Who Created God?

[Mercutio]

So, what exactly is Science capable of validating in terms of human experience? How does it validate what a piece of chocolate cake tastes like if, in fact it involves tasting it for yourself? Do you think Science truly has this capability of "chewing our meals" for us in that sense? And by all means, please tell me how much more there is to life that isn't like that?

I forgot how well philosophy and religion describe the chocolate experience.

I am pleased, Iacchus, to see you having to reach so far for examples you think science has trouble with. It shows how many questions have already been answered.

Why should it be any different than this with the acknowledgment of God then?

Hmmm...you tell me--how is it any different with a god? I can't see a difference either. Occam, anyone?

 

[Iacchus]

Are you serious? You really think dreams are projected to you? Why on earth would you think that? What sort of creature would send visions of me running around the halls of my Junior High School with no pants? Sorry, Iacchus, but even the credible theories that disagree with one another (from serious sleep researchers) are all in agreement with...well, with Mercutio, when...

"These signals"? What signals? The whole idea is a figment of your imagination.

Ever consider that you might just be a figment of imagination to the other folks in your dreams? I mean how do you know for a fact that you're not just a part of their dreams? Especially when they seem to be endowed with the same characteristics as you?

Indeed, we would seem to be getting into the realm of the collective unconscious here.

 

[Iacchus]

I forgot how well philosophy and religion describe the chocolate experience.

I am pleased, Iacchus, to see you having to reach so far for examples you think science has trouble with. It shows how many questions have already been answered.

Hmmm...you tell me--how is it any different with a god? I can't see a difference either. Occam, anyone?

In other words it isn't necessary for Science to tell us what chocolate tastes like, right?

 

[uruk]

In terms of the manifestation of intelligence I would say yes.

I take it from this and your other replies your going on the "our brain is a radio reciever for our souls" bit. Unfortunately there is more evidence supporting that our "souls" or "self" is generated by our brains. (smart meat) We are "generators" (just within our heads) not antennas

Given that, do you think Science is fully capable of measuring out what a Religious Experience entails?

Well it can measure the elctro-chemical activity in a brain that is having a religious experiance. I remember watching a show where a researcher induced an "alien abduction" experiance or hallucination in a subject by zapping his periatal lobes with a strong magnetic pulse. (don't know if is valid or pseudo-clap trap yet)

So, what exactly is Science capable of validating in terms of human experience? How does it validate what a piece of chocolate cake tastes like if, in fact it involves tasting it for yourself?

Well it knows that if you combine certain chemicals together a person will say that it smells and tastes like chocolate. It called artificial and natural flavors. I'm certain you've had the experiance.

I'm baffeled when someone askes "how can a lump of meat be intellegent and self aware? Well, givin the right structure and complexity of electro-chemical activity it can be. Or brain does it all the time.

 

[Iacchus]

I take it from this and your other replies your going on the "our brain is a radio reciever for our souls" bit. Unfortunately there is more evidence supporting that our "souls" or "self" is generated by our brains. (smart meat) We are "generators" (just within our heads) not antennas

Actually, I would classify it (the brain) more like a two-way radio, which both transmits and receives which, subsconsciously transmits information onto the other side of matter, which is stored and eventually re-communicated to us through our dreams.

Well it can measure the elctro-chemical activity in a brain that is having a religious experiance. I remember watching a show where a researcher induced an "alien abduction" experiance or hallucination in a subject by zapping his periatal lobes with a strong magnetic pulse. (don't know if is valid or pseudo-clap trap yet)

So, one could no doubt achieve the same kind of results when watching a movie about alien abductions.

Well it knows that if you combine certain chemicals together a person will say that it smells and tastes like chocolate. It called artificial and natural flavors. I'm certain you've had the experiance.

But why the need to mess around with it and try to change it into something else? Neither does it define the actual experience of the taste, just the ingredients that go into the taste.

I'm baffeled when someone askes "how can a lump of meat be intellegent and self aware? Well, givin the right structure and complexity of electro-chemical activity it can be. Or brain does it all the time.

No, your brain is neutral to the whole matter. Your consciousness is not.

 

[uruk]

Actually, I would classify it (the brain) more like a two-way radio, which both transmits and receives which, subsconsciously transmits information onto the other side of matter, which is stored and eventually re-communicated to us through our dreams.

Of course there is also the theory that dreams are random signals generated by the hypocampus (the organ responsible for laying down memories in the cerebro-cortex) that activate areas of the brain which contain memories. The random memories are processed or interpreted by the same part of our mind that tries to make sense of randomness (i.e. sees bunny shapes in clouds) into a more or less semi- continous, though contextualy disjointed, experiance stream. Though I'm sure you would never consider this explination as it does not include a soul or spirit or spook.

So, one could no doubt achieve the same kind of results when watching a movie about alien abductions.

...while dozing after eating half a bag of flaming hot cheetos. It has happened before.

But why the need to mess around with it and try to change it into something else? Neither does it define the actual experience of the taste, just the ingredients that go into the taste.

No, but the physicality is intergal to the experiance. You can't have one without the other.

No, your brain is neutral to the whole matter. Your consciousness is not.

The brain is not neutral to the matter. There is no conciousness without the brain. No brain - no conciousness. Affect the brain - affect the conciousness.
The observational evidence points to our conciouseness being no more than just complex electro-chemical interactions. Smart meat that thinks.

truth is, no one has yet been able to define conciousness or what it is. Just alot of big, high falutin' words that amount to "you know it when you see it". Conciousness could just be nothing more than a complex feedback loop system of biological impulses that has an subsystem or subroutine that senses itself. (see I can spew it out too!) Or our conciousness could also be spooks taking physical bodies out for a ride untill it breaks down (planned obsolecence) Definitive? Hardly. Why? Because it requires evidence, proof. And we are just barely begining to accumulate evidence.

 

[Ratman_tf]

What about the notion of latent energy before the Big Bang? Meaning, to the extent that this is all there is, and energy hasn't been converted into matter yet, where do we find the physical aspect of space, by which the measurement of time becomes possible?

Again with the 'before' the Big Bang. Didn't you read my reply?

 

[Ratman_tf]

Actually, I would classify it (the brain) more like a two-way radio, which both transmits and receives which, subsconsciously transmits information onto the other side of matter, which is stored and eventually re-communicated to us through our dreams.

Maybe, maybe not. Why should we favor your idea over all the others?

 

[kuroyume0161]

The brain is not neutral to the matter. There is no conciousness without the brain. No brain - no conciousness. Affect the brain - affect the conciousness.
The observational evidence points to our conciouseness being no more than just complex electro-chemical interactions. Smart meat that thinks.[/B]

This reminds me of that poor woman in Florida (I think) who has extensive brain damage, basically a noncomatose veggie, whose husband wants to end her life peacefully, and whose parents are idiots who pray for her 'recovery', won't let her be euthanized, and think that 'she is still in there somewhere'.

Where is she. Her brain is a tossed salad. All of 'her' is gone, caput, eradicated, bulk-erased, fried, into the great bit-bucket. Not only has she no memories, higher-brain functions, but few lower-brain functions. If there is a soul, then one person some where at some time would have 'recovered' from such an occurrence. Ahhhhhhhhhhhh..... nope. Never once ever (barring fairy tales in religious books about raising dead people).

Let me guess: it's a broken receiver/transmitter, huh? Well, obviously, there is no repairperson on the 'other side' fixing it!!! Get it, yet, Yackus...

Robert

 

[Iacchus]

Let me guess: it's a broken receiver/transmitter, huh? Well, obviously, there is no repairperson on the 'other side' fixing it!!! Get it, yet, Yackus...

Well, in fact you don't know that. Who's the mechanic that fixes your car if, he doesn't exist as a mechanic in mind first? So, what exactly is he accessing in his mind, if it doesn't exist in the realm of thoughts and dreams and whatnot ... in other words the space between his ears?

 

[Bikewer]

I admit to being somewhat mystified there, Iachuus. Those of us who have more of a materialist bent would say that the mechanic had aquired his skills through training, and accessed them through memory. We (or more accurately, neuroscientists) are getting an ever-improving picture of the electrochemical nature of memory.

The electrical stimulation of fixed points in the brain reliably elicit the same memory.

The human brain is no blank slate, either. There is strong evidence that much of our talents, predelictions, and responses are inate, the product of our genetic inheritance.

 

[Iacchus]

I admit to being somewhat mystified there, Iachuus. Those of us who have more of a materialist bent would say that the mechanic had aquired his skills through training, and accessed them through memory. We (or more accurately, neuroscientists) are getting an ever-improving picture of the electrochemical nature of memory.

The electrical stimulation of fixed points in the brain reliably elicit the same memory.

The human brain is no blank slate, either. There is strong evidence that much of our talents, predelictions, and responses are inate, the product of our genetic inheritance.

How is it that we actually know anything though? Is it just because the electrical impulses in our brains tell us it's so? That would be like saying that because we can utter noises through our vocal chords (through electrical impulses by the way ), that vocal chords are the origins of speech. Which is simply not the case. Indeed, just because our brain allows us to think, does not make the brain the thinker. In other words, where is the navigator (conscious entity) in all of this?

 

[Alan_Hoch]

Please, don't put Freud and Jung in the category of scientists. Their theories were beautiful and elaborate, but unfalsifiable and thus pseudoscience.

Of course they are falsifiable -- study human behavior and psychology. Does what you see match the explanations they offered?

You may say they got it wrong, but you can't say their ideas are inherently unscientific -- not unless you know nothing of how psychoanalysis actually works.

Alan

 

[Mercutio]

How is it that we actually know anything though? Is it just because the electrical impulses in our brains tell us it's so? That would be like saying that because we can utter noises through our vocal chords (through electrical impulses by the way ), that vocal chords are the origins of speech.

Not in the least. And our vocal cords do not emit electrical impulses, they receive nerve signals in the form of neurotransmitters, signals which are sent from the speech centers of the brain. The very fact that you chose this example as your strawman illustrates the amazing powers of science to discover how things work.

This example, of course, has you implying that the brain is sent signals from somewhere else. You have been shown that this is not the case. Give it up.

Which is simply not the case. Indeed, just because our brain allows us to think, does not make the brain the thinker. In other words, where is the navigator (conscious entity) in all of this?

Just because you can hypothesize an undetectable additional layer to the problem does not mean that the brain is not the thinker. We do know, to a tremendous extent (and more each day) how the brain works, and it has become clear (or is becoming clear, depending on your decision level) that there is no need to invoke your hypothetical puppetmaster. So until you have the slightest piece of evidence for such a "conscious entity", Occam's razor suggests that your navigator is superfluous. You can't describe it, can't tell how it influences the brain, can't tell anything about it...so please tell me, why should I believe it exists?

 

[Mercutio]

Of course they are falsifiable -- study human behavior and psychology. Does what you see match the explanations they offered?

You may say they got it wrong, but you can't say their ideas are inherently unscientific -- not unless you know nothing of how psychoanalysis actually works.

Alan

Have you any idea how many things have been blamed (not just casually, but in the psychoanalytic literature!) on an "unresolved Oedipal complex"? Suppose I was able to say with certainty that a particular boy's Oedipal complex would remain unresolved. Can I predict whether he will be gay, straight, hypersexual, asexual, neurotic, or any of a number of other things? No. We can only "analyze" after the fact. Indeed, with the number of defense mechanisms available to choose from, we can blame practically anything on your feelings toward ol' mum. The brilliant one, IMHO, is "reaction formation"...beautiful. If it looks like things are the opposite of what you predicted, it must be reaction formation, and you were right all along. Unfalsifiable. Explains everything after the fact, and predicts nothing.

(add to this Freud's contention that we have to press on with our interpretation even against a client's objections--indeed, the more objection is raised, the closer you are getting to the truth! What a wonderful mechanism by which to confirm your hypotheses!)

Don't take my word for it (I have taught about Freud in psych classes at many levels--sometimes in quite a bit of depth--here at the University for years, but I could be making that up). Terrence Hines's book "pseudoscience and the paranormal" has an excellent chapter on psychoanalysis (in the first edition--the second widens the scope a bit, but still includes Freud).

 

[Iacchus]

Not in the least. And our vocal cords do not emit electrical impulses, they receive nerve signals in the form of neurotransmitters, signals which are sent from the speech centers of the brain. The very fact that you chose this example as your strawman illustrates the amazing powers of science to discover how things work.

What are you saying nerve signals are not electrical impulses? And yes, it's through electrical impulses (nerve signals) that we're allowed to utter noises through our vocal chords. I'm not saying these signals originate from the vocal chords, however. Which is rather obvious. Sorry, if it "may" have come across that way.

This example, of course, has you implying that the brain is sent signals from somewhere else. You have been shown that this is not the case. Give it up.

Well, at the very least signals are picked up from the external environment. And yet what we have to ask ourselves, is who or what is it that's interacting with these signals? Certainly not the brain alone which, is merely the receptacle of the "conscious will" or, "entity" that resides in the body.

Just because you can hypothesize an undetectable additional layer to the problem does not mean that the brain is not the thinker.

And yet isn't this what we (you) are inquiring about, whether this additional layer is actually there? And now you're saying you don't want to know?

We do know, to a tremendous extent (and more each day) how the brain works, and it has become clear (or is becoming clear, depending on your decision level) that there is no need to invoke your hypothetical puppetmaster. So until you have the slightest piece of evidence for such a "conscious entity", Occam's razor suggests that your navigator is superfluous. You can't describe it, can't tell how it influences the brain, can't tell anything about it...so please tell me, why should I believe it exists?

And once the ignition is shut off and the driver steps out of the car, where does the car go? This would be akin to someone who has died by the way ... or, is perhaps comatose.

 

[seayakin]

God was created either by the free masons or microsoft I haven't figured out which yet.

 

[Beerina]

The brain is not neutral to the matter. There is no conciousness without the brain. No brain - no conciousness. Affect the brain - affect the conciousness.
The observational evidence points to our conciouseness being no more than just complex electro-chemical interactions. Smart meat that thinks.

Yes, and although science is currently stuffed on getting from here to ther, i.e. from electrochemical signals to the very real and existing subjective perceptual experience, I'm damned sure some books made up by unscientific near-savages millenia ago don't hold the answer.

 

[Mercutio]

What are you saying nerve signals are not electrical impulses? And yes, it's through electrical impulses (nerve signals) that we're allowed to utter noises through our vocal chords. I'm not saying these signals originate from the vocal chords, however. Which is rather obvious. Sorry, if it "may" have come across that way.

Well...no, actually, they are not electrical impulses. Rather, it is a self-propogating "wave" of ions (predominately sodium and potassium) across the semi-permeable cell membrane, to the axon terminals where neurotransmitters are released into the synaptic gap, to stimulate the post-synaptic dendrites. There are no sparks, no "electrical impulses" like you would find in wires.

And as for the fact that the signals originate from somewhere else...the "obvious"-ness of this fact is great in hindsight, but it comes from an awful lot of good scientific research...not from introspection about the process.

And exactly why did you put quotation marks around "may"?

Well, at the very least signals are picked up from the external environment. And yet what we have to ask ourselves, is who or what is it that's interacting with these signals? Certainly not the brain alone which, is merely the receptacle of the "conscious will" or, "entity" that resides in the body.

The signals we pick up from the environment come in the form of visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, and tactile stimuli--in other words, the known senses. There is no evidence whatsoever for a "consciousness signal" of any form.

"Certainly not the brain alone"? As a behaviorist, I would include the rest of the body as well, but I fear this is not what you mean. You claim there is a "conscious will"...do you have any evidence for one, apart from the sensory input I mentioned above? If you do, you are the first with such evidence. Where does this "entity" reside in the body? What is your evidence? How do you know?

And yet isn't this what we (you) are inquiring about, whether this additional layer is actually there? And now you're saying you don't want to know?

If the evidence suggests that an additional layer is needed, then we will move in that direction. And we will be ecstatic to do so. We would love to know something like this--why do you suggest we might not? Do you have some sort of fundamental misunderstanding of what science is?

And once the ignition is shut off and the driver steps out of the car, where does the car go? This would be akin to someone who has died by the way ... or, is perhaps comatose.

Where does the car go? It sits there in the driveway! Iacchus, this is not akin to death or coma, unless and until somebody comes up with the evidence to suggest such a thing. Ignorance is not evidence. Incredulity is not evidence. Your dreams...are not evidence.

 

[Alan_Hoch]

Have you any idea how many things have been blamed (not just casually, but in the psychoanalytic literature!) on an "unresolved Oedipal complex"? Suppose I was able to say with certainty that a particular boy's Oedipal complex would remain unresolved. Can I predict whether he will be gay, straight, hypersexual, asexual, neurotic, or any of a number of other things? No.

In fact, we CAN predict. The most common theme from therapy is the fact that we all tend to find ourselves in the same sorts of situations again and again. Our most powerful unconscious complexes routinely lead us down the same paths with the same general reactions.

However, keep in mind that behavior is the result of personality running smack against actual circumstance. As our circumstances change so will our responses -- even when the personalities stay the same. That is why one must always pay attention to the PATTERN of the response rather than the response itself. Only consider the behavior and not its cause and you are guaranteed to get mighty confused -- perhaps enough to mistakenly write off psychoanalysis all together.

Another consideration -- we human beings are adaptable beings. One of the aims of therapy, for example, is to make people aware of their own natures. In doing so they gain the ability to >break< patterns of behavior -- which means defying predictions. This fact hardly negates the usefulness of psychoanalysis. In fact, it only helps confirm it.

The human psyche is an immensely complicated thing -- and our understanding of it is still limited. If you think that the mere fact that we can't always give fixed predictions as if human nature was as constant as the laws of physics then your expectations are far too unreasonable. We can't completely predict the weather -- do you consign meteorology to the dustbin of pseudo-science as well?

We can only "analyze" after the fact.

Past influences have effects on the present. To put it another way, understanding the basis for our personalities (e.g. the past) is how we change the future.

Someone knowledgeable in the basics of psychoanalysis can predict with a fair high level of accuracy (depending on the circumstances) how someone with a clear personality disturbance will behave in the future ASSUMING they do not become aware of those very influences and adjust their behavior accordingly.

Indeed, with the number of defense mechanisms available to choose from, we can blame practically anything on your feelings toward ol' mum. The brilliant one, IMHO, is "reaction formation"...beautiful.

Now you are just offering a classic strawman argument -- take one aspect of an idea, exaggerate it to an absurd extent, and then "disprove" the original idea by dismissing the strawman.

OF COURSE this sort of idea can be misapplied or over applied. So can science in general. But to reduce a highly complicated and subtle theory down to something as readily false as this is disingenuous.

In fact, this sort of response strongly suggests that you are arguing from ignorance, not understanding. Anyone who understood the theory sufficiently would know it is now so absurdly simplistic. It reminds me of a statement I read once against evolution from a conservative Christian -- he claimed that the theory was "obviously" wrong because, after all, we've never seen a goat turn into a dog have we?

Unfalsifiable. Explains everything after the fact, and predicts nothing.

Only if you use the strawman version you are offering. The real thing is far more sophisticated.

Alan