who know a little more about the subject than you) are doing and how that supports the possibility of a "radio receiver" analogy for human consciousness. Good luck with it. My reading of the subject matter--which has included a few graduate seminars--suggests that there is no evidence whatsoever to back up your assumption.

3. You keep making accusations against me and then ignoring any requests I make to show me where I was doing what you were accusing me of doing. Obviously, you're just making things up here.

Actually, I am refusing to help you defend your gratuitous assumption. My argument has been that--given Occam's Razor--one can dismiss such assumptions as implausible, albeit logical, possibilities. I do not need to prove it false. You need to make it plausible.

4. I've honored any requests for proof regarding any accusations I've made towards you, even though, strangely, in the post below you request proof and complain that I don't seem to be able to produce it in the same post, as if you somehow expected me to fulfill your request before you posted it:

I'm happy to ask the question again: Where did I say anything like "HAHAHA, I know more about this than you do so take my word for it, you're wrong (so I win)"? You never answered the question, but the invitation remains if you want to take it up.

5. You post a disclaimer in your OP saying that you don't consider the reasons you posted to be proof, and somehow think that that should allow you to treat them as proof in your subsequent posts.

Stop distorting what I said. I made a distinction between "absolute proof" and plausibility arguments. This is really disingenous on your part.

You're correct when you say that I don't know much about the physical structure and function of the brain, just the basics, but I do know a fair bit about psychology, and I can tell you, I'm seeing a lot of magical thinking here.

You can remedy your ignorance by studying the subject matter. The brain appears to operate independently of any external agencies, i.e. "signals". That is the null hypothesis. You maintain that it is equally plausible that it requires reception of external "signals" of some kind--spiritual, I suppose--in order to manifest consciousness. Fine. That's a reasonable speculation that scientists have been considering before either of us were born. Start looking for some support for your hypothesis. I'm not going to go searching for something that I have failed to find in the past because you are too lazy to defend your own supposition. You can start with the Wikipedia page I cited. It claimed that experimental results had so far failed to turn up any evidence of external influences of the type that you consider plausible.

 

[Judge Roy Bean]

. It isn't my perception.


You can remedy your ignorance by studying the subject matter. The brain appears to operate independently of any external agencies, i.e. "signals". . You can start with the Wikipedia page I cited. It claimed that experimental results had so far failed to turn up any evidence of external influences of the type that you consider plausible.

design for the brain came from the bible

see the website called ... Artificial Intelligence From the Bible


how's that for external influence ?