Scientific contradictions in materialism

  • 42 Replies
  • 17190 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline marco

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 11
    • View Profile
    • http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/englishnf
Scientific contradictions in materialism
« on: 17/02/2004 16:15:53 »

In the following site I analyse the incongruencies of the materialistic conception of the mind, on the basis of our present scientific knowledges of brain and matter.
This analysis points out how Quantum Electrodynamics  proves that the   brain cannot generate consciousness, which existence implies  the presence in man of a unbiological/unmaterial entity. The problem of consciousness is then strictly connected to the one of the existence of the soul and, consequently, the existence of God.
  newbielink:http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/englishnf [nonactive]

Marco Biagini

Ph.D. Graduated in Solid State Physics.

 

*

Offline Ylide

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 905
    • View Profile
    • http://clem.mscd.edu/~mogavero
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #1 on: 17/02/2004 22:17:20 »
So are you saying only humans are conscious?  Many higher non-human organisms exhibit emotions, self-awareness and reason, to some degree.  Does that mean there's a doggy-heaven like my mom always said?



This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People
This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

*

Offline marco

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 11
    • View Profile
    • http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/englishnf
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #2 on: 18/02/2004 08:35:39 »
>>>>So are you saying only humans are conscious? Many higher non-human organisms exhibit emotions, self-awareness and reason, to some degree.

As I have explained in my site, there is no objective evidence of existence of emotions or selfawareness in animals.

Now we know that it is possible to simulate with a computer every feature of the behavior of animals, including their capacity to learn and their apparent capacity to recognize their image in a mirror. An adequate software can allow the computer to record input data, analyze them and give specific outputs; all these operations occur automatically, with no consciousness. For example a computer, connected to a camera, can analyse the external images; this occur automatically through some mathematical algorithms, and the computer has no visive sensations. This proves that the fact that a can can distinguish a bone from a stick, does not imply that the dog has a visive sensation.
   Therefore it is not possible to exclude from a scientific and rational point of view, that the life of animals is only a purely biological/chemical process without any kind of consciousness (neither sensations or emotions). In other words, science cannot exclude the possibility that the animal is only a biological robot, feeling nothing at all, which actions and reactions are uniquely determined by a chemical software implanted in its brain. It is also possible to explain those behaviors of animals, that are usually considered as an indication of emotions. For example, the dogs that because of genetic mutations presented some affectionate behaviors, had a greater probability to be adopted by man, and consequently, to survive. It was sufficient that the animal presented those behaviors also towards only a member of the family (even not the one who gave it food) to be accepted by the family. It would be only a case of natural selection, even if unawares induced by man, that has programmed the behavior and the reactions of the dog. Since we have no way to observe directly the existence of any kind of consciousness in animals, and the hypothesis of existence of consciousness in animals is not necessary to explain the observable phenomena in animals, we can conclude that there is no experimental or scientific evidence of the existence of any kind of consciousness in animals, neither sensations or emotions.
   The idea that animals have sensations and emotions is then only an arbitrary hypothesis, without any scientific or rational foundations. Such an hypothesis can be considered only a reminiscence of childhood, since all children tend to ascribe to animals thoughts, sensations and emotions. Besides, primitive peoples were used to anthropomorphize many natural elements; the sun, the moon, the mountains, animals, etc. During history man has then understood that natural phenomena occur automatically because of specific natural laws: man has understood that nature is only an object and not a person. The anthropomorfic concept of animals is then only the last residue of this inclination to anthropomorphize natural processes. Now the technological and scientific progress allow us to explain the behavior of animals without ascribing them any anthropomorphic features.

Marco

 

*

Offline Quantumcat

  • The Kitty Down Under
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 894
    • View Profile
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #3 on: 18/02/2004 10:32:55 »
I have only six words for you: You Are A Big Fat Idiot.

Plus, what is the difference between animals and humans, really? Our bodies are set up in very similar ways. A chimpanzee, for example, can use language! Human language! The only reason you don't know other being have feelings is because you are not them yourself. How do you know you aren't the only thinking being and the rest of the world is invented by your brain and your senses are telling you everything wrong? So, assuming humans have feelings only and not animals just because you happen to be a human is stupid! Believing in something people made up because you cling to the ideas your family had before there was anything called science that they made up because they were too uncomfortable with not knowing things, so invented answers for it then believed their own stories, while now there is science that can tell us things, is stupid. If you understand me.

Am I dead? Am I alive? I'm both!
« Last Edit: 18/02/2004 10:37:08 by Quantumcat »
 

*

Offline qpan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 260
    • View Profile
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #4 on: 18/02/2004 11:45:02 »
Sorry Marco- i agree with Quantumcat too- if you argue that animals are not emotive and self aware (or "conscious"), at what stage did humans become so? i do not beleive that such a big jump could have arised from merely 1 evolutionary jump between apes to humans.
Chimpanzee DNA is a 98% match for human DNA, and those are the instructions which our cells have which essentially govern development. We are no more than slightly overdeveloped chimpanzees and some of us are already argueing that we are a completely superiour form of life which can "model" other forms of life on computers. Well hell, we can also model the behaviour of humans with certain personality traits - is that of any significance?
Animals can exhibit emotions. Elephants, for example, will mourn the loss of another group member by weeping - you can also model that on a computer but the likely hood is that most humans would do the same too.
God is simply an invention to confort the minds of people who do not like to ponder all the possibilites. But on the other hand, consciousness may also not be real at all. Our personalities, etc are so goverened by our dna (take separated identical twins for example) that who knows- consciousness may be an illusion caused by the brain as a safety measure - is it really "us" who makes all the decisions or actually does our subconscious make most of our descisions for "us" and create sensations of consiousness and free will....?

Marco, your argument is flawed; either all animals with brains are conscious or consiousness is just an invention of the brain - neither proves the existence of a soul or god in any way. I think that you underestimate the length of time evolution has been going on for and the complexity of the other creatures of this world.

"I have great faith in fools; self-confidence my friends call it."
-Edgar Allan Poe
« Last Edit: 18/02/2004 11:53:04 by qpan »

*

Offline Ultima

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 488
    • View Profile
    • My Homepage
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #5 on: 18/02/2004 15:14:39 »
Consciousness is over rated! Your subconscious is part of what makes you as well, and it tends to be more active than your conscious mind unless you are a deep, deep thinker. How many times have you consciously thought about what you are about to say to someone, or how to open a door or jam jarů As a bummy student I am unconscious up to 80% of the day does that make me some sort of amoeba? Well yes it does [:D]

wOw the world spins?
wOw the world spins?

*

Offline Donnah

  • Ma-Donnah
  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1756
    • View Profile
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #6 on: 18/02/2004 21:39:46 »
Marco, have you ever had a pet?

Quantumcat, idiot, stupid, gullible.  What's happened to you since you went to France?  I've never seen you be so rude.  There's better ways to get your point across.
« Last Edit: 18/02/2004 21:58:30 by Donnah »
"Remember, if you ever need a helping hand, you will find one at the end of each of your arms." - Audrey Hepburn

*

Offline roberth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 246
    • View Profile
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #7 on: 18/02/2004 23:15:37 »
Apart from the fact that I only understood half of the words used by Marco, I agree with you Donnah. On both points.
My dogs do tend to be a bit more proactive than my fish, though.
 

*

Offline Ylide

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 905
    • View Profile
    • http://clem.mscd.edu/~mogavero
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #8 on: 19/02/2004 00:48:38 »
Donnah:  she's been living in France...the French are very rude people...of course it's going to rub off.  

Erin, be nice.  Insulting people does not make your case more valid.  (even though I think you're correct on this issue, how would you like it if people insulted you for things YOU don't understand)

Marco:  There's a whole field of animal psychology.  Experiments have been done to show that animals do indeed have emotions.  Emotions like greed, depression, frustration, happiness, boredom and anger have all been observed in higher order mammals like dolphins, dogs, and many primates.  Haven't you ever owned a dog?  Simple observation shows they're happy to see you when you've been gone all day, they're depressed when you give their puppies after they give birth.  Just because you can't measure "happy" in the brain does not mean you can't observe consistent behavior that matches emotional scenarios.  

Furthermore, while we may be able to simulate simpler life forms, I don't think you can adequately simulate the behavior of a complex creature with a computer.  We can program them to behave in a manner consistent with the actions of, say, a dog, but a true dog would have things like personality quirks and the ability to react to unknown situations.  

Also, in your example of dogs displaying affection being evolutionarily predisposed to survive, I don't see how that is evidence that they are not conscious.  Wild dogs exhibit behaviors very much like domesticated ones, only with less inclination to be nice to people.  Animal emotions are still primitive and grounded in instinct, but that doesn't mean they don't have them.  



This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People
This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

*

Offline marco

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 11
    • View Profile
    • http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/englishnf
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #9 on: 19/02/2004 08:22:40 »
>>>>Experiments have been done to show that animals do indeed have emotions.

Simply false. No experiment show that animals have emotions. You must understand that the idea that animals have emotions is only an arbitrary interpretation of their behavior. There is no objective element to prove that animals have emotions.
This is the difference between true science, such as physics, and pseudo-science and phylosophy.

Marco.
 

*

Offline Quantumcat

  • The Kitty Down Under
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 894
    • View Profile
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #10 on: 19/02/2004 10:52:36 »
Yes Donnah, you are completely right. I'm really sorry. It's alright to believe in a 'maker' because science doesn't have anything to grip on, so it can't say anything about it, and he's not pushing organised religion, so really he's quite justified to say what he said, the only thing being the way he tries to say it. Again I'm really sorry.

To marco, it's "philosophy" not "phylosophy" just in case you wanted to know.

I am a determinist, which means I don't believe in free will, a human will always make the same choice given the same circumstances (total of genes + all experiences + situation in which one must make the decision) Emotions are overrated anyway, all they are are ways that your body reacts to get you to make the right decision to continue surviving ... like love (for reproduction) or anger (to stop people making mistakes that could lead to misfunctioning of the group, or whatever) sadness (to get you to change the thing that is making to group or you malfuntion ... ) you can argue if you like, but it's complicated, and we can't understand everything. Humans just have many complicated reasons for doing everything they do and it's just difficult to know why, so people say they have free will... but we don't. The reasons for animals' behavoiur is exactly the same as ours, just less complicated so we can see the instincts happening. The truth is, we act for the same reasons as animals; we are ourselves animals.

Am I dead? Am I alive? I'm both!
« Last Edit: 19/02/2004 10:59:38 by Quantumcat »
 

*

Offline Donnah

  • Ma-Donnah
  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1756
    • View Profile
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #11 on: 19/02/2004 16:47:22 »
Quantum, it's natural to make mistakes and I'm happy to see that you are mature enough to admit and amend when you make one.  That skill will make your life much easier than it would otherwise be.

But I don't agree with you when you say "I don't believe in free will, a human will always make the same choice given the same circumstances (total of genes + all experiences + situation in which one must make the decision)".  Sure, we are conditioned to act and react in certain ways, but some people have dramatically changed their lives and that requires thinking and acting outside your personal paradigm.  There's an old expression:  "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting to get different results".  So if you want to change your life (free will) you need to determine the desired outcome and learn how to get there.
« Last Edit: 19/02/2004 16:50:02 by Donnah »
"Remember, if you ever need a helping hand, you will find one at the end of each of your arms." - Audrey Hepburn

*

Offline qpan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 260
    • View Profile
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #12 on: 19/02/2004 18:48:04 »
I read an article a few years ago about free will and the brain. Apparently, microseconds before you even think about doing something, your brain has already began the process of sending electrical signals - this indicates that your brain has probably decided what your body is going to do even before you consciously think about it. However, there are certainly cases where you can decide what to do. It is completely feasible for someone to decide to do nothing for a day and for example not go to work/school/uni; that is their choice and they are free to choose what to do- i do not believe that a choice like that could be preprogrammed into your genes - it would make life awfully boring!

"I have great faith in fools; self-confidence my friends call it."
-Edgar Allan Poe
« Last Edit: 19/02/2004 18:48:20 by qpan »

*

Offline Donnah

  • Ma-Donnah
  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1756
    • View Profile
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #13 on: 19/02/2004 22:07:39 »
Sounds like cache on a computer, it keeps the most likely actions readily available for use.
"Remember, if you ever need a helping hand, you will find one at the end of each of your arms." - Audrey Hepburn

*

Offline Ylide

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 905
    • View Profile
    • http://clem.mscd.edu/~mogavero
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #14 on: 19/02/2004 22:55:55 »
>No experiment show that animals have emotions. You must understand that the idea that animals have emotions is only >an arbitrary interpretation of their behavior.


Ok, Marco.  Using quantifiable scientific data, prove to me that you have emotions.  Now using that same technique, prove to me that dogs, chimps, or dolphins don't.  It sounds like you're unwilling to educate yourself on the topic because you're adamant in your "scientific" determination.  

Read this article, http://www.saveourstrays.com/feelings.htm  and try and tell me the experiments performed in this are pseudo-science.  



This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People
This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

*

Offline bezoar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 950
    • View Profile
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #15 on: 20/02/2004 02:03:23 »
I don't know about animals not having emotion.  I think a couple of dogs that bit me might have been feeling rage or fear.  They certainly didn't try to kill me for food, but they were obviously upset about something.
 

*

Offline OldMan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 222
    • View Profile
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #16 on: 20/02/2004 02:15:17 »
Damn cannabinoid you beat me to it!

Donnah also beat me to it with the definition of insanity.

Sorry Marco we can see you've put a lot of thought into this and you are perfectly welcome to your opinions but all in all it just doesn't hang together for us folk here.
Tim

*

Offline marco

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 11
    • View Profile
    • http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/englishnf
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #17 on: 20/02/2004 08:16:18 »

>>>Ok, Marco. Using quantifiable scientific data, prove to me that you have emotions.

The existence of emotions in man is the most proved fact; in fact each of us directly feels in himself the existence of emotions. This is sufficient to prove unequivocally the existence of emotions in myself.
The proof of existence of emotions in other people is more indirect; anyway, the fact other people can discuss with us about consciousness and emotions, proves that they too are conscious and feel emotions.

 
>>>Now using that same technique, prove to me that dogs, chimps, or dolphins don't.

The point is the the two prooves above cannot be applied to animals. This is sufficient to prove that the existence of emotions in animals is not a proved fact, but it is only a arbitrary opinion, without any scientific basis.

marco.
 

*

Offline Donnah

  • Ma-Donnah
  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1756
    • View Profile
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #18 on: 20/02/2004 21:36:58 »
Marco, you haven't yet answered my question.  Have you ever had a pet?
"Remember, if you ever need a helping hand, you will find one at the end of each of your arms." - Audrey Hepburn

*

Offline Ylide

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 905
    • View Profile
    • http://clem.mscd.edu/~mogavero
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #19 on: 23/02/2004 02:09:37 »
And you also didn't read the article I linked to...why then do animals undergo biochemical reactions when they are experiencing what appear to be emotions that are identical or similar to those experienced by humans when WE feel analogous emotions?  

By the way, apes can be taught sign language and communicate with humans essentially in our language.  They have been observed to convey their feelings of happiness, sadness, and anger on a number of subjects.  I believe this constitutes discussion of consciousness and emotions, your suggested "proof" that humans have emotions.



This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People
This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

*

Offline marco

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 11
    • View Profile
    • http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/englishnf
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #20 on: 23/02/2004 08:58:20 »
>>>Marco, you haven't yet answered my question. Have you ever had a pet?

Yes, I have had many pets during my life, and now I have a dog. There is absolutely nothing in their behavior that can prove that animals are conscious or really feel sensations. Science allows us to build machines able to react to external stimulations without feeling anything. This is sufficient to prove that the idea that animals are conscious or feel sensations and emotions is only an arbitrary opinion without any scientific basis.


marco
 

*

Offline Quantumcat

  • The Kitty Down Under
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 894
    • View Profile
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #21 on: 23/02/2004 10:34:59 »
Marco! Listen! You have emotions because you feel them ... animals have emotions, because they feel them. How does an animal know you have feelings? According to you, to an animal you are nothing but an artificial lego man.

And to the others, you didn't understand what I meant. Think about it for a while, it only seems like we have free will because the reasons for our actions are so complex. When I meant in the same situation, I meant if you went back in time to the same situation, you would do exactly the same thing you did the last time. Right down to the last twitch of your nose. Free will would be determined by being able to do something different in the exact same situation, but we don't, I know I can't prove it because I can't make you go back in time, but we don't. What we 'choose' to do is determined by the connections between neurones in our brain, which are formed by our genetics and our experiences. Think of a computer program, the input goes around its logic gates until it comes out with a solution! Exactly what happens in the brain, our senses give us input and the result is the brain firing down nerves to tell our muscles to act. There is no such thing as free will! Reason can tell you that alone without need for experiements :)

Am I dead? Am I alive? I'm both!
 

*

Offline qpan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 260
    • View Profile
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #22 on: 23/02/2004 12:01:30 »
>>The proof of existence of emotions in other people is more indirect; anyway, the fact other people
>>can discuss with us about consciousness and emotions, proves that they too are conscious and feel
>>emotions.

You say that if people tell each other they have emotions, then they must be emotive? So just because animals can't speak they must not feel emotions? That logic is a bit/very flawed isn't it? Its like saying that speech is the basis for emotions - so do you reckon that the power of speech is not given to us by our brains but by our souls also?

I cannot believe you have a dog. You must be lying. Anyone who has a pet knows that they have feelings - especially dogs - they form very string bonds with their owners.



"I have great faith in fools; self-confidence my friends call it."
-Edgar Allan Poe
« Last Edit: 23/02/2004 12:03:09 by qpan »

*

Offline Quantumcat

  • The Kitty Down Under
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 894
    • View Profile
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #23 on: 23/02/2004 14:14:18 »
Marco, according to you, chimpanzees must have souls, because they can talk using sign language!! They can definitely express their feelings. Does a deaf, blind, and mute person not have a soul? Because people like that, in general, can't talk. They are human though. They can't tell us their feelings so does that mean they don't have any?

Am I dead? Am I alive? I'm both!
 

*

Offline Ylide

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 905
    • View Profile
    • http://clem.mscd.edu/~mogavero
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #24 on: 23/02/2004 17:55:35 »
You REALLY need to take a course in logic and argument, Marco my friend.  Let's see if I can standardize your argument for you:

premise 1: humans act like they have emotions
premise 2: humans can communicate that they have emotions
premise 3: quantum physics shows that conscious thought and emotion are impossible given brain physiology
sub-argument 1: it must be the soul that provides consciousness and emotions to humans

premise 4: animals are inferior to humans
premise 5: we can build machines that react to external stimuli
premise 6: animals react to external stimuli
premise 7: machines don't have souls
subargument 2: animals don't have souls

Your sub-argument falls apart because of a false premise.  In premise 3, you're expounding expert testimony that quantum physics proves that emotion and consciousness are not possible within the framework of the brain.  This is not a commonly accepted nor widely published nor even significantly considered as fact.  Therefore the premise must be accepted as false.  Since your conclusion RELIES on this premise being true, your subargument is false.

In your second subargument, you're falling into a non sequitur.  The fact we can create machines to react to stimuli in the same way animals do in no way leads to animals being like machines.  This is like saying "All causians are white, Winston Churchull is white, I am a caucasian, therefore I am Winston Churchill."  It's pure fallacy.  Secondly, since your second argument relied upon your first being indisputably true, it fails on that as well.

Thanks for playing, though, it's been fun.  




This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People
This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

*

Offline Quantumcat

  • The Kitty Down Under
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 894
    • View Profile
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #25 on: 23/02/2004 19:53:16 »
E.W.P. !!!

Am I dead? Am I alive? I'm both!
 

*

Offline marco

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 11
    • View Profile
    • http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/englishnf
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #26 on: 24/02/2004 08:41:00 »
>>>>Marco, according to you, chimpanzees must have souls, because they can talk using sign language!They can definitely express their feelings.

Come on! This is only your opinion. You have no objective element to prove that animals talk about consciousness, emotions or feelings.

As I have said, the existence of consciousness, emotions, etc. in animals is only a matter of personal opinion. On the contrary, the existence of consciousness in man is directly proved.

marco.



 

*

Offline qpan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 260
    • View Profile
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #27 on: 24/02/2004 14:55:38 »
Errr, how is it directly proved? Find a way to directly prove that i feel emotions without me telling you that i do- i don't think you can. Same with animals Marco - they feel emotions but just can't tell you (as in your opinion, there is no way to tell whether anything has emotions without it telling you it has).

And marco, you give me a computer program which can simulate an animal accurately Marco. You might as well not bother finding one- cos there isn't. If animals do not have souls, etc, then their behaviour should be perfectly accurately predicted by a computer according to you.

Your logic is so flawed and yet your mind is so closed to the suggestions of others.



"I have great faith in fools; self-confidence my friends call it."
-Edgar Allan Poe
« Last Edit: 24/02/2004 14:56:45 by qpan »

*

Offline Donnah

  • Ma-Donnah
  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1756
    • View Profile
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #28 on: 25/02/2004 01:27:40 »
Marco, I think the important question for you here is, why is it so important to you to be right?  There's more to this than meets the eye, I can feel it (yup, have a heyday with that one).

You cannot have bonded with any of your pets.  I had a horse who would dump anyone off if he didn't like (an emotion) them.  Of course I used this to my advantage.[}:)][:p]  This horse would raise his head and whinny when he saw me coming (someone else fed him at that time).  While I was trimming his hooves he would step on my hand just hard enough to hold it down without hurting me, and turn his head to see my reaction.  I swear that was a smile on his face.  I'd have to call a sense of humor an emotion.
"Remember, if you ever need a helping hand, you will find one at the end of each of your arms." - Audrey Hepburn

*

Offline Ylide

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 905
    • View Profile
    • http://clem.mscd.edu/~mogavero
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #29 on: 25/02/2004 02:35:17 »
This guy's not listening to a word of reason, and he's ignoring a large amount of scientific research that gives evidence that animals DO indeed experience emotion. (albeit perhaps to a lesser degree)  How did you ever obtain your Ph.D?

Ok, smart-ass, here are some corrections to your wildly inaccurate paper you originally posted:

>>>since in our organism no nuclear reactions occur and gravitational forces are too weak to interfere with molecular processes, every biological process is due uniquely to the laws of quantum electrodynamics.

Wrong.  Gravity DOES interact with MANY processes in the human body.  bone formation, blood flow, digestion, secretions, and probably many others.  

>>>These equations do not explain the existence of consciousness and our capacity to feel. If one hypothesizes that the electromagnetic fields are responsible of our sensations, emotions and thoughts, the only logical conclusion would be that also our television, our washing machine, etc. sometimes would be happy or depressed.  In fact, from a scientific point of view there is no difference between the electromagnetic fields present in our brain and the ones present in those objects.

You're neglecting the fact that atoms composed of protons and electrons do not necessarily BEHAVE as protons and electrons do.  The magnetic field is not the only force in an organism.  It is the collective of all the molecules, their arrangement in relation to each other, and the energy generated by chemical reactions in the body that produce consciousness.  I would argue that the electromagnetic field created by the electrical charge in the body has very little influence on consciousness.  Exposure to electrical or magnetic fields don't have much of an effect on consciousness, you can't alter someone's thoughts or feelings by waving some charged copper wire over their head.  The flow of charge in the brain is certainly important, and that's shaped by the pathways forged from neural cells, much as the processes in a computer are dictated by its circuitry,  but we have the advantage of organic constantly-changing circuitry that can adapt to just about any parameter.  (as do all animals with brains, to some degree...less complex brains are less able to adapt to new situations)

>>>To ascribe to the electrons in our brain the property to generate consciousness, and not to ascribe the same property to the electrons moving in a bulb, is in contradiction with one of the fundamental principle of physics, the Pauli Exclusion Principle, that establishes that all electrons are equal and indistinguishable, that is they have all exactly the same properties.

Bull****.  Just because every electron is alike, does not mean the collective motion and arrangement of said electrons are not important.  Let's say for instance that every brick is alike.  A building constructed of bricks is not the same as a hole with a bunch of bricks dumped in it.  The arrangement in space is important.  

>>>The only possible physical processes are determined by a mathematical operator called "Hamiltonian", that determines also the only possible kind of energy of the physical reality;...In order to have new processes or other kind of energy it is necessary to add some new term to the Hamiltonian

More BS.  No one is saying that consciousness is a "new" kind of energy except for you.  Disproving your own false hypothesis does not constitute valid evidence.


>>>The laws of quantum electrodynamics are confirmed by such a huge number of experimental results that it would be absurd to question their validity in the explanation of molecular systems, and in particular, of biological systems.

Experiments that provide supporting evidence for quantum electrodynamics are generally done in NONLIVING environments.  When you increase to the complexity of an organism, the interactions between all the particles in that organism are far too complex to extrapolate from some experiments run on small numbers of particles.  Also, since this field is really less than 100 years old and constantly evolving, calling it the most confirmed and systematic of scientific laws is incorrect.

>>>I think that it is correct to say that today the existence of the soul and the existence of a transcendent God are scientifically proved.

This may be the most arrogant thing I've ever read.


I skipped over a lot of the material in the middle of this article because it's been refuted above.  Just goes to show that you throw a little scientific knowledge into the hands of the self-righteous and they'll go out of their way to bend it in order to try and confirm their ideals.

This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People
This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

*

Offline tweener

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1144
    • View Profile
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #30 on: 25/02/2004 02:50:41 »
Jay,
He's not listening.  He's religious.  That means he can't listen or he might hear something that doesn't agree with the power person he is listening to.  If something doesn't agree, then it must be wrong.  

You'll never convince him, so I would recommend you just drop it and spend your time on something productive.  Like planting dollar bills in the ground to grow money trees. [:)]

----
John - The Eternal Pessimist.
----
John - The Eternal Pessimist.

*

Offline Ylide

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 905
    • View Profile
    • http://clem.mscd.edu/~mogavero
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #31 on: 25/02/2004 07:20:22 »
I just hate seeing someone take a weak grasp of science and twist it into a Gordian knot of piety.



This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People
This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

*

Offline Quantumcat

  • The Kitty Down Under
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 894
    • View Profile
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #32 on: 29/02/2004 21:43:48 »
Hey cannabinoid, that was a really really good post. It seems he can't think outside of individual particles and not the way they interact together. Hey, you know, it's EXACTLY (maybe) like saying that because all photons are exactly the same, it's impossible to communicate with optic fibres !!! Obviously that's stupid, because it's the way they are in relation to each other that holds the information, not the photons individually themselves. It's even sort of the essence of communication ... changing the arrangement of similar things communicates information ...

Am I dead? Am I alive? I'm both!
 

*

Offline Ylide

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 905
    • View Profile
    • http://clem.mscd.edu/~mogavero
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #33 on: 07/03/2004 05:23:14 »
You know, sometimes I go back and read old posts I made while I was high.  Case in point, 2 posts above...wtf is a Gordian knot of piety?  That's either really clever or really stupid.  

Glad my post made sense, erin...I had a lot of points I was trying to make in that one.



This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People
This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

*

Offline Quantumcat

  • The Kitty Down Under
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 894
    • View Profile
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #34 on: 07/03/2004 15:35:56 »
When you were high? You use drugs? O_o

Am I dead? Am I alive? I'm both!
 

*

Offline Ylide

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 905
    • View Profile
    • http://clem.mscd.edu/~mogavero
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #35 on: 08/03/2004 16:22:26 »
Where exactly did you think my name came from?  [:P]





This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People
This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

*

Offline Quantumcat

  • The Kitty Down Under
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 894
    • View Profile
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #36 on: 09/03/2004 12:31:47 »
Oh ... I didn't really think about that. You're going to ruin your body if you don't quit though, won't you? [xx(]

Am I dead? Am I alive? I'm both!
 

*

Offline Ylide

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 905
    • View Profile
    • http://clem.mscd.edu/~mogavero
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #37 on: 09/03/2004 16:08:40 »
Contrary to what government propaganda tells you, occasional responsible use is mostly harmless.  Didn't we cover this in another thread a few months back?

Drugs made me a better person.  [:P]




This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People
This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

*

Offline chris

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 5425
  • The Naked Scientist
    • View Profile
    • The Naked Scientists
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #38 on: 10/03/2004 04:03:52 »
mmm - I'm not so sure. My own feeling is that there are people with a preponderance to develop drug habits, and there are people with a preponderance to develop mental illness. There are also people who are a lethal combination of both categories.

There is evidence of an association between cannabis use and the subsequent development of schizophrenia / psychosis. This person is a classic example :

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/topic.asp?topic_id=637

There is also evidence that even small amounts of cannabis can powerfully affect motivation and memory.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/html/shows/2002.04.28.htm#1

Therefore on the balance of evidence, I advise avoidance.

Chris

"I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception"
 - Groucho Marx
I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception - Groucho Marx

*

Offline Ylide

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 905
    • View Profile
    • http://clem.mscd.edu/~mogavero
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #39 on: 10/03/2004 07:46:09 »
>>>There is also evidence that even small amounts of cannabis can powerfully affect motivation and memory.


I remember things just fine.  I excel in academic work...I carry a 4.0 GPA in a chemistry B.S. program with a double minor.  My motivation for things that are important is just fine.  When you're high, you can do everything you normally do, just as well. You just realize that many things are not worth the effort. There is a difference.

As for schizophrenia and psychosis, correlation does not equal causation.  Many people with mental illnesses will seek out drug use as a way of escaping the torment in their head.  Just because there is a high rate of drug usage in the mentally ill does not mean that is what caused it.  A huge percentage (and I mean very nearly 100%) of recovering alcoholics smoke cigarettes.  Does that mean smoking causes alcoholism?

Of course there are cases of dependency, that happens with any drug, prescription or otherwise.  There are also far more alcohol and cigarette addicts.  Responsible use entails coping with your problems rather than covering them up chemically.  Smoke to relax, not to escape.  Too much of anything is bad for you.  



This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People
This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

*

Offline tweener

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1144
    • View Profile
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #40 on: 11/03/2004 03:19:10 »
I'm stay'in outta this one.  Cannabinoid is getting reeeeligious. [:D]

----
John - The Eternal Pessimist.
----
John - The Eternal Pessimist.

*

Offline Ylide

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 905
    • View Profile
    • http://clem.mscd.edu/~mogavero
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #41 on: 11/03/2004 07:24:56 »
!!!  Religious!!!  For shame, John!  I'm just playing devil's advocate.  The people that chastise drug users the most are the ones that know the least about it.  It's like catholic priests trying to counsel people in their marriage or perhaps having a fat nutritionist.  








This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People
This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

*

Offline tweener

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1144
    • View Profile
Re: Scientific contradictions in materialism
« Reply #42 on: 11/03/2004 21:12:07 »
I agree Jay.  I don't know anything about it, but I think that people should be allowed to enjoy or destroy themselves any way they wish.  As long as it doesn't infringe on me or cost me.

----
John - The Eternal Pessimist.
----
John - The Eternal Pessimist.