Religion: Real or Fake

[rah]

If there were a problem with the research I'm sure you could find it on-line. No independent researchers have attempte to duplicate the results though that I know of.

If you had read the book you'd known it was a compilation of many experiments/surveys. Many had nothing to do with what you were talking about. A touch of summary on your part would have made someone looking something up possible, but instead you made the vaguest reference that I've ever seen. That's lazy and dishonest in my book.

And his research wasn't that scientific.

[Kidlicious]

So your 'mind' is an intangible, supernatural thing? (ps: I'm not deriding or anything, just want to be clear on what's your position)

Yes.

But this last part is totally irrelevant. It's clear that in both my view and yours, this mind is affecting the brain. My argument is about the source of this effect: we can't really know, and since we don't really know how the brain works in enough detail to get a glimpse into this (by your own admission) both are equally plausible.

How do you know that consciousness is an effect of the brain, not something intangible?

That being sentient has nothing to do with having, or not, free will.

Ok, that's just your postion right? That we are sentient but don't have free will, because the mind is just part of the brain.

That's just your opinion.

I think it's pretty absurd to think that the mind operates as a computer. If it did wouldn't we have some physical evidence of that?

Sources?

What do you want? Me to list everyone who believes in free will?

[giblets]

Your questions are silly, but the subject is an interesting one.

I am not sure if you understand the points of view on the subject.

Let me ask you this, what about those brain damaged people? Those who learn to walk or talk again. Those who lose the part that governs sight/etc, but learn to see/etc again?

Do you understand what dualism means? What monism means?

To help you out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(philosophy_of_mind)

This doesn't really have much to do with this thread though... I know many dualists who are religious and many who are not.

JM
(I am for the most part a reductionist (and obviously a materialist, the one exception is God), but have serious doubts about it.)

Wow, you're much more of an ******* than you appear at first.

If people's actions are the product of some sort of soul with free will then why do their behaviors change when their brains are damaged? Why are people with certain genetic defects (trisomy 21, etc.) consistently behaving differently.

To help you out, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(philosophy_of_mind)#Argument_from_brain_d amage

Just to make things clear (so you don't create a stawman again) I never said this was something dualists could never answer.

[N35t0r]

How do you know that consciousness is an effect of the brain, not something intangible?

Like I said (in that very part you quoted, by the way), I don't. That's my opinion.


Ok, that's just your postion right? That we are sentient but don't have free will, because the mind is just part of the brain.

I think it's pretty absurd to think that the mind operates as a computer. If it did wouldn't we have some physical evidence of that?

Could you, with just external tools, be able to get physical evidence that there is software running on a computer? We have barely begun to discover how the brain works, I think it's pretty absurd to make such a definitve statement.

What do you want? Me to list everyone who believes in free will?

I've already stated that peoples' opinions do not make good arguments. Let me be a little bit more specific with what you posted:

the materialist opinion is not compatable with the research

[edit:] I don't know, maybe I'm not very clear, but even if you brought me sworn statements from 6 billion people who think that the earth revolves around the sun, it'd still wouldn't be useful as an argument that it does.

[giblets]

None of this makes any sense. For example memory is a material thing.

So memory is a faculty of your brain? When you die what happens to your memories?

[Jon Miller]

Can we start a new subject if you wish to talk about this? This is a lot more interesting than most of this thread.

I admit to being a bit annoyed about wasting time on Wezil. I already don't talk to Mobius (for the most part) on these types of threads because I know it is a waste of time, I didn't remember that Wezil was a similar waste of time.

Not that I am a dualist, of the soul being a separate thing variety.

But why do actions have to be completely caused by just one thing (if there is dualism)? In everything else, where we have complicated phenomena from multiple sources, it isn't caused by just one thing.

Like the behavior of an atom is caused by nucleons and leptons. Just because the electrons exist and play a significant (and defining) role in many properties of the atom, doesn't mean that the nucleus does not also exist and play significant roles in other properties (although it can be practically ignored for some).

JM

[MOBIUS]

I noticed no one has answered my (and Wezil's, and everyone else's, for that matter!) question about proving that God exists - I guess they have me on ignore...

[MOBIUS]

I already don't talk to Mobius (for the most part) on these types of threads because I know it is a waste of time

Aha! I was right!

Why is proving that God exists a waste of time!?

[Kidlicious]

Could you, with just external tools, be able to get physical evidence that there is software running on a computer?

A computer doesn't even have consciousness and no one knows how to give consciousness to it.

We have barely begun to discover how the brain works, I think it's pretty absurd to make such a definitve statement.

We know tons about the brain thanks to modern technology. We know everything physical that is going on with the brain. But technology will never help us to understand what can not be observed.

I've already stated that peoples' opinions do not make good arguments. Let me be a little bit more specific with what you posted:

[edit:] I don't know, maybe I'm not very clear, but even if you brought me sworn statements from 6 billion people who think that the earth revolves around the sun, it'd still wouldn't be useful as an argument that it does.

1) You can not observe the mind (the way you define it)
2) Everyone is pretty sure they have free will. It's even hard to believe that people, such as yourself, don't believe that they have free will.

Your burden is huge.

[N35t0r]

A computer doesn't even have consciousness and no one knows how to give consciousness to it.

Nice try. Please answer the question. I never said computers have conciousness.

We know tons about the brain thanks to modern technology. We know everything physical that is going on with the brain. But technology will never help us to understand what can not be observed.

If you say so... PROOF! (especially for the bolded part, please)

1) You can not observe the mind (the way you define it)

Observe as in physically? Duh. You can't 'observe' software running either, with your view.
We can measure electrical stimuli in the neurons, if we ever manage to replicate a neuron's behaviour, then we'll be able to start to 'understand' this 'software', which we still can begin to study, by observing it's inputs and outputs.

2) Everyone is pretty sure they have free will.

... And again with this...

It's even hard to believe that people, such as yourself, don't believe that they have free will.

It's also hard to believe that people think that jesus actually turned water into wine, and that he rose from the dead. People, at one point, also found it very hard to believe that the earth wasn't flat.



You are telling me you can't possibly imagine a scenario in which there could not be free will? Even if you don't think this is true?

Let me propose a scenario: you need to decide wether to press a button or not. You need to make a choice over a 5 second window, or the button gets disabled. For whatever reason, youre pretty undecided about that choice, so it could go either way. Do you think that, if we made a million copies of the universe, you'll take the same action in all of them, or some will go one way and some the other? (assume that there is no quantum uncertainty affecting this decision, just your mind.

[Docfeelgood]

So memory is a faculty of your brain? When you die what happens to your memories?

nothing

[Docfeelgood]

I noticed no one has answered my (and Wezil's, and everyone else's, for that matter!) question about proving that God exists - I guess they have me on ignore...

I did.
There is no solid proof of GOD.
It is faith.

[giblets]

Can we start a new subject if you wish to talk about this? This is a lot more interesting than most of this thread.

I admit to being a bit annoyed about wasting time on Wezil. I already don't talk to Mobius (for the most part) on these types of threads because I know it is a waste of time, I didn't remember that Wezil was a similar waste of time.

Not that I am a dualist, of the soul being a separate thing variety.

But why do actions have to be completely caused by just one thing (if there is dualism)? In everything else, where we have complicated phenomena from multiple sources, it isn't caused by just one thing.

Like the behavior of an atom is caused by nucleons and leptons. Just because the electrons exist and play a significant (and defining) role in many properties of the atom, doesn't mean that the nucleus does not also exist and play significant roles in other properties (although it can be practically ignored for some).

JM

That's possible I guess, but if the effects of the mind/soul/etc. can't be separated from the effects of natural factors then I think it becomes a lot harder to find evidence that dualism could be true.

[Kidlicious]

Nice try. Please answer the question. I never said computers have conciousness.

But you are saying that we are not that much different from a computer and we are.

If you say so... PROOF! (especially for the bolded part, please)

I don't just say so. As I said huge advances have been made. Some have said that all we need to do is make some technological advances and that will prove that we don't have free will. Well HUGE advances have been made. Now you are again telling me that all we need is technological advances.

Observe as in physically? Duh. You can't 'observe' software running either, with your view.
We can measure electrical stimuli in the neurons, if we ever manage to replicate a neuron's behaviour, then we'll be able to start to 'understand' this 'software', which we still can begin to study, by observing it's inputs and outputs.

How much time and energy has been put into finding external tools that can determine if software is running on a computer? And how much time and energy has been used to determine if the mind is like software running the brain?

It's also hard to believe that people think that jesus actually turned water into wine, and that he rose from the dead.

I don't expect you to believe that Jesus turned water into wine as you are not a Christian. That's something completely different.

People, at one point, also found it very hard to believe that the earth wasn't flat.

And people took the time and energy to prove that it wasn't. Would you say the earth wasn't flat if people were still trying to prove that it wasn't?

You are telling me you can't possibly imagine a scenario in which there could not be free will? Even if you don't think this is true?

It's not likely because, as I've said, we seem to be using our free will.

Let me propose a scenario: you need to decide wether to press a button or not. You need to make a choice over a 5 second window, or the button gets disabled. For whatever reason, youre pretty undecided about that choice, so it could go either way. Do you think that, if we made a million copies of the universe, you'll take the same action in all of them, or some will go one way and some the other? (assume that there is no quantum uncertainty affecting this decision, just your mind.

I tend to believe that we would make the same decision each way because of subjectivity.

[Docfeelgood]

Big Bang

"The theory is the most comprehensive and accurate explanation supported by scientific evidence and observations."

Seems to me science contradicts itself.

There are somethings that cannot be explained.