Author Topic: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?  (Read 44151 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #522 on: January 12, 2012, 03:47:19 PM »
I don't understand where you're seeing the contradiction Samothec.     Yes, I agree, the mind effects the body, and vice versa.   But there are plenty of things which effect the body, which you would not say ARE the body.      Instead of gravity,  how about an simple electric shock for instance; it can effect the body, okay, but that doesn't mean the shock IS the body.

And how my assumptions are more pragmatic, I just talked about reasons why earlier in the thread, how materialism doesn't work in trying to understand the mind wholly.....  So then it's pragmatic, in other words, works better, in my experience to not limit myself to materialism.

The electric shock is from outside the body and has nothing to do with normal body functioning totally unlike the mind.

Right, I agree.  My point is just because something effects another thing doesn't logically necessitate that something  is that thing.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15326
  • Darwins +1178/-40
  • Gender: Male
  • We stand on the shoulders of giants
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #523 on: January 12, 2012, 03:47:52 PM »
Then define the non-physical processes.


This conversation itself is a non-wholly-physical process.

That is meaningless in the context of the request, Gill.

Well, to be more specific, there's mental processes happening here. So that would be a definition you asked for....

No, gill, it isn't.  The point of discussion was about the brain as a physical organ performing physical functions.  It was about the act of choice.  You said it was not wholly physical.  This is your post I replied to. 

What non-physical functions are going on when one makes a choice?
What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #524 on: January 12, 2012, 03:54:47 PM »
Well, to be more specific, there's mental processes happening here. So that would be a definition you asked for....

No, gill, it isn't.  The point of discussion was about the brain as a physical organ performing physical functions.  It was about the act of choice.  You said it was not wholly physical.  This is your post I replied to. 

What non-physical functions are going on when one makes a choice?

Certain mental processes.   One example would be people's ability to project into the future,  conceptualize what they believe might happen, and then make a choice based on that projection.    Since the projection is not an actual physical reality, then the choice hasn't been made based on such.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8941
  • Darwins +1134/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #525 on: January 12, 2012, 04:06:50 PM »
You're not going to detect the mind since the concept of 'mind' is not measurable, not quantifiable.
How convenient that it is "not measurable, not quantifiable", so you don't have to try to explain where it actually comes from.  Of course, if it's not measurable, not quantifiable, then you don't actually know, do you?  If you knew, you could just say where it comes from, instead of making speculative claims that you can't possibly substantiate by your own admission.

Quote from: Gill
I cause the activity in the mind.
"You"?  As in the "you" sitting and typing at the keyboard?  Or is it the "you" that, like the mind, you can neither measure nor quantify?

Quote from: Gill
And how would you explain the meaning of what you just wrote in terms of electrons, atoms, etc.?  Meaning, is one example of a non-physical thing.
The various concepts that you claim are non-physical could not even exist without our physical reality.  The fact that you can't see, touch, etc, them, doesn't mean they aren't supported by physical structures.  Can you explain the meaning of something without a means of communicating it, without a means of storing the information for later use?  No, you cannot.  Therefore, virtual concepts are still physical in nature.  The electrons and atoms that allow them to be stored and communicated are physical, thus they themselves are physical.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #526 on: January 12, 2012, 04:26:54 PM »
You're not going to detect the mind since the concept of 'mind' is not measurable, not quantifiable.
How convenient that it is "not measurable, not quantifiable", so you don't have to try to explain where it actually comes from.  Of course, if it's not measurable, not quantifiable, then you don't actually know, do you?  If you knew, you could just say where it comes from, instead of making speculative claims that you can't possibly substantiate by your own admission.

Not convenient, just how it is.   Just like i can't quantify what you just said.  Certain things are outside the bounds of such things.

Quote from: Gill
I cause the activity in the mind.
Quote from: jaimehlers
"You"?  As in the "you" sitting and typing at the keyboard?  Or is it the "you" that, like the mind, you can neither measure nor quantify?

That's right, consciousness, awareness, that which cannot be measured, because is indefinite.

Quote from: Gill
And how would you explain the meaning of what you just wrote in terms of electrons, atoms, etc.?  Meaning, is one example of a non-physical thing.
Quote from: jaimehlers
The various concepts that you claim are non-physical could not even exist without our physical reality.  The fact that you can't see, touch, etc, them, doesn't mean they aren't supported by physical structures.  Can you explain the meaning of something without a means of communicating it, without a means of storing the information for later use?  No, you cannot.  Therefore, virtual concepts are still physical in nature.  The electrons and atoms that allow them to be stored and communicated are physical, thus they themselves are physical.

Ok, but just because something is supported by a physical structure, or interacts with physical things, doesn't make that thing wholly physical in it's nature.

For instance, an engine,  say made of iron atoms.  A block of iron atoms by itself is not an engine until the iron is molded in a particular way.    The engine then is not just the iron, it's how the atoms are formed.

So then ,  to say something is structured from physical things,  that it must then be bound to the physical laws and nature of those pieces, is not so.  The engine works of its own principles separate from the individual iron atoms..  Therefore the engine is not the iron atoms, just as the mind is not the body.

« Last Edit: January 12, 2012, 04:29:22 PM by Gill »

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 18371
  • Darwins +444/-25
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #527 on: January 12, 2012, 04:46:08 PM »
Not convenient, just how it is.   Just like i can't quantify what you just said.  Certain things are outside the bounds of such things.
Or you are simply wrong and can't admit it. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #528 on: January 12, 2012, 04:57:52 PM »
Not convenient, just how it is.   Just like i can't quantify what you just said.  Certain things are outside the bounds of such things.
Or you are simply wrong and can't admit it.

Don't see how I can be wrong if all my thoughts, choices, are the product of molecular interactions;  thought those interactions followed some strict set of true laws?

Materialism, fails again.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8941
  • Darwins +1134/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #529 on: January 12, 2012, 06:04:22 PM »
Not convenient, just how it is.   Just like i can't quantify what you just said.  Certain things are outside the bounds of such things.
Except that this is not how it is, these things are not outside the bounds of physical reality, and they can be quantified and measured.  For example, let's say I think of a dragon.  I have my own conception and mental picture of what a dragon is.  The fact that there are no dragons on Earth does not mean that my conception does not have its own physical reality.  Because whether you talk about something that's real or something that's imaginary, they're all formed by arrangements of atoms.  The only difference is how those atoms are arranged and how many there are.

My conception of a dragon and my conception of a lion both have physical substance to them.  The description and meaning I give to them also have physical substance to them.  The fact that this physical substance is an arrangement of neurons in my head does not suddenly make it non-physical, because there is absolutely no non-physical way for such ideas to be communicated, much less exist.  Your argument is akin to saying that a picture of something has no physical reality because it's only the ink on the paper.  Well, the ink has physical reality, as does the paper.  That means the picture itself has physical reality.  When someone looks at the picture, they store a representation of it using the neurons in their brain; that is also a physical reality.  Therefore, everything has a physical reality, whether or not it is something that exists outside of the imagination.

Quote from: Gill
That's right, consciousness, awareness, that which cannot be measured, because is indefinite.
You not being aware of the limits of your consciousness, awareness, other things, does not mean those limits do not exist.  For example, your awareness is limited to what you can actually sense.  It can be measured.  As yet, we cannot accurately measure the limits of consciousness, but that does not mean that it thus has no limits.  And those limits will eventually be able to be measured.

Quote from: Gill
Ok, but just because something is supported by a physical structure, or interacts with physical things, doesn't make that thing wholly physical in it's nature.

For instance, an engine,  say made of iron atoms.  A block of iron atoms by itself is not an engine until the iron is molded in a particular way.    The engine then is not just the iron, it's how the atoms are formed.

So then ,  to say something is structured from physical things,  that it must then be bound to the physical laws and nature of those pieces, is not so.  The engine works of its own principles separate from the individual iron atoms..  Therefore the engine is not the iron atoms, just as the mind is not the body.
The form of an object is just as much of a part of its physical reality as the atoms that make it up.  Furthermore, to claim that the engine is not the iron atoms is simply wrong; the engine could not exist as an engine without those iron atoms.  It could be an idea, in someone's head or on paper, or whatever, but it could not be an engine used to propel something.  For the same reason, your idea about the mind not being the brain is wrong.  The mind can not exist without the brain.  It also needs the brain cells to be arranged properly; if those brain cells lose that arrangement, the mind cannot exist.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #530 on: January 12, 2012, 07:19:17 PM »
Not convenient, just how it is.   Just like i can't quantify what you just said.  Certain things are outside the bounds of such things.
Except that this is not how it is......

Quote from: Gill
Ok, but just because.....
Quote from: jaimehlers
The form of an object is just as much of a part of its physical reality as the atoms that make it up.....

I'm not saying the picture, or engine, does not have a physical counterpart to it,  but that, those physical parts are not the whole of the objects nature. Therefore, the whole nature of the object is not necessarily limited by the same laws as the parts. 

For instance;   One could say the electrons orbiting the iron atoms do so in a specific way.  But the engine doesn't orbit anything.  The engine can convert say chemical to mechanical energy.  But, the iron atoms individually don't.  Therefore, although the engine is made of the atoms,  the engine and atoms are not bound by the same laws.

And so follows, if the mind is made of the brain which is made of atoms, why would they necessarily be both bound by the same laws?

Quote from: Gill
That's right, consciousness, awareness, that which cannot be measured, because is indefinite.
Quote from: jaimehlers
You not being aware of the limits of your consciousness, awareness, other things, does not mean those limits do not exist....

Sure, one may put temporary limits on it to understand some particular aspect.  But, as a whole, I don't think so, awareness is  a never-ending process unbounded process....
« Last Edit: January 12, 2012, 07:43:45 PM by Gill »

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 14165
  • Darwins +475/-40
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #531 on: January 12, 2012, 07:23:32 PM »
No, I don't believe consciousness determines the quantum mechanical fluctuations - I was saying close to the opposite - that the quantum mechanical fluctuations affects consciousness and the world thus facilitating free will by preventing determinism.
Why would increased randomness promote free-will?

Bold portion - if there are fluctuations an absolute determinism cannot exist.

I know.  Now, if you please, would you answer how that automatically promotes the part that I have both bolded and underlined?
« Last Edit: January 12, 2012, 07:25:40 PM by Azdgari »
I always say what I mean. But sometimes I'm a sarcastic prick whose tone can't be properly communicated via text.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8941
  • Darwins +1134/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #532 on: January 12, 2012, 08:17:19 PM »
I'm not saying the picture, or engine, does not have a physical counterpart to it,  but that, those physical parts are not the whole of the objects nature. Therefore, the whole nature of the object is not necessarily limited by the same laws as the parts.
Not the whole, true.  But those physical parts make the rest possible.  So while the whole brain doesn't operate using the same specific mechanics as a single electron, it needs those mechanics in order to operate at all.  For example, the solidity of objects, to us, is actually caused by electromagnetism.  Electromagnetism is so fundamental that objects could not be solid if electromagnetism didn't exist.  So it is absolutely limited by the laws that the individual "parts" operate under.  That does not mean that it acts by the same exact rules, but that it uses those rules to do everything else.

[quote author=GillFor instance;   One could say the electrons orbiting the iron atoms do so in a specific way.  But the engine doesn't orbit anything.  The engine can convert say chemical to mechanical energy.  But, the iron atoms individually don't.  Therefore, although the engine is made of the atoms,  the engine and atoms are not bound by the same laws.[/quote]
This is nonsensical.  Of course an engine isn't an atom.  A single atom is too basic for anything but the fundamental forces, whereas the large grouping and arrangement of atoms that make up an engine allow those forces to interact in such ways as to cause effects that we're more familiar with.  Every single last force and interaction on the macro scale happens because of the fundamental forces.  Another way of putting it is that the complexity of the engine is greater than one would expect from the sum of the atoms, but the engine still requires the interactions between atoms in order to exist, let alone operate.

Quote from: Gill
And so follows, if the mind is made of the brain which is made of atoms, why would they necessarily be both bound by the same laws?
The mind is of course bound by what the brain can do, and the brain is of course bound by what its neurons are capable of, and those neurons are of course bound by the atomic interactions which empower them.  To say otherwise is to ignore how things actually work.  Neurons cannot do things which are impossible based on the interactions of atoms, the brain cannot do things which are impossible based on the interactions between neurons, and the mind cannot do things which are impossible based on the chemistry of the brain.  That is how determinism affects the mind; what is impossible cannot happen.  However, the brain makes a lot of things possible for the mind, the mind just cannot do things which are impossible for the brain to accomplish.

Quote from: Gill
Sure, one may put temporary limits on it to understand some particular aspect.  But, as a whole, I don't think so, awareness is  a never-ending process unbounded process....
It isn't a matter of putting limits on it.  There are things you cannot be aware of (can you sense X-rays?  Gamma radiation?  How about seeing UV or IR?); those are limits which bound your awareness.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #533 on: January 12, 2012, 09:16:53 PM »
Quote from: Gill
And so follows, if the mind is made of the brain which is made of atoms, why would they necessarily be both bound by the same laws?
The mind is of course bound by what the brain can do, and the brain is of course bound by what its neurons are capable of, and those neurons are of course bound by the atomic interactions which empower them.  To say otherwise is to ignore how things actually work.  Neurons cannot do things which are impossible based on the interactions of atoms, the brain cannot do things which are impossible based on the interactions between neurons, and the mind cannot do things which are impossible based on the chemistry of the brain.  That is how determinism affects the mind; what is impossible cannot happen.  However, the brain makes a lot of things possible for the mind, the mind just cannot do things which are impossible for the brain to accomplish.

I don't see how this is an argument for determinism, is it?   If the mind can do things which no individual neuron can do, then the mind isn't limited to what a neuron can do.

Quote from: Gill
Sure, one may put temporary limits on it to understand some particular aspect.  But, as a whole, I don't think so, awareness is  a never-ending process unbounded process....
Quote from: jaimehlers
It isn't a matter of putting limits on it.  There are things you cannot be aware of (can you sense X-rays?  Gamma radiation?  How about seeing UV or IR?); those are limits which bound your awareness.

Well, yeah in that respect.   But in the context of quantifying awareness itself, I don't see that possible.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #534 on: January 12, 2012, 09:19:31 PM »

Quote from: Gill
For instance;   One could say the electrons orbiting the iron atoms do so in a specific way.  But the engine doesn't orbit anything.  The engine can convert say chemical to mechanical energy.  But, the iron atoms individually don't.  Therefore, although the engine is made of the atoms,  the engine and atoms are not bound by the same laws.
Quote from: jaimehlers
This is nonsensical.  Of course an engine isn't an atom.  A single atom is too basic for anything but the fundamental forces, whereas the large grouping and arrangement of atoms that make up an engine allow those forces to interact in such ways as to cause effects that we're more familiar with.  Every single last force and interaction on the macro scale happens because of the fundamental forces.  Another way of putting it is that the complexity of the engine is greater than one would expect from the sum of the atoms, but the engine still requires the interactions between atoms in order to exist, let alone operate.

You seem to be agreeing then that just because something can be said to be made of a particular substance, doesn't mean that thing is exactly the same as that substance,  which is what I was saying in that the mind is not the body.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 14165
  • Darwins +475/-40
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #535 on: January 12, 2012, 10:03:41 PM »
^^ And just like a car is not mainly metal.

Wait a second...
I always say what I mean. But sometimes I'm a sarcastic prick whose tone can't be properly communicated via text.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8941
  • Darwins +1134/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #536 on: January 12, 2012, 11:10:19 PM »
Gill, the problem is that you're trying to claim that because something is more complex than its component parts, that it isn't the component parts.  The problem is that reality doesn't agree with you.  For example, take your engine made out of iron.  Sure, it's more complicated than a simple block of iron, and it does things that the iron block can't.  But if you bring an electromagnet near it, it can easily lift the engine block, because it's made out of the iron.  It doesn't stop being iron simply because it's an engine.  You could also make an identical engine, except that it uses non-metallic composites, which would perform the same job but wouldn't be lifted by the electromagnet.  Form and substance both matter, and both are physical in nature.  The fact that the one shapes the other (and can be represented through other methods) doesn't mean they aren't both physical.

The mind isn't separate from the brain for the same reason.  The brain gives the mind its shape.  Practice a skill (which enhances the nerve pathway in the brain that performs that skill), and the mind becomes sharper at using that skill in various ways.  Damage the brain, and the mind is damaged as well.  Someone who gets a concussion to the head will be far less effective at what they do until the concussion heals.

Also, I think you mean "the mind is not the brain".  Which is, nonetheless, not true.  The fact that something is more than the sum of its parts does not mean it stops being the parts, as you imply.  If you want to argue otherwise, then it behooves you to be able to support your argument with evidence to support it, instead of speculation that you can neither measure nor quantify.

Last, it is of course true that the brain's capabilities are higher than those of a single neuron.  In fact, the capabilities of the brain are greater than if you took the individual capacity of each neuron that makes it up.  The determinism is that the brain cannot do things that are impossible for any number of neurons to do.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #537 on: January 12, 2012, 11:25:31 PM »
Gill, the problem is that you're trying to claim that because something is more complex than its component parts, that it isn't the component parts.  The problem is that reality doesn't agree with you.  For example, take your engine made out of iron.  Sure, it's more complicated than a simple block of iron, and it does things that the iron block can't.  But if you bring an electromagnet near it, it can easily lift the engine block, because it's made out of the iron.  It doesn't stop being iron simply because it's an engine.  You could also make an identical engine, except that it uses non-metallic composites, which would perform the same job but wouldn't be lifted by the electromagnet.  Form and substance both matter, and both are physical in nature.  The fact that the one shapes the other (and can be represented through other methods) doesn't mean they aren't both physical.

The mind isn't separate from the brain for the same reason.  The brain gives the mind its shape.  Practice a skill (which enhances the nerve pathway in the brain that performs that skill), and the mind becomes sharper at using that skill in various ways.  Damage the brain, and the mind is damaged as well.  Someone who gets a concussion to the head will be far less effective at what they do until the concussion heals.

Also, I think you mean "the mind is not the brain".  Which is, nonetheless, not true.  The fact that something is more than the sum of its parts does not mean it stops being the parts, as you imply.  If you want to argue otherwise, then it behooves you to be able to support your argument with evidence to support it, instead of speculation that you can neither measure nor quantify.

Last, it is of course true that the brain's capabilities are higher than those of a single neuron.  In fact, the capabilities of the brain are greater than if you took the individual capacity of each neuron that makes it up.  The determinism is that the brain cannot do things that are impossible for any number of neurons to do.

Sure, the brain can be damaged.   But since the mind is immaterial, and indefinite, you haven't damaged the mind.  You've just damaged the brain's ability to transmit mind.   

I don't really feel the need to have evidence for my belief, it's just based on rational.    For instance, if my mind is my body, then how can I imagine having no body?  Should not my mind then disappear to?  But it doesn't.

 

Offline truthfinder

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 57
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #538 on: January 13, 2012, 04:45:12 AM »
Evolution,

the horse before 50 million years was not similar to the horse of today (improved version)
man before 50 million years was not similar to the man of today (improved version)
i guess men after 50 million of years will look as follow

1 - they will be much taller (9 ft) and much wider
2 - new complexion will appear (green , pink , orange...etc)
3 - they will be much faster (as horse of today)
4 - fart (good news) will smell as perfumes of today
5 - fart (good news) will sound as music
6 - hear improvement (hearing from long distances)
7 - smell improvement (find anything lost by smelling) gained by dogs
8 - life expectancy (500 years)

Any ideas how humans will look like after billions of years,if earth will stay that long

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6749
  • Darwins +485/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #539 on: January 13, 2012, 07:47:44 AM »
So by your logic you can intuit how hungry I am at this point, since your intuition does not come from any internal evidence.  How hungry am I?

I do think it comes from internal evidence.  Intuition to me, is something I 'just know', sense, without having to formulate any formal proof.   As far as it applying to other people and external things, it's not always applicable.

Rubbish.  If your "intuition" is in no way affected by any process or evidence from within your own body, then there is NO difference between your intuiting your own hunger, or someone else's.  Whether you are aweare of a conscious process in immaterial - and I would agree, we are extremely rarely aware of the actual thought processes that inform our "decisions".

But your point is that your intuition is in no way affected or influenced by what your particular body "tells" you - and so (if intuition as a separate thing really exists) you will "just know" how hungry I am.

But you can't.  WHY can't you, Gill? 
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6749
  • Darwins +485/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #540 on: January 13, 2012, 08:01:46 AM »
Alright.  Based on that, I think I can explain my position more clearly.  His idea suggested a line interpretation to me, that there would be no divergence possible outside of random permutations, so it will always follow the same path using the same steps.  I don't agree with that beyond a certain point.  I think that there is divergence made possible through the interconnections between the brain and the mind, so I see it as a cone instead, because I don't think a given choice can be predicted with absolute certainty in something like the human brain, as the save-state idea suggests, even with the absence of random chance.  That does not mean that I think any choice is possible.  Choices that fall outside that cone will not happen without outside intervention.

Basically, every choice will be made using existing knowledge and experience, so you can get a pretty good idea of how someone will act.  I just don't think you can guarantee that they would act in such a way, even barring randomness.

Don't get too hung up on the physicality of the save-game universe: the principle applies completely to any kind of mind/soul/self that you wish to bring in to it.

(Quick note - I entirely agree that no certain prediction on a given fdecision is possible.  Likely never WILL be possible, given the amount of possible variables.  But "not capable of being predicted" does not automatically mean that the outcome can change).

You suggest that the interplay between the "mind" and the brain could lead to different outcomes in the exact same circumstances?  (As Azd pointed out, I ignore quantum fluctuations as they would by definition be random, and hence provide no support to any "free will" argument.  Assume that any random fluctuations are likewise replicated....if you see what I mean!  Where was I.....)

Ah yes - that the mind can somehow influence the brain to come to more than one decision.

But I say again...how?

The mind that we are talking about in the model is, in the same way, identical on each reload.  It has the same memories, has developed the same way, has the same preferences and moral codes and so on and so forth.  And it too is reloaded into the exact same situation and environment.

So in exactly what manner is it able to sometimes do this, and sometimes do that, as the result of a non-deterministic, non-random, and non-stochastic process?  Because what you seem to be saying is that the actions of your mind are NOT the result of its previous status and experience, and that it can make any decision it "wants".

How is a mind that is unaffected by its past or its environment anything other than random? 

Or, alternatively, how does such a mind grow and change?  Because what you seem to be proposing is that your mind today, and your mind in a decade's time, would have exactly the same range and weighting of options if somehow dumped into the same set of circumstances....if, say, your mind now were dumped back into your brain a decade ago, it would be indistinguishable from the mind is displaced in its effect on the brain.

But I doubt that is what you mean - I'm sure you are entirely on-board with a mind that learns and develops and changes and grows.......but how can that be if the decisions that mind then makes are uninfluenced by its growth?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline ungod

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
  • Darwins +15/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #541 on: January 13, 2012, 08:44:44 AM »
Evolution,

the horse before 50 million years was not similar to the horse of today (improved version)
man before 50 million years was not similar to the man of today (improved version)
i guess men after 50 million of years will look as follow

1 - they will be much taller (9 ft) and much wider
2 - new complexion will appear (green , pink , orange...etc)
3 - they will be much faster (as horse of today)
4 - fart (good news) will smell as perfumes of today
5 - fart (good news) will sound as music
6 - hear improvement (hearing from long distances)
7 - smell improvement (find anything lost by smelling) gained by dogs
8 - life expectancy (500 years)

Any ideas how humans will look like after billions of years,if earth will stay that long

You forgot the wings....
Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think." - Hitler

Offline truthfinder

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 57
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #542 on: January 13, 2012, 09:04:15 AM »
Evolution,

the horse before 50 million years was not similar to the horse of today (improved version)
man before 50 million years was not similar to the man of today (improved version)
i guess men after 50 million of years will look as follow

1 - they will be much taller (9 ft) and much wider
2 - new complexion will appear (green , pink , orange...etc)
3 - they will be much faster (as horse of today)
4 - fart (good news) will smell as perfumes of today
5 - fart (good news) will sound as music
6 - hear improvement (hearing from long distances)
7 - smell improvement (find anything lost by smelling) gained by dogs
8 - life expectancy (500 years)

Any ideas how humans will look like after billions of years,if earth will stay that long

You forgot the wings....

  :) right,if no planes,then we should start to evolve wings,should be huge ones,
so we will travel and survive better in our environment
« Last Edit: January 13, 2012, 09:05:49 AM by truthfinder »

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #543 on: January 13, 2012, 09:12:20 AM »
Truthy:
So is that where angels came from?

Glad to see that you made it to the right area for this kind of discussion.

Not happy to see that you apparently haven't read anything about the subject yet.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2012, 09:23:09 AM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8941
  • Darwins +1134/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #544 on: January 13, 2012, 09:21:17 AM »
But I doubt that is what you mean - I'm sure you are entirely on-board with a mind that learns and develops and changes and grows.......but how can that be if the decisions that mind then makes are uninfluenced by its growth?
When did I ever say that the mind's decisions were not influenced by its growth?  In fact, that's the key point - decisions are influenced by past experience, but they aren't determined by it.  A person can make decisions despite their past experiences, and be right about them.  You're right that they can't simply ignore those past experiences, and I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise, but people aren't locked into choices based on those past experiences.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 14165
  • Darwins +475/-40
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #545 on: January 13, 2012, 09:28:56 AM »
Jaim, what is it then - other than the state of the brain a moment ago + quantum fluctuations - that leads to the next state of the brain?

Gill believes that a spirit of some kind does it.  I'm curious as to which supernatural agent you are suggesting.  If none, then you have no grounds for disagreement with Anfauglir.
I always say what I mean. But sometimes I'm a sarcastic prick whose tone can't be properly communicated via text.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8941
  • Darwins +1134/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #546 on: January 13, 2012, 09:48:57 AM »
Jaim, what is it then - other than the state of the brain a moment ago + quantum fluctuations - that leads to the next state of the brain?

Gill believes that a spirit of some kind does it.  I'm curious as to which supernatural agent you are suggesting.  If none, then you have no grounds for disagreement with Anfauglir.
I'm not arguing for a supernatural agent of any sort.  I'm arguing against the idea that past experience, evidence of the senses, habits, the state of the mind, and whatever else, deterministically locks a person into making a given choice the same way every time in the save-state scenario, excluding the effects of quantum fluctuations you mentioned.  I think that the brain is complex enough that those various elements can shake out differently, thus producing a different choice, even with the same experiences, same evidence of the senses, same habits, same state of mind, etc.  Now, I do agree with Anfauglir in at least one respect - I think there's a limit on the possible permutations of that combination that can be made without "outside knowledge", and thus you can determine a range of possible choices, even come up with a pretty good idea of what's likely to be picked.  You just can't determine for sure what will be picked in advance.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8941
  • Darwins +1134/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #547 on: January 13, 2012, 10:28:37 AM »
Sure, the brain can be damaged.   But since the mind is immaterial, and indefinite, you haven't damaged the mind.  You've just damaged the brain's ability to transmit mind.
The mind is only immaterial in the way a (really, really) complex software program is immaterial.  And it is certainly not indefinite; how quickly can you do a math problem in your head?  That's a limit, which you can push back by doing lots of math problems and getting better at them, but the limit still exists.  The fact that we can't tell where those limits are does not mean they don't exist, just the same as the fact that we couldn't see stars that were too dim didn't mean those stars didn't actually exist.  And I take it you've never had a head injury, or you'd understand just how nonsensical it is to say that you only damage the brain's ability to transmit the mind, instead of directly affecting the mind.

Also, you need to stop trying to equate the mind to the body, because that is a patently ridiculous strawman.  We're talking about the brain, not the body, so you sound like you're repeating a poorly-memorized catechism when you keep saying "the mind is not the body", despite the fact that nobody here has actually argued that it is.  The brain is not the whole body, so stop trying to equate the two.

Quote from: Gill
I don't really feel the need to have evidence for my belief, it's just based on rational.    For instance, if my mind is my body, then how can I imagine having no body?  Should not my mind then disappear to?  But it doesn't.
The fact that you can imagine something doesn't make it real.  Doesn't matter how rational you think it is, doesn't matter how convincing you are...if it doesn't actually work that way, you can't make it work that way simply by believing it does.  You have to deal with the way things really work, and if you try to break the rules, you end up paying the price.

As for imagining having no body, you've got it completely wrong; the worst part is that you don't even realize how fundamentally irrational your position is because you're not willing to consider that you might be wrong in what you believe.  "I don't need evidence, because I believe my belief is rational."  But you can't prove that it is rational, no matter how much you want to, without evidence that you can show.  And certainly not when dealing with non-credulous people like myself and others here.

Consider; if your mind is not housed in your brain, and your brain only receives transmissions from your mind, then why could your mind not decide to stop sending those transmissions to your brain?  Your mind would continue to exist regardless, and it would not harm your self.  Yet, you cannot choose to do that, can you?  You might be able to knock yourself out by hitting yourself on the head, or by taking drugs to make you sleepy, but your mind can't simply unplug itself from your brain.  That strongly argues against this idea of the mind "transmitting" itself to the brain.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 14165
  • Darwins +475/-40
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #548 on: January 13, 2012, 10:52:35 AM »
I'm not arguing for a supernatural agent of any sort.

I know, I was suggesting the other side of my "if".

I'm arguing against the idea that past experience, evidence of the senses, habits, the state of the mind, and whatever else, deterministically locks a person into making a given choice the same way every time in the save-state scenario, excluding the effects of quantum fluctuations you mentioned.

Hence my question as to what you believe intervenes in these physical reactions to produce an outcome that is not determined by physics/chemistry/etc.

I think that the brain is complex enough that those various elements can shake out differently, thus producing a different choice, even with the same experiences, same evidence of the senses, same habits, same state of mind, etc.

"Complexity does it" is a pretty poor explanation, Jaim.  The job you've laid on "complexity" is basically that of performing magic.  Do you have an idea of how this could even work?

Now, I do agree with Anfauglir in at least one respect - I think there's a limit on the possible permutations of that combination that can be made without "outside knowledge", and thus you can determine a range of possible choices, even come up with a pretty good idea of what's likely to be picked.  You just can't determine for sure what will be picked in advance.

Nobody was talking about advance-prediction in the first place.  Why mention it?
I always say what I mean. But sometimes I'm a sarcastic prick whose tone can't be properly communicated via text.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6749
  • Darwins +485/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #549 on: January 13, 2012, 11:10:35 AM »
I think that the brain is complex enough that those various elements can shake out differently, thus producing a different choice, even with the same experiences, same evidence of the senses, same habits, same state of mind, etc. 

But remember - if the SGU, every element is reloaded exactly the same.  So this neurone has this particular charge, that axon is in that particular state....if each one obeys the laws of physics and changes its state from moment to moment according to the (identical, remember) stimuli affecting it.....how do you end up with a different result?

I'm saying that all the jigsaw pieces are the same, and will - can - produce only one picture.  You seem to be saying that - somehow - the same pieces can make 2 or more pictures.  I'm just asking you how.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15326
  • Darwins +1178/-40
  • Gender: Male
  • We stand on the shoulders of giants
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #550 on: January 13, 2012, 11:42:22 AM »
What non-physical functions are going on when one makes a choice?

Certain mental processes.   One example would be people's ability to project into the future,  conceptualize what they believe might happen, and then make a choice based on that projection.    Since the projection is not an actual physical reality, then the choice hasn't been made based on such.

So you are saying the use of imagination is a non-physical process of the brain?  I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying.
What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.