0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Don,If you had something new to say, you'd be able to link to one single place where the revelation resides and we could all go there and see the mechanism laid bare as to how consciousness fits into the model. Instead of that, you're playing your usual game of bombarding people with useless reading and viewing which will only waste their time. We'll, like last time, you've had enough of my time already, so now I'm out. If other people want to help you rack up another 70 pages, that's up to them.Ciao baby!
Science is all about models. As far as I know we cannot prove that something is actually true or false, but we can propose models that allow us to make testable predictions.I choose to model my brain as a computer, and my mind as several programs running simultaneously on that computer. The fact that the programs can physically alter both the dynamic and static properties of the computer is not surprising. A computer reads and writes data all the time (and this is physically observable, measurable, and very understandable/interpretable).Are the programs material? In a very round about way, yes. I don't entirely understand the physics of coding, but there is a physical computer, a machine language, and other languages built on it. Is there any predictive power in choosing a model in which the programs are not material? I can't think of any at the moment, but perhaps there is.Is it surprising that neuroplasticity is observable and measurable? Not to me. We know that people can physically change their brains as they learn new facts, acquire new skills, or just practice the same thing over and over and over. That the mind is not measurable other than through the action of the brain does not necessarily mean that the mind itself is not material, and more than a program could be considered material. We can see how the material world affects the mind (various drugs, brain damage, electrical impulses) and we can see how the mind affects the material world (neuroplasticity, people's actions [I will NOT count anything about the "observer effect" here until someone shows me some solid experimental results demonstrating this]) Given that the mind and material world interact with each other, I see no reason not to think that therefore the mind is material in essence.What insight do we gain by using models in which the mind is not material?
We'll, like last time, you've had enough of my time already, so now I'm out. If other people want to help you rack up another 70 pages, that's up to them.Ciao baby!
Intelligent Design is a scientific theory that has nothing to do with creationism :
Cheryl : Follow up : I have a lots of material on the subject you hardly can handle , all of you put together , no false pretentions or arrogance :See this also : How the mind or thoughts and beliefs that shape them can alter our biology , immune system, DNA and much more : http://www.amazon.com/The-Biology-Belief-Unleashing-Consciousness/dp/1401923127//www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjj0xVM4x1IThis famous psychology test , and the related great book show how our human perception or attention focus are so deceptive , selective and more : (Materialists have been missing the GORILLA in the room ,thanks to their materialist false belief that shapes their consciousness, big time ) : //www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvohttp://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Gorilla-How-Intuitions-Deceive/dp/0307459667/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1412617620&sr=1-1&keywords=the+invisible+gorilla+and+other+ways+our+intuitions+deceive+us
Quoteauthor=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg441779#msg441779 date=1412556010]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 05/10/2014 21:01:50.So, "matter " exist only when observed . By whom?By ...Cheryl lol . by the observer of course .
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg441779#msg441779 date=1412556010]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 05/10/2014 21:01:50.So, "matter " exist only when observed . By whom?
.So, "matter " exist only when observed .
At anyrate, Thursday I am having surgery for a sigmoid resection under general anesthetic, and I will let you all know if my non local consciousness has any zany adventures has while my brain is temporarily off line.
Bored Chemist : See this about how no chemical theory can account for macro-evolution , let alone for biological information , by a prominent chemist, since materialists assumes that psychology is just applied biology , biology just applied chemistry , chemistry just applied physics ... :The materialist version of evolution, for example, is full of fairy tales thus : Prominent Chemist Says Scientists Don’t Really Understand Evolution http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/995875-prominent-chemist-says-scientists-dont-really-understand-evolution/
It's not a theory in the scientific sense and the courts have noticed that it's creationism in (poor) disguise.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Kitzmiller_trial
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 06/10/2014 17:30:07Bored Chemist : See this about how no chemical theory can account for macro-evolution , let alone for biological information , by a prominent chemist, since materialists assumes that psychology is just applied biology , biology just applied chemistry , chemistry just applied physics ... :The materialist version of evolution, for example, is full of fairy tales thus : Prominent Chemist Says Scientists Don’t Really Understand Evolution http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/995875-prominent-chemist-says-scientists-dont-really-understand-evolution/I had a brief look and what the article actually says isA member of the "intelligent design" conspiracy says that he doesn't understand evolution - which is no shock because he's not a biologist, and he says that some other people- whom he doesn't name, also don't understand it.Given that nobody fully understands it, the ignorance of a chemist and a few of his friends is utterly meaningless.And, re."Intelligent Design is a scientific theory that has nothing to do with creationism : "Nope.It's not a theory in the scientific sense and the courts have noticed that it's creationism in (poor) disguise.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Kitzmiller_trial
Quote from: Bored chemist on 07/10/2014 20:37:55It's not a theory in the scientific sense and the courts have noticed that it's creationism in (poor) disguise.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Kitzmiller_trialI think it's creationism minus the crazy Ark story.
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg441854#msg441854 date=1412642599]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 06/10/2014 18:30:00Cheryl : Follow up : I have a lots of material on the subject you hardly can handle , all of you put together , no false pretentions or arrogance :See this also : How the mind or thoughts and beliefs that shape them can alter our biology , immune system, DNA and much more : http://www.amazon.com/The-Biology-Belief-Unleashing-Consciousness/dp/1401923127//www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjj0xVM4x1IThis famous psychology test , and the related great book show how our human perception or attention focus are so deceptive , selective and more : (Materialists have been missing the GORILLA in the room ,thanks to their materialist false belief that shapes their consciousness, big time ) : //www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvohttp://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Gorilla-How-Intuitions-Deceive/dp/0307459667/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1412617620&sr=1-1&keywords=the+invisible+gorilla+and+other+ways+our+intuitions+deceive+us
I'm fully aware that mental ie brain activity has physiological effects on the rest of the body, but it can also be explained, better explained in fact, by conventional neuroscience than by the dualist model, which as Dave keeps pointing out to you requires a kind of interface between the immaterial and the material.
And by the way, there are lots of examples of macro-evolution. Do you need some?
ID is a scientific theory
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 08/10/2014 18:05:08ID is a scientific theoryWhat does it predict? How does it explain the everyday observation of evolution? In order to be scientific, it must make accurate predictions and explain all the data we already have. If not, it's just waffle.
Just to clear something up, I am not a materialist. It doesn't matter to me what stuff is made or not made of because what actually matters is mechanism. A denial of the material is a complete non-issue as it doesn't address the mechanism of how sentience (and consciousness as a whole) interacts with an information system which is clearly a key part of the system and which is manifestly mechanistic. If you can't explain the interface, you're just howling in the wind.