|
|
Post by mrellaguru on Dec 4, 2018 17:33:07 GMT
These are good questions and science can't really explain why physical processes correlate with consciousness. It's just a brute fact that they do. And we only know that this subjective consciousness exists because we experience it. (Of course it's also possible that I'm the only conscious being in the universe. I can't prove that this isn't the case.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Dec 4, 2018 22:39:33 GMT
And what is the term for defaulting to 'brain chemicals' to fill in gaps? I've heard some religious apologists refer to something like that as "science of the gaps" Any "best information we currently have" model could be spun as "science of the gaps", really. The major difference between the two outlooks is that one is, of course, constantly updating as new information is discovered. Including "atheists" in the subject line really dumbs down this thread. There are religious scientists, and the vast majority of atheists have noting to do with science. But it does play into the mindless "Science argues against god! Science bad!" dynamic you see so much of on the internet. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Dec 5, 2018 14:10:36 GMT
It's just beyond YOUR comprehension. And really, it doesn't take much for anything to be beyond your comprehension. So you're saying there's nothing beyond your comprehension? Why haven't you cured all diseases known to mankind, you pompous ass? You don't even try to understand the basic meanings of sentences in English, here, do you? |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Dec 5, 2018 14:12:28 GMT
These are good questions and science can't really explain why physical processes correlate with consciousness. There is something called the Global Neuronal Workspace model of consciousness that has been around for a couple decades and quite a number of us think it does, in fact, begin to explain consciousness quite adequately! |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Dec 6, 2018 10:12:14 GMT
These are good questions and science can't really explain why physical processes correlate with consciousness. There is something called the Global Neuronal Workspace model of consciousness that has been around for a couple decades and quite a number of us think it does, in fact, begin to explain consciousness quite adequately!Don't you mean "inadequately' due to your flawed walls of logic. Go ahead big shot, I'm all ears.  |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Dec 6, 2018 11:27:38 GMT
Don't you mean "inadequately' due to your flawed walls of logic. Go ahead big shot, I'm all ears. Actually, you are the exact opposite of "all ears". You are one big dam against knowledge. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Dec 6, 2018 12:03:55 GMT
Don't you mean "inadequately' due to your flawed walls of logic. Go ahead big shot, I'm all ears. Actually, you are the exact opposite of "all ears". You are one big dam against knowledge. It doesn't surprise me that you have a distorted and skewered take on those that refuse to buy into your arrogant notions of self. This is what holds you back and makes you inadequate to explain something that you are ultimately incapable of and are wrongheaded about. You are arse about face. Then again, most pompous full of themselves gits talk out of their backside, so that just goes without saying.
Whatever it is you are attempting to teach others, stop immediately, until you take a good long look at yourself. Not only have you led yourself astray, you are leading others astray. It must be real fun and exciting for you to keep running up against your titanium ego, freakin' numbskull!
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Dec 7, 2018 0:30:44 GMT
bottom line... the soul is what animates (basically gives life) to the body.
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Dec 7, 2018 0:42:20 GMT
bottom line... the soul is what animates (basically gives life) to the body. So you believe that every living thing has a soul then, including plants, fungi, and other monocellular life? |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 7, 2018 2:25:39 GMT
So basically God of the Gaps ("We don't understand something, therefore God"). Your "checkmate" against atheists is some intellectually lazy argument that's already been refuted countless times. Gotcha. And what is the term for defaulting to 'brain chemicals' to fill in gaps? Sometimes the only honest answer is "WE DON'T KNOW". Just because you don't know the answer to a question doesn't mean you get to invent the perfect explanation to satisfy all conditions without any evidence for it. Even if science completely disproves "brain chemicals" and everything they thought they knew about the brain...that still doesn't prove that "it was god" is the answer. You still have to have evidence for any explanation you want to pin consciousness to. Poking holes in your limited understanding of science does not get you any closer to the answer you are trying to get to. And it does nothing to convince a skeptic that your answer is more reasonable than "brain chemicals". You know what the difference is between brain chemicals and God? Brain chemicals can be demonstrated to actually exist, and God can't. So if it's not brain chemicals, then the answer is "we don't know, and still have no reason to believe it's a god". Are brain chemicals responsible for consciousness? Maybe they are; maybe not. Maybe science can't explain consciousness...YET. But that doesn't mean that religion can. Religion can't really "explain" anything. |
|
|
|
Post by Individual 1 on Dec 8, 2018 18:31:22 GMT
So you're saying there's nothing beyond your comprehension? Why haven't you cured all diseases known to mankind, you pompous ass? You don't even try to understand the basic meanings of sentences in English, here, do you? That one sounds like a religious wingnut to me. Wouldn't take him / her too seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Dec 8, 2018 23:55:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Individual 1 on Dec 9, 2018 0:39:21 GMT
Is that the same one from the politics board? |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 9, 2018 0:49:34 GMT
Is that the same one from the politics board? Yes. Any problem with that? |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 9, 2018 0:51:38 GMT
That one sounds like a religious wingnut to me. Wouldn't take him / her too seriously. You must be new here. Welcome aboard! New from the sock drawer? |
|
|
|
Post by Individual 1 on Dec 9, 2018 0:58:38 GMT
You must be new here. Welcome aboard! New from the sock drawer? Must be. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 9, 2018 1:24:24 GMT
New from the sock drawer? Must be. What name(s) did you use on the old IMDb? I was ErJen-1 until I got locked out of my account and had to start over again. |
|
|
|
Post by Individual 1 on Dec 9, 2018 1:29:14 GMT
What name(s) did you use on the old IMDb? I was ErJen-1 until I got locked out of my account and had to start over again. I was Khloe_XXX. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Dec 9, 2018 4:42:17 GMT
What name(s) did you use on the old IMDb? I was ErJen-1 until I got locked out of my account and had to start over again. Try and keep it in your pants Erjenious, as it is a Kardashian koming out of the kloset! |
|
|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on Dec 9, 2018 11:09:46 GMT
This, of course, is complete nonsense unsupported by any evidence. You just pulled it out of your ignorant ass. The article you cited is from a blog, shit for brains. You have no intellectual standards to speak of. And what your ignorant, pompous ass can't grasp is that as of now, nobody can 'prove' something that is beyond comprehension. Your stupid ass can't even comprehend the concept of eternity/infinity (where does light come from, derp?) let alone singularity of all that exists or God.
You keep making unsupportable assertions and pretend they have substance. consciousness as a real phenomenon that can be described objectively and mathematically.your problem seems to be that your incomplete reading of IIT somehow bears some relationship to proving there is a god. Nope! nobody can 'prove' something that is beyond comprehension.A tautology isn't any deep and meaningful statement. It is as meaningful as "there's the sun". |
|
