It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

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: 16
24
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
Sorry, but that is what I consider to be low levels of thinking, and the kind of thinking that holds understanding back, rather than pushes it forward.


Rejecting established science out of hand in favour of the belief in spirits is low level thinking. We wouldn't have learnt anything about anything with that kind of thinking.




posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard

Originally posted by makinho21
Let's call this the "you're wrong and I'm right because you spelled or erred in grammatical use" game.


Actually I didn't even do that.

Phenomenon, singular. Phenomena, plural. - although there are others.

And I was using the physics definition, #4.


An observable event - observable by whom?

This is what I keep trying to point out to you. I can simulate intelligence with AI. I found logical reasons for the way things work in the brain when I had problems in the AI logic. sleep, death, multiple beings and on and on.

But in the end, there was an element which I could not give and was beyond logic. And that was consciousness and that which observes.

I can make a choice in a program by generating a pseduo-random number and having the program choose based on that information.

Random(100).
If 10 and < 50 - then choose option B
If >= 50 then choose option B

But the choice there is merely an illusion. It is subject to casuality and determinism.

I can even generate the illusion of characteristics and traits. Not a problem. It is 100% doable to provide the illusion of consciousness and intelligence. Same principle, but instead give tendencies etc.

But as it doesn't make any choices, it never actually understands. It does what it was programmed to do, and reacts to the actions given to it. It is not able to recognize logic or create it. It lacks consciousness. It lacks the observer who is required to know what a Phenomenon is.

How can something be observed without an already present observer? Right back to my very first post - you can't have science without first having a scientist who can understand and recognize the logic, order and so forth.

Had nothing to do with spelling.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard

Originally posted by badmedia
Sorry, but that is what I consider to be low levels of thinking, and the kind of thinking that holds understanding back, rather than pushes it forward.


Rejecting established science out of hand in favour of the belief in spirits is low level thinking. We wouldn't have learnt anything about anything with that kind of thinking.


Actually, that was proven false back a few pages ago by SkyFloating. The prevailing wisdom of their time, or "established science" were against them. As they went against such things, and had to in order to find what they did out, you would have also dismissed them with you line of thinking.


Originally posted by Skyfloating
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.




posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


I don't think they understand, or refuse to. Self and qualia (subjective experience) cannot be separated in any model of "consciousness" and consciousness isn't purely deterministic, as if it's just a brain phenomenon. I made a pretty good post on this a few pages back, but it was ignored.

What's interesting, is the atheist HIMself is the proof itself - when they keep on parroting "show me the evidence!" It's hiliarious! Their own subjective experience of themselves and the universe within which they are emmersed IS the evidence, at least a big part of the puzzle, the rest involving the correlation between quantum holographic mind and non-local quantum holographic universe.

They deny their own self and their own existence in effect, or are willing to do so, prior to looking at the question in terms of a wholistic model of consciousness created reality. It's absurd. They are absurd.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 

The human organism, yes, but not the human BEING - that YOU are. Why can't you understand this?



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


An observable event - observable by whom?

At this point I'm talking about emergence.

Anyone who has seen a snowflake up close, or a termite fortress or any number of other things has witness emergence - complex functioning out of simplicity.


How can something be observed without an already present observer?

Observes, or scientists rather, can see the phenomenon of human cognition in one another and other people. Being self aware is the act of witnessing and acknowledging oneself - which you could extrapolate to be a scientist witnessing the phenomenon in him/herself.



Actually, that was proven false back a few pages ago by SkyFloating. The prevailing wisdom of their time, or "established science" were against them. As they went against such things, and had to in order to find what they did out, you would have also dismissed them with you line of thinking.


Yeah because atheism was real big way back then. To speak against it was hugely against prevailing wisdom of their time.


But again, you aren't arguing with me, you are arguing with what neuroscience has established - that all that the mind is is housed within the brain.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


haha ya I know you didn't err, I was just commenting on what he did. Seemed a rather futile attempt to assert his profound intelligence once more.
I'm off on a trip though - I'll catch you guys later! Probably won't be on until the evening, I have to fly to Calgary then drive for like 5 hours. Peace all - except OT, he does not warrant my farewell
LOL



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


human being

Use human being in a Sentence
–noun
1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens.
2. a person, esp. as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species: living conditions not fit for human beings; a very generous human being.
[Dictionary]

The "human being" is not distinct from human "organism". So I can understand this as it just means the same thing.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I'm reffering to the BEING of being a human being, and figured you'd be able to grasp the distinction I was making.

You're in a box. You really are nothing but a machine.

You need to have a little imagination, receptivity, open mindedness.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


I'm reffering to the BEING of being a human being, and figured you'd be able to grasp the distinction I was making.


Then you should use less ambiguous language. The phrase "being" doesn't demonstrate in any way that a human is anything more that the sum of it's biology.


At the moment all you're doing is urging me to change my thinking without giving me reason to do so.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
See my post on this issue of self conscious awareness a few pages back, and reason it out. It's the mean thing that differentiates YOU as a WHO, from the animal kingdom, or as a mere "biological entity". But it requies more than just "intelligence" it requires a phenomenon called awareness, or the capacity to simply observe one's own self and thought processes. If "you" can observe, as a witness, without making any judgements or distinctions, without collapsing any sort of probability wave, then you will understand. A study of Eastern mysticism would be helpful in this regard, and there is a signficant correlation between that philsophy and undersanding, and modern physics ie: read "The Tao of Physics" for more on that.

You are missing the final distinction here, and YOU are it.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Saying complex things can happen from simple things is a cop out. There are logical explanations to those things you mention.


Originally posted by Welfhard
Observes, or scientists rather, can see the phenomenon of human cognition in one another and other people. Being self aware is the act of witnessing and acknowledging oneself - which you could extrapolate to be a scientist witnessing the phenomenon in him/herself.


So then, he is observing himself observing? Which observation came first and from where?





Yeah because atheism was real big way back then. To speak against it was hugely against prevailing wisdom of their time.


Actually, I was referring to the advancements they brought. But atheism isn't new at all. And in many places the "gods" were the kings/rulers of the lands.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 

How do you know that other animals are not too aware of their own thoughts?
How do you know the Emperor Penguin doesnot contemplate Nuclear Fission?
Using an evolutionary model, I explained that it was highly probable that awareness is a thing of degree. We are not always aware of ourselves, we sleep, we faint etc. What's more is that awareness is something that we gain as we mature, as our brain matures. It's probably that other apes too have some degree of awareness that fluctuates throughout it's day.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


Saying complex things can happen from simple things is a cop out. There are logical explanations to those things you mention.

But they are examples of Emergence all the same, as is biology and our evolved brain.

That's just how it is.



So then, he is observing himself observing? Which observation came first and from where?

It's like standing in between two mirrors and seeing almost an infinity of regressing you's. In reality the brain cannot witness it's own molecular function it can witness the molecular functioning of other brains. In a way it is a mirror. But the brain doesn't have to see it happening it itself to know that because it happens for sure in other brains, it happens.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
But they are examples of Emergence all the same, as is biology and our evolved brain.

That's just how it is.


This is no different than the god did it argument religious people use. If there are logical explanations for how those listed things happen, then there is logical explanation for how consciousness forms out of action and reaction.

All you are really talking about are what parts of the brain is active at certain times and what have you, and calling that proof. It isn't.

The brain is like your PC. If you PC screws up, then you have lost your connection to the "internet world". Without your PC, you are unable to take part in these things. Without your brain, you are unable to take part in this world. So it is not at all illogical that the brain would be functioning and so forth during events.





It's like standing in between two mirrors and seeing almost an infinity of regressing you's. In reality the brain cannot witness it's own molecular function it can witness the molecular functioning of other brains. In a way it is a mirror. But the brain doesn't have to see it happening it itself to know that because it happens for sure in other brains, it happens.


Has to start somewhere. The infinity of regressing "you's" is a known fallacy, and is usually on the other side of the argument.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


This is no different than the god did it argument religious people use.

Except that we know it happens.


If there are logical explanations for how those listed things happen, then there is logical explanation for how consciousness forms out of action and reaction.

There is, it evolved as an example of emergence.
But it happened, we know that much, so asking for the logic of it won't change anything. You may as well ask for the logic of gravity - it doesn't matter, it won't stop gravity from happening.


Has to start somewhere. The infinity of regressing "you's" is a known fallacy, and is usually on the other side of the argument.

I know it is, I also said 'almost' because I know that the observer makes it impossible to see as we block the photons path. But it does start somewhere, the brain. To say it is one further without a lick of evidence is just as fallacious as saying the universe was created by a creator, also without a lick of evidence.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
Except that we know it happens.


We know life happens and such too. That isn't the point at all. I'm saying there is a point where logic is being left behind to make that conclusion.

It's not like it would really matter to me if consciousness was part of the brain. But if it is true, then there is a logical explanation, and telling me oh look the lights are on, isn't really proof someone is home if you get what I mean.




There is, it evolved as an example of emergence.
But it happened, we know that much, so asking for the logic of it won't change anything. You may as well ask for the logic of gravity - it doesn't matter, it won't stop gravity from happening.


And someone saying god did it, and another saying god didn't do it doesn't change anything either. But if it is a result of this world which is based on action and reaction, then it has a logical answer. If a logical answer can not be provided, then it's not being explained. Merely an assumption is being made.




I know it is, I also said 'almost' because I know that the observer makes it impossible to see as we block the photons path. But it does start somewhere, the brain. To say it is one further without a lick of evidence is just as fallacious as saying the universe was created by a creator, also without a lick of evidence.


But you are not providing real evidence either. Again, there is a point where logic is being left behind in favor of a guess/assumption. I am asking for the logic that proves it.

The different snowflakes for example form based on temperature, humidity and so forth. It follows logic, which can be reproduced. I am asking for that logic. If you can give that logic, and not some kind of circumstantial evidence, I can put it to use and test it.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


We know life happens and such too. That isn't the point at all. I'm saying there is a point where logic is being left behind to make that conclusion.

We don't have to conclude anything to know it happens. It's like standing at a collapsed bridge and saying, "by this rubble and video footage, I conclude this bridge collapsed." If you want to know 'How' the brain is able to be self aware then to bad, we are still investigating that. But we know that it is, all the same.


and telling me oh look the lights are on, isn't really proof someone is home if you get what I mean.

What you are doing is essentially the opposite.
"The lights are on, someone is out."
That's silly.


But you are not providing real evidence either. Again, there is a point where logic is being left behind in favor of a guess/assumption. I am asking for the logic that proves it.

Logic doesn't prove it. Logic could explain how something not real could work if it did, but that is not proof. But then again there is only proof in maths, in every other field of science deals in evidence. The evidence you are looking for can be found in MRI neuroscience studies. We can see the brain making choices. What more so-called "proof" do you need.

There is that evidence suggesting that the mind is totally self-contained in the brain, yet there is no evidence to the contrary.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


You are talking about something which there is debate on what it is in the first place now. And you are trying to tell me that somehow they know it is "in there". When asked for the logic behind it, there is none. It's "they are still studying".

What chemicals create consciousness and so forth? What is the magical combination?

You say it is all contained within the brain. Where else did they look?



What you are doing is essentially the opposite.
"The lights are on, someone is out."
That's silly.


That is not at all what I was saying. I'm saying that the lights being on is not proof either way.

[edit on 7/29/2009 by badmedia]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


You are talking about something which there is debate on what it is in the first place now. And you are trying to tell me that somehow they know it is "in there". When asked for the logic behind it, there is none. It's "they are still studying".

I don't know what else to offer you. When watching a persons brain burst into action given certain mental tasks to complete, "the logic behind it" is besides the point - there it is infront of us.


You say it is all contained within the brain. Where else did they look?

There is nowhere else to look, they once thought it was contained in the heart, at least emotions anyway. That was shown to be wrong, but the symbolism stayed, using a heart to express affection and love. Given the tools to reveal electrical activity in the brain, what did they see? Activity, but not just activity, very task-specific activity. They even found the parts of the brain involved in praying to god. Interesting stuff.


That is not at all what I was saying. I'm saying that the lights being on is not proof either way.

You say that consciousness is of the spirit and that the brain is a tool, so in this analogy the lights are the tool, but the spirit is not part of the brain, it is outside the brain interfacing with it. Therefore your analogy is that the lights are on, some one is out.
The lights being on is an indicator that someone may be home, whereas the lights being off indicates that no one is home - analogous of brain death.


Since we can see mental facilities burst into action in the same way that sensory facilities burst into action when the person views something, why would a person reasonably assume that consciousness is not a function of the brain - that is silly.

You say this stuff inspite of the evidence. Your anti-intellectualism strikes me as similar to creationist babble.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Welfhard]



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join