Mind: emergent property or "Ghost in the machine"?

[Chalnoth]

Come on, guys. Science has not only proved that the soul exists, but that it weighs under a hundred grams.

At the end of three hours and forty minutes he [a terminal patient who had been sitting on a bed upon a platform beam scale sensitive to two-tenths of an ounce] expired and suddenly coincident with death the beam end dropped with an audible stroke hitting against the lower limiting bar and remaining there with no rebound. The loss was ascertained to be three-fourths of an ounce.
This loss of weight could not be due to evaporation of respiratory moisture and sweat, because that had been determined to go on, in his case, at the rate of one-sixtieth of an ounce per minute, whereas this loss was sudden and large ...
The bowels did not move; and if they had moved the weight would still have remained on the bed except for a slow loss by the evaporation of moisture, depending, of course, upon the fluidity of the feces. The bladder evacuated one or two drams of urine. This remained on the bed and could only have influenced the weight by slow gradual evaporation and therefore in no way could account for the sudden loss.
There remained but one more channel of loss to explore, the expiration of all but the residual air in the lungs. Getting upon the bed myself, my colleague put the beam at actual balance. Inspiration and expiration of air as forcibly as possible by me had no effect upon the beams ...

- Dr. Duncan McDougall, April 1907 (quoted in "Stiff" by Mary Roach).

That research was flawed due to a small sample size and methodological problems:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/20/1077072838871.html

Any time you see what seems to be an exciting scientific result that has never been followed up, you should take it with a grain of salt.

 

[Nooj]

shernen was joking.

 

[Nooj]

JERUSALEM !

JERUSALEM !

Seriously, what does the USA have to do with Jerusalem?

 

[shernren]

shernen was joking.

Poe's Law says that a creationist parody of creationists will be mistaken for the real thing, right?

As such, does Poe's Law itself also state that a theistic evolutionary parody of creationists will be mistaken for the real thing? or is it a corollary instead of the main Law?

 

[Tomk80]

Poe's Law says that a creationist parody of creationists will be mistaken for the real thing, right?

As such, does Poe's Law itself also state that a theistic evolutionary parody of creationists will be mistaken for the real thing? or is it a corollary instead of the main Law?

It states that:
"Without the use of a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to make a parody of Fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing."

 

[USincognito]

It states that:
"Without the use of a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to make a parody of Fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing."

But he did use a winking smiley. I think the cross and actually citing his work instead of just tossing out a story threw Chalnoth off.

 

[Chalnoth]

Well, I'm not upset that I was mistaken, though. I'd rather have it refuted right away than have somebody latch onto the story and start trying to argue it.

 

[Elduran]

Except most animals hunt for food, while we hunt for food, pleasure, and sport.

Speak for yourself. I do none of these things. I eat the remains of animals raised and slaughtered, so I guess I could be considered to be involved in the hunting for food side of things, but I have never once hunted anything for pleasure or sport, nor do I intend to.

If an animal decorated the wall of his den with a human head, would we think, "Wow --- look at that. Maybe those animals aren't so backwards after all".

I'd actually be quite impressed with the ability to hang a head on a wall, so yes, that in itself would show me that they were quite advanced. In any case, I really have no idea where you've got the idea that cruelty is somehow equal to advancement. I suspect you're just trying to say what evolution supporters think again, in which case you are totally incorrect, so well done!

Why do we kill an animal if it kills us --- then demand mercy if a human kills us?

Because we as a species care more about others of our species than representatives of other species. And because in our various societies, humans have more rights than animals for pretty much the same reason.

If you say it's because he's acquired a taste for blood now, and won't stop killing us, then lock him up in a cage for the rest of his life - (after due process of law, of course, including a jury of his peers).

Do you see how facetious this is?

No

 

[Elduran]

Peck, nice to meet you. See what you're up against in this forum, brother?

1900 posts and they still think I'm a YEC.

God bless, and I pray for you.

You are a YEC by the very definition of the term. If you don't like the label your beliefs have, then the way I see it you have 2 choices:

Leave so no-one will call you by that label any more

Stay and change your beliefs so that the label no longer applies.

If neither option works for you, then I suggest getting used to the term. After all, as was pointed out by someone else, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, the logical conclusion is to call it a duck rather than a lion in disguise.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Any logic that does not require the premise, "The Bible is true."

You are asking Bible believing Christians to answer a question that you have already determined to be philosophical, and yet you are asking for a logical answer than does not require the Bible to be true. I think not only is that an impossible requirement due to who you are asking but impossible due to the nature of the question itself.

Just how do you propose to eliminate experience as a basis of logic and how does one answer without it?

 

[Oncedeceived]

It will be interesting if science fiction ever becomes reality. For example; a chimpanzee is genetically altered so that it has much higher intelligence. It is then able to communicate with us and express its sentience. Would this chimp have a soul?

Science fiction has become a reality time and time again but that really has nothing to do with what I said.

How does intelligence have anything to do with what I said? What does sentience do with what I said?

One novel i read spoke of "the mind" as being the emergent property of complex computers (mechanical or biological). So much so that future computers have governers built in to prevent them spontaneously becoming sentient. Would such machines have souls? (yes i realise that its currently hypothetical).

Again this is totally irrelevant.

 

[Oncedeceived]

They would have souls as much as we have souls (as in, not at all). Though I expect a machine intelligence would feel pretty alien to us, as machines are good at thinking in certain ways that we are horrible at, and we are good at thinking in other ways that machines are horrible at.

As far as intelligent primates go, I highly recommend looking up some videos of current primates that have been taught sign language, such as Koko.

I think that humans are more than more intelligent than other animals. I think that elephant and dolpins are incredibly intelligent animals. I think that both have very "humanlike" emotions and intelligence. The soul goes beyond emotions and intelligence. Emotions and intelligence are important aspects that are more developed in humans but I think that humans have a capacity that transends the physical world. The fact that we can even consider the universe in a non-physical way puts us at a different level than other animals.

Do we feel that animals for instance have a moral right to justice? Do we feel animals have a moral right for happiness? Do we feel animals have a moral right to existance?

 

[AV1611VET]

JERUSALEM !

Seriously, what does the USA have to do with Jerusalem?

God promised to bless any nation that would bless the Jews, and curse any nation that curses the Jews.

He founded this country for two reasons:

1. To be a haven for the Jews prior to World War 2.
2. To support Israel after World War 2.

The Abrahamic Covenant is still in effect today.

[bible]Genesis 12:3[/bible]

 

[peck74]

[/font][/color]

We cannot detect 'the mind'. All we can detect is the brain.

Thank you, that’s my point, and the rest of your post backs up my point as well. We can only detect electrical impulses from the brain, yet many just assume (including you) that the ability to monitor these impulses somehow eliminates mind and replaces it with brain, yet we have *absolutely*, *positively*, NO way of determining if we are looking at cause OR effect, because we cannot detect mind, as you put it. So making statements such as “imagination is a quality of brain” is completely unfounded and frankly, closed-minded and ignorant.

 

[peck74]

Evolution does not equal random chance. Write this out 100 times, peck.

You guys just can’t wrap your head around the fact that RM + NS means RANDOM! And you know what? MET is easy to understand – gee let’s see, RM + NS – that’s the whole thing. It means undirected, non-goal oriented, chance, luck, magick. It means you believe that all the enormous, almost incomprehensible complexity of life (brain for example, or vision, or flight) came about completely by blind, dumb, stupid, non-intelligent, unthinking chance. It’s the magic of RM, then the magic of NS, and don’t forget the magic of co-option, plus the magic of time, all the while without a shred of macro evidence to back it up. Yeah, that’s great science.

 

[peck74]

Peck, nice to meet you. See what you're up against in this forum, brother?

1900 posts and they still think I'm a YEC.

God bless, and I pray for you.

Hi nice to meet you too! Thanks for the prayer. I'm not up against much, because if there were any actual evidence to back up their claims they'd be dangerous. I have to admit I just enjoy ruffling the feathers of evangelical atheists (and what else do you call someone who comes to a Christian forum to refute the spiritual?) from time to time. Gets boring quick though, because it's the same thing over and over again. The same arguments, the same flawed logic. Usually when their back is up against a wall, you get this: “Evolution isn’t random!” “You’re just a YEC who wants a theocracy!” “You’re an enemy of science!” “You just don’t understand evolution!” Followed by tautological statements and axioms. But anything to do with mind or spirit is anathema to them.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Hi nice to meet you too! Thanks for the prayer. I'm not up against much, because if there were any actual evidence to back up their claims they'd be dangerous. I have to admit I just enjoy ruffling the feathers of evangelical atheists (and what else do you call someone who comes to a Christian forum to refute the spiritual?) from time to time. Gets boring quick though, because it's the same thing over and over again. The same arguments, the same flawed logic. Usually when their back is up against a wall, you get this: “Evolution isn’t random!” “You’re just a YEC who wants a theocracy!” “You’re an enemy of science!” “You just don’t understand evolution!” Followed by tautological statements and axioms. But anything to do with mind or spirit is anathema to them.

Feel free to make a difference this time.

 

[caravelair]

You are asking Bible believing Christians to answer a question that you have already determined to be philosophical, and yet you are asking for a logical answer than does not require the Bible to be true.

you are being asked to provide an argument that does not rely on the truth of the bible. many people here, such as myself, do not believe in the bible, so how are we to accept an argument that requires the premise that the bible is true? you are being asked to provide an extrabiblical argument to support what the bible says.

 

[caravelair]

You guys just can’t wrap your head around the fact that RM + NS means RANDOM!

uh, no it doesn't. NS means non-random. natural selection doesn't randomly pick which individuals survive, it is decidedly non random. even by definition, it is a selective process, not a random one. that is why we are able to ovserve evolution which favors certain traits, like resistance to pesticide, for example.

And you know what? MET is easy to understand – gee let’s see, RM + NS – that’s the whole thing. It means undirected, non-goal oriented, chance, luck, magick. It means you believe that all the enormous, almost incomprehensible complexity of life (brain for example, or vision, or flight) came about completely by blind, dumb, stupid, non-intelligent, unthinking chance. It’s the magic of RM, then the magic of NS, and don’t forget the magic of co-option, plus the magic of time,

actually no, it is not magical, it is a natural process that scientists understand quite well. natural selection favors traits that are beneficial to survival. how hard is that to understand?

all the while without a shred of macro evidence to back it up.

actually, there is a vast abundance of evidence in favor of macroevolution, which is why virtually every biologist in the world accepts it as fact:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Yeah, that’s great science.

yes it is. thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Maxwell511]

Now, since we are speaking of the psychical and not the physical, what psychical emergent property can you describe coming from lifeless matter?

Life is a emergent property of "lifeless" matter.

I really don't understand what non-lifeless matter is. Could you explain it?