0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 15/10/2013 18:39:10Why do you think it's not possible that the immaterial consciousness can interact and correlate with the brain via unknown immaterial ways , either way ?Can't you see I'm questioning what you mean by immaterial if it can be influenced (informed) by the material and itself influence the material? in what sense can it then be non-material? QuoteEven atoms are conscious ,their own atomic degree of consciousness .How do you know that?
Why do you think it's not possible that the immaterial consciousness can interact and correlate with the brain via unknown immaterial ways , either way ?
Even atoms are conscious ,their own atomic degree of consciousness .
Quote from: dlorde on 15/10/2013 20:08:32Quote from: DonQuichotte on 15/10/2013 18:29:14How did you deduce from that silly reasoning of yours that consciousness can be affected and influenced by the brain ?If consciousness is not affected or influenced by what's happening in the brain, how does does it know what's happening? QuoteDid you read the book or watched the movie concerning the extremely inspiring story of Helen Keller : The story of my life ? She was born blind and deaf.....And she used her other senses, especially touch, and proprioception.QuoteWho said consciousness can be affected and influenced by the brain through our senses ? Why not say that consciousness gets somehow informed by the brain via the senses ,or something like that , instead of assuming that consciousness gets affected and influenced by the brain through the sensesInformed, affected, influenced - makes no difference to the point. If you are informed by something it affects and/or influences you - it gives you information that informs you.QuoteBrain and consciousness do interact and correlate with each other , how ? = that's anyone's guess , once again ...And that's the problem - the logical problem of material and immaterial interacting. I think you're deliberately ignoring it.QuoteYou're a stupid person, blinded by the irrational false materialist faith, despite your relative intelligence , scientific qualifications , ...in the same fashion Stephen Hawking , Dawkins and all the rest of those materialists are ..............Insults and ad-hominems don't address the arguments, they just make you look puerile.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 15/10/2013 18:29:14How did you deduce from that silly reasoning of yours that consciousness can be affected and influenced by the brain ?If consciousness is not affected or influenced by what's happening in the brain, how does does it know what's happening? QuoteDid you read the book or watched the movie concerning the extremely inspiring story of Helen Keller : The story of my life ? She was born blind and deaf.....And she used her other senses, especially touch, and proprioception.QuoteWho said consciousness can be affected and influenced by the brain through our senses ? Why not say that consciousness gets somehow informed by the brain via the senses ,or something like that , instead of assuming that consciousness gets affected and influenced by the brain through the sensesInformed, affected, influenced - makes no difference to the point. If you are informed by something it affects and/or influences you - it gives you information that informs you.QuoteBrain and consciousness do interact and correlate with each other , how ? = that's anyone's guess , once again ...And that's the problem - the logical problem of material and immaterial interacting. I think you're deliberately ignoring it.QuoteYou're a stupid person, blinded by the irrational false materialist faith, despite your relative intelligence , scientific qualifications , ...in the same fashion Stephen Hawking , Dawkins and all the rest of those materialists are ..............Insults
How did you deduce from that silly reasoning of yours that consciousness can be affected and influenced by the brain ?
Did you read the book or watched the movie concerning the extremely inspiring story of Helen Keller : The story of my life ? She was born blind and deaf.....
Who said consciousness can be affected and influenced by the brain through our senses ? Why not say that consciousness gets somehow informed by the brain via the senses ,or something like that , instead of assuming that consciousness gets affected and influenced by the brain through the senses
Brain and consciousness do interact and correlate with each other , how ? = that's anyone's guess , once again ...
You're a stupid person, blinded by the irrational false materialist faith, despite your relative intelligence , scientific qualifications , ...in the same fashion Stephen Hawking , Dawkins and all the rest of those materialists are ..............
Science can approach the immaterial side of reality though ,indirectly , via approaching the material side of reality , by shedding light on the brain as the "receiver " of consciousness ...
You're confusing the purely physical biological true emergence phenomena with that materialist "emergence " magical trick performance regarding consciousness , or rather you're extending those purely biological physical emergence phenomena to non-physical non -biological phenomena such as consciousness, as materialists do :So, David Cooper was right about what he said : bird's flight is just a purely physical biological emergence property that arose from the evolutionary complexity of its purely physical biological components = the immaterial consciousness is totally unlike any of its complex alleged purely physical biological so-called evolved brain "components" that allegedly "gave rise " to it .
... science investigates things with material processes, observing either directly or with instruments, measuring, counting, controlling variables, while changing one. Give me some examples of science experiments that don't. Thought experiments might be one, but even Einstein's were eventually backed up with empirical data. And Einstein's also had a mathematical support, which your theories or Sheldrake's do not have.
The only reasonable logical answer to the existential question is ...God .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 15/10/2013 20:43:21You're confusing the purely physical biological true emergence phenomena with that materialist "emergence " magical trick performance regarding consciousness , or rather you're extending those purely biological physical emergence phenomena to non-physical non -biological phenomena such as consciousness, as materialists do :So, David Cooper was right about what he said : bird's flight is just a purely physical biological emergence property that arose from the evolutionary complexity of its purely physical biological components = the immaterial consciousness is totally unlike any of its complex alleged purely physical biological so-called evolved brain "components" that allegedly "gave rise " to it .So are you saying that there can be emergent properties in biological systems? That is what I take to mean by "purely physical biological true emergence phenomena". You at least agree to that much?
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 15/10/2013 18:44:11The only reasonable logical answer to the existential question is ...God .OK, I'm intrigued. What is the existential question and how do you know this is the answer?
God, when he puts his scientist's hat on, recognises that he cannot qualify as God.
Meh; just the same unsupported assertions. Arguments notably lacking as usual.Disappointing but not unexpected.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 15/10/2013 17:13:42Science can approach the immaterial side of reality though ,indirectly , via approaching the material side of reality , by shedding light on the brain as the "receiver " of consciousness ...I'm surprised to hear you say that. If materialism is false, not just incomplete or limited, but as you say, false, and cannot even provide reliable information about the material world, how can it be used to understand anything about the immaterial, or the link between the material or immaterial? Surely you can see the contradiction there. You will probably say, once again, that I am confusing materialism with real science but like it or not, science investigates things with material processes, observing either directly or with instruments, measuring, counting, controlling variables, while changing one. Give me some examples of science experiments that don't. Thought experiments might be one, but even Einstein's were eventually backed up with empirical data. And Einstein's also had a mathematical support, which your theories or Sheldrake's do not have.
If materialism is false, and we've been doing everything wrong all along, how should we have investigated diabetes, if not by dissecting the body, finding the pancreas, discovering beta cells, figuring out what the hormone insulin does, identifying the receptors on tissue cells, etc. ?
Or is materialism "not false" for some things, but "false" for others, and are you sure you know where to draw that line?
Quote from: David Cooper on 16/10/2013 15:28:59God, when he puts his scientist's hat on, recognises that he cannot qualify as God.Our dear friend David Cooper here has been so scared of risking his fingers to be burned by participating to this thread , that he just "hits and runs " , in order to avoid getting his fingers burned ,
The immaterial side of reality , including the immaterial consciousness thus , including the immaterial side of life,including the immaterial side of evolution ..........are outside of reach of science = outside of science's jurisdiction , simply because they cannot be tested empirically , cannot be falsifiable, verifiable, observable, reproducible, measurable ....obviously, and simply because the material side of reality only ,is the realm of science = the immaterial side of reality is outside of that material realm of science ,once again .
Quote from: DonQuichotte link=topic=48746.msg421434#msg421434 date=1381[quote author=DonQuichotte on 16/10/2013 16:48:04Quote from: David Cooper on 16/10/2013 15:28:59God, when he puts his scientist's hat on, recognises that he cannot qualify as God.Our dear friend David Cooper here has been so scared of risking his fingers to be burned by participating to this thread , that he just "hits and runs " , in order to avoid getting his fingers burned ,I hardly think he is afraid of getting burned. Probably just realizes that this discussion is a pointless waste of time.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 16/10/2013 16:52:37The immaterial side of reality , including the immaterial consciousness thus , including the immaterial side of life,including the immaterial side of evolution ..........are outside of reach of science = outside of science's jurisdiction , simply because they cannot be tested empirically , cannot be falsifiable, verifiable, observable, reproducible, measurable ....obviously, and simply because the material side of reality only ,is the realm of science = the immaterial side of reality is outside of that material realm of science ,once again .I'm just shocked that you finally came out and said this, which illustrates perfectly why this discussion is pointless. The above comment demonstrates perfectly that your position really has nothing to do with science at all - its about belief vs non-belief in God. It belongs on a religious forum.