Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Self awareness is proof of a Creator.

Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2014 8:03:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Stop and think about it. Everyone has a sense of self and the environment they live in. How is this possible? Our bodies are composed of chemicals, minerals and trace elements. How can something made from a combination of these elements be self aware? The only explanation is that there is something more than physical. In other words, there is a metaphysical element involved. We have a soul. It is non physical. It can't be weighed or measured, yet it is responsible for everything we are. Matter, by itself, cannot explain why we are the way we are.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2014 8:11:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 8:03:55 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Stop and think about it. Everyone has a sense of self and the environment they live in. How is this possible? Our bodies are composed of chemicals, minerals and trace elements. How can something made from a combination of these elements be self aware? The only explanation is that there is something more than physical. In other words, there is a metaphysical element involved. We have a soul. It is non physical. It can't be weighed or measured, yet it is responsible for everything we are. Matter, by itself, cannot explain why we are the way we are.

Do you really care to know the true answer? Or is this going to be like so many of your other threads where you make a blatantly false assertion, and spend the rest of the thread trying to deny the evidence and arguments against your opening post?

First, ask yourself how you can be aware of others. It's by observing them, correct? So you become self-aware, by observing yourself. But it appears you need an explanation of how synapses and neurotransmitters work in the brain before we can even start to talk about the brain's ability to cross-monitor.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2014 8:15:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 8:11:15 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 8:03:55 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Stop and think about it. Everyone has a sense of self and the environment they live in. How is this possible? Our bodies are composed of chemicals, minerals and trace elements. How can something made from a combination of these elements be self aware? The only explanation is that there is something more than physical. In other words, there is a metaphysical element involved. We have a soul. It is non physical. It can't be weighed or measured, yet it is responsible for everything we are. Matter, by itself, cannot explain why we are the way we are.

Do you really care to know the true answer? Or is this going to be like so many of your other threads where you make a blatantly false assertion, and spend the rest of the thread trying to deny the evidence and arguments against your opening post?

First, ask yourself how you can be aware of others. It's by observing them, correct? So you become self-aware, by observing yourself. But it appears you need an explanation of how synapses and neurotransmitters work in the brain before we can even start to talk about the brain's ability to cross-monitor.

Why did I just know you'd show up? OK, genius. Explain how dead matter can become sentient? Science knows a lot about how the brain works, but they haven't got a clue why. Why do electrochemical reactions in our brain provide us with a sense of self? Science hasn't got a clue, and neither do you.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2014 8:15:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 8:03:55 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Matter, by itself, cannot explain why we are the way we are.

It can, and does. But I'm going to wait for you to ask for the answer. You've jumped to a conclusion and the conclusion is wrong. Do you want to know the truth? Or are you hoping no one can tall you, which allows you to persist in your false conclusion?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2014 8:17:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 8:15:59 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 8:03:55 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Matter, by itself, cannot explain why we are the way we are.

It can, and does. But I'm going to wait for you to ask for the answer. You've jumped to a conclusion and the conclusion is wrong. Do you want to know the truth? Or are you hoping no one can tall you, which allows you to persist in your false conclusion?

I'm not going to ask you for anything. Either refute me or don't. I could care less.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2014 8:50:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 8:15:06 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/15/2014 8:11:15 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 8:03:55 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Stop and think about it. Everyone has a sense of self and the environment they live in. How is this possible? Our bodies are composed of chemicals, minerals and trace elements. How can something made from a combination of these elements be self aware? The only explanation is that there is something more than physical. In other words, there is a metaphysical element involved. We have a soul. It is non physical. It can't be weighed or measured, yet it is responsible for everything we are. Matter, by itself, cannot explain why we are the way we are.

Do you really care to know the true answer? Or is this going to be like so many of your other threads where you make a blatantly false assertion, and spend the rest of the thread trying to deny the evidence and arguments against your opening post?

First, ask yourself how you can be aware of others. It's by observing them, correct? So you become self-aware, by observing yourself. But it appears you need an explanation of how synapses and neurotransmitters work in the brain before we can even start to talk about the brain's ability to cross-monitor.

Why did I just know you'd show up? OK, genius. Explain how dead matter can become sentient? Science knows a lot about how the brain works, but they haven't got a clue why. Why do electrochemical reactions in our brain provide us with a sense of self? Science hasn't got a clue, and neither do you.

Well, as tends to be the case, you're telling us what you wish was true, and presenting it as though it was true. Firstly, we're not talking about "dead matter" as you've suggested. But I do find it ironic that you refer to your own brain as "dead matter". Life is a series of chemical reactions. And the matter in our brains and bodies demonstrates these necessary chemical reactions, so it's not "dead matter". In fact, it's "living matter". But do understand that this simply means that it carries on specific chemical processes. A solar cell simply carries out specific chemical processes, but not the ones defined as "life".

Do you understand how a telegraph works? The operator on one end closes the circuit, allowing electrons to flow along a wire, activating an electromagnet on the other end, closing a circuit there, and being understood as a signal. The resulting clicking noise is a signal which is understood by the other operator.

The brain operates on a similar - thought dramatically more complex - basis. It's a system of sending signals from one point to another. And these signals are electro-chemical in nature. We call the primary chemicals "neurotransmitters" because they transmit nerve signals. When a photon strikes a rod (light-sensing cell) in the retina of your left eye, the cell reacts to this energy impulse (photons carry energy), by producing a tiny quantity of neurotransmitter - a chemical signal. This signal is passed from neuron to neuron along the optic nerve to the visual cortex of the brain, much like the electrons travel along a wire in a telegraph.

This is the manner in which all kinds of signals are passed through the advanced neural network of the brain. But the brain isn't just one large mass of disorganized neurons. It's divided into specific sections, each of which follows the same basic physical processes to facilitate cognition and further transmission.

Two of the primary areas of the brain are the prefrontal cortex (the area right behind your forehead), and the amygdala (which sits under the neocortex). Both of these are cognitive processing centers, and while they're not the only ones in the human brain, they are the primary two. Either one can process stimuli and produce cognition, but they differ in what factors influence that cognition. The amygdala is heavily influenced by the neurotransmitter chemicals which carry emotional responses. The prefrontal cortex is far less reactive to these types of neurotransmitters. The result is that cognitive outcome from the amygdala is more emotional in nature, while cognitive ouput from the prefrontal cortex is more rational.

When you become highly agitated, and might be escalating toward a fight, you're allowing your amygdala and dopamine neurons to do most of the processing. When a friend steps in, demands your attention and urges you to "get ahold of yourself", what he's really telling you is to re-route your cognitive processing to the prefrontal cortex. Telling someone to count to 10 before reacting to anger serves much the same purpose. It allows the opportunity to transfer processing to the prefrontal cortex, and make rational decisions, rather than emotional decisions which you're likely to soon regret.

The point here is that these two processing centers - as well as subordinate centers of the brain - can all cross monitor. As you feel the anger rise within you, you're feeling the effects of the various neurotransmitters reaching various organs of the body, and some of those areas reacting directly to them. Some common chemicals one's body responds to in such situations are testosterone and adrenaline. But even as this is happening, you can often be engaged in a bit of a mental battle. Part of you (the amygdala), is urging you to express your aggression through a physical attack. Hopefully, you'll also note the prefrontal cortex struggling to gain control, and urging you to find a less destructive outlet for the neurons screaming for a dopamine hit. So where are "you" among the mix? You're the culmination of your processing centers. But the prefrontal cortex has the ability to direct impulses. Unfortunately, it's also the portion which tires most easily. Give a person seven rational components to mentally juggle (such as trying to memorize a 7-digit number), and any additional processing will likely be routed to the amygdala. This is why we are said to be in a "bad mood" when we're tired or have been subjected to unusual levels of stress. We've pushed the prefrontal cortex to its limit, and the amygdala is more likely to be engaged for processing until the prefrontal cortex had rested.

And throughout this process, your prefrontal cortex is monitoring the cognitive processes in your amygdala, and your amygdala is monitoring the processes in your prefrontal cortex. And as I said, there are other sub-processing centers in the brain which are also capable of monitoring your cognition processes, as they occur.

So; just as you are aware of others by monitoring them, you're aware of yourself by your ability to monitor your own thoughts. It is this cross-monitoring ability that we call "self awareness".

So spit, kick and scream all you like about how we don't know and science doesn't know and then jump to your silly conclusion that it has to do with something totally disconnected and completely unevidenced, but this is the reality of what is going on and if you don't want to hear it from me, then try actually reading a book like "On Intelligence" by Jeff Hawking - founder of the Rosewood Neurological institute, or like "Brain Bugs" by Dean Buonomano, or perhaps even "Predictably Irrational" by Dan Ariely, though he focuses more directly upon behavioral economics, and less upon neuroscience. Read an actual book written by someone who studies this field, rather than jumping to superstitious nonsense for your conclusions.

At the very least, you won't have to worry so much about someone like me who will step up and explain the reality. It's always easier on the ego to learn yourself, rather than learning by being corrected by someone you dislike.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2014 8:51:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 8:17:26 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/15/2014 8:15:59 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 8:03:55 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Matter, by itself, cannot explain why we are the way we are.

It can, and does. But I'm going to wait for you to ask for the answer. You've jumped to a conclusion and the conclusion is wrong. Do you want to know the truth? Or are you hoping no one can tall you, which allows you to persist in your false conclusion?

I'm not going to ask you for anything. Either refute me or don't. I could care less.

And yet you do care. You've already decided that you're not going to believe the refutation, no matter how sound, well-evidenced, or supported by authorities on neuroscience.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2014 9:03:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 8:50:42 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 8:15:06 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/15/2014 8:11:15 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 8:03:55 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Stop and think about it. Everyone has a sense of self and the environment they live in. How is this possible? Our bodies are composed of chemicals, minerals and trace elements. How can something made from a combination of these elements be self aware? The only explanation is that there is something more than physical. In other words, there is a metaphysical element involved. We have a soul. It is non physical. It can't be weighed or measured, yet it is responsible for everything we are. Matter, by itself, cannot explain why we are the way we are.

Do you really care to know the true answer? Or is this going to be like so many of your other threads where you make a blatantly false assertion, and spend the rest of the thread trying to deny the evidence and arguments against your opening post?

First, ask yourself how you can be aware of others. It's by observing them, correct? So you become self-aware, by observing yourself. But it appears you need an explanation of how synapses and neurotransmitters work in the brain before we can even start to talk about the brain's ability to cross-monitor.

Why did I just know you'd show up? OK, genius. Explain how dead matter can become sentient? Science knows a lot about how the brain works, but they haven't got a clue why. Why do electrochemical reactions in our brain provide us with a sense of self? Science hasn't got a clue, and neither do you.

Well, as tends to be the case, you're telling us what you wish was true, and presenting it as though it was true. Firstly, we're not talking about "dead matter" as you've suggested. But I do find it ironic that you refer to your own brain as "dead matter". Life is a series of chemical reactions. And the matter in our brains and bodies demonstrates these necessary chemical reactions, so it's not "dead matter". In fact, it's "living matter". But do understand that this simply means that it carries on specific chemical processes. A solar cell simply carries out specific chemical processes, but not the ones defined as "life".

Do you understand how a telegraph works? The operator on one end closes the circuit, allowing electrons to flow along a wire, activating an electromagnet on the other end, closing a circuit there, and being understood as a signal. The resulting clicking noise is a signal which is understood by the other operator.

The brain operates on a similar - thought dramatically more complex - basis. It's a system of sending signals from one point to another. And these signals are electro-chemical in nature. We call the primary chemicals "neurotransmitters" because they transmit nerve signals. When a photon strikes a rod (light-sensing cell) in the retina of your left eye, the cell reacts to this energy impulse (photons carry energy), by producing a tiny quantity of neurotransmitter - a chemical signal. This signal is passed from neuron to neuron along the optic nerve to the visual cortex of the brain, much like the electrons travel along a wire in a telegraph.

This is the manner in which all kinds of signals are passed through the advanced neural network of the brain. But the brain isn't just one large mass of disorganized neurons. It's divided into specific sections, each of which follows the same basic physical processes to facilitate cognition and further transmission.

Two of the primary areas of the brain are the prefrontal cortex (the area right behind your forehead), and the amygdala (which sits under the neocortex). Both of these are cognitive processing centers, and while they're not the only ones in the human brain, they are the primary two. Either one can process stimuli and produce cognition, but they differ in what factors influence that cognition. The amygdala is heavily influenced by the neurotransmitter chemicals which carry emotional responses. The prefrontal cortex is far less reactive to these types of neurotransmitters. The result is that cognitive outcome from the amygdala is more emotional in nature, while cognitive ouput from the prefrontal cortex is more rational.

When you become highly agitated, and might be escalating toward a fight, you're allowing your amygdala and dopamine neurons to do most of the processing. When a friend steps in, demands your attention and urges you to "get ahold of yourself", what he's really telling you is to re-route your cognitive processing to the prefrontal cortex. Telling someone to count to 10 before reacting to anger serves much the same purpose. It allows the opportunity to transfer processing to the prefrontal cortex, and make rational decisions, rather than emotional decisions which you're likely to soon regret.

The point here is that these two processing centers - as well as subordinate centers of the brain - can all cross monitor. As you feel the anger rise within you, you're feeling the effects of the various neurotransmitters reaching various organs of the body, and some of those areas reacting directly to them. Some common chemicals one's body responds to in such situations are testosterone and adrenaline. But even as this is happening, you can often be engaged in a bit of a mental battle. Part of you (the amygdala), is urging you to express your aggression through a physical attack. Hopefully, you'll also note the prefrontal cortex struggling to gain control, and urging you to find a less destructive outlet for the neurons screaming for a dopamine hit. So where are "you" among the mix? You're the culmination of your processing centers. But the prefrontal cortex has the ability to direct impulses. Unfortunately, it's also the portion which tires most easily. Give a person seven rational components to mentally juggle (such as trying to memorize a 7-digit number), and any additional processing will likely be routed to the amygdala. This is why we are said to be in a "bad mood" when we're tired or have been subjected to unusual levels of stress. We've pushed the prefrontal cortex to its limit, and the amygdala is more likely to be engaged for processing until the prefrontal cortex had rested.

And throughout this process, your prefrontal cortex is monitoring the cognitive processes in your amygdala, and your amygdala is monitoring the processes in your prefrontal cortex. And as I said, there are other sub-processing centers in the brain which are also capable of monitoring your cognition processes, as they occur.

So; just as you are aware of others by monitoring them, you're aware of yourself by your ability to monitor your own thoughts. It is this cross-monitoring ability that we call "self awareness".

Like I said. Science can tell us how. It can't tell us why any of this creates a sense of self. Consciousness is not simply a result of chemical reactions in the brain. Much of what you said is nothing but circular reasoning. Especially that last part.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2014 9:16:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 9:03:09 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/15/2014 8:50:42 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 8:15:06 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/15/2014 8:11:15 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 8:03:55 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:

Why did I just know you'd show up? OK, genius. Explain how dead matter can become sentient? Science knows a lot about how the brain works, but they haven't got a clue why. Why do electrochemical reactions in our brain provide us with a sense of self? Science hasn't got a clue, and neither do you.

Well, as tends to be the case, you're telling us what you wish was true, and presenting it as though it was true. Firstly, we're not talking about "dead matter" as you've suggested. But I do find it ironic that you refer to your own brain as "dead matter". Life is a series of chemical reactions. And the matter in our brains and bodies demonstrates these necessary chemical reactions, so it's not "dead matter". In fact, it's "living matter". But do understand that this simply means that it carries on specific chemical processes. A solar cell simply carries out specific chemical processes, but not the ones defined as "life".

Do you understand how a telegraph works? The operator on one end closes the circuit, allowing electrons to flow along a wire, activating an electromagnet on the other end, closing a circuit there, and being understood as a signal. The resulting clicking noise is a signal which is understood by the other operator.

The brain operates on a similar - thought dramatically more complex - basis. It's a system of sending signals from one point to another. And these signals are electro-chemical in nature. We call the primary chemicals "neurotransmitters" because they transmit nerve signals. When a photon strikes a rod (light-sensing cell) in the retina of your left eye, the cell reacts to this energy impulse (photons carry energy), by producing a tiny quantity of neurotransmitter - a chemical signal. This signal is passed from neuron to neuron along the optic nerve to the visual cortex of the brain, much like the electrons travel along a wire in a telegraph.

This is the manner in which all kinds of signals are passed through the advanced neural network of the brain. But the brain isn't just one large mass of disorganized neurons. It's divided into specific sections, each of which follows the same basic physical processes to facilitate cognition and further transmission.

Two of the primary areas of the brain are the prefrontal cortex (the area right behind your forehead), and the amygdala (which sits under the neocortex). Both of these are cognitive processing centers, and while they're not the only ones in the human brain, they are the primary two. Either one can process stimuli and produce cognition, but they differ in what factors influence that cognition. The amygdala is heavily influenced by the neurotransmitter chemicals which carry emotional responses. The prefrontal cortex is far less reactive to these types of neurotransmitters. The result is that cognitive outcome from the amygdala is more emotional in nature, while cognitive ouput from the prefrontal cortex is more rational.

When you become highly agitated, and might be escalating toward a fight, you're allowing your amygdala and dopamine neurons to do most of the processing. When a friend steps in, demands your attention and urges you to "get ahold of yourself", what he's really telling you is to re-route your cognitive processing to the prefrontal cortex. Telling someone to count to 10 before reacting to anger serves much the same purpose. It allows the opportunity to transfer processing to the prefrontal cortex, and make rational decisions, rather than emotional decisions which you're likely to soon regret.

The point here is that these two processing centers - as well as subordinate centers of the brain - can all cross monitor. As you feel the anger rise within you, you're feeling the effects of the various neurotransmitters reaching various organs of the body, and some of those areas reacting directly to them. Some common chemicals one's body responds to in such situations are testosterone and adrenaline. But even as this is happening, you can often be engaged in a bit of a mental battle. Part of you (the amygdala), is urging you to express your aggression through a physical attack. Hopefully, you'll also note the prefrontal cortex struggling to gain control, and urging you to find a less destructive outlet for the neurons screaming for a dopamine hit. So where are "you" among the mix? You're the culmination of your processing centers. But the prefrontal cortex has the ability to direct impulses. Unfortunately, it's also the portion which tires most easily. Give a person seven rational components to mentally juggle (such as trying to memorize a 7-digit number), and any additional processing will likely be routed to the amygdala. This is why we are said to be in a "bad mood" when we're tired or have been subjected to unusual levels of stress. We've pushed the prefrontal cortex to its limit, and the amygdala is more likely to be engaged for processing until the prefrontal cortex had rested.

And throughout this process, your prefrontal cortex is monitoring the cognitive processes in your amygdala, and your amygdala is monitoring the processes in your prefrontal cortex. And as I said, there are other sub-processing centers in the brain which are also capable of monitoring your cognition processes, as they occur.

So; just as you are aware of others by monitoring them, you're aware of yourself by your ability to monitor your own thoughts. It is this cross-monitoring ability that we call "self awareness".



Like I said. Science can tell us how. It can't tell us why any of this creates a sense of self.
Then you didn't understand anything you just read.

Consciousness is not simply a result of chemical reactions in the brain.
That is a conclusion for which you have no supporting evidence, and ALL of the evidence on neuroscience speaks to the opposite of your superstitious conclusion.

Much of what you said is nothing but circular reasoning. Especially that last part.
Not one word of it is in any way, circular. But I do understand why you think it is. You're still trying to separate yourself, from your brain. You want to think of you and your brain as two different entities, when in reality, you are one and the same. People often suffer brain injuries which result in a drastic change of personality. In fact, you actually have two distinctly different personalities; one which emanates from the left hemisphere of your brain, and the other which emanates from the right hemisphere.

"You" are the resulting mix. You ARE your brain. And there's nothing beyond your brain which defines you. You might also find reading "My Stroke of Insight" by Jill Bolte Taylor, interesting. It's written by a neuroscientist who experienced a stroke and applied her insights as a neuroscientist to what was happening moment, by moment. And a common part of a stroke (depending on the brain regions affected) is the intermittent loss of your sense of self. You can lose the ability to know where you stop, and your environment begins.

Again, your confusion here is the result of having not a clue what you're talking about, and rejecting those who do. So rather than operating on evidence to seek a conclusion, you reject evidence which doesn't fit the conclusion you've already adopted.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2014 9:28:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 8:03:55 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Stop and think about it. Everyone has a sense of self and the environment they live in. How is this possible? Our bodies are composed of chemicals, minerals and trace elements. How can something made from a combination of these elements be self aware? The only explanation is that there is something more than physical. In other words, there is a metaphysical element involved. We have a soul. It is non physical. It can't be weighed or measured, yet it is responsible for everything we are. Matter, by itself, cannot explain why we are the way we are.

Matter doesn't exist and neither does space or time. What we observe are only illusions that come from invisible thoughts of God broken down into wavelengths, which are bits of information that have to be processed into illusions and human senses. In other words, we're only characters in God's dream.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2014 9:34:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 9:16:50 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 9:03:09 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/15/2014 8:50:42 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 8:15:06 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/15/2014 8:11:15 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 8:03:55 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:

Why did I just know you'd show up? OK, genius. Explain how dead matter can become sentient? Science knows a lot about how the brain works, but they haven't got a clue why. Why do electrochemical reactions in our brain provide us with a sense of self? Science hasn't got a clue, and neither do you.

Well, as tends to be the case, you're telling us what you wish was true, and presenting it as though it was true. Firstly, we're not talking about "dead matter" as you've suggested. But I do find it ironic that you refer to your own brain as "dead matter". Life is a series of chemical reactions. And the matter in our brains and bodies demonstrates these necessary chemical reactions, so it's not "dead matter". In fact, it's "living matter". But do understand that this simply means that it carries on specific chemical processes. A solar cell simply carries out specific chemical processes, but not the ones defined as "life".

Do you understand how a telegraph works? The operator on one end closes the circuit, allowing electrons to flow along a wire, activating an electromagnet on the other end, closing a circuit there, and being understood as a signal. The resulting clicking noise is a signal which is understood by the other operator.

The brain operates on a similar - thought dramatically more complex - basis. It's a system of sending signals from one point to another. And these signals are electro-chemical in nature. We call the primary chemicals "neurotransmitters" because they transmit nerve signals. When a photon strikes a rod (light-sensing cell) in the retina of your left eye, the cell reacts to this energy impulse (photons carry energy), by producing a tiny quantity of neurotransmitter - a chemical signal. This signal is passed from neuron to neuron along the optic nerve to the visual cortex of the brain, much like the electrons travel along a wire in a telegraph.

This is the manner in which all kinds of signals are passed through the advanced neural network of the brain. But the brain isn't just one large mass of disorganized neurons. It's divided into specific sections, each of which follows the same basic physical processes to facilitate cognition and further transmission.

Two of the primary areas of the brain are the prefrontal cortex (the area right behind your forehead), and the amygdala (which sits under the neocortex). Both of these are cognitive processing centers, and while they're not the only ones in the human brain, they are the primary two. Either one can process stimuli and produce cognition, but they differ in what factors influence that cognition. The amygdala is heavily influenced by the neurotransmitter chemicals which carry emotional responses. The prefrontal cortex is far less reactive to these types of neurotransmitters. The result is that cognitive outcome from the amygdala is more emotional in nature, while cognitive ouput from the prefrontal cortex is more rational.

When you become highly agitated, and might be escalating toward a fight, you're allowing your amygdala and dopamine neurons to do most of the processing. When a friend steps in, demands your attention and urges you to "get ahold of yourself", what he's really telling you is to re-route your cognitive processing to the prefrontal cortex. Telling someone to count to 10 before reacting to anger serves much the same purpose. It allows the opportunity to transfer processing to the prefrontal cortex, and make rational decisions, rather than emotional decisions which you're likely to soon regret.

The point here is that these two processing centers - as well as subordinate centers of the brain - can all cross monitor. As you feel the anger rise within you, you're feeling the effects of the various neurotransmitters reaching various organs of the body, and some of those areas reacting directly to them. Some common chemicals one's body responds to in such situations are testosterone and adrenaline. But even as this is happening, you can often be engaged in a bit of a mental battle. Part of you (the amygdala), is urging you to express your aggression through a physical attack. Hopefully, you'll also note the prefrontal cortex struggling to gain control, and urging you to find a less destructive outlet for the neurons screaming for a dopamine hit. So where are "you" among the mix? You're the culmination of your processing centers. But the prefrontal cortex has the ability to direct impulses. Unfortunately, it's also the portion which tires most easily. Give a person seven rational components to mentally juggle (such as trying to memorize a 7-digit number), and any additional processing will likely be routed to the amygdala. This is why we are said to be in a "bad mood" when we're tired or have been subjected to unusual levels of stress. We've pushed the prefrontal cortex to its limit, and the amygdala is more likely to be engaged for processing until the prefrontal cortex had rested.

And throughout this process, your prefrontal cortex is monitoring the cognitive processes in your amygdala, and your amygdala is monitoring the processes in your prefrontal cortex. And as I said, there are other sub-processing centers in the brain which are also capable of monitoring your cognition processes, as they occur.

So; just as you are aware of others by monitoring them, you're aware of yourself by your ability to monitor your own thoughts. It is this cross-monitoring ability that we call "self awareness".



Like I said. Science can tell us how. It can't tell us why any of this creates a sense of self.
Then you didn't understand anything you just read.

Consciousness is not simply a result of chemical reactions in the brain.
That is a conclusion for which you have no supporting evidence, and ALL of the evidence on neuroscience speaks to the opposite of your superstitious conclusion.

Much of what you said is nothing but circular reasoning. Especially that last part.
Not one word of it is in any way, circular. But I do understand why you think it is. You're still trying to separate yourself, from your brain. You want to think of you and your brain as two different entities, when in reality, you are one and the same. People often suffer brain injuries which result in a drastic change of personality. In fact, you actually have two distinctly different personalities; one which emanates from the left hemisphere of your brain, and the other which emanates from the right hemisphere.

"You" are the resulting mix. You ARE your brain. And there's nothing beyond your brain which defines you. You might also find reading "My Stroke of Insight" by Jill Bolte Taylor, interesting. It's written by a neuroscientist who experienced a stroke and applied her insights as a neuroscientist to what was happening moment, by moment. And a common part of a stroke (depending on the brain regions affected) is the intermittent loss of your sense of self. You can lose the ability to know where you stop, and your environment begins.

Again, your confusion here is the result of having not a clue what you're talking about, and rejecting those who do. So rather than operating on evidence to seek a conclusion, you reject evidence which doesn't fit the conclusion you've already adopted.

Ever hear of the theory of biocentrism? It disputes traditional scientific theories. It can also be used, scientifically, to argue the existence of the soul. You might want to check it out.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2014 9:50:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 9:34:11 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/15/2014 9:16:50 PM, Beastt wrote:

Ever hear of the theory of biocentrism? It disputes traditional scientific theories. It can also be used, scientifically, to argue the existence of

Biocentrism argues that universe arises from life, rather than life arising from the universe. It offers as two of its primary evidences;

- That the properties of matter depend upon the observer
- That the laws of the universe are fine-tuned for the existence of life

And both of these claimed sources of support are demonstrably wrong. When physicists state that the properties of matter vary with the observer, they're not necessarily talking about a sentient, conscious, living observer. The same experiments can be performed with an electro-mechanical observation device, and the same results emerge as when a biological, sentient observer is used.

As for the idea of a universe which is fine-tuned for life, it would be my hope that you've already seen how that argument crumbles when subjected to scrutiny. This universe is not "fine-tuned" for life. It simply supports one kind of known life, in an incredibly small number of relatively tiny regions. And in that we don't know the extent of possible forms of life, it becomes desperately inappropriate to suggest that the only form of life possible are the forms of life we know.

No matter how you frame the "fine-tuning" argument, the bottom line is simply this; no matter how many different potential universes one can imagine, the odds are no better (or worse), for any particular one, than for any particular other one. The argument is busted.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2014 9:53:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Allow me to encapsulate your methodology in the form of a statement...

"I don't want that to be true. And since I don't want it to be true, I will continue to reject all other truths leading to the truth I wish to reject. And I will continue to cling to any suggestion - no matter how completely counter-evidenced - which pacifies me by suggesting the conclusion I desire, might possibly be true. I want what I want so sincerely, that anyone who attempts to show me a truth which isn't what I want, will be seen as my enemies."
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,965
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2014 10:08:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 9:50:01 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 9:34:11 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/15/2014 9:16:50 PM, Beastt wrote:

Ever hear of the theory of biocentrism? It disputes traditional scientific theories. It can also be used, scientifically, to argue the existence of

Biocentrism argues that universe arises from life, rather than life arising from the universe. It offers as two of its primary evidences;

- That the properties of matter depend upon the observer
- That the laws of the universe are fine-tuned for the existence of life

And both of these claimed sources of support are demonstrably wrong. When physicists state that the properties of matter vary with the observer, they're not necessarily talking about a sentient, conscious, living observer. The same experiments can be performed with an electro-mechanical observation device, and the same results emerge as when a biological, sentient observer is used.

As for the idea of a universe which is fine-tuned for life, it would be my hope that you've already seen how that argument crumbles when subjected to scrutiny. This universe is not "fine-tuned" for life. It simply supports one kind of known life, in an incredibly small number of relatively tiny regions. And in that we don't know the extent of possible forms of life, it becomes desperately inappropriate to suggest that the only form of life possible are the forms of life we know.

No matter how you frame the "fine-tuning" argument, the bottom line is simply this; no matter how many different potential universes one can imagine, the odds are no better (or worse), for any particular one, than for any particular other one. The argument is busted.

Source for the electro-mechanical observation device? I am interested in reading up on this.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2014 11:52:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 10:08:56 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/15/2014 9:50:01 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 9:34:11 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/15/2014 9:16:50 PM, Beastt wrote:

Ever hear of the theory of biocentrism? It disputes traditional scientific theories. It can also be used, scientifically, to argue the existence of

Biocentrism argues that universe arises from life, rather than life arising from the universe. It offers as two of its primary evidences;

- That the properties of matter depend upon the observer
- That the laws of the universe are fine-tuned for the existence of life

And both of these claimed sources of support are demonstrably wrong. When physicists state that the properties of matter vary with the observer, they're not necessarily talking about a sentient, conscious, living observer. The same experiments can be performed with an electro-mechanical observation device, and the same results emerge as when a biological, sentient observer is used.

As for the idea of a universe which is fine-tuned for life, it would be my hope that you've already seen how that argument crumbles when subjected to scrutiny. This universe is not "fine-tuned" for life. It simply supports one kind of known life, in an incredibly small number of relatively tiny regions. And in that we don't know the extent of possible forms of life, it becomes desperately inappropriate to suggest that the only form of life possible are the forms of life we know.

No matter how you frame the "fine-tuning" argument, the bottom line is simply this; no matter how many different potential universes one can imagine, the odds are no better (or worse), for any particular one, than for any particular other one. The argument is busted.

Source for the electro-mechanical observation device? I am interested in reading up on this.

To be absolutely honest, I don't remember specifically where I first read it because after a while, the various books begin to blend together. But there is a very good explanation for it. The word "observe" is more accurately, a comparison. You can't observe anything with your eyes unless photons of light are reflected from the observed object to your eyes. When observing a tiny speck of dust, this is pretty much like bouncing ping-pong balls off of a battleship. It has very little perceived effect on the ship or the dust. But when bouncing particles the size of photons off of atoms, it's more like bouncing bowling balls off of cars. It does alter them and quite significantly.

The idea is that you can't "observe" anything without affecting it to some degree.

The tricky part which we still don't understand is that you can use a mechanical detector, and not have any conscious observation, and still see that the results of the experiment are altered. But if you leave the detector in place, but deactivate it in some way - even just deactivating the recording portion, the experiment reacts as though the detector is not in place.

But the key isn't consciousness, because it doesn't require conscious observation. Electronic observation yields the same unexplained results.

If you want to see verification of this (aside from the linked video), just look for "observer effect" or "quantum observer effect".
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2014 11:57:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 10:08:56 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/15/2014 9:50:01 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 9:34:11 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/15/2014 9:16:50 PM, Beastt wrote:

Ever hear of the theory of biocentrism? It disputes traditional scientific theories. It can also be used, scientifically, to argue the existence of

Biocentrism argues that universe arises from life, rather than life arising from the universe. It offers as two of its primary evidences;

- That the properties of matter depend upon the observer
- That the laws of the universe are fine-tuned for the existence of life

And both of these claimed sources of support are demonstrably wrong. When physicists state that the properties of matter vary with the observer, they're not necessarily talking about a sentient, conscious, living observer. The same experiments can be performed with an electro-mechanical observation device, and the same results emerge as when a biological, sentient observer is used.

As for the idea of a universe which is fine-tuned for life, it would be my hope that you've already seen how that argument crumbles when subjected to scrutiny. This universe is not "fine-tuned" for life. It simply supports one kind of known life, in an incredibly small number of relatively tiny regions. And in that we don't know the extent of possible forms of life, it becomes desperately inappropriate to suggest that the only form of life possible are the forms of life we know.

No matter how you frame the "fine-tuning" argument, the bottom line is simply this; no matter how many different potential universes one can imagine, the odds are no better (or worse), for any particular one, than for any particular other one. The argument is busted.

Source for the electro-mechanical observation device? I am interested in reading up on this.

Here is a link...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

- "An important aspect of the concept of measurement has been clarified in some QM experiments where a small, complex, and non-sentient sensor proved sufficient as an 'observer' - there is no need for a conscious 'observer'"
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 12:37:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 8:03:55 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Stop and think about it. Everyone has a sense of self and the environment they live in. How is this possible?

Seriously? This is your introduction to "proof?"

Our bodies are composed of chemicals, minerals and trace elements. How can something made from a combination of these elements be self aware?

It's called "consciousness, and it's a function of the brain.

The only explanation is that there is something more than physical.

No, that isn't the ONLY explanation, and this statement is nothing short of stupid.

In other words, there is a metaphysical element involved.

Can you demonstrate this, with any measure of veracity?

We have a soul.

Please demonstrate this, as well.

It is non physical.

According to "spiritual" definitions, only. Further, it's an assertion that has NEVER been demonstrated.

It can't be weighed or measured, yet it is responsible for everything we are.

Once again, we're going to need a little bit more than assertion, here. If you're going to start a thread, at least present something more than baseless assertions and wild claims.

Matter, by itself, cannot explain why we are the way we are.

And no one has ever claimed that it does.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,965
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 1:28:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 11:57:27 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 10:08:56 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/15/2014 9:50:01 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 9:34:11 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/15/2014 9:16:50 PM, Beastt wrote:

Ever hear of the theory of biocentrism? It disputes traditional scientific theories. It can also be used, scientifically, to argue the existence of

Biocentrism argues that universe arises from life, rather than life arising from the universe. It offers as two of its primary evidences;

- That the properties of matter depend upon the observer
- That the laws of the universe are fine-tuned for the existence of life

And both of these claimed sources of support are demonstrably wrong. When physicists state that the properties of matter vary with the observer, they're not necessarily talking about a sentient, conscious, living observer. The same experiments can be performed with an electro-mechanical observation device, and the same results emerge as when a biological, sentient observer is used.

As for the idea of a universe which is fine-tuned for life, it would be my hope that you've already seen how that argument crumbles when subjected to scrutiny. This universe is not "fine-tuned" for life. It simply supports one kind of known life, in an incredibly small number of relatively tiny regions. And in that we don't know the extent of possible forms of life, it becomes desperately inappropriate to suggest that the only form of life possible are the forms of life we know.

No matter how you frame the "fine-tuning" argument, the bottom line is simply this; no matter how many different potential universes one can imagine, the odds are no better (or worse), for any particular one, than for any particular other one. The argument is busted.

Source for the electro-mechanical observation device? I am interested in reading up on this.

Here is a link...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

- "An important aspect of the concept of measurement has been clarified in some QM experiments where a small, complex, and non-sentient sensor proved sufficient as an 'observer' - there is no need for a conscious 'observer'"

I read the source cited by the wiki page never explicitly reached that conclusion. It seemed to imply that but it was ambiguous. I don't know enough about the subject but I'll be exploring it more. Have you ever read a rebuttal to that? Rationalthinker became more involved with his studies of QM and determined that consciousness is an inherent property of the universe and he's an atheist (or was).

"An obvious question is why one needs to talk about knowledge and minds at all. Couldn"t an inanimate physical device (say, a Geiger counter) carry out a "measurement"? That would run into the very problem pointed out by von Neumann: If the "observer" were just a purely physical entity, such as a Geiger counter, one could in principle write down a bigger wavefunction that described not only the thing being measured but also the observer. And, when calculated with the Schr"dinger equation, that bigger wave function would not jump! Again: as long as only purely physical entities are involved, they are governed by an equation that says that the probabilities don"t jump.

That"s why, when Peierls was asked whether a machine could be an "observer," he said no, explaining that "the quantum mechanical description is in terms of knowledge, and knowledge requires somebody who knows." Not a purely physical thing, but a mind.

But what if one refuses to accept this conclusion, and maintains that only physical entities exist and that all observers and their minds are entirely describable by the equations of physics? Then the quantum probabilities remain in limbo, not 0 and 100% (in general) but hovering somewhere in between. They never get resolved into unique and definite outcomes, but somehow all possibilities remain always in play. One would thus be forced into what is called the "Many Worlds Interpretation" (MWI) of quantum mechanics.

In MWI, reality is divided into many branches corresponding to all the possible outcomes of all physical situations. If a probability was 70% before a measurement, it doesn"t jump to 0 or 100%; it stays 70% after the measurement, because in 70% of the branches there"s one result and in 30% there"s the other result! For example, in some branches of reality a particular nucleus has decayed --- and "you" observe that it has, while in other branches it has not decayed --- and "you" observe that it has not. (There are versions of "you" in every branch.) In the Many Worlds picture, you exist in a virtually infinite number of versions: in some branches of reality you are reading this article, in others you are asleep in bed, in others you have never been born. Even proponents of the Many Worlds idea admit that it sounds crazy and strains credulity."

Just curious, do you accept the many worlds interpretation?

https://www.bigquestionsonline.com...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 2:16:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/16/2014 1:28:18 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/15/2014 11:57:27 PM, Beastt wrote:


Just curious, do you accept the many worlds interpretation?

https://www.bigquestionsonline.com...

Nope, not at all. It's a nice piece of mathematical sleight-of-hand to avoid abandoning a theory which fails without it, but it is not supported other than by the mathematics.

There is a much simpler and more elegant explanation which unifies relativity and quantum mechanics. It's known as Loop Gravity. It doesn't call upon various worlds - one for every possible outcome for a measurement. Instead, it looks to the fact that any measurement is a comparison of two or more things. And when you are tightly focused on ony one thing, you can't measure anything about it.

A simple example is an astronaut in endless featureless space. Is the astronaut moving? If so, how fast? In what direction? Is the astronaut large, small, soft, hard, spinning, stable, hot, cold, positive or negative?

You can't answer any of those questions without making a comparison. Until you make that comparison, any possible answer has the same potential as any other answer.

Now let's introduce a second astronaut into our endless featureless space. We can now make some comparisons. Our second astronaut is not remaining a constant distance from our first, so we now know that one of them is moving. But we don't know which one, or if both are moving, or how fast. Perhaps one is moving and the other is stationary. Or one is moving quickly and the other less quickly, and perhaps they're moving in unison, or away from each other, or at angles. So we might be able to determine movement, or perhaps they're both moving the same direction, at the same rate, meaning we still can't detect that motion.

But the second astronaut is 3% taller than the first. So we can say that the second astronaut is "tall", and the first astronaut is "short". And perhaps one is slightly less cool than the other so we can say he is warm and the other is cold.

But if we add a third astronaut to our endless, featureless space, we might find that he is 7% taller than the first astronaut. Now the second astronaut is no longer tall and the first astronaut is even shorter. Of course, we haven't changed the size of any of the astronauts. We've only added more data to our comparisons. And the more comparisons we make, the more we isolate our findings. By the time we reach 100 astronauts, we have a much better idea of which is tall and whaich is short, than when we only had two or three.

When working at Newtonian scales, we always have plenty of comparisons we can make because everything is made up of a great number of sub-units. But when we're working at quantum scales, we must isolate particles in order to measure them. And in isolating them, we reduce our ability to measure them with accuracy, because we have less to compare them to. We end up with just one or two, or perhaps three of our theoretical astronauts, making our measurements a matter of probability.

Let's isolate an electron. It has a negative charge as all electrons do. But we're going to wisk this electron off to a different theoretical universe (no, we're not going multi-world here). In this theoretical universe, every particle has a more negative charge than our electron. So is it still an electron? Electrons have a negative charge, and this one now has a positive charge. And yet, it's charge hasn't changed at all. It's simply less negative than all other particles, which means it has a positive charge.

Hopefully, you get the idea.

(For research: "Hidden in Plain Sight" - Andrew Thomas)
http://www.amazon.com...
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 5:26:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 8:03:55 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Stop and think about it. Everyone has a sense of self and the environment they live in. How is this possible? Our bodies are composed of chemicals, minerals and trace elements. How can something made from a combination of these elements be self aware? The only explanation is that there is something more than physical. In other words, there is a metaphysical element involved. We have a soul. It is non physical. It can't be weighed or measured, yet it is responsible for everything we are. Matter, by itself, cannot explain why we are the way we are.

Can u tell me what happens to the soul in case of identical twins. Monozygotic ones. Do u mean the would gets divided. Lmao. That is why religion is dumb
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
dee-em
Posts: 6,469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 6:03:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 8:03:55 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Stop and think about it. Everyone has a sense of self and the environment they live in. How is this possible? Our bodies are composed of chemicals, minerals and trace elements. How can something made from a combination of these elements be self aware?

Firstly, this is an argument from ignorance. You don't know how self-awareness can arise naturally therefore you presume that no-one knows. Fail.

Secondly, you are commiting the composition fallacy. Because we are made of atoms which are not self-aware you assume that a structured collection of such atoms cannot be self-aware. That's like saying that because the individual components of a plane can't fly, then a fully assembled plane can't fly. That's false logic. Fail.

Thirdly, you are focusing on self-awareness to make your argument unique to humans (which is debatable as chimpanzees, dolphins and magpies are considered self-aware, for example). However, your "logic" could be applied to life itself just as readily. How can an organism made from inanimate atoms be animate? According to you that should be impossible without a supernatural explanation. Clearly that is absurd unless you assert that every living thing has a soul. Fail.

The only explanation is that there is something more than physical. In other words, there is a metaphysical element involved.

This conclusion is based on obvious fallacies, so it can be ignored.

We have a soul.

Bare assertion.

It is non physical.

Bare assertion.

It can't be weighed or measured, yet it is responsible for everything we are.

Bare assertion.

Matter, by itself, cannot explain why we are the way we are.

Again, an argument from ignorance.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 11:06:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 8:03:55 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Stop and think about it. Everyone has a sense of self and the environment they live in. How is this possible? Our bodies are composed of chemicals, minerals and trace elements. How can something made from a combination of these elements be self aware? The only explanation is that there is something more than physical. In other words, there is a metaphysical element involved. We have a soul. It is non physical. It can't be weighed or measured, yet it is responsible for everything we are. Matter, by itself, cannot explain why we are the way we are.

1) It is very possible that this is explainable with only the brain.
2) Even if it must be explained with the immaterial, that does not mean that ontological materialism is wrong, and thus does not prove god.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 11:10:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 9:34:11 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Ever hear of the theory of biocentrism? It disputes traditional scientific theories. It can also be used, scientifically, to argue the existence of the soul. You might want to check it out.

The "theory" of biocentrism is PSEUDOSCIENCE. It is not accepted anywhere in the scientific community.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 12:31:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/16/2014 11:10:27 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/15/2014 9:34:11 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Ever hear of the theory of biocentrism? It disputes traditional scientific theories. It can also be used, scientifically, to argue the existence of the soul. You might want to check it out.

The "theory" of biocentrism is PSEUDOSCIENCE. It is not accepted anywhere in the scientific community.

That's funny. Every time we're on the verge of a new scientific paradigm, there are those who say that it's not real science, or some other disparaging remark. It is real science, and is thought to be testable. Time will tell.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 12:39:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/16/2014 1:28:18 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/15/2014 11:57:27 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 10:08:56 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/15/2014 9:50:01 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 9:34:11 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/15/2014 9:16:50 PM, Beastt wrote:

Ever hear of the theory of biocentrism? It disputes traditional scientific theories. It can also be used, scientifically, to argue the existence of

Biocentrism argues that universe arises from life, rather than life arising from the universe. It offers as two of its primary evidences;

- That the properties of matter depend upon the observer
- That the laws of the universe are fine-tuned for the existence of life

And both of these claimed sources of support are demonstrably wrong. When physicists state that the properties of matter vary with the observer, they're not necessarily talking about a sentient, conscious, living observer. The same experiments can be performed with an electro-mechanical observation device, and the same results emerge as when a biological, sentient observer is used.

As for the idea of a universe which is fine-tuned for life, it would be my hope that you've already seen how that argument crumbles when subjected to scrutiny. This universe is not "fine-tuned" for life. It simply supports one kind of known life, in an incredibly small number of relatively tiny regions. And in that we don't know the extent of possible forms of life, it becomes desperately inappropriate to suggest that the only form of life possible are the forms of life we know.

No matter how you frame the "fine-tuning" argument, the bottom line is simply this; no matter how many different potential universes one can imagine, the odds are no better (or worse), for any particular one, than for any particular other one. The argument is busted.

Source for the electro-mechanical observation device? I am interested in reading up on this.

Here is a link...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

- "An important aspect of the concept of measurement has been clarified in some QM experiments where a small, complex, and non-sentient sensor proved sufficient as an 'observer' - there is no need for a conscious 'observer'"

I read the source cited by the wiki page never explicitly reached that conclusion. It seemed to imply that but it was ambiguous. I don't know enough about the subject but I'll be exploring it more. Have you ever read a rebuttal to that? Rationalthinker became more involved with his studies of QM and determined that consciousness is an inherent property of the universe and he's an atheist (or was).

"An obvious question is why one needs to talk about knowledge and minds at all. Couldn"t an inanimate physical device (say, a Geiger counter) carry out a "measurement"? That would run into the very problem pointed out by von Neumann: If the "observer" were just a purely physical entity, such as a Geiger counter, one could in principle write down a bigger wavefunction that described not only the thing being measured but also the observer. And, when calculated with the Schr"dinger equation, that bigger wave function would not jump! Again: as long as only purely physical entities are involved, they are governed by an equation that says that the probabilities don"t jump.

That"s why, when Peierls was asked whether a machine could be an "observer," he said no, explaining that "the quantum mechanical description is in terms of knowledge, and knowledge requires somebody who knows." Not a purely physical thing, but a mind.

But what if one refuses to accept this conclusion, and maintains that only physical entities exist and that all observers and their minds are entirely describable by the equations of physics? Then the quantum probabilities remain in limbo, not 0 and 100% (in general) but hovering somewhere in between. They never get resolved into unique and definite outcomes, but somehow all possibilities remain always in play. One would thus be forced into what is called the "Many Worlds Interpretation" (MWI) of quantum mechanics.

In MWI, reality is divided into many branches corresponding to all the possible outcomes of all physical situations. If a probability was 70% before a measurement, it doesn"t jump to 0 or 100%; it stays 70% after the measurement, because in 70% of the branches there"s one result and in 30% there"s the other result! For example, in some branches of reality a particular nucleus has decayed --- and "you" observe that it has, while in other branches it has not decayed --- and "you" observe that it has not. (There are versions of "you" in every branch.) In the Many Worlds picture, you exist in a virtually infinite number of versions: in some branches of reality you are reading this article, in others you are asleep in bed, in others you have never been born. Even proponents of the Many Worlds idea admit that it sounds crazy and strains credulity."

Just curious, do you accept the many worlds interpretation?

https://www.bigquestionsonline.com...

MWI is nothing but wild speculation. I'm not aware of any evidence that it's even possible. Biocentrism, on the other hand, raises some interesting questions about reality. Here's a good link for you. http://www.biocentricity.net...
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 1:26:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/16/2014 12:31:04 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/16/2014 11:10:27 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/15/2014 9:34:11 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Ever hear of the theory of biocentrism? It disputes traditional scientific theories. It can also be used, scientifically, to argue the existence of the soul. You might want to check it out.

The "theory" of biocentrism is PSEUDOSCIENCE. It is not accepted anywhere in the scientific community.

That's funny. Every time we're on the verge of a new scientific paradigm, there are those who say that it's not real science, or some other disparaging remark. It is real science, and is thought to be testable. Time will tell.

http://nirmukta.com...

Maybe you should read that. That is only a start.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 2:50:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 8:03:55 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Stop and think about it. Everyone has a sense of self and the environment they live in. How is this possible? Our bodies are composed of chemicals, minerals and trace elements. How can something made from a combination of these elements be self aware? The only explanation is that there is something more than physical. In other words, there is a metaphysical element involved. We have a soul. It is non physical. It can't be weighed or measured, yet it is responsible for everything we are. Matter, by itself, cannot explain why we are the way we are.

Self awareness is proof of extraterrestrial creators.

Yea,not so much. It is a non sequitor for a divine being as well.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 3:13:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/16/2014 1:28:18 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/15/2014 11:57:27 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 10:08:56 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/15/2014 9:50:01 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 9:34:11 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/15/2014 9:16:50 PM, Beastt wrote:

Ever hear of the theory of biocentrism? It disputes traditional scientific theories. It can also be used, scientifically, to argue the existence of

Biocentrism argues that universe arises from life, rather than life arising from the universe. It offers as two of its primary evidences;

- That the properties of matter depend upon the observer
- That the laws of the universe are fine-tuned for the existence of life

And both of these claimed sources of support are demonstrably wrong. When physicists state that the properties of matter vary with the observer, they're not necessarily talking about a sentient, conscious, living observer. The same experiments can be performed with an electro-mechanical observation device, and the same results emerge as when a biological, sentient observer is used.

As for the idea of a universe which is fine-tuned for life, it would be my hope that you've already seen how that argument crumbles when subjected to scrutiny. This universe is not "fine-tuned" for life. It simply supports one kind of known life, in an incredibly small number of relatively tiny regions. And in that we don't know the extent of possible forms of life, it becomes desperately inappropriate to suggest that the only form of life possible are the forms of life we know.

No matter how you frame the "fine-tuning" argument, the bottom line is simply this; no matter how many different potential universes one can imagine, the odds are no better (or worse), for any particular one, than for any particular other one. The argument is busted.

Source for the electro-mechanical observation device? I am interested in reading up on this.

Here is a link...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

- "An important aspect of the concept of measurement has been clarified in some QM experiments where a small, complex, and non-sentient sensor proved sufficient as an 'observer' - there is no need for a conscious 'observer'"

I read the source cited by the wiki page never explicitly reached that conclusion. It seemed to imply that but it was ambiguous. I don't know enough about the subject but I'll be exploring it more. Have you ever read a rebuttal to that? Rationalthinker became more involved with his studies of QM and determined that consciousness is an inherent property of the universe and he's an atheist (or was).
I've heard this claim from people as notable as Dr. John Hagen. In fact, there's a video on YouTube with him making the claim. But I've never seen anyone offer the least bit of objective evidence to support that claim. And where I've found that people have actually conducted the experiment, they state that an electro/mechanical device provides the same results as a conscious observer. And the thing to note here is that a human observer can't see the particles used in the experiment directly. It requires a device for us to monitor what is happening.

"An obvious question is why one needs to talk about knowledge and minds at all. Couldn"t an inanimate physical device (say, a Geiger counter) carry out a "measurement"? That would run into the very problem pointed out by von Neumann: If the "observer" were just a purely physical entity, such as a Geiger counter, one could in principle write down a bigger wavefunction that described not only the thing being measured but also the observer. And, when calculated with the Schr"dinger equation, that bigger wave function would not jump! Again: as long as only purely physical entities are involved, they are governed by an equation that says that the probabilities don"t jump.
I'd love to find the specific source I remember seeing before. The point they made was that if you set up a device to observe the particles, the wave function collapses. But if you unplug that device, or even just stop the recording of the information, then the wave function does not collapse. Either way, it's clear that consciousness is not the key. Something about the "observation" (making a physical comparison), is what makes the difference.

That"s why, when Peierls was asked whether a machine could be an "observer," he said no, explaining that "the quantum mechanical description is in terms of knowledge, and knowledge requires somebody who knows." Not a purely physical thing, but a mind.
I find it curious that I've not seen any actual experiment to reflect that.

But what if one refuses to accept this conclusion, and maintains that only physical entities exist and that all observers and their minds are entirely describable by the equations of physics? Then the quantum probabilities remain in limbo, not 0 and 100% (in general) but hovering somewhere in between. They never get resolved into unique and definite outcomes, but somehow all possibilities remain always in play. One would thus be forced into what is called the "Many Worlds Interpretation" (MWI) of quantum mechanics.

In MWI, reality is divided into many branches corresponding to all the possible outcomes of all physical situations. If a probability was 70% before a measurement, it doesn"t jump to 0 or 100%; it stays 70% after the measurement, because in 70% of the branches there"s one result and in 30% there"s the other result! For example, in some branches of reality a particular nucleus has decayed --- and "you" observe that it has, while in other branches it has not decayed --- and "you" observe that it has not. (There are versions of "you" in every branch.) In the Many Worlds picture, you exist in a virtually infinite number of versions: in some branches of reality you are reading this article, in others you are asleep in bed, in others you have never been born. Even proponents of the Many Worlds idea admit that it sounds crazy and strains credulity."

Just curious, do you accept the many worlds interpretation?
This was addressed in my prior post on Loop Gravity.

https://www.bigquestionsonline.com...
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Gaming_Debater
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 6:16:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 9:53:45 PM, Beastt wrote:
Allow me to encapsulate your methodology in the form of a statement...

"I don't want that to be true. And since I don't want it to be true, I will continue to reject all other truths leading to the truth I wish to reject. And I will continue to cling to any suggestion - no matter how completely counter-evidenced - which pacifies me by suggesting the conclusion I desire, might possibly be true. I want what I want so sincerely, that anyone who attempts to show me a truth which isn't what I want, will be seen as my enemies."

No THIS is the expression for his methodology:

" I was taught this as a kid so...

1. BAM! Conclusion!
2. *thinks hard* *pop* BOOM! Evidence! Now to start a thread about how this BS is proof!
3. *Starts thread*
4. *Beastt replies to post*
5. *sticks fingers in ears* IM RIGHT YOUR WRONG LALALALALALALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU
6. *Repeats steps 1-6*"
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 6:24:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/16/2014 6:16:28 PM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
At 10/15/2014 9:53:45 PM, Beastt wrote:
Allow me to encapsulate your methodology in the form of a statement...

"I don't want that to be true. And since I don't want it to be true, I will continue to reject all other truths leading to the truth I wish to reject. And I will continue to cling to any suggestion - no matter how completely counter-evidenced - which pacifies me by suggesting the conclusion I desire, might possibly be true. I want what I want so sincerely, that anyone who attempts to show me a truth which isn't what I want, will be seen as my enemies."

No THIS is the expression for his methodology:

" I was taught this as a kid so...

1. BAM! Conclusion!
2. *thinks hard* *pop* BOOM! Evidence! Now to start a thread about how this BS is proof!
3. *Starts thread*
4. *Beastt replies to post*
5. *sticks fingers in ears* IM RIGHT YOUR WRONG LALALALALALALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU
6. *Repeats steps 1-6*"


And this is a fine example of your debating skills. Insults. How grown up. NOT!