"Where's the evidence?" Ask and ye shall receive!

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No, you can't think things into being real or unreal, no matter how hard you think.

See, now you are attacking straw man and it is quite sad. No one is saying you can "think things into being real or unreal". I am saying that a scientist CANNOT go in a lab, shape and mold a human brain, and then proceed to plug in thoughts into the brain, because in order to do this, the thoughts would have to be material, which they aren't, because if they were, then you COULD be able to do this.

We've discussed this before, at great length, and I have no interest in repeating the exercise.

Oh, you don't have to, since that isn't what I said or implied.

If you have no comment on the evidence I provided to answer your first question (which was about the material nature of consciousness, not the origin of consciousness) please be kind and don't derail the thread.

Well, as I demonstrated in a prior post, my question was in fact about the origin of consciousness..so please be kind and give me a direct response to what I asked. And posting links doesn't really mean anything...because I can post countless links that support my position of mind/body dualism..so at the end of the day, which one prevails? The one with the most words?

 

[allright]

God knows I don't want to annoy Alceste by slobbering on her new chew toys. But my nephew does nanotechnology at Purdue University.

We could already insert the equivalent of an encyclopedia set into a cell. And nanotechnology is in its infancy. Frankly, what he talks about doing, or at least working on, terrifies me.

Tom
ETA ~ that's just what he talks about. He is very discrete. What he won't talk about scares me even more. ~

Yes and it took intelligence and equipment built by extremely intelligent people to accomplish it

 

[allright]

If it's a scientific fact, care to show your methodology so we can review it? After all, peer-review an essential part of the scientific method.

What are you talking about. This is common knowledge in science. Really take some biology courses on the cell DNA and genetics

 

[Alceste]

Actually, I did. My exact words were..

"What is the evidence for mind/body naturalism? The view that consciousness is the product of natural phenomena."

Do you see that? I said "The view that CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE PRODUCT OF NATURAL PHENOMENA."

Product of natural phenomena = origins from natural phenomena.



Oh I remember the rule, but as I've just demonstrated, the rule wasn't violated.

And I wouldn't dare violate it either, because I want to play YOUR game to make MY point.



Yeah, my criticism is that it didn't answer my question. Showing that two things correlate does not imply that these two things are identical. So my question remains unanswered.

Yes, the evidence I gave you that perceptual experience is a product of observable brain function answered your question.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

And how do you do that?

Easy. The law of identity states that if A and B are identical, then what is true of A is also true of B, and if there is even one difference between A and B, then A and B are not identical.

So when I am sad, is my brain also sad? My brain can be weighed and measured, but can my mind be weighed and measured? The answer to both questions are....no.

So since there are differences between A (the brain) and B (the mind), then A and B are not identical. So since they are not identical, the brain cannot be used to explain the origins of the mind/consciousness. You need something more..something external..something supernatural.

Also, back to the scientist analogy, the scientist takes a chunk of matter, goes into the lab, and shapes and molds the matter into a brain...he will have a brain, but he won't have a mind.

So for example, right now, I am thinking of a black cat. The mere thought itself, how can the scientists take that thought, and plug it into the brain, so that the brain is now thinking of the black cat? Can't happen.

Not only that, but thoughts are personal, of course. I have personal experiences that only apply to me...so I am thinking about when I was young, and I used to play video games..so I am thinking about one time, playing a video game, by myself. That is my personal experience...yet, it is a thought.

So how can I plug that thought into this newly shaped/molded brain? But this would seem impossible, since it only applies to me, so how could this brain possibly have this thought when it only applies to me??? It is my experience!!

See how that works? And to be honest with you...this is a BIG problem for the naturalist. A big problem. The argument itself is not used in the mainstream as much as the more common arguments that apologists use, but I think it should be. It is powerful.

 

[Alceste]

That is not really much related to Biological Evolution, if at all. But if you and Alceste will both allow me, I recommend this article:

A Ghost in the Machine

That is an awesome article, Luis, thanks.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yes, the evidence I gave you that perceptual experience is a product of observable brain function answered your question.

But what I want to know is the origin of consciouss..there had to be the VERY FIRST THOUGHT THAT WAS EVER THOUGHT..so what is the origin of this?

If you have the thought before the brain, then the thought is independent of the brain. If you have the brain before the thought, then you will run into the same problem that you have with the scientist analogy, where would the thought come from?

So what you have is a chicken/egg problem.

There is a certain "aboutness" regarding every thought that we think. Every thought is "about" something...so if you were to create a brain from scratch, how would you get that brain to think "about" other things. You can't carry the thought of a "car" in your hands, and set it on top of the brain, and suddenly the brain is thinking about the car.

See how that works? This is what you call "dropping knowledge" :yes: But all praise and glory goes to God!!!

 

[Alceste]

But what I want to know is the origin of consciouss..there had to be the VERY FIRST THOUGHT THAT WAS EVER THOUGHT..so what is the origin of this?

If you have the thought before the brain, then the thought is independent of the brain. If you have the brain before the thought, then you will run into the same problem that you have with the scientist analogy, where would the thought come from?

So what you have is a chicken/egg problem.

There is a certain "aboutness" regarding every thought that we think. Every thought is "about" something...so if you were to create a brain from scratch, how would you get that brain to think "about" other things. You can't carry the thought of a "car" in your hands, and set it on top of the brain, and suddenly the brain is thinking about the car.

See how that works? This is what you call "dropping knowledge" :yes: But all praise and glory goes to God!!!

To recap:

There has never been any evidence of the existence of any form of thought or perception that is not the product of observable changes in brain chemistry. There is a mountain of evidence that all forms of thought and perception ARE the product of observable brain activity. For that I gave you three pieces of evidence.

Therefore, there is no evidence-based reason to believe in a "first thought" that was not the product of observable changes in brain chemistry, and strong evidence-based reasons to reject that proposition.

Have you read the article Luis linked to? It answers your question much more thoroughly if you are still not satisfied.

I'm not interested in arguing with you. If you have no comments relevant to the evidence I provided, I'm gonna have to put you on ignore. I don't want to participate in the derailment of my own thread, and we've spent too many posts on this already. If you want to debate about the plausibility of mind/body dualism, please start a new thread.

 

[Alceste]

Easy. The law of identity states that if A and B are identical, then what is true of A is also true of B, and if there is even one difference between A and B, then A and B are not identical.

So when I am sad, is my brain also sad? My brain can be weighed and measured, but can my mind be weighed and measured? The answer to both questions are....no.

So since there are differences between A (the brain) and B (the mind), then A and B are not identical. So since they are not identical, the brain cannot be used to explain the origins of the mind/consciousness. You need something more..something external..something supernatural.

Also, back to the scientist analogy, the scientist takes a chunk of matter, goes into the lab, and shapes and molds the matter into a brain...he will have a brain, but he won't have a mind.

So for example, right now, I am thinking of a black cat. The mere thought itself, how can the scientists take that thought, and plug it into the brain, so that the brain is now thinking of the black cat? Can't happen.

Not only that, but thoughts are personal, of course. I have personal experiences that only apply to me...so I am thinking about when I was young, and I used to play video games..so I am thinking about one time, playing a video game, by myself. That is my personal experience...yet, it is a thought.

So how can I plug that thought into this newly shaped/molded brain? But this would seem impossible, since it only applies to me, so how could this brain possibly have this thought when it only applies to me??? It is my experience!!

See how that works? And to be honest with you...this is a BIG problem for the naturalist. A big problem. The argument itself is not used in the mainstream as much as the more common arguments that apologists use, but I think it should be. It is powerful.

If you injure or extract the part of your brain that stores your memories, you can forget playing video games as a kid. This has been observed extensively. Therefore, the only rational conclusion we can make is that your childhood memories are the product of the part of your brain that stores such information.

Here are three pieces of evidence demonstrating how easy it is to plant false memories:

Planting False Childhood Memories in Children: The Role of Event Plausibility - Pezdek - 2003 - Child Development - Wiley Online Library
Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2004-10969-007

And three pieces of evidence demonstrating that trauma to the physical brain compromises a subject's memory.

Prolonged memory impairment in the absence of hippocampal cell death following traumatic brain injury in the rat
http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/113/6/1695.short
Differential Effects of Early Hippocampal Pathology on Episodic and Semantic Memory

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It'd be interesting to see a similar thread done by creationists

 

[Alceste]

It'd be interesting to see a similar thread done by creationists

Many times we've asked for their supporting empirical evidence. As far as we have seen, they either have none or have a completely different idea of what constitutes evidence.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Many times we've asked for their supporting empirical evidence. As far as we have seen, they either have none or have a completely different idea of what constitutes evidence.

So "dogs make dogs" isn't considered empirical evidence against evolution?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Many times we've asked for their supporting empirical evidence. As far as we have seen, they either have none or have a completely different idea of what constitutes evidence.

Yes. But you have to consider that creationists feel the same way. I like your thread idea, it seems like a very reliable way to get the point across, a simplified way to debate.

Perhaps if they were to make a debate in the same way, we'd at least see their reasoning.

I've been in many debates; I've even used mathematical two-column proof, but 99% of the time debates end but nothing is concluded. It's still a mystery to me why that is, because when both parties are reasonable any debate should end in a conclusion. My best guess is because debates slowly shift away from topic: Debate X, and explain why X with Y, but then you might have to explain Y and still no agreement there either, etc.

With this, it'd be hard for that to happen. At the end, it's unlikely that anyone will be convinced, but with your format I'm assuming that one party would at least question a few of their beliefs, or at least understand the other person's reasoning to some extent.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

To recap:

There has never been any evidence of the existence of any form of thought or perception that is not the product of observable changes in brain chemistry.

I've already given reasons why there is reason to think that mind/body dualism is true. I would like direct refutations to what I said, please.

There is a mountain of evidence that all forms of thought and perception ARE the product of observable brain activity. For that I gave you three pieces of evidence.

There is a mountain of evidence for correlation between the two, which no one can deny. But I am talking about the absolute origin of consciousness, which is an etirely different question..and one that you are avoiding.

Therefore, there is no evidence-based reason to believe in a "first thought" that was not the product of observable changes in brain chemistry, and strong evidence-based reasons to reject that proposition.

Then my question remains, what came first? The thought which occupies the brain, or the brain which the thought resides? Chicken and egg problem.

Have you read the article Luis linked to?

No.

I'm not interested in arguing with you.

Arguing? This is hardly an argument, this is just a matter of you being incapable of offering refutation to my posts.

If you have no comments relevant to the evidence I provided, I'm gonna have to put you on ignore.

Yes, put me on ignore, because that will only tell me that the argument of mind/body dualism is powerful, and you are unable to offer refutation to the argument..so either way, this is me :beach:

I don't want to participate in the derailment of my own thread, and we've spent too many posts on this already. If you want to debate about the plausibility of mind/body dualism, please start a new thread.

What I "wanted" was a direct refutation to what I said. I didn't get what I wanted, so therefore there is nothing left to discuss with you anyway. Moving on to greener pastures.

 

[Riverwolf]

Thanks for the links but that doesn't answer my question on the origin of consciousness. The mind is not material, and this can be demonstrated...so to use a material substance to explain the origins of an immaterial substance is irrational.

Numbers aren't material, either, but they find their source in material substance.

I don't pay any mind to "peer-reviewed" stuff...because after all, who are the "peers"?

Anyone. You can be a peer-reviewer if you wanted.

What are you talking about. This is common knowledge in science. Really take some biology courses on the cell DNA and genetics

I have neither the time nor the money to take any college courses right now.

Surely if you have the information and understand it, you can give it to me in your own words, anyway.

Besides, it's common knowledge that she doesn't know what she's talking about?

 

[Riverwolf]

If you injure or extract the part of your brain that stores your memories, you can forget playing video games as a kid. This has been observed extensively. Therefore, the only rational conclusion we can make is that your childhood memories are the product of the part of your brain that stores such information.

Here are three pieces of evidence demonstrating how easy it is to plant false memories:

Planting False Childhood Memories in Children: The Role of Event Plausibility - Pezdek - 2003 - Child Development - Wiley Online Library
Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2004-10969-007

And three pieces of evidence demonstrating that trauma to the physical brain compromises a subject's memory.

Prolonged memory impairment in the absence of hippocampal cell death following traumatic brain injury in the rat
THE ROLE OF DIENCEPHALIC PATHOLOGY IN HUMAN MEMORY DISORDER
Differential Effects of Early Hippocampal Pathology on Episodic and Semantic Memory

I actually used to plant partial "false memories" in my brain when I was a child. Not deliberately, and nothing dramatic.

One example that I remember well is the opening to Animaniacs: there's a moment where the Warners simultaneously stick their heads out from the side of the screen at the end of the line "...and now you know the plot!" In the real one, it just cuts to the next segment, but for whatever reason, over the course of a few months (a long time for a 7-year-old), I imagined an alternative to that moment where just before cutting to the next moment, a net swooped from off-screen to catch them, much to their dismay. This was apparently so powerful an imagining of mine, that when I started watching the series again a few years ago, I actually found myself expecting that alternative, and felt strange when it didn't happen. I knew that's not how it goes, but something in my subconscious had been convinced that my alternative was the real one.

Not a complete "false memory", but it could have easily become one.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Numbers aren't material, either, but they find their source in material substance.

Um, huh?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

See, now you are attacking straw man and it is quite sad. No one is saying you can "think things into being real or unreal".

If I can't imagine it, then it probably can't happen...

That's more or less the same as saying that you can imagine things into being real. You're essentially saying that if you, personally, cannot imagine something then that lends credibility to the notion of it being untrue - which is completely, logically absurd.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That's more or less the same as saying that you can imagine things into being real.
You're essentially saying that if you, personally, cannot imagine something then that lends credibility to the notion of it being untrue - which is completely, logically absurd.

You guys are attacking everything but the meat and potatos of what my argument is. I gave a plain and simple argument based on analogy, and you nor anyone else have yet to respond directly to the analogy...especially since you were the one that asked me how am I am to demonstrate my argument, and then I proceeded to tell you how, and instead of responding to that, you make the above post??

The argument must be very very strong.

Second, I am not saying "If I can imagine it, it is real". In this particular case, I am saying THERE IS NO POSSIBLE world at which a scientist can naturally create consicousness. Now, you can respond to this by attempting to demonstrate HOW a scientist can naturally create consciousness, but I don't think you can, which is why I have this ducking and dodging crap going on here.

 

[Riverwolf]

Um, huh?

If the mind is "immaterial", that means it's an abstract concept that has no physical manifestation outside mental abstract conceptualization, just as numbers are.

The concept of "immaterial substance" is an oxymoron. If something is substantial (i.e., has substance) that means it's, by nature, material.