/sci/ - Science & Math

will watch later

sage for rickrolling

thank you, OP.

<3

Very rare I see such an amazing video about everything.

Absolutely stunning!

That was fucking brilliant. He took such a small scale of time and said so much.

That was intense.

take that, christfags.

that was possibly the greatest thing i have ever seen in my life.
Seeing the Milky Way in the sky at night has been something i have been wanting to experience for the longest time. This video just makes me want to see it that much more.
fucking cities and their lights

Sure is samefag here.

the video is boring and tedious.. you just wait some precious minutes of my life.

Decent video. Liked the Bladerunner "I've seen.." bit, heh.

Lol'd at the sunshine soundtrack, not sure why. Too cliche maybe

Let me first tell you thank you for the link. I was quite expecting shit as usual from youtube but this was something epic. It sung to me exactly what I've believed and understood. I am glad someone took the time to make a simple encouraging video about how understanding things isn't a depressing thing. It is actually exciting, and thrilling.

>>1998064
Sounds like this video is inciting religious zealousness...

You "spacers" start fighting for space and we got a problem.

>>1998069
lol Ok then.

I did get a little misty-eyed at the bit where the lyrics went "someone told me not to cry" and there was a picture of Sagan. ;_;

brilliant.

>>ps: praise jesus

I didn't lose, but it's pretty awesome. One of the better videos explaining it.

>>1997796
The rocket launch did that to me, man.
Nothing will hold back the best of mankind from doing what we'll always dream of.

Thank you, OP.
This made my fucking night a hundred times over.

pretty much how i think of life and the universe

>this thread again
>everyone just as amazed as last time

;_;

>>1998362
Thought you'd like it.

As an Australian, do you find British accents more calming than American ones?

This was the first thing I watched online this morning.

Today will be a good day (despite the shitty weather).

>>1998377
Carl Sagan is the only soothing American accent.

>>1998401
I've noticed this trend in many Australians, and New Zealanders. I'm thinking it might be something to do with older people, such as grandparents, speaking with more English accents, and associating that kind of voice with comfort.

>>1998418
Whatever you say Freud.

I've heard the same thing from other scientists, ranging from Tyson to Dawkins to Krauss. I'd be more impressed if it was more original.

>>1998423
Armchair psychologist. You got me. What would you say it is?

i really hate emotional religious bullshit, then i see this video... humans are so simple

>>1998433
Same here. I feel kinda hypocritical, but the difference is that this is something that I've felt already. He just expresses it more eloquently than I ever could, reminds me of the time when I looked up at the sky and see the Milky Way properly for the first time in my life, having previously lived in a city where the stars weren't easily seen.

Cool science video that turns into anti-religion bullshit. What is in the 1st 5 minutes of the video is exactly what shows you the unimaginable awesomeness and infinity of of the Creator. The vastness of space is a reflection of exactly that. Instead of looking at galaxies and thinking about how lousy religions are, he should perhaps look at galaxies and think about how great God is. Instead of looking at the awesomeness of reality, and thinking about how somebody somewhere might be thinking wrongly, maybe he should stick to the awesomeness of reality, and stop dwelling on what my by wrong about what someone else is thinking.

>>1998432
Some people just have a wondrous effect on people.

>>1998459
you do know that you have just caused a hell of a lot of people to be mad

if you're a troll well done

>>1998459

>>Cool science video that turns into anti-religion bullshit.

It isn't bullshit, and it's necessary because of people like you.

>>What is in the 1st 5 minutes of the video is exactly what shows you the unimaginable awesomeness and infinity of of the Creator.

No, you're claiming credit for the grandeur of nature on behalf of a deity invented centuries before we understood that the mind is a product of the brain, that planets form from accretion discs and that organisms change over time.

The minds who came up with God had no idea about any of the shit in the video. They could see it by looking up but they had no comprehension, and that's made clear by the way they described the world, it's origins, and their gods in the various holy texts of the currently popular religions.

Stop trying to tie modern scientific understanding into ancient mythology in order to imbue the latter with the credibility of the former. It's transparent and insulting.

cool video op

>>1998465
The only reason for them to be mad is if they have inner turmoil that is unresolved. That is the only real source of anger.

>>1998493

>>The only reason for them to be mad is if they have inner turmoil that is unresolved. That is the only real source of anger.

So why did you get mad at the way the video criticizes religion?

>>1998487
you do know that >>1998459
didn't mention the "God" or "Creator" of any specific religion, and that the guy in OP video specifically says it's possible a Creator (unlike any in the religious texts, of course) might exist, right?

>>1998487
God was known of before churches, before atoms, before galaxies, before cells. Knowing about cells, atoms or galaxies doesn't make God go away. It reveals the grandeur of his creation. Like Newton said, we can better understand God by better understanding his creation. And the amazing scale of the universe reinforces the things the ancients said about the infinite nature of God... things that we don't have to rely on the ancients to know, but only the same capacity for reason that we were all born with.

>>1998496
pic related

If God is real, prove he exists. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, especially when it's a ridiculous claim for which no proof exists.

>>1998493
how is this relevant

i was praising the guy for being a successful troll
i wasn't stating that people had a valid reason about getting mad at the post but was simply stating that the post will make allor of people mad

>>1998502

>>didn't mention the "God" or "Creator" of any specific religion

Simply by using the singular rather than the plural, he narrowed it down to a handful of current religions.

>>and that the guy in OP video specifically says it's possible a Creator (unlike any in the religious texts, of course) might exist, right?

I agree with him on that point.

>>1998502
Yes he did. Good for him. But he also says that he looks at the stars and it makes him think about how much religion sucks. That's a waste!

>>1998515
judging by >>1998505, assuming its the same Anon I'm not sure he believes in the specifically Abrahamic God as opposed to the vaguer deistic one the OP and you claim as a possibility.

>>1998508
BURN IN HELL ZOMBIE!

>>1998509
We're not in a court of law, and I can't prove anything to you. God is nevertheless real. Seek out the truth of the matter yourself.

>>1998515
What religions don't have one singular Creator?

(Aside from science.)

>>1998509
Is there a good site explaining thoroughly the definition of burden of proof? It seems like it's always incited when one side has a clear advantage as the standard and the other is outlandish. What if the two claims were on equal ground, like a blue cat vs a green cat?

>awesome thread about appreciating the vastness of the universe, and how we don't need God to have spiritual experiences
>LOLNO GODDIDIT
>/sci/ rages

Disappointing me again and again, /sci/.

>>1998527
>>1998524
>>1998521
>>1998515
>>1998505
>>1998487
and so the butthurt begins, congradulations >>1998459 you just made a lot of people angry and me a very happy onlooker carry on gentlemen

>>1997796
No shit I came to science right now with the very intention of seeing the video after passing it around my friends for last few days.

>>1998531
Hindu has... 3?
Greek and Roman (now called mythology, yet somehow we don't call it "christian mythology" yet)

>>1998534
Easiest board to troll. Shoulda seen me earlier. 300+ thread WIN

>>1998531
A lot. Most pantheistic religions have different gods performing different parts of creation.

>>1998534
So you don't expect reaction from a troll video whose main point is that religion is inherently primitive?

>>1998544
A pantheistic religions wouldn't have any gods except nature itself. I think you're confused.

>>1998544
You're shittin' me. Where'd THEY come from?

>>1998545
I was expecting it, but I was hoping people might be able to keep civil about it, and ignore the eventual theistic post.

>>1998542
See, that doesn't make sense. If Hindu has 3, where did they come from? Also, shouldn't they be like the greeks? I mean, zeus had a dad. Wasn't it Chronos or Logos or somethign?

>"Prove God exists"
>"I can't"
/thread

Hylian mythology has 3 goddesses.

>>1998547
Not pantheistic, sorry, polytheistic.

>>1998542
The more I read on Wikipedia, about greek gods, the more I think that they are fundamentally different from the Abrahamic tradition in that they don't really believe in a creator.

>>1998542
Hinduism has one creator God -- Brahma. It also has a kind of trinity, which comprises Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. But most (or at least many) Hindus are monotheists, and see God as essentially one.

Hinduism is sort of a cross between a theological and mythological religion. A mythology is where everything is based on allegory involving stories essentially acted out by characters that we call "gods". Mythologies are like the old Norse, Greek, Egyptian, and Sumerian religions.

A theological religion, like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Sihkism, and Hinduism, involve direct teachings about the divine, rather than pure allegory about it. In other words its less representative and more literal. The representative quality is what makes something a "mythology".

>>1998505

>>God was known of before churches, before atoms, before galaxies, before cells.

Yes, because theism is an expression of parts of the brain adapted for survival in more primitive conditions. It's a neurological throwback that's unfortunately still with us.

>>Knowing about cells, atoms or galaxies doesn't make God go away.

That's true, because there never was a God to begin with.

Knowing about the causal mechanism of the big bang (re: stenger, krauss, hawking) cognitive neurobiology and evolution does however discredit religions whose gods, as described in their foundational holy texts, are in contradiction with the facts.

The Biblical account of creation, even if wholly metaphorical, gets the order wrong; it states that the Earth existed before the sun, the sun before other stars, and that birds came before land animals. Strike one.

Even if you're not a Christian, so long as your theological worldview relies on souls it is in conflict with our current understanding of the brain as provided by cognitive neurobiology. Everything from emotion and memory to sensation and conscious thought can be seen occurring in the brain via fMRI and interrupted/modified via targeted electromagnetics, ultrasound and drugs. The brain is the mind, the mind is the brain, they are neither different nor extricable from one another. Strike two.

The universe is now understood to be autocatalytic; The negative energy in the universe precisely balances out the ordinary matter and energy, meaning the total energy averaged is zero. This means the big bang was not something from nothing, but something and antisomething from nothing, divided as the inevitable result of the fact that when nothingness collapses into a particle/antiparticle pair the divided state is more stable and less ordered than the combined state. This is corroborated by the microwave background radiation map from the COBE and WMAP probes as well as readings from the Herscehl and Planck probes, and several high profile particle accelerator studies including the Tevatron. Strike three.

k guys the record for a troll thread that i have seen is 78 rage posts lets get a tally going
>>1998459
>>1998487
>>1998493
>>1998496
>>1998502
>>1998505
>>1998509
>>1998515
>>1998518
>>1998521
>>1998527
>>1998531
>>1998542
>>1998544
>>1998547
>>1998553
>>1998554
>>1998557
>>1998567
>>1998562
>>1998569

>>1998567
See, I'm reading on wikipedia about the Greek Gods, and the more I look the more it looks like modern cosmology. In other words, the currently accepted model of the origin of the universe is what, a singularity? Well, it looks like the greeks believed the same thing. Chaos is the father of all of the Gods... Which seems a little different than believing that there is one creator...

The greeks don't really believe in a creator.

>>1998552
Chronos was Zeus's dad. Logos was something entirely different. Logos was a term made up by the Greek Philosophers signifying God as the Order and Logic of the universe itself. The Greek philosophers (most of them) believed in both the traditional gods and a creator God they called Theos or Logos, which is not part of the mythology. As I think it was Plato, said, "we believe in the gods from a respect for tradition; we believe in God from reason."

When Christianity came along, it adopted the word Logos from the greek philosophers. In the book of John in the Christian New Testament, where it says, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and the Word created everything," the word "Word" is the Greek word "Logos", and the word "God" is the Greek word "Theos".

>>1998572
Where are you? Point to yourself. What do you see where you point?

>>1998580
>and a creator God they called Theos
not according to wikipedia

>"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and the Word created everything," the word "Word" is the Greek word "Logos", and the word "God" is the Greek word "Theos".
That is beautiful

way to make my cry op.
The whole thing i am thinking this video is good but to almost make you cry, Then the end montage. Fuck

>>1998581

>>Where are you? Point to yourself. What do you see where you point?

A brain.

>>1998577
Right, and when you understand that the name of the Greek gods translate literally into things like "Chaos" and "Day" and "Night" and "Sky" and "Ocean", you understand that these are not the names of powerful cartoon-character gods, but they are actually telling a story to represent the interrelationship of all these elements of reality, and sort of personifying the whole thing as a way to communicate it. But personifying everything is sort of part of the religion itself, along with being a way to describe the interrelationships. It's a way to think of the whole universe as being a living thing, and all parts of it living things... which is what the eastern religions say more directly.

>>1998586
Simple logic dictates that the observed cannot be the observer.

>>1998587
interesting, very interesting... I like how you pointed out that the personification allows them to see the world as a living thing.

>>1998572
I know dozens of philosophers and scientist that would argue your hard facts of strike three and strike two. I like the attempt to make them sound factual.
Ball 1:Truth is neuroscience is it awkward teen years and it is trying to put something together from everything it is learning so quickly.
Ball 2: you and some cool people speculate the universe is the way you state. Truth is we still have the possibly of this being a universe that always has been, came from another universe, or fuck it for the hell of a virtual reality stored on a quantum nano-computer
Ball 3: Actually the bible says in the start there was nothing, then light(heat/energy?), then it is wrong from there with a water resending and shit
Ball 4: If you fapped tonight/this morning, go to bed.

>so long as your theological worldview relies on souls it is in conflict with our current understanding of the brain as provided by cognitive neurobiology.
That's not true at all. Neurobiology would love to explain consciousness through neurology, but it's not currently possible. Why neurological process should lead to consciousness is called in neurology the "hard problem". With our current understanding, a belief in souls is more consistent with reality than the lack thereof. That's not even taking into account NDE's and the like.

>Everything from emotion and memory to sensation and conscious thought can be seen occurring in the brain via fMRI and interrupted/modified via targeted electromagnetics, ultrasound and drugs.
You're reading much to much into that phenomenon.

>The brain is the mind, the mind is the brain, they are neither different nor extricable from one another.
There is much evidence against your conviction.

>The negative energy in the universe precisely balances out the ordinary matter and energy meaning the total energy averaged is zero.
So?

>This means the big bang was not something from nothing,
If there was nothing before the big bang, then the big bang was something, so that was something from nothing. If you believe that the universe is nothing, you are letting these atheists books you're apparently reading make you believe absurdities.

>but something and antisomething from nothing, divided as the inevitable result of the fact that when nothingness collapses into a particle/antiparticle pair the divided state is more stable and less ordered than the combined state.
More absurdity. A vacuum quantum state is VERY far from "nothing" There is no such thing as "anti-something" except "nothing". You've been fucking brainwashed.

>>1998588

>>Simple logic dictates that the observed cannot be the observer.

Fuckin' mirrors, how do they work?

the author of the video is clearly agnostic atheist, the most reasonable position ( atheist that says that god might exist but there is no reason to believe it, just like Richard Dawkins)

>>1998586
I would like to offer you the idea that your are not alone your brain but rather a trinity of brain, body, and environment the constant of reaction of which givens the appearance of consciousness

>>1998599
please leave /sci/

MANLY TEARS

>>1998603
new ager?

>>1998600
No. The most reasonable position is this: it is infinitely improbable that God exists, but there is no point believing in it. But at that point you might as well be called simply an atheists, because agnostics are massive pussies. Seriously.

>>1998603
How can consciousness have an appearance? To what or whom is it appearing?

>>1998600
No. The most reasonable position is this: it is infinitely improbable that God exists, but there is no point believing in it. But at that point you might as well be called simply an atheists, because agnostics are massive pussies. Seriously.

>>1998598

>>That's not true at all. Neurobiology would love to explain consciousness through neurology, but it's not currently possible. Why neurological process should lead to consciousness is called in neurology the "hard problem". With our current understanding, a belief in souls is more consistent with reality than the lack thereof. That's not even taking into account NDE's and the like.

This is false. While we don't have a complete answer, what we know thus far demonstrates to any reasonable person's satisfaction that the brain is the seat of consciousness.

>You're reading much to much into that phenomenon.

You're dismissing scientific findings which conflict with your religious beliefs.

>There is much evidence against your conviction.

No, there isn't.

>So?

So the big bang can have occurred from nothing without violating the law of conservation.

>>1998612
Buddhist?

>If there was nothing before the big bang, then the big bang was something, so that was something from nothing. If you believe that the universe is nothing, you are letting these atheists books you're apparently reading make you believe absurdities.

You're mistaking the philosophical conception of nothing for the scientific conception of nothing.

>More absurdity. A vacuum quantum state is VERY far from "nothing".

That's the only conception of nothing with any empirical validity. Can you show me an example of your version of nothing anywhere in nature?

>>There is no such thing as "anti-something" except "nothing".

Antimatter, negative gravitational energy, possibly dark matter.

>>You've been fucking brainwashed.

Not at all. You're a "neo-creationist". One who denies the science of the big bang, and of neurobiology: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026793.000-creationists-declare-war-over-the-brain.html


All this having been said, stop arguing. You're simply wrong, the facts demonstrate it, just let it go.

>>1998600
>>1998600
No. The most reasonable position is this: it is infinitely improbable that God exists, but there is no point believing in it. But at that point you might as well be called simply an atheist, because agnostics are massive pussies who are too scared to say and defend what they truly believe. On the other hand, if they REALLY believe it might be probable that God exists, then they're just as stupid as religious people.

>>1998614
erm no

>>1998608
What new age about that? I said the appearance of didn't I ?Yea, just checked I did.
Hey man our current options as I see for consciousness are
a) body,brain, environment
b) undiscovered nervous connectome
c) soul

>>1998616
feel sorry for you...

>>1998614
>what we know thus far demonstrates to any reasonable person's satisfaction that the brain is the seat of consciousness.
"Seat of consciousness" just means that it is where consciousness as we know it resides. This does not imply that the brain and the mind are the same. It would make neurology simpler if this could be proven, so some neurologists want to try to prove it to be so. This is what is known as the "hard problem".

>You're dismissing scientific findings which conflict with your religious beliefs.
lolno.

>So the big bang can have occurred from nothing without violating the law of conservation.
No one is saying the big bang violated any law of conservation.

>>1998621

And I for you.

>>1998612
like to us man...

>>1998625
I feel sorrier

>>1998621
What I'm interested in is how you will react when science provides a reliable cure for human aging, essentially making you near-immortal as technology continues to progress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uephBmkupvQ

>>1998631
Why me?

>>1998633
Why you what?

>>1998616
>You're mistaking the philosophical conception of nothing for the scientific conception of nothing.
There is no such thing as a scientific conception of nothing. The impossibility of having something from nothing is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one.

>Can you show me an example of your version of nothing anywhere in nature?
No. That is why nature is obviously "something". The argument is that something could not have come from nothing.
>Antimatter, negative gravitational energy, possibly dark matter.
If you're saying that antimatter, gravity and dark matter are not "something", you are spouting bullshit.

>Not at all. You're a "neo-creationist". One who denies the science of the big bang, and of neurobiology:
More bullshit. I don't know what a neo-creationist is, but I'm probably not one. I don't deny any science of the big bang, nor any science of neurology. I study physics and neurology, and I conduct neurological experiments.

>All this having been said, stop arguing. You're simply wrong, the facts demonstrate it, just let it go.
You've apparently picked up what you think are facts from some pop-science literature. I'd be happy to reference you to scientific articles if there is some matter of science you think I am wrong about. Most of the arguments here are arguments of philosophy, not science. But feel free to stop arguing if you don't want to learn.

>>1998624

>>"Seat of consciousness" just means that it is where consciousness as we know it resides.

No, you are not a little ghost that lives inside your brain and drives your body around like a meat robot. You are the emergent property of the interplay between the various specialized portions of your brain. Your emotions are neurochemical in nature, your memories patterns of connections between neurons varying in strength, and it's well known which part of your brain is responsible for everything from recognizing your friends' faces to associating smells with memories. You. Are. Your. Brain. Don't argue with the facts.

>>This does not imply that the brain and the mind are the same. It would make neurology simpler if this could be proven, so some neurologists want to try to prove it to be so. This is what is known as the "hard problem".

You keep using that term to imply that no progress has been made and that we have no evidence pointing towards a materialist model. Yet all of the literature, all of the published peer reviews paper speak of consciousness matter of factly as a product of the brain. Neurobiologists will tell you as much themselves.

>>lolno.

Yes, you are. You did so when fMRI was brought up, albeit in a subtle way.

>>No one is saying the big bang violated any law of conservation.

Are you kidding? That argument is trotted out all the fucking time. Not so much around here since the results started to come out proving that the net energy of the universe is zero, but you still hear it from religious apologists constantly.

That's not the only supporting evidence anyway. We haven't simply demonstrated that physics doesn't prohibit it from happening, we've found the mechanism by which it happened.


Again, stop arguing with me. You're wrong, end of story. Amend your views to integrate the information I've provided or you are invalidated as a person.

>>1998634
You said you were interested in how I would react.

>>1998618
You're as self-deluded as the biggest religious fanatics. You believe "I think God doesn't exist -- therefore everyone must deep down think God doesn't exist". Personally, I think that God, far from being "infinitely improbable", is a logical necessity.

>>1998636
>You. Are. Your. Brain. Don't argue with the facts.
Did you try my little experiment? Point to yourself. What do you see?

>>1998637
>mfw I linked the wrong post
I meant >>1998621

>>1998645
That's the same post number you fucking moron. Get your head out of your ass.

>>1998648
Lol umad?

>>1998635

>>There is no such thing as a scientific conception of nothing.

How would you know? You're scientifically illiterate.

>>The impossibility of having something from nothing is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one.

Which should send up red flags from the outset.

>>No. That is why nature is obviously "something". The argument is that something could not have come from nothing.

Nature is an imbalance between forms of something that have been observed to split out of space where there was nothing a moment ago, and then to annihilate and return to nothing femtoseconds later.

>>If you're saying that antimatter, gravity and dark matter are not "something", you are spouting bullshit.

They are something in the same sense that -1 is still a number. And yet, -1 and 1 can be divided out of 0.

>>More bullshit. I don't know what a neo-creationist is, but I'm probably not one. I don't deny any science of the big bang, nor any science of neurology. I study physics and neurology, and I conduct neurological experiments.

No, you don't. You have no such credentials or you'd be considerably more familiar with the material I've been discussing with you. Either that or you're a first years student and, if your school's any good, you're faring poorly.

>>You've apparently picked up what you think are facts from some pop-science literature.

And again, here you implicitly reserve the right to dismiss scientific findings that conflict with your worldview. No, I've been studying these topics for much of my adult life and asa result I know when someone's misrepresenting the current state of our understanding of the brain, or the big bang.

>>I'd be happy to reference you to scientific articles if there is some matter of science you think I am wrong about.

Likewise.

>>Most of the arguments here are arguments of philosophy, not science. But feel free to stop arguing if you don't want to learn.

I can learn a lot from you, but only as a psychological case study in compartmentalization and syncretism.

>It nearly brought me to tears.
sure is faggotry around here

>>1998642

>>Did you try my little experiment? Point to yourself. What do you see?

I cannot point to myself, I suppose. I am housed in a skull. With an fMRI I could examine myself in great detail.

>>1998630

>>I feel sorrier

As expected, you're a sorry person.

Thanks OP. That final clip showing the scale of the universe is just absolutely unbelievable. We see our galaxy and think, "What a mindfuck". We then see the rest of the universe, and we can't even begin to comprehend it. It just seems so unreal, too big to exist.

We worry about our little dramas here on Earth and go about our lives, but once we see the bigger picture, nothing matters. We're all just star matter, clumped together with intelligent consciousnesses. When we're born, we're not told why we're here or what our "task" is, we just exist. WHY!!??

Also, you cannot tell me, after looking at that video, that Earth is the only planet on which life has developed. Impossible.

>>1998653
HEY REAL SCIENCE DUDE HERE. Sorry we confuse everyone we say nothing we actually mean quatuam flunctions that happened (most likely) in a vacuum that just existed before this universe. So we say nothing because we can't relate to anything that has ever happened inside the universe. LOL Sorry again for confusion guys,

>>1998662
not as sorry as you

>>1998665

Precisely, a scientific conception of nothing.

>>1998668

>>not as sorry as you

Why? You have a defective brain by comparison.

>>1998636
>No, you are not a little ghost that lives inside your brain and drives your body around like a meat robot.
Yes, that's very much what I am. Like Epictetus said, "You are a little soul carrying around a corpse."

>You are the emergent property of the interplay between the various specialized portions of your brain.
You are parroting back to me things that people have said that sound good, but if you look at them, are fundamentally illogical. An "emergent property"... or any other kind of "property" is an observable condition of something. Observation requires a 3rd party. Consciousness is not "observable" in ANY sense, except to the conscious entity experiencing the consciousness. Anyone who would describe consciousness as a "property" has not taken more than 5 minutes to consider what consciousness is.

>You. Are. Your. Brain. Don't argue with the facts.
The need to label your philosophical beliefs as unarguable fact belies your insecurity. You are not your brain.

>You keep using that term to imply that no progress has been made and that we have no evidence pointing towards a materialist model.
Evidence points towards a materialist model to a materialist, just as it points to a dualist model for a dualist, which is confirmation bias. I don't deny that many neurologists are materialists. That is not to suggests that evidence supports this. It doesn't. Duality can't be strictly proven by neurology, and neither can materialism. Other fields of study, do however prove dualism, which is why I believe it.

>We haven't simply demonstrated that physics doesn't prohibit it from happening, we've found the mechanism by which it happened.
Are you talking about the big bang? Who the fucking is saying the big bang didn't happen? Are you retarded?

>Again, stop arguing with me.
LOL. This is bizarre. You keep arguing with me and then telling me to stop arguing with you. If it makes you uncomfortable, feel free to stop yourself.

>>1998658
How can YOU examine YOURSELF?

See? Its a fun little experiment, and the premise is that yourself cannot be there, but must always be here. Very simple. In which case, point to the most "here" place you can. Where is here?

>>1998675
I feel bad for you again

>>1998678
I can examine myself through logic.

>>1998653
>How would you know? You're scientifically illiterate.
I have a degree in physics, ass-wipe.

>>The impossibility of having something from nothing is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one.
>Which should send up red flags from the outset.
huh?

>Nature is an imbalance between forms of something that have been observed to split out of space where there was nothing a moment ago, and then to annihilate and return to nothing femtoseconds later.
No. Matter can arise from quantum fluctuations. I can't arise out of "nothing". It leaves an energy vacuum when it does. Matter that annihilates provides energy to fill that vacuum. "Nothing" is not anything that is part of physics.

>They are something in the same sense that -1 is still a number. And yet, -1 and 1 can be divided out of 0.
Yes, there is positive and negative energy. But these are all "things". That's why we can study them.

Out of curiosity, and genuinely not trolling here (layman who's new to /sci/), but what's a "vacuum quantum state" and where did it come from?

>>1998663
>Also, you cannot tell me, after looking at that video, that Earth is the only planet on which life has developed. Impossible.
If we didn't have life here as evidence, we would say that life itself is impossible.

>>1998687
that's fine... except you can't.

You can only examine stimuli. You are always the observer of the stimuli, not the stimuli.

>>1998700
no we wouldn't

>>1998676

>>Yes, that's very much what I am. Like Epictetus said, "You are a little soul carrying around a corpse."

This is the neurological equivalent of Vitalism.

>>You are parroting back to me things that people have said that sound good

Apparently you skim straight through what I say without internalizing the meaning.

>>but if you look at them, are fundamentally illogical.

You may think so, but you're mistaken.

>>An "emergent property"... or any other kind of "property" is an observable condition of something.

With you so far.

>>Observation requires a 3rd party.

No it doesn't. Mirrors, man.

>>Consciousness is not "observable" in ANY sense, except to the conscious entity experiencing the consciousness. Anyone who would describe consciousness as a "property" has not taken more than 5 minutes to consider what consciousness is.

Anyone who thinks it's a ghost living in the brain is irredeemably backwards.

>>The need to label your philosophical beliefs as unarguable fact belies your insecurity. You are not your brain.

The word is "inarguable". And I assert the authority of facts because they are our sharpest weapons against the fraudulent mystics of the world.

I am my brain, and so are you. You may deny it, but if you were to test the hypothesis via selective surgical removal of specific portions of the brain you'd find it's unsurprisingly true.

>>Evidence points towards a materialist model to a materialist, just as it points to a dualist model for a dualist, which is confirmation bias.

This is the old creationist argument, "the same evidence evolutionists use to support evolution when viewed through the lens of man's imperfect science supports creation when viewed through the lens of God's word". Most if not all of the dualist's arguments are retooled creationist chestnuts.

>>I don't deny that many neurologists are materialists.

Not just many, most.

>>That is not to suggests that evidence supports this. It doesn't.

Incorrect, it does.

>>Duality can't be strictly proven by neurology, and neither can materialism.

Neurology is, every day, progressing towards a proof of the materialist model. The evidence amassed in favor of that conclusion dwarfs the amount of evidence amassed for dualism, which unless you count books like "The Secret" and stuff by Deepak Chopra, is zero.

>>Other fields of study, do however prove dualism, which is why I believe it.

Oh, do tell.

>>1998697
All of spacetime behaves the laws of quantum mechanics, even when we aren't observing particles there. The same laws that govern particles give rise to various waves and fluctuations in the absence of particles, waves and fluctuations which sometimes give rise to particles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state

In terms of the "nothing" and "something" argument, a spot of empty space is as much a "something" as a spot occupied by a particle.

>>1998676
Sure is 1500's in here.

>>1998693

>>I have a degree in physics, ass-wipe.

From a degree mill, possibly.

>>huh?

Philosophy is interesting mainly because it was the progenitor of science. It is not the equal of science, but rather it's predecessor. You won't see any technologies developed via the application of philosophy for the simple reason that it's unable to produce any conclusion which holds up when tested against reality. It's an elaborate shot in the dark.

>>No. Matter can arise from quantum fluctuations. I can't arise out of "nothing". It leaves an energy vacuum when it does. Matter that annihilates provides energy to fill that vacuum. "Nothing" is not anything that is part of physics.

Possibly because there is no "nothing" in the sense that you mean it, and there never was.

>>Yes, there is positive and negative energy. But these are all "things". That's why we can study them.

The point was that they were divisible from zero. Don't gloss over that.

>>1998710
I guess I can understand this. Out of curiosity, though, why is this so? Like, is this axiomatically true, a matter of logic? Sorry if this sounds confusing, it's just that sometimes I have a hard time distinguishing between really high-level physics/cosmology and philosophy, lol. What I'm asking is if the statement "a spot of empty space is as much a "something" as a spot occupied by a particle." is as axiomatically true as the statement "1 + 1 = 2 or "Circles cannot be square."

Sorry if the question seems weird, hehe.

>>1998707
>>Consciousness is not "observable" in ANY sense, except to the conscious entity experiencing the consciousness. Anyone who would describe consciousness as a "property" has not taken more than 5 minutes to consider what consciousness is.

>Anyone who thinks it's a ghost living in the brain is irredeemably backwards.

Whoa, what the fuck. I was interested in how you would refute that one... and, guess what, you didn't.

>>1998724

>>Whoa, what the fuck. I was interested in how you would refute that one... and, guess what, you didn't.

I didn't see anything to refute. If it's the "Hurr hurr look in a mirror and point to yourself" thing, that's Ray Comfort level apologetics.

>>1998709
>>Observation requires a 3rd party.
>No it doesn't. Mirrors, man.
The point being that observation requires an observe to exist in the first place.

>Anyone who thinks it's a ghost living in the brain is irredeemably backwards.
Yes, opposition to your religion must be "backwards" or else that would make you "backwards".

>The word is "inarguable".
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unarguable
If you're going to try to be an ass, at least make sure you're right first.
>And I assert the authority of facts because they are our sharpest weapons against the fraudulent mystics of the world.
You have not provided a single fact that backs up your opinions. All you've been able to do is misstate facts or provide questionable interpretations of facts.

>I am my brain, and so are you.
...

>You may deny it, but if you were to test the hypothesis via selective surgical removal of specific portions of the brain you'd find it's unsurprisingly true.
My father lost a lot of his brain function to stroke. It impacted a lot of things about him mentally and physically, but he was still the same person. You will find that your brain changes with age too, affecting its capabilities, but you might through experience learn to differentiate yourself from your brain.

>This is the old creationist argument, "the same evidence evolutionists use to support evolution when viewed through the lens of man's imperfect science supports creation when viewed through the lens of God's word". Most if not all of the dualist's arguments are retooled creationist chestnuts.
Nice straw man.

>Neurology is, every day, progressing towards a proof of the materialist model.
Since you like to talk about creationism, creationists say that science is every day progressing towards proving creationism. Are you a creationist?

Besides which I sort of object to the suggestion that I have to respond to your nonsense in the first place. You're not a person. The fact that I'm acknowledging and communicating with you is not meant to affirm that we're in equal standing, I'm the Jane Goodall to your Koko.

>>1998731
lol

>>1998726
What? When did I say look in a mirror? I'm the one who posted the experiment earlier about pointing to yourself. Its a simple EXPERIMENT. It relies on pure science. you use only the tools at hand to make an observation. Pure science. Simple and scientific.

Secondly, the poster is absolutely right. Consciousness is not observable from anything other than a 1st person perspective. I don't know who you are, or why you are giving this guy so much grief, but seriously, do you think for yourself in the slightest? THE SLIGHTEST? It would take ONE SECOND to think about consciousness but rather than do that you "herp, materialism."

To the dualist and the creationist... you guys seriously have to open your eyes. Mind and body are one entity, the brain controls everything in the body it has been neurologically proven. God doesn't exist as a singular being so much as a label to the creation of particle form and the big bang.

>>1998721
>Philosophy is interesting mainly because it was the progenitor of science.
I find that as about intelligent as someone who likes TV saying "science is interesting mainly because it was the progenitor of TV". Broaden your horizons, man. Science is a small nook of philosophy. Math is another. Don't be incurious about philosophical questions and arguments.

>The point was that they were divisible from zero. Don't gloss over that.
If you mean -1+1=0 and 0 is nothing, that analogy doesn't really apply. There is a zero point level of the vacuum state. You can never remove all the energy. Particles and antiparticles come about, not out of zeroness, but from an accumulation of waves that leads to a polarization. That's what the big bang can be thought of if you like, a polarization. It was a change of state.

>>1998730

>>The point being that observation requires an observe to exist in the first place.

Yes, and your brain observes it's body by the use of your eyes.

>Yes, opposition to your religion must be "backwards" or else that would make you "backwards".

It doesn't have to be, but it is.

>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unarguable
>If you're going to try to be an ass, at least make sure you're right first.

Conceded. Have a banana.

>>You have not provided a single fact that backs up your opinions. All you've been able to do is misstate facts or provide questionable interpretations of facts.

You won't read them. You'll dismiss the ones that are presented via popular science sites, and you'll skim the rest looking for poor choices of wording you can use to dismiss or misrepresent their conclusions. It's how you people operate.

>>1998744
God is the infinite from which everything finite has its origin and remains in existence. If you're thinking of God as somehow uniquely tied to the big bang, I don't think you're thinking of God correctly.

I understand why materialism is popular. But if you keep digging, I think you'll find it's false. I won't try to prove it to you though.

>>My father lost a lot of his brain function to stroke.

Was he also a dualist, and is he now dead?

>>It impacted a lot of things about him mentally and physically, but he was still the same person.

So was Terry Schaivo, according to her loved ones.

>>You will find that your brain changes with age too, affecting its capabilities, but you might through experience learn to differentiate yourself from your brain.

Possibly, but that would most likely be symptomatic of senility.

>>Nice straw man.

It's an entirely valid analogy.

>>Since you like to talk about creationism, creationists say that science is every day progressing towards proving creationism. Are you a creationist?

No, you are. You're (presumably) an adult living in a developed nation in the year 2010, and you believe in spirits. You're a clown.

still wondering about that vacuum question (>>1998723
here)

>>1998749
THIS IS NOT WORKING! You are not a scientist and we are not labrats. You are dumb. Don't like it? Too succinct? Too bad, its true.

>>1998754
>You're a clown.
This packs no punch. You're pathetic man!

>>1998745

>>Science is a small nook of philosophy. Math is another.

Care to hazard a guess as to why they are culturally considered more valuable than the rest of philosophy, and why professional mathematicians and scientists make exponentially more than professional philosophers (aka fry cook #3)

>If you mean -1+1=0 and 0 is nothing, that analogy doesn't really apply.

It absolutely does, its just deeply inconvenient for you.

>>There is a zero point level of the vacuum state. You can never remove all the energy. Particles and antiparticles come about, not out of zeroness, but from an accumulation of waves that leads to a polarization. That's what the big bang can be thought of if you like, a polarization. It was a change of state.

Agreed, we're discussing the same phenomena, but you're comparing it to a philosophical conception of nothingness which you cannot demonstrate ever had any representation in reality.

>>1998749
>Yes, and your brain observes it's body by the use of your eyes.
Are you dense or are you purposely avoiding the pertinent questions. You tried to describe consciousness as a property. I pointed out that a "property" can only have meaning in the context of a consciousness to observe the property. So you therefore can't describe consciousness itself as a property. For example, if consciousness were a property we should be able to observe consciousness in others. We can only observe behavior in others. Only consciousness can observe itself.

>>1998758

>>This packs no punch. You're pathetic man!

Wait and see.

>>1998759
>>why professional mathematicians and scientists make exponentially more than professional philosophers

Why do actors and musicians make exponentially more than mathematicians and scientists?

>>1998761

>>Are you dense or are you purposely avoiding the pertinent questions.

I am giving valid answers to invalid questions posed by an invalid person.

>>You tried to describe consciousness as a property. I pointed out that a "property" can only have meaning in the context of a consciousness to observe the property. So you therefore can't describe consciousness itself as a property.

Consciousness can observe itself. That's a simple, easily demonstrated fact. You may cling to some tired bit of apologetics that plays games with language or attempts to create and exploit a logical loophole but in the real world consciousness observes itself all the time.

>>For example, if consciousness were a property we should be able to observe consciousness in others. We can only observe behavior in others.

We do so via fMRI. You just don't consider that evidence admissible because you selectively deny scientific findings which conflict with your religious worldview.

>>1998762
I don't have to wait and see. You're not the puppetmaster. You're not the anthropologist, sociologist, statistician studying the rats in the maze. YOU ARE THE RAT IN THE MAZE.

>>1998773
>Consciousness can observe itself.
Happens all the time you say? Do it right now.

>>1998766

>>Why do actors and musicians make exponentially more than mathematicians and scientists?

Because when our needs are met, we begin to value wants above them.

However, you didn't address philosophy in your reply. That's what we're discussing, please don't try to weasel out of it. Philosophy positions are paid less and valued less than science positions. This is not because, as you suggest, science has popular appeal but accomplishes nothing (like sports) although the fact that you would make such a comparison says everything about you anyone might care to know.

>>1998779
HE'S THE JANE GOODALL TO YOUR KOKO MAN

FUCK THAT OBSERVATION AND SHIT, HE'S JUST LIKE, SUCH A DEEP THINKER

>>1998759
>Care to hazard a guess as to why they are culturally considered more valuable than the rest of philosophy, and why professional mathematicians and scientists make exponentially more than professional philosophers (aka fry cook #3)
Sure. Science leads to technology, and we love technology. However, I haven't seen this evidence that professional scientists make exponentially more than professional philosophers. I know that professional athletes make exponentially more than either, so I'm not sure how that fits into your worldview.

>>If you mean -1+1=0 and 0 is nothing, that analogy doesn't really apply.
>It absolutely does, its just deeply inconvenient for you.
In what way would it be inconvenient. It's just a bad analogy. Energy is separated out into negative and positive, but looking at the initial high entropy condition, and saying that its high entropy makes it "nothing" is not "inconvenient"... it's just wrong.

>Agreed, we're discussing the same phenomena, but you're comparing it to a philosophical conception of nothingness which you cannot demonstrate ever had any representation in reality.
"Nothing" doesn't have any representation in reality. That's my point.

>>1998779

>>Happens all the time you say? Do it right now.

I don't have an fMRI machine on hand. If you want to paypal me the money I could go get a brainscan and email you the images. You would respond by shitting in your hand, smearing it all over the keyboard and hitting "submit" though, so it's probably a waste of your money and my time.

>>1998788
geez, don't get mad bro.

>>1998781
I'm actually not the other guy you were talking to, I'm a different anon who merely has a passing interest in philosophy. My point was that the mere fact science pays better than philosophy has no bearing on either field's respective validity. If you think science is somehow 'better' than philosophy due to paying more, you would have to believe the arts were 'better' than science due to paying more.

>>1998788
But seriously, you are so wrong, if you are the same guy that's been going through these long drawn out response, lol. That's all I can say is, L O L.

>>1998782

Nothing about that statement was deep nor did I ever describe myself as a deep thinker.

>>1998785

>>Sure. Science leads to technology, and we love technology.

Technology is the application of scientific discoveries, and the operation of devices based on principles science has discovered is a tangible demonstration of the veracity of said findings. This is why there's no technology base on applied philosophy. No machines which interact with the soul, or charkas, or auras, or chi, although you can buy all sorts of devices which purport to do so by magnet and crystal. That's really the company you're in.

>>However, I haven't seen this evidence that professional scientists make exponentially more than professional philosophers. I know that professional athletes make exponentially more than either, so I'm not sure how that fits into your worldview.

I already told you. When our needs are met, we begin to value wants more. Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

>>In what way would it be inconvenient. It's just a bad analogy. Energy is separated out into negative and positive, but looking at the initial high entropy condition, and saying that its high entropy makes it "nothing" is not "inconvenient"... it's just wrong.

Only if you're attempting to shoehorn the philosophical conception of nothingness into science.

>>"Nothing" doesn't have any representation in reality. That's my point.

Mine too. Because, in the sense you mean it, it's a human contrivance.


Still wondering whether your father had similar views, and if he is still alive.

>>1998794

Posing as other posters is pretty sad.

>>1998773
>consciousness observes itself all the time.
And only it can observe itself. Which is why it's preposterous to call it a property. Are you 1) not reading what I write, 2) trolling me, or 3) retarded?

>We [observe consciousness] via fMRI.
fMRI measures changes in blood flow. You are no scientist to make such a stupid claim. Even materialist neurologists would laugh in your face.

>>1998809
Would you do such a thing?

>>1998809
MOD?

>>1998810

>>And only it can observe itself. Which is why it's preposterous to call it a property. Are you 1) not reading what I write, 2) trolling me, or 3) retarded?

Not true, though. Other consciousnesses can observe yours via fMRI.

>>fMRI measures changes in blood flow. You are no scientist to make such a stupid claim. Even materialist neurologists would laugh in your face.

Funny, considering their department is adjacent, many are close friends, and we have discussions ridiculing dualism over lunch on a daily basis.

The fact that fMRI measures changes in blood flow does not somehow discredit it's results. It is precisely because it measures those changes in response to stimuli that we can pinpoint which parts of the brain perform which functions, and thus, how it produces conscious thought.

To dismissively say "fMRI only measures changes in blood flow, it proves nothing about consciousness" is like saying "geneticists are merely interpreting sequences of base pairs, it proves nothing about evolution".

>>1998814

No, it's still this guy >>1998806 talking.

You've posed as several other participants so far. It's fine to deny that. You'll still know it to be true.

>>1998806
>>When our needs are met, we begin to value wants more.

The problem is (and, like I said, I'm not the other guy you're arguing with here, though you'll just have to take my word for it--as I'll have to take yours that you're not actually just arguing with yourself), not all branches of science fulfill the "basic needs" much more than philosophy does. Chemical engineering and epedemiology? Definite practical applications. The "scientific definition of nothingness" and the other esoterica of cosmology? Not quite as good at putting food on the table or getting one's car started.

It would actually be interesting if you compared the salaries of cosmologists and astronomers to those of philosophers, I would wager the pay differential is much smaller than that between philosophers and nuclear physicists, field biologists, and others who do things a bit more practical than quantum physics.

>>1998806
>This is why there's no technology base on applied philosophy
True. Yet philosophy addresses things which are potentially more interesting than technology, and definitely more integral to the human condition. Technology fascinates us, but it isn't the be-all-end-all of existence.

>I already told you. When our needs are met, we begin to value wants more. Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
That wasn't me. Science isn't a "need" anymore than any other branch of philosophy. Farming and societal organization (politics) are needs. Once those are relatively sorted out, we spend our resources on the luxuries of the arts and sciences.

>Mine too. Because, in the sense you mean it, it's a human contrivance.

The we are agreed that those who say "the universe came out of nothing" are saying something either wrong or meaningless.

>Still wondering whether your father had similar views, and if he is still alive.
Yes I believe his views are somewhat similar, and he does still live.

>>1998837

>>Chemical engineering and epedemiology?

Health is one of the most basic requirements of a population, or an individual.

>>Not quite as good at putting food on the table or getting one's car started.

The mechanism whereby an asymmetric quantity of matter and antimatter were produced by the big bang (though ultimately balanced out by negative gravitational energy) may, when harnessed properly, be used to quickly and efficiently generate antimatter as a compact fuel source.

What the argument really comes down to is that he believes in magic. Spirits and spooks. It's stupid.

>>1998855
>>1998837 here. If you wouldn't mind me asking, are you a philosophy major yourself?

>>1998829
Oh. Well, I posted as anonymous every single time.

Here, wait a second...

>>1998818
>>1998814
>>1998794
>>1998791
>>1998779
>>1998775
>>1998758
>>1998757
>>1998738
>>1998724
>>1998702
>>1998701
>>1998681
>>1998678
>>1998668
>>1998648
>>1998642
>>1998637
Those are all me.

I stopped looking, got bored.

Anyway, no I didn't post as different people. I posted as anonymous every time.

>>1998861
>>Health is one of the most basic requirements of a population, or an individual.

Yes, which is why I said "Definite practical applications" and explicitly compared it to cosmology.

>>may, when harnessed properly, be used to quickly and efficiently generate antimatter as a compact fuel source.

It seems to me like a pretty big maybe. Out of curiosity, then, are there a lot of employers paying big bucks to cosmologists for research down this lane? Genuinely not trolling here, for all I know there might be--antimatter power plants are pretty cool, after all.

>>1998855

>>True. Yet philosophy addresses things which are potentially more interesting than technology, and definitely more integral to the human condition.

But not literally useful. Because the moment they are tested against reality, they collapse.

>>Technology fascinates us, but it isn't the be-all-end-all of existence.

It defines us in the same way that a tiger's teeth and claws define it, or a bird's wings and beak. It is our niche, our natural defense, we've gone down a path that exploits the potential of epigenetic knowledge transfer and preservation. It's why you're sitting in a warm house right now, relatively healthy and posting on the internet using a computer.

>That wasn't me. Science isn't a "need" anymore than any other branch of philosophy. Farming and societal organization (politics) are needs. Once those are relatively sorted out, we spend our resources on the luxuries of the arts and sciences.

You think there's no science involved in farming or societal organization?

>The we are agreed that those who say "the universe came out of nothing" are saying something either wrong or meaningless.

Provided you mean the philosophical definition of nothing, yes. But then we both know that's not what I'm saying, as I'm not using the word "nothing" that way. I am using it the way that someone apparently employed as a physicist or posting as one already affirmed science commonly uses it.

>Yes I believe his views are somewhat similar

Then what noticeable difference did the stroke make?

>and he does still live.

Tell him he's breathing air that might be put to better use by someone whose brain is not defective in both function and content.

>>1998825
You are talking absurdities. Just because there are neurologists who laugh at dualism doesn't mean they won't laugh at you when you present to them your theory that consciousness equals changes in blood flow in the brain.

There are legitimate theories as to what specific behaviors in brains are most correlated with consciousness. The latest findings are that it is something called recurrent processing. If you're interested in the neurological investigations into consciousness look that up in google scholar. If you educate yourself, you will embarrass yourself less by making stupid statements like "we observe consciousness in fMRI". Consciousness itself is unobservable except to the conscious. That's why neurology relies on the reporting of the subject they're studying to tell them what they have consciously experienced. Then those experiences can be correlated to what we observe the neurons doing. But observing the neurons is not the same as observing consciousness. If we didn't know consciousness from our own first hand experiences with it, we would certainly not know it existed by looking an neurons or other brain elements.

>>1998877
>>Tell him he's breathing air that might be put to better use by someone whose brain is not defective in both function and content.

Ah, but he exhales carbon dioxide which will be used to fuel photosynthesis in plants, which provides resources for the rest of us! Surely even an edgy deep thinker (you may not call yourself that, but you certainly are) such as you can acknowledge the utility in that.

>Provided you mean the philosophical definition of nothing, yes. But then we both know that's not what I'm saying, as I'm not using the word "nothing" that way. I am using it the way that someone apparently employed as a physicist or posting as one already affirmed science commonly uses it.
You're all over the fucking map. Science does not use the word.

>Tell him he's breathing air that might be put to better use by someone whose brain is not defective in both function and content.

nice

>>1998878

>>You are talking absurdities.

Here's you, from earlier:

>>Yes, that's very much what I am. Like Epictetus said, "You are a little soul carrying around a corpse."

There you have it. You, talking absurdities.

>>Just because there are neurologists who laugh at dualism doesn't mean they won't laugh at you when you present to them your theory that consciousness equals changes in blood flow in the brain.

They're the ones who explained it to me. It isn't my theory, its the present conclusion of neuroscience. Not literally that the changes themselves are consciousness but that they signal processes which are part of consciousness.

>>There are legitimate theories as to what specific behaviors in brains are most correlated with consciousness. The latest findings are that it is something called recurrent processing. If you're interested in the neurological investigations into consciousness look that up in google scholar.

I'm familiar.

>>If you educate yourself

Says the guy who believes in ghosts.

>>you will embarrass yourself less by making stupid statements like "we observe consciousness in fMRI".

You're oversimplifying my meaning. You already seem to understand what a straw man is but don't recognize when you're assembling and attacking one.

>>Consciousness itself is unobservable except to the conscious.

Why do you think this implies a soul?

>>That's why neurology relies on the reporting of the subject they're studying to tell them what they have consciously experienced. Then those experiences can be correlated to what we observe the neurons doing.

Yes, but because their descriptions match up consistently with what's observed, we're now able to perform experiments where fRMI is used to essentially read someone's mind. As a lie detector, for instance. In these experiments the observing scientists can know things about the subject's consciousness which he has not told them.

There you go.

>>But observing the neurons is not the same as observing consciousness.

In the same sense that observing leaves blowing about is not the same as observing wind.

>>If we didn't know consciousness from our own first hand experiences with it, we would certainly not know it existed by looking an neurons or other brain elements.

We're able to observe complex nonhuman systems and understand their various mechanisms, the principles upon which they operate and so on. We can produce an AI, perhaps one day even a conscious one, which is nonhuman and yet which we can observe and understand.

>>1998887

>>You're all over the fucking map. Science does not use the word.

"Something from nothing is a quantum possibility. Werner Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle opened the doors to overturning the law of energy conservation.:

http://www.nanogallery.info/news/?id=8735&slid=news&type=anews

It's a news site, but it's in the cited paper. And turning up examples of Hawking using it the same way isn't difficult.

>>1998908
>In these experiments the observing scientists can know things about the subject's consciousness which he has not told them.
Wrong. Thoughts are observed with consciousness.

>>In the same sense that observing leaves blowing about is not the same as observing wind.

I would use a different analogy if I were you. A dualist could claim that just like the movement of leaves significes the presence of wind but isn't actually the wind (air) itself, a firing of neurons signifies the presence of the soul but is not actually the soul itself.

>>1998921

>>A dualist could claim that just like the movement of leaves significes the presence of wind but isn't actually the wind (air) itself, a firing of neurons signifies the presence of the soul but is not actually the soul itself.

Consciousness *isn't* neurons. It's a process being carried out by them. It's still a purely material phenomenon. Software running on hardware.

>>1998928
So consciousness isn't real?

>>1998933

>>So consciousness isn't real?

What? Sure it is. Since when does electrochemical translate to fake?

>>1998940
Well, I'm not sure what you are saying. Since when is consciousness a necessary explanation for your observations?

>>1998944

>>Well, I'm not sure what you are saying. Since when is consciousness a necessary explanation for your observations?

Now I'm not sure what you're saying either. It isn't necessary, it's the conclusion plainly supported by the available evidence.

>>1998928
No, I mean a dualist could just say the neurons and the processes carried out by them, along with all the chemicals, electric impulses, etc. are the "hardware" and the soul is the "software." This is why, they would say, differences in personality are marked when the brain is physically damaged, because the "software" of the soul can't run properly on the "hardware" of the physical brain.

>>1998950
What evidence? Tbh, I haven't been following the conversation, I just caught that one bit. It doesn't make any sense. What would lead you to the conclusion that there is some nebulous thing, "consciousness". What does that even mean?

>>1998952

>>No, I mean a dualist could just say the neurons and the processes carried out by them, along with all the chemicals, electric impulses, etc. are the "hardware" and the soul is the "software." This is why, they would say, differences in personality are marked when the brain is physically damaged, because the "software" of the soul can't run properly on the "hardware" of the physical brain.

I'd agree with this, with a caveat.

Software cannot execute without hardware. You can no more separate human consciousness from the brain it runs on than you can take a program running on your PC and separate it out of the CPU, GPU, ram, hard drive and the rest of the physical structure responsible for executing it and expect it to continue executing. You can transmit that information to another machine wirelessly, but even then it's a material phenomenon (radio waves) and the program cannot continue to execute while in transmission as it hasn't any physical, organizing structure to process it.

>>1998950
Well? What is consciousness?

>>1998969
Seriously, software is an idea, its not real.

30. BILLION. YEARS.
are you fucking kidding me?

post that on youtube and everybody walk the dinosaur

>>1998904
>They're the ones who explained it to me. It isn't my theory, its the present conclusion of neuroscience. Not literally that the changes themselves are consciousness but that they signal processes which are part of consciousness.
Either you misunderstood them, misunderstood that they were talking about their personal philosophy, and not science, or they were trolling you.

>>1999022

>>Seriously, software is an idea, its not real.

It is information, and information can be physically encoded into media and processed as current in a CPU.

>>1999001

>>Well? What is consciousness?

The product of the brains' continued function.

>>1999022
a guess?

>>1999038

>>Either you misunderstood them, misunderstood that they were talking about their personal philosophy, and not science, or they were trolling you.

No to all of those. You hold a view which is not shared by the majority of neuroscientists because it is plainly contradicted by the findings made thus far.

>>1998969
But you can. For example look at the evidence of Near Death Experience. The mind sometimes does work without the hardware of the brain. The brain is just a sense, motor, and related memory interface between the consciousness and the body.

>>1999043
There are no such "findings". You're blowing smoke out of your ass.

>>1999039
>The product of the brains' continued function.
What? That doesn't even make any sense.

Look, you have your fMRI, you're looking at it. What do you see in it that makes you think that there is something in it called "consciousness" and what is consciousness apart from what you are observing? You've made up an extra word that means nothing.

>>1999044

>>But you can. For example look at the evidence of Near Death Experience.

I have. Experiments were conducted where signs with code words or images were placed on rafters above the patient or in other positions visible only from overhead, prior to the experiment and without their knowledge. Those who reported floating above their bodies looking down on the room, when asked what the sign said or depicted, were surprised to learn there had been a sign.

>>1999045

>>There are no such "findings". You're blowing smoke out of your ass.

You're going to cling to your primitive beliefs regardless of what I say.

>>1999048

>>What? That doesn't even make any sense.

Are you retarded? The meaning is clear. The brain's function is to process conscious thought.

>>Look, you have your fMRI, you're looking at it. What do you see in it that makes you think that there is something in it called "consciousness" and what is consciousness apart from what you are observing?

The fact that the brain can and has been painstakingly mapped by oberving consistent responses to the same stimuli, and that these maps can later be used to determine what the person is thinking about and even how they feel about it.

>>1998928
The problem is that we understand what most of the brain does... and it is like things we can do in computer software... neural networks for sensory processing and motor control. The problem is that none of that explains consciousness. When you have a neural network, you have a hierarchy of nodes which processes gathered information, processes it and then outputs the conclusion to ... something or somebody who can "observe" it and use it. Where is the "observer" in the brain? Most of the brain is clearly not an observer, but is processing information for the observer. Yet, neuroscience clearly shows that there's no central "observer place" in the brain. Consciousness is not localized to any one area. However there are certain processing patters which show up when conscious experience is reported.

This correlates well to both the materialist and dualist ideas. Both have their problems. Either 1) the brain is somehow inhabited by a "magic" conscious soul, or 2) the specific processing patterns that correlate with consciousness are "magically" able to subjectively experience themselves.

Both carry with them what could be viewed as an absurdity. Surely an algorithm can't be conscious. Would the algorithm be conscious if you worked it out with pencil and paper? Non-physical reality is also an absurdity to many people, because we can't directly measure it in any way.

>>1999051
>The fact that the brain can and has been painstakingly mapped by oberving consistent responses to the same stimuli, and that these maps can later be used to determine what the person is thinking about and even how they feel about it.
This is just not true. You neurology friends have been trolling you.

>>1999054

>>The problem is that we understand what most of the brain does... and it is like things we can do in computer software... neural networks for sensory processing and motor control. The problem is that none of that explains consciousness. When you have a neural network, you have a hierarchy of nodes which processes gathered information, processes it and then outputs the conclusion to ... something or somebody who can "observe" it and use it. Where is the "observer" in the brain? Most of the brain is clearly not an observer, but is processing information for the observer. Yet, neuroscience clearly shows that there's no central "observer place" in the brain. Consciousness is not localized to any one area. However there are certain processing patters which show up when conscious experience is reported.

This is the same basic misconception underlying the "we only use 10% of our brains" myth. There is no single "observer" part of the brain, no single consciousness portion because consciousness is a product of the coordinated action of the entire brain: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16775-consciousness-signature-discovered-spanning-the-brain.ht
ml (Journal reference: PLoS Biology, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000061)

>>1999064
>This is the same basic misconception underlying the "we only use 10% of our brains" myth.
Uh, no it has nothing to do with that.
>There is no single "observer" part of the brain, no single consciousness portion because consciousness is a product of the coordinated action of the entire brain:
No, consciousness, is not an "action".
>http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16775-consciousness-signature-discovered-spanning-the-brai
n.html (Journal reference: PLoS Biology, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000061)
That article backs up everything I said.

>>1999075

>>No, consciousness, is not an "action".

It's the product of coordinated actions. I suppose that should've been plural, yes.

>>That article backs up everything I said.

Selective perception. The religious often interpret data in such a way that they believe it supports their views even when it contradicts them. I've got a paper on that phenomenon as well.

That was fantastic, thank you.

I feel like I should explain that arguing with dualists isn't expected to achieve anything. It is, more than anything, a way to pass the time in anticipation of the day when America has been secularized to an extent comparable with modern day Britain. Then one's energy is better spent participating in the propagation of rhetoric that will soften the public to the idea of mass liquidation of dualists and all other supernaturalists who will long since have been confined to ghettos or reservations of some sort. Waco, on a much larger scale, but hopefully with a tidier method of disposal.

>>1999077
>It's the product of coordinated actions. I suppose that should've been plural, yes.
No, you're assuming that the mind is a product of the brain, specifically the result of physical actions. You cannot assume that, and it doesn't really make sense.

>>That article backs up everything I said.
>Selective perception. The religious often interpret data in such a way that they believe it supports their views even when it contradicts them. I've got a paper on that phenomenon as well.
Well, they have that in common with the rest of the population. Speaking for myself, I have drawn my views from scientific research and reason. Neurology and physics are the two fields in which I have personally done research, and in which I keep up with published articles as much as I can.

The stuff you're spouting is pseudoscience-backed materialist belief, based on a desperate need to have your philosophy mandated by science, which is something that science can never do. So you try to denigrate those with differing philosophies and try to insist that they don't know science as well as you do, even when you're completely out of your league.

>>1999087
I think Satan may have inhabited your body at some point. Check into that.

>>1999087
Considering how the old "atheism leads people to mass murder" canard is so popular with theists, I really don't think advocating for "mass liquidation" is doing your side any favors.

I really liked this video but I have to minimize this thread now because it's been nothing but trolls for the past ~190 replies

>>1999088

>>No, you're assuming that the mind is a product of the brain, specifically the result of physical actions. You cannot assume that, and it doesn't really make sense.

It does, it's supported by the evidence, and it's childishly obstinate to deny it.

>>Well, they have that in common with the rest of the population. Speaking for myself, I have drawn my views from scientific research and reason.

HAH!

>>Neurology and physics are the two fields in which I have personally done research, and in which I keep up with published articles as much as I can.

Sure, so have I. We're all accomplished scientists on the internet, remember? And we drive Ferraris with boat trailers to haul around our coiled up cocks.

>>The stuff you're spouting is pseudoscience-backed materialist belief, based on a desperate need to have your philosophy mandated by science, which is something that science can never do.

This is the description of cognitive neurobiology I frequently get from people who actually do self identify as creationists.

It's why I say you're a neo-creationist. It's not a baseless slur, on the spectrum of science acceptance you're only a little further along than a traditional creationist. And they think you've accepted to much, they'd accuse you of scientism for accepting evolution, just as you would accuse me of the same for accepting the conclusions of neuroscience.

>>So you try to denigrate those with differing philosophies and try to insist that they don't know science as well as you do, even when you're completely out of your league.

You believe in ghosts. You're in the little league. I'm in a helicopter overhead arguing with you via walkie talkie.

>>1999093

>>Considering how the old "atheism leads people to mass murder" canard is so popular with theists, I really don't think advocating for "mass liquidation" is doing your side any favors.

Perhaps at the time it was necessary for the same reasons it is now.

>>1999104
>This is the description of cognitive neurobiology I frequently get from people who actually do self identify as creationists.
Funny. But to call your philosophy and beliefs cognitive neurobiology, as a farce. Science is not going to validate your non-scientific beliefs, because it doesn't draw conclusions outside the realm of science. Materialism is a philosophy outside the realm of science.

>>1999110
lol. well, good luck setting up camps in Britain, that place may be secularized but between the sinking economy and the chavs I doubt they're in much of a position to liquidize anybody. Sorry Stalin-chan :'(

>>1999104
>You believe in ghosts. You're in the little league. I'm in a helicopter overhead arguing with you via walkie talkie.
Sure, I'm playing baseball with Newton, Maxwell, and Pythagoras, while you're in fantasyland with your pretend helicopter and a bunch of angsty teenage atheists.

>>1999115

>>Funny.

Are you under the impression that creationists do not share your belief in souls? Is it not fair and accurate to say that you have that in common with them?

>>But to call your philosophy and beliefs cognitive neurobiology, as a farce.

Nope.jph

>>Science is not going to validate your non-scientific beliefs

That's my line.

>>because it doesn't draw conclusions outside the realm of science.

Souls are necessarily at least partially material. If they interact with a material brain, the mechanism will be detectable. When people die, we should detect something other than the brain shutting down, but we don't.

>>Materialism is a philosophy outside the realm of science.

What reason do we have to believe in immaterial phenomena? Has anything turned up so far?

>>1999123

>>Sure, I'm playing baseball with Newton, Maxwell, and Pythagoras, while you're in fantasyland

This from the guy who thinks there's a ghost in his skull and that when he dies he's going to frolick in heavenly meadows with his brain damaged vegetable of a father.

Well if nothing else, we learned from this thread that materialists are fucked up sociopaths.

>>1999134
Eh, it's /sci/ bro, you can't judge all 'materialists' based on what you see on here, everybody's a sociopath on 4chan. This is like the only place on the internet you could see a perjorative like "moralfag" popping up.

>>1999134

Or that people sometimes relieve stress via hyperbole when exasperated with persistent religious denial of science.

Haha, you're not very smart.
>based on a desperate need to have your philosophy mandated by science, which is something that science can never do.
The fuck it can't. If you build your philosophy off of science (you know, the things we know are real) then you end up with a comprehensive philosophy of the world that nestles quite nicely with our current understanding of science.

>>1999143
Surely such an expression of emotion--almost an outburst--would be below a good scientific rationalist like yourself?

>>1999143
You keep trying to call materialism science, yet I have not threatened to kill you over it yet... how can that be? Denial of materialism is not denial of science. Many of the greatest scientists in history were not materialists.

>>1999148

>>Haha, you're not very smart.

He claims to be a published neuroscientist, too.

>>1999045
which is a neat trick in itself.

>>1999148
Are you delusional? You cannot build a philosophy off of science. Scientism is not a science. Science can only do what it does, and that is study and model physical processes and make predictions based on those models. It cannot help your philosophy, even if your philosophy is "SCIENCE IS THE GREATEST THING EVAR!!!"

>>1999155

>>You keep trying to call materialism science

Materialism is the tentative conclusion of science, always awaiting invalidation. So far it hasn't been toppled.

>>yet I have not threatened to kill you over it yet... how can that be?

I don't recall threatening to kill you.

>>Denial of materialism is not denial of science. Many of the greatest scientists in history were not materialists.

Name a few, and let's take note of when they lived. Then name some who are currently alive, and let's look at the demographics of religious scientists vs irreligious. Which do you suppose are more numerous? Why do you think the ratio might've changed so drastically over the past few centuries?

>>1999051
>>What? That doesn't even make any sense.

Are you retarded? The meaning is clear. The brain's function is to process conscious thought.

>>Look, you have your fMRI, you're looking at it. What do you see in it that makes you think that there is something in it called "consciousness" and what is consciousness apart from what you are observing?

The fact that the brain can and has been painstakingly mapped by oberving consistent responses to the same stimuli, and that these maps can later be used to determine what the person is thinking about and even how they feel about it.

..........................................................................................

Okay, I'm back. I had to go make and then eat my breakfast.

Anyway, Back to what I was saying. You are looking at the fMRI. You see that the person is thinking of the letter "M". So, what part of that is "consciousness?"

>>1999167
Are you the same guy who posted the 'mass liquidation' bit or a different one? it's hard to tell on here, lol

>>1999167
>Materialism is the tentative conclusion of science, always awaiting invalidation. So far it hasn't been toppled.
LOL, no, you fucking retard. I'm giving up on you. Someone has indoctrinated you with some crazy shit and told you it's science.

Repeating some of my strongest points, none of which you so much as acknowledged. I will repeat them until they are addressed.

"Yes, but because their descriptions match up consistently with what's observed, we're now able to perform experiments where fRMI is used to essentially read someone's mind. As a lie detector, for instance. In these experiments the observing scientists can know things about the subject's consciousness which he has not told them. "

"We're able to observe complex nonhuman systems and understand their various mechanisms, the principles upon which they operate and so on. We can produce an AI, perhaps one day even a conscious one, which is nonhuman and yet which we can observe and understand."

Software cannot execute without hardware. You can no more separate human consciousness from the brain it runs on than you can take a program running on your PC and separate it out of the CPU, GPU, ram, hard drive and the rest of the physical structure responsible for executing it and expect it to continue executing. You can transmit that information to another machine wirelessly, but even then it's a material phenomenon (radio waves) and the program cannot continue to execute while in transmission as it hasn't any physical, organizing structure to process it."

"The fact that the brain can and has been painstakingly mapped by oberving consistent responses to the same stimuli, and that these maps can later be used to determine what the person is thinking about and even how they feel about it."

"Souls are necessarily at least partially material. If they interact with a material brain, the mechanism will be detectable. When people die, we should detect something other than the brain shutting down, but we don't."

>>1999176

>> Someone has indoctrinated you with some crazy shit and told you it's science.

Likewise. If I had to hazard a guess I'd saw Swedeborg and/or Plantinga.

>>1999171

>>So, what part of that is "consciousness?"

The concerted electrochemical underpinning of the thought, "M". A pattern of neurons firing and associated changes to neurochemistry.

>>1999176

>> Someone has indoctrinated you with some crazy shit and told you it's science.

Likewise. If I had to hazard a guess I'd say Swedeborg and/or Plantinga.

>>1999183
Which is somehow different from matter which is not inside a body?

>>1999171
>The fact that the brain can and has been painstakingly mapped by oberving consistent responses to the same stimuli, and that these maps can later be used to determine what the person is thinking about and even how they feel about it.
The mapping of the brain tells you nothing about what someone is thinking. That sounds like 19th century phrenology.

>Anyway, Back to what I was saying. You are looking at the fMRI. You see that the person is thinking of the letter "M". So, what part of that is "consciousness?"
You can't tell that a person is thinking of the letter "M" just by looking at an fMRI.

>>1999189
Yes, yes, we're humoring him. We're just pretending, for the sake of the argument, that we have Star Trek level technology.

>>1999188

>>Which is somehow different from matter which is not inside a body?

Same building blocks, different arrangement. You can find all of the elements necessary to make a human being in a department store. Potassium, calcium, carbon, etc. etc. but of course mixing them up in the tub won't make a person.

As you're presumably not a vitalist and accept that there's nothing about the lower level processes of life which requires a supernatural mechanism (as Vitalists believe) how do you account for this? A rhetorical question obviously but I'm hoping your answer, whether shared or not, shines some light on the absurdity of applying Vitalist thinking to neuroscience.

>>Software cannot execute without hardware. You can no more separate human consciousness from the brain it runs on than you can take a program running on your PC and separate it out of the CPU, GPU, ram, hard drive and the rest of the physical structure responsible for executing it and expect it to continue executing. You can transmit that information to another machine wirelessly, but even then it's a material phenomenon (radio waves) and the program cannot continue to execute while in transmission as it hasn't any physical, organizing structure to process it."

The fact that software requires hardware to run doesn't really mean software doesn't exist. By the same reason, the fact that souls require a physical shell doesn't really mean souls don't exist.

>>"Souls are necessarily at least partially material. If they interact with a material brain, the mechanism will be detectable. When people die, we should detect something other than the brain shutting down, but we don't."

Perhaps. It may be possible we simply haven't discovered a means to detect it *yet.*

>>1999185
No, I get my science from scientific journals, thank you. I just happen to know the difference between science and my philosophical beliefs. I don't try to validate my non-scientific beliefs by insisting they are science. You might want to look into that.

>>1999195
got it

>>1999198

software is just stuff working in the hardware dude, is the hardware itself working in a defined way

>>1999189

>>You can't tell that a person is thinking of the letter "M" just by looking at an fMRI.

It's been done, though. I don't recall if it was ever done with letters but certainly with photographs, and with names. They were able not only to determine when the person thought of said pictures/names again but what feelings were associated with them, with a precision that was able for instance to distinguish between romantic and platonic love.

>>1999197
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

You've stated that you can "observe" consciousness but you've given no real evidence of what consciousness is.

WHAT IS THIS CONSCIOUSNESS YOU SPEAK OF?

You say it is in an fMRI. WHERE? You say its a process. What does that even mean? If its a process, then its not a thing. WHAT IS IT?

You've also stated that it is
>The concerted electrochemical underpinning of the thought, "M"

What is a THOUGHT if NOT the electrochemical underpinnings. That's ALL it IS!

Seriously, you've given no good definition of what consciousness is. AND NO, I don't want someone else's definition, nor something from a dictionary, just what you think it is, and why oh why it should be found on an fMRI

>>1999198

>>The fact that software requires hardware to run doesn't really mean software doesn't exist. By the same reason, the fact that souls require a physical shell doesn't really mean souls don't exist.

If that's what you mean by souls, then sure souls exist, they just cannot be removed from the hardware.

>>Perhaps. It may be possible we simply haven't discovered a means to detect it *yet.*

The history of science is a history of discovering unknown unknowns. The really big discoveries have always been things so strange we had never thought to imagine them before. It's why there are no ancient legends about the higgs boson or relativity, and also why science is no more likely to discover souls than it is likely to discover minotaurs.

>>1999205
True, but that "defined" way is the kicker. What defines how it works? A dualist could say the soul is what "defines" how the hardware of the brain works.

>>1999207
You can't tell what a person is thinking or feeling from an fMRI. You can, however see when they consciously process a photograph or other stimuli, and you can deduce certain things about it by which parts of the brain are activated. That's a lot different from "reading thoughts" though.

>>1999214

>>What is a THOUGHT if NOT the electrochemical underpinnings. That's ALL it IS!

I agree with this.

>>Seriously, you've given no good definition of what consciousness is. AND NO, I don't want someone else's definition, nor something from a dictionary, just what you think it is, and why oh why it should be found on an fMRI

Because it permits us to observe the brain as it's working. And forbidding me to provide other people's descriptions is in effect a moratorium on linking you to research papers. It's an unreasonable restraint in any argument.

>>1999216

is defined by the laws of nature (wich made possible you as a living organism with a nervous system)

>>1999215
>>If that's what you mean by souls, then sure souls exist, they just cannot be removed from the hardware.

Not necessarily. Say I install Starcraft on my computer. The software, or program, runs on and exists in the hardware on my computer. Yet if I destroy my computer, I haven't lost my copy of Starcraft--I can just install it on a new piece of hardware that replaced my old compy.

By the same token, the destruction of a material body, in the eyes of a dualist, is like the destruction of a piece of hardware with the Starcraft program installed, and the soul would be roughly analogous to the Starcraft CD.

>>The really big discoveries have always been things so strange we had never thought to imagine them before.

Maybe. The thing is, though, by that token you could say science might discover the 'soul' someday. it'll just be a lot stranger than anything the old-school conventional religions have said.

Somewhere I saw a video of some neuroscientist that showed that they superposed the neurons activity while someone see some object and you can actually see these forms in the neuron circuits

in TED it was

>>1999223
All you need to do is provide me with a definition of consciousness which is both possible in the universe, and easy enough for me to understand, and I'll concede that it exists.

Seriously? Are we really arguing over whether some obscure definition of consciousness you found in a paper is actually observable?

Consciousness isn't observable because it isn't real. Software isn't real.

>>1999222

>>You can't tell what a person is thinking or feeling from an fMRI.

You can if they've come in and done a sort of calibration routine first. They expose you to the stimuli that will be used in the experiment and the software builds up a library of associations between the readings elicited by the stimuli and the stimuli itself. When presented with that same stimuli it reliably produces the same response, and in future experiments it's possible to spot when the subject is thinking about that stimuli even if he doesn't tell a researcher he's doing so at the time.

??You can, however see when they consciously process a photograph or other stimuli, and you can deduce certain things about it by which parts of the brain are activated. That's a lot different from "reading thoughts" though.

You're describing the first part of the process. It takes a lot of preparation and building up a collection of fMRI maps associated with the stimuli in question, but after a sufficiently long period of exposure and recording, the machine can tell you when the subject is thinking about the stimuli. If that's not reading thoughts, what is?

>>1999215
>The history of science is a history of discovering unknown unknowns. The really big discoveries have always been things so strange we had never thought to imagine them before. It's why there are no ancient legends about the higgs boson or relativity, and also why science is no more likely to discover souls than it is likely to discover minotaurs.
Science discovers both the expected and the unexpected. Newtons corpuscular theory of light was first dismissed by science when the wave theory was developed, and then proven with the photoelectric effect.

In a sense, science has proven Minotaurs as well. Most such mythological creatures are theorized to be ancient interpretations of dinosaur bones. The ancients just didn't know exactly how to fit the bones together. We have a better idea of that now.

Fuck yeah deism

conciousness is just lots and lots of neurons (even if you can't see your own neurons except opening your skull alive)

>>1999223
wait a second, do you believe in free will?

>>1999233

>>All you need to do is provide me with a definition of consciousness which is both possible in the universe, and easy enough for me to understand, and I'll concede that it exists.

I'm struggling with the limitations of language here. The best way I can describe my understanding of it is that if you were to gather a number of people in a room, each one an expert in a different field such as a linguist, historian, logician, etc. (analogous to the various components of your brain) and have them stand in a circle and engage in a group conversation (or argument as the case may be), consciousness would be in the center of that circle.

>>1999239

deism hahahah, kids

>>1999234
"Reading thoughts" would be if you could interpret novel thoughts as well as ones that you've already recorded patterns of and had the subject actually report to you what the thought was, or supplied the thought in the first place via a stimulus. The phrase implies you can do more than just notice that you're looking at the same pattern as when you have an outside reason to independently know what the thought is.

>>1999251
so whats wrong with diesm?

>>1999256

is wrong because requires faith ( wich is no reason)

>>1999232
That was a computer simulated brain, actually. The simulation formed a pattern when given a stimulus.

>>1999250
Are you the same person I've been conversing with? Because that description sounds too lame. Sorry. But this all started because he said:
>Consciousness *isn't* neurons. It's a process being carried out by them. It's still a purely material phenomenon. Software running on hardware.
And I stated then that consciousness isn't real.

Seriously? I've been on /sci/ for hours, been following this thread for hours, been watching this guy state that consciousness is observable... so this can't be it.

>>1999259
Deism by definition is the proposition that one can know of God by reason alone. No faith required.

>>1999248

>>wait a second, do you believe in free will?

No.

>>1999238

>>Science discovers both the expected and the unexpected. Newtons corpuscular theory of light was first dismissed by science when the wave theory was developed, and then proven with the photoelectric effect.

And yet that theory was never spoken of by tribal shamans, passed down as legend.

That was my meaning. Mythology has never been vindicated by science, save occasionally for the settings or background figures such as kings and other notable people involved in the stories. The fantastical beings and forces described are never, themselves, vindicated.

>>In a sense, science has proven Minotaurs as well. Most such mythological creatures are theorized to be ancient interpretations of dinosaur bones. The ancients just didn't know exactly how to fit the bones together. We have a better idea of that now.

That isn't science vindicating myth. It's science explaining what ancients mistakenly believed about observed phenomena. The fact that said ancients did in fact observe that phenomena and thus weren't knowingly lying does not mean that science didn't prove their interpretations wrong.

>>1999267

god cannot be known by reason alone because it makes no sense

>>1999259
Deism is not a religion that is set in stone like the others

please do not generalize us

>>1999253

>>The phrase implies you can do more than just notice that you're looking at the same pattern as when you have an outside reason to independently know what the thought is.

We can't read them 'blind', no, but it's accurate to say that we're detecting repeat incidence of previously identified thoughts. The significance for this argument is that it demonstrates that fMRI is, actually, detecting thought.

software is just hardware working in some way

>>1999270
any facts or evidence to back that up?

The fact is that in this universe incredible complexity is created by elegant simplicity

that for me implying intent behind the original laws of physics that run the universe
But i am an agnostic deists and do not claim to know anything

>>1999282

yep, soul is just brain working in some way

like it or not

>>1999287

soul is nothing, is a word

mind is just brain

brain is just brain

you are just brain

>>1999268
>>And yet that theory was never spoken of by tribal shamans, passed down as legend.

True, but the shamans talked about light itself all the time (let there be light, etc.). It simply worked completely differently than they imagined, though it obviously existed. By the same token, the shamans talked about souls all the time. We may find out souls exist too, they just work completely differently than all the religions said they did.

>>1999286

because the universe is beautiful ( or ugly) doesnt mean a god exist

>>1999250
That's absurd. Consciousness can experience itself. The center of the circle can't experience itself. You might be retarded.

>>1999268
>>wait a second, do you believe in free will?

>No.
Then I'm stumped. What could possibly be this consciousness you speak of?

>>1999294
you are missing the point

I mean that the universe works like clockwork

and the elegant simplicity that is the origin of it all implies intent

>>1999268
The fact remains that the Minotaur DID exist, and science proved it. The initial descriptions were just not precise, and we don't use that word for them any more.

You also have to realize, that science is the study of the natural world. It will never prove or disprove things about the spiritual world, because that is outside its field of study. Just like science will never prove a mathematical theorem, as that is likewise outside its field of study.

The point of interaction between soul/mind and brain is on the borderline there. I suspect science will learn things that illuminate this interaction further, but as it can only investigate from the brain side, I would guess that materialist explanations will always be as possible as they are now. Not that they will necessarily be plausible.

>>1999290

>>True, but the shamans talked about light itself all the time (let there be light, etc.).

Because light is a phenomenon that was observable at the time. They did not speak of it being a wave-particle, if they did you'd have a great example of ancient myth vindicated by science.

>>It simply worked completely differently than they imagined, though it obviously existed.

So when we could observe something but not understand how it worked we referenced it in our myths but got the details all wrong. Sounds like we could describe what we were seeing but didn't know shit about the principles at work. Again, no examples of science discovering that the ancients were unequivocally right about any of their mythological beings or forces.

>>By the same token, the shamans talked about souls all the time. We may find out souls exist too, they just work completely differently than all the religions said they did.

We've discovered that what the shamans believed to be a separate essence encompassing your memories, personality, emotions and so on is actually an expression of neurochemical and neuroelectric activity.

Which is to say that they made the best guess they were able to given what they knew.

P.S. Did you know according to some of the earliest recovered writing, the basis for northern cultures' belief in a soul was the way that visible steam rose from the wound of an enemy slain in battle? They thought that was the soul.

>>1999315

no it doesnt, it just imply it works that way

>>1999323
Dude, what the hell?

I've been sitting around waiting for some answers, because you made fun of someone, saying that they believed in ghosts, and you've given no concrete evidence that consciousness exists.

>>1999323
>>no examples of science discovering that the ancients were unequivocally right about any of their mythological beings or forces.

Right, but nobody here is arguing the ancients were unequivocally right about anything. The other guy you're arguing with, assuming it's the anon I'm thinking of, has explicitly rejected Plantinga and whoever, and seems to be simply arguing against materialism and the nonexistance of the soul rather than for Christianity or Islam or any particular ancient religion.

>>We've discovered that what the shamans believed to be a separate essence encompassing your memories, personality, emotions and so on is actually an expression of neurochemical and neuroelectric activity.

Again, this is not to say that a separate essence does not exist, merely that it's tied to the physical body in a way the ancients couldn't imagine. I was the one giving the analogy of the Starcraft CD above. Under that analogy, the soul is certainly quite different than anything the ancients imagined, but still extant.

>>1999320

>>The fact remains that the Minotaur DID exist, and science proved it.

No. Dinosaurs exist. A completely different creature.

>>The initial descriptions were just not precise, and we don't use that word for them any more.

Minotaurs were never thought to look, sound or behave anything like dinosaurs. You are stretching it thin and you know it.

>>You also have to realize, that science is the study of the natural world. It will never prove or disprove things about the spiritual world, because that is outside its field of study.

For that, we have the emerging field of "neurotheology", the study of how our ancestors came to believe in spirits and why we still believe today in spite of evidence to the contrary.

>>Just like science will never prove a mathematical theorem, as that is likewise outside its field of study.

However science makes direct use of mathematics and mathematics is vindicated in the application of principles it assisted in describing and harnessing.

>>The point of interaction between soul/mind and brain is on the borderline there. I suspect science will learn things that illuminate this interaction further, but as it can only investigate from the brain side, I would guess that materialist explanations will always be as possible as they are now. Not that they will necessarily be plausible.

It's not looking good for dualism so far. Who knows what we'll find, but I think when a dualist contemplates being shot in the head or sees someone else in a movie being shot in the head, they understand on some level that the person is dead because a hot lead projectile just scrambled the grey matter that did their thinkin', even if when they become cognizant of the contradiction between this understanding and their mystical beliefs they turn to rationalization or syncretism.

>>1999336

>>Again, this is not to say that a separate essence does not exist, merely that it's tied to the physical body in a way the ancients couldn't imagine

However you rationalize it, provided your definition of "soul" does not include that it is extricable from the brain and continues to be you after that point, I can abide by it.

>>1999331

>>I've been sitting around waiting for some answers, because you made fun of someone, saying that they believed in ghosts, and you've given no concrete evidence that consciousness exists.

http://www.insidestory.iop.org/mri.html

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-05/aps-lai053105.php

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527520.400-firing-on-all-neurons-where-consciousness-comes-f
rom.html?page=1

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/medicine/article7140165.ece


Now I get to watch you rationalize your dismissal of these.

>>1999348
>>provided your definition of "soul" does not include that it is extricable from the brain and continues to be you after that point,

Nope, sorry. One could argue under this view that the soul is extricable from the brain the same way a Starcraft CD and program is extricable from whatever hardware it was installed on.

>>The fact remains that the Minotaur DID exist
no he didn't
there never was an upright walking mammal with horns

>>1999348
Why can't you accept that the soul continues after death of the body, when that's what the evidence suggests?

>>1999362

>>Nope, sorry. One could argue under this view that the soul is extricable from the brain the same way a Starcraft CD and program is extricable from whatever hardware it was installed on.

Ah, I agree, but I accounted for this.

Starcraft, the progam, cannot execute on the CD itself.

>>1999368

>>Why can't you accept that the soul continues after death of the body, when that's what the evidence suggests?

It isn't.

>>1999365
So when you discover that an animal walks on all 4s rather than walking upright as previous thought, it means you've discovered a new creature and that the old one didn't exist? It doesn't mean that your understanding of the animal didn't just get better?

>>1999371
Why are you ignoring evidence that doesn't validate what you think? That's not how science works.

>>1999372
>So when you discover that an animal walks on all 4s rather than walking upright as previous thought, it means you've discovered a new creature and that the old one didn't exist?
Strictly, yes

>>1999369
Hmm...maybe. It's like saying the soul can't "execute," so to speak, by itself, it needs a body to perform. It still exists, however, written on the CD, and will persist even after the hardware is destroyed. In this view, if one believes in reincarnation, you could say the destruction of the body is like the destruction of a PC, and transmigration is like putting the Starcraft CD on a brand-new PC.

>>1999339
>For that, we have the emerging field of "neurotheology", the study of how our ancestors came to believe in spirits and why we still believe today in spite of evidence to the contrary.
What do you mean, "evidence to the contrary?"

Look at it this way:

Imagine you have a one of a kind musical recording in a vinyl record, and you play it on a gramophone. The music is beautiful, meaningful, fluid, certainly seems to have life of its own, to be a phenomenon separate from the machine. You don't even need to see or be aware of the machine to hear and enjoy the music.

"Where is the music?" one might ask. "On the record? In the gramophone? Can you point to the music?" Being that this is analogy and not your own words copied and pasted you won't accept this as anything other than a straw man but I'm comfortable with that, provided you privately understand my meaning.

Yes, you can remove the record and place it in another gramophone, just as we may one day be able to transplant brains. But the music stops during the switch. The record contains the music, physically encoded as grooves, but requires the machinery of the gramophone to be expressed in the way we're accustomed to.

>>1999375
So the velocirapter doesn't exist -- but a different, similar creature with feathers and the same name does exist? Does that make the original velociraptor "myth"?

Now what happens if you set fire to the gramophone? What if the record warps, cracks, and melts?

Where does the music go? Is it transported to some other dimension? Or is it irretrievably lost, as it was only ever physically encoded information being processed and expressed by material mechanism?

>>1999390
>The music is beautiful, meaningful, fluid, certainly seems to have life of its own,
Not to the music. Consciousness is about what experiences life for itself. It's not about what appears lifelike from the outside.

>>1999384

>>What do you mean, "evidence to the contrary?"

Textbook example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage

>>1999390
The problem is, in my view, the gramophone is analogous to the brain, and the record is the soul. Much like the record needs the gramophone to function, the soul needs the physical (brain) to function.

>>1999397
>So the velocirapter doesn't exist -- but a different, similar creature with feathers and the same name does exist?
yes exactly.
The "velociraptor" we thought that roamed the earth some million years ago in fact never did so.
>Does that make the original velociraptor "myth"?
Well, a "misinterpretation" would be more exact, but i would go with myth, too

>>1999410
How is that evidence to the contrary?

>>1999406

>>Consciousness is about what experiences life for itself. It's not about what appears lifelike from the outside.

Why do you seem unable to comprehend or benefit from any analogies that are not your own?

Can consciousness not be like the music in that it appears deceptively lifelike from the outside, and unlike it in that it also appears deceptively lifelike from the inside? From our perspective, we seem to have free will, and we can manipulate our perception of reality with drugs. Isn't that sufficient to suggest that our experience of our own consciousness is not authoritative?

>>1999418

>>How is that evidence to the contrary?

If you didn't understand, finish reading, or read again.

>>1999360
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/medicine/article7140165.ece
No mention of consciousness as you described it. Used the term "conscious" as in "awake."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527520.400-firing-on-all-neurons-
where-consciousness-comes-from.html?page=1
Looks promising, but you need a subscription. Post it.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-05/aps-lai053105.php
Mentions mind, does not define mind, says it is "in" the brain. Where?
States that "love" is "associated" with x region of the brain. No definition of love. What is it?

http://www.insidestory.iop.org/mri.html
This one was not worth it.

Again, no evidence for any such thing as consciousness.

(But that second one looked promising.)

>>1999412

>>Much like the record needs the gramophone to function, the soul needs the physical (brain) to function.

But the record is also material. That was central to the analogy, that information, all information you deal with day to day, is stored and processed physically on some level even if it's not immediately apparent.

>>1999426
I'm familiar with the case. I'm familiar with many ways in which brain structural or chemical changes can alter mood and behavior. My question to you is "how is that evidence to the contrary".

>>1999360
Is anything conscious?

>>1999430

>>I'm familiar with the case. I'm familiar with many ways in which brain structural or chemical changes can alter mood and behavior. My question to you is "how is that evidence to the contrary".

To any observer not predisposed by upbringing or personal conviction to believe in souls, the case of phineas gage clearly supports the conclusion that personality, a necessary element of any coherent definition of soul, is neurochemical and neuroelectric in nature. Something material, that can be disrupted and even obliterated with changes that are predictable, consistent with our understanding of what the various portions of the brain actually do.

>>1999421
>Can consciousness not be like the music in that it appears deceptively lifelike from the outside, and unlike it in that it also appears deceptively lifelike from the inside?
No it cannot. Because something cannot appear a certain way from the inside, unless there is someone inside for it to appear to.

>From our perspective, we seem to have free will, and we can manipulate our perception of reality with drugs. Isn't that sufficient to suggest that our experience of our own consciousness is not authoritative?
I'm not sure what you mean. We can alter our perception of physical reality fairly dramatically with psychedelic drugs. Do you infer from that that physical reality doesn't exist? You can alter your mood with drugs, but throughout everything that you can alter by changing your brain chemistry, the experience is more akin to changing your consciousness's environment than changing your consciousness.

>>1999430
Let's put it simply
Every single piece of evidence points to a natural explanation of all aspects of consciousness (injuries, infections change personality, behaviors, chemicals affect moods, certain ares responsible for different tasks(destroying one area of the brain destroys ability to memorize things, destroying another makes you got blind, yet another makes you emotionless,etc,etc))
there is literally not a single good piece of evidence to suggest that there is anything more to human consciousness that our physical bodies
Therefore, assuming such a thing is not logical (Russel Teapot, burden of proof, etc, etc)

>>1999458
Is anything conscious?

>>1999436
>>1999462
define "conscious"

>>1999432
Ah, but here is where we disagree. The record and gramophone are made of different materials--the record out of vinyl, the gramophone itself out wood, metal, etc. How to put this? One could believe, under this view, that the soul is made out of "non-material" material (essence, phlogiston, whatever) and that the brain is made out of physical material. Both exist, just like the record and gramophone both exist, but are made out of different things (the record out of vinyl, the gramophone out of metal or whatever, the soul out of immaterial substance, the brain out of material neurons, etc.).

>>1999448
It sounds like you're saying that anyone unbias would have the same confirmation bias that you have as a materialist. The cases teaches us what it teaches us -- no more and no less.

You're doing the same thing that enthusiastic Christians do when they say that anyone unbiased would be convinced of God's greatness by witnessing a sunrise. It's not necessarily so.

>>1999427

>>No mention of consciousness as you described it. Used the term "conscious" as in "awake."

That's an illusory differentiation. Conscious thought is waking thought. As opposed to subconscious.

>>Looks promising, but you need a subscription. Post it.

Haven't got one, they make the new ones free then stick up a pay wall after a few weeks. >:|

>>States that "love" is "associated" with x region of the brain. No definition of love. What is it?

Neurochemical response to stimuli that provoke this reaction mainly for reasons relating to evolutionary psychology.

>>This one was not worth it.

Probably because you only glanced at the page when it loaded and didn't scroll down to the fMRI scans of different emotional states.


As predicted, you glanced, you skimmed, and you rationalized. I'd bust my ass hunting for a mirror of that article you seem to feign interest in if I thought you wouldn't pull the same shit when I presented it to you.

>>1999467
You're the one using the word. Geezus, fuck this shit, trip up.

>>1999471

>>The cases teaches us what it teaches us -- no more and no less.

And what it teaches us plainly does support the conclusion that conscious thought is something the brain produces.

>>1999473
Well, for the fourth one, no, I did scroll down and see the fMRI scans.

Look, what is it that you think I'm doing? You're not presenting me with new information. Why read what I've already read?

You said that consciousness is observable and have given no evidence for it. IS ANYTHING CONSCIOUS?

>>1999468

The brain and the body are made of different materials, though. Neurons are a very different sort of cell than muscle cells or bone cells or skin cells. The analogy holds up without making the unjustified leap to immaterial/material.

I'd like you to tell me what your reason is for believing there are souls. You've put me on defense this whole time and it's hard not to think that was deliberate. Let's hear your case for the existence of souls.

>>1999458
You said there is evidence CONTRARY to the existence of the immaterial soul. When pressed for this evidence, you change it to the lack of evidence FOR the existence of the immaterial soul.

There is no evidence against it. The evidence for it can be found in reason itself, and various experiences, and reported experiences throughout the ages.

There is evidence, however, against consciousness being merely material. For example...

http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html

>>1999489

>>Look, what is it that you think I'm doing? You're not presenting me with new information. Why read what I've already read?

I feel like I'm arguing with a brick wall.

>>You said that consciousness is observable and have given no evidence for it. IS ANYTHING CONSCIOUS?

I'm also starting to think you have a special definition of the word conscious.

>>1999473
>>1999499
Okay, I found that article online somewhere else.

I get what you are saying. The article states that there is a unique pattern present in people who are conscious.

Here is another way to put my question. Is anything aware?

>>1999498

>>There is evidence, however, against consciousness being merely material. For example...

I searched the site. I found no peer reviewed journals. When you click on purported evidence it takes you to sub-pages like this: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html which contain anecdotes and attempts at persuasive writing but no medical facts.

This doesn't seem to be a website set up by scientists, contributed to by scientists or used as a resources by scientists. It seems like a repository for dualist apologetics. Like the Discovery Institute or Answers in Genesis, but for the brain.

>>1999493
Me? I'm an agnostic on the matter--no, not an 'agnostic theist' or an 'agnostic atheist,' someone who simply says, "there might be a soul, there might not be. I dunno." Call me a dirty spineless fence-sitter if you like, but you'll have to pardon me if I decline to reciprocate--I think your position of materialism and the nonexistance of souls is justifiable. I just don't think it's conclusively or unequivocally so. If the other anon believes in souls or consciousness or whatever, I believe the proper response to that is to say, "Hmm, I'm not sure, but you *may* be right. We don't know yet at this juncture." I believe this for the reasons I described above (i.e we may discover a soul someday, it simply works differently than any religion postulates).

>>1999509
That's what I figured. You're going to dismiss evidence that challenges your views.

>>1999508
well, I guess you could interpret the word "aware" exactly the same as you do conscious. So, that could lead to problems.

Does awareness exist? Is there any proof that awareness exists?

>>1999499
Okay, gonna go smoke, brb.

You should trip up.

>>1999508

>>Here is another way to put my question. Is anything aware?

It's a sliding scale. I think many of the simplest organisms have no real awareness. They operate on instinct and cannot accurately be said to be aware that they exist or really to think in any meaningful fashion. They're the biological equivalent of BEAM bots: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RB4yy9fu6U

But as you pick out animals with increasingly sophisticated brains or better yet if you could somehow arrange living specimens along our entire evolutionary path, each one a hundred generations older than the last, you could make a stop motion animation from 3D scans of their brains and see the faculties associated with higher thought processes absent at first, then slowly appearing, bit by bit, as evolution forged them by necessity.

>>1999521

>>That's what I figured. You're going to dismiss evidence that challenges your views.

There's no evidence here. It's an opinion piece. The author attempts to persuade you but his citations are all anecdotes.

>>1999528
Okay, I get where you are coming from, which has taken me all of this thread to realize that you are basically dim witted.

You have no evidence that anything is aware, or that awareness even exists. You have no evidence that life exists.

>>1999528
Is this thread actually going to die?

>>1999559

>>Okay, I get where you are coming from, which has taken me all of this thread to realize that you are basically dim witted.

Oh, you. By what measure do I seem dimwitted? Have I conveyed my ideas inarticulately? Is it because you've had trouble understanding them? Because in that case it's just as likely that you're dimwitted and it's why you're struggling to follow.

>>You have no evidence that anything is aware, or that awareness even exists. You have no evidence that life exists.

I'd like some of whatever you're on right now. No evidence that life exists? Shit, you're pretty far gone.

>>1999528
Because I'll leave it open.

>>1999575

If you're going to have a trip, it should be "Hefty".

>>1999574
First off, they're not your ideas at all. And as far as conveying them, I can't stress this enough, you may know the particulars, but I know the generalities. I mean, why would I need to look at the fMRI images of people feeling different emotions? How is that new information to me? Why would you think I wouldn't understand it, or would ignore it?

Consciousness, life, awareness, whatever, it cannot be observed, and when you say it can be, I say "what is it?" and you haven't given me any real answers. I guess you could say, well, that second article listed some pattern which was associated with consciousness, but really, it was just associated with someone's definition of consciousness, which is circular. "We define consciousness to be this thing which we observed, and this thing we observed is consciousness."

Look, if you say that consciousness exists, but DON'T believe in free will, and DON'T believe in a soul, then you must also believe that a computer program can be conscious. Which makes no sense at all. How can dead matter be alive? Emergent principles all you want, but if you thought about it for yourself for one moment you would see that dead matter cannot be alive. What part of you is alive? Which organ? Which system? Which cell? It makes no sense to arbitrarily draw a boundary around yourself JUST EXACTLY where your skin stops, and declare everything outside of it to be dead matter. No, your whole body is dead matter, and not one portion of it is alive. YOU KNOW THIS. You've stated it, its obvious, you've said "a person consists of elements which can be purchased at a drug store."

Pure rationality dictates that nothing is alive.

>>1999574
So why did you take this off the front page?

>>1999574
GOTCHA!

Alright /sci/duck, you have performed honorably, yet I vanquished you.

Who knew?

Anyway, lay a little groundwork before studying all this shit. Forest for the trees, you know?

>then you must also believe that a computer program can be conscious. Which makes no sense at all.
it does, really. computers COULD be consciousness

>How can dead matter be alive?
there is literally no difference between the atoms that make up your body and the atoms that make up a plastic bottle

>Pure rationality dictates that nothing is alive.
"alive" is not defined by being made up of some magical alive matter
it is defined by things like being able to move, breathing and other things
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions

>>1999596
You have no concept of how being alive is defined

>>1999624

>>Alright /sci/duck, you have performed honorably, yet I vanquished you.

Beat your chest harder, I don't feel vanquished yet.

>>1999596

>>First off, they're not your ideas at all.

Earlier in the thread you insisted they were.

>>And as far as conveying them, I can't stress this enough, you may know the particulars, but I know the generalities. I mean, why would I need to look at the fMRI images of people feeling different emotions? How is that new information to me? Why would you think I wouldn't understand it, or would ignore it?

Because you're distorting the results in order to avoid acknowledging their obvious implications.

>>Consciousness, life, awareness, whatever, it cannot be observed, and when you say it can be, I say "what is it?" and you haven't given me any real answers.

I have, about a hundred times, you never acknowledge it. You're talking to hear yourself talk.

>>I guess you could say, well, that second article listed some pattern which was associated with consciousness, but really, it was just associated with someone's definition of consciousness, which is circular. "We define consciousness to be this thing which we observed, and this thing we observed is consciousness."

Well no, you could approach the subject knowing nothing of the human brain, and given the means to scan the interior of his head and experiment with stimulus/reaction, you'd conclude it's behind his reportability, his awareness, his behavior. It wouldn't matter what you called it or how you defined it, as the impartial examination of a machine during operation you could come to the same conclusions.

>>Look, if you say that consciousness exists, but DON'T believe in free will, and DON'T believe in a soul, then you must also believe that a computer program can be conscious. Which makes no sense at all.

I agree, it doesn't, because I don't believe that and don't appreciate being told what I "must" believe. Computers do not "think" in the sense that humans do, not for lack of computational power or due to some difference between deterministic calculation and free will, but because of fundamentally different architecture.

>>How can dead matter be alive?

It isn't dead. Even without cognition you can have life, down to the constituent cells and even some of the components of the cell.

>>Emergent principles all you want,

...but you won't listen, right?

>>but if you thought about it for yourself for one moment you would see that dead matter cannot be alive.

I've evidently given it a great deal more thought than you. How you can define a cell as dead matter and take yourself seriously is beyond me.

>>What part of you is alive?

Every last cell save for the outer layers of my skin, my hair and other chitinous materials.

>>Which organ? Which system? Which cell? It makes no sense to arbitrarily draw a boundary around yourself JUST EXACTLY where your skin stops, and declare everything outside of it to be dead matter.

If that were so we'd live on a dead planet. But no the distinction isn't arbitrary, what distinguishes life from nonlife is pretty clear cut.

>>No, your whole body is dead matter, and not one portion of it is alive. YOU KNOW THIS.

How can I, when it's not true?

>>You've stated it, its obvious, you've said "a person consists of elements which can be purchased at a drug store." Pure rationality dictates that nothing is alive.

I did say that. To make the point that it's how matter is put together that makes it dead or alive. Even a simple autocatalytic chemical replicator is a primitive sort of life, and you can make that from relatively few "dead" molecules, provided they've formed organic compounds via natural processes beforehand. Add a bilipid membrane of the sort that regularly forms around gas bubbles and formerly independent organelles as a symbiote and you've got a relatively modern cell, in baby steps, each with it's own selective advantage. Research "prebiotic evolution" for more info.