Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Pot calling the kettle black. All of the new atheist "scientific" crowd use emotive language to influence the argument against and discredit Theism, ID and other associated thinking.Appeal to emotion is fine in appropriate circumstances, but not in an argument about scientific merit.
Methodological naturalism is not a "doctrine" but an essential aspect of the methodology of science, the study of the natural universe. If one believes that natural laws and theories based on them will not suffice to solve the problems attacked by scientists - that supernatural and thus nonscientific principles must be invoked from time to time - then one cannot have the confidence in scientific methodology that is prerequisite to doing science. Lawrence Lerner
I disagree; it seems to me that what we know of the history and origins of life strongly points to it being a product of the chemistry of early Earth environments. The evidence also clearly points to human intelligence having developed over several million years (earliest tool use around 3.4 million years).Evidence of elements that transcend materialism is everywhere. All elements of biological origins point towards Intelligence that is not material, and a growing number of accredited intellectuals are openly recognizing it in the face of stand over tactics and career threatening disapproval.
Anthropic intelligence itself, clearly transcends the material elements of the human body.
I don't identify with the 'new atheist "scientific" crowd', whoever they are, and I try to avoid using emotive language when arguing serious points, so I think your idiom misses its mark.Pot calling the kettle black. All of the new atheist "scientific" crowd use emotive language to influence the argument against and discredit Theism, ID and other associated thinking.
I am so very skeptical! Alphabet soup never produced so much as a sentence, there is no evidence that unguided prebiotic elements ever produced anything even remotely resembling a biological system.Yup, I wouldn't argue with that.
I disagree; it seems to me that what we know of the history and origins of life strongly points to it being a product of the chemistry of early Earth environments.
The time frame is irrelevant. What we are looking at is a phenomena that operates interdependently of the grey matter, and in fact controls the way that the brain operates and develops. Clearly human intelligence sits on top of the material interface.The evidence also clearly points to human intelligence having developed over several million years (earliest tool use around 3.4 million years).
There does not, at present, appear to be any reason to invoke other than natural material processes.
Nevertheless those who identify as scientifically minded, and influentially so, use this language and style. Clearly appealing to the native intuition and feeling of an audience is a valid communication method when bringing an argument to an audience.I don't identify with the 'new atheist "scientific" crowd', whoever they are, and I try to avoid using emotive language when arguing serious points, so I think your idiom misses its mark.
On the contrary, we know that primitive cell membranes, including vesicles, can self-assemble, we've seen vesicles grow and divide, how metabolic cycles can arise and persist, how RNA can catalyse, replicate, and transcribe, we've assembled a functional minimal bacterial genome from scratch, and so-on. Considering we've been studying it fora few tens of years and nature had a whole planet and a billion years or so, we've made remarkable progressI am so very skeptical! Alphabet soup never produced so much as a sentence, there is no evidence that unguided prebiotic elements ever produced anything even remotely resembling a biological system.
The evidence from neuroscience, medical science, and psychology, clearly shows that the mind is what the brain does.The time frame is irrelevant. What we are looking at is a phenomena that operates interdependently of the grey matter, and in fact controls the way that the brain operates and develops. Clearly human intelligence sits on top of the material interface.
Well perhaps that is your experience. I guess our viewpoints and opinions are constrained by the variety of our experiences and by the heuristics and biases that influence them.Nevertheless those who identify as scientifically minded, and influentially so, use this language and style. Clearly appealing to the native intuition and feeling of an audience is a valid communication method when bringing an argument to an audience.
Nevertheless those who identify as scientifically minded, and influentially so, use this language and style. Clearly appealing to the native intuition and feeling of an audience is a valid communication method when bringing an argument to an audience.
What a mish mash of fables. All of this stuff has arisen from highly contrived experiments that in no way reflect the natural world. They are in fact created things and reinforce the idea that nothing even remotely resembling biological forms ever arises without the design of an intelligence.On the contrary, we know that primitive cell membranes, including vesicles, can self-assemble, we've seen vesicles grow and divide, how metabolic cycles can arise and persist, how RNA can catalyse, replicate, and transcribe, we've assembled a functional minimal bacterial genome from scratch, and so-on. Considering we've been studying it fora few tens of years and nature had a whole planet and a billion years or so, we've made remarkable progress
I have a friend who is missing much of his brain following a boating accident. After recovery His personality and intelligence as well as his memories remain unchanged. In fact until he takes his hat off nobody would know anything was different. There are many examples of this sort of thing, including people who have experienced full functionality with less than 10% of brain function remaining.The evidence from neuroscience, medical science, and psychology, clearly shows that the mind is what the brain does.
But if you can describe this independently operating phenomenon you're 'looking at', and/or provide any observable evidence of its existence, please do.
Cool story; however, the vast majority of significant brain injuries result in significant deficit - the most famous example was Phineas Gage, but there are thousands of others documented. For a very readable introduction to the variety of cognitive deficits produced by neurological conditions, I recommend Ramachandran & Blakeslee's 'Phantoms in the Brain'.I have a friend who is missing much of his brain following a boating accident. After recovery His personality and intelligence as well as his memories remain unchanged. In fact until he takes his hat off nobody would know anything was different.
Nevertheless, the person remains behind the damaged user interface.Cool story; however, the vast majority of significant brain injuries result in significant deficit - the most famous example was Phineas Gage, but there are thousands of others documented. For a very readable introduction to the variety of cognitive deficits produced by neurological conditions, I recommend Ramachandran & Blakeslee's 'Phantoms in the Brain'.
That depends on how you define person and what the injury is. I've seen personalities change or fragment and disintegrate as a brain disease progresses in some of my own relatives and friends. But personal experience aside, the 'brain-as-receiver' or 'brain-as-interface' analogy simply doesn't stand up in the face of the neurological evidence.Nevertheless, the person remains behind the damaged user interface.
"While it might be possible to know everything about the physical materiality of the brain down to its last atom, its “product,” the five cardinal mysteries of the non-material mind, remain unaccounted for: subjective awareness, free will, how memories are stored, the “higher” faculties of reason and imagination, and that unique sense of personal identity that changes and matures over time but remains resolutely the same." Robert W. Doty, “The Five Mysteries of the Mind and Their Consequences,” Neuropsychologia 36, no. 10 (October 1998): 1069–76.That depends on how you define person and what the injury is. I've seen personalities change or fragment and disintegrate as a brain disease progresses in some of my own relatives and friends. But personal experience aside, the 'brain-as-receiver' or 'brain-as-interface' analogy simply doesn't stand up in the face of the neurological evidence.
Twenty years is a long time in neurological research. I'd say that subjective awareness is still considered a problem."While it might be possible to know everything about the physical materiality of the brain down to its last atom, its “product,” the five cardinal mysteries of the non-material mind, remain unaccounted for: subjective awareness, free will, how memories are stored, the “higher” faculties of reason and imagination, and that unique sense of personal identity that changes and matures over time but remains resolutely the same." Robert W. Doty, “The Five Mysteries of the Mind and Their Consequences,”Neuropsychologia 36, no. 10 (October 1998): 1069–76.
You seem to have forgotten that I already addressed this quote."The standard materialist theory of abstract thought is that it arises from the intricacy and complexity of neural networks in the cerebral cortex. That is Dr. Ali’s argument.
But this materialist argument is really just hand-waving amounting to magic (“lots of neurons fire together… and suddenly abstract thought appears!”)
Materialists never explain how the firing of lots of neurons (magically) evokes abstract thought. You just have to trust them on that.
Materialists use this claim of “delicate complexity” theory to attempt to explain why seizures and brain stimulation never evoke abstract thought. The brain mechanisms for abstract thought are said to be too delicate and complex!
But this argument leaves the materialist theory vulnerable to equally compelling ablation research. That is, if abstract thought depends critically on delicate complexity of neural networks, then certainly such networks would be disrupted or destroyed by split-brain surgery or by the massive diffuse brain damage that causes persistent vegetative state.
Yet, contrary to materialist theory, patients after split-brain surgery have completely normal abstract thought (the only changes are subtle changes in non-abstract perceptual thought). Also, patients in a persistent vegetative state often retain high levels of abstract thought despite massive diffuse destruction of much of their brain.
Materialists can’t have it both ways. Either abstract thought depends on delicate complex brain interconnections, or it doesn’t. Not both.
The truth is that the neuroscience research applicable to the question of the materiality or immateriality of abstract thought only makes sense if we acknowledge that abstract thought is not a product of the brain at all. To wit, neuroscience research has shown no correlation between abstract thought and brain activity (Libet’s ‘free won’t’), neuroscience research has shown no evocation of abstract thought by stimulation of the brain or by seizures (Penfield), and neuroscience research has shown no ablation of abstract thought by splitting the brain in half (Sperry) or by massive diffuse brain damage (Owen).
Materialists may attempt to explain one of these findings (with the usual hand-waving), but they cannot explain all of them because materialism would have to contradict itself to explain all these results. If abstract thought is caused by delicate complex brain interconnections, then it should be easily destroyed by cutting those interconnections.
It’s time that materialists set aside their metaphysical bias and follow the obvious scientific evidence. The only explanation that accounts for all of the evidence in neuroscience — correlative, evocative and ablative — is that abstract thought is an immaterial power of the mind." Neuroscientist Michael Egnor
Given recent threads involving Krauss about something being created from nothing here is the science perspective.
The concept of nothing is very much tied in with the modern or non classical version of a vacuum which is a quantum field in the lowest energy level.
You can’t divorce a field from nothingness or a vacuum.
This idea comes from a seemingly unrelated topic in classical physics the Simple Harmonic Oscillator (SHO).
An example of a SHO is a weight attached to a spring.
Pulling down on the weight and letting it go results in oscillation.
The Hamiltonian or total energy H of the SHO is defined as;
The first term on the right is the kinetic energy for the SHO in terms of the momentum p.
The second term is the potential energy stored in the spring with frequency ω and displacement x.
In early to mid 20th century scientists came up with Quantum Field Theory (QFT) where the field can be quantized like the energy levels associated with scalar particles such as electrons in atoms.
Each point in spacetime is defined by a SHO.
In this case the quanta of the field are the scalar particles which can be destroyed and created by annihilation and creation mathematical operators defined as follows.
Expressing the Hamiltonian for the SHO in terms of the creation and annihilation operators gives;
Where N is the number operator is defined as;
The state |n > is not the state of a single particle but is the state of the field with n particles or quanta present.
The eigenstates of the Hamiltonian for the field are of the form.
which is analogous to the quantum mechanical equation for a single particle.
Here the energy levels for the field are;
The lowest energy state occurs when n=0 and E = ħω/2 ≠ 0 where there are no particles or quanta which defines the vacuum.
Hence spacetime or a vacuum can never be totally empty and is supported by experiment such as the Casimir effect.
In fact you can get something from “nothing” as the “nothing” in this case is not totally empty.
Well, for now, us on the sidelines have to choose between 2 different flavors of hand-waving:....."The standard materialist theory of abstract thought is that it arises from the intricacy and complexity of neural networks in the cerebral cortex. That is Dr. Ali’s argument. But this materialist argument is really just hand-waving amounting to magic (“lots of neurons fire together… and suddenly abstract thought appears!”).....
The "Magic Ingredient" is evident from the design of biological forms and from cosmic fine tuning. Any conclusion that ignores that is incomplete and necessarily incorrect.Well, for now, us on the sidelines have to choose between 2 different flavors of hand-waving:
1. Consciousness is the activity of a complex brain
2. Consciousness is the activity of a supernatural agent working through the brain.
Problem is, flavor #2 requires an extra magic ingredient that we've never seen before. Further, this ingredient used to be proposed as necessary for all sort of other physical events. But we've since learned better.
That pattern indicates that the extra ingredient isnt required at all to explain any events. But we dont know for sure. So any "conclusion" we make, however reasonable, should only be provisional.
You may find those arguments compelling. But I dont.The "Magic Ingredient" is evident from the design of biological forms and from cosmic fine tuning. Any conclusion that ignores that is incomplete and necessarily incorrect.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?