0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote :"The theory of evolution ,however, has brought despair & anxiety , instead of hope & enthusiasm for life , to the modern world .The reason is to be found in the unwarranted modern assumption that man's present structure , mental as well as physiological , is the last word in biological evolution , and that death , regarded as a biological event , has no constructive meaning .
The world of today needs a Rumi to create an attitude of hope , and to kindle the fire of enthusiasm for life .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 30/08/2013 20:02:49Quote :"The theory of evolution ,however, has brought despair & anxiety , instead of hope & enthusiasm for life , to the modern world .The reason is to be found in the unwarranted modern assumption that man's present structure , mental as well as physiological , is the last word in biological evolution , and that death , regarded as a biological event , has no constructive meaning .Wow, what a miserable so-and-so; two straw man arguments for the price of one - and he grasps the wrong end of the stick with such confidence...I doubt you'll find anyone with even a modest knowlege of evolution, who would make the asinine assumption that 'man is the last word in biological evolution'. It is indeed entirely unwarranted, and an obvious straw man.Likewise, death has a primary constructive meaning - it's the driving force of evolution itself, and essential to ecosystem life in general. Nature is oblivious to your wishful fantasies of life after death, it just recycles your constituents. There's no reason to think you'll be any more conscious after death than you were before birth, and plenty of reasons to think you won't. But if it makes you feel better, dream away.
QuoteThe world of today needs a Rumi to create an attitude of hope , and to kindle the fire of enthusiasm for life .Rumi writes sweet poetry, but Iqbal needs counselling...
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 30/08/2013 17:18:39No, those were no insults ,just hard talk = my own expression of tough love for you as a fellow human being .It speaks volumes about you.
No, those were no insults ,just hard talk = my own expression of tough love for you as a fellow human being .
QuoteI was just trying to make you realise the fact that you do confuse materialism as a world view with scientifc facts , that's all .Little danger of that, they're entirely different, though complementary, concepts.
I was just trying to make you realise the fact that you do confuse materialism as a world view with scientifc facts , that's all .
QuoteThe materialistic approach of human consciousness has thus more to do with materialism as a world view ,than with science itself .Not really; it is more a result of taking a scientific approach
The materialistic approach of human consciousness has thus more to do with materialism as a world view ,than with science itself .
QuoteIf you want me to refute that materialistic view regarding human consciousness, then,it's pretty logical to expect from me that i just address that materialistic world view regarding consciousness ,which is certainly not a scientific fact .I don't particularly want you to refute a materialistic view of consciousness, but just provide some reasoned argument for your own view. I'm curious to know whether you just believe what you've been brought up to believe, or whether you've somehow reasoned yourself into the view you take, and if so, by what arguments
If you want me to refute that materialistic view regarding human consciousness, then,it's pretty logical to expect from me that i just address that materialistic world view regarding consciousness ,which is certainly not a scientific fact .
As for the rest of your words = that's a form of pathetic pleading , ironically enough .We can absolutely not prove what lies ahead after death , either way ....so, you seem to have lost your mind suddenly : weird .I hope you are alright though .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 31/08/2013 17:35:50As for the rest of your words = that's a form of pathetic pleading , ironically enough .We can absolutely not prove what lies ahead after death , either way ....so, you seem to have lost your mind suddenly : weird .I hope you are alright though .I'm fine; I was just passing time until you came up with your reasoned argument for your world view. The reasons don't have to be logical, rational, or scientific - I'm just curious to know what they are and why they convince you.I'll come back if something interesting like that shows up.ETA: stop the presses - a new post arrives: From what I can make out, it's all grounded in your enthusiasm for Islam, despising materialistic world views, and a nostalgia for the heady but ancient days of Islamic primacy in science. Let me know if I missed anything major. Mostly context, little explanation, but fair enough; no surprises there.OK, thanks for that.
Many scientific research proved the fact that consciousness could not or cannot be produced by the brain.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 01/09/2013 17:46:15Many scientific research proved the fact that consciousness could not or cannot be produced by the brain.OK, I'll bite. What scientific research (link to sources please)?
I personally think the scientific method may have been independently invented by several people in several places prior to its take off in Renaissance Europe.
I personally think the scientific method may have been independently invented by several people in several places prior to its take off in Renaissance Europe. The scientific method is a very useful invention. What allowed it to take off in Europe, from 1543 onward?1) It's utility.2) The printing press.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Revolution
Try this ,for starters : if i am not mistaken at least : "Brain is not needed for consciousness ",try to download the article related to the subject as well from a link below the video on youtube..
Kenneth Till, a former neurosurgeon at the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children, London, has this to say: "Interpreting brain scans can be very tricky.There can be a great deal more brain tissue in the cranium than is immediately apparent." Till echoes the cautions of many practitioners when he says, "Lorber may be being rather overdramatic when he says that someone has 'virtually no brain.'...As to the question "Is your brain really necessary?" Lorber admits that it is only half serious. "You have to be dramatic in order to make people listen," concedes the tactician. Bower's answer to the tongue-in-cheek question is this: "Although Lorber's work doesn't demonstrate that we don't need a brain, it does show that the brain can work in conditions we would have thought impossible." Bower occasionally complains that Lorber's style is less scientific than it might be.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 04/09/2013 19:12:31Try this ,for starters : if i am not mistaken at least : "Brain is not needed for consciousness ",try to download the article related to the subject as well from a link below the video on youtube..I read the article (which is only a discussion article, not a scientific research publication), and it simply doesn't support your assertion that "scientific research proved the fact that consciousness could not or cannot be produced by the brain". These quotes from the article make it clear enough:QuoteKenneth Till, a former neurosurgeon at the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children, London, has this to say: "Interpreting brain scans can be very tricky.There can be a great deal more brain tissue in the cranium than is immediately apparent." Till echoes the cautions of many practitioners when he says, "Lorber may be being rather overdramatic when he says that someone has 'virtually no brain.'...As to the question "Is your brain really necessary?" Lorber admits that it is only half serious. "You have to be dramatic in order to make people listen," concedes the tactician. Bower's answer to the tongue-in-cheek question is this: "Although Lorber's work doesn't demonstrate that we don't need a brain, it does show that the brain can work in conditions we would have thought impossible." Bower occasionally complains that Lorber's style is less scientific than it might be.Lorber's studies of hydrocephalics shows that a few have negligible detectable functional impairment, which is unexpected, given the degree of brain distortion. There is some debate as to whether deep brain structures (unaffected by hydrocephalus) contribute more to high level function than had been thought. Studies show that it's the white matter (the neural fibres) that is squashed most, but the cortical nerve cells are still present. When a shunt is implanted to relieve the pressure, the brain structure generally recovers roughly normal appearance. Sadly, the majority of hydrocephalics are seriously functionally impaired.So, in summary, Lorber has discovered that the cerebral cortex is far more resilient to long-term developmental distortion than was previously appreciated. This is in line with discoveries in recent years that the brain has far more neuroplasticity than previously thought. Science moves on apace.But no, it doesn't support your claim. You said there is "Many [sic] scientific research", which I take to mean more than one discussion article. Have you got something better, like a published research paper in a peer reviewed journal of repute; something that actually supports your claim?
I also expected that above mentioned case of that guy with "no brain " to be exaggerated indeed , but that nevetheless proves the fact that the brain ,in a way , is less necessary , to some degree at least , for consciousness .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 05/09/2013 18:26:12 I also expected that above mentioned case of that guy with "no brain " to be exaggerated indeed , but that nevetheless proves the fact that the brain ,in a way , is less necessary , to some degree at least , for consciousness .Nope, not even slightly. You're clutching at straws that don't exist. Please explain how any of it supports your assertion.
The very fact that he seems to be missing some parts at least of his brain is evidence enough for the fact that the brain, or rather some parts of it at least , is not always needed for consciousness,even though scientific studies had shown that some damaged areas of the brain can indeed affect some parts of our consciousness .
Why do you seem to have the materialistic habit or assumption assertion view that the brain causes consciousness, instead of just correlating or interacting with it ?
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 05/09/2013 21:19:13The very fact that he seems to be missing some parts at least of his brain is evidence enough for the fact that the brain, or rather some parts of it at least , is not always needed for consciousness,even though scientific studies had shown that some damaged areas of the brain can indeed affect some parts of our consciousness .That's been known for a very long time. Not only are many parts of the brain not involved in consciousness, but consciousness is (as I have already described) the result of a large number of processes, in various parts and structures of the brain, interacting. Damage or destruction to these areas damages the relevant aspects of consciousness, but it can sustain, albeit increasingly degraded, considerable damage before it is no longer apparent. If you've lived with someone developing dementia (e.g. Alzheimer's) you'll know what I'm talking about.QuoteWhy do you seem to have the materialistic habit or assumption assertion view that the brain causes consciousness, instead of just correlating or interacting with it ?I addressed this in an earlier post.
Just try to read the following strong refutation of materialism in science which gets confused with science by many people , including you , especially concerning the materialistic dogmatic magical approach of consciousness, the latter as a so-called emergent property from the complexity of the evolved brain ....written by a physicist :