It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Are atheists more intelligent than religious believers? Study suggests such a correlation

page: 14
24
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:58 AM

Quantum Mechanics is obviously something you nothing about..... Allow me to point out with a cut and paste because I know I am wasting my time....

The nature of the Copenhagen Interpretation is exposed by considering a number of experiments and paradoxes.

1. Schrödinger's Cat

A cat is put in a box with a radioactive substance and a radiation detector (such as a geiger counter). The half-life of the substance is the period of time in which there is a 50% chance that a particle will be emitted (and detected). The detector is activated for that period of time. If a particle is detected, a poisonous gas will be released and the cat killed. Schrödinger set this up as what he called a "ridiculous case" in which "The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts." He resisted an interpretation "so naively accepting as valid a 'blurred model' for representing reality."[10] How can the cat be both alive and dead?
The Copenhagen Interpretation: The wave function reflects our knowledge of the system. The wave function simply means that there is a 50-50 chance that the cat is alive or dead.
2. Wigner's Friend

Wigner puts his friend in with the cat. The external observer believes the system is in the state . His friend however is convinced that cat is alive, i.e. for him, the cat is in the state . How can Wigner and his friend see different wave functions?
The Copenhagen Interpretation: Wigner's friend highlights the subjective nature of probability. Each observer (Wigner and his friend) has different information and therefore different wave functions. The distinction between the "objective" nature of reality and the subjective nature of probability has led to a great deal of controversy. Cf. Bayesian versus Frequentist interpretations of probability.
3. Double Slit Diffraction

Light passes through double slits and onto a screen resulting in a diffraction pattern. Is light a particle or a wave?
The Copenhagen Interpretation: Light is neither. A particular experiment can demonstrate particle (photon) or wave properties, but not both at the same time (Bohr's Complementary Principle).
The same experiment can in theory be performed with any physical system: electrons, protons, atoms, molecules, viruses, bacteria, cats, humans, elephants, planets, etc. In practice it has been performed for light, electrons, buckminsterfullerene, and some atoms. Due to the smallness of Planck's constant it is practically impossible to realize experiments that directly reveal the wave nature of any system bigger than a few atoms but, in general, quantum mechanics considers all matter as possessing both particle and wave behaviors. The greater systems (like viruses, bacteria, cats, etc.) are considered as "classical" ones but only as an approximation.

Entangled "particles" are emitted in a single event. Conservation laws ensure that the measured spin of one particle must be the opposite of the measured spin of the other, so that if the spin of one particle is measured, the spin of the other particle is now instantaneously known. The most discomforting aspect of this paradox is that the effect is instantaneous so that something that happens in one galaxy could cause an instantaneous change in another galaxy. But, according to Einstein's theory of special relativity, no information-bearing signal or entity can travel at or faster than the speed of light, which is finite. Thus, it seems as if the Copenhagen interpretation is inconsistent with special relativity.
The Copenhagen Interpretation: Assuming wave functions are not real, wave function collapse is interpreted subjectively. The moment one observer measures the spin of one particle, he knows the spin of the other. However another observer cannot benefit until the results of that measurement have been relayed to him, at less than or equal to the speed of light.
Copenhagenists claim that interpretations of quantum mechanics where the wave function is regarded as real have problems with EPR-type effects, since they imply that the laws of physics allow for influences to propagate at speeds greater than the speed of light. However, proponents of Many worlds[11] and the Transactional interpretation[12][13] maintain that their theories are fatally non-local.
The claim that EPR effects violate the principle that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light can be avoided by noting that they cannot be used for signaling because neither observer can control, or predetermine, what he observes, and therefore cannot manipulate what the other observer measures. Relativistic difficulties about establishing which measurement occurred first also undermine the idea that one observer is causing what the other is measuring.

Copenhagen Interpretation@wikipedia.org

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 05:25 AM

Originally posted by Astyanax
An atheist is not one who dogmatically insists there cannot be a God. Such a person is not an atheist but a fool. The absence of evidence for God, resounding as it is, can never be adduced as proof that He does not exist. An atheist is simply one who has decided, on balance, that God does not exist. That is atheism, as TruthParadox made clear over and over again on this thread.

Agnosticism is merely a more polite word to describe a fence-sitter than 'coward'. An agnostic is someone who would like to make Pascal's ignoble wager but fears the obloquy of others too much even to do that. To any self-described agnostic who finds these remarks offensive, I say: redefine yourself. You are a victim of a terminological error, and should really be calling yourself an atheist.

Atheism

n.

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

...

Definition: belief there is no god

Philosophical definition:

Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none. Sometimes thought itself to be more dogmatic than mere agnosticism, although atheists retort that everyone is an atheist about most gods, so they merely advance one step further.

Agnostic

n.

1.
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

...

Definition: person unsure God exists

What I meant is that the sort of personal revelation you were vouchsafed, your first-hand experience of God as you believe it to be, is something only a tiny fraction of humanity is capable of. The mystic is a very special kind of human being, capable of mental states others cannot attain without artificial boosters such as drugs, meditation, long-drawn-out sexual ecstasy and other indignities of the same kind.

I wouldn't like to say if you are crazy or not. You don't sound crazy to me. I believe you had an epiphany of the kind you describe. I believe you are speaking with conviction. Yet to me, none of this adds any force to the argument for God. Even an experience of my own would not convince me, because what you regard as divine epiphany is to my way of thinking simply a very unusual (though not ipso facto pathological) mental state.

And any conclusion a person comes to in an altered state of mind must be treated with grave suspicion.

I do agree that my experience is just that, my experience. It is no good for you, and it is surely not proof of god in itself. IMO, people should not settle for less than their own experience, and it is peoples beliefs that stop them from having the experience. Because once the belief is established, then the person no longer seeks.

As for drugs, the most potent drug in the world is produced naturally by the brain and even this "reality" wouldn't exist without it. You get such heavy doses of it during sleep that it causes you to forget. So really, all of reality is actually drug induced. But drugs aren't what gives the experience itself. Questioning reality and no longer trusting men, but seeking your own understanding is what does it - along with searching in the right place(within, rather than out there).

Some suspicion I suppose is true. However, the understandings that come along with it are so deep and profound that it's basically undeniable. I honestly can't even express many of the things I understand. What is really "you", is god. It is the father/son relationship, the father(god) is a deeper part of you(son).

Most people have no clue what the father and all the stuff in the bible is really talking about. The church for example, and organized religion is clueless.

If makinho21 won't take you up on this, I will. I read physics at university and have a hobbyist's interest in philosophy, so we can dispense with preliminaries and take the matter up at a reasonably advanced level. Makinho21 is perfectly correct: quantum mechanics is not what people like Deepak Chopra and our pal OmegaPoint dream it is; things like the observer effect have no implications whatsoever concerning a role for consciousness in the world of phenomena.

I'll play along if your arguments turn out to be worth refuting - I'm not going to repeat what I've so often said before on this forum. But let's find another thread to do it in, shall we? there are a zillion 'quantum physics' and 'law of attraction' threads on ATS already, so if you want to flog this dead horse all over again, let's do it on one of those.

Here you go, I have 2 posts you can respond to.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It is a general overview of things, but I think this will be a good starting point.

And after your mystical revelation, do you still believe in the existence of something you call an individuated self? Now there's a surprise.

I understand that all of reality is a matter of perception and perspective, and that it is that perception and perspective that we use to define "ourselves", because it is impossible to actually define what it is that has that perception and perspective.

From 1 being to the next, 1 level of consciousness to the next, all is simply a matter of perspective. As such, yes I do recognize the "self" and it is needed for this level of reality. However, in truth and self and the perspectives themselves are really just possessions of that. These things are very difficult to talk about, and even harder to understand.

It's like love. I can tell you what love is, what it is like to be in love. But you just can't understand it until you've experienced it. We are very limited in our communications. I have to take an image, describe/translate it into words. Those words travel over to you, and you have to take those words and try and rebuild the image I started with. Well that is next to impossible, unless you have seen the same image/experienced it already.

Addendum: Frankly, badmedia, the more I read of your posts in this thread, the less inclined I am to give you the benefit of the doubt. Your understanding of science is typical of an engineer - you think science is about well-defined procedures and predictable outcomes. I'm sorry; that's how engineers are taught because it's their job is to build things and fix them when they break, but it isn't science. Science is open-ended. It is about conceiving, investigating and testing explanations for natural phenomena. Your outlook has nothing whatsoever of the scientific in it and the appeal to your technical background is illegitimate and embarrassing.

But that isn't the real problem. The real problem is that you have begun talking through your hat. The naturalist arguments Welfhard has been making are solidly based in more than one science: neurobiology, evolutionary psychology, statistical analysis and a great deal more; backing these scientific results are some unanswerable arguments in philosophy. You are seeing none of that, you aren't familiar with the science or indeed with the philosophy; you're just talking down to us from the fraudulent eminence of claimed revelation (the eminence is fake even if the claim is not). Your arguments are simplistic; they have been made and refuted countless times before in this forum.

Worst of all, the statements you make based on this personal revelation of yours are curiously old-hat and unsatisfactory - they have no persuasive force and even, from time to time, contradict one another. I have every desire to take you for what you say you are, but I'm beginning to worry.

I didn't define the scientific method. It's not my fault that science is fundamentally ill equipped to handle choice by it's nature.

The brain stuff is simply using the complexity of the brain as an excuse to pass off what are nothing more than beliefs. Science and the study of the brain is very valid. It's not like I'm against it. But I am saying there are things that go beyond the realm of science and logic.

You would be a fool to take me at my word. Why would you do that? For all you know I could just be making it up. I don't expect or want to be accepted and taken for what I say I am. AT ALL. Such things are what is the problem in this world, people taking people for what they claim. Don't do that. I'd rather not even post.

Understand what I am saying, that is the point.

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 06:02 AM
www.redicecreations.com...

"Lastly, when the whole body of the Church should be sufficiently weakened and infidelity strong enough, the final blow (is) to be dealt by the sword of open, relentless persecution. A reign of terror (is) to be spread over the whole earth, and...continue while any Christian should be found obstinate enough to adhere to Christianity."

It is believed that, as a result of Voltaire's writings, Weishaupt formulated his ideas concerning the destruction of the Church. In 1775, when summoned by the House of Rothschild, he immediately defected and, at the behest of Meyer, began to organize the Illuminati. The 1st chapter of the order started in his home town of Ingolstadt.

As the name implies, those individuals who are members of the Illuminati possess the 'Light of Lucifer'. As far as they are concerned, only members of the human race who possess the 'Light of Lucifer' are truly enlightened and capable of governing. Denouncing God, Weishaupt and his followers considered themselves to be the cream of the intelligentsia - the only people with the mental capacity, the knowledge, the insight and understanding necessary to govern the world and bring it peace. Their avowed purpose and goal was the establishment of a "Novus Ordo Seclorum" - a New World Order, or One World Government.

The illuminati's real obstacle are christians that have the holy spirit. If you don't have the Holy Spirit you are not saved and you cannot understand the wisdom of God. We are building towards another christian persecution. They will use evolution and freedom from guilt in order to con people. Many think they are conscious and accept all manner of sin. They really want freedom from judgement just as in Christ's day.

It is satan's goal to rule the world and destroy everything God created. That should be obvious. It includes christians of course.

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 06:40 AM

I looked at the posts you linked to. I'm sorry, but there is really nothing to respond to. Like that rude, unpleasant person Watcher-In-The-Shadows, your 'knowledge' of quantum mechanics seems to have been derived from overcredulous readings of popular-science articles and New Age speculation rather than by anything amounting to academic study. Your ideas are so mistaken they don't even make it off the starting-block.

Choices are not dimensions. There is no sense in which a probability field comprises a set of real events. Time is not the problem, and taking it out of the picture does not resolve any quantum paradox.

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 08:17 AM

Originally posted by Astyanax

I looked at the posts you linked to. I'm sorry, but there is really nothing to respond to. Like that rude, unpleasant person Watcher-In-The-Shadows, your 'knowledge' of quantum mechanics seems to have been derived from overcredulous readings of popular-science articles and New Age speculation rather than by anything amounting to academic study. Your ideas are so mistaken they don't even make it off the starting-block.

Choices are not dimensions. There is no sense in which a probability field comprises a set of real events. Time is not the problem, and taking it out of the picture does not resolve any quantum paradox.

You think because they study the probabilitiy field at a single smaller point that the effect doesn't happen within all atoms around you at the same time?

Do you often have trouble seeing things in a bigger light?

Choices only determine the path, they are not actual dimensions in themselves. And you don't even really need quantum physics to see it, just as in the 2 probable futures I gave in my examples. You can see it on a smaller scale.

Parallel dimensions can easily be seen by looking at a time line, and then applying the same principle of change in other "directions". From 1 second ago, the dimension you were in was almost just exactly like the one now. Go back 2000 years ago, and there is big change.

The closest 3d dimensions stacked on top of each other make up 4d, those stack to make 5d and on and on. Which one becomes reality is based on the observer, where the other possibilities seem to collapse into that which becomes reality.

But that is funny that you are unable to see how it works beyond a single atom at 1 time. Thanks for the giggles.

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:20 AM

I have grown tired with self limited perception absolutists that can't see past their noses who twist terms to make themselves sound better.

thank you Watcher

that's the funniest thing I've read in a while - and I've read some pretty funny stuff recently

edit to add: some of us may not be participating in this one - but we are reading along

it's a very good read - mostly - it could be even better - if there wasn't so much sniping from the peanut gallery

there - now I'm through with my sniping - from the peanut gallery

I apologize

[edit on 7/29/2009 by Spiramirabilis]

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 12:59 PM

But what you are essentially saying is that consciousness is the result of chemicals and electrical signals and nothing else. So, how are certain chemicals and electrical patterns able to see "images", and how are they able to reason and so forth.

Reasoning is a function of other parts of this computer.

It is NOT logical. You are simply using the complexity of the brain as an excuse and something to put faith into. That is all.

It's not faith, we can see the brain doing tasks, we can see it doing maths, talking, listening, remembering and reasoning - everything we can do has a related brain activity it is all there.

As we evolved and being social beings, selection pressures and a fishy diet caused our brains to grow, our sentience and intelligence till eventually - if an individual was raised in a sufficient environment - it was capable of everything we are. Things with smaller, less complex brains are not so capable in such regards.

That's why if you damage certain parts of the brain, peoples reasoning skills will be impaired - because it's a product of the brain much in the same way that if you damage an engine, it will not function properly.

You are simply using the complexity of the brain as an excuse and something to put faith into. That is all.

Ignoring the concept of faith for a minute, sentience, awareness, emotion, consciousness are self evident as products of the brain. You simply do not like that premise because it means that everything about us is deterministic. You say, "no it's not just patterns of billions of neurons, there is something else and conveniently that something else can violate causality!"

The process in making a conscious decision is a linear one of reasoning. Input triggers perception, triggers a thought which triggers another - until there is a long line of thoughts called a deliberation, which triggers an action.

I am made aware of my hunger by a rumbling stomach > A thought "I should eat." > My mind semi-consciously recovers memory or what is available > My mind determines that spaghetti on toast is the most appropriate option > My mind determines the the most appropriate course of action > I execute said action.

So apart from being able to see the signatures of these products in MRIs and brain scans, we have this:
Input determines output.

This you simply don't know what you are talking about. An ex of mine was a psychologist and it's nothing more than the study of behavioral patterns.

And now in psych there is some crossing over with neurology and neuropsychology. One of the first things we learnt was how the brain perceives the world visually and the impairments that come with that - entirely neurology there.

Once again it's not something that can be told to someone.

Once again that is a copout. If you can't support your argument then you have no business arguing.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Welfhard]

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:05 PM

I am sorry I did not bother responding to his "challenge", I decided it would be a much further waste of my time - I know what is going to happen:
I will present what fact or accepted and understood mechanisms and results science does know, and he will, as in every other faith-based argument, hide in his world of 'unkown' and the 'no answer' zone. Basically, it will be arguing against science with faith (like always before) and he will throw out claims that are neither backed or evident, yet can not be "absolutely" rebuked.
I figured I'd save myself the trouble on this one...

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:20 PM

We can even see the brain doing faith - that has been documented.

Btw Watcher, Schrodinger's Cat is a "thought-experiment" or a Gedanken if you prefer - as is the later addition you referenced. They didn't actually occur (I hope you realize that).

Double slit is famous for being misrepresented (by people like Omega) who have "discovered" it shows us how consciousness determines our universe.
My only thought is that we, humans, are not doing the measurement reading/observation. It is a machine. So maybe computers decide this universe of ours. Atleast there is a tad bit of evidence to suggest it.

This is why it is dangerous to extrapolate out from something that is neither completely understood, or makes further testable predictions.
To suggest "consciousness" is an eternal, separate being from something like that is an obscure, irrational attempt to find anything that backs your prior convictions. This is again fallacious - you already have a predetermined end result set it stone.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by makinho21] I really need to read over my posts better

[edit on 29-7-2009 by makinho21]

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:30 PM
Most of the greatest minds and thinkers on earth, including Newton, Copernicus, Freud, Jung, Einstein, Plato, Niels Bohr, Da Vinci, Edison, Tesla, Max Planck, etc.etc.etc. were not atheists. In fact they ridiculed them.

Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors."
- Isaac Newton

Atheism is a disease of the soul before it becomes an error of understanding." - Plato

Enough said.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Skyfloating]

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:33 PM

We can even see the brain doing faith - that has been documented.

I have to say that with amazing timing, another thread just started on this very topic.

The research showing that specific mental functions do not correspond directly with certain brain areas but rather a unique pattern of neural connections also provides a more accurate direction for mapping the effective connectivity of the brain. Known as the Connectome Project, the goal of researchers involved in that work is to provide a complete map of the neural circuitry of the central nervous system.

“What our research shows is that if you want to understand human cognitive function, you need to look at system-wide behavior across the entire brain,” explains Hanson. “You can’t do it by looking at single cells or areas. You need to look at many areas of the brain to even understand the simplest of functions.”

Epic WIN!

“You can’t just pinpoint a specific area of the brain, for example, and say that is the area responsible for our concept of self or that part is the source of our morality,” says Hanson. “It turns out the brain is much more complex and flexible than that. It has the ability to rearrange neural connections for different functions. By examining the pattern of neural connections, you can predict with a high degree of accuracy what mental processing task a person is doing.“
[ScienceDaily]

Now consider what Badmedia said in his last response to me.

But what you are essentially saying is that consciousness is the result of chemicals and electrical signals and nothing else. So, how are certain chemicals and electrical patterns able to see "images", and how are they able to reason and so forth.

It is NOT logical. You are simply using the complexity of the brain as an excuse and something to put faith into. That is all.

It's never been a matter of faith.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Welfhard]

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:37 PM

Wow.
A cure? Are you serious? I would think there needs to a cure for the lack of spirituality. I believe in a supreme being or beings, and I have an IQ of 45. I guess your thinking that if I was to stop believing in God then my IQ would go up even more? I would be a genius then.
The purpose of this study is just another way for people to remove God from everything, as foretold in the bible by the way.
I will never listen to you religion haters. I will never denounce God.
I am willing to admit that there is something out there smarter than us humans and that there is meaning to all of this, otherwise, the entire universe is just one HUGE coincidence. Not buying it!!!!!!!!!

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:38 PM

:-)

Most of the greatest minds and thinkers on earth, including Newton, Copernicus, Freud, Jung, Einstein, Plato, Niels Bohr, Da Vinci, Edison, Tesla, Max Planck, etc.etc.etc. were not atheists. In fact they ridiculed them.

but Sky - who is the more intelligent?

I'm still waiting to find out...

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:42 PM

Most of the greatest minds and thinkers on earth, including Newton, Copernicus, Freud, Jung, Einstein, Plato, Niels Bohr, Da Vinci, Edison, Tesla, Max Planck, etc.etc.etc. were not atheists. In fact they ridiculed them.

Of course that was in a time when pretty much everyone was theistic.

I wonder how it will change in the future now that people aren't made to adopt the dogma and doctrine of where they grow up.

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:43 PM

...pointless post - we have dissected and moved on from the "listing names" strategy already (many pages before this).
One problem with it is Atheism was a crime before the 1900s. If anyone - especially scientists, whose work undermined much of the religious status quo - were found to be non-believers, the punishments were quite harsh:
burned, tortured, hung, and ofcourse the evil of all evils, house arrest.
Listing names of prominent scientists and their quotes is irrelevant.
To say they were religious is an assumption - it can not be proven, but all it does, is not contribute constructively to the discussion. I believe that is called a "straw-man".
This topic is not determined by what one person says or feels (which is what religious folk fail to understand). It is about evidence and logic, and so far none of that posits god as the reason for existence or the reason for life.
Quote whoever you like, that does nothing really.
If your post was to say "famous scientists from the past were religious, so how could religious people be dumb?" - times have drastically changed.
The vast majority of critical thinkers are now Atheists. If I wanted to refute your argument with the rationale you share with us, I would simply state what I just said and then leave.
No there is a deeper, much more complex, connection. That is part of this discussion (although it has changed direction quite alot).

Why is the scientific community the way it is now? What reasons do they have that propel them to forsake religious convictions and the absolute presence of a creator?
The same reasons we have been trying to lay out for the last couple pages.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by makinho21]

[edit on 29-7-2009 by makinho21]

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:45 PM

Originally posted by Welfhard
Reasoning is a function of other parts of this computer.

Again, how does a bunch of action and reaction equal out to reasoning? Where is the logic behind it? You are saying that if you add enough action and reaction, that suddenly reasoning will come of that. It just isn't logical.

At what point do all these switches, actions and reactions turn in reasoning, awareness, being able to view images and so forth? Where is the logic behind it? You just keep saying that is what is happening, but there is no logic behind it. In which case, you are simply using the complexity of the brain as the reason, and that is faith/belief based.

It's not faith, we can see the brain doing task, we can see it doing math, talking, listening, remembering and reasoning - everything we can do as a related brain activity it is all there.

And like I said before, I can say the same thing of my PC, but that doesn't mean there isn't a user behind it.

As we evolved and being social beings, selection pressures and a fishy diet caused our brains to grow, our sentience and intelligence till eventually - if an individual was raised in a sufficient environment - it was capable of everything we are. Things with smaller, less complex brains are not so capable in such regards.

If I go buy a Geo Metro, it's going to limit my speed to 60 mph. If I buy a ferrari, then I can go much faster. As they are both tools I can use, each will define my experience and possibilities, but it does not define the driver itself.

Same with my PC, what it is capable of doing is based on the hardware, but it still say nothing of the user behind it.

That's why if you damage certain parts of the brain, peoples reasoning skills will be impaired - because it's a product of the brain.

Flat tire on a car will impair my speeds and control as well. If my harddrive starts going out, I can start losing memory and so forth. Still says nothing of the user behind it.

All these things do in fact define the experience, but they say nothing of that which is experiencing it. Which is exactly what was found out with AI. Easy to provide the experiences and so forth, even easy to simulate something experiencing it. But that which does experience it is separate of these things.

Ignoring the concept of faith for a minute, sentience, awareness, emotion, consciousness are self evident as products of the brain. You simply do not like that premise because it means that everything about us is deterministic. You say, "no it's not just patterns of billions of neurons, there is something else and conveniently that something else can violate causality!"

Causality is the universe itself. Because of that, you can't violate it without something else. That is what AI has showed us. We can not get a program to violate causality - AT ALL. It is completely based on determisim, and that is the reason it is Artificial Intelligence.

The process in making a conscious decision is a linear one of reasoning. Input triggers perception, triggers a thought which triggers another - until there is a long line of thoughts called a deliberation, which triggers an action.

Does the engine on a car reason? No, it just does. It is action and reaction. When you introduce an action, it reacts. The same thing with the brain. It's a tool. It has a purpose, it has use, it does things.

And now in psych there is some crossing over with neurology and neuropsychology. One of the first things we learnt was how the brain perceives the world visually and the impairments that come with that - entirely neurology there.

Where they study the patterns of the brain. Yeah, if you crack your TV screen, the image it presents is distorted. DUH.

Lets take someone with bad eyes. Does their bad eyes make it physically impossible for them to see correctly? No. You can correct the condition. Bad or good eyes, the person is still observing the same way, it's just the presentation of the data that is distorted do to the malfunction. Same thing with neurons and so forth.

Once again that is a copout. If you can't support your argument then you have no business arguing.

And I guess you would tell Einstein he was coping out when he would look at you funny if you asked him to explain/debate the theory of relativity with a bunch of 5 year olds. It's not that I can't support what I say, it's just that you plain out do not have any real understanding of working with logic and don't meet the prerequisites needed to understand. There are limitations of causality which you obviously do not understand. You can blame me for that all you want, but it's not going to make a difference.

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:48 PM

Again, how does a bunch of action and reaction equal out to reasoning? Where is the logic behind it? You are saying that if you add enough action and reaction, that suddenly reasoning will come of that. It just isn't logical.

That's Emergence for you baby!

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Welfhard]

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:14 PM

Now that is a cop out.

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:21 PM

Not at all. It explains how a brain can evolve to produce intelligence, self-awareness, emotion, memory, what ever consciousness is, etc. Hell, life itself is just emergence in chemistry.

I don't see why you can't face this. Neuroscience has demonstrated that human characteristic like intelligence and sociability and everything comes down to brain activity - very advanced and developed brain activity.
It would come about via emergence in biology. Biology, itself, is an example of emergence.

Our minds have a perfectly naturalistic explanation, complete with evidence.

Not only that but it can be made to be understood, even to simpletons. It's not some "You have to experience it to understand" hooey that you're peddling.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Welfhard]

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:29 PM

What better way to keep control and power over your followers than to tell them "there will be opposition" - or the actual wording "false prophets and non-believers" I think - to these secret teachings, and they will oppose us because they are evil and the devil. We tell you the truth, any opposition is lying. That is an ingenious way of preventing free thought and allowing for mass ignorance on the part of those who have "faith".
No wonder no one wanted to title themselves Atheist in the dark ages

new topics

top topics

24