Science Vs.

reply to post by Jezus

If you can't discuss these abstract concepts then you a simply discussing physical biological chemistry or physiological psychology.

What abstract concepts? Your arguing semantics. I gave an answer and you argued not against that answer but against the meaning of the word as it was defined.

The discussion of consciousness is innately abstract.

Can you cite any sources, research or evidences to substantiate this claim that consciousness is only abstract?

You need to get past the brain and move onto the mind.

Define mind and define consciousness.

What are sensations?
What are feelings?

We already went over this, you took the semantics route, I'm ignoring semantics arguments.

A chemical induces a response but what exactly is responding?

This question is illogical as it automatically assumes that the mind is not a product of the brain and that it is a separate entity that exists of it's own accord. Please cite sources, research or evidence to substantiate this line of questioning.

If you are unable to discuss these issues you aren't discussing the phenomenon we call consciousness.

Believe it or not, your discussing two entirely different phenomena as if they were one and the same. You aren't understanding the topic at all and yet arrogantly and ignorantly claiming to know the truth without being capable of backing up that truth.

reply to post by badmedia

As opposed to assuming there is no purpose to life, and that by default anyone who purposes an answer is by default wrong?

I'm not assuming there is no purpose but pointing out that this same line of questioning that you employ without evidence is logically wrong. Your still not understanding the concept.

If you have no purpose in your life - why do you even doing anything at all? After all, there is no purpose in it right?

From a biological viewpoint, life reproduces. In that there is no other purpose other than possibly survival in order to reproduce.

Chemical biology is very interesting but it can only take you so far.
Physiological Psychology is very interesting but it can only take you so far.

All discussion of these issues is discussion of the hardware.

These physical issues are simply the observable correlations between brain activity and behavior.

However, it is like studying a computer without ever turning it on.

The other side of the equation is the pilot of this hardware, the mind.

You=Mind=Soul=Observer=Intelligent Energy

Mind is the constant.

Mind is the responder to the conscious experience.

Mind is fundamentally abstract as it is not in the physical world.

It is the exact opposite of the physical world.

What we call consciousness is the observable response of the mind to the brain within the physical world.


The brain creates a message from our physical senses.

The mind is the synthesis of this message with itself.

The brain's message becomes part of the mind.

A feeling is a state of mind.

I am happy.

reply to post by Jezus


Man, enough with the empty claims. If what you say is true then there is evidence for it to be true. I am asking for you to cite your sources, research and evidence to substantiate your claims. At this moment I have no reason to accept what you state is absolutely true.

Define consciousness.
Define mind.

You like posting definitions, so seek them out and post them here.

Originally posted by sirnex
I'm not assuming there is no purpose but pointing out that this same line of questioning that you employ without evidence is logically wrong. Your still not understanding the concept.

Is it logically right to assume that all things are logical in nature?

From a biological viewpoint, life reproduces. In that there is no other purpose other than possibly survival in order to reproduce.

For what purpose does it care to survive and reproduce?

[edit on 11/23/2009 by badmedia]

reply to post by badmedia

Is it logically right to assume that all things are logical in nature?

lol, you contradict yourself. I love it.

For what purpose does it care to survive and reproduce?

Your assuming that a process has feelings towards being a process? Can you substantiate such a belief? Can you produce evidence that a tree has feelings towards self propagation, what about a bacterium or a self reproducing strand of RNA? At which point would life begin to care or have purpose to care? I don't think your understanding the concept I'm trying to explain to you or attempting to get you to self discover on your own through my questions.

I'm telling you, swallow that pride and dismiss your personal experiences as an accurate measure of what is true. Once you do that you'll slap your forehead and exclaim "DUH!" Let's do away with biased blind belief for just one second.

Originally posted by sirnex
lol, you contradict yourself. I love it.

It's not a contradiction, it's a question. I'm sure if you aren't following or what, but the entire premise in terms of logic is that there are things beyond logic, and as such can not logically be explained.

You talk about proof, so prove it wrong. Show me the logic behind things like "Feelings" and so forth. No reason you can't do that right since you believe is has logic to it.

Your assuming that a process has feelings towards being a process? Can you substantiate such a belief? Can you produce evidence that a tree has feelings towards self propagation, what about a bacterium or a self reproducing strand of RNA? At which point would life begin to care or have purpose to care? I don't think your understanding the concept I'm trying to explain to you or attempting to get you to self discover on your own through my questions.

Why produce evidence from a tree, when you and I are part of that process? Are you saying you have no feelings towards the things you do, no reason or purpose why you do them?

reply to post by badmedia

It's not a contradiction, it's a question. I'm sure if you aren't following or what, but the entire premise in terms of logic is that there are things beyond logic, and as such can not logically be explained.

You talk about proof, so prove it wrong. Show me the logic behind things like "Feelings" and so forth. No reason you can't do that right since you believe is has logic to it.

I'll get to this part tomorrow as I'm heading to bed now and I need to quote the relevant statements made by you which I'm to tired right now to bother gathering.

I'll also address the feelings issue at that time as well.

Why produce evidence from a tree, when you and I are part of that process? Are you saying you have no feelings towards the things you do, no reason or purpose why you do them?

In a word - to experience.

Can you or can you not produce evidence to substantiate this claim from a strand of self replicating RNA or a tree?

reply to post by SS.Invictus


You don't make a better world by continuing the same old crap I do hate to tell you. And it really is nothing less. Read into the history of Christianity, primarily the rise of the Church to dominance and the rhetoric to be found there in. You'd think those that think themselves progressive in their scientism would notice that as self evident, but I know, I hope for too much.

Atheist is Deacon's cyber-doppelganger. Deacon and Atheist hold equally fervent, though diametrically opposed beliefs about religion, and both feel compelled to share those beliefs at every possible opportunity. Should an unsuspecting forum member make even a passing comment about faith or spirituality of any flavor, Atheist will descend like one of the Furies, mercilessly hectoring all of the ignorant and delusional believers about the sordid history of the church and the pernicious effects of religion on society. After a few of Atheist’s anti-religious jeremiads most other Warriors will avoid the subject altogether, though Evil Clown may egg him on a little, and Philosopher may amuse himself by pointing out flaws in his reasoning. If a forum has the misfortune of having both Deacon and Atheist as members, the bickering often continues until Nanny or Admin pulls the plug. Bliss Ninny can also sometimes squelch the conversation by saying, “Well, everyone has a right to their [sic] opinion.”

Flame Warriors

[edit on 24-11-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by sirnex
Can you or can you not produce evidence to substantiate this claim from a strand of self replicating RNA or a tree?

Once again lack of evidence becomes evidence in itself for you.

As was already said before - you can't even prove or know that another being is even conscious at all. It seems a safe bet that other people are conscious, no doubt. But we can't prove it at all.

Despite the fact that none of us can prove it in each other, as we are ourselves conscious we can understand and find answers within our own consciousness. Which is the entire point of what I've been saying - these are not things you can prove, but are things you can understand.

Can you prove to me that you are conscious? If one can't even prove their own consciousness to another, then how in the world am I to even pretend to know what purpose the tree may think it has?

reply to post by badmedia

Once again lack of evidence becomes evidence in itself for you.

Please dispense with the misrepresentation, misunderstanding and lack of comprehension in reading what I post.

I'm not saying it isn't possible at all, but that there is no evidence in which for me to accept what you state as true. I am asking for such evidence in which I can pass judgment upon as being true. Claiming it's just something you have to understand or that we are that evidence is not true evidence, but a cop-out tactic used in such manner to avoid researching the problem and producing such evidences in favor.

To sum it up, I do not accept answers with similar connotations of 'evidence for God is the universe itself'.

You are making these statements as if they were absolutely true. If they are absolutely true then it should not be this difficult to extract evidence from you in which I can pass judgment on. The lack of evidence is pointing to the statement not being evidently true despite me be open to the possibility until such evidence is made available.

You don't seem to be able to comprehend the concept of being open minded to a possibility but at the same time reserving judgment for a possibility until it is proven to be true.

As was already said before - you can't even prove or know that another being is even conscious at all. It seems a safe bet that other people are conscious, no doubt. But we can't prove it at all.

Limiting future knowledge with current technological limitations. I don't accept these arguments as they imply knowledge of future discoveries. If you can prove you have all knowledge of future discoveries in regards to consciousness then I can determine the validity of this statement.

Despite the fact that none of us can prove it in each other, as we are ourselves conscious we can understand and find answers within our own consciousness. Which is the entire point of what I've been saying - these are not things you can prove, but are things you can understand.

Limiting future knowledge with current technological limitations. I don't accept these arguments as they imply knowledge of future discoveries. If you can prove you have all knowledge of future discoveries in regards to consciousness then I can determine the validity of this statement.

Claiming it's just something you have to understand or that we are that evidence is not true evidence, but a cop-out tactic used in such manner to avoid researching the problem and producing such evidences in favor.

To sum it up, I do not accept answers with similar connotations of 'evidence for God is the universe itself'.

Can you prove to me that you are conscious? If one can't even prove their own consciousness to another, then how in the world am I to even pretend to know what purpose the tree may think it has?

Limiting future knowledge with current technological limitations. I don't accept these arguments as they imply knowledge of future discoveries. If you can prove you have all knowledge of future discoveries in regards to consciousness then I can determine the validity of this statement.

You also stated:

In a word - to experience.

This implies that you believe the purpose of life is to experience. A tree is alive, ergo it's purpose is to experience. Can you produce evidence in which to substantiate that claim. Please stop resorting to cop-out tactics and contradictory statements. Either you know a purpose to life and know that purpose for a fact and can produce evidence for that purpose, or your just being a pompous buffoon who pretends he has the truth.

Intelligence doesn't begin with blind belief.

No, the only copout is that you refuse to even try to understand what is talked about, and anytime a philosophical point is raise that you can't get around, you start talking about prove it.

You tell me I must "prove" what I say, but yet you aren't expected to "prove" anything yourself. It's a topic of debate, and you refuse to take on any responsibility in it, putting all the burden on the other side.

I'm sick of it. There are way to many intelligent people to debate than to waste any further time on this. Have a nice day.

reply to post by badmedia

No, the only copout is that you refuse to even try to understand what is talked about, and anytime a philosophical point is raise that you can't get around, you start talking about prove it.

I don't accept cop-out arguments as valid forms of evidence for statements made as absolutely true.

I understand the concept of what your stating, but I am not accepting that concept as absolutely true as there doesn't appear to be any evidence for the speculated concept to be true. If you can kindly produce actual evidence or research in regards to your statements showing the validity of those statements, then I can begin to judge the truth of those statements as being true as you state them to be true.

I don't accept empty claims as truth.

You tell me I must "prove" what I say, but yet you aren't expected to "prove" anything yourself. It's a topic of debate, and you refuse to take on any responsibility in it, putting all the burden on the other side.

You made the claims, it is not my burden to prove those claims as being true. Please don't resort to shifting the burden of proof for your claims upon me.

I don't accept shifting burden of proof as valid arguments.

I'm sick of it. There are way to many intelligent people to debate than to waste any further time on this. Have a nice day.

What your sick of is being asked to provide evidence for your statements of absolute truth. You can't sit there and just claim to have the truth of something that science hasn't fully explained and is just starting to learn about and then claim that science can never prove this aspect of study as if you also possess knowledge of future discoveries.

Don't claim to think logically or claim to have truth if you can't show either to be the case. Obviously it is illogical for you to have knowledge of future discoveries in which to state that consciousness will never be proved in the future. You can't limit future knowledge upon current limitations without implying to have knowledge of future discoveries. If you have knowledge of future discoveries, then I also have to demand evidence that this is the case, simply because it is a logical question to ask of you.

Your pissed because your starting to realize you don't have the truth, that you never had the truth and that your letting your biased blind beliefs determine what is true without having to actually seek the truth. Your a false prophet of truth. You don't understand how to determine truth due to your arrogant ignorance and prideful thinking that you've already obtained that truth.

Don't discuss truth with me if you can't prove to have truth. Your right, it's a matter of intelligence, something apparently lost to you. When your ready to listen and heed my advice, then you might be able to obtain the capacity to exercise your intelligence and thing's will become slightly more clearer to you. If you wish to bow out a third time, that is fine. It's your decision to remain arrogantly ignorant, I can't force you to change your biased blind beliefs nor can I force you to use your brain.

Please do me a favor and go to your local college and take a philosophy class.

reply to post by badmedia


What is this video suppose to show? The narrator already alludes to the fact that her conceptions of where these thing's came from or why they arose is pure speculation and not established fact with evidence to substantiate those speculations. Considering your limited ability for logic, the speculation aspect arises from the many times she states "I think".

I also fail to see the correlation for her speculation of language compared to your speculation of mind. The two are distinctly different and operate through distinctly different principles, which is a logical statement as we don't see words or meanings of words possessing intelligence of their own accord. Can you explain the reasoning behind posting this video and how it might help your arguments and why you still are failing at proving your truth as being true?

Originally posted by sirnex
If what you say is true then there is evidence for it to be true. I am asking for you to cite your sources, research and evidence to substantiate your claims.

The evidence exists in two forms.

1. Your personal experience.

This is an assumption on my part that you have consciousness. I can never scientifically prove that you have a mind.

2. The compilation of science and other personal experiences.

Chemical biology, physiological psychology, neuroscience, dream studies, memory studies, brain damage studies,

These are all mechanics. Neurons and neurotransmitters show the direct correlations between the physical world (the brain) and the mind's interruption of reality.

The brain is absorbing every possible bit of information from the body itself and physically synthesizing it into a central consciousness that we experience.

However, our mind even stores information that is effecting us right now deeper within the subconscious and is no longer a physical sensation.

The subconscious is the rest of our mind. This is where memories, fantasies, and any novel thought arises from. It is the fuel for creativity and intelligent thought. It is the substance that can be happy or angry. When you sing a song in your head what is creating it and listening to the song at the same time?

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Jezus

 

Define consciousness.
Define mind.

Consciousness is a word for something we observe.

When we see the physical activity that we correlate with a "conscious person" we are simply observing the natural mind's response to the brain's activity being expressed through the physical body. Voluntary VS Involuntary is an illusion of our mind. It is all simply the mind's response to reality.

Consciousness is the immediate experience of the mind.

You, another mind, are currently experiencing the consciousness created by your brain.

The mind is you and your constant response to this experience.

Consciousness is the tip of external world's interaction with the other side of the equation. The spiritual world of the mind.

Mind=soul VS consciousness=brain

The mind is the connection between you now and you ten minutes ago.

Your state of mind, happiness, is your the simplest possible word you might use to describe how you feel.

You are feelings. There is no other way to describe it. They become you.

reply to post by Jezus

1. Your personal experience.

I don't accept personal experience as evidence of anything, not even my own personal experience as personal experience is a faulty measure of reality.

This is an assumption on my part that you have consciousness. I can never scientifically prove that you have a mind.

Limiting future knowledge with current technological limitations. I don't accept these arguments as they imply knowledge of future discoveries. If you can prove you have all knowledge of future discoveries in regards to consciousness then I can determine the validity of this statement.

Chemical biology, physiological psychology, neuroscience, dream studies, memory studies, brain damage studies,

All scientific research I have read based on these studies have not explicitly indicated that the mind is separate from the brain. If you have any research or evidence that suggests the contrary I would appreciate citing those sources. I have continuously asked for these sources of evidence and yet you continuously fail to produce them.

If you are claiming the above sciences all explicitly state that mind is separate from brain and exists of it's own accord without causation of the brain, then this should not be a difficult task to produce such research and evidences.

These are all mechanics. Neurons and neurotransmitters show the direct correlations between the physical world (the brain) and the mind's interruption of reality.

All scientific research I have read based on these studies have not explicitly indicated that the mind is separate from the brain. If you have any research or evidence that suggests the contrary I would appreciate citing those sources. I have continuously asked for these sources of evidence and yet you continuously fail to produce them.

The brain is absorbing every possible bit of information from the body itself and physically synthesizing it into a central consciousness that we experience.

Can you cite any sources, research or evidence for this separate third party entity that experiences consciousness?

However, our mind even stores information that is effecting us right now deeper within the subconscious and is no longer a physical sensation.

Can you cite any sources, research or evidence suggesting that the mind is the seat of memory and not the brain and any possible mechanisms for how memory formation through a disembodied separate from brain mind is formed and where this memory is stored?

The subconscious is the rest of our mind. This is where memories, fantasies, and any novel thought arises from. It is the fuel for creativity and intelligent thought. It is the substance that can be happy or angry. When you sing a song in your head what is creating it and listening to the song at the same time?

Can you cite any sources or evidence for this?

Consciousness is a word for something we observe.

Can you describe or define that observation?

When we see the physical activity that we correlate with a "conscious person" we are simply observing the natural mind's response to the brain's activity being expressed through the physical body. Voluntary VS Involuntary is an illusion of our mind. It is all simply the mind's response to reality.

Can you cite any sources or evidence for this or at the very least describe a viable mechanism for this occurrence than can be proved as valid?

Consciousness is the immediate experience of the mind.

Can you cite any relevant scientific research in this regard?

You, another mind, are currently experiencing the consciousness created by your brain.

The mind is you and your constant response to this experience.

Can you produce any evidence for this disembodied mind?

Consciousness is the tip of external world's interaction with the other side of the equation. The spiritual world of the mind.

Can you cite any relevant scientific research in this regard?

Mind=soul VS consciousness=brain

Can you cite any relevant scientific research in this regard?

The mind is the connection between you now and you ten minutes ago.

Can you cite any relevant scientific research in this regard?

Your state of mind, happiness, is your the simplest possible word you might use to describe how you feel.

You are feelings. There is no other way to describe it. They become you.

Can you cite any relevant scientific research in this regard?


**I will repeat this again, I do not accept empty claims given as evidence for anything. If you are going to tell me that something is a proven fact and is absolutely true then please cite your sources and evidence. It's an amazingly simple concept that you *should* be able to grasp.

reply to post by sirnex


Um, Sirnex....... This is a complete and utter non-sense statement.

I don't accept personal experience as evidence of anything, not even my own personal experience as personal experience is a faulty measure of reality.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by sirnex

 

Um, Sirnex....... This is a complete and utter non-sense statement.

I don't accept personal experience as evidence of anything, not even my own personal experience as personal experience is a faulty measure of reality.

Not really, not to me at least. Personal experiences are unique to the subject in which experiences, hence the word personal that comes before experience. You can't experience everything I experience as I can't experience everything you experience. If we both experience contradictory "truths" or aspects of reality, then how do we determine who's experience of reality is more valid?

Is your experience more valid than mine or is my experience more valid than yours? If we can't determine who's experience is more valid for measuring reality or for learning what is true, then I can't imagine that using personal experiences is a good way to determine what is true for all thing's in reality.

reply to post by sirnex


Um personal experience and communicated personal experience that we agree with IS our reality. Unless you believe someone out there transcends our limitations.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]