Originally posted by wagnificent
Gotta love how materialists feel obligated to be condescending.
I had no intention of being condescending. It might sound that way because I'm trying to keep the discussion where it belongs. Please, let me share
me my thought process:
1. You are sitting in front of a computer.
2. You are aware that you are using a fine piece of technology
3. The technology is based on hundreds of years of science (as science needs to accumulate to gain even more knowledge).
4. I'm sure you appreciate the effort and acknowledge the science that built you that machine
5. I'm sure you are aware that medical science has taken similar steps.
6. I'm uncertain whether or not you appreciate these steps and/or if you personally utilize this science - there might be religious obstacles in the
way. But surely you must be aware that we do know quite a bit of how the human body, including the brain, works.
7. You have a completely different idea on what "consciousness", and "the self" is and how the brain works, compared to science.
So, based on the above 5 steps and my uncertainty as to why you choose to disagree with science in the last points, it is reasonable of me to point
you towards some material, regardless if you are going to read them / know it by heart already, it's a form of challenge-bait that I'd expect you to
bite on and tell me why these ideas are not accurate. Obviously you're the one sitting with unique ideas, not me / the science world, right?
So, thinking that you have some appreciation of scientific methods, I was expecting you to overthrow the common view and explain why it is wrong.
Surely you understand that science works by observing and verifying theories, not just making stuff up by saying "I believe" and then calling it a
fact. What is the point of two people with different "I believe"s trying to convince each other when neither can prove a thing?
That is the reason why my approach was what it was. I was expecting you to tell me why our thoughts on the brain and thoughts/consciousness/the-self
are wrong in the same way you appreciate that technology has come as far as it has until this day. I was not being condescending.
If and when neurologists and biochemists can hook up a device to a brain, map out exactly how and where thoughts are generated and then explain the
specific content of thoughts and feelings, complete with detailed images, materialists may take an authoritative stance on these phenomena. Until
then neurology and biochemistry are working from assumptions and theories just like the rest of us.
Again, I would suggest you to read more about the brain if you thing too many things are "magic". You might even find that you get pretty good
answers to your questions already.
Not that this has to do much with anything, but let me just list a few things:
1. We once thought that the "soul" of a human was in the heart. We now know it's a muscle that pumps blood. We know that brain is the part doing
2. We know that our senses (seeing,hearing,feeling,smelling,tasting) are connected to different parts to our body. We know that we are able to destroy
either the parts of our bodies (sensors) that take in these senses, or the parts in our brain that handle these.
4. We are able to scan our brains and see which parts of the brain works with different things, motions, feelings, remembering, seeing, hearing..
5. We are able to alter the mood of a person with chemicals.
6. We are able to worsen/enhance our mental capabilities with chemicals
7. We are able to change the personality of a person with chemicals
8. We know that a personality can be altered if the subject receives a blow to the head.
Apart from the actually biochemistry around the actual organ called the brain, we have a lot of information on what it does, how it does it and that
we can altered - of which few are listed above.
Our theories on the brain are quite verified.
We do not have any evidence that there would be other ways, like receiving "telepathic" messages. There simply is none. Until there is, there
Continued.... (running out of characters)...