Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?

[Alzael]

Well I've probably already stated all these ideas in more details and posts here before.  I'm not going to write out an entire new essay on every supporting point every time I re-state an idea.

No you haven't. Otherwise I would have read them and wouldn't have had to say that.

Note that if you had you could have simply pointed to them within the thread. Instead you chose to be lazy, and dismissive of the points that were raised against you. A very telling glimpse into your character.

Since you're not willing to take any time to make an adult argument, shall I take this as your admission then that you have no intention of any sort of legitimate discussion with anyone on this forum then?

Yeah, taken as a given, in other words, an assumption.

An assumption backed up by a great deal of evidence. Which you notably avoided to take into account. I wish I could be shocked and surprised.

It's not like I just make up all these ideas myself,  I've gotten many of them from reading and listening to people's philosophies.

Name one example of legitimate philosophy that you have ever read.

Actually, scratch that, can you even articulate what philosophy is?

20 quatloos says he botches it.

[jaimehlers]

There's plenty of cases I've read where people have been clinically brain dead, no measurable brain waves,  either during a special neurosurgery or on their deathbed; who then had been revived and later account for having conscious experiences during the time, and such experiences containing information of things happening around them, verifiabe by the doctors. I'm sure the argument may be that those people must not of been brain dead.  Well, they had no measurable brain waves, so then even if not 'brain dead' to your standards, consciousness would seem to not be totally dependant on brain waves being detected to exist.

Given that brain death, the irreversible cessation of brain activity, is the legal definition of death, calling someone "clinically brain dead" seems like a contradiction in terms.  Care to explain?

Also, you're forgetting that the brain is the whole package, not just the cerebral cortex.  The fact that an EEG is flat doesn't mean that the parts of the brain responsible for memory and the senses aren't working.  The senses still operate, the memory still records.  How do you know that a near-death experience doesn't in fact happen during the first few seconds in which conscious brain activity restarts?  After all, there's all of this sensory data recorded in the memory to account for, and it has a gap of time to account for.  Remember that the brain is still active during sleep, so the same exact process doesn't occur there, but the brain can still create incredibly vivid illusions that seem like reality to the person experiencing them.  There's no reason that the brain can't create a similar illusion to account for the blank spot in their consciousness.

Yes, you can define limits of consciousness.  But I'm talking about the conscousness itself, the substance, is not definite.  If it's definite, then you should be able to quantify it, well then how would you do so?  I don't see such a possible way myself.  For instance, I have X amount of consciousness?

Consciousness is a substance now?  You do realize that the primary definition of substance is physical matter, right?  The idea of "indefinite physical matter" is itself nonsensical.  Leaving that aside, physical matter can be observed, measured, and quantified.  Those might not be especially accurate, but they're all definite properties of physical matter, so to argue that consciousness is indefinite is a contradiction in terms.

----

Now, I have a very important question for you.  Have you considered that your conclusions about the mind and the consciousness might be wrong?  By that, I mean seriously examined them and the preconceptions that lead to them in order to catch any contradictions or problems that might be included in them.  If you haven't, then perhaps you should.  The worst thing that's likely to happen if you find that you are wrong is that you're embarrassed for a while.  And before you ask, yes, I do consider whether I might be wrong if people are telling me that I am.  It helps make me better at making arguments when I take steps to exclude mistakes that I myself make in them.

[Gill]

There's plenty of cases I've read where people have been clinically brain dead, no measurable brain waves,  either during a special neurosurgery or on their deathbed; who then had been revived and later account for having conscious experiences during the time, and such experiences containing information of things happening around them, verifiabe by the doctors. I'm sure the argument may be that those people must not of been brain dead.  Well, they had no measurable brain waves, so then even if not 'brain dead' to your standards, consciousness would seem to not be totally dependant on brain waves being detected to exist.

Given that brain death, the irreversible cessation of brain activity, is the legal definition of death, calling someone "clinically brain dead" seems like a contradiction in terms.  Care to explain?

Also, you're forgetting that the brain is the whole package, not just the cerebral cortex.  The fact that an EEG is flat doesn't mean that the parts of the brain responsible for memory and the senses aren't working.  The senses still operate, the memory still records.  How do you know that a near-death experience doesn't in fact happen during the first few seconds in which conscious brain activity restarts?  After all, there's all of this sensory data recorded in the memory to account for, and it has a gap of time to account for.  Remember that the brain is still active during sleep, so the same exact process doesn't occur there, but the brain can still create incredibly vivid illusions that seem like reality to the person experiencing them.  There's no reason that the brain can't create a similar illusion to account for the blank spot in their consciousness.

Considering the experiences to be illusions doesn't account for the verifiable observations of the surgical procedure by the technically unconscious patients.

Yes, you can define limits of consciousness.  But I'm talking about the conscousness itself, the substance, is not definite.  If it's definite, then you should be able to quantify it, well then how would you do so?  I don't see such a possible way myself.  For instance, I have X amount of consciousness?

Consciousness is a substance now?  You do realize that the primary definition of substance is physical matter, right?  The idea of "indefinite physical matter" is itself nonsensical.  Leaving that aside, physical matter can be observed, measured, and quantified.  Those might not be especially accurate, but they're all definite properties of physical matter, so to argue that consciousness is indefinite is a contradiction in terms.

----

Now, I have a very important question for you.  Have you considered that your conclusions about the mind and the consciousness might be wrong?  By that, I mean seriously examined them and the preconceptions that lead to them in order to catch any contradictions or problems that might be included in them.  If you haven't, then perhaps you should.  The worst thing that's likely to happen if you find that you are wrong is that you're embarrassed for a while.  And before you ask, yes, I do consider whether I might be wrong if people are telling me that I am.  It helps make me better at making arguments when I take steps to exclude mistakes that I myself make in them.

Yeah, I have considered it might be wrong.  I never used to believe there could be a spirit or mind distinct from the body, but after long consideration, have changed my opinion.

As far as being embarrassed because I find out I'm wrong,  that's not going to happen since the only absolute way to know for sure is to die and once that happens there won't be any embarrassment.

[Gill]

Well I've probably already stated all these ideas in more details and posts here before.  I'm not going to write out an entire new essay on every supporting point every time I re-state an idea.

No you haven't. Otherwise I would have read them and wouldn't have had to say that.

Note that if you had you could have simply pointed to them within the thread. Instead you chose to be lazy, and dismissive of the points that were raised against you. A very telling glimpse into your character.

Since you're not willing to take any time to make an adult argument, shall I take this as your admission then that you have no intention of any sort of legitimate discussion with anyone on this forum then?

I'm not going to go through 500+ posts I made to try to reference myself all the time.   Now,  if I was writing some formal paper, I probably would take the time to do all that, but that's not the nature of these discussions for me.

Yeah, taken as a given, in other words, an assumption.

An assumption backed up by a great deal of evidence. Which you notably avoided to take into account. I wish I could be shocked and surprised.

What evidence?  No one can know for sure what happens to their consciousness after they die, unless that person dies.  Unless you believe you can know what's happening to someone's consciousness from observing them on the outside?

It's not like I just make up all these ideas myself,  I've gotten many of them from reading and listening to people's philosophies.

Name one example of legitimate philosophy that you have ever read.

Actually, scratch that, can you even articulate what philosophy is?

20 quatloos says he botches it.

Philosophy is the examination of fundamental concepts like reality, being, human nature, ethics.   Doesn't meet your definition?  Or wikipedia's?  Who cares.  That's my definition.  And that's what philosophy is all about, examine one's beliefs, deciding if they are reasonable, so one can be autonomous and decide for themselves what beliefs they'll hold.

[Azdgari]

I'm not going to go through 500+ posts I made to try to reference myself all the time.   Now,  if I was writing some formal paper, I probably would take the time to do all that, but that's not the nature of these discussions for me.

There is a "search" function.  It can search for posts by specific users, too.  If you can't remember enough about a particular post to be able to search for it, then why should anyone take you seriously when you claim that it exists?

By the way:

You also couldn't talk meaningfully about the car engine itself, its basic substance, the thing about it that's not quantifiable.

This is the same thing, re: the mind.

[jaimehlers]

Considering the experiences to be illusions doesn't account for the verifiable observations of the surgical procedure by the technically unconscious patients.

Who said that the illusions didn't use the actual evidence of the senses?  What makes them illusions rather than reality is that they use that evidence in ways that are skewed or unreal.  For example, there's a simple experiment that uses goggles linked to a video camera; the video camera is pointed at the back of the person's head.  Then the experimenter takes a stick and prods the person's chest at the same time as they use another stick and prod at the empty space below the video camera.  This creates the illusive sense that the person's real self is separate from their body, and only requires the manipulation of a single sense, vision.  If something like that is possible, imagine how much weirder things might get when the brain is shutting down due to lack of oxygen, or starting back up.

Yeah, I have considered it might be wrong.  I never used to believe there could be a spirit or mind distinct from the body, but after long consideration, have changed my opinion.

As far as being embarrassed because I find out I'm wrong,  that's not going to happen since the only absolute way to know for sure is to die and once that happens there won't be any embarrassment.

Okay, so you've considered that you were wrong in the past.  How about now?  This isn't something you do once and then you're set; it's an ongoing process that you have to check regularly.

[Gill]

About how I cite this or that...

I don't even know what you're talking about???  Are my posts being graded somehow here?  If someone has a specific thing in my post they want me to address in more detail,  then name that specific thing, and I may be happy to do that.   But just making these general statements about how I seem to do this or that,  what am I supposed to do with that info?

[Azdgari]

You're surprised that you're being held to some sort of intellectual/behavioral standard?

Hmm.  That does explain a fair bit, come to think of it...

[Gill]

Considering the experiences to be illusions doesn't account for the verifiable observations of the surgical procedure by the technically unconscious patients.

Who said that the illusions didn't use the actual evidence of the senses?  What makes them illusions rather than reality is that they use that evidence in ways that are skewed or unreal.  For example, there's a simple experiment that uses goggles linked to a video camera; the video camera is pointed at the back of the person's head.  Then the experimenter takes a stick and prods the person's chest at the same time as they use another stick and prod at the empty space below the video camera.  This creates the illusive sense that the person's real self is separate from their body, and only requires the manipulation of a single sense, vision.  If something like that is possible, imagine how much weirder things might get when the brain is shutting down due to lack of oxygen, or starting back up.

Right,  but more specifically,  I don't consider those brain dead experiences illusions because of the verifiable evidence,  such as the people accounting for things that surgeons said during the procedure.

Yeah, I have considered it might be wrong.  I never used to believe there could be a spirit or mind distinct from the body, but after long consideration, have changed my opinion.

As far as being embarrassed because I find out I'm wrong,  that's not going to happen since the only absolute way to know for sure is to die and once that happens there won't be any embarrassment.

Okay, so you've considered that you were wrong in the past.  How about now?  This isn't something you do once and then you're set; it's an ongoing process that you have to check regularly.

I am open to considering new things.   If I was super-closed mined I probably wouldn't come here because I just wouldn't care to hear anyone else's opinions.   And,  since first visiting,  people have changed my mind or thinking on certain issues,  but there's other issues which I don't see myself reverting on at this point.

[Gill]

You're surprised that you're being held to some sort of intellectual/behavioral standard?

Hmm.  That does explain a fair bit, come to think of it...

The only standards I hold to myself here are trying to be decent to people, and being honest about what I think.  And, I have, whether or not you think that's so,  I know I have met these standards.

[Azdgari]

There is a lot more to honesty than refraining from telling direct lies.

[Alzael]

I'm not going to go through 500+ posts I made to try to reference myself all the time.   Now,  if I was writing some formal paper, I probably would take the time to do all that, but that's not the nature of these discussions for me.

As was pointed out. There's a search function. Stop making excuses for your own laziness and incompetence. If you can't form an intelligent argument and support yourself, don't engage in the discussion. Because that's what everyone cares about. In fact you agreed to do this when you signed up. It's part of the forum rules.

What evidence?  No one can know for sure what happens to their consciousness after they die, unless that person dies.  Unless you believe you can know what's happening to someone's consciousness from observing them on the outside?

No one can know for certain, not yet no. That does not mean that there is not evidence. You're however ignoring the point that was being made (not surprisingly) which is that you never once stopped to address the justification for his points that PianoDwarf laid out.

Philosophy is the examination of fundamental concepts like reality, being, human nature, ethics.   Doesn't meet your definition?  Or wikipedia's?  Who cares.  That's my definition.

Which does not actually matter. If you're using your own definitions then there is no common thread to use in a discussion. Words have specific meanings so that we can communicate effectively. Essentially what you're saying then is that you're going to just redefine words as you see fit. Rendering everything you have to completely meaningless.

I could argue any point I wanted to and prove it if I get to make my definitions up.

  And that's what philosophy is all about, examine one's beliefs, deciding if they are reasonable, so one can be autonomous and decide for themselves what beliefs they'll hold.

No, that could serve as a barely serviceable definition of logic, but it is not a good example of what philosophy is all about.

Now that we've cleard up that you know about as much about philosophy as I do about japanese baseball, name one actual philosophy you know and why you find it valid.

About how I cite this or that...

I don't even know what you're talking about???  Are my posts being graded somehow here?  If someone has a specific thing in my post they want me to address in more detail, then name that specific thing, and I may be happy to do that.    But just making these general statements about how I seem to do this or that,  what am I supposed to do with that info?

You're supposed to actually cite your arguments and back them up. Just like the rules of the forum say that you are supposed to. You are supposed to make actual arguments, not base assertions that rely on nothing more than what you want to be true. These are the same standards that are expected of anyone with any intellectual honesty in an adult discussion.Don't lie and try to pretend that this is new to you because I have mentioned it several times before, as I am doing again now.

As for the bold, that's a lie. People have noted specific things. So have I. You have failed to do this, which is why it is being brought up.

The only standards I hold to myself here are trying to be decent to people, and being honest about what I think.  And, I have, whether or not you think that's so,  I know I have met these standards.

Unfortunately the standards here are higher. This is a discussion forum, not a soapbox for you to just randomly say whatever idea appeals to you.

You have to be able to support yourself and make rational arguments. Which I have brought up repeatedly. In fact I offered you advice on how to improve and get taken seriously here in post #501 on the mass murder thread. You ignored it.

[Gill]

I'm not going to go through 500+ posts I made to try to reference myself all the time.   Now,  if I was writing some formal paper, I probably would take the time to do all that, but that's not the nature of these discussions for me.

As was pointed out. There's a search function. Stop making excuses for your own laziness and incompetence. If you can't form an intelligent argument and support yourself, don't engage in the discussion. Because that's what everyone cares about. In fact you agreed to do this when you signed up. It's part of the forum rules.

I'm sure part of the forum rules is also to not engage in personal attacks, which many people seem to do here.  How is that somehow okay? I'm not going to spend my time citing anything to anyone who engages in such attacks, instead of just presenting a counterargument.

Philosophy is the examination of fundamental concepts like reality, being, human nature, ethics.   Doesn't meet your definition?  Or wikipedia's?  Who cares.  That's my definition.

Which does not actually matter. If you're using your own definitions then there is no common thread to use in a discussion. Words have specific meanings so that we can communicate effectively. Essentially what you're saying then is that you're going to just redefine words as you see fit. Rendering everything you have to completely meaningless.

I could argue any point I wanted to and prove it if I get to make my definitions up.

I'm not redefining words.  But yes, I have the freedom make my own interpretation on broad topics like philosophy.  No one owns the authority on how to exactly define or interpret 'philosophy', unless you think some dictionary does?  That's why there are these discussions,  people have different interpretations of things.  If everyone just agreed to all the same definitions, I don't think there would be a board, now would there? If I don't meet your standard of definition?  That's fine, that's the whole point of philosophy, freely determining for yourself what beliefs you'll hold. 

[Azdgari]

I'm sure part of the forum rules is also to not engage in personal attacks, which many people seem to do here.  How is that somehow okay? I'm not going to spend my time citing anything to anyone who engages in such attacks, instead of just presenting a counterargument.

Much as I'm sure you'd like to be exempt from personal criticism under the rules, there is no such rule.  If the negative personal comment is designed to make someone angry, provoke hostility, etc., then it falls under "trolling".

Alzael is not trolling.

[Alzael]

I'm sure part of the forum rules is also to not engage in personal attacks, which many people seem to do here.

Actually, not really. Tensions sometimes rise so we usually ignore insults. Besides sometimes insults are well-deserved.

I'm not going to spend my time citing anything to anyone who engages in such attacks, instead of just presenting a counterargument.

Aside from being childish and immature on your part, you can choose to ignore certain members. However you are required to cite anything you say.

As for counterarguments. I provided a counterargument to every claim you made. IF you think I didn't feel free to point out otherwise.

I'm not redefining words. 

Yes you are. It's dishonest.

But yes, I have the freedom make my own interpretation on broad topics like philosophy.

As I said, words have meanings. We use them for communication.

  No one owns the authority on how to exactly define or interpret 'philosophy', unless you think some dictionary does?  That's why there are these discussions,  people have different interpretations of things.  If everyone just agreed to all the same definitions, I don't think there would be a board, now would there? If I don't meet your standard of definition?  That's fine, that's the whole point of philosophy, freely determining for yourself what beliefs you'll hold.

However this is not a discussion on whether philosophy should be redefined. If you don't use the word as it is then we have no frame of reference for the discussion. Hence why it is a dishonest tactic to use in a discussion. As I said, I can win any argument if I get to redefine my terms as I go.

[Gill]

I'm not going to spend my time citing anything to anyone who engages in such attacks, instead of just presenting a counterargument.

Aside from being childish and immature on your part, you can choose to ignore certain members. However you are required to cite anything you say.

Almost everything you've said towards me so far has been about me,  how I do this, how I interpret that.  You're just focusing on me personally.  Why?  Just name a specific topic you want to discuss.  Some specific point you disagree with,  but you don't,  just keep focusing on me,  so I'll have to assume you have no specific point of argument.   I never resort to these things here, never personal attacks, always debating the issues, so I'm not the problem at all... 

[Alzael]

Almost everything you've said towards me so far has been about me,  how I do this, how I interpret that.  You're just focusing on me personally.  Why?  Just name a specific topic you want to discuss.  Some specific point you disagree with,  but you don't,  just keep focusing on me,  so I'll have to assume you have no specific point of argument.   I never resort to these things here, never personal attacks, always debating the issues, so I'm not the problem at all...

Once again, you addressed not one single point I made. What else can I focus on? It is the one glaring problem throughout everything that you do. It also makes most of what you say uesless.

Also when I do try to discuss specific things you fail to respond. As can be noted in the mass murder thread. How many points (such as the tyranny of your proposed system) did you not respond to with any significant answer. Your lack  of ability to discuss is a major hurdle

[jaimehlers]

Right,  but more specifically,  I don't consider those brain dead experiences illusions because of the verifiable evidence,  such as the people accounting for things that surgeons said during the procedure.

Did you not pay attention to what I wrote?  I said that the brain takes into account sensory memories when it creates the illusion of near-death experiences.  So the fact that the patients were able to recount things doesn't really mean a whole lot.  Just because the cerebral cortex is turned off doesn't mean the ears stop working, or any other sense.

I am open to considering new things.   If I was super-closed mined I probably wouldn't come here because I just wouldn't care to hear anyone else's opinions.   And,  since first visiting,  people have changed my mind or thinking on certain issues,  but there's other issues which I don't see myself reverting on at this point.

This isn't so much about considering new things, as considering old conclusions that you've already made to make sure you didn't get it wrong somewhere.  I'm not suggesting that you have to change your mind, but you do have to pay attention to what people say well enough so that you properly understand it, and determine if what they say is more accurate than what you already believe.  Given that you apparently missed my statement about illusory experiences using evidence of the senses and went on to say that you didn't consider NDEs illusions because the patients were able to recount things said by surgeons, I'd say you need to pay a bit better attention to what other people are saying to you.

[Gill]

Almost everything you've said towards me so far has been about me,  how I do this, how I interpret that.  You're just focusing on me personally.  Why?  Just name a specific topic you want to discuss.  Some specific point you disagree with,  but you don't,  just keep focusing on me,  so I'll have to assume you have no specific point of argument.   I never resort to these things here, never personal attacks, always debating the issues, so I'm not the problem at all...

Once again, you addressed not one single point I made. What else can I focus on? It is the one glaring problem throughout everything that you do. It also makes most of what you say uesless.

Also when I do try to discuss specific things you fail to respond. As can be noted in the mass murder thread. How many points (such as the tyranny of your proposed system) did you not respond to with any significant answer. Your lack  of ability to discuss is a major hurdle

Well, I'll admit I'm kind of burnt out on that thread so haven't responded to a lot of people's comments.   But I may go back and continue that another time.

This thread on the other hand,  needs a new topic sentence by someone, or just new thread I think since it hasn't even been about evolution now for I think ten pages, hehe.

So things get all over the place with threads like this and so maybe a new topic will just help....

[rickymooston]

It's not an assumption.  There's this thing in physics called the Law of Conservation of Energy, and substance dualism violates that law. 

I'm lost. He mentioned consciousness after death. You are answering this here? You are arguing conservation of energy implies this?

As for materialism, its an axiom. Its a minimalist one of course. Everything we observe is by definition
materialist.

[Anfauglir]

But here's the rub: since those random interventions are by nature random, they are clearly not a deliberate decision - not part of any "free will" process that involves considered and deliberate choice.  So we can, effectively, exclude them.

No, you can't.  It would be like saying that you can effectively exclude a random number generation function that's extensively used in the background of a computer program.  Yes, you can exclude it (comment it out, or whatever), but the resulting computer program would not bear much resemblance to the one that incorporates the random number generator.  You can't ignore the effects of something just because it doesn't seem like it's a particularly large part of that something.

You missed the bit I bolded.  I said "effectively".  Since your argument is that there is a deliberate free will, whether there is random interaction is presumably irrelevant.  Or is your point that random fluctuations are the things that cause free will - making that free will the result of a random process - and thus no better than random itself?

I see a lot of "it can happen", but very little why or how it can happen.

I'm basing it at least in part off of chaos theory.  I think each part of the psyche is an example of a chaotic (what I was calling complicated) system in its own right, and if so they could combine in an unpredictable way, with no guarantee that they'll always combine in the same way even without random chance involved.  I could be wrong here, I'll admit.  But I think it's at least reasonable.
[/quote]

...it seems you do.  The "different possibilities" you are arguing are the result of randomness?

"combine in an unpredictable way, with no guarantee that they'll always combine in the same way even without random chance involved"

Let's clarify:
1) "Unpredictable" again....if something is ultimately unpredictable (not simply because we aren't advanced enough to measure the variables), in what was is that not random?  If - despite being able to measure everything and knowing all the rules....it can still be something or something else?
2) What you seem to be saying here is that WITHOUT any random factors, the exact same events following the exact same rules in the exact same circumstances, can end up being this, or that.  Again, HOW?

[rickymooston]

You dont have to look at amnesia patents. Brain damage or a traumatic even causes them to lose their consciousness, for a time. So again how can it be separate.

nice point too but what do we mean by consciousness

how much of it can we measure?

I agree that evidence exists linking it to brain. We have EEGs ...

[pianodwarf]

It's not an assumption.  There's this thing in physics called the Law of Conservation of Energy, and substance dualism violates that law. 

I'm lost. He mentioned consciousness after death. You are answering this here? You are arguing conservation of energy implies this?

Not specifically, no, but Gill has been openly espousing substance dualism, and that's what I'm addressing here: substance dualism violates the laws of physics.

As for materialism, its an axiom.

Perhaps in contemporary philosophy, but in the modern period, it certainly wasn't.  (And most religious people would reject it as an axiom as well.)

Everything we observe is by definition materialist.

Those who reject materialism would probably also reject your definition.

[jaimehlers]

You missed the bit I bolded.  I said "effectively".  Since your argument is that there is a deliberate free will, whether there is random interaction is presumably irrelevant.  Or is your point that random fluctuations are the things that cause free will - making that free will the result of a random process - and thus no better than random itself?

I didn't miss the part you bolded.  "Effectively" or entirely, you can't exclude the uncertainty of electron movement.  Unless you want to argue that the brain would operate the same way if it didn't use electrons?  If you're going to make a computer simulation that effectively excludes changed caused by electron uncertainty, you have to show how it would work and that that it would be an accurate model for reality.  Otherwise, why should anyone accept your thought idea as being a valid representation of reality?  You've at least explained the first, but you haven't touched on the second as far as I know - if you have, then I've missed it.

Furthermore, I think your description of "free will" that's built on the uncertainty of electron movement as being no better than random is simply wrong.  The fact that you can't predict something in advance, and can't guarantee that you'll always get the same result, doesn't mean that it's therefore random.  It does mean that it's uncertain and therefore unpredictable, but that is not the same as being random.

...it seems you do.  The "different possibilities" you are arguing are the result of randomness?

"combine in an unpredictable way, with no guarantee that they'll always combine in the same way even without random chance involved"

Yes, "even without random chance involved".  How does that indicate that I'm arguing for different possibilities as a result of random chance?

Let's clarify:
1) "Unpredictable" again....if something is ultimately unpredictable (not simply because we aren't advanced enough to measure the variables), in what was is that not random?  If - despite being able to measure everything and knowing all the rules....it can still be something or something else?
2) What you seem to be saying here is that WITHOUT any random factors, the exact same events following the exact same rules in the exact same circumstances, can end up being this, or that.  Again, HOW?

Why do you think that something that is inherently unpredictable has to be random?  For example, let's take a random person named Joe, and make a copy of his brain, then put the copy in identical instances of computer simulations.  Joe likes pizza and hamburgers equally, and his refrigerator has both, in equal numbers.  Let's take as a given that all random influences have been excluded from the simulation, so Joe will either have a slice of pizza or a hamburger, and the choice will not be random.  You are essentially saying that he will only pick one option - say, pizza - in every single instance of the simulation, whereas I am saying that he may pick either option.  Your argument is that because there are no random influences, the choice will be deterministic, thus you can predict with certainty the result of every single simulation.  Mine is that you can predict that Joe will pick one of the two options given the way the situation is set up, but that you cannot predict exactly which one even when the initial conditions are identical.  I see both as being possible, but without actually being able to test it, it doesn't matter which happens to be more plausible.

Why do you keep asking me to explain how this would work?  Since I am not a biologist, let alone a specialist in neurology, any possible explanation I could give would be speculation at best.  So I can't explain how in a way that would be satisfactory to me, let alone anyone else, because of the fact that it would be speculative.  But to be honest, the whole thought experiment is speculative, since it can't be tested and may well not be testable.  So, what is the point of having asked me to explain the process?

[Graybeard]

This thread on the other hand,  needs a new topic sentence by someone, or just new thread I think since it hasn't even been about evolution now for I think ten pages, hehe.

OK, here's a simplified explanation of Evolution:

Creationist: Design requires a designer – it couldn’t arise by random chance!
Reasonable Person: Would you say that order requires an orderer?
Creationist: Yes.
Reasonable Person: So why is it that all the small cornflakes send to settle at the base of the box?  Do you think it’s because God put them there?
Creationist: No – it must be, well, gravity pulling the small flakes down.
Reasonable Person: Wouldn’t gravity have pulled the large flakes down as well?  Why do the small flakes fall further?
Creationist: I don’t know.
Reasonable Person: It’s because small flakes fall through large gaps, but large flakes can’t fall through small gaps.  The flakes sieve themselves.  Random shaking of the box coupled with a non-random filtering law (which we might call “the furthest-falling of the smallest” or “the persistence of the largest”) leads to an ordering of flakes over time, with no intelligent input required.  Random shaking is analogous to random mutation, and “the survival of the fittest” (Natural Selection) is analogous to “the persistence of the largest”.  Cornflakes and living things are both self-ordering systems, filtering out smaller flakes and deleterious mutations respectively.  Cornflakes become more organised over time, and organisms become better-adapted.
Creationist: There must be more to it than that?  There must be!  There has to be!
http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/11/30/on-the-origin-of-specious-arguments/

[screwtape]

It's not an assumption.  There's this thing in physics called the Law of Conservation of Energy, and substance dualism violates that law. 

I'm lost. He mentioned consciousness after death. You are answering this here? You are arguing conservation of energy implies this?

I think the reference is, in a dualistic approach for something nonmaterial (a disembodied mind or soul) to affect something material (a brain or a body) - whether that is to push an atom from one position to another or generate an electrical current - it would necessarily have to spend energy to do that.  Because the energy would be coming from an "immaterial" source, it would appear to come from nowhere.  Energy would appear to have been created. This is not observed reality.

parallel analogy:  radio waves are electromagnetic phenomenon and to some, not material.  They affect material things - the speakers attached to your stereo.  But the radio waves necessarily exhert energy on your antenna.  It is a very small amount of energy and the signal must be amplified, but it is energy nevertheless.  In the early days of radio they would often advertise their broadcast strength in terms of watts, or power.  Power is the rate at which energy is delivered.  The power rating would indicate the signal strength - how well you would receive the broadcast and how far away you might be able to pick it up.  So the station would put energy into their transmitter in order to affect your receiver.  It is identical to the idea that a mind would have to spend energy to affect your brain. 

[pianodwarf]

It's not an assumption.  There's this thing in physics called the Law of Conservation of Energy, and substance dualism violates that law. 

I'm lost. He mentioned consciousness after death. You are answering this here? You are arguing conservation of energy implies this?

I think the reference is, in a dualistic approach for something nonmaterial (a disembodied mind or soul) to affect something material (a brain or a body) - whether that is to push an atom from one position to another or generate an electrical current - it would necessarily have to spend energy to do that.  Because the energy would be coming from an "immaterial" source, it would appear to come from nowhere.  Energy would appear to have been created. This is not observed reality.

[Gill]

It's not an assumption.  There's this thing in physics called the Law of Conservation of Energy, and substance dualism violates that law. 

I'm lost. He mentioned consciousness after death. You are answering this here? You are arguing conservation of energy implies this?

Not specifically, no, but Gill has been openly espousing substance dualism, and that's what I'm addressing here: substance dualism violates the laws of physics.

Disagree.    Substance dualism doesn't claim the mind is the creator of energy.   But that the mind is a distinct substance from any measurable substance in the brain; energy, chemicals, etc.   How can an immaterial substance effect a material substance?

Consider,   

The material premise is that all things are energy and matter.  So then that premise itself is a product of energy and matter.  But how do we know that energy and matter produced a true premise here?

It's an assumption.  Therefore, what is the thing which is doing the assuming?  Matter and/or energy?  But then why would  matter/energy assume anything if matter/energy always follow laws which are true?

There's clearly something which is not matter/energy which can do the assuming, and that is the mind.

[pianodwarf]

Substance dualism doesn't claim the mind is the creator of energy.   But that the mind is a distinct substance from any measurable substance in the brain; energy, chemicals, etc.   How can an immaterial substance effect a material substance?

Right, that's exactly the point: it can't.  Substance dualism says that an immaterial substance (whatever the heck that is) can cause brain cells to fire, and that's a violation of the conservation laws.

   [W]hen we assume that there are nonphysical things we have to make some very implausible assumptions and give up some of our most cherished scientific principles, for example the principle, which Descartes espoused, that ex nihilo nihil fit, that something cannot come from nothing.  Just such a principle holds a central place among modern scientific principles under the guise of the principle of conservation of energy.
   Now, the principle of conservation of energy requires that the total amount of energy in the universe remain constant, even as it is continually transferred and transformed in and among the myriad systems of causal relations.  If Descartes is right that a nonphysical mind can cause the body to move, for example, then physical energy must increase in and around our body, since we get up and go to the concert.  In order, however, for physical energy to increase in any system, it has to have been transferred from some other physical system.  But the mind, according to Descartes, is not a physical system and therefore it does not have any energy to transfer.  The mind cannot account for the fact that our body ends up at the concert.

  {Boldface mine, italics in the original; from Owen Flanagan's "The Science of the Mind"}

In light of this, nothing else you've said matters -- it's all just word games.