Author Topic: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?  (Read 18199 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 #145 on: December 20, 2011, 12:42:11 PM »
Which is why, let me add, that many people who have NDEs experience consciousness as being more indefinite, seeing 360 degrees and so forth, because their consciousness is no longer being reduced by the brain, which is just a filter....

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12297
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #146 on: December 20, 2011, 12:43:12 PM »
^^ Which is why people become more conscious when under the effect of a brain-activity-suppressing anaesthetic.

Err.... :o
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #147 on: December 20, 2011, 12:43:45 PM »
And to measure electrical activity in the brain is to measure the effects of consciousness on the matter in the brain.

Let me make sure I understand you here.  Are you saying that consciousness is something immaterial that affects the brain to (for example) make you get out of bed in the morning, shower, and go to work?

'Immaterial' in the sense that it is not matter, atoms, molecules, and quarks and so forth....

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #148 on: December 20, 2011, 12:45:00 PM »
'Immaterial' in the sense that it is not matter, atoms, molecules, and quarks and so forth....

The brain "works with" electricity (electrons moving around) and chemicals (molecules).
Try again.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #149 on: December 20, 2011, 12:45:47 PM »
^^ Which is why people become more conscious when under the effect of a brain-activity-suppressing anaesthetic.

Err.... :o

Well, to me that would be increasing the filtering abilities of the brain,  opposed to the brain dying, where it loses such capabilities.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12297
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #150 on: December 20, 2011, 12:45:54 PM »
I think one general idea here is that many are looking at things in terms of a cause-effect relationship, therefore determinism makes sense.

The alternative is an incoherent universe, where nothing can be expected to lead from anything else.  Your objection is akin to, "... many here are looking at things in terms of what's logical!"

Well, yeah.  What's your sensible alternative?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4366
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappĂ©
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #151 on: December 20, 2011, 12:46:30 PM »
Let me make sure I understand you here.  Are you saying that consciousness is something immaterial that affects the brain to (for example) make you get out of bed in the morning, shower, and go to work?

'Immaterial' in the sense that it is not matter, atoms, molecules, and quarks and so forth....

OK, then.  Can you explain how this immaterial whatever-it-is can cause the pertinent brain cells to fire?  Everywhere else in the universe, a change in the trajectory of any physical entity is an acceleration requiring the expenditure of energy, and the consciousness you describe, being immaterial, has no energy to give.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12297
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #152 on: December 20, 2011, 12:47:10 PM »
Well, to me that would be increasing the filtering abilities of the brain,  opposed to the brain dying, where it loses such capabilities.

Give someone enough anaesthetics and they die.

Since the drugs and brain are physical objects, please explain the physical difference you're talking about, with regard to "filtering capabilities".
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #153 on: December 20, 2011, 12:50:28 PM »
I think one general idea here is that many are looking at things in terms of a cause-effect relationship, therefore determinism makes sense.

The alternative is an incoherent universe, where nothing can be expected to lead from anything else.  Your objection is akin to, "... many here are looking at things in terms of what's logical!"

Well, yeah.  What's your sensible alternative?

heh.  Yes, that's a logical way to look at things.  I'm not saying this logic is wrong.  I use it all the time day to day.  I'm saying that it doesn't have to apply to every known concept, such as consciousness, imagination, self-awareness etc...

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12297
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #154 on: December 20, 2011, 12:55:25 PM »
heh.  Yes, that's a logical way to look at things.  I'm not saying this logic is wrong.  I use it all the time day to day.  I'm saying that it doesn't have to apply to every known concept, such as consciousness, imagination, self-awareness etc...

The content of your suggestion is that we should maybe stop applying reasoning to consciousness, imagination, self-awareness, etc.

If so, then you are also saying we shouldn't bother to debate such subjects.  If they are beyond the reach of reason, then they are off-topic to reasoned debate.  They are incoherent.

EDIT:  This is why I originally asked you, repeatedly, way back, whether you believed the universe to be "coherent".  If you'd acknowledge the answer to be "no" back then, then it would have saved everyone a lot of effort.  ;)
« Last Edit: December 20, 2011, 01:00:30 PM by Azdgari »
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #155 on: December 20, 2011, 12:56:04 PM »
Let me make sure I understand you here.  Are you saying that consciousness is something immaterial that affects the brain to (for example) make you get out of bed in the morning, shower, and go to work?

'Immaterial' in the sense that it is not matter, atoms, molecules, and quarks and so forth....

OK, then.  Can you explain how this immaterial whatever-it-is can cause the pertinent brain cells to fire?  Everywhere else in the universe, a change in the trajectory of any physical entity is an acceleration requiring the expenditure of energy, and the consciousness you describe, being immaterial, has no energy to give.

I don't know, it somehow channels through the brain.   What if it exists on a spectrum that is similar to the electromagnetic spectrum?  The brain, almost like a radio reciever, channels it through? 

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #156 on: December 20, 2011, 01:04:30 PM »
heh.  Yes, that's a logical way to look at things.  I'm not saying this logic is wrong.  I use it all the time day to day.  I'm saying that it doesn't have to apply to every known concept, such as consciousness, imagination, self-awareness etc...

The content of your suggestion is that we should maybe stop applying reasoning to consciousness, imagination, self-awareness, etc.

If so, then you are also saying we shouldn't bother to debate such subjects.  If they are beyond the reach of reason, then they are off-topic to reasoned debate.  They are incoherent.

Not stop applying reasoning, just suggesting different avenues of reasoning.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4366
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappĂ©
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #157 on: December 20, 2011, 01:06:42 PM »
Can you explain how this immaterial whatever-it-is can cause the pertinent brain cells to fire?  Everywhere else in the universe, a change in the trajectory of any physical entity is an acceleration requiring the expenditure of energy, and the consciousness you describe, being immaterial, has no energy to give.

I don't know, it somehow channels through the brain.   What if it exists on a spectrum that is similar to the electromagnetic spectrum?  The brain, almost like a radio reciever, channels it through?

You're not understanding the question.

If there's a book sitting on my desk, and I pick it up and move it to the bookshelf, energy has to be expended in order for me to accomplish that task.  It's the same for all matter in the universe.  But since your "immaterial consciousness" doesn't have any energy to give, how can it cause brain cells to fire?

Philosophers of mind have been talking about this problem for approximately four centuries and have never been able to solve it, which is why almost no one in the field accepts the notion that the mind is an immaterial thing separate from the body.  That's why I'm bringing it up with you.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12297
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #158 on: December 20, 2011, 01:17:36 PM »
Not stop applying reasoning, just suggesting different avenues of reasoning.

Ones that do not include such things as "logic" and "coherency".

Usually when something requires that we eschew logic and coherency in order to accept it, we recognize it as rubbish.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2011, 01:36:09 PM by Azdgari »
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Lurking

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • I'm way too old to be a student
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #159 on: December 20, 2011, 01:27:32 PM »
Not stop applying reasoning, just suggesting different avenues of reasoning.
Newspeak for magic. Nobody can ever apply our "avenues of reasoning" to magic. Therfore Thor or Jesus or Yahwe or the FSM or whatever. Apparantly that's a "different avenue of reasoning". Obviously somebody doesn't have the foggiest what the word "reasoning" means.

It's not even an "avenue of reasoning". It's just insane. 8)
« Last Edit: December 20, 2011, 01:31:39 PM by Lurking »

Offline Lurking

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • I'm way too old to be a student
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #160 on: December 20, 2011, 01:30:17 PM »
Double post. Sorry.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #161 on: December 20, 2011, 01:36:50 PM »
You're not understanding the question.

If there's a book sitting on my desk, and I pick it up and move it to the bookshelf, energy has to be expended in order for me to accomplish that task.  It's the same for all matter in the universe.  But since your "immaterial consciousness" doesn't have any energy to give, how can it cause brain cells to fire?

You're starting with the philosophy that the brain produces consciousness.   I'm not.  I'm saying, it is indefinite.  Therefore, consciousness is not producing energy.   The measurement of brain cells firing is measuring consciousness, in the terms of energy transmission through cells.   

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12297
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #162 on: December 20, 2011, 01:41:16 PM »
You're starting with the philosophy that the brain produces consciousness.   I'm not.  I'm saying, it is indefinite.  Therefore, consciousness is not producing energy.   The measurement of brain cells firing is measuring consciousness, in the terms of energy transmission through cells.

So consciousness has no impact on the brain at all, then.  This conflicts with your earlier claim about consciousness forcing neurons to fire (or not to fire).

Then again, maybe I'm just thinking of it too logically.  Maybe it can be both true, and not true, at the same time.  Hell, maybe you can be both wrong and right at the same time!  And consciousness is free, but also not free at all - at the same time!

Anything is possible once we dispense with logic, after all.  Except that it's not.  But then, that's not a true or false statement, either.  Go incoherency!
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Avatar Of Belial

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 499
  • Darwins +30/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm not an Evil person; I just act like one!
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #163 on: December 20, 2011, 01:41:43 PM »
If you were to ride a beam of light, as Einstein famously said, you would experience no passage of time.  Therefore, light itself is timeless.

So, if one considers things such as light (or electromagnetic waves to be technical),  you're considering something which in it's own nature is outside of this cause and effect chain.

If you look at consciousness as being similar to light, in the sense that it is infinite, and timeless, then there is a part of you which is not bound by any causal chain. 

Just because you do not experience time, does not mean it does not pass, nor are you (or light) exempt from cause and effect. Light is in no way infinite either.

Light is not timeless, not infinite, and not exempt from cause and effect. It has a cause (emission from a source, like a light bulb) can be affected (gravity and water can both alter its trajectory) and can affect other things (like the receptors in our eyes allowing us to perceive it). Why would consciousness be different?

Therefore, consciousness is not producing energy.   The measurement of brain cells firing is measuring consciousness, in the terms of energy transmission through cells.

How can a physical entity, like brain cells, be influenced by something that is both immaterial and lacking in energy?

ADDENDUM: What about the reverse? How can a physical entity, like brain cells, respond? Because our consciousness obviously recieves input from our physically-dependant senses of sight, smell, hearing, touch, and taste, and so the brain would need not only receptors, but transmitters as well.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2011, 01:46:16 PM by Avatar Of Belial »
"You play make-believe every day of your life, and yet you have no concept of 'imagination'."
I do not have "faith" in science. I have expectations of science. "Faith" in something is an unfounded assertion, whereas reasonable expectations require a precedent.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #164 on: December 20, 2011, 01:42:42 PM »
Not stop applying reasoning, just suggesting different avenues of reasoning.
Newspeak for magic. Nobody can ever apply our "avenues of reasoning" to magic. Therfore Thor or Jesus or Yahwe or the FSM or whatever. Apparantly that's a "different avenue of reasoning". Obviously somebody doesn't have the foggiest what the word "reasoning" means.

It's not even an "avenue of reasoning". It's just insane. 8)

It's just insane?  Is that your avenue of reasoning?

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #165 on: December 20, 2011, 01:45:17 PM »
You're starting with the philosophy that the brain produces consciousness.   I'm not.  I'm saying, it is indefinite.  Therefore, consciousness is not producing energy.   The measurement of brain cells firing is measuring consciousness, in the terms of energy transmission through cells.

So consciousness has no impact on the brain at all, then.  This conflicts with your earlier claim about consciousness forcing neurons to fire (or not to fire).

Then again, maybe I'm just thinking of it too logically.  Maybe it can be both true, and not true, at the same time.  Hell, maybe you can be both wrong and right at the same time!  And consciousness is free, but also not free at all - at the same time!

Anything is possible once we dispense with logic, after all.  Except that it's not.  But then, that's not a true or false statement, either.  Go incoherency!

Well I get what you're saying, but there's no logic that's applicable to all things.   I mean, going back to the idea of light, as I said, is timeless, since in relativity is constant, therefore, cause-effect logic doesn't apply to light itself.....one example...

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12297
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #166 on: December 20, 2011, 01:48:38 PM »
Light is not timeless, as in off-topic with regard to time.  A photon experiences zero flow of time from its reference frame.  Zero is a number, a useful number.  Saying that cause-and-effect have slowed to zero speed is not the same as saying that they no longer apply to one's reasoning.  Especially since the photon's reference frame is not the only reference frame available.

Again, you are lacking in self-awareness here (ironically).  You have directly argued that logic should not be applied to your idea.  How do you usually respond when people with ideas you disagree with, argue that you shouldn't treat them logically?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #167 on: December 20, 2011, 01:52:44 PM »
Just because you do not experience time, does not mean it does not pass, nor are you (or light) exempt from cause and effect. Light is in no way infinite either.

Light is not timeless, not infinite, and not exempt from cause and effect. It has a cause (emission from a source, like a light bulb) can be affected (gravity and water can both alter its trajectory) and can affect other things (like the receptors in our eyes allowing us to perceive it). Why would consciousness be different?

I'm talking in terms of special relativity.   Time in relativity is a function of velocity.  But light speed is a constant.  Therefore, if you could 'catch up' to light speed, there would be no time dimension.   In other words, light doesn't age.  Oh, and the sun give off light of course, converted to chemical energy buy photosynthesis, then used by people, so you can't argue that there's a part of you which is not timeless...

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #168 on: December 20, 2011, 01:53:37 PM »
Light is not timeless, as in off-topic with regard to time.  A photon experiences zero flow of time from its reference frame.  Zero is a number, a useful number.  Saying that cause-and-effect have slowed to zero speed is not the same as saying that they no longer apply to one's reasoning.  Especially since the photon's reference frame is not the only reference frame available.

Again, you are lacking in self-awareness here (ironically).  You have directly argued that logic should not be applied to your idea.  How do you usually respond when people with ideas you disagree with, argue that you shouldn't treat them logically?

Yeah, it is timeless. And it does apply, since I'm talking about timeless, indefinite things, consciousness.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #169 on: December 20, 2011, 02:02:47 PM »
How can a physical entity, like brain cells, be influenced by something that is both immaterial and lacking in energy?

ADDENDUM: What about the reverse? How can a physical entity, like brain cells, respond? Because our consciousness obviously recieves input from our physically-dependant senses of sight, smell, hearing, touch, and taste, and so the brain would need not only receptors, but transmitters as well.

I don't know.  How does gravity,  which is not matter, and has no energy, effect matter?  These things are apparently possible.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12297
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #170 on: December 20, 2011, 02:06:11 PM »
Again, you have had something explained to you, and have chosen not to understand the explanation.[1]  "Timeless" as in frozen due to speed, versus "timeless" as in time being an inapplicable concept, are different ideas.  You were treating them as one.  I explained how they are different ideas.  You ignored the explanation so that you can continue treating them as though they're the same thing.

What I've described is the difference between "zero" and "null".  You clearly don't get that concept.  Here it is in simple terms:  There is a woman holding an empty cup, standing next to a giraffe.

Q: "How much water does the woman have in her cup?"
A: "Zero litres."

Q: "How much water does the giraffe have in its cup?"
A: "Null."

The question does not apply to the giraffe, since the giraffe has no cup for the question to refer to.  Do you understand now?  Or will you, again, refuse to do so?
 1. I mean, if you actually understood and disagreed with it, then you'd say why - right?  And if you didn't understand, but wanted to, then you'd ask - right?
« Last Edit: December 20, 2011, 02:13:20 PM by Azdgari »
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #171 on: December 20, 2011, 02:15:19 PM »
The human mind is immaterial.  It communicates with the human brain thru the pineal body.  Despite any observations animals do not have minds.  They have reactions.

Rene Descartes said, I believe it and that settles it.


Just joking. 

But seriously, if the mind is immaterial and can wander elsewhere[1] how does it communicate with the brain?  Descartes decided that the pineal body (now known as the pineal gland and which regulates sleep) was so tiny that it was the antenna or modem for the brain to get messages from the soul.
 1. and haunt houses and such, I guess

Offline Avatar Of Belial

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 499
  • Darwins +30/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm not an Evil person; I just act like one!
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #172 on: December 20, 2011, 02:20:22 PM »
so you can't argue that there's a part of you which is not timeless...

Yes, yes I can, because no part of me has "caught up" with light. Nor has any part of you.

Where the hell did you think you were going with that nonsense?

I don't know.  How does gravity,  which is not matter, and has no energy, effect matter?  These things are apparently possible.

Except gravity is (essentially) an attribute of matter... so in the end it is still matter affecting matter.

-

Also, a pet peeve... To "effect matter", as in the verb "effect" means to "create matter" (something like that). The word you are looking for is "affect".
"You play make-believe every day of your life, and yet you have no concept of 'imagination'."
I do not have "faith" in science. I have expectations of science. "Faith" in something is an unfounded assertion, whereas reasonable expectations require a precedent.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #173 on: December 20, 2011, 02:32:23 PM »
so you can't argue that there's a part of you which is not timeless...

Yes, yes I can, because no part of me has "caught up" with light. Nor has any part of you.

Where the hell did you think you were going with that nonsense?

No matter has caught up.  But doesn't your body contain energy?  Which, in the form of electromagnetic waves, originally from the sun, is light.  Therefore your body contains a form of light, therefore timelessness.

I don't know.  How does gravity,  which is not matter, and has no energy, effect matter?  These things are apparently possible.
Quote

Except gravity is (essentially) an attribute of matter... so in the end it is still matter affecting matter.

-

Also, a pet peeve... To "effect matter", as in the verb "effect" means to "create matter" (something like that). The word you are looking for is "affect".

So then matter can affect* matter seemingly disconnected, such as the sun and earth?  Or do you think gravity is space-time warping, which is general relativity, and if that 's the case, I don't see how space-time itself is matter (yet could be said to be gravity, in that context)*.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2011, 02:44:28 PM by Gill »