Tuesday 17 February 2015

Refuting Barry Beyerstein's Consciousness Depends On The Brain


Barry Beyerstein lists five main types of empirical evidence which support the dependence of consciousness on the brain.His is work is often cited by Atheist bloggers as irrefutable evidence against the existence of a non-physical consciousness.
Empirical evidence is that data which has been acquired via observation,experimentation,replication and published in peer reviewed journals (hopefully not behind any paywalls).With that in mind,let's flesh out the empirical evidence from the conjecture;

1."First, phylogenetic evidence refers to the evolutionary relationship between the complexity of the brain and a species' cognitive traits (Beyerstein 45). Corliss Lamont sums up this evidence: "We find that the greater the size of the brain and its cerebral cortex in relation to the animal body and the greater their complexity, the higher and more versatile the form of life" (Lamont 63)."
The brain-to-body-mass-ratio myth has been around since the days of Aristotle.Fortunately,contemporary neuroscience has adequately refuted this myth in this article .Humans and mice for example have similar brain/body size ratio.According to Beyerstein and company,mice should be either on par with human intelligence or second smartest creatures on this planet.To make matters even worse,small birds have relatively larger brains than humans according to their E/S (brain/body weight) ratio.This would mean birds are the most intelligent creatures on the planet,and the term "bird brain" takes on a whole new meaning.Bird brain = Einstein.

2 Second, the developmental evidence for mind-brain dependence is that mental abilities emerge with the development of the brain; failure in brain development prevents mental development (Beyerstein 45)
 Dualists admit that the brain can influence the mind and vice versa.However,the Materialist begs the question when he assumes that functional dependence equals existential dependence.For example:I depend on my computer for certain tasks,entertainment,communication,etc. Should my computer be destroyed,it does not mean I am destroyed too in the process.My survival is existentially independent from my computer but I depend on it to function for certain activities.
This is what is meant by the mind being functionally dependent on the brain but existentially independent from the brain.

3.Third, clinical evidence consists of cases of brain damage that result from accidents, toxins, diseases, and malnutrition that often result in irreversible losses of mental functioning (45).If the mind could exist independently of the brain, why couldn't the mind compensate for lost faculties when brain cells die after brain damage? (46)"
Dualist philosopher,William James, developed his transmission theory of consciousness,which posits that the mind-body relationship is bi-directional,ie. the effects run both ways.Mind can influence body - and body can influence mind.James delivered his Ingersoll Lecture in 1898 which formulates the actual position adopted by contemporary dualist philosophers and not the caricature invented by Beyerstein et al,which forces dualists to defend a straw man.
As has said William James:"Every one knows that arrests of brain development occasion imbecility, that blows on the head abolish memory or consciousness, and that brain-stimulants and poisons change the quality of our ideas.’ He then makes the point that modern physiologists ‘have only shown this generally admitted fact of a dependence to be detailed and minute’ in that ‘the various special forms of thinking are functions of special portions of the brain."
Thus the clinical evidence showing disease,toxins and accidents influencing mental states are consistent with the transmission theory of dualism,and does not in the least undermine it.As for the argument that mind must compensate for lost faculties is a non sequitir that conflates the types of dependence I mentioned above (in no.2).The mind is functionally dependent on the body to operate in the material plane.Therefore any damage to the brain will cause a distortion in consciousness but the mind does not depend on the body for survival,just as I don't depend on my cell phone for my existence even if my phone no longer functions.
Note: This mind-body issue regarding its ontology and functionality is an extremely difficult concept to follow for any Materialist.They cannot allow themselves to understand it and require repeated explanations.

4.Fourth, the strongest empirical evidence for mind-brain dependence is derived from experiments in neuroscience. Mental states are correlated with brain states; electrical or chemical stimulation of the human brain invokes perceptions, memories, desires, and other mental states (45).
False.The evidence of neuroscience remains neutral concerning the mind-brain ontological issues.The Materialist assumes neuroscience supports metaphysical naturalism because they interpret the data in such a way to support their a priori beliefs.For example,when the Materialist concludes that brain causes consciousness/mind because certain mental states are correlated with certain brain states,he is committing a logical fallacy called Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.If X and Y occured simultaneously then X caused Y.This type of reasoning fails to account for other possible explanations,and that possibly the direction of causation could be the reverse.

5.Finally, the experiential evidence for mind-brain dependence consists of the effects of several different types of drugs which predictably affect mental states (45).
This argument is a variant of numbers 2-4 which I've already dealt with.The unstated assumption is that drugs (a physical/chemical substance) must not affect the mind if dualism is true.But dualism makes no such claims and happily concedes that chemicals alter consciousness.Dualism postulates a bidirectional influence regarding the mental and physical relationship.See William James quote in no.3

56 comments:

  1. 1) This is an easy point to understand, brain differences between different species explain why different species have different cognitive traits.
    " Dualists admit that the brain can influence the mind and vice versa." The problem is how can the brain "influence" the mind if the mind is not physical?
    ".For example:I depend on my computer for certain tasks,entertainment,communication,etc. Should my computer be destroyed,it does not mean I am destroyed too in the process.My survival is existentially independent from my computer but I depend on it to function for certain activities.
    This is what is meant by the mind being functionally dependent on the brain but existentially independent from the brain." In that case we should be able to live and our mind to function perfectly normally without a brain - but obviously we can't.

    "Dualist philosopher,William James, developed his transmission theory of consciousness,which posits that the mind-body relationship is bi-directional,ie. the effects run both ways.Mind can influence body - and body can influence mind." This goes back to the question of how can the brain effect the mind if the mind is not physical?

    "Thus the clinical evidence showing disease,toxins and accidents influencing mental states are consistent with the transmission theory of dualism,and does not in the least undermine it." Except he hasn't bothered to explain why if consciousness doesn't need the brain, why cognitive functions can be lost by brain damage.

    "the mind is functionally dependent on the body to operate in the material plane." Yep it's rational to believe you need your brain all though your life and all your cognitive faculties can Be lost by brain damage and yet when you die and your brain is gone consciousness magically continues in another world functioning much better than it ever did with a brain.

    "Therefore any damage to the brain will cause a distortion in consciousness but the mind does not depend on the body for survival,just as I don't depend on my cell phone for my existence even if my phone no longer functions." Ridiculous the immaterial soul can't come in to restore those lost functions of a damaged or malformed brain, but yet the death of the entire brain causes those distortions to be restored brilliant.

    "For example,when the Materialist concludes that brain causes consciousness/mind because certain mental states are correlated with certain brain states,he is committing a logical fallacy called Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.If X and Y occured simultaneously then X caused Y.This type of reasoning fails to account for other possible explanations,and that possibly the direction of causation could be the reverse." So the mind changes itself does it and tries and make to make us believe that those mind altering drugs you just took caused the change in your mental state?


    "This argument is a variant of numbers 2-4 which I've already dealt with.The unstated assumption is that drugs (a physical/chemical substance) must not affect the mind if dualism is true.But dualism makes no such claims and happily concedes that chemicals alter consciousness." If consciousness is not chemicals in the brain then how do chemical changes in the brain change consciousness?

    ReplyDelete
  2. 1) This is an easy point to understand, brain differences between different species explain why different species have different cognitive traits//

    There are different cognitive traits amongst humans too,but that does not prove the brain creates mind.
    ===
    The problem is how can the brain "influence" the mind if the mind is not physical?//
    To use an analogy for James' transmission theory:let's analogue the brain with a tv and mind with the signal.Albeit the television is primarily a receptive artifact,it can also influence the colors and pictures of the signal being transmitted.Therefore the television is not only receptive but also transmissive.Likewise,the brain is a receiver of consciousness and depending on the physical health of the brain,it could strongly influence the types of consciousness being transmitted.
    ===
    In that case we should be able to live and our mind to function perfectly normally without a brain - but obviously we can't.//
    We cannot function physically without a brain,as long as consciousness is embodied.
    ===
    Except he hasn't bothered to explain why if consciousness doesn't need the brain, why cognitive functions can be lost by brain damage.//

    No one said consciousness does not need the brain.It needs the brain to function on this material plane.
    ===
    Yep it's rational to believe you need your brain all though your life and all your cognitive faculties can Be lost by brain damage//
    Going back to the tv anology,when the tv is destroyed so is its ability to receive and transmit images and movies but that does not mean those pics and clips are destroyed.The signal transmitting them is perfectly fine.

    and yet when you die and your brain is gone consciousness magically continues in another world functioning much better than it ever did with a brain//

    In a sense yes,the brain confines,limits and filters consciousness to make it possible to function on the material plane.
    ===
    Ridiculous the immaterial soul can't come in to restore those lost functions of a damaged or malformed brain, but yet the death of the entire brain causes those distortions to be restored brilliant//

    You misunderstand (perhaps intentionally!) the relationship between mind and body.The mind can only function as well in the material world as long as its body is in a very good state.If my cellphone's mic is faulty due to water damage then those on the other line won't understand me,even though my own voice is perfectly fine.
    ===
    So the mind changes itself does it and tries and make to make us believe that those mind altering drugs you just took caused the change in your mental state?//
    As long as consciousness is attached to the body,the drugs which causes chemical changes in the brain will influence states of consciousness.Using the tv analogy again: The tv's images and movies can influence the audience either through laughter,tears,etc. even though the tv is a receiver.
    ===
    If consciousness is not chemicals in the brain then how do chemical changes in the brain change consciousness?//

    This is why understanding William James' transmission theory is so important because the same questions get asked repeatedly.My previous answer applies here as well.
    Besides,how do chemicals create consciousness?This is an extra-extraordinary claim requiring extra-extraordinary evidence (atheist's criterion).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "There are different cognitive traits amongst humans too,but that does not prove the brain creates mind." Its an indication that cognitive traits are the result of brain structures.

      "To use an analogy for James' transmission theory:let's analogue the brain with a tv and mind with the signal.Albeit the television is primarily a receptive artifact,it can also influence the colors and pictures of the signal being transmitted.Therefore the television is not only receptive but also transmissive.Likewise,the brain is a receiver of consciousness and depending on the physical health of the brain,it could strongly influence the types of consciousness being transmitted." From what we know about the brain, it is much more like a computer than a TV set. That is, the brain is much more complex than a current TV set, and can create its own TV programs if circumstances are right. It can also record and playback TV programs, and reason about which programs to watch, or create, etc.

      "We cannot function physically without a brain,as long as consciousness is embodied." If consciousness is not dependent on the brain/body it should be able to function without the body whether it(or we) want to - not just when we physically die.

      "No one said consciousness does not need the brain.It needs the brain to function on this material plane." Why does it need a brain to function in this world but yet can perfectly function in the next world without the brain?

      "If my cellphone's mic is faulty due to water damage then those on the other line won't understand me,even though my own voice is perfectly fine." This is a poor analogy your consciousness is not damaged if your phone is damaged, but yet consciousness is damaged if the brain gets damaged - which would not be happening if the consciousness did not depend on the brain.

      "As long as consciousness is attached to the body,the drugs which causes chemical changes in the brain will influence states of consciousness." If consciousness was immaterial chemicals in the brain would have no effect on it.

      "Using the tv analogy again: The tv's images and movies can influence the audience either through laughter,tears,etc. even though the tv is a receiver." Yes that's because images and films are physical things which have an effect on human beings.

      "Besides,how do chemicals create consciousness?This is an extra-extraordinary claim requiring extra-extraordinary evidence (atheist's criterion)." Consciousness is a particular pattern of electro-chemical activity in the brain, when the brain stops functioning memory is lost and the personality dissipates. This is known to everyone who knows anything about the brain.

      Delete
  3. Its an indication that cognitive traits are the result of brain structures//

    No two persons share the exact cognitive traits,which are mental abilities.You assert these are the result of their different brain structures.But that's an unfounded leap,you need to show us a transitive link between brain structures,cognitive traits and how that concludes brain creates mind.At least put your argument in a syllogistic form.
    ===
    From what we know about the brain, it is much more like a computer than a TV set. That is, the brain is much more complex than a current TV set, and can create its own TV programs if circumstances are right. It can also record and playback TV programs, and reason about which programs to watch, or create, etc.//
    In your analogy,tv programs are analogous with consciousness.I used the signal as an example but yours works fine too.So,you say the brain is like a tv that creates its own programs.
    Few problems with your analogy:
    1) Tv's do not create their own programs.Where are the actors,inside the tv set?
    2)If brain creates its own consciousness,then it should be physically visible and subject to empirical testing.
    3)
    ===
    If consciousness is not dependent on the brain/body it should be able to function without the body whether it(or we) want to - not just when we physically die.//

    For survival.Consciousness is not dependent on the body for its existence.Why should the mind function without the body in the material plane,When that is its purpose for being embodied?
    ===
    Why does it need a brain to function in this world but yet can perfectly function in the next world without the brain?//

    Because the "next" world is not physical.
    ===
    This is a poor analogy your consciousness is not damaged if your phone is damaged, but yet consciousness is damaged if the brain gets damaged -//
    There are patients,such as neuroanatomist Jill Taylor who had reported that there consciousness was still intact (she felt normal) but due to their brain injuries could not communicate effectively.
    http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight?language=en
    which would not be happening if the consciousness did not depend on the brain//
    Consciousness does depend on the brain...to function in this world
    ===
    If consciousness was immaterial chemicals in the brain would have no effect on it.//
    Why is that?
    ===
    Consciousness is a particular pattern of electro-chemical activity in the brain, when the brain stops functioning memory is lost and the personality dissipates. This is known to everyone who knows anything about the brain.//
    Then anything which conducts electricity should be conscious





    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. No two persons share the exact cognitive traits,which are mental abilities.You assert these are the result of their different brain structures".But that's an unfounded leap,you need to show us a transitive link between brain structures,cognitive traits and how that concludes brain creates mind.At least put your argument in a syllogistic form."'It a fact that cognitive traits are the result of brain structures, so their is no point in trying to dispute it. See this site which explains what areas of the brain are responsible for each cognitive ability. http://biau.org/about-brain-injuries/cognitive-skills-of-the-brain/

      In your analogy,tv programs are analogous with consciousness.I used the signal as an example but yours works fine too.So,you say the brain is like a tv that creates its own programs.
      Few problems with your analogy:

      "1) Tv's do not create their own programs.Where are the actors,inside the tv set?" The actors in the TV set are chemicals in the brain.

      "2)If brain creates its own consciousness,then it should be physically visible and subject to empirical testing." I don't say the brain creates its own consciousness, I do say however that the brain is the "seat" of consciousness.

      "Consciousness is not dependent on the body for its existence." You need to prove that - otherwise you are speaking nonsense.

      "Why should the mind function without the body in the material plane," Because you say the mind is not material, in that case it should have no problem functioning without the body.

      "Because the "next" world is not physical." So why would the mind which say is not physical, be restricted by the physical world?

      This is a poor analogy your consciousness is not damaged if your phone is damaged, but yet consciousness is damaged if the brain gets damaged -//
      "There are patients,such as neuroanatomist Jill Taylor who had reported that there consciousness was still intact (she felt normal) but due to their brain injuries could not communicate effectively." The reason she could not communicate was because she had a blood clot the size of a golf ball pushing on the language centre in her brain.

      If consciousness was immaterial chemicals in the brain would have no effect on it.//
      "Why is that?" Because you claim consciousness is immaterial, if it was immaterial a drug which is a chemical compound would not be able to effect the state of the mind.

      "Then anything which conducts electricity should be conscious" I said consciousness is a particular pattern of electo-chemical activity in the brain. It is not just any pattern of electricity.

      Delete
  4. See this site which explains what areas of the brain are responsible for each cognitive ability. http://biau.org/about-brain-injuries/cognitive-skills-of-the-brain"

    All that site does is to show which areas of the brain the mind uses to process its actions.It does not conflict with dualism.Drawing any conclusions other than causing damage to certain regions of the brain will result in consciousness not being fully expressed is absurd.
    ===
    The actors in the TV set are chemicals in the brain//
    Okay,then we should be able to mix certain chemicals which exists in the brain,reproduce them in a lab and create consciousness.

    I don't say the brain creates its own consciousness, I do say however that the brain is the "seat" of consciousness.//
    Consciousness lacks spatio-temporal properties,it's indivisible and it has intention and free will (unlike matter),so it cannot be found "seated" in the brain.
    ===
    You need to prove that - otherwise you are speaking nonsense.//
    There are evidence in NDE studies of the consciousness surviving physical trauma
    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2801%2907100-8/fulltext?version=printerFriendly
    ===
    Because you say the mind is not material, in that case it should have no problem functioning without the body.//
    It cannot function without the body (perhaps for brief periods,like a fish out of water) in the material plane for long.But it can function in other bodily vehicles suited for different planes or levels of existence.For example,an astral body in an astral plane.
    ===
    So why would the mind which say is not physical, be restricted by the physical world?//
    As long as it is attached to the body it will limit (not completely) its consciousness to the physical world.
    ===
    The reason she could not communicate was because she had a blood clot the size of a golf ball pushing on the language centre in her brain.//
    Exactly,but her mind was still capable of perception and she realized then that she was not her brain or body
    ===
    Because you claim consciousness is immaterial, if it was immaterial a drug which is a chemical compound would not be able to effect the state of the mind// But the drugs affect the brain which in turn affects the level of clarity of consciousness being expressed.If the vehicle is damaged then the experience is somewhat altered.
    ===
    I said consciousness is a particular pattern of electo-chemical activity in the brain. It is not just any pattern of electricity.//
    But that's the crux of the matter.Neuroscience fails to show why a particular firing of neurons in the brain for the color blue is different from any other mental activity where another firing of nuerons occur.This is one of the objections against reductionism.There are no differences in electro chemical signals for qualia,hence it's irreducible to matter and non-physical.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "All that site does is to show which areas of the brain the mind uses to process its actions.It does not conflict with dualism.Drawing any conclusions other than causing damage to certain regions of the brain will result in consciousness not being fully expressed is absurd." It shows what areas of the brain are responsible for what function. If those areas are damaged then the function is gone, in fact when activity in the brain stem is lost (which is responsible for consciousness) then consciousness is gone - even when the person is still alive.
      ===
      The actors in the TV set are chemicals in the brain//
      "Okay,then we should be able to mix certain chemicals which exists in the brain,reproduce them in a lab and create consciousness." Certainly if we recreate a brain in a lab their is no reason it why should or could not be conscious - but obviously we don't have any technology anywhere near capable of doing that.

      "Consciousness lacks spatio-temporal properties,it's indivisible and it has intention and free will (unlike matter),so it cannot be found "seated" in the brain." It certainly does have spatio-temporal properties - that is how you are able to differentiate between different people's consciousness, also doctors have to measure the state of consciousness all the time.

      "There are evidence in NDE studies of the consciousness surviving physical trauma" It can't survive brain death and if parts of the brain suffer physical trauma then that function is gone. These are facts of neuroscience, the so called near death experiences do nothing to challenge these facts.

      "It cannot function without the body (perhaps for brief periods,like a fish out of water) in the material plane for long."But it can function in other bodily vehicles suited for different planes or levels of existence.For example,an astral body in an astral plane." How are these astral bodies and planes not physical then? If the mind needs a physical body with which to function?

      "As long as it is attached to the body it will limit (not completely) its consciousness to the physical world." And yet when the body dies it won't be limited by the physical at all - which is why what you are saying is ridiculous.

      "Exactly,but her mind was still capable of perception and she realized then that she was not her brain or body" The clot was on the language centre - not on the part responsible for perception.

      ".If the vehicle is damaged then the experience is somewhat altered." Yes if your car is damaged it won't drive as well as it used to and when it is damaged beyond repair then the car is gone - exactly the same as with consciousness.

      "But that's the crux of the matter.Neuroscience fails to show why a particular firing of neurons in the brain for the color blue is different from any other mental activity where another firing of nuerons occur." Because it's a different collection of neurons and brain areas firing that's why we have different experiences. Their is no reason to think consciousness is not physical or anything other than the brain is involved.

      "There are no differences in electro chemical signals for qualia,hence it's irreducible to matter and non-physical." You don't know their are no differences in electro chemical signals therefore this is just unfounded speculation.

      Delete
  5. It shows what areas of the brain are responsible for what function. If those areas are damaged then the function is gone, in fact when activity in the brain stem is lost (which is responsible for consciousness) then consciousness is gone - even when the person is still alive//.
    Not true,in patients who have had NDE's like Eben Alexander and Dr.Pim Von Lommel's studies found that there were no electrical activity of the cortex of the brain as well as abolition of brain stem activity.
    http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm#results
    ===
    Certainly if we recreate a brain in a lab their is no reason it why should or could not be conscious - but obviously we don't have any technology anywhere near capable of doing that.//
    This is called promissary materialism.Put another way,"one day science will solve all our problems".It's faith, based on an inductive fallacy.
    ===
    It certainly does have spatio-temporal properties - that is how you are able to differentiate between different people's consciousness, also doctors have to measure the state of consciousness all the time//.
    If you are reducing consciousness to brain stem/electrical activity then perhaps yes.But first,you must show using Leibniz' Law of Identity of Indiscernibles why consciousness and brain activity are synonymous.Leibniz Law states:For if A is identical with B,then whatever can be said of A can also be said of B and vice versa.
    ===
    It can't survive brain death and if parts of the brain suffer physical trauma then that function is gone. These are facts of neuroscience, the so called near death experiences do nothing to challenge these facts.//
    Of course there are,most studies deal with brain death and cardiological death,which are forms of clinical death.Check that link I gave.
    ===
    How are these astral bodies and planes not physical then? If the mind needs a physical body with which to function?//
    The Astral realm is purported to be a non-physical dimension,where the soul or consciousness inhabits a "body" or "vehicle" suited for that plane,which is non-physical too.
    ===
    And yet when the body dies it won't be limited by the physical at all - which is why what you are saying is ridiculous.//
    When the body dies,the soul is released from its confines,so the limitations disappear with that process called death.
    ===
    The clot was on the language centre - not on the part responsible for perception.//
    Yes,the clot is what caused the stroke but the stroke caused her brain functions to shut down like speech,motion and self-awareness.
    ===
    Yes if your car is damaged it won't drive as well as it used to and when it is damaged beyond repair then the car is gone - exactly the same as with consciousness.//
    The car/vehicle is an analogy for the physical body.Yes,when it dies it is gone forever and when damaged it alters the drivers (consciousness) experience.
    ===
    Because it's a different collection of neurons and brain areas firing that's why we have different experiences. Their is no reason to think consciousness is not physical or anything other than the brain is involved//
    Once again,not true.When there are neurons firing for the color green and for blue,it does not occur in different regions of the brain and the collection of neurons are no different for each color.How does the brain know which color is being perceived by the firing of neurons?
    ===
    You don't know their are no differences in electro chemical signals therefore this is just unfounded speculation.//
    If there are differences,show me two.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Part 1

      "Not true,in patients who have had NDE's like Eben Alexander and Dr.Pim Von Lommel's studies found that there were no electrical activity of the cortex of the brain as well as abolition of brain stem activity." See this http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/brain-death/Pages/Introduction.aspx a few quotes "Brain stem death is where a person no longer has any activity in their brain stem, and has permanently lost the potential for consciousness and the capacity to breathe.
      This may happen even when a ventilator is keeping the person's heart beating and oxygen is circulating through their blood"
      "A person is confirmed as being dead when their brain stem function is PERMANENTLY LOST"
      "After brain death, it's NOT possible for someone to remain conscious. "
      This quote proves these people are speaking nonsense "A person who is brain dead has no chance of recovery, because their body is unable to survive without artificial support" That's why nobody has ever come back from death - because the activity in the brain stem has permanently ceased.

      Certainly if we recreate a brain in a lab their is no reason it why should or could not be conscious - but obviously we don't have any technology anywhere near capable of doing that.//
      "This is called promissary materialism.Put another way,"one day science will solve all our problems".It's faith, based on an inductive fallacy." You seem to be claiming it is impossible in principle that such a thing could be done if so the burden of proof is on you. Just like if someone claimed a couple of hundred years ago that is impossible - in principle and not just because of limitations in our current technology - to put men on the moon then the burden of proof is on them

      Delete
    2. Part 2


      "If you are reducing consciousness to brain stem/electrical activity then perhaps yes.But first,you must show using Leibniz' Law of Identity of Indiscernibles why consciousness and brain activity are synonymous.Leibniz Law states:For if A is identical with B,then whatever can be said of A can also be said of B and vice versa." If you look in the dictionary we have a word mind and a word brain the two words are not synonymous. So because of that you think that the brain cannot possible cause the mind? The mind is a emergent property of the brain just like a fountain (for example) is a emergent property of a pump, water, spout etc.

      "Of course there are,most studies deal with brain death and cardiological death,which are forms of clinical death.Check that link I gave." Check the link I gave which gives the scientific definition of brain death and explains why it's not reversible.

      "When the body dies,the soul is released from its confines,so the limitations disappear with that process called death." Yep science has no cure for diseases like Alzheimer's and you may not remember anyone or anything in your life but yet the death of the entire brain magically cures it. Very believable.

      The car/vehicle is an analogy for the physical body."Yes,when it dies it is gone forever" Exactly the same as what happens to us."

      "Once again,not true.When there are neurons firing for the color green and for blue,it does not occur in different regions of the brain and the collection of neurons are no different for each color." You don't know this.

      "How does the brain know which color is being perceived by the firing of neurons?" Mental activity is just brain activity, colours are wavelengths of light. Different wavelengths simulate different cones in the retina. The brain combines the information from each type of receptor to give rise to different perceptions of different wavelengths of light.

      "If there are differences,show me two." Different cones are stimulated by different wavelengths, - as that's what colours are - different wavelengths of light, which stimulate different cones in the retina. This information is sent to the brain and this gives rise to our perception of colour. So their definitely is a physical difference in the brain and body when you perceive blue rather than red. Furthermore you are the one who claims their are no differences in the brain when we perceive or think different things so you need to provide evidence for your "soul of the gaps" theory.

      Delete
  6. This quote proves these people are speaking nonsense "A person who is brain dead has no chance of recovery, because their body is unable to survive without artificial support" That's why nobody has ever come back from death - because the activity in the brain stem has permanently ceased.//

    The people who have actually confirmed brain death in patients with NDEs were their doctors.If you're accusing those researchers,doctors,neurosurgeons,etc of malpractice then some evidence is required because anyone can say they're lying.
    ===
    You seem to be claiming it is impossible in principle that such a thing could be done if so the burden of proof is on you. Just like if someone claimed a couple of hundred years ago that is impossible - in principle and not just because of limitations in our current technology - to put men on the moon then the burden of proof is on them//
    Logically possible yes,but empirically possible,no.Concerning the burden of proof,Atheists always claim the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim and since you made a positive claim that "consciousness has spatio-temporal properties",the BoP is on you.I made a negative claim against yours,that consciousness does not have spatio-temporal properties,that ordinary material objects posess.
    ===
    If you look in the dictionary we have a word mind and a word brain the two words are not synonymous. So because of that you think that the brain cannot possible cause the mind? The mind is a emergent property of the brain just like a fountain (for example) is a emergent property of a pump, water, spout etc.//
    That's what we're trying to flesh out.Is consciousness an emergent property of the brain,and if so,how?You have failed to provide an explanation for how a particular arrangments of neurons cause subjective experiences.Simply declaring it an emergent property does not make it a fact.
    ===
    Check the link I gave which gives the scientific definition of brain death and explains why it's not reversible//
    There are plenty of counter examples falsifying that statement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This quote proves these people are speaking nonsense "A person who is brain dead has no chance of recovery, because their body is unable to survive without artificial support" That's why nobody has ever come back from death - because the activity in the brain stem has permanently ceased.//

      ".If you're accusing those researchers,doctors,neurosurgeons,etc of malpractice then some evidence is required because anyone can say they're lying." The above quote is the evidence, perhaps you didn't read it? As the article explains what brain death is and why it's not reversible. So yes if these doctors are claiming that someone came back from complete brain death then they are lying - since we know this is not possible.
      ===
      You seem to be claiming it is impossible in principle that such a thing could be done if so the burden of proof is on you. Just like if someone claimed a couple of hundred years ago that is impossible - in principle and not just because of limitations in our current technology - to put men on the moon then the burden of proof is on them//
      "Logically possible yes,but empirically possible,no." Give me your reasons as to why you think it's physically impossible that we could create the brain In a lab and then explain why such a brain could not have consciousness.

      "Concerning the burden of proof,Atheists always claim the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim and since you made a positive claim that "consciousness has spatio-temporal properties",the BoP is on you." I already provided evidence to support this, if it didn't have spatio-temporal properties it would be impossible to observe other people's consciousness and doctors also would not be able to measure a persons state of mind. In addition no one has ever observed consciousness without the persons physical body, nor has anyone explained how consciousness can exist and function without the physical body.

      "I made a negative claim against yours,that consciousness does not have spatio-temporal properties,that ordinary material objects posess." Like I said before you need to demonstrate that consciousness is not a product of the brain - otherwise you are talking nonsense.

      If you look in the dictionary we have a word mind and a word brain the two words are not synonymous. So because of that you think that the brain cannot possible cause the mind? The mind is a emergent property of the brain just like a fountain (for example) is a emergent property of a pump, water, spout etc.//
      "You have failed to provide an explanation for how a particular arrangments of neurons cause subjective experiences." I explained that already, neurons, electrical impulses and so on cause consciousness just like the pump and water spout cause the fountain. And just like the column of water we call fountain ceases to exist when you take away it causes so does consciousness. If you think consciousness exists and operates in a fundamentally different way to a fountain (or every other thing in the universe) then you need to prove this.

      Check the link I gave which gives the scientific definition of brain death and explains why it's not reversible//
      "There are plenty of counter examples falsifying that statement." Oh really?

      Delete
  7. (Part2)
    Yep science has no cure for diseases like Alzheimer's and you may not remember anyone or anything in your life but yet the death of the entire brain magically cures it. Very believable.//
    The brain is the reason our conscious awareness is limited,as its function is to limit consciousness to the material and brain injury exacerbate the problem.So yes,a mind unattached to the body will no longer have its limitations.
    ===
    Mental activity is just brain activity, colours are wavelengths of light. Different wavelengths simulate different cones in the retina. The brain combines the information from each type of receptor to give rise to different perceptions of different wavelengths of light.//
    This physiological process you've given where the light is absorbed by the retina and in turn sends the data to the brain,is what philosophers call "the easy problem".I'm refering to "the hard problem of consciousness",where no electro-chemical signal can discern between the subjective conscious experience of the colors red and green.
    To quote Erwin Schrodinger (physicist):The sensation of color cannot be accounted for by the physicist's objective picture of light-waves. Could the physiologist account for it, if he had fuller knowledge than he has of the processes in the retina and the nervous processes set up by them in the optical nerve bundles and in the brain? I do not think so.
    ===
    Different cones are stimulated by different wavelengths, - as that's what colours are - different wavelengths of light, which stimulate different cones in the retina. This information is sent to the brain and this gives rise to our perception of colour. So their definitely is a physical difference in the brain and body when you perceive blue rather than red. Furthermore you are the one who claims their are no differences in the brain when we perceive or think different things so you need to provide evidence for your "soul of the gaps" theory//
    Your response was to this comment of mine."There are no differences in electro chemical signals for qualia
    "Qualia" being the operative word,which is conscious subjective experience.It is what differentiates us from philosophical zombies,a term coined Atheist Daniel Dennet.You can't charge me with a "soul of the gaps" argument because you did not even address my original argument.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (Part2)
      Yep science has no cure for diseases like Alzheimer's and you may not remember anyone or anything in your life but yet the death of the entire brain magically cures it. Very believable.//
      "The brain is the reason our conscious awareness is limited,as its function is to limit consciousness to the material and brain injury exacerbate the problem.So yes,a mind unattached to the body will no longer have its limitations." This is like believing that yes my cars speed is limited by the physical. Yet when my car is gone to the scrap heap it will be driving around at limitless speed in a magical afterlife - pure fantasy nonsense.
      ===
      Mental activity is just brain activity, colours are wavelengths of light. Different wavelengths simulate different cones in the retina. The brain combines the information from each type of receptor to give rise to different perceptions of different wavelengths of light.//
      This physiological process you've given where the light is absorbed by the retina and in turn sends the data to the brain,is what philosophers call "the easy problem

      ""I'm refering to "the hard problem of consciousness",where no electro-chemical signal can discern between the subjective conscious experience of the colors red and green." If consciousness is nothing but electro-chemical signals then it not a problem at all.

      "To quote Erwin Schrodinger (physicist):The sensation of color cannot be accounted for by the physicist's objective picture of light-waves. Could the physiologist account for it, if he had fuller knowledge than he has of the processes in the retina and the nervous processes set up by them in the optical nerve bundles and in the brain? I do not think so." Quoting a famous scientist is not evidence. If we had complete knowledge of the processes of the brain and body then we would know exactly how qualia is produced.

      "You can't charge me with a "soul of the gaps" argument because you did not even address my original argument." That is exactly what your argument comes down to here "We don't know what qualia is in the brain or I can't think of how physical processes could possible produce qualia therefore soul"

      Delete
  8. hat's why nobody has ever come back from death - because the activity in the brain stem has permanently ceased//
    This is circular reasoning."Nobody has come back from the dead because they were brain dead".Your reasoning does not allow any investigation beyond the physical.Yet it claims to have that type of knowledge.
    ===
    As the article explains what brain death is and why it's not reversible. So yes if these doctors are claiming that someone came back from complete brain death then they are lying - since we know this is not possible.//
    It's funny because Atheist's are always boasting that science is not a settled discipline and Atheists are always open to new data,but of course that's not true,as long as the data does not conflict with Materialism.
    See this link on the largest NDE study confirming it's reality
    http://www.southampton.ac.uk/mediacentre/news/2014/oct/14_181.shtml#.VPR0RVvbLeU

    "Dr Sam Parnia, Assistant Professor of Critical Care Medicine and Director of Resuscitation Research at The State University of New York at Stony Brook, USA, and the study’s lead author, explained: “Contrary to perception, death is not a specific moment but a potentially reversible process that occurs after any severe illness or accident causes the heart, lungs and brain to cease functioning. If attempts are made to reverse this process, it is referred to as ‘cardiac arrest’; however, if these attempts do not succeed it is called ‘death’. In this study we wanted to go beyond the emotionally charged yet poorly defined term of NDEs to explore objectively what happens when we die.”
    ===
    Give me your reasons as to why you think it's physically impossible that we could create the brain In a lab and then explain why such a brain could not have consciousness//
    Once scientists can successfully refute the hard consciousness problem,mind/body dualism,free will,etc. then perhaps it will be possible.
    ===
    I already provided evidence to support this, if it didn't have spatio-temporal properties it would be impossible to observe other people's consciousness and doctors also would not be able to measure a persons state of mind. In addition no one has ever observed consciousness without the persons physical body, nor has anyone explained how consciousness can exist and function without the physical body.//
    I'm sorry,I must have missed that one.Are you claiming the electrical activity measured by EEG is consciousness being observed?There is brain activity when we sleep,but we are not conscious,as well as in unconscious patients.Wherever the EEG record brain activity there is consciousness/awareness but clearly that's not the case.
    ===
    Like I said before you need to demonstrate that consciousness is not a product of the brain - otherwise you are talking nonsense.//
    That's easy,the evidence from NDE studies is evidence against the Materialist's production hypothesis
    ===
    for how a particular arrangments of neurons cause subjective experiences." I explained that already, neurons, electrical impulses and so on cause consciousness just like the pump and water spout cause the fountain. And just like the column of water we call fountain ceases to exist when you take away it causes so does consciousness. If you think consciousness exists and operates in a fundamentally different way to a fountain (or every other thing in the universe) then you need to prove this.
    Yes,consciousness posesses free wil and is therefore not subjected to cause and effect as is all reducible properties.
    ===
    Oh really?//
    Yes.counter examples falsify universal/categorical statements.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "This is circular reasoning."Nobody has come back from the dead because they were brain dead".Your reasoning does not allow any investigation beyond the physical.Yet it claims to have that type of knowledge" I am telling you why they cannot come back - because their dead.

      "If attempts are made to reverse this process, it is referred to as ‘cardiac arrest’; however, if these attempts do not succeed it is called ‘death’. In this study we wanted to go beyond the emotionally charged yet poorly defined term of NDEs to explore objectively what happens when we die.” Yes this quote confirms what I said, the NDEs are usually caused by cardiac arrest, where a person comes CLOSE to death (that is why they are called NEAR death (they are not after death experiences. ) Death is a process that takes a certain amount of time - the brain isn't completely dead until all the oxygen is gone and all the activity has ceased. When that happens the person/brain is completely dead and the process cannot be reversed.

      "Once scientists can successfully refute the hard consciousness problem,mind/body dualism,free will,etc. then perhaps it will be possible" Consciousness is just a collection of components - like everything else. Your belief is the one that needs to provide evidence - otherwise its just special pleading

      ."Are you claiming the electrical activity measured by EEG is consciousness being observed" You can observe peoples consciousness which yes is a particular pattern of electrical activity in their brain.

      "There is brain activity when we sleep,but we are not conscious,as well as in unconscious patients" So much for afterlife then eh - since dead people are defiantly not conscious.

      "Wherever the EEG record brain activity there is consciousness/awareness but clearly that's not the case" The brain waves are different when we are asleep to when we are awake and conscious - this is a well known fact.

      "That's easy,the evidence from NDE studies is evidence against the Materialist's production hypothesis" Their is no evidence from NDE accountants that the mind exists and functions independent of the brain.

      'Yes,consciousness posesses free wil and is therefore not subjected to cause and effect as is all reducible properties" In that case consciousness could not be affected by the physical world or have any effect on the world,but since it clearly does that it obviously is not free from cause and effect.

      Delete
  9. This is like believing that yes my cars speed is limited by the physical. Yet when my car is gone to the scrap heap it will be driving around at limitless speed in a magical afterlife - pure fantasy nonsense.//
    Equating a car with a rational agent is absurd.It's a false analogy fallacy.The former lacks consciousness and intent.
    ===
    If consciousness is nothing but electro-chemical signals then it not a problem at all.//
    That is what needs to be proven and that's why this problem has been around for ages.
    ===
    Quoting a famous scientist is not evidence. If we had complete knowledge of the processes of the brain and body then we would know exactly how qualia is produced//
    No it's not evidence but my point is to show you that Materialism is not as obviously true as Atheists would like us to believe and even one of the greatest minds saw through the fallacies and impotencies of Materialism.
    ===
    We don't know what qualia is in the brain or I can't think of how physical processes could possible produce qualia therefore soul//
    It's not a souls of the gap argument if the reasoning follows logically,despite lack of emprical evidence.To evoke the soul as an explanation is not fallacious if the argument is deductively valid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Equating a car with a rational agent is absurd.It's a false analogy fallacy.The former lacks consciousness and intent." It not false since a car functions in EXACTLY the same way as consciousness (by cause and effect). As just as with the car when the causes of consciousness cease then consciousness is just gone - it's not still existing in some magical afterlife.

      If consciousness is nothing but electro-chemical signals then it not a problem at all.//
      "That is what needs to be proven and that's why this problem has been around for ages." It's proven, we know that cognitive functions are the result of brain functions, we know the effects drugs and brain damage have on the mind. The fact consciousness is physical and the result of brain is not disputed by any rational person who is aware of the facts.

      "greatest minds saw through the fallacies and impotencies of Materialism." You just quoted this persons opinion - which is a logical fallacy and not evidence. I could quote Einstein and Stephen Hawking views on God and the afterlife but obviously I won't because quoting famous people is a fallacy and not evidence.
      ===
      We don't know what qualia is in the brain or I can't think of how physical processes could possible produce qualia therefore soul//
      "It's not a souls of the gap argument if the reasoning follows logically,despite lack of emprical evidence." That's exactly what your argument here is and even you admit their no evidence for a soul or anything other than the physical process of the brain.

      "To evoke the soul as an explanation is not fallacious if the argument is deductively valid." It's not any explanation at all. Ironical if the problem of consciousness is a 'hard' problem a soul is no explanation at all - by definition. If a physical account of consciousness (however detailed) cannot solve it, then a magical soul with no account of how it is conscious, certainly can't solve the problem.

      Delete
  10. I am telling you why they cannot come back - because their dead.//
    Well,I gave you evidence of studies where patients were declared clinically dead and returned.
    ===
    Yes this quote confirms what I said, the NDEs are usually caused by cardiac arrest, where a person comes CLOSE to death (that is why they are called NEAR death (they are not after death experiences.//
    Sam Parnia relates a case in the same article where the patient's heart stopped and brain activity ceased and yet the patient reported consciousness/awarness.Clearly that qualifies as clinical death,albeit for a brief period.
    ===
    Consciousness is just a collection of components - like everything else. Your belief is the one that needs to provide evidence - otherwise its just special pleading//
    If consciousness is just a collection of components (aka an emergent property of the brain) then those with pieces of their brain missing should not be conscious or even alive and yet there many reported cases of people with parts of their brain missing.Here's one such case from New Scientist:
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329861.900-woman-of-24-found-to-have-no-cerebellum-in-her-brain.html%5D#.VPXJuVvbKeV

    Clearly when one divides an emergent property then it no longer serves it purpose and the said componet becomes useless/impotent/redundant.Or one cannot divide an emergent property at all without being guilt of the fallacy of division.Either consciousness cannot be an emergent propert of the brain if the brain can be divided with consciousness still present.
    ===
    You can observe peoples consciousness which yes is a particular pattern of electrical activity in their brain.//
    How can there consciousness be observed when they are unconscious? It's a contradiction in terms.
    ===
    I said:
    There is brain activity when we sleep,but we are not conscious,as well as in unconscious patients"
    You replied:So much for afterlife then eh - since dead people are defiantly not conscious.//
    You have not explained the contradiction.How can we have brain activity (consciousness) and when unconscious,if consciousness is brain activity?
    ==
    The brain waves are different when we are asleep to when we are awake and conscious - this is a well known fact.//
    Yes,our brain waves are slower when we sleep.We should be aware of our environment if brain activity is consciousness,just a bit more sluggish but we should not be unconscious.
    ===
    Their is no evidence from NDE accountants that the mind exists and functions independent of the brain.//
    I gave you two links from two respected journals of peer reviewed NDE case studies confirming mind/body duality
    ===
    In that case consciousness could not be affected by the physical world or have any effect on the world,but since it clearly does that it obviously is not free from cause and effect.//
    When we say something is not subjected to cause and effect it means the causal chain of physical systems regressing back to the big bang.The phenomenon in question is then an effect from a prior cause of which it has no control over,which in turn will act as a cause for another effect.

    However,consciousness is an acausal occurrence,with an ability to produce an affect.Because it is acausal,it is therefore not part of the causal chain but that does not mean it can't affect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Part 1
      "Well,I gave you evidence of studies where patients were declared clinically dead and returned." I linked an article which explains what brain death is and that it is permanent and their is no possibility that the patient can recover.
      ===
      Yes this quote confirms what I said, the NDEs are usually caused by cardiac arrest, where a person comes CLOSE to death (that is why they are called NEAR death (they are not after death experiences.//
      "Sam Parnia relates a case in the same article where the patient's heart stopped and brain activity ceased and yet the patient reported consciousness/awarness.Clearly that qualifies as clinical death,albeit for a brief period." Link this case because I need to see what the researcher actually claims.

      "If consciousness is just a collection of components (aka an emergent property of the brain) then those with pieces of their brain missing should not be conscious or even alive and yet there many reported cases of people with parts of their brain missing.Here's one such case from New Scientist:
      http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329861.900-woman-of-24-found-to-have-no-cerebellum-in-her-brain.html%5D#.VPXJuVvbKeV" "The cerebellum's main job is to control voluntary movements and balance, and it is also thought to be involved in our ability to learn specific motor actions and speak. Problems in the cerebellum can lead to severe mental impairment, movement disorders, epilepsy or a potentially fatal build-up of fluid in the brain. " This confirms what I say - and what the science says.

      The doctors in this case claim this
      "However, in this woman, the missing cerebellum resulted in only mild to moderate motor deficiency, and mild speech problems such as slightly slurred pronunciation. Her doctors describe these effects as "less than would be expected", and say her case highlights the remarkable plasticity of the brain." These doctors claim this women's case demonstrates the "plasticity of the brain" this is nothing to do with brain-mind or your claim that consciousness is magical and not part of the physical world.

      The researcher concludes
      "These rare cases are interesting to understand how the brain circuitry works and compensates for missing parts," says Mario Manto, who researches cerebellar disorders at the Free University of Brussels in Belgium. The patient's doctors suggest that normal cerebellar function may have been taken over by the cortex – brain scans should reveal the answer."

      Delete
    2. Part 2
      "Clearly when one divides an emergent property then it no longer serves it purpose and the said componet becomes useless/impotent/redundant.Or one cannot divide an emergent property at all without being guilt of the fallacy of division."Either consciousness cannot be an emergent propert of the brain if the brain can be divided with consciousness still present." If you destroy the part responsible for consciousness (I.e the brain stem) then consciousness is gone, if you destroy other parts that control different abilities then that ability is gone or you may you be a lucky expectation like the women in this study whose malformed cerebellum only resulted in mild problems.
      ===
      You can observe peoples consciousness which yes is a particular pattern of electrical activity in their brain.//
      "How can there consciousness be observed when they are unconscious? " Eh? When did I claim you observe consciousness in unconscious people? You can only observe consciousness in conscious people - by definition.
      ===
      I said:
      There is brain activity when we sleep,but we are not conscious,as well as in unconscious patients"
      You replied:So much for afterlife then eh - since dead people are defiantly not conscious.//
      "You have not explained the contradiction.How can we have brain activity (consciousness) and when unconscious,if consciousness is brain activity?" I said its a particular pattern of brain activity, it's not all the activity in the brain as obviously most of the activity is not responsible for consciousness.
      ==
      The brain waves are different when we are asleep to when we are awake and conscious - this is a well known fact.//
      "Yes,our brain waves are slower when we sleep.We should be aware of our environment if brain activity is consciousness,just a bit more sluggish but we should not be unconscious." Because brain waves responsible for consciousness are not active when we sleep.

      "I gave you two links from two respected journals of peer reviewed NDE case studies confirming mind/body duality" Which links? Could you post again please as you have posted quite a few in this lengthy discussion and I can't remember all the details.

      "However,consciousness is an acausal occurrence,with an ability to produce an affect.Because it is acausal,it is therefore not part of the causal chain but that does not mean it can't affect." It is definitely is part of the chain for the reason I explained - because it is affected by the physical world. Also an acausal thing could not cause anything or have any effect in the world at all.

      Delete
  11. It not false since a car functions in EXACTLY the same way as consciousness (by cause and effect). As just as with the car when the causes of consciousness cease then consciousness is just gone - it's not still existing in some magical afterlife.//
    The car analogy only works if you compare it to the human body,not consciousness itself.Unless cars could drive itself without any external human influence.
    ===
    It's proven, we know that cognitive functions are the result of brain functions, we know the effects drugs and brain damage have on the mind. The fact consciousness is physical and the result of brain is not disputed by any rational person who is aware of the facts.
    I can give you a list of rational theists and dualists (occupying every academic field) who have all rejected the Physicalist/Materialist's account of consciousness.
    ===
    I could quote Einstein and Stephen Hawking views on God and the afterlife but obviously I won't because quoting famous people is a fallacy and not evidence//
    Are you refering to the Einstein quotes before or after he was introduced to the Hubble telescope?Because he eventually left Atheism for Deism.
    And it's not a wise idea to quote Hawking outside his actual field of expertise.He's known to be philosophically challenged.
    ===
    That's exactly what your argument here is and even you admit their no evidence for a soul or anything other than the physical process of the brain//
    You could have used Leibniz's Law based on the 3rd law of logic to prove that mind and brain are tautologies.That would have certainly settled matters
    ===
    It's not any explanation at all.Ironical if the problem of consciousness is a 'hard' problem a soul is no explanation at all - by definition. If a physical account of consciousness (however detailed) cannot solve it, then a magical soul with no account of how it is conscious, certainly can't solve the problem.//
    It's a hard problem for Atheists,not dualists.That's why the term was introduced by an Atheist philosopher David Chalmers.
    Again,a souls of the gaps argument is one that does not follow logically.For example:If I was at a party last night and drank so much,I have no idea how I got home,then I claim "it must have been my soul who brought me home".That is a non sequitir which rules out other possible explanations.
    However,when arguing for the existence of a soul,it is fallacious to charge the proponent with a "souls of the gap fallacy",each time the soul or consciousness is mentioned,unless the argument is deductively invalid.Or else you're committing a poisoning of the well fallacy,which is a deceptive stopgap to any potential rational rebuttal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies


    1. It not false since a car functions in EXACTLY the same way as consciousness (by cause and effect). As just as with the car when the causes of consciousness cease then consciousness is just gone - it's not still existing in some magical afterlife.//
      "The car analogy only works if you compare it to the human body,not consciousness itself." Consciousness is a product and function of the body. Even if the astral body theory was correct (which it is not) it's still needs a body to function (which you admitted to previously).

      "Unless cars could drive itself without any external human influence." Nothing happens without a cause both a car behaviour and human behaviour has causes.
      ===
      It's proven, we know that cognitive functions are the result of brain functions, we know the effects drugs and brain damage have on the mind. The fact consciousness is physical and the result of brain is not disputed by any rational person who is aware of the facts.
      "I can give you a list of rational theists and dualists (occupying every academic field) who have all rejected the Physicalist/Materialist's account of consciousness." I only care about facts I don't care about some famous philosophers or scientists opinion, unless they have reasons and evidence to support their view they I am interested in what they have to say on the subject.
      ===
      I could quote Einstein and Stephen Hawking views on God and the afterlife but obviously I won't because quoting famous people is a fallacy and not evidence//
      "Are you refering to the Einstein quotes before or after he was introduced to the Hubble telescope?Because he eventually left Atheism for Deism." He was a pantheist who believed in the order of the universe. He certainly did not believe in a personal God and completely rejected the notion of a afterlife and the concept of a soul without the body.
      "And it's not a wise idea to quote Hawking outside his actual field of expertise.He's known to be philosophically challenged." Then why are you quoting a physicist who is speaking on matters outside his expertise?

      "It's a hard problem for Atheists,not dualists.That's why the term was introduced by an Atheist philosopher David Chalmers." It certainly is a hard problem for you - since you need to explain how a non physical acaual entity can have experiences and interact with the physical body and world.

      "However,when arguing for the existence of a soul,it is fallacious to charge the proponent with a "souls of the gap fallacy",each time the soul or consciousness is mentioned,unless the argument is deductively invalid." Or else you're committing a poisoning of the well fallacy,which is a deceptive stopgap to any potential rational rebuttal." All you are doing is looking for gaps - and then putting your magical soul in those gaps. You don't actually provide any positive evidence or any reasons to think their is a immaterial soul.

      Delete
  12. I linked an article which explains what brain death is and that it is permanent and their is no possibility that the patient can recover.//
    And I linked articles where consciousness was present in patients with no recorded brain activity.
    ===
    Link this case because I need to see what the researcher actually claims.//

    http://www.southampton.ac.uk/mediacentre/news/2014/oct/14_181.shtml#.VPbCRkofueV

    One case was validated and timed using auditory stimuli during cardiac arrest. Dr Parnia concluded: “This is significant, since it has often been assumed that experiences in relation to death are likely hallucinations or illusions, occurring either before the heart stops or after the heart has been successfully restarted, but not an experience corresponding with ‘real’ events when the heart isn’t beating.In this case, consciousness and awareness appeared to occur during a three-minute period when there was no heartbeat. This is paradoxical, since the brain typically ceases functioning within 20-30 seconds of the heart stopping and doesn’t resume again until the heart has been restarted. Furthermore, the detailed recollections of visual awareness in this case were consistent with verified events.
    ===
    This confirms what I say - and what the science says//
    No,science does not confirm what you said,which was "Consciousness is just a collection of components" and "The mind is a emergent property of the brain just like a fountain (for example) is a emergent property of a pump, water, spout etc"

    If consciousness is a collection of components then removing parts of that components would not generate consciousness since it's contingent on the whole.In your example of a fountain,if you removed one of those parts (water,pump,spout) then it cannot serve as a fountain.So,my counterexamples of people who are conscious even though they have parts of their brain missing refutes your "mind is an emergent property of brain" hypothesis.
    ===
    If you destroy the part responsible for consciousness (I.e the brain stem) then consciousness is gone, if you destroy other parts that control different abilities then that ability is gone or you may you be a lucky expectation like the women in this study whose malformed cerebellum only resulted in mild problems//
    After realizing your emergent property hypothesis failed you then decided equate mind/consciousness to the brain stem.But does this trick work and can it account for all the data?
    Since physicalists claim that all mental states supervene on the physical state of the brain.It then follows that all thoughts of an object which are should contain the actual images in the brain.For example:If I'm thinking of a blue car,then that image of a blue car should be visible by a third party,since my thoughts and beliefs are all physical states.
    ===
    When did I claim you observe consciousness in unconscious people? You can only observe consciousness in conscious people - by definition.//
    But you said consciousness is electrical activity.If there's electrical activity in someone's brain that means they should be conscious,regardless of sleeping or in a coma.
    ===
    I said its a particular pattern of brain activity, it's not all the activity in the brain as obviously most of the activity is not responsible for consciousness.//
    But this is also false.The electricity (flow of electrons) in our brains and in inanimate objects are the same.
    ===
    Because brain waves responsible for consciousness are not active when we sleep//
    Inactive consciousness = death in Materialist lexicon.There appears another contradiction.
    ===
    Could you post again please as you have posted quite a few in this lengthy discussion and I can't remember all the details.//
    http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

    http://www.southampton.ac.uk/mediacentre/news/2014/oct/14_181.shtml#.VPbCRkofueV




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "And I linked articles where consciousness was present in patients with no recorded brain activity." No you didn't, and like I said if their is no brain activity then the person won't be coming back.
      ===
      "In this case, consciousness and awareness appeared to occur during a three-minute period when there was no heartbeat. This is paradoxical, since the brain typically ceases functioning within 20-30 seconds of the heart stopping and doesn’t resume again until the heart has been restarted. Furthermore, the detailed recollections of visual awareness in this case were consistent with verified events." He says typically he doesn't say anywhere in the article that all brain activity had ceased in this person.
      ===
      This confirms what I say - and what the science says//
      "No,science does not confirm what you said,which was "Consciousness is just a collection of components" and "The mind is a emergent property of the brain just like a fountain(for example) is a emergent property of a pump, water, spout etc"" Yes neuroscience does confirm this, it is accepted by everyone (who has looked into it) and every neuroscientist that the brain is the seat of the personality. How do we know this? Because every aspect of your mind can be damaged by damaging your brain.

      "If consciousness is a collection of components then removing parts of that components would not generate consciousness since it's contingent on the whole.In your example of a fountain,if you removed one of those parts (water,pump,spout) then it cannot serve as a fountain.So,my counterexamples of people who are conscious even though they have parts of their brain missing refutes your "mind is an emergent property of brain" hypothesis." Try removing their brain stem and see what happens to their consciousness.
      ===
      "After realizing your emergent property hypothesis failed you then decided equate mind/consciousness to the brain stem.But does this trick work and can it account for all the data?" Yes we are talking about a part of the brain/mind not all of it. If you lose an eyeball does this mean your sight will be gone? No, also your sight will be effected for the worse.

      "For example:If I'm thinking of a blue car,then that image of a blue car should be visible by a third party,since my thoughts and beliefs are all physical states." One day we may have -for all intents and purposes - a complete understanding of the electrical and chemical processes in the brain and know roughly what a person is experiencing.

      "But you said consciousness is electrical activity.If there's electrical activity in someone's brain that means they should be conscious,regardless of sleeping or in a coma." Why should they be conscious? When you turn off a torch light the light is gone, it doesn't mean the torch is destroyed or their is no energy or any potential energy in the torch batteries.

      But this is also false."The electricity (flow of electrons) in our brains and in inanimate objects are the same." No it's not, inanimate objects don't have a brain - that's why their not conscious.
      ===
      Because brain waves responsible for consciousness are not active when we sleep//
      "Inactive consciousness = death in Materialist lexicon.There appears another contradiction." If you put your computer in sleep mode is it dead or just - temporally - inactive?

      "

      http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

      http://www.southampton.ac.uk/mediacentre/news/2014/oct/14_181.shtml#.VPbCRkofueV" These links don't provide any evidence of any experience with no brain activity at all.

      Delete
  13. Consciousness is a product and function of the body. Even if the astral body theory was correct (which it is not) it's still needs a body to function (which you admitted to previously).//
    Yes,the astral plane requires a body/vehicle suited for that particular dimension.The astral body is supposed to be composed of a less dense energy than the material body.
    ===
    Nothing happens without a cause both a car behaviour and human behaviour has causes.//
    All physical events require a cause.
    ===
    I only care about facts I don't care about some famous philosophers or scientists opinion, unless they have reasons and evidence to support their view they I am interested in what they have to say on the subject.//
    Well,those famous scientists and philosophers reject physicalism due to lack of evidence.
    ===
    He was a pantheist who believed in the order of the universe. He certainly did not believe in a personal God and completely rejected the notion of a afterlife and the concept of a soul without the body.//
    Einstein explicitly stated he cannot call himself a pantheist.
    http://www.deism.com/einstein.htm
    I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist
    Einstein's views concerning the soul and afterlife was agnostic.Some Deists believe in the immortality of consciousness,some don't.He was more anti-atheism than anti-theism.He prefered the belief in God than a lack of belief in transendence.
    ===
    Then why are you quoting a physicist who is speaking on matters outside his expertise?//
    The physicist I quoted makes less fallacious statements than Hawking.
    ===
    It certainly is a hard problem for you - since you need to explain how a non physical acaual entity can have experiences and interact with the physical body and world//
    The body is the vehicle allowing consciousness to experience and interact in the material plane.
    ===
    All you are doing is looking for gaps - and then putting your magical soul in those gaps. You don't actually provide any positive evidence or any reasons to think their is a immaterial soul//
    I gave plenty of reasons,along with links of confirmed studies.You merely deny they exist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Consciousness is a product and function of the body. Even if the astral body theory was correct (which it is not) it's still needs a body to function (which you admitted to previously).//
      Yes,the astral plane requires a body/vehicle suited for that particular dimension.The astral body is supposed to be composed of a less dense energy than the material body.
      ===
      Nothing happens without a cause both a car behaviour and human behaviour has causes.//
      "All physical events require a cause." How is the astral body (even if their was such a thing) be acausal?

      "Well,those famous scientists and philosophers reject physicalism due to lack of evidence." Well I - along with many famous scientists and philosophers - reject mind-body dualism and hold that consciousness and qualia are not special and exist and function in exactly the same way as everything else in the universe.

      He was a pantheist who believed in the order of the universe. He certainly did not believe in a personal God and completely rejected the notion of a afterlife and the concept of a soul without the body.//
      Einstein explicitly stated he cannot call himself a pantheist.
      http://www.deism.com/einstein.htm
      &I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist" He says he believed in spinozas God, not a personal being but a "spirit" which reveals itself in the harmony of the cosmos. His view is pantheistic.
      "Einstein's views concerning the soul and afterlife was agnostic." He rejected any notion of an afterlife "An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. [The World as I See It]"

      "Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning. [Letter of 5 February 1921]"

      "He was more anti-atheism than anti-theism.He prefered the belief in God than a lack of belief in transcendence." He stated many times he did not believe in a personal God and explained he used religious language as metaphor.
      ===

      It certainly is a hard problem for you - since you need to explain how a non physical acaual entity can have experiences and interact with the physical body and world//
      "The body is the vehicle allowing consciousness to experience and interact in the material plane." Yes which did not try to answer the question of how and why physical processes can produce conscious experience. (Or how the vehicle of consciousness allows consciousness to experience as you put it.)
      ===
      All you are doing is looking for gaps - and then putting your magical soul in those gaps. You don't actually provide any positive evidence or any reasons to think their is a immaterial soul//
      "I gave plenty of reasons,along with links of confirmed studies.You merely deny they exist." You have provided zero evidence for a "soul".

      Delete
  14. No you didn't, and like I said if their is no brain activity then the person won't be coming back.//
    Well,until you can produce evidence of fraudulent activities by those researchers who provided us with evidence then I will have to side with them.
    ===
    He says typically he doesn't say anywhere in the article that all brain activity had ceased in this person//.
    Your understanding of the term "typically" is incorrect.The researcher is referring to what's normal/standard or common.It does not refer to an amount or size
    ===
    Yes neuroscience does confirm this, it is accepted by everyone (who has looked into it) and every neuroscientist that the brain is the seat of the personality. How do we know this? Because every aspect of your mind can be damaged by damaging your brain//
    You have not addressed my actual refutation of emergent properties.You simply give declarations.
    ===
    Try removing their brain stem and see what happens to their consciousness.//
    You don't need to have your brain stem removed in order to be declared brain dead.You do know that do you?
    ===
    Yes we are talking about a part of the brain/mind not all of it. If you lose an eyeball does this mean your sight will be gone? No, also your sight will be effected for the worse//.
    Yes,if you remove the eyeball then all sight emanating from that part of your body is gone.Also this analogy is false because removing the whole object cannot be equated with removing a fraction of an object.It's mathematically contradictory.
    ===
    One day we may have -for all intents and purposes - a complete understanding of the electrical and chemical processes in the brain and know roughly what a person is experiencing.//
    Bu that day is not today.So no empirical evidence is forthcoming.
    ===
    Why should they be conscious? When you turn off a torch light the light is gone, it doesn't mean the torch is destroyed or their is no energy or any potential energy in the torch batteries.//
    Sure, but say the "on" switch is broken,then the flashlight is as good as dead even with brand new batteries.
    ===
    No it's not, inanimate objects don't have a brain - that's why their not conscious.//
    Plants don't have brains and yet they're conscious.

    http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-intelligence-may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-plants-think-daniel-chamovitz/

    ===
    If you put your computer in sleep mode is it dead or just - temporally - inactive?//
    You push your analogies too far.All analogies are false,some just fail sooner than others.To equate the brain with a computer is easily shown to be false.
    ===
    These links don't provide any evidence of any experience with no brain activity at all.//
    And yet they are studies with positive results published in peer reviewed medical journals.

    ReplyDelete
  15. How is the astral body (even if their was such a thing) be acausal?//
    It's the mind that's acausal not the body
    ===
    Well I - along with many famous scientists and philosophers - reject mind-body dualism and hold that consciousness and qualia are not special and exist and function in exactly the same way as everything else in the universe//
    So your beliefs are based on appeal to authority then.
    ===
    He says he believed in spinozas God, not a personal being but a "spirit" which reveals itself in the harmony of the cosmos. His view is pantheistic.//
    He explicitly rejects pantheism in the quote yet you still attribute pantheism to him.
    ===
    "Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning. [Letter of 5 February 1921]"//
    This quote was from before he was introduced to Hubble's telescope.
    ===
    He stated many times he did not believe in a personal God and explained he used religious language as metaphor.//
    Sure but he hated Atheism.
    ===
    He rejected any notion of an afterlife "An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. [The World as I See It]"//
    I did not argue he believed in these things.
    ===
    Yes which did not try to answer the question of how and why physical processes can produce conscious experience. (Or how the vehicle of consciousness allows consciousness to experience as you put it.)//
    The mechanization of consciousness is irrelevant just as many other things in our physical reality.We know it works through experimentation.
    ===
    You have provided zero evidence for a "soul".//
    The evidence you seek is based on a fallacy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Phoenix
      "It's the mind that's acausal not the body" If the mind was acausal it couldn't be affected by the causal world - nor could it have any affect on it. But since it clearly is affected by the causal world and has an an effect on it it obviously is not acausal.

      Well I - along with many famous scientists and philosophers - reject mind-body dualism and hold that consciousness and qualia are not special and exist and function in exactly the same way as everything else in the universe//
      "So your beliefs are based on appeal to authority then." No my views are based on reason and evidence. I just brought up famous people who share my view to show you your fallacy of appealing to famous people.
      ===
      He says he believed in spinozas God, not a personal being but a "spirit" which reveals itself in the harmony of the cosmos. His view is pantheistic.//
      "He explicitly rejects pantheism in the quote yet you still attribute pantheism to him." He says he believes in spinozas God - and Spinoza was certainly a pantheist.
      ===
      "Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning. [Letter of 5 February 1921]"//
      "This quote was from before he was introduced to Hubble's telescope." What on earth does hubble's telescope have to do with what Einstein is talking about here?
      ===
      He stated many times he did not believe in a personal God and explained he used religious language as metaphor.//
      "Sure but he hated Atheism." He was a atheist - since he did not believe in a God.
      ===
      He rejected any notion of an afterlife "An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. [The World as I See It]"//
      "I did not argue he believed in these things." You said he was agnostic about it - but he isn't as he clearly rejected any notion of the individual surviving death.
      ===
      Yes which did not try to answer the question of how and why physical processes can produce conscious experience. (Or how the vehicle of consciousness allows consciousness to experience as you put it.)//
      "The mechanization of consciousness is irrelevant just as many other things in our physical reality" It's not irrelevant - since we talking about consciousness and how it comes from physical processes.

      "We know it works through experimentation." Funnily enough we have never observed a soul.
      ===
      "The evidence you seek is based on a fallacy" Yes providing actual evidence subject to the scientific method is a "fallacy" to people who believe in ascaual immaterial minds that survive death.

      Delete
  16. Hi Phoenix, just in case you missed it, I am copy/pasting my response to your last comment on Stan's blog. Cheers!

    == == ==

    Phoenix,


    - No, it does not need to have 2 premises but the goal of a chain argument is to start with a premise, go down some deductions, arrive at a last step, and then conclude that this last step will always be true if the first premise is true. In your case, this would be something like
    'IF
    All knowledge,logic and rational thought are based on axiomatic principles and therefore intuitively known
    THEN
    Materialism rejects the First Principles of Logic and it is therefore an irrational worldview.'


    - I did not just declare your premise illogical; I explained why: "based on axiomatic principles and therefore intuitively known" is false. When we choose to use logic and understand the axioms, it's not our intuition anymore, it's our ability to process information. Hence, I reject that premise.


    - The sarcastic deduction had a point: you can label someone/something as 'x' and then call them out for being 'x' in the form of a deduction. It does not probe anything yet that's what you do. You label Materialism as 'rejecting logic' and then conclude it's an irrational worldview. I did the same; I label you as rejecting logic, and thus conclude your worldview is irrational.


    - Great link, keep studying it more and I promise you that one day you'll adjust your views and not see Materialist/Atheist/Naturalist positions as absurd anymore. You may not stop believing in God, which is fine, but your worldview will be based on actual logic and reason, instead of the false promises of the primacy of consciousness espoused by fundamentalists.


    -----


    If you actually want to address what I do believe and why. Watch all the 'Crash Course' series I already linked to. Start with Biology, and then go back to Chemistry, and you'll understand why I got a supernova tattooed on my arm. That kind of knowledge is not going away anytime soon. We know how our atoms were formed, we know how our solar system works, we know how life evolves (not exactly how it started yet!) and we can thus trace our own evolution from atoms, to molecules, to organic compound, to simple self-replicating molecules to simple organisms... all the way to complex humans. These videos are such great summaries of everything I learned over the years while reading science magazine, or just from good old high school classes. No wonder Hank got to interview the president!


    So, in other words, my challenge to you would be this: go through everything that the science crash courses talk about and try to find 1 that make sense only if we agree God exists. Basically, which part of the natural world does not make sense unless we assume there is a God? To me, there is no such thing and that's why I am an Atheist. But I am also a 'strong Atheist' because I agree with Stan that we have the burden of rebuttal, when we are exposed to Theists arguments, so I have been spending years reading on these arguments and replying to them. I could still be wrong on some, but nothing convinced me even after trying really hard to change my mind on that, to make sure I was not rejecting something true and important. Turns out that the God hypothesis is neither.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hi Hugo

    You said:I did not just declare your premise illogical; I explained why: "based on axiomatic principles and therefore intuitively known" is false. When we choose to use logic and understand the axioms, it's not our intuition anymore, it's our ability to process information. Hence, I reject that premise.//

    But axioms are self-evident,meaning they are obvioiusly true and do not require any explanation or proof.Even this destroys the atheist empiricist's worldview who is obsessed with evidentialism.
    ===
    The sarcastic deduction had a point: you can label someone/something as 'x' and then call them out for being 'x' in the form of a deduction. It does not probe anything yet that's what you do. You label Materialism as 'rejecting logic' and then conclude it's an irrational worldview. I did the same; I label you as rejecting logic, and thus conclude your worldview is irrational.//

    You are basically charging my chain argument with question begging,ie. my conclusion was also used as a premise in my syllogism.I cannot find such an instance.Which premise exactly are you refering to?
    ===
    Great link, keep studying it more and I promise you that one day you'll adjust your views and not see Materialist/Atheist/Naturalist positions as absurd anymore. You may not stop believing in God, which is fine, but your worldview will be based on actual logic and reason, instead of the false promises of the primacy of consciousness espoused by fundamentalists.//

    Okay,I'll have an objective look at that link.
    ===
    So, in other words, my challenge to you would be this: go through everything that the science crash courses talk about and try to find 1 that make sense only if we agree God exists. Basically, which part of the natural world does not make sense unless we assume there is a God? To me, there is no such thing and that's why I am an Atheist. But I am also a 'strong Atheist' because I agree with Stan that we have the burden of rebuttal, when we are exposed to Theists arguments, so I have been spending years reading on these arguments and replying to them. I could still be wrong on some, but nothing convinced me even after trying really hard to change my mind on that, to make sure I was not rejecting something true and important. Turns out that the God hypothesis is neither.//

    It will take some time to have a look at all those videos but I'm always up for a challenge,and it will be interesting to see how my beliefs will be affected.

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hi Phoenix,

    Quick note first; thanks for taking the time to reply with proper sentences devoid of ad hominem and insult of the "other", well me in this case, of being irrational/illogical/... That's what I prefer, and use myself, but sometimes I can use rhetoric to mirror the style of my interlocutor, so sorry if you saw something else, on some other place ;)

    "But axioms are self-evident,meaning they are obvioiusly true and do not require any explanation or proof."
    Agreed. But why do you think that this means they are intuitive?

    "my conclusion was also used as a premise in my syllogism.I cannot find such an instance.Which premise exactly are you refering to?"
    I was not explicit that's true, because I thought it was self-evident from what I already told you that your conclusion, regardless of any premise, is false. On its own. You wrote:
    'IF
    All knowledge,logic and rational thought are based on axiomatic principles and therefore intuitively known
    THEN
    Materialism rejects the First Principles of Logic and it is therefore an irrational worldview.'
    But the last one is obviously false; how can you say that a position denies the Principles of Logic? I wouldn't know how to do that... how can I deny the law of identity? Whatever you see me write, right now on this blog, is what it is. It's not what it's not. It cannot both be something and not something at the same time.

    See? We just agreed, as 2 sentient human beings that there is some shared reality, which we share, where the First Principles of Logic apply. Regardless of what we think: an objective base reality. We observe that; we learned about it. So it's not intuition. I don't know why you think it is...

    Moreover, I would not think that Materialism is a worldview; so I may be wrong about exactly what you mean? To me, it means the belief that nothing non-material has been proven to exist independently of the material world. The non-material world is always defined in terms of the material world. It's the realm of the conceptual; whatever we can think about. We think about numbers, descriptions, links, relations, meaning, beauty, and a lot more adjectives, or even entire field, which do exist and are not material.

    Looking forward to know what you think about the videos! It is really long indeed. These have been made over several years after all.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hi Hugo

    You said:Agreed. But why do you think that this means they are intuitive
    Because intuition is our ability to grasp truths without empirically testing
    ===
    But the last one is obviously false; how can you say that a position denies the Principles of Logic? I wouldn't know how to do that...//

    Atheism denies intuition as seen here:Scroll down to the subheading Epistemology, Truth, and Why We Believe What We Believe:Theists commonly rely upon criteria like tradition, custom, revelation, faith, and intuition. Atheists common reject these criteria in favor of correspondence, coherence, and consistency.


    how can I deny the law of identity? Whatever you see me write, right now on this blog, is what it is. It's not what it's not. It cannot both be something and not something at the same time.

    But Hugo,what you personally reject and accept has no bearing on the general consensus among Atheists/Matreialists/Physicalists,which is that sensory experience is the only true source of knowledge.
    Scroll down to the bottom of that same link:

    Atheists tend to be either exclusively or primarily empiricists: they insist that truth-claims be accompanied by clear and convincing evidence which can be studied and tested...
    ...Empiricism, on the other hand, is more uniform in the sense that it denies that any form of rationalism is true or possible. Empiricists may disagree on just how we acquire knowledge through experience and in what sense our experiences give us access to outside reality;nevertheless, they all agree that knowledge about reality requires experience and interaction with reality
    .

    As you can see,rejection of intuition in favor of empiricism is an Atheist position.And since Atheists reject all knowledge derive from intuition,they therefore reject the principles upon which it is based too.Therefore my syllogism remains structurally valid and sound
    ===
    See? We just agreed, as 2 sentient human beings that there is some shared reality, which we share, where the First Principles of Logic apply. Regardless of what we think: an objective base reality. We observe that; we learned about it. So it's not intuition. I don't know why you think it is...

    I'm not aware of any other reliable technique on how to grasp self-evident truths other than intutition.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I forgot to embed the links.

    1.Self evident truths and intuition,
    2.What is Epistemology? Philosophy of Truth, Knowledge,Belief"

    Okay so there are a few things that these links confirm:
    a)Atheists/Materialists place primary importance on Empiricism.
    b)Empricism is the thesis that all knowledge begins with sensory experience.
    c)Atheist emipricists deny intiuition as a sort of mysticism per my 2nd link
    d) Intuition is a clear justification for accepting a self-evident proposition as stated by my first link
    e)Is it still illogical to conclude after these facts that Atheism based on empiricism which explicitly rejects intuition and criteria based on intuition is irrational?The only thing these empiricists did count on,is that First Principles are also based on intuition.Hence they deny their own rationality in the process

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hi,

    I'll be quick...

    "Because intuition is our ability to grasp truths without empirically testing"
    I really don't understand your usage of the word 'intuition'. What truth can you find purely based on intuition? Perhaps you can define it better?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I really don't understand your usage of the word 'intuition'. What truth can you find purely based on intuition?

      What truths? Self-evident truths of course,as I stated in my previous comment:Intuition is a clear justification for accepting a self-evident proposition as stated by my first link

      Perhaps you can define it better?

      This link gives an excellent definition of intuition. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/intuition

      The faculty of knowing or understanding something without reasoning or proof

      Delete
  22. Which self-evident truths? Which 'something' to know or understand? The (very interesting) link specifically talk about morality, how it's not a widespread view and how it says nothing about what's natural or not. It is thus not related to existence as far as I can tell, so why do you use this unclear foundation to build arguments claiming that Atheism is irrational?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which self-evident truths?
      Besides our moral codes like the Golden Rule,there is also free will and of course the Laws of Logic are all self evident truths.

      The (very interesting) link specifically talk about morality, how it's not a widespread view and how it says nothing about what's natural or not. It is thus not related to existence as far as I can tell,

      Hugo,this is a very interesting concession.You concede:
      a)Morality is not natural,
      b)Morals are not self evident truths
      c)Morality is not related to existence

      From a complete Philosophical Materialism and naturalistic position I do agree,these things cannot be accounted for nor be exhibited by our natural laws.They either exist or do not.If they do exist,then they are transcendent,thus implicating dualism.

      so why do you use this unclear foundation to build arguments claiming that Atheism is irrational?

      I have made myself abundantly clear and even provided what is practically confessions from Atheist sites that intuition is undesirable and unacceptable.

      Delete
  23. "Hugo,this is a very interesting concession.You concede:
    a)Morality is not natural,
    b)Morals are not self evident truths
    c)Morality is not related to existence
    "

    No I was referring to the article. The article does not talk about morality being natural or not, and does not discuss existence. Atheism is a rejection of an existence claim: "God exists".
    Why would it be a "concession" anyway? If I "concede" that Splenda is not natural sugar, did I just concede that the supernatural exists?

    "these things cannot be accounted for nor be exhibited by our natural laws."

    Why should they? Natural laws describe the world around us. They do not tell the world what to do or how people should behave. If they cannot account for something, it does not mean that this 'something' is supernatural. Not having an explanation is not the same.

    "They either exist or do not.If they do exist,then they are transcendent."

    By transcendent you mean things that exist regardless of the real/material/natural world existing? I find these claims to be meaningless since you will always fall back to the material to explain what you claim exists non-materially. Hence, it refers to nothing that exists on its own. All you have is still just material existence described using abstract objects which can have objective meaning but still depend on material objectivity to be defined and understood.

    "thus implicating dualism"

    Leap of faith... there is no good reason to believe that there literally exists things independent of the material worlds.


    "I have made myself abundantly clear and even provided what is practically confessions from Atheist sites that intuition is undesirable and unacceptable."

    Confessions again? You simply do not understand what they were referring to. You quoted the following: ''Theists commonly rely upon criteria like intuition. Atheists common reject these criteria in favor of correspondence, coherence, and consistency.' And I agree with that because here intuition means that you believe things because they 'feel' right, because your guts tell you so, because it fits with your pre-conceived ideas. It's not the philosophical 'intuition' that the 'intuitionists' of the Stanford article talk about. You presented an inaccurate caricature of the Atheists you pretend to analyze.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Atheism is a rejection of an existence claim: "God exists"
      Yes,but Atheists' rejection of God is based on specific beliefs about the nature of reality,which they believe cannot accomodate God,namely metaphysical naturalism (a highly conjectural and extrapolatory projection of nature without empirical evidence.)

      Why would it be a "concession" anyway? If I "concede" that Splenda is not natural sugar, did I just concede that the supernatural exists?"
      No you did not concede that Splenda is supernatural but you did equate morality with an artificial substitute.So what exactly is the artificial substitute for morals,since this is what its rejection implies?Either supernatural or artificial.
      ===
      Why should they? Natural laws describe the world around us. They do not tell the world what to do or how people should behave. If they cannot account for something, it does not mean that this 'something' is supernatural. Not having an explanation is not the same.
      Hugo,you are correct,science is descriptive,not prescriptive,thus morality has no empirical value and therefore not related to Atheism/Materialism.But if it's not natural then it either does not exist or it is transcendent if it does exist.If you have another option,do share.
      1)Morality exists and is quantifiable
      2)Morality does not exist
      3)Morality does exist but is transcendent

      You have already rejected 1,so you're left with 2 or 3.Which is it?
      ===
      Leap of faith... there is no good reason to believe that there literally exists things independent of the material worlds.

      It's a valid inference,until proven otherwise.A logical response to the previous dilemma should solve this.
      ===
      Confessions again? You simply do not understand what they were referring to. You quoted the following: ''Theists commonly rely upon criteria like intuition. Atheists common reject these criteria in favor of correspondence, coherence, and consistency.' And I agree with that because here intuition means that you believe things because they 'feel' right, because your guts tell you so, because it fits with your pre-conceived ideas. It's not the philosophical 'intuition' that the 'intuitionists' of the Stanford article talk about. You presented an inaccurate caricature of the Atheists you pretend to analyze.

      Hugo,the Stanford article mentions the connection between morality and intuition.Morality is either true or false,exist or does not exist per the law of excluded middle.It was an example of self evident truths which exists and is intuitevly known.Your primary objection is that it is not true and does not exist

      Delete
  24. "Yes,but Atheists' rejection of God is based on specific beliefs about the nature of reality"
    No, it's not. For the vast majority of Atheists, rejecting the belief in God is just that: rejection, disbelief. It does not imply any positive beliefs. We all hear about people talking about God and we, Atheists, simply don't believe their claims. Just like the vast majority of Theists do not believe in God because of philosophical arguments.

    "metaphysical naturalism (a highly conjectural and extrapolatory projection of nature without empirical evidence.)"
    Nature exists, right? We can all agree on that. Naturalism simply posit that we have no reason to believe in something more. We can take 1 more step and conclude that the Natural is all there is, but it's not needed, unprovable and thus useless.

    "you did equate morality with an artificial substitute.So what exactly is the artificial substitute for morals,since this is what its rejection implies?Either supernatural or artificial."
    ...
    "1)Morality exists and is quantifiable
    ...
    You have already rejected 1,so you're left with 2 or 3.Which is it?
    "
    Morality is natural. It's that simple... It exists among human beings. It's a pretty well define term. I don't think it's quantifiable, true, but why would that make it non-natural?

    "Leap of faith... there is no good reason to believe that there literally exists things independent of the material worlds.

    It's a valid inference,until proven otherwise.A logical response to the previous dilemma should solve this.
    "

    I don't see the inference you are making. It sounds like an argument from ignorance where we say "I cannot explain X in terms of Y, therefore X is of the category Not-Y". Please explain.

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  25. No, it's not. For the vast majority of Atheists, rejecting the belief in God is just that: rejection, disbelief. It does not imply any positive beliefs.We all hear about people talking about God and we, Atheists, simply don't believe their claims.
    This is essentially an argument from incredulity,since it has no standard point of reference to compare against the concept that's being rejected.
    ===
    Nature exists, right? We can all agree on that
    Correct,dualists and materialists agree nature exists.
    ===
    Naturalism simply posit that we have no reason to believe in something more. We can take 1 more step and conclude that the Natural is all there is, but it's not needed, unprovable and thus useless.
    Naturalists need to argue for this,and not just assert it.
    ===
    Morality is natural. It's that simple... It exists among human beings. It's a pretty well define term. I don't think it's quantifiable, true, but why would that make it non-natural?
    Because all of nature is fundamentally either a particle or a wave.our physical laws specify only physical and chemical properties,not value-laden or normative properties.Thus the burden of proof is on the naturalist to demonstrate how quarks and electromagnetic fields/waves exhibit these moral values.
    ===
    I don't see the inference you are making. It sounds like an argument from ignorance where we say "I cannot explain X in terms of Y, therefore X is of the category Not-Y". Please explain.
    Argument from ignorance states that "X is true because it cannot be proven false.Or X is false because it cannot be proven true."I made no such claim.My claim is that X is true because it follows logically.Y is false because it has been disproven.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I said:
    No, it's not. For the vast majority of Atheists, rejecting the belief in God is just that: rejection, disbelief. It does not imply any positive beliefs.We all hear about people talking about God and we, Atheists, simply don't believe their claims.
    You replied:
    " This is essentially an argument from incredulity,since it has no standard point of reference to compare against the concept that's being rejected."
    This has nothing to do with what I just explained. What are you talking about; which part of my comment was not clear? Who is making an argument from incredulity according to you?

    I said:
    Naturalism simply posit that we have no reason to believe in something more. We can take 1 more step and conclude that the Natural is all there is, but it's not needed, unprovable and thus useless.
    You replied:
    " Naturalists need to argue for this,and not just assert it."
    It's exactly the same as the point above; you are super vague... what needs to be argue for? What is just being asserted? The second sentence clearly state that it's useless to argue for the claim that 'Nature is all there is' but now you are asking to argue for it? Or you mean the first sentence; but then it's up to you to argue that something non-natural exists... what would that be? How can you even define such a thing and justify its existence?

    " Because all of nature is fundamentally either a particle or a wave."
    Over-simplification. Even if it certainly is possible that all of nature is either a particle or a wave, that's not how we talk about macroscopic objects. A mountain is not defined as either particles or waves, yet it certainly exists as a natural thing. The way a mountain is formed, through movement of tectonic plates for example, is a natural process, but is 'moving tectonic plates' made of particle or wave? No, it does not even make sense to use these words to describe a natural phenomenon.

    "our physical laws specify only physical and chemical properties,not value-laden or normative properties.Thus the burden of proof is on the naturalist to demonstrate how quarks and electromagnetic fields/waves exhibit these moral values."
    Correct me if I am wrong, but the implication here seems to be that until we can do what you ask for, value-laden or normative properties are to be accepted as being non-natural. Right?
    But this is absurd because they are, by definition, describing the physical properties of physical objects, not their value. So how could we even talk about quarks giving value to something?
    To give a more concrete example, let's say I want to buy a cat. The store has 20 cats for sale. They are all black except 1 albino cat. The salesperson tells me that the white cat is rare and is thus $100 but all the others are $50. Physically, we can explain that the white cat looks different because of the light that reflects on its fur, hitting our retina, processed by our brains, etc... but we will never ever be able to say that the waveleght of 'white' gives this cat more value. It's an absurd question because it relates to how we humans, interact with each other and ascribe values to things.
    This is exactly the same thing you are asking here, I suppose. You want to get explanations as to how we humans see value in things, in anything, based on their quarks. It's not a valid question/request.

    "My claim is that X is true because it follows logically.Y is false because it has been disproven."
    This has nothing to do with what I was referring to; sorry if my statements were not clear for you. I am not even sure what your 'X is true' or 'Y is false' are because I was not using 'X' nor 'Y' as statements, but as group of objects. What claim states that 'X is true'?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This has nothing to do with what I just explained. What are you talking about; which part of my comment was not clear? Who is making an argument from incredulity according to you?
      You made no positive claim,merely that your rejection is due to unbelievable Theist claims.Thus the fallacious argument from incredulity is an accurate charge.
      Here it is again:We all hear about people talking about God and we, Atheists, simply don't believe their claims.
      ===
      Nature is all there is' but now you are asking to argue for it? Or you mean the first sentence; but then it's up to you to argue that something non-natural exists... what would that be? How can you even define such a thing and justify its existence?
      But I have,I have argued for the non-physical aspects of reality,namely intuition,morality and I hinted at free will,hoping to take you down that path.You have failed to give sufficient evidence or logic on why it's material.You simply assert that Naturalism posits nothing beyond nature.But I'm already aware of the beliefs of Naturalists.What is required,is a rational argument that does not involve self-validation and circular reasoning on why there is nothing else beyond what our 5 senses can detect.
      ===
      Over-simplification. Even if it certainly is possible that all of nature is either a particle or a wave, that's not how we talk about macroscopic objects. A mountain is not defined as either particles or waves, yet it certainly exists as a natural thing.
      You've omitted the part where I said fundamentally.Meaning,at the most base,elementary level or foundation.

      he way a mountain is formed, through movement of tectonic plates for example, is a natural process, but is 'moving tectonic plates' made of particle or wave? No, it does not even make sense to use these words to describe a natural phenomenon.
      This is clearly a straw man argument and does nothing to refute my initial argument,since I was referring to the sub-nuclear level and not macroscopic level
      ===
      Correct me if I am wrong, but the implication here seems to be that until we can do what you ask for, value-laden or normative properties are to be accepted as being non-natural. Right?
      What I'm implying is that there is no reason to believe that an objective moral values exists in a world that is purely material.

      But this is absurd because they are, by definition, describing the physical properties of physical objects, not their value. So how could we even talk about quarks giving value to something?
      Exactly! If only the material exists which is posited by physicalists/materialist/naturalists/atheists then morals should be predicted by physics.

      Delete
    2. Part2 (continued)

      To give a more concrete example, let's say I want to buy a cat. The store has 20 cats for sale. They are all black except 1 albino cat. The salesperson tells me that the white cat is rare and is thus $100 but all the others are $50. Physically, we can explain that the white cat looks different because of the light that reflects on its fur, hitting our retina, processed by our brains, etc... but we will never ever be able to say that the waveleght of 'white' gives this cat more value. It's an absurd question because it relates to how we humans, interact with each other and ascribe values to things.
      Your analogy is fallacious because you have wildly equivocated the meanings of value.

      http://www.thefreedictionary.com/monetary+value
      Your use of the term value,refers to the property of material worth

      My use of the term has to do with the principles of behavior of right and wrong
      http://www.thefreedictionary.com/values
      4. often values A principle or standard, as of behavior, that is considered important or desirable: "The speech was a summons back to the patrician values of restraint and responsibility" (Jonathan Alter).
      ===
      This has nothing to do with what I was referring to; sorry if my statements were not clear for you. I am not even sure what your 'X is true' or 'Y is false' are because I was not using 'X' nor 'Y' as statements, but as group of objects. What claim states that 'X is true'?
      This was in response to your charge that my reasoning is based on an argument from ignorance.But clearly this is false because I gave you a valid chain argument that followed the rules of inference.

      Delete
  27. "You made no positive claim,merely that your rejection is due to unbelievable Theist claims.Thus the fallacious argument from incredulity is an accurate charge.
    Here it is again:We all hear about people talking about God and we, Atheists, simply don't believe their claims.
    "
    Ok, so what's the problem with this? I am merely explaining you why you are generalizing, wrongly, when you claim that Atheists reject God because of certain beliefs about the nature of reality. As you said, it's not a positive claim about anything; I am just stating facts. It does not say anything about the reasons why people reject the God hypothesis, it does not mean that everyone has good reasons, it does not mean that Theists claims are false. It means very little yet you read into that and see an 'argument from incredulity', but what would that fallacy attempt to argue for? A fallacy is an attempt to prove a point with bad reasonning. Where is the bad reasonning here?

    "I have argued for the non-physical aspects of reality,namely intuition,morality and I hinted at free will,hoping to take you down that path.You have failed to give sufficient evidence or logic on why it's material."
    Can you define these things without refering to the material?

    "What is required,is a rational argument that does not involve self-validation and circular reasoning on why there is nothing else beyond what our 5 senses can detect."
    Why? I don't believe that...

    "does nothing to refute my initial argument,since I was referring to the sub-nuclear level and not macroscopic level"
    Then you agree with me. It makes no sense to pretend that because we cannot explain a certain macroscopic thing in terms of smaller microscopic elements, then that macroscopic thing must be in a different real of existence. So your request that "morals should be predicted by physics" is an absurd request.

    "Your analogy is fallacious because you have wildly equivocated the meanings of value."
    Value is a broad term; in this case it was money. But it can be something else and it still works. The white cat may be prettier; that's another kind of value. It does not matter for the analogy. You are trying to avoid it for some reason...

    All I can cover for now...

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  28. Phoenix
    No you didn't, and like I said if their is no brain activity then the person won't be coming back.// "Well,until you can produce evidence of fraudulent activities by those researchers who provided us with evidence then I will have to side with them." Well are those scientists and doctors who deal who with brain death also liars?

    Try removing their brain stem and see what happens to their consciousness.// "You don't need to have your brain stem removed in order to be declared brain dead.You do know that do you?" The point is when the brain is dead it's dead and their is no possibility that the person can regain consciousness.

    Yes we are talking about a part of the brain/mind not all of it. If you lose an eyeball does this mean your sight will be gone? No, also your sight will be effected for the worse//. "Also this analogy is false because removing the whole object cannot be equated with removing a fraction of an object.It's mathematically contradictory." Yes and we was talking about part of the mind - not all of it. If you damage the part responsible for reasoning and impulse control that function is gone - but it doesn't mean your dead.

    One day we may have -for all intents and purposes - a complete understanding of the electrical and chemical processes in the brain and know roughly what a person is experiencing.// "Bu that day is not today.So no empirical evidence is forthcoming." Your the one claiming consciousness is not physical so you need to prove it. Just because we don't have 100% knowledge of a what's going on in the brain and all of the processes and mechanism involved in consciousness doesn't mean our mind is a magical entity which someone exists completely independent of the rest of the universe

    . "Sure, but say the "on" switch is broken,then the flashlight is as good as dead even with brand new batteries." Yes and that's what death is - when the "on" switch is permanently gone with no possibility of repair.

    No it's not, inanimate objects don't have a brain - that's why their not conscious.// "Plants don't have brains and yet they're conscious." No their not conscious.

    These links don't provide any evidence of any experience with no brain activity at all.// "And yet they are studies with positive results published in peer reviewed medical journals." Their is no such study. show me a person without a brain who is alive and conscious? Their is no such person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  29. What's also interesting with John's comment is that it relates to biology in general; the more we know the lese likely 'supernatural' causes become. The physical/natural world explains pretty much everything we need to know to understand how intelligence, and thus minds like ours, can evolved. Since your blog is supposed to "refute atheism", it's relevant to note that this doesn't disprove any god's existence. But we certainly don't get anything more by positing one; it's a superfluous hypothesis which explains nothing related to the mind.

    Any progress on the biology Crash Courses?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry guys,I haven't checked my yahoo email for a while now.I did not notice your comments.Plus my trigonometry course is occupying most of my time,unfortunately I'm not a math wiz yet.

      Delete
  30. John

    Like I told Hugo,It's been a while since I checked my yahoo email.

    Geez,John I can't respond to your entire post right now,so I'll just tackle the last 2.
    "Plants don't have brains and yet they're conscious." No their not conscious//

    The consciousness present in plants are obviously not as highly evolved as in animals and humans but they nonetheless are aware of their existence and environment,although they cannot reason and experience pain or suffering.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-plants-think-daniel-chamovitz/

    ===
    Their is no such study. show me a person without a brain who is alive and conscious? Their is no such person.//
    I gave you numerous links geez

    ReplyDelete
  31. College level trigonometry? I didn't know you were that young, hopefully not high school ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  32. I'm in my thirties and decided to do an online physics undergrad course later this year.The trigonometry course is simply a reminder and to improve my knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  33. John

    I did not read your comment correctly.I thought you meantI thought you meant ba person declared clinically dead.
    You said:Their is no such study.show me a person without a brain who is alive and conscious? Their is no such person.//

    I did not make that claim and I'm not aware of such a study

    ReplyDelete
  34. @Phoenix
    "The consciousness present in plants are obviously not as highly evolved as in animals and humans but they nonetheless are aware of their existence and environment,although they cannot reason and experience pain or suffering." All plants do is respond to stimulus from their environment - that's all. That is not consciousness - since to be conscious you need to be able to reason and think.

    "I did not make that claim and I'm not aware of such a study" We all know why their is no such study - because without a brain you will die and your consciousness will cease.



    ReplyDelete