It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
If you think about how to explain physical events like a footprint on the moon…, it happened because of human ideas [not because of mere configurations of atoms]….
This information can't, in my view, be reduced to statements about atoms because, if you think about what that information does, it is in brains, but the same information then gets transferred into, let's say, sound waves in air, and then it gets transferred into ink on paper, and then it gets transferred into magnetic domains inside a computer, which then control a machine that instantiates those ideas in bits of steel, and silicon, and so on. There's an immense chain of instantiations of the same information…. What is being transmitted, what is having the causal effect, is not the atoms, but the fact that the atoms instantiate certain kinds of information, and not other kinds. So therefore, it is the information that is having the causal effect….
If explanation is going to be the fundamental thing—our criterion, for example—about what is or isn't real, then we have to say that information, and this particular kind which we call "knowledge," is real and really does cause things….
We have to accept the physical world as we find it. We have to find the best explanations that explain it, rather than impose, by dogma, a criterion that explanations have to meet other than that they explain reality.
You just sent a message with an electrical signal from your brain to the muscles in your toe and bingo! - it moves. Just how fast was the signal moving? The electrical signals in your body can move as fast as 150 meters per second.
There's zero evidence the the material brain can know or operate the information stored in the material brain.
Everything we know about mediums that store information tells us that there needs to be a user to operate and navigate the stored information.
So what isn't science is the assertion that the mind emerges from the material brain. That belongs in the fantasy section.
There is zero evidence that states it otherwise though.
Why should I have to provide any evidence to counter something that has zero evidence?
Like I said, the brain isn't a magical device.
You are asking others to prove to you, what obviously cannot be proven to your standards, thus proclaiming your view must have validity. No matter what anything said here in opposition, you will not accept.
The growing ability of neuroscientists to manipulate neurons using methods from molecular biology in combination with optical tools (e.g., Adamantidis et al. 2007) depends on the simultaneous development of appropriate behavioral assays and model organisms amenable to large-scale genomic analysis and manipulation. It is the combination of such fine-grained neuronal analysis in animals with ever more sensitive psychophysical and brain imaging techniques in humans, complemented by the development of a robust theoretical predictive framework, that will hopefully lead to a rational understanding of consciousness, one of the central mysteries of life.
From a scientific standpoint, there isn't any evidence that the mind emerges from the material brain and in fact, it's a really silly notion when you think about it.
So scientifically speaking, the mind emerging from the material brain doesn't make any sense. It's a belief that says the mind must emerge from the material brain and that's not scientific.
Some scholars, notably philosopher Thomas Nagel, are so unimpressed with science that they are challenging its fundamental assumptions. In his new book Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False, Nagel contends that current scientific theories and methods can’t account for the emergence of life in general and one bipedal, big-brained species in particular. To solve these problems, Nagel asserts, science needs “a major conceptual revolution,” as radical as those precipitated by heliocentrism, evolution and relativity.
Many pundits calling for such a revolution are peddling some sort of religious agenda, whether Christian or New Age. Nagel is an atheist, who cannot accept God as a final answer, and yet he echoes some theological critiques of science. “Physic-chemical reductionism,” he writes, cannot tell us how matter became animate on Earth more than three billion years ago; nor can it account for the emergence in our ancestors of consciousness, reason and morality.
Evolutionary psychologists invoke natural selection to explain humanity’s remarkable attributes, but only in a hand-wavy, retrospective fashion, according to Nagel. A genuine theory of everything, he suggests, should make sense of the extraordinary fact that the universe “is waking up and becoming aware of itself.” In other words, the theory should show that life, mind, morality and reason were not only possible but even inevitable, latent in the cosmos from its explosive inception. Nagel admits he has no idea what form such a theory would take; his goal is to point out how far current science is from achieving it.
You have created the Mind though, as some would say. Scientifically, it was pointed out how toes wiggle, you are in a realm where the scientific, dares not go in my opinion.
Again, this is wrong.
Scientifically, it wasn't shown how the mind knows which toe you wish to wiggle. Scientifically it wasn't shown how the material brain knows which memory you wish to recall.