Materialism (championed by Darwinists) makes reason Impossible.

[Dancing David]

The science of the presentation of the perceptions is very cool, I always come back to vision as it provides some extreme examples.

the fovea (where the color senses are) is about the size of a small coin held at arms length in the visual field. Now given the movements of the eye and two over lapping fields, we still see an awful lot of color. Our brain fills it in and smoothes it us for it.

There is some strange stuff coming out of the 'vestibular' sensations, which is an integration of multiple sensory fields and perceptions. Visual, auditory, kinesthetic and cochlear.

 

[lemurien]

We are very visual. Looking at the film projected in the dome we lose our spatial orientation, especially if somebody is dsiturbing our tendons with vibratory devices.
It is not easy to remain standing. The visual input get mixed with the body mappings, you get overload you feel dizzy you get ill,you cover your eyes.

Vestibular, yes.
Magnetic stimulation to the vestibular areas can provoke an Out Of the Body Experience,
On the other side, with the stimulation you will feel a Presence of a Deity...

That is basically the vestibular experience.
Neurons running wild.
God who is hiding in our brain tissue.
Hide and seek with the Devil.

The difference?
We'll look at the maps once they're finished.

 

[Dancing David]

Um, no the vestibular sense is primarily about spatial orientation and coordinating movements.

But feel free to write prose.

 

[lemurien]

About vestibular stimulation and Out-Of-Body experiences : http://www.frontiersin.org/human_neuroscience/10.3389/neuro.09.017.2008/full
http://lecerveau.mcgill.ca/flash/capsules/articles_pdf/Out-of-body experiences.pdf

about vestibular stimulation and God presence: http://holosuniversity.net/pdf/Clench_diss.pdf (attention, air head alert)

and NDE (near Death Experiences) http://www.newdualism.org/nde-online.html

I cannot seem to find the citation for the stimulation of vestibular cortex and the feeling of Presence of God but I go down to the beach with a textbook and hopefully come up with it. As I recall, right sided vestibular cortex stimulation gave an OBE and left sided the feeling of a Presence.

BUT cultural differences have been found. For instance the results Dr. Persinger obtained with 'God Helmet' in North America could not be reproduced in Sweden. Which probably indicates that the Swedes are not as sensible to placebo effect as the Americans.

I am not making this up. Dr. Persinger had even Richard Dawkins to go in his famous tube to get a religious feeling. The only thing he felt was a twitch in his right leg. This you can find on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_-txbHNyOY

Honestly, I do not have enough imagination to make up all of this.
The madness of people is beyond our comprehension.

 

[DOC]

Posted by DOC

So you believe intelligence comes from non-intelligent neurons?

You don't? Do you doubt the function of an automobile because none of its thousands of individual components can be driven?

Yes, I know a machine has a lot of parts but that is not what he saying.

And those car parts were put into place by intelligence.

Now if you would have found an example of car parts coming into being through non-intelligent forces and resulted in a car that could reason that would have been a good analogy.

 

[Aepervius]

Posted by DOC

So you believe intelligence comes from non-intelligent neurons?


Yes, I know a machine has a lot of parts but that is not what he saying.

And those car parts were put into place by intelligence.

Now if you would have found an example of car parts coming into being through non-intelligent forces and resulted in a car that could reason that would have been a good analogy.

So your tactic is to stapple as many requirement as possible over each other as to make only a sample of 1 available ? That is fallacious.

There are indeed system which show emergent property. Many were presented. You have NOT shown that the human brain is different. In fact people studiyng the human brain have no come to a different conclusion.

Basic fact : atoms are non reasoning, molecules are made of atoms, neuron are made of molecules, brain are made of neuron. NO further entity have been demonstrated to exists The brain shows reasoning or the illusion tehreof, and you come and say "well you can't make reason out of non reasoning bit" well indeed it has been demonstrated that you can, the burden of proof is for you to show that the chains I cited above is broken at some point and an additional entity comes in adding the "reasoning" in. You HAVE NOT.

Ho holy FSM I am trying to reason with DOC.

 

[Akhenaten]

Posted by DOC

So you believe intelligence comes from non-intelligent neurons?


Yes, I know a machine has a lot of parts but that is not what he saying.

And those car parts were put into place by intelligence.

Now if you would have found an example of car parts coming into being through non-intelligent forces and resulted in a car that could reason that would have been a good analogy.

You haven't actually bothered to read any of the thread, have you?

 

[Akhenaten]

Ho holy FSM I am trying to reason with DOC.

That way lies madness, my friend.

 

[Aepervius]

That way lies madness, my friend.

Been there done that, got the TShirt.

 

[zooterkin]

So you believe intelligence comes from non-intelligent neurons?

What do you believe it comes from? Do you have any evidence to back up your belief? We do, for ours.

Yes, I know a machine has a lot of parts but that is not what he saying.

It's called an analogy.

And those car parts were put into place by intelligence.

Now if you would have found an example of car parts coming into being through non-intelligent forces and resulted in a car that could reason that would have been a good analogy.

Analogies only go so far. The point is that whole can be greater than the sum of its parts; there are properties that can emerge from a sufficiently complex system.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Posted by DOC

So you believe intelligence comes from non-intelligent neurons?

Clearly that is what everyone is saying in this thread. It is also the consensus among scientists and philosophers. It is an idea that has consequences that can be tested and with real world applications. The idea of a soul explains nothing and contradicts observation. It is a dead paradigm.

Yes, I know a machine has a lot of parts but that is not what he saying.

This is not the problem with his argument being addressed. The posters here seemed to have understood his argument better than you do. This would explain why you have not engaged these arguments. Go back and read the early stages of the thread.

And those car parts were put into place by intelligence.

Now if you would have found an example of car parts coming into being through non-intelligent forces and resulted in a car that could reason that would have been a good analogy.

The origins question is separate to questions of how the mind functions and conciousness arises.* It is well understood how many things self organise and assemble. We can model such processes mathematically.

ETA: * The way evolution aids our understanding of how the mind works is a win for that paradigm and another fail for special creation.

 

[DOC]

So your tactic is to stapple as many requirement as possible over each other as to make only a sample of 1 available ? That is fallacious.

There are indeed system which show emergent property. Many were presented. You have NOT shown that the human brain is different. In fact people studiyng the human brain have no come to a different conclusion.

Basic fact : atoms are non reasoning, molecules are made of atoms, neuron are made of molecules, brain are made of neuron. NO further entity have been demonstrated to exists The brain shows reasoning or the illusion tehreof, and you come and say "well you can't make reason out of non reasoning bit" well indeed it has been demonstrated that you can, the burden of proof is for you to show that the chains I cited above is broken at some point and an additional entity comes in adding the "reasoning" in. You HAVE NOT.

So then I would assume you believe that the source of all human emotion are chemical reactions of non-intelligent neurons.. For example when you are sad at the funeral of a parent. That grief emotion would be the sole result of non-intelligent chemical reactions in your brain according to your opinion.

 

[Akhenaten]

So then I would assume you believe that the source of all human emotion are chemical reactions of non-intelligent neurons.. For example when you are sad at the funeral of a parent. That grief emotion would be the sole result of non-intelligent chemical reactions in your brain according to your opinion.

It's not Aepervius' opinion, DOC. It's reality.

As unfamiliar the territory is for you, I'm afraid you're going to have to get used to it.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

So you believe intelligence comes from non-intelligent neurons?

Why is this so hard to grasp for you? Living beings are made up of molecules which, individually, are not alive. The brain is made up of countless little parts which, individually, are not intelligent.

Is it that difficult to grasp that components can be combined to form a whole that is so much more?

 

[Sideroxylon]

So then I would assume you believe that the source of all human emotion are chemical reactions of non-intelligent neurons.. For example when you are sad at the funeral of a parent. That grief emotion would be the sole result of non-intelligent chemical reactions in your brain according to your opinion.

'Fraid so, Doc. Arguments for that have been made in this thread. Why do you think psychoactive drugs affect our emotions?

 

[DOC]

Quote:
Yes, I know a machine has a lot of parts but that is not what he saying.

Clearly that is what everyone is saying in this thread. It is also the consensus among scientists and philosophers. It is an idea that has consequences that can be tested and with real world applications. The idea of a soul explains nothing and contradicts observation. It is a dead paradigm.

So the statement just made after the word Sideroxylon above is a statement that was not made by a person with a soul. It was totally the result of non-inteligent chemical reactions and non-intelligent electrical impulses and not a soul.

 

[Akhenaten]

Quote:
Yes, I know a machine has a lot of parts but that is not what he saying.




So the statement just made after the word Sideroxylon above is a statement that was not made by a person with a soul. It was totally the result non-inteligent chemical reactions and non-intelligent electrical impulses and not a soul.

No matter how many times you ask that same daft question, the answer will also remain the same.

 

[zooterkin]

Quote:
Yes, I know a machine has a lot of parts but that is not what he saying.

You've been here longer than me, and you've still not worked out how to use the quote function?

So the statement just made after the word Sideroxylon above

What a peculiar way of saying it!

is a statement that was not made by a person with a soul.

No-one has a soul, DOC. They don't exist. Or if they do, there is no evidence to show that.

It was totally the result of non-inteligent chemical reactions and non-intelligent electrical impulses and not a soul.

Correct, as was the post I quoted.

 

[DOC]

'Fraid so, Doc. Arguments for that have been made in this thread. Why do you think psychoactive drugs affect our emotions?

They might have an effect on your mind but there is also the soul. Jesus 2000 years ago differentiated between the mind, the soul, and the heart. They are all different entiities.

He said you are to love God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Quote:
Yes, I know a machine has a lot of parts but that is not what he saying.

So the statement just made after the word Sideroxylon above is a statement that was not made by a person with a soul. It was totally the result of non-inteligent chemical reactions and non-intelligent electrical impulses and not a soul.

Yes, Doc. How long will you persist with this argument from personal incredulity? i.e. "I can't understand how this could be the case, therefore it is not true."

As I said before, materialistic explanations for our concious experience are useful. For example this understanding has allowed us to create drugs that can treat mental problems. We might otherwise still be performing exorcisms on people with epilepsy.

If you really want to understand why this consensus exists among experts I strongly suggest you read about the history of the brain sciences. I think if you understand how some of the fundamental ideas in this field were arrived at, you might gain new respect for them.

I did once have to resit a Turing test.