Moderates.

[Anonymous No.3385022]

They say they're accepting of science. But they really mean evolution. When you bring up other findings that conflict with parts of Christianity they're not prepared to part with, suddenly they start denying scientific findings for religious reasons. Using the same arguments we've heard from creationists, applied to a different field.

The real kicker is that they hold fast in their belief that nothing in science contradicts what they believe, even after they've just finished selectively denying certain findings in an argument. And it's never findings unrelated to their beliefs, only ones that post a threat to them. Gee, I wonder what the motivation is.

[Anonymous No.3385046]

They aren't even accepting of evolution.

Various surveys done of theists have only a tiny fraction, ~3%, accepting evolution by random mutation and natural selection.

The 'evolution believing' ones believe that god shaped the whole thing through magic, which is groundless, useless as a theory and is incredibly unscientific.

[Anonymous No.3385047]

If I were him I'd've buttfucked you for

1. suggesting there is any kind of scientific theory of consciousness and
2. suggesting that the existence of laws allowing for a spontaneous universe generation does not solve the fucking problem.

I'm not an idiot; I know 'GOD HUR DUR' doesn't solve these problems either. But they are major philosophical questions, please stop pretending you've got them worked out.

[Anonymous No.3385049]

[Anonymous No.3385065]

>>3385047

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16775-consciousness-signature-discovered-spanning-the-brain.ht
ml

Also

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2004_09_27_newsweek.html

[spectral !SmULsZQKBg No.3385083]

>>3385049

[Anonymous No.3385123]

>>3385065
right, consciousness is the result of the entire brain, not a single neuron or a little man sat in an armchair. i think anybody who wasn't a retarded descartian theist could have told you this.

still gives us no idea about what exactly it is that makes consciousness arise. a computer calling on all areas isn't conscious. a bureaucracy spread over an entire building isn't conscious. still have no idea how to answer questions like the teleporter paradox.

[Moderate No.3385138]

>soul

You used the word "soul" which is an ambigious term and also means that your ideas are not back up by science so you are in fact discussing religion, I realize atheists don't believe in souls and pretend they are not a religion but the fact you mentioned it means you are discussion religion even if you are right about everything.

http://www.4chan.org/rules#sci
>No "religion vs. science" threads.

[Moderate No.3385147]

>soul

You used the word "soul" once which is an ambigious term which means that your ideas are not backed up by science and you are in fact discussing religion, I realize atheists don't believe in souls and pretend they are not a religion but the fact you mentioned it means you are discussing religion even if you are right.

http://www.4chan.org/rules#sci
>No "religion vs. science" threads.

[Anonymous No.3385173]

I'm assuming you guys realise what you're talking about only applies in turkey and the US, right? the rest of the world have Christians who don't reject science

[Anonymous No.3385178]

>>3385123

>>still gives us no idea about what exactly it is that makes consciousness arise.

Uh, yes it does. The coordinated action of every portion of the brain.

>>a computer calling on all areas isn't conscious. a bureaucracy spread over an entire building isn't conscious.

Because of architectural differences. We designed it to crunch numbers, not think. Efforts are now underway to emulate a mammal brain down to individual neurons (google "Darpa SynApse). This should prove my point to any reasonable person's satisfaction although I expect some will still hold out until they produce one that is human level intelligence, and even then some will deny that it's truly conscious.

>>still have no idea how to answer questions like the teleporter paradox.

Word games won't hold up against a conscious emulation of a human brain running on computers.

[OP No.3385179]

>>3385173

see

>>3385049

[Anonymous No.3385184]

>>3385173

>>I'm assuming you guys realise what you're talking about only applies in turkey and the US, right? the rest of the world have Christians who don't reject science

The developed world, sure. But the third world Christians are overwhelmingly creationists, which skews the numbers in an unfortunate direction.

[Anonymous No.3385187]

>>3385173

>>I'm assuming you guys realise what you're talking about only applies in turkey and the US, right?

There are Christians who accept a self-causing universe and don't believe in souls?

[Anonymous No.3385202]

>>3385179
Nope. It's entirely possible to believe the Jesus story without needing the original sin, as you would know had you talked to a moderate Christian about it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/originalsin_1.shtml

>>3385184
most third world citizens are are :/
>>3385187
Dualism isn't impossible with the current scientific model, just not evident. Many, including many secular people, would argue (quite wrongly) that consciousness couldn't arise without some kind of extra-physical woo.

[Anonymous No.3385216]

>>3385202

>>Nope. It's entirely possible to believe the Jesus story without needing the original sin, as you would know had you talked to a moderate Christian about it.

From your own link:

>>"Christians believe that when Adam and Eve sinned in Eden and turned away from God they brought sin into the world and turned the whole human race away from God."

[Anonymous No.3385218]

You're stupid.
The way modern day monotheistic religions work precludes falsifiability by scientific (or any) means.

You realize people in persitent vegetative states are considered to have souls, right? Otherwise the right to pull the plug on them wouldn't be so controversial. They sure as hell don't have consciousness.

How is this neurobiology any more of a problem than any physical aspect of the soul ever was? The concept of afterlife is very much steeped with the idea that souls can see and feel and talk without physically having eyes or skin or mouths. So why couldn't they think or feel without a brain?

And there's no model of the universe that you can present someone that will disallow the question "yeah but how did it start?" and so the creationist has the exact same argument he always did

>10/10 made me respond

[Anonymous No.3385225]

>>3385123

I don't see the "paradox" in the teleporter paradox. It's pretty fucking straight-forward.

[Anonymous No.3385231]

>>3385216
From my own link:
A modern interpretation

>A modern interpretation of the fall might go like this:

>Adam was created in the image of God with the potential to be perfectly fulfilled through his existence and his relationship with God.

>But Man failed to fulfil his potential and opted to go it alone and estrange himself from God.

>Jesus as the "Second Adam" re-established the relationship with God and showed how man can become perfectly human - which puts him in right relationship with both the creator and his creation.

[Anonymous No.3385239]

>>3385218

>>The way modern day monotheistic religions work precludes falsifiability by scientific (or any) means.

What are you calling "modern day"? Picking out a statistically insignificant ultra liberal oddball denomination and pretending that it's the definitive form?

>>You realize people in persitent vegetative states are considered to have souls, right? Otherwise the right to pull the plug on them wouldn't be so controversial. They sure as hell don't have consciousness.

Your argument seems to be "Lots of people believe in souls". Yes, absolutely. That's consonant with my argument. Why do you think it isn't?

>>How is this neurobiology any more of a problem than any physical aspect of the soul ever was? The concept of afterlife is very much steeped with the idea that souls can see and feel and talk without physically having eyes or skin or mouths. So why couldn't they think or feel without a brain?

They can't. Souls don't exist. That's the point.

>>And there's no model of the universe that you can present someone that will disallow the question "yeah but how did it start?" and so the creationist has the exact same argument he always did

That's answered to any reasonable person's satisfaction in Stephen Hawkings' "The Grand Design". Victor Stenger and Lawrence Krauss have also written excellent books summarizing the evidence for an autocatalytic universe.

If you're arguing that moderate Christians will always deny these findings, I don't disagree, that's my entire point.

[Anonymous No.3385244]

>>3385178
>> Uh, yes it does. The coordinated action of every portion of the brain.

You stupid son? We have no idea how the brain works on a functional level, so saying we know consciousness is the coordinated activity of the brain is as useful as saying 'because of the coordinated activity of the blob'. We have no idea what the activity is. And no it isn't 'all of the brain', stop derping, what does this even mean? You think somebody is not conscious if they're not using their auditory brain systems?

>> Because of architectural differences. We designed it to crunch numbers, not think. Efforts are now underway to emulate a mammal brain down to individual neurons (google "Darpa SynApse). This should prove my point to any reasonable person's satisfaction although I expect some will still hold out until they produce one that is human level intelligence, and even then some will deny that it's truly conscious.

> Not actually contradicting what I said.
Obviously it's because of differences, what a non-answer. The question is what precisely are the required differences, and nobody knows. Additionally, emulating something is in no way equivalent to understanding it. I am sure a brain in silico will be as conscious as a brain in vivo, but that's not relevant to what I said.

>> Word games won't hold up against a conscious emulation of a human brain running on computers.

Does prevarication count as a word game?

[Anonymous No.3385245]

>>3385231

That's a transparent rationalization though. I guess if that sort of thing doesn't bother you...

[Anonymous No.3385252]

>>3385231
>if evolution is true, the creation story is a myth
>if the creation story is a myth, adam never existed.

[Anonymous No.3385255]

>>3385244

>>You stupid son?

Incapable of politely arguing a topic, son?

>>We have no idea how the brain works on a functional level

Except that we do. We don't know everything, but claiming we know nothing is false and extremely disrespectful to neurobiologists who have given us the findings we have so far.

>>so saying we know consciousness is the coordinated activity of the brain is as useful as saying 'because of the coordinated activity of the blob'. We have no idea what the activity is. And no it isn't 'all of the brain', stop derping, what does this even mean? You think somebody is not conscious if they're not using their auditory brain systems?

I pretty much predicted this in the comic. You're finding elaborate ways to deny scientific findings and rationalize it. Of course you think you have valid reasons for doing so. So do creationists.

[Anonymous No.3385261]

>>3385245
Everything in science is transparent rationalisation. My point is that there are christians who accept science

Two of the smartest people I know are Christians. Between them they have 5 doctorates. One of them is a relatively well known psychologist, and the other is working in the field of wirelessly controlled solar powered passive LEDS which are currently being field tested in supermarkets
>>3385252
well spotted.

It's possible to believe that man evolved and did not fulfil expectations and still be within the realm of Christianity.

[Anonymous No.3385267]

>>3385261

>>Everything in science is transparent rationalisation.

Spoken like a true Christian. So much for being accepting of science.

[Anonymous No.3385268]

>>3385239
God and his supernatural constructs (souls) are defined as being unobservable by every religion from Hinduism to Christianity to Islam to Jainism

Which makes them unfalsifiable. It also doesn't mean you don't accept any scientific theories, it simply means you attach extra-scientific views to them.

You can't prove that there's not an invisible, unobservable presence which emulates our biology and exists once our physical self is gone. Its not a good scientific theory, but its not and cant be disproven by any scientific findings

[Anonymous No.3385272]

>>3385244
I'll just butt in here and say you're ignorant? You are.

[Anonymous No.3385274]

>>3385268

>>Which makes them unfalsifiable

Unless they assert things about the natural world.

[Anonymous No.3385277]

>>3385267
please explain how science is not the process of rationalisation. I'm an anti theist.

[Anonymous No.3385279]

>>3385261

>>Two of the smartest people I know are Christians.

You seriously don't understand that this is a fallacy? You, personally, know some smart Christians. So what? They're what we call statistical outliers.

[Anonymous No.3385281]

So, if you're defining "acceptance of science" as a hardline skepticism to anything not falsifiable, you'd be right, you can't be that and religious.

But if its as simple as accepting that the universe could be autocatalytic or that our "self" is governed by brain chemistry then the one doesn't preclude the other

[Anonymous No.3385282]

the creation story is so full of inconsistencies that even if we were unaware of evolution to explain the diversity of life i still would not believe the christian creation story.

how cold an all powerful god create an imperfect creation that is capable of sinning? he would create their entire person, encluding all their desires and ambitions.
worse, an omniscient god would know exactly what was going to happen with his creation. he would create it knowing full well if it would sin, and then make it anyway.
why would god even make a tree of knowledge of good and evil? if he doesnt want the fruit to be eaten then he tree serves no purpose, so why would god even make it? just to be a douchebag? just to tempt one of his creations with another of his creations?
if god was omniscient then all these little tests serve no purpose because god knows eactly what will happen anyway, so the tests dont even need to be done, like when he trolls abraham and tells him to kill his own son isaac. an omniscient god would know that abraham will obey, so what is god even trying to prove?

[Anonymous No.3385283]

>>3385282
*could

[Anonymous No.3385284]

>>3385279
What's the point of this thread again?
>to say that moderate Christians accept science
What am I doing
>providing a valid counter-example
This is by no means exclusive to these two people.

[Anonymous No.3385290]

>>3385279
Smart people can still hold cognitive dissonance, they've just never thought about their beliefs and what they require

[Anonymous No.3385295]

>>3385281

>>So, if you're defining "acceptance of science" as a hardline skepticism to anything not falsifiable, you'd be right, you can't be that and religious.

I expected this. A wild exaggeration. No, I am not demanding hardline anything. Only tentative acceptance of scientific findings rather than selective denial on the basis of which ones threaten your religious beliefs. Denying the findings of neurobiology and particle physics because you're comfortable with evolution but not with the nonexistence of souls or a self causing big bang is most certainly the latter.

>>But if its as simple as accepting that the universe could be autocatalytic or that our "self" is governed by brain chemistry then the one doesn't preclude the other

It isn't just that the self is governed by brain chemistry. Read this: http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2004_09_27_newsweek.html

And Christians cannot, will not accept an autocatalytic big bang without trying to shoehorn God in at some prior point. They *refuse* to be wrong. And to think, they call atheists arrogant.

[Anonymous No.3385296]

>>3385290
I met them on an alpha course and threw every single question I know of for showing up flaws in Christianity. Every one except "what's the evidence" was answered satisfactorily.

[Anonymous No.3385299]

>>3385274
That depends on what you mean. What assertion about the natural world do you think it takes to believe religious things?

Jesus coming back to life is an example I think you might use. But of course, he can do that because of supernatural elements and those elements are unobservable and unfalsifiable, so the effect those have on the natural world is also unfalsifiable.

[Anonymous No.3385300]

>>3385284

>>This is by no means exclusive to these two people.

Do I really need to post a century worth of studies corroborating the same result, that atheists are smarter than theists on average? I imagine you'd just reject them.

[Anonymous No.3385307]

>>3385299

>>That depends on what you mean. What assertion about the natural world do you think it takes to believe religious things?

The soul requires direct interation between the supernatural and natural. It is testable in principle, and efforts to do so are underway: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7621608.stm

[Anonymous No.3385318]

ITT: Atheist says moderates selectively deny scientific findings and rationalize it

Moderates respond by selectively denying scientific findings and rationalizing it

[Anonymous No.3385323]

Christianity really makes no fucking sense.
even if adam were real, for god to just presume sin can be passed down through the bloodline makes him a colossal jerk. every new person should start with a clean slate. if they haven't personally committed any crime then how can they possibly be found guilty for anything?
and just believing in christianity and accepting jesus as your master magically makes you saved and deseving of heaven? how does that work?
so a person who was a serial rapist and mass murderer all his life and then accepts jesus as his master, gets to go to heaven, but A kind and charitable sceptic deserves to burn in hell for all eternity?

even if this were the case, it basically means that the entire point of jesus's life if for god to send himself to earth to kill himelf as a sacrifice to himself to change his own mind and decide that this spilling of innocent blood magically ofsets all humanities sins.
why even go to all teh trouble of setting up this whole contrived series of events when the end game move is to just forgive humanity of their sins. if god wanted to do that, why not just do it. he can do anything, he's god!
secondly, its hardly even a sacrifice if you are resurected 3 days later. what did god even lose? nothing, he can reverse death and presumably make hundreds of jesus clones out of nothing if he wished. its hardly a sacrifice.

[Anonymous No.3385332]

>>3385300
>Post saying that I know of several Christians who are not at odds with science
>receive condescending reply with unrelated argument
I'll reply because I'm bored

>a century
Things from before about 1990 are not relevant.
>atheists smarter than theists
Firstly, cite something other than IQ tests.
Secondly, intelligence and acceptance of science aren't in any sense the same thing, and don't even correlate that well.

[Anonymous No.3385333]

>>3385295
>I expected this. A wild exaggeration. No, I am not demanding hardline anything. Only tentative acceptance of scientific findings rather than selective denial on the basis of which ones threaten your religious beliefs. Denying the findings of neurobiology and particle physics because you're comfortable with evolution but not with the nonexistence of souls or a self causing big bang is most certainly the latter.

Simply untrue. Saying that God made it so that the big bang could cause it self isn't denying the big bang caused it self. Saying that there are souls doesn't deny how neurons and synapses work. In fact, eastern religions very much think meditation has an effect on the soul; so when meditation changes the brain activities that (in their mind) mimick the soul, that doesn't contradict them whatsoever

[Anonymous No.3385340]

I like to think of this as a preview of the future.

Right now the big controversy is evolution. And you've got moderates and atheists both laughing at the stupid creationists.

But soon the new controversy will be over neurobiology. And suddenly the moderates won't be laughing anymore. They'll find themselves using the same tactics and arguments that the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis use today, and probably have their own analogous institutes to churn out plausible sounding studies and make movies like "Expelled", but about neuroscience vs. metaphysical dualism.

That's gonna be fun to watch.

[Anonymous No.3385344]

>>3385307
>The soul requires direct interation between the supernatural and natural. It is testable in principle, and efforts to do so are underway:

That experiment won't say anything about a link between the physical and supernatural worlds, it will just prove that people who have near-death experiences and come back aren't having genuine out of body experiences

[Anonymous No.3385354]

>>3385333

>>Things from before about 1990 are not relevant.

Why?

>>Firstly, cite something other than IQ tests.

The studies include a wide variety of metrics other than IQ tests.

>>Secondly, intelligence and acceptance of science aren't in any sense the same thing, and don't even correlate that well.

This is false, according to the studies.

Also, all of your objections were predicted by me ages ago. Here's the copy-pasted "common objections list":

[Anonymous No.3385358]

Common objections:

"But IQ tests are meaningless." These studies use a wide variety of different metrics of intelligence.

"Must be a narrow sample size" Actually these studies sampled from all walks of life, the only common factor being some sort of achievement most associate with high intellect.

"I found one study that has questionable wording or methodology, therefore the entire list is invalid." No, you're free to dismiss that one study, but the rest of the list remains.

"Some of these show inconclusive results!" Yes, that's because in the interest of honesty I included every study on the topic from the 1920s to the 1970s.

"These studies are from like the 1920s, and therefore invalid." See above, they continue into the late 1970s. Here are some more recent studies:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14765500/Average-intelligence-predicts-atheism-rates-across-137-nations-Ly
nn-et-al

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201004/why-atheists-are-more-intel
ligent-the-religious

[Anonymous No.3385361]

And "testable in principle" is a useless idea if its untestable in fact.

read some dan dennett

[Anonymous No.3385368]

>>3385344

>>That experiment won't say anything about a link between the physical and supernatural worlds, it will just prove that people who have near-death experiences and come back aren't having genuine out of body experiences

But that result would, in fact, be saying something about a link between the physical and supernatural worlds. It would be proving that near death experiences are not evidence for it.

[Anonymous No.3385370]

>>3385255
> I pretty much predicted this in the comic. You're finding elaborate ways to deny scientific findings and rationalize it. Of course you think you have valid reasons for doing so. So do creationists.

wtf are you doing please? When did I 'deny scientific findings'? I said there is no proper scientific theory of consciousness yet. As per every time I've had this conversation before you've backed into a corner and admitted that we don't know very much at all, so why are you still talking?

I notice you didn't even try to justify your extreme philosophical naivety in the statement about spontaneous universes.

[Anonymous No.3385376]

>>3385361

>>And "testable in principle" is a useless idea if its untestable in fact.

I should've just said testable in fact. Because they are, I even provided an example that you seem to have ignored.

>>read some dan dennett

I have.

[Anonymous No.3385393]

>>3385354
They're irrelevant because of significant social change. Since 1910 natural selection has gone from being accepted by Christians to rejected, to accepted once more.

Then cite. You know as well as I that I don't really need to ask.

>Didn't raise this
>Didn't raise this
>Didn't raise this
>Didn't raise this
1970 is still 40 years ago. You can't seriously expect data from almost half a century ago to be accepted, surely?

I'm already aware of the correlation of intelligence/wealth/education & secularism.

[Anonymous No.3385405]

>>3385370

>>wtf are you doing please? When did I 'deny scientific findings'? I said there is no proper scientific theory of consciousness yet.

First of all, this is a classic creationist argument. Specifically, god of the gaps. Although in this case it's "soul of the gaps". Secondly, all currently available information is consonant with naturalistic cognition and none is supportive of a soul. It takes extreme religious bias to conclude that a soul exists anyway.

>>As per every time I've had this conversation before you've backed into a corner and admitted that we don't know very much at all, so why are you still talking?

I don't believe you and I have had this discussion before. I've had it with others but that isn't how it turned out. It wound up with them becoming abusive and then leaving. It's possible that was you, and that you imagine it having played out differently due to egoism, but it didn't.

>>I notice you didn't even try to justify your extreme philosophical naivety in the statement about spontaneous universes.

Should I even ask what you mean by this?

Bottom line is, if you don't accept the position of neuroscience, I don't care what your rationalization is. Creationists think they have good reasons for denying science too, and you are what might be called a neo-creationist.

[Anonymous No.3385415]

>>3385393

>>1970 is still 40 years ago. You can't seriously expect data from almost half a century ago to be accepted, surely?

I'm already aware of the correlation of intelligence/wealth/education & secularism.

Not just secularism. Atheism. I posted three studies from recent years at the bottom of this post: >>3385358

I predict you will find flimsy reasons to reject them.

[Anonymous No.3385421]

>>3385393

>>They're irrelevant because of significant social change. Since 1910 natural selection has gone from being accepted by Christians to rejected, to accepted once more.

If the results remain steady in spite of that change, doesn't that strengthen his case?

[Anonymous No.3385427]

>>3385231
The idea of a modern day interpretation of a divine revelation being more accurate than the original revelation invalidates the whole thing.

[Anonymous No.3385445]

>>3385421
No, it shows the exact opposite. If Christian acceptance of science has changed while Christian intelligence has stayed constant, then there's clearly no correlation

>>3385415
I conclude that you make bad predictions. The studies are fine.

[Anonymous No.3385455]

>>3385427
That's your opinion, not a fact.

[Anonymous No.3385457]

ITT: Neocreationists struggling to justify themselves

[Anonymous No.3385462]

>>3385445

>>No, it shows the exact opposite. If Christian acceptance of science has changed while Christian intelligence has stayed constant, then there's clearly no correlation

Hm, well played. But presumably we agree that in general the intelligent are more inclined towards atheism even if a few intelligent christians are out there?

[Anonymous No.3385470]

>>3385445
It's never been about intelligence, I think.

Rejection of science is based on how much they believe the bible is the word of god, which is itself based on long term social factors. You can be very smart, but if you are taught wrong growing up you will always have some useless or harmful preconceptions that keep you from really thinking about things rationally.

[Anonymous No.3385472]

>>3385455

>>That's your opinion, not a fact.

Know what's also opinion and not fact? Pic related, what you actually believe.

[Anonymous No.3385480]

>>3385455

I don't think so. It would be as though I 're-interpreted' Newtons laws of physics to fit what we now know about the physical world. I cannot insist that Newton was actually right all along, just the people of that time weren't able to comprehend it.

[Anonymous No.3385482]

>>3385462
I agree completely. Holding a religious belief is logically flawed.
>>3385470
It's partially to do with intelligence, there's certainly a factor of it in that respect. It is mainly societal, though.
Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan

>>3385472
>us vs them
>ad hominem
>straw man
Well done.

[Anonymous No.3385504]

>>3385480
It has been widely accepted for several centuries by a significant number of people that the bible could be taken in a metaphorical sense. Few of them insist the bible is scientifically accurate when newly interpreted.

[Anonymous No.3385511]

>>3385462
No you want to assume that so you can feel good about yourself. Its really just a social game people like to play. Its a controversial enough topic that people feel inclined to stake out a position for themselves and that positions just happens to be what makes them feel the most pleasure, the safety of a loving God, superiority of a rational mind, so on so forth.

[Anonymous No.3385526]

>>3385482

How is that a straw man? It's an illustration of a soul, drawn by someone who sincerely believed in souls.

[Anonymous No.3385532]

>>3385511

>>No you want to assume that so you can feel good about yourself.

I see you've rejected these studies, then?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14765500/Average-intelligence-predicts-atheism-rates-across-137-nations-Ly
nn-et-al

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201004/why-atheists-are-more-intel
ligent-the-religious

[None !!tLaOZt43dp7 No.3385537]

>>3385526
You're implying I'm a dualist, which is offensive
>>3385532
That's a different poster. Assuming tripcode now,

[Anonymous No.3385544]

>>3385022

neurobiology doesn't know shit about consciousness

which is intrinsically linked to christian's crazy idea of a "soul"

so until neurobiology says anything definite about consciousness it is irrelevant..it has yet to even define it or propose a possible way to "detect it"

lol..neurobiology is like 16th century medicine at this point...totally worthless in the case of consciousness

[Anonymous No.3385553]

>>3385544

>>neurobiology doesn't know shit about consciousness

Uh, yes it does. A link was posted earlier about that.

>>so until neurobiology says anything definite about consciousness it is irrelevant..it has yet to even define it or propose a possible way to "detect it"

God of the gaps argument, a favorite of creationists.

>>lol..neurobiology is like 16th century medicine at this point...totally worthless in the case of consciousness

False, and besides which there's still the matter of emotions and memory, which HAVE been definitively proven to be functions of the brain. A soul without either wouldn't be 'you'.

[None !!tLaOZt43dp7 No.3385557]

>>3385544
Who is Christian?
Neurobiology and neuroscience in general is the best that we have for understanding the brain, and is more in line with our model of the universe than anything else.

[Anonymous No.3385559]

>>3385504

We all agree that is a metaphorical work, and not accurate to what we know about history or science.

But we also know the the original authors did not consider it metaphorical. They wrote it down because they thought it was true and important. They thought the world really did begin in six days. That there was a firmament above the clouds and the moon and the sun. That the whole world flooded. That men can be born of virgins and come back from the dead.

You say that we know better than to believe this stuff now, but that the bible is still somehow correct? That calls for a very, very loose interpretation of the bible. So loose, I would say, as to make the thing useless as anything more than a historical document.

[Anonymous No.3385571]

>>3385544

We do know that every thought, every decision, every action, every emotion and every memory can be localised within the physical processes of the brain.

What is left to be explained by the soul?

[Anonymous No.3385577]

>>3385553
>False, and besides which there's still the matter of emotions and memory, which HAVE been definitively proven to be functions of the brain

Doesn't matter when the prime observer and conduit of those emotions (consciousnes) is 100% mystery and unexplainable by any theory in neurobiology yet.

>God of the gaps argument, a favorite of creationists.

You must be confused. Simply stating a limitation of a field of science isn't God of the gaps unless you inject God into that limitation--which I didn't.

Neurbiology is shit when it comes to consciousness, it can't locate it, it can't define it, it can't propose a possible way to even work with it or experiment on it---maybe in the future it will be able to, but until then it is useless in this particular discussion. 100%

[Anonymous No.3385578]

>>3385544
So, Neurobiology is entirely "irrelevant" because it has yet to tackle consciousness? Science may as well be "irrelevant" because it has yet to "detect" what happened before the big bang.

[None !!tLaOZt43dp7 No.3385585]

>>3385559
Don't be ridiculous, the bible isn't useful as a historical document.

I get your point, and I agree- Interpreting the bible to fit a more modern ethical standard isn't sensible. I don't know of, and have not heard of, any valid counterargument to this other than that god deliberately made things like that.

[Anonymous No.3385586]

>>3385571

The soul explains as much about consciousness as modern neurobiology does. (hint: nothing)

Obviously neurobiology is the key...in like 200years maybe.

But considering we can't even properly talk about consciousness without making it sound metaphysical and mysterious, we have a long way to go.

[Anonymous No.3385591]

>>3385578

It's irrelevant to appeal to neurbiology TODAY to talk about consciousness---it knows nothing, YET

[None !!tLaOZt43dp7 No.3385594]

>>3385586
What makes you think consciousness exists?

[Anonymous No.3385596]

>>3385577

>>Doesn't matter when the prime observer and conduit of those emotions (consciousnes) is 100% mystery and unexplainable by any theory in neurobiology yet.

But that's false. And exactly what I'm talking about when I say science denial. You're doing it right now.

>>You must be confused. Simply stating a limitation of a field of science isn't God of the gaps unless you inject God into that limitation--which I didn't.

You injected souls into it. The implication was that deficits in neuroscience make room for the existence of a soul without contradicting anything yet known about the brain. This is a classic god of the gaps argument.

>>Neurbiology is shit when it comes to consciousness

No it's not.

>>it can't locate it

In the brain.

it can't define it

The coordinated action of every portion of the brain.

>>it can't propose a possible way to even work with it or experiment on it

Except they have, and they experiment with it every day.

>>---maybe in the future it will be able to, but until then it is useless in this particular discussion. 100%

You are a brazen liar.

[Anonymous No.3385599]

>>3385577

>>Doesn't matter when the prime observer and conduit of those emotions (consciousnes) is 100% mystery and unexplainable by any theory in neurobiology yet.

But that's false. And exactly what I'm talking about when I say science denial. You're doing it right now.

>>You must be confused. Simply stating a limitation of a field of science isn't God of the gaps unless you inject God into that limitation--which I didn't.

You injected souls into it. The implication was that deficits in neuroscience make room for the existence of a soul without contradicting anything yet known about the brain. This is a classic god of the gaps argument.

>>Neurbiology is shit when it comes to consciousness

No it's not.

>>it can't locate it

In the brain.

>>it can't define it

The coordinated action of every portion of the brain.

>>it can't propose a possible way to even work with it or experiment on it

Except they have, and they experiment with it every day.

>>---maybe in the future it will be able to, but until then it is useless in this particular discussion. 100%

You are a brazen liar.

[Anonymous No.3385606]

>>3385591

>>It's irrelevant to appeal to neurbiology TODAY to talk about consciousness---it knows nothing, YET

How do you explain this, then?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16775-consciousness-signature-discovered-spanning-the-brain.ht
ml

[Anonymous No.3385608]

>>3385405
> First of all, this is a classic creationist argument. Specifically, god of the gaps. Although in this case it's "soul of the gaps".

Funny you mention god of the gaps, that being a classic example of a false dichotomy, which is what you're doing. I'm not religious at all, and as to souls; this is called kamikazeing your argument into the cliffs. Soul is not defined, I have no desire to talk about souls with you so why have you brought up this inane word?

>> I don't believe you and I have had this discussion before. I've had it with others but that isn't how it turned out. It wound up with them becoming abusive and then leaving.

Cool, whenever I've had it with biofags I've asked them extremely simple questions about how the brain works functionally and they've fucked off.

> Should I even ask what you mean by this?

> Bottom line is, if you don't accept the position of neuroscience, I don't care what your rationalization is. Creationists think they have good reasons for denying science too, and you are what might be called a neo-creationist.

Awesome, ad-hominems and lies, I like where this is going. What the fuck does creationism have to do with anything? And why did you find my sentence so hard to understand? Look, it's easy: the 'problem' is that we think the universe should have some kind of cause, that things can't spontaneously arise. Godfags say God is allowed to do that. Obviously that's bullshit. This new thing going round where people say 'the laws of the universe say that universes can arise spontaneously due to quantum fluctuations' is also bullshit however because it totally misses the philosophical point; you've just moved things a step backwards, like theists. Now you have to explain where those laws came from.

[Anonymous No.3385610]

From the article:

>>Electrodes implanted in the brains of people with epilepsy might have resolved an ancient question about consciousness.

>>Signals from the electrodes seem to show that consciousness arises from the coordinated activity of the entire brain. The signals also take us closer to finding an objective "consciousness signature" that could be used to probe the process in animals and people with brain damage without inserting electrodes.

>>Previously it wasn't clear whether a dedicated brain area, or "seat of consciousness", was responsible for guiding our subjective view of the world, or whether consciousness was the result of concerted activity across the whole brain.

>>Probing the process has been a challenge, as non-invasive techniques such as magnetic resonance imaging and EEG give either spatial or temporal information but not both. The best way to get both simultaneously is to implant electrodes deep inside the skull, but it is difficult to justify this in healthy people for ethical reasons

Let's contrast this with what you wrote:

>>(consciousnes) is 100% mystery and unexplainable by any theory in neurobiology yet.

[Anonymous No.3385614]

>>3385594
>What makes you think consciousness exists?

Nothing. I'm just going along with the conversation as if it does.

>>3385599
>The coordinated action of every portion of the brain. (consciousness)

lol are you 12? that's the most useless definition that can be applied to anything at all, including muscle stimulation and ejaculation. GTFO troll 2/10

[Anonymous No.3385616]

>>3385614
>lol are you 12? that's the most useless definition that can be applied to anything at all, including muscle stimulation and ejaculation. GTFO troll 2/10
...Are you an idiot?

[None !!tLaOZt43dp7 No.3385618]

>>3385616
I think he's an idiot.

>let's make this thread a shit flinging contest

[Anonymous No.3385619]

>>3385608

>>Cool, whenever I've had it with biofags I've asked them extremely simple questions about how the brain works functionally and they've fucked off.

I felt a nagging suspicion that you were equally intolerable in person.

>>What the fuck does creationism have to do with anything?

It's the source of many of the arguments you've used.

>>And why did you find my sentence so hard to understand?

I understand, it's just bullshit.

>>Look, it's easy: the 'problem' is that we think the universe should have some kind of cause, that things can't spontaneously arise. Godfags say God is allowed to do that. Obviously that's bullshit. This new thing going round where people say 'the laws of the universe say that universes can arise spontaneously due to quantum fluctuations' is also bullshit however because it totally misses the philosophical point; you've just moved things a step backwards, like theists. Now you have to explain where those laws came from.

Only if you use an anthropomorphic definition of 'law'. They can also be called 'properties of existence', and exist uncreated.

[Anonymous No.3385649]

>>3385610
>contrast this

there is no contrast they are saying exactly what i am...

they just said a big "what if" as if it resolves something..."if we could place electrodes deep in the brain then maybe we would learn something...but we cant cuz of ethics"

well that's a nice what if...and they still agree with me that they have yet to find out anything

lol EEG to find consciousness...god damn these neurologists are dumb as shit, but hey--they gotta try anything even if they have no hypothesis to even test

[Anonymous No.3385652]

>>3385586

The only reason 'consciousness' seems metaphorical and ridiculous is because of the intractable problem of perspective.

When it comes to matters of free will, personality, hopes, dreams, fears, loves, hates, and every terrific thing of life, it can already be found in the meat.

Perspective is the hard problem. Everything else is simples.

Now, if the soul is simply the perspective, well, then fine. But why call it something with so much baggage when you mean something specific.

[Anonymous No.3385660]

>>3385649

>>and they still agree with me that they have yet to find out anything

No they don't.

>>Previously it wasn't clear whether a dedicated brain area, or "seat of consciousness", was responsible for guiding our subjective view of the world, or whether consciousness was the result of concerted activity across the whole brain.

>>Because this activity only occurred in volunteers when they were aware of the words, Gaillard's team argue that it constitutes a consciousness signature

>>He says they provide the "first really solid, direct evidence" for his own theory.

Did you even read it?

>>lol EEG to find consciousness...god damn these neurologists are dumb as shit, but hey--they gotta try anything even if they have no hypothesis to even test

Anti-science attitude, as predicted.

[Anonymous No.3385663]

>>3385649

People have stimulated the brain, though. Guess what? It causes a change in thoughts and behavior.

And people can observe the natural experiments of brain damage. And guess what? They cause a change in thoughts and behavior.

[Anonymous No.3385666]

>>3385649
>they gotta try anything even if they have no hypothesis to even test

that's the problem, rofl...consciousness is so mysterious they can't even make up a coherent hypothesis to test.

neurobiology is about as useful as plumbing when it comes to explaining consciousness...probably have to wait 500years for it to be useful, oh well...at least it can work with simple things like CNS and brain damage and shit

but consciousness lol, no chance...and if anyone disagrees post a ground breaking theory that explains consciousness how it operates what gives rise to it and some tests that can detect it---oh ya, this is 2011, not 2511

nvm

[Anonymous No.3385672]

>>3385663

yes, what is your point? People knew this for hundreds of years, getting drunk changes behavior...

yet explains nothing about consciousness

[Anonymous No.3385675]

>>3385666
0/10
Giggled at "simple things" like the CNS and brain damage, though.

[Anonymous No.3385682]

>>3385672
Define conciousness in a way in which it can be experimentally verified, since you disagree with our definitions.

[Anonymous No.3385686]

>>3385672

It explains the lions share of what people consider consciousness. It explains that the things that make you you are located in the physical brain.

It leaves only the inconsequential kernel of subjective, perspective experience. That is the hard problem.

[Anonymous No.3385688]

>>3385672

>>yet explains nothing about consciousness

Proves that it is local to the brain and can be altered via natural means. A supernatural soul shouldn't be affected by natural alcohol.

[Anonymous No.3385694]

>>3385686

>>It leaves only the inconsequential kernel of subjective, perspective experience. That is the hard problem.

Right, but that alone isn't enough to save metaphysical dualism. We have 99 pieces of the puzzle and so far it depicts a sailboat. It's not like we'll add the last piece and the picture will turn out to be of a barn.

[Anonymous No.3385696]

>>3385682
>Define conciousness

lol that's not my job, that's the job of the neurobiologists studying it and failing miserably

as far as I can tell it has something to do with facilitating subjective awareness which is a 1st person phenomena and not really open to 3rd person observation...so it might be inherently impossible to empirically test it...I dunno

there's also a difference between consciousness and self-consciousness, V.S. Ramachandran gave a good reason for this, I can't remember it atm.

[Anonymous No.3385699]

>>3385619
Thanks for the bullshit. Just letting you know: you're not an intellectual. You're a bored kid with nothing to do but debate theists. I tried to instil in you some philosophical questioning but everything I said, which was, by the way, basic epistemology, you dismissed as 'classic creationist arguments' even after making it completely clear I have no sympathy for religion and my arguments had absolutely nothing to do with that. You need to stop being so fucking obsessed with religious idiots if you ever want to broaden your horizons.

[Anonymous No.3385703]

>>3385694

Hence why I call myself an inconsequential dualist.

That the experience of a subjective perspective has no effect on the physical world. But the physical world explains everything up to and including why we claim to be conscious, and our internal conversations and palette.

[Anonymous No.3385704]

>>3385696
We did define consciousness. We tested consciousness. We verified it within our definition.

There is no argument.

[Anonymous No.3385709]

>>3385699

>>Thanks for the bullshit. Just letting you know: you're not an intellectual.

Never said I was.

You're a bored kid with nothing to do but debate theists.

I'm 27 and work at JPL.

>>I tried to instil in you some philosophical questioning but everything I said, which was, by the way, basic epistemology, you dismissed as 'classic creationist arguments' even after making it completely clear I have no sympathy for religion and my arguments had absolutely nothing to do with that.

Because at several points you factually did employ arguments that have been used by creationists towards their own ends. Philosophy, outside of science, is bullshit by the way.

>>You need to stop being so fucking obsessed with religious idiots if you ever want to broaden your horizons.

It's incredibly presumptuous to assume that I'm the one whose horizons need broadening. Rarely is that said by anyone who is actually in a position to. Those with a larger base of experience see themselves as always in the process of broadening their horizons and don't assume superiority to anyone else in that respect.

[Anonymous No.3385710]

>>3385696

They have defined most of it and explained much of it.

You don't like it because you are convinced that it must be something more meaningful, something supernatural. That somehow human beings are special and set apart. It's an understandable religious impulse, but it's not particularly useful.

[None !!tLaOZt43dp7 No.3385712]

>>3385696
You've effectively nullified every argument you have made about consciousness so far.

[Anonymous No.3385714]

>>3385704

Where and when did this happen?

Is this 4chan's own theory? lol /sci/

[Anonymous No.3385715]

>>3385709
>I'm 27 and work at JPL.
Bull-fucking-shit.

[Anonymous No.3385719]

>>3385709
> Philosophy, outside of science, is bullshit by the way.
>PHILOSOPHY IS BULLSHIT
>Except the part of it I like
Ok, dumbass.

[Anonymous No.3385721]

>>3385710

Show me their working definition and experimentation on consciousness

>implying it isn't absolute horseshit at the moment

>I bet it conflates memory and emotions with consciousness LOL