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

[Riverwolf]

You guys are attacking everything but the meat and potatos of what my argument is. I gave a plain and simple argument based on analogy,

A bad way to argue, since analogies are not necessarily accurate to objective reality.

and you nor anyone else have yet to respond directly to the analogy...especially since you were the one that asked me how am I am to demonstrate my argument, and then I proceeded to tell you how, and instead of responding to that, you make the above post??

The argument must be very very strong.

Not necessarily. More likely it's so weak as to be not worth addressing. Or it has been addressed, but in such a way that you don't recognize it.

Second, I am not saying "If I can imagine it, it is real". In this particular case, I am saying THERE IS NO POSSIBLE world at which a scientist can naturally create consicousness.

That remains to be seen.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Alceste, what is an allele?
Bonus question, what do allele taste like??

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You guys are attacking everything but the meat and potatos of what my argument is. I gave a plain and simple argument based on analogy, and you nor anyone else have yet to respond directly to the analogy...especially since you were the one that asked me how am I am to demonstrate my argument, and then I proceeded to tell you how, and instead of responding to that, you make the above post??

Pointing out that your logic is absurd and that you seem oblivious to it is a perfectly reasonable response to a poorly made argument.

 

[Alceste]

Alceste, what is an allele?
Bonus question, what do allele taste like??

It's one of two or more variants of a gene that can occur at any given locus on a DNA strand, each of which impacts the same trait. E.g. one allele would give you blond hair, another black, another red, etc.

It probably tastes like snot.

 

[McBell]

This is common knowledge in science.

Then you should have no problems with providing the material asked for, right?

For you to make the claim that it is "common knowledge" and not provide anything in support of it is rather dishonest is it not?

One might think that the knowledge is not as "common" as you claim.

So, giving you the benefit of the doubt, please provide links to this "common knowledge".

 

[kashmir]

As for the human brain, it's apparent that the tissue itself is just housing for the data.
There are many cases where people are born with only half a brain, yet the parts missing that are not supposed to happen, do happen because the part of the brain that is there, adapts.

I think its about the DNA part of us, those guys redo the brain so the receptors or whatever become what they are supposed to do, all the chemicals are involved to have the electric pulses rewire as needed.
That is part of evolution in itself.

ever see these sort of people?

 

[allright]

Then you should have no problems with providing the material asked for, right?

For you to make the claim that it is "common knowledge" and not provide anything in support of it is rather dishonest is it not?

One might think that the knowledge is not as "common" as you claim.

So, giving you the benefit of the doubt, please provide links to this "common knowledge".

Just put "dna information storage" in google search and youll get plenty of sources

 

[McBell]

Just put "dna information storage" in google search and youll get plenty of sources

Ah, so you expect others to do your homework for you?

So much for your claim of "common knowledge"...

Since you are unable to support your other claim, it can be just as easily dismissed.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If the mind is "immaterial", that means it's an abstract concept that has no physical manifestation outside mental abstract conceptualization, just as numbers are.

Right, the mind is an abstract object, just like numbers. No arguments here.

The concept of "immaterial substance" is an oxymoron. If something is substantial (i.e., has substance) that means it's, by nature, material.

Maybe "substance" was a bad word to use. An "immaterial entity"...how about that one?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Pointing out that your logic is absurd and that you seem oblivious to it is a perfectly reasonable response to a poorly made argument.

In other words you are saying "I don't have a clue as to how I can adequately respond to your analogy, so I will keep on dodging it".

You asked a question, and you were given an answer, and you've yet to respond directly to this answer.

The argument must be very very powerful indeed.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

A bad way to argue, since analogies are not necessarily accurate to objective reality.

A defeater of the analogy would be to use a counter-analogy that which would serve as a contrary example to the one I used. This hasn't been done yet by you, nor anyone else for that matter. So I am being led to believe that it hasn't been done yet because you people don't have a clue as to how it can be done.

Not necessarily. More likely it's so weak as to be not worth addressing.

Yet you are responding to everything else that I said, things that are irrelevant. Hmm.

Or it has been addressed, but in such a way that you don't recognize it.

The only thing that has been recognized is the realization that you people are not capable of responding to what I said...you people are quoting and responding to everything BUT the meat and potatoes of what I said..and I find this...rather pathetic.

 

[jimniki]

Right, the mind is an abstract object, just like numbers. No arguments here.



Maybe "substance" was a bad word to use. An "immaterial entity"...how about that one?

Isn't GOD an "immaterial entity"
Does "he" exist?

Actually, I found both of you highly intelligent and enjoyed reading this thread ...thank you to both...
Please forgive me for derailing this further by asking both of you something...

What if a healthy baby was born and we instantly disabled all 5 senses. We then kept him/her alive and healthy.
After say, 20 years, will he/she have thoughts?

thanks again to all involved in this thread...

 

[allright]

Ah, so you expect others to do your homework for you?

So much for your claim of "common knowledge"...

Since you are unable to support your other claim, it can be just as easily dismissed.

Your the one who needs to do his homework
Your dont have a clue about dna and information storage

Of course you using this drivel to hide your ignorance of molecular biology because you havent a clue about the subject

Your both just proving you have no answer to my question, since the only one is "Intelligent Design"

 

[fantome profane]

As for the human brain, it's apparent that the tissue itself is just housing for the data.
There are many cases where people are born with only half a brain, yet the parts missing that are not supposed to happen, do happen because the part of the brain that is there, adapts.

I think its about the DNA part of us, those guys redo the brain so the receptors or whatever become what they are supposed to do, all the chemicals are involved to have the electric pulses rewire as needed.
That is part of evolution in itself.

ever see these sort of people?

The brain has amazing plasticity. But it is not infinite plasticity, physical changes to to brain do have impact on our memory, personality, outlook etc. The brain is much much more than just housing for data.

 

[McBell]

Your the one who needs to do his homework
Your dont have a clue about dna and information storage

Of course you using this drivel to hide your ignorance of molecular biology because you havent a clue about the subject

Your both just proving you have no answer to my question, since the only one is "Intelligent Design"

Nice try.
The fact is you made a claim, you were asked to support your claim, you refuse to support your claim.

Instead of supporting your claim, you want me to do the homework to support your claim.
Now you try to put the blame on me for not doing your homework.

*post edited by staff*

 

[cottage]

Easy. The law of identity states that if A and B are identical, then what is true of A is also true of B, and if there is even one difference between A and B, then A and B are not identical.

So when I am sad, is my brain also sad? My brain can be weighed and measured, but can my mind be weighed and measured? The answer to both questions are....no.

So since there are differences between A (the brain) and B (the mind), then A and B are not identical. So since they are not identical, the brain cannot be used to explain the origins of the mind/consciousness. You need something more..something external..something supernatural.

An interesting subject, the Mind/Body problem. But I rather think that analogy is too simplistic. Of course the two things aren’t identical in every particular, any more than to say my hearing isn’t identical with my eyesight, but that is not to say the two things don’t share identity in general as in their roles that enable the body to function as a complete entity. To ‘weigh and measure a brain’ is not an evaluation of what it does, any more than to weigh and measure an engine is not an indicator of its BHP or road speed. When I’m sad my hearing isn’t sad and it has no material form to be weighed or measured but like the brain it is still a corporeal component. We agree that sense contents are of the body, and properly speaking we see, feel, hear, smell and taste what we experience with our brains. Those sensations are all received differently and are not therefore identical, but they are of the body nevertheless. My eyesight isn’t identical with my hearing and I can be misled by the direction and distance of a sound and yet both are physical. And in the case of instinct, any two people will react differently to pain stimuli and without any recourse to reason or thought analysis.

Also, back to the scientist analogy, the scientist takes a chunk of matter, goes into the lab, and shapes and molds the matter into a brain...he will have a brain, but he won't have a mind.

So for example, right now, I am thinking of a black cat. The mere thought itself, how can the scientists take that thought, and plug it into the brain, so that the brain is now thinking of the black cat? Can't happen.

Not only that, but thoughts are personal, of course. I have personal experiences that only apply to me...so I am thinking about when I was young, and I used to play video games..so I am thinking about one time, playing a video game, by myself. That is my personal experience...yet, it is a thought.

So how can I plug that thought into this newly shaped/molded brain? But this would seem impossible, since it only applies to me, so how could this brain possibly have this thought when it only applies to me??? It is my experience!!

See how that works? And to be honest with you...this is a BIG problem for the naturalist. A big problem. The argument itself is not used in the mainstream as much as the more common arguments that apologists use, but I think it should be. It is powerful.

Any individual can have any other person’s experience, there is nothing exclusive or illogical about that, and it is certainly the case that thoughts and ideas can be planted, false memory syndrome being one such example. But the interesting thing to consider here is whether consciousness can be created, and it is looking increasingly likely that it can be. The Turing Test has recently been passed, which is where two computers talk to one another without human interaction. In common with my scepticism of all things revelatory I’m not sure whether the test has been passed exactly as Turing envisaged, but even if it is not the ‘historic milestone in artificial intelligence’ that is being claimed it certainly is another step towards an artificial conscious state. I think we will in time see autonomous brains in the laboratory, a notion that makes me feel slightly uneasy.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Isn't GOD an "immaterial entity"
Does "he" exist?

Actually, I found both of you highly intelligent and enjoyed reading this thread ...thank you to both...
Please forgive me for derailing this further by asking both of you something...

What if a healthy baby was born and we instantly disabled all 5 senses. We then kept him/her alive and healthy.
After say, 20 years, will he/she have thoughts?

thanks again to all involved in this thread...

Look up Feral Child Syndrome sometime, you'd be amassed how much cognitive impairment is caused just by not learning a language as a child, not even loss of all senses.

 

[Alceste]

As for the human brain, it's apparent that the tissue itself is just housing for the data.
There are many cases where people are born with only half a brain, yet the parts missing that are not supposed to happen, do happen because the part of the brain that is there, adapts.

I think its about the DNA part of us, those guys redo the brain so the receptors or whatever become what they are supposed to do, all the chemicals are involved to have the electric pulses rewire as needed.
That is part of evolution in itself.

ever see these sort of people?

No, I haven't seen or heard of anyone born with half a brain but normal brain functioning. Did you have a science question?

 

[Alceste]

Your the one who needs to do his homework
Your dont have a clue about dna and information storage

Of course you using this drivel to hide your ignorance of molecular biology because you havent a clue about the subject

Your both just proving you have no answer to my question, since the only one is "Intelligent Design"

I answered your question. Any thoughts on my reply?

 

[fantome profane]

No, I haven't seen or heard of anyone born with half a brain but normal brain functioning.

Born with half a brain, woman living full life - CNN.com

There are of course some abnormalities, but she does function with only the right side of her brain.