Creator does not imply afterlife.

[KennyJC]

I am still waiting for you to display this 'controversy' LG. One 'devout' theist does not equate to such controversy. Devout theists also say that humans roamed the Earth at the same time as Dinosaurs and other animals clearly extinct before humans evolved. Theists in essence can not be trusted... especially when they bring their FAITH into the scientific arena without evidence to show. You know they are even trying to get the philospophy of I.D. into science classes?

Your whole post is hot air that a person could also use when arguing that the stars and planets have influence in daily human affairs.

Scientific experimentation all points to the fact that brain is 'the be all and end all', that is the evidence and scientific consensus as well as common sense.

What do you have to show otherwise?

And isn't it ironic that you cannot establish evolution by the same empirical processes that you deem necessary to prove the existence of god? In other words you also have a sky daddy

Fortunately fossils are burried under our feet. Where can I dig up God?

 

[(Q)]

On the contrary you are undermining scietific thought by trying to push through your ideas that the brain is the sole cause of self in the absence of empirical evidence

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black, LG?

“ Thats another thing - first you have to establish that the sense of self is solely designated by the brain - something neurologists can not empirically establish - perhaps you should help them out since you appear to know it all already ”

Well you are establishing that the brain is the sole cause of the self - maybe you should give a helping hand to the neurologists out there who cannot prove it.

Why would neurologists be trying to prove such a thing? They are simply trying to map out the brain in order to understand its functions. It's only from a philisophical standpoint that we would make such claims of the self, not a scientific one.

The problem that you'll encounter, LG, is that when the brain IS fully understood, you'll be hard pressed to claim those functions have anything to do with gods, from any standpoint other than the imaginary.

 

[lightgigantic]

(Q)

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black, LG?

You have empirical evidence do you?

Why would neurologists be trying to prove such a thing? They are simply trying to map out the brain in order to understand its functions. It's only from a philisophical standpoint that we would make such claims of the self, not a scientific one.

Then why do you advocate it as a scientific fact?

The problem that you'll encounter, LG, is that when the brain IS fully understood, you'll be hard pressed to claim those functions have anything to do with gods, from any standpoint other than the imaginary.

Ok now I understand - sometime in the future you will be correct

 

[Fathoms]

Here is an interesting experiment lighgigantic. Have a surgeon remove your brain from your body, and then report back on whether or not you still have a 'self'.

 

[lightgigantic]

I am still waiting for you to display this 'controversy' LG. One 'devout' theist does not equate to such controversy.

If you have a lack of empirical evidence for something yuo state as fact how many differing views do yuo require for a "contraversy" ? 1? 12? 100?
anyway here is another
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/imp/jcs/1999/00000006/F0020008/971
Tell me when we approach a figure that seems to suggest "contaversy"

Devout theists also say that humans roamed the Earth at the same time as Dinosaurs and other animals clearly extinct before humans evolved.

There are many things that are not "clear" the fact that estimates of ancient anthropology are constantly geting revised seems to indiacte this

Theists in essence can not be trusted...

Yes that seems to be the popular opinion - only atheists are allowed to have imaginary notions

especially when they bring their FAITH into the scientific arena without evidence to show. You know they are even trying to get the philospophy of I.D. into science classes?

In the absence of anything that comes close to evidence of things of complex structure forming by themselves is it so unreasonable?

Your whole post is hot air that a person could also use when arguing that the stars and planets have influence in daily human affairs.

Well given that you cannot trace teh cause of a star in the first place, people could also dry their arguments by the breeze of your opinions also

Scientific experimentation all points to the fact that brain is 'the be all and end all', that is the evidence and scientific consensus as well as common sense.

They are just having problems establishing their pointing as an empirical fact

What do you have to show otherwise?

the conclusions of persons actually established in the field

“ And isn't it ironic that you cannot establish evolution by the same empirical processes that you deem necessary to prove the existence of god? In other words you also have a sky daddy ”



Fortunately fossils are burried under our feet.

Its just when you start to catapult on the significance of these fossils that thinigs get sketchy

Where can I dig up God?

So if you have never seen your mind, does that mean you have one?

 

[lightgigantic]

Here is an interesting experiment lighgigantic. Have a surgeon remove your brain from your body, and then report back on whether or not you still have a 'self'.

You could also take the engine out of a car and see how the results are eventually identical to taking the driver out of the car

 

[Sarkus]

You could also take the engine out of a car and see how the results are eventually identical to taking the driver out of the car

Unfortunately it's yet another false analogy on your part, Lightgigantic....

Both the engine AND the driver have evidence to support their existence, both can be observed - and so neither in any way support your point.

If you view one as the brain, then the other is more like the flow of blood - i.e. you cannot have a working car without an engine - but without the driver it doesn't go anywhere.
Just as you cannot have a working body without a flow of blood (or possibly some artificial equivalent / plasma etc) - but it won't do anything without a brain.

 

[lightgigantic]

Unfortunately it's yet another false analogy on your part, Lightgigantic....

Both the engine AND the driver have evidence to support their existence, both can be observed - and so neither in any way support your point.

If you view one as the brain, then the other is more like the flow of blood - i.e. you cannot have a working car without an engine - but without the driver it doesn't go anywhere.
Just as you cannot have a working body without a flow of blood (or possibly some artificial equivalent / plasma etc) - but it won't do anything without a brain.

What makes you think I implied that that the self is the blood?

If you want to know what I am implying the self is you have to get back to the original q "What are you saying hello to when you say "hello" to someone?"

Yes the car and the driver do have evidence to support their existences.
But purpose of an analogy is to illustrate something that is unknown by something that is known.

the reason I used them in an analogy is to show how taking out the brain just like taking out the engine results in the same logical conclusion - inactivity of the vehicle. The car vehicle also becomes similarly inert when it has no conscious driver too.

Inother words just because consciousness exists within a certain threshold of parameters within the material body, doesn't indicate whether the relationship with the body is one of dependance or one of activation

 

[KennyJC]

If you have a lack of empirical evidence for something yuo state as fact how many differing views do yuo require for a "contraversy" ? 1? 12? 100?
anyway here is another
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/imp/jcs/1999/00000006/F0020008/971
Tell me when we approach a figure that seems to suggest "contaversy"

When it is controversy, it has to be controversy in scientific consensus. Evolution for example is controversial because many people reject it for non-scientific reasons. However there is no controversy in scientific consensus. Science acknowledges the fact of evolution.

Likewise I think it is scientific consensus that the brain is the be all and end all, since scientific observation confirms this. Saying otherwise is just philosophy if there is no evidence.

There are many things that are not "clear" the fact that estimates of ancient anthropology are constantly geting revised seems to indiacte this

Many things get revised in science, but only going by evidence - something theists don't apparently require before making their claims.

Yes that seems to be the popular opinion - only atheists are allowed to have imaginary notions

Well the atheist is not trying to disprove God, they are saying there is no evidence for it. The theist will often deny relevant science that contradicts their beliefs and often invent notions for which there is no be proof, such as stating there is a soul.

In the absence of anything that comes close to evidence of things of complex structure forming by themselves is it so unreasonable?


Well given that you cannot trace teh cause of a star in the first place, people could also dry their arguments by the breeze of your opinions also

I believe superliminal did a decent job of responding to such comments yesterday. Perhaps you should go prove him wrong.

They are just having problems establishing their pointing as an empirical fact

I'd say they have pretty much already emprically found by means of observation, measurement, experimentation has found that all aspects of a humans behaviour, personality, memories are within the brain. No soul hypothesis can be verified with any evidence.

the conclusions of persons actually established in the field

And they don't have sufficient evidence (if any) to sway scientific consensus.

Its just when you start to catapult on the significance of these fossils that thinigs get sketchy

I don't even have time right now to get into the evolution debate. But it shows how little you understand science. Perhaps theology is well suited for you - inventing notions and not requiring evidence and all...

So if you have never seen your mind, does that mean you have one?

What we call the 'mind' is somewhat understood and obersved by science. Again I don't have time to think out this reply further..

 

[Sarkus]

...the reason I used them in an analogy is to show how taking out the brain just like taking out the engine results in the same logical conclusion - inactivity of the vehicle. The car vehicle also becomes similarly inert when it has no conscious driver too.

And that is why it is a false analogy - as there is NO evidence to show the consciousness is a separate "thing" - whereas your analogy has this as its prime implication. Therefore to accept the analogy as ok is to accept the implications - which is why it is flawed. The analogy may appear ok - but it just does not tie to what is known. And analogies have to do that or be considered flawed / false.

 

[lightgigantic]

Kenny

When it is controversy, it has to be controversy in scientific consensus.

Well I gave you one link of controversy from a scientific angle? How many more do you want for evidence of "no consensus"?

Evolution for example is controversial because many people reject it for non-scientific reasons. However there is no controversy in scientific consensus. Science acknowledges the fact of evolution.

Correction - Science acknowledges the "theory" of evolution
There is just this little thing called "evidence" required for it to make the next step - and scientists contend the "fact" of evolution on these grounds

Likewise I think it is scientific consensus that the brain is the be all and end all, since scientific observation confirms this. Saying otherwise is just philosophy if there is no evidence.

The best way to establish that there is no evidence is to establish the evidence - since this has not been done regarding the brain as the ultimate cause of self (there's not even a consensus on the notion of "self" just to give you an idea how much you are jumping the gun) nor macro evolution as the ultimate contributer to the biodioversity of life on this planet these things remain controversial.

Well the atheist is not trying to disprove God, they are saying there is no evidence for it. The theist will often deny relevant science that contradicts their beliefs and often invent notions for which there is no be proof, such as stating there is a soul.

Who mentioned God? I am talking about the "fact" of evolution and the "fact" of the brain as the ultimate cause of "self"

Well given that you cannot trace teh cause of a star in the first place, people could also dry their arguments by the breeze of your opinions also ”

At some point it seems that people forget that their ideas are speculations because they assume that only th e physical processes unaided by anything else were innvolved
My point about the star was that claims that it does not require a "designer" certainly don't tally with our experiences - in fact it doesn't tally with a single experience of complex forms arising out of matter without conscious input

I'd say they have pretty much already emprically found by means of observation, measurement, experimentation has found that all aspects of a humans behaviour, personality, memories are within the brain. No soul hypothesis can be verified with any evidence.

Actually the scientific analysis of the self comes under 4 branches - philosophy, neurology, psychology and cognitive science - and frankly they are all having a hard time to come to a consensus
What authority do you base your statements on?

And they don't have sufficient evidence (if any) to sway scientific consensus.

So what evidence do you have of that consensus?
Apparently its news to to the scientific community and I want to be the one to say I heard it first on sciforums.

I don't even have time right now to get into the evolution debate. But it shows how little you understand science. Perhaps theology is well suited for you - inventing notions and not requiring evidence and all...

Don't worry it doesn't require much - just the evidence for macro evolution outside of theoretical speculation



Wh

at we call the 'mind' is somewhat understood and obersved by science. Again I don't have time to think out this reply further..

So now we have two answers to the question "Does neurology have a consensus on the notions of self in the scientific community?"
One is yes.
Another is somewhat
Do you want to go for a third?

 

[lightgigantic]

And that is why it is a false analogy - as there is NO evidence to show the consciousness is a separate "thing" - whereas your analogy has this as its prime implication. Therefore to accept the analogy as ok is to accept the implications - which is why it is flawed. The analogy may appear ok - but it just does not tie to what is known. And analogies have to do that or be considered flawed / false.

Szent-Giorgi, the Nobel laureate biologist, said,


"I went through my entire scientific career searching for life, but now I see that life has somehow slipped through my fingers and all I have is electrons, protons, and particles, which have no life at all. So in my old age I am forced to retrace my steps."

Saying that we have evidence that the brain is the cause of the self is a very unscientific premise since the nature of the brain is not something close to what we understand and the notion of "self" can also not be nailed down to an empirical defintition, although it is something we all can identify

Here is a quote by Francis Crick (BTW he is not a theist)

"Every time I write a paper on the origins of life I swear I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running with too few facts, though I must confess that in spite of this, the subject is so fascinating that I never seem to stick to my resolve."

 

[(Q)]

(Q)

You have empirical evidence do you?

I didn't say that, I implied that you or anyone else have yet to provide a single shred of "empirical evidence" for your religious beliefs, Mr. Pot.

Then why do you advocate it as a scientific fact?

Show me where I did.

Ok now I understand - sometime in the future you will be correct.

Or, more precisely, you'll be shown to be incorrect.

 

[(Q)]

A belief by definiton is "something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof":

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=belief&x=0&y=0

That is why they call it a "belief", not a "theory", so as not to waste you time on such a barren pusuit.

--- Ron.

Yes, but a "religious belief" by definition is "a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religious+belief&x=35&y=11

 

[KennyJC]

Kenny

Well I gave you one link of controversy from a scientific angle? How many more do you want for evidence of "no consensus"?

When the majority in that particular field accept the weight of evidence of those proposing an alternate theory. If it is good enough for the majority then it is good enough for me.

Correction - Science acknowledges the "theory" of evolution
There is just this little thing called "evidence" required for it to make the next step - and scientists contend the "fact" of evolution on these grounds

Clearly you don't realize that what you just said was immensely stupid and ignorant. Evolution is fact. Does that mean we have perfect knowledge of evolution? No. But we know it happened and is happening. It's like saying, because we don't know enough about gravity, we can't conclude that it exists. But we can conclude for a fact that gravity exists.

The fossil record demonstrates clear lineages which by definition IS evolution. Scientists correlate all evidence, drawn from paleontology, anatomy, genetics and geography with other information about the history of Earth. It's funny that all branches of science agree with each other on this elegant theory, all the time finding more and more confirmation of it's fact. And the funny thing is, it would only take ONE fossil to turn the whole theory up on it's head... a modern human fossil dating before hominids for example?

The best way to establish that there is no evidence is to establish the evidence - since this has not been done regarding the brain as the ultimate cause of self (there's not even a consensus on the notion of "self" just to give you an idea how much you are jumping the gun) nor macro evolution as the ultimate contributer to the biodioversity of life on this planet these things remain controversial.

No evidence to establish evidence? Firstly the activity WITHIN the brain demonstrates quite clearly, by scientific or otherwise, observation that this is the shell that holds everything that makes up our culture, music, God, and personal lives. Quite empirical.

The only mysteries that remain about evolution is how it started and how exactly it works. And there are promising theories for this already.

Who mentioned God? I am talking about the "fact" of evolution and the "fact" of the brain as the ultimate cause of "self"

Self, concious, mind... etc... These are all simply words for hugely complex reactions within the brain. Give it some credit instead of crediting something that effectively doesn't exist.

At some point it seems that people forget that their ideas are speculations because they assume that only th e physical processes unaided by anything else were innvolved
My point about the star was that claims that it does not require a "designer" certainly don't tally with our experiences - in fact it doesn't tally with a single experience of complex forms arising out of matter without conscious input

A designer behind the formation of a star most certainly does NOT tally with our experience. If you find evidence for such a thing, great.

Actually the scientific analysis of the self comes under 4 branches - philosophy, neurology, psychology and cognitive science - and frankly they are all having a hard time to come to a consensus
What authority do you base your statements on?

I can not answer that. What is scientific analysis of the "self"?

So what evidence do you have of that consensus?
Apparently its news to to the scientific community and I want to be the one to say I heard it first on sciforums.

Well I am not aware of scientists claiming of something external (soul-like) as a feature of the brain. Scientific consensus must therefore conclude there are no external factors. There is however, much about the brain to be discovered, and I am certain that all future discoveries will maintain the obvious; that the brain is everything.

 

[Plunkies]

Correction - Science acknowledges the "theory" of evolution
There is just this little thing called "evidence" required for it to make the next step - and scientists contend the "fact" of evolution on these grounds

Do all religious people goto some camp where they remove any memory of basic scientific principals taught in school?

"But it's just a theory!!!!"

IS IT? Dumbasses....

 

[lightgigantic]

Kenny

Well I gave you one link of controversy from a scientific angle? How many more do you want for evidence of "no consensus"? ”



When the majority in that particular field accept the weight of evidence of those proposing an alternate theory. If it is good enough for the majority then it is good enough for me.

So if most people think it is okay to kill people from another race or culture then you also give it the thumbs up?

“ Correction - Science acknowledges the "theory" of evolution
There is just this little thing called "evidence" required for it to make the next step - and scientists contend the "fact" of evolution on these grounds ”

Clearly you don't realize that what you just said was immensely stupid and ignorant. Evolution is fact. Does that mean we have perfect knowledge of evolution? No.

So facts do not necessarily innvolve perfect knowledge?
And I am immensely stupid for suggesting this?
I think this one warrants the sciforums hall of fame !!!

The fossil record demonstrates clear lineages which by definition IS evolution. Scientists correlate all evidence, drawn from paleontology, anatomy, genetics and geography with other information about the history of Earth. It's funny that all branches of science agree with each other on this elegant theory, all the time finding more and more confirmation of it's fact. And the funny thing is, it would only take ONE fossil to turn the whole theory up on it's head... a modern human fossil dating before hominids for example?

Actually the time lines drawn up by those studying the fossil record, those studying the spread of language and those studying the tribal drifts of populations do not agree with each other - yet it doesn't stop unscrupulous persons drawing on the conclusion s of all three disciplines to present consistent pictures of history

No evidence to establish evidence? Firstly the activity WITHIN the brain demonstrates quite clearly, by scientific or otherwise, observation that this is the shell that holds everything that makes up our culture, music, God, and personal lives. Quite empirical.

Well maybe you should present your case to all those scientists in the field that are having a tough time establishing what you are declaring

A designer behind the formation of a star most certainly does NOT tally with our experience. If you find evidence for such a thing, great.

Where have you looked?
The yellow pages?

“ Actually the scientific analysis of the self comes under 4 branches - philosophy, neurology, psychology and cognitive science - and frankly they are all having a hard time to come to a consensus
What authority do you base your statements on? ”



I can not answer that. What is scientific analysis of the "self"?

LOL - they cannot even come to a consensus on that - yet you seem to have it all worked out - maybe you could explain it to them

Well I am not aware of scientists claiming of something external (soul-like) as a feature of the brain. Scientific consensus must therefore conclude there are no external factors. There is however, much about the brain to be discovered, and I am certain that all future discoveries will maintain the obvious; that the brain is everything.

Sounds like a sky daddy
"It is true. It is a fact. It is proven. But we don't have the evidence and we don't understand it properly yet"

 

[lightgigantic]

Q

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
(Q)

You have empirical evidence do you? ”



I didn't say that, I implied that you or anyone else have yet to provide a single shred of "empirical evidence" for your religious beliefs, Mr. Pot.

Then if you have no empirical evidence proving that the self is manifested solely by the brain what is the difference?

“ Then why do you advocate it as a scientific fact? ”



Show me where I did.

You disagree with the statement that the brain is not the sole cause of self so I guess it lands you there by default

“ Ok now I understand - sometime in the future you will be correct. ”



Or, more precisely, you'll be shown to be incorrect.

This is comically similar to fundie xtians who say "you'll go to hell in the future - just wait and see"
in other words post dated cheques are not the methodology of commerce or logical discussions
Rather then pretending to be something great in the future, better just to work with what you are at the moment

 

[Plunkies]

Evolution is a fact. The only thing up for debate are the mechanics through which evolution occurs. And stop saying the "next step" in the theory of evolution. There is no next step, a theory never becomes a law, a law never becomes a theory, they explain completely different things.

Here's a website that will explain to you why you're a dummy.

 

[KennyJC]

Kenny



So if most people think it is okay to kill people from another race or culture then you also give it the thumbs up?

Another false analogy. Scientific consensus is there for good reason. If it didn't exist, it would allow bogus theories with no evidence to become mainstay.

“ Correction - Science acknowledges the "theory" of evolution
There is just this little thing called "evidence" required for it to make the next step - and scientists contend the "fact" of evolution on these grounds ”

Amazing. I don't quite know what to say other than you obviously don't know what constitutes evidence. You could even narrow it down further and say that there is no evidence for anything, which I'm sure your ignorance is capable of.

So facts do not necessarily innvolve perfect knowledge?
And I am immensely stupid for suggesting this?
I think this one warrants the sciforums hall of fame !!!

I doubt it beats your epistemoliogy of faith

Going by your logic, there are no facts in science. None. We don't have perfect knowledge of anything.

Actually the time lines drawn up by those studying the fossil record, those studying the spread of language and those studying the tribal drifts of populations do not agree with each other - yet it doesn't stop unscrupulous persons drawing on the conclusion s of all three disciplines to present consistent pictures of history

How does language and tribal drifts tie in with the fossil record? If you are suggesting it is proof against evolution then you'll need to explain why.

Well maybe you should present your case to all those scientists in the field that are having a tough time establishing what you are declaring

I don't have anything to present to them since I am only going by what science has observed in the brain.

Where have you looked?
The yellow pages?

This is where you fail to understand science. It can't make a claim if there is no evidence for it. Intelligent designer, the soul... relevant to philosophy, but nothing else.

LOL - they cannot even come to a consensus on that - yet you seem to have it all worked out - maybe you could explain it to them

Because the 'self' is just a word which has philisophical meaning. I think the consensus in science is that our thoughts are from physical reactions in the brain as can be observed in one of those scannery-majig things.

Sounds like a sky daddy
"It is true. It is a fact. It is proven. But we don't have the evidence and we don't understand it properly yet"

I can't really argue with your strawman. First you must give me example of what you consider a fact and what is evidence. Clearly your definitions of these things are far different that scientific definitions.