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

[dust1n]

You claim it is hard to take seriously, yet you didn't answer my question. You didn't even touch on the origin consciousness..I would expect someone to say "it's really hard to take this seriously" after they've answered the unserious question.

Actually, my response was deleted. So don't worry about it. Enjoy yourself.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Mind if I ask you a question?

What is it about consciousness, specifically, that makes it so special that it cannot potentially arise out of natural, physical, chemical processes?

You mentioned "natural"..."physical"..and "chemical" processes, right? Now..think of a black cat. How can a natural, physical, and chemical process form the THOUGHT of specifically of a black cat?

That is what is so special, natural/physical/chemical processes are not "about" anything else. Thoughts ARE about other things. So again, if you were to create a brain from pre-existing material, you won't be able to get the brain to think "about" other things.

The "aboutness" that are attached to every thought is indepedent of the brain...so the brain cannot be the originator of the thoughts.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You mentioned "natural"..."physical"..and "chemical" processes, right? Now..think of a black cat. How can a natural, physical, and chemical process form the THOUGHT of specifically of a black cat?

How can it not? Be it immaterial or otherwise, a thought can still be the result of natural, chemical processes. What is it about thoughts which contradicts their relation to physical laws?

That is what is so special, natural/physical/chemical processes are not "about" anything else. Thoughts ARE about other things. So again, if you were to create a brain from pre-existing material, you won't be able to get the brain to think "about" other things.

The "aboutness" that are attached to every thought is indepedent of the brain...so the brain cannot be the originator of the thoughts.

All you've really done is restate your position. You have yet to demonstrate how and why thoughts cannot be the result of natural processes. No thoughts exist that are "independent of the brain".

 

[idav]

You mentioned "natural"..."physical"..and "chemical" processes, right? Now..think of a black cat. How can a natural, physical, and chemical process form the THOUGHT of specifically of a black cat?

If a material black cat didn't exist to begin with there would be no non-material version to exist.

I would ask Alceste "how do we figure immaterial comes from natural processes" but I consider it asked and answered.

 

[Alceste]

Just another friendly reminder to everyone with a conscience, can we please not encourage the trolling in this particular thread? Another thread has been created for a debate about the origin of consciousness. This thread is not about that.

 

[Riverwolf]

You mentioned "natural"..."physical"..and "chemical" processes, right? Now..think of a black cat. How can a natural, physical, and chemical process form the THOUGHT of specifically of a black cat?

That is what is so special, natural/physical/chemical processes are not "about" anything else. Thoughts ARE about other things. So again, if you were to create a brain from pre-existing material, you won't be able to get the brain to think "about" other things.

The "aboutness" that are attached to every thought is indepedent of the brain...so the brain cannot be the originator of the thoughts.

Please, go here to continue this subject:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...onism/164433-evolution-mind-body-dualism.html

You'll find my response there.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

How can it not? Be it immaterial or otherwise, a thought can still be the result of natural, chemical processes. What is it about thoughts which contradicts their relation to physical laws?


All you've really done is restate your position. You have yet to demonstrate how and why thoughts cannot be the result of natural processes. No thoughts exist that are "independent of the brain".

Actually, I did. I thought I made myself clear as to why in various posts in this very thread.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If a material black cat didn't exist to begin with there would be no non-material version to exist.

I would ask Alceste "how do we figure immaterial comes from natural processes" but I consider it asked and answered.

I don't.

 

[idav]

I don't.

Of course not.:areyoucra

 

[Riverwolf]

I don't.

Your question:

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

The answer:

For you, there are neurological studies on the way that show every type of thought and perception we know of correlates with a measurable, observable change in brain chemistry. The type of thought sensation produces fairly consistent observable changes in the brain in every test subject. The logical conclusion is that thoughts, feelings, perceptions and the presence of a brain are utterly interdependent. Particularly given the absence of evidence to the contrary.

The evidence itself(which you've chosen to ignore):

OK, so you already have the logic that leads to a naturalistic conclusion, here are your three pieces of empirical evidence that the premises upon which I based the above post are true.

First, everybody here should listen to this totally awesome BBC lecture series on neurology. BBC - Radio 4 - Reith Lectures 2003 - The Emerging Mind

Seriously, it's awesome. It's referenced here to illustrate that whatever it is your "consciousness" is experiencing, from art appreciation to the sensation of a phantom limb, the experience has an observable relationship with brain activity.

Here is a study that artificially and predictably produced "OBE" experiences by electrically stimulating a certain area of the brain: Neuropsychology: Stimulating illusory own-body perceptions : Abstract : Nature

Here is an Oxford study that correlates particular observable, consistent changes in brain activity with the re-establishment of conscious awareness after sleep: The process of awakening: a PET study of regional brain activity patterns mediating the re

Thus, you asked for the evidence, and the scientifically accepted evidence was provided; hence, your question was answered.

Your problems with the evidence are not relevant to this thread, and there is a new one where we can discuss this topic in more detail.

 

[Alceste]

Anyways, my question is about the Big Bang theory, explain it.

Btw, I don't believe in the Big Bang theory.

Another great question! I'll have to do some research and get back to you. Physics is not my strong suit, but I look forward to learning more.

OK, sorry for the delay. I got a new phone and can't be bothered to learn how to use it for foruming, plus I am working 60 hour weeks again away from a PC. But I did look it up way back when, and here's what I found.

The "big bang" is kind of a misnomer. It implies an explosion, when we are actually talking about a very rapid expansion. Starting from a state where all the mass and energy in the universe were packed together into an infinitely dense blob, the "big bang" refers to everything that happened that we are able to predict, calculate and measure with the laws of physics we are currently aware of. IOW, the big bang theory says nothing about "before" the big bang, or what caused there to be an infinitely hot, dense blob of everything in the first place. (So you can very comfortably stuff a creator god in that gap if you feel so inclined.) Asking physicists what happened before the big bang or what caused it is a bit like asking a cartographer what is north of the north pole.

We have three pieces of evidence that support the big bang theory.

1. Redshift. Around the turn of the 20th century, scientists deduced that just as sound waves are affected by whether the sound source is moving toward or away from you, light waves are also modified by motion. As an object approaches, the waves are compressed, resulting in a higher pitch - or approaching the violet end of the spectrum. As an object moves away, waves are stretched, resulting in a lower pitch - or approaching the red side of the spectrum. Astrologers have observed directly that the farther away stars are, the redder they appear on the spectrum. The only logical explanation we have is that they are all moving away from us. Unless you believe in the extremely improbable idea that the earth happens to be the centre of the universe, that means everything in the universe is moving away from everything else. Inflating, IOW, like spots on the surface of a balloon.

2. Einstein's theory of relativity. The big bang theory is the only model of the universe we have that is consistent with this theory. To sum up the theory, the speed of light remains constant in a vacuum regardless of the momentum of the observer, and mass bends space and time around it (that's possibly easier to grasp if you just think of it as gravity). Interestingly, Einstein didn't personally like the big bang theory at first, even while acknowledging that his own theory was powerful evidence of it. He believed in a steady state (eternal) universe, and thought the fact his theory predicted an expanding universe was an error or a failure on his part. I think he came around in the end.

3. Cosmic microwave background radiation. We have directly observed the remnants of a hotter, denser universe. Using radio telescopes sensitive enough to allow the observation of microwave radiation, we can see a uniform glow in every direction - one that does not emanate from any object or source. This is the oldest light in the universe, from a time before distinct objects were able to form due to the intense heat of the hot, dense early universe.

HowStuffWorks "How the Big Bang Theory Works"
Redshifting 101
Einstein's Lost Theory Describes a Universe Without a Big Bang - The Crux | DiscoverMagazine.com
Cosmic microwave background - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ScuzManiac]

How/when did sex originate?

I realize that not all creatures are male OR female but yeah....

I'd like to see resources/articles on this.

And I think this has a little bit to do with evolution but correct me if I'm wrong.