"Where's the evidence?" Ask and ye shall receive!

[Willamena]

I often hear ID proponents insist there is no evidence for evolution, an old earth, the impossibility of a global flood, abiogenesis, the big bang, and all sorts of other concepts rooted in an empirical naturalist world view.

Okay! I want to hear the evidence for an evolved, flooded, abiogenetic old earth that banged out of all sort of other concepts.

 

[Alceste]

Correlation does not imply identity.



But that doesn't imply that consciousness and the brain are the same thing. Certainly, they correlate, but are they independent of one another? If they are the same thing, then you would have to explain how the consicousness can ORIGINATE from a material substance (the brain).



I don't think it is a "logical conclusion" that consciousness and the brain are interdependent...for the simple fact that I can imagine a scenario where a scientists takes a clunk of matter and shape it to form a brain...but I can't think of a scenario where this science will be able to make this brain produce thoughts..or experiences, since these things are personal.



:beach: Good luck

Well, to be honest, my only aim here is to provide you with evidence and for us to agree that the evidence I provide is of a reasonably high quality.

Whether your conclusions differ from mine, or your idea of "reason" is different from mine isn't really grounds for a fruitful conversation. In this thread, I'm talking about empirical evidence and a particular style of reasoning that bases one's conclusions on empirical evidence. We're not talking about what you can imagine. We can all imagine an infinite amount of complete nonsense. That's why exposing ourselves to high quality evidence is so important.

 

[Bunyip]

Okay! I want to hear the evidence for an evolved, flooded, abiogenetic old earth that banged out of all sort of other concepts.

You want a summation of the last 300 years of science then. May be a long post.

 

[Alceste]

Once you get the time, give your perspective on the fact its said the earth was a ball of ice at one time, at least once, perhaps more than once.
I myself just go with this and find fascination on all the factors involved that caused it, revered it and also how it carved out the earth.
Snowball Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think this is outside what you make this thread about.
It's nothing about religion vrs non-religion, to me anyway.
If you wish, when you have time, just start a topic on it, if you feel it warrants alot of discussion, which I feel it does.
If you wish to not even discuss it, that is fine too.
I would create the topic, but think it will fail.
some here seem to view me as OMG< FLAT EARTHER YEC DENIER OF EVERYTHING!!!
Not even close, I deny nothing that has evidence, am not a YEC or flat earther, the earth is star shaped, just like the sun, its a star too.

It's an interesting hypothesis, but I have no opinion on the subject. While the it would explain evidence of tropical glaciers, there's no reason to jump from evidence of glacial activity in the tropics to the assumption that the entire earth was once covered with ice. It's also possible that vast glaciers flowed from colder regions into tropical areas in certain parts of the world and took their time melting, or that observed properties usually associated with glacial movement were caused by other means, or that continental drift moved tectonic plates from polar regions to tropical ones.

At any rate, it's not obviously nonsense, like the idea of a global flood, a geocentric universe, the idea of a "first pair" of humans created all at once or a flat earth. If you start a discussion on that topic, I doubt anybody is going to pounce on you for it.

But I have no personal opinion, so I can't give you the bit about how the evidence leads to a specific conclusion. Here are three interesting articles on the subject, though!

"Snowball Earth" Confirmed: Ice Covered Equator

The snowball Earth hypothesis: testing the limits of global change - Hoffman - 2002 - Terra Nova - Wiley Online Library

Paleoproterozoic snowball Earth: Extreme climatic and geochemical global change and its biological consequences

Actually, after reading all that stuff myself, I accept the likelihood that the earth was probably at several points almost completely covered in ice, slush, snow and / or mud prior to the Cambrian era.

 

[Alceste]

The earth is still mostly molten. It was never a ball of ice. The top few feet never even completely dropped below the freezing point of water since life began. Everywhere, on the surface or there wouldn't be life as we know it.
The earth is a ball of molten rock, iron largely. Never been an ice ball.

Ever

Tom

I think you misunderstand the hypothesis. He's not saying the earth was MADE OF ice, but that the surface of the earth was once (or many times) mostly covered in ice, snow, slush and chilly muck prior to the Cambrian explosion. That's the "snowball earth" hypothesis in a nutshell, and it actually makes quite a bit of logical sense, given the available evidence.

 

[Alceste]

Okay! I want to hear the evidence for an evolved, flooded, abiogenetic old earth that banged out of all sort of other concepts.

I'm sorry to say your question is far too broad to tackle in the context of this thread. Remember, I'm answering "one reasonably simple question at a time". Which do you want to discuss? Evolution? The water cycle? Abiogenesis? The age of the earth? The big bang?

Try to whittle it down a little and I'll be happy to play.

 

[allright]

That's not a question, that's a claim of a "fact" that is not scientific in nature and a follow up question that really didn't make any sense unless you accept the unscientific claim.

I think I will have to address your unscientific claim rather than your follow up question, if that's ok.

I'm still out doing errands, but I'm looking forward to getting into this thread later today.

It is 100% a scientific fact You dont have a clue what your talking about

 

[Alceste]

It is 100% a scientific fact You dont have a clue what your talking about

* you're.

And a little punctuation never obscures your meaning, darling.

 

[Riverwolf]

It is 100% a scientific fact You dont have a clue what your talking about

If it's a scientific fact, care to show your methodology so we can review it? After all, peer-review an essential part of the scientific method.

 

[viole]

I will definitely play this game. What is the evidence for mind/body naturalism? The view that consciousness is the product of natural phenomena.

Excessive amounts of vodka?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Daemon Sophic]

As to global flooding....in the timespan of humanity, and even the eras of dinosaurs, sure. Its a given that such a flood never happened. Oceanic fossils on mountain-tops are easy given plate-tectonics; but that's a little here, a little there over the span of hundreds of millions of years. But you state there is evidence consistent with this planet NEVER being covered with water (frozen or liquid) all at once/all at the same time?

Just curious. No mythological leanings here.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

OK, so you already have the logic that leads to a naturalistic conclusion, here are your three pieces of empirical evidence that the premises upon which I based the above post are true.

First, everybody here should listen to this totally awesome BBC lecture series on neurology. BBC - Radio 4 - Reith Lectures 2003 - The Emerging Mind

Seriously, it's awesome. It's referenced here to illustrate that whatever it is your "consciousness" is experiencing, from art appreciation to the sensation of a phantom limb, the experience has an observable relationship with brain activity.

Here is a study that artificially and predictably produced "OBE" experiences by electrically stimulating a certain area of the brain: Neuropsychology: Stimulating illusory own-body perceptions : Abstract : Nature

Here is an Oxford study that correlates particular observable, consistent changes in brain activity with the re-establishment of conscious awareness after sleep: The process of awakening: a PET study of regional brain activity patterns mediating the re

Thanks for the links but that doesn't answer my question on the origin of consciousness. The mind is not material, and this can be demonstrated...so to use a material substance to explain the origins of an immaterial substance is irrational.

 

[Alceste]

As to global flooding....in the timespan of humanity, and even the eras of dinosaurs, sure. Its a given that such a flood never happened. Oceanic fossils on mountain-tops are easy given plate-tectonics; but that's a little here, a little there over the span of hundreds of millions of years. But you state there is evidence consistent with this planet NEVER being covered with water (frozen or liquid) all at once/all at the same time?

Just curious. No mythological leanings here.

I think there is weak evidence consistent with a snow covered world but no evidence of a water covered world. I don't think the surface elevation of the earth has ever been uniform / flat, and to be totally underwater it would pretty much have to be.

 

[Alceste]

Thanks for the links but that doesn't answer my question on the origin of consciousness. The mind is not material, and this can be demonstrated...so to use a material substance to explain the origins of an immaterial substance is irrational.

You didn't ask about the origin of consciousness. You asked about the evidence for consciousness being dependent on having a brain. Remember the rule of not jumping to a new subject until we're done with your first. Do you have any criticisms about the specific evidence I presented? Any follow up questions? If not, then I consider your first question asked and answered.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The mind is not material, and this can be demonstrated.

And how do you do that?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Thanks for the links but that doesn't answer my question on the origin of consciousness. The mind is not material, and this can be demonstrated...so to use a material substance to explain the origins of an immaterial substance is irrational.

Emphasis mine.

:sarcastic. You do realize that you contradicted yourself, right?
If "the mind is not material"; then how exactly could this non-material thing ever be "demonstrated" in a fashion that would stand up to be examined and proven to be real?

If its immaterial, then it is by definition, just simple conjecture and wishful thinking.


Please link the peer-reviewed demonstrations of the immaterial, to which you have referred. ("the mind is not material, and this can be demonstrated")

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Well, to be honest, my only aim here is to provide you with evidence and for us to agree that the evidence I provide is of a reasonably high quality.

Not for questions regarding origins.

Whether your conclusions differ from mine, or your idea of "reason" is different from mine isn't really grounds for a fruitful conversation.

The conclusion shown be in line with the question. I am asking questions about the origin of consciousness, and if the mind and the brain are identical, then science should be able to explain the origin of the mind.

In this thread, I'm talking about empirical evidence and a particular style of reasoning that bases one's conclusions on empirical evidence.

But the conclusions drawn from the empirical evidence didn't answer my question. At best, all that can be demonstrated is correlation, but correlation doesn't imply interdependency.

The naturalist has to explain not only the origin of life, but the origin of consciousness as well, and I don't think this can be done.

We're not talking about what you can imagine.

Well, it is what we NEED to talk about. If I can't imagine it, then it probably can't happen, and as I said, even if you were to create a human brain using the material that brains are made up of...there is no possible way that you can NATURALLY plug in thoughts into the brain, because thoughts are not material...so if you can't do it naturally, then the origin of consciousness cannot be explain by the brain/natural law.

We can all imagine an infinite amount of complete nonsense.

Fine, but everything that we imagine, we are imaging it to be possible, or impossible, and if it is impossible in our analogy, then it is impossible in reality.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Emphasis mine.

:sarcastic. You do realize that you contradicted yourself, right?

The truth never contradicts itself.

If "the mind is not material"; then how exactly could this non-material thing ever be "demonstrated" in a fashion that would stand up to be examined and proven to be real?

Wait a minute..."examined and proven to be real"...why does the "mind" need to be proven to be real?

If its immaterial, then it is by definition, just simple conjecture and wishful thinking.


Please link the peer-reviewed demonstrations of the immaterial, to which you have referred. ("the mind is not material, and this can be demonstrated")

I don't pay any mind to "peer-reviewed" stuff...because after all, who are the "peers"?

I am sure there are a lot of peer reviewed journals out there that I disagree with, and that you disagree with.

 

[Alceste]

Not for questions regarding origins.



The conclusion shown be in line with the question. I am asking questions about the origin of consciousness, and if the mind and the brain are identical, then science should be able to explain the origin of the mind.



But the conclusions drawn from the empirical evidence didn't answer my question. At best, all that can be demonstrated is correlation, but correlation doesn't imply interdependency.

The naturalist has to explain not only the origin of life, but the origin of consciousness as well, and I don't think this can be done.



Well, it is what we NEED to talk about. If I can't imagine it, then it probably can't happen, and as I said, even if you were to create a human brain using the material that brains are made up of...there is no possible way that you can NATURALLY plug in thoughts into the brain, because thoughts are not material...so if you can't do it naturally, then the origin of consciousness cannot be explain by the brain/natural law.



Fine, but everything that we imagine, we are imaging it to be possible, or impossible, and if it is impossible in our analogy, then it is impossible in reality.

No, you can't think things into being real or unreal, no matter how hard you think. We've discussed this before, at great length, and I have no interest in repeating the exercise. If you have no comment on the evidence I provided to answer your first question (which was about the material nature of consciousness, not the origin of consciousness) please be kind and don't derail the thread.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You didn't ask about the origin of consciousness. You asked about the evidence for consciousness being dependent on having a brain.

Actually, I did. My exact words were..

"What is the evidence for mind/body naturalism? The view that consciousness is the product of natural phenomena."

Do you see that? I said "The view that CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE PRODUCT OF NATURAL PHENOMENA."

Product of natural phenomena = origins from natural phenomena.

Remember the rule of not jumping to a new subject until we're done with your first.

Oh I remember the rule, but as I've just demonstrated, the rule wasn't violated.

And I wouldn't dare violate it either, because I want to play YOUR game to make MY point.

Do you have any criticisms about the specific evidence I presented? Any follow up questions? If not, then I consider your first question asked and answered.

Yeah, my criticism is that it didn't answer my question. Showing that two things correlate does not imply that these two things are identical. So my question remains unanswered.