 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)Roger Wilco ...and 291 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614125 Today 4 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
*goes to get food and water* |
||||||||
| Attached picture | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, that was two unneccessary paragraphs. You could well see that I meant you could look at whatever article you'd like and and not find anything other than descriptions of the brains response-system. Any theories are probably as speculative as my own and yours.. I also linked some articles. stop the rhetorics.. I study rhetorics, so I spot it easily, and I'm also aware of "unconcious rhetorics," but the fact that they are used unconsciously won't justify them. now, read the articles and reply to the post instead... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
kind of, yes. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that would reduce all cognitive and creative processes plus feelings , thoughts and dreams to instinct... I've read theories on that before, but I find it hard to believe.. I also find it hard to believe those who claim that animals also only act on instinct and have no feelings and independent thoughts not relating to the gathering of food and "doing your business" (I'll put sex and defecation in the same sack there. I don't normally do that.. haha ha) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it's prrobably the firrst building block. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
instinct or "doing your business?" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Are you admitting that you have no support for your assertion? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I have as much support for my own as any other theory on this has, so as theories on this go, I'm pretty well off... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You don't even know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, do you? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes, I do, but it doesn't matter. you're trying rhetorics again... and you still haven't replied to the post you tried rhetorics on earlier. I think the discussion is dead.. we're stuck on semantics and rhetorics... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
We're stuck on you not supporting your unjustifiable claims. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
did you read the articles? you've made claims yourself.. let's see some justifying. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
And there you go shifting the burden of proof again. Which article says that there's no physical explanation for spontaneous brain activity? Where does it say it? Why don't you just cut and paste the relevant paragraph? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm not shifting the burden of proof. I have already given you proof, and it would now be your task to disprove this proof. The fact that no articles about the physiology of the brain discuss the why should be enough.. it is implicit in the field that no-one knows the why... you don't need explicit proof in all cases. I just think you can't find any articles discussing the why in a physological manner yourself, and you're trying to avoid having to present the same "lack of explicit proof" as I have... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Now you've shifted to a pure argument from ignorance. Because no articles on tectonic plates refute (or even address) the role of venusian exo-crickets, my hypothesis on venusian exo-crickets STANDS. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, yes it does if venusian exo-crickets is a well-known problem in the field and none of the "pure facts" articles on it adress the issue, it is implicit that no-one knows. if there was a largely supported theory on something as important as this, don't you think articles on it would cover it, or at least that articles on these theories would be easy to find? there's nothing ignorant in this; it is in fact a commonly used method when researching the history of mentalities, and a scientific field has its own mentality. now, I've presented you with proof and argued as to why it is valid proof as to the fact that there are no supported theories on why we think, and I've done so several times, just put in different words. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I've presented you with proof No, you've linked to several general-interest lay-person level articles on the brain. Watching you argue is like watching a snake trying to play piano. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you're just being difficult as "science" heads often are in these type conversations. rarely is proof accepted as proof unless it is presented by themselves, and there's nothing wrong with my argument... you just keep asking me for "evidence" after I've given you evidence... I'll say it again: even a lay-man article about the brain would have to include something as important as why we think if there was a largely supported theory on this. if there are no such comments on something as important, it is implicit that there exists no such theory. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Do these slices of brain tissue have souls? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
in Neuron Firing Might be Used to Store Information "The cells in the slice, supplied with oxygen and nutrients, go on behaving as if they were part of a living brain. The general ensemble firing of cells is classified as subcritical (one cell firing leads, on the average, to less one additional cell firing), critical (one firing leads to another firing), or supercritical (a firing leads to two or more cells firing). In this regard, neural cells triggering each other are somewhat like chain reactions among uranium-235 atoms in a nuclear reactor." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
as I said before, I don't believe that there is one single soul for each person, nor just one large soul that is common for everyone. if what I believe is true, and the brain just is the part of the body that recieves the communication from "the soul" (it's not really an accurate description for what I mean with it.. the word "soul" has been tied too much up in specific and often christian meaning), it wouldn't be too far-fetched that those pieces of cultivated brain also could pick up on the communication, would it? Just like when you hold a cell-phone up near a speaker and you can hear the cell-phone communicating with the satellite or whatever it is it communicates with. secondly, these parts of brain could just be reacting to other things nearby.. once again, a mechanistic comparison: hold a magnet up to your screen... I don't know much about electronics, but isn't it so that magnets near electric circuitry can trigger different reactions (at least you're not supposed to put magnets inside computers, and near the processors), and isn't the earth full of magnetism? ...I just now realised that a theory that our thoughts might as well be a bi-product of global magnetism could be derived from this, but wouldn't it then be logical that other creatures would respond to the same waves..? anyway, I just thought of this, and I don't really find it believeable myself... sidetrack. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
But why do fire at all? "Neurons communicate with one another across synapses. This communication is usually chemically mediated by rapid secretion of neurotransmitter molecules. Pre-synaptic neurons (i.e.the neurons which release the neurotransmitter) may produce in the post-synaptic neurons (i.e. the neurons being affected by the neurotransmitter) an electrical stimulation (an electrical excitation) which will spread to the axon hillock generating an action potential which then travels as a wave of electrical excitation along the axon. Arrival of an action potential at the tip of an axon triggers the release of neurotransmitter at a synaptic gap. Neurotransmitters can either stimulate or suppress (inhibit) the electrical excitability of a target cell. An action potential will only be triggered in the target cell if neurotransmitter molecules acting on their post-synaptic receptors cause the cell to reach its threshold potential." Doesn't sound to me much different from the way any organ works - a chemical stimulus triggers activity in cells. In this case, enurons. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
*neurons |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
still: that is much too random to constitute sequential contemplation upon one subject over an extended period of time. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Since you're moving the goalposts, I'm going to assume you concede that there is a physical explanation for spontaneous brain activity. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
still: that is much too random to constitute sequential contemplation upon one subject over an extended period of time. Why do you say it's random? You're talking about systems of cascades of chemical reactions that have been honed by natural selection over the course of 3.5 billion years (when the first fossils of cells are found). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Jesus who? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
moving the goalpost? sure, there is a physical explanation for it, but it's still just a how. why are the neurotransmitter molecules secreted? in what part of the process is the thought concieved? I see why you are having problems with believing in the soul, I truly do, but it's just that I find it extremely unlikely that my thoughts, feelings, and decisions are made by randomly firing electrical components in our brain. (reply to #01623589) I mean that if our thoughts were generated by the spontaneous activity from the brain, it would be difficult for us to keep up a train of thought... wouldn't you agree that if the brain secreted neurotransmitter molecules without there being any meaning to it (it happens spontaneously), that is pretty random? however, if a "sould" (I think I'll take advantage of that thing I do where I always press the d after writing soul and change what I'm talking about to be a sould to get away from the common connections to the word) was telling the brain to secrete these things, it would make more sense for us to be able to keep up, for instance, a discussion like this. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm getting really tired now, so I won't reply more to this thread before tomorrow, I think... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I see why you are having problems with believing in the soul, I truly do, but it's just that I find it extremely unlikely that my thoughts, feelings, and decisions are made by randomly firing electrical components in our brain. When the miracle-believing child learns the mechanical nuts-and-bolts of how a magic trick is performed, the miracle dies instantly in his mind. He is disappointed by the simple mechanics of the illusion. The magic is gone. He preferred the previous gaps in his cause-effect understanding, because those gaps created the "miracles" he enjoyed so much. - David Mills, Atheist Universe |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
to compare thoughts and feelings to a magic trick won't work. they don't share the same characteristics.. thoughts and feelings come from somewhere, and we don't know where, while magic tricks actually have an explanation.. and it definately won't work comparing me to the child in that, as I know the "physical explanations" for it. I just don't believe them to be true based on what I have experienced. Not all things have a physical explanation.. like gravity.. it can't be defined.. many have tried, but no-one knows what it is ('m no authority on this either, but I have been to a few physics lectures (I attend lectures I find interesting), and the lecturer said that there was no "real" theory on gravity, and that the main theories had as many critics as they had supporters). now, articles on gravity can be used to support my previous statement about implicit things. there are important theories on gravity (still only theories, though.. no substantial proof), and they are mentioned in even the simplest of articles about gravity, but a definate definition of gravity is still not included. I think we'll be stuck on this proof stuff for ever, as I don't accept the same evidence as you do (I'm part rationalist, and only believe what my conscience tells me is right) and you don't accept the same evidence as I do (you believe in what you are told based on scientific studies performed by authorities on the field). I'm not going to say one is better than the other, and I have been reluctant to say that I have the answers (which I don't, and you've noted my reluctance), but I do not believe that science have all the answers (yet) either. When proof that my conscience tells me is "trustworthy" appears, I may change my opinion, and I guess you would too if the correct piece of evidence showed up. Anyway, it's been a nice discussion, and it may even continue beyond this point, but I'm going to stop living in this thread as much as I have... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Fleetmouse, I'm not ignoring your posts on infomation increase, I'm researching them. As for the idea of conciousness as a process, I've heard this in another form: The mind is something the brain does. This statement along with your own can only lead to the idea of conciousness as an illusion or as completely dependant on the physical makeup of the brain. If conciouseness is an illusion, 'a neat trick', how can you have any confidence in knowledge gained through observation? I don't see a way out of this paradox. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"A thorough reading and understanding of the Bible is the surest path to atheism." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm assuming you speak from personal experience? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The interesting thing is, no matter how well anything is ever explained to you, you will always scrounge up another little lacuna of ignorance to pop your mangy soul into. Myths, legends and fables, being nonexistent, have no mass and occupy no space such that an infinite number of them can be packed into a cavity no larger than a thimble, as your brain-pan admirably demonstrates. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Mertens, do you agree that we have minds and are able to gain knowledge through observation, irrespective of the nature of those minds? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ignorance has nothing to do with this any more than you use ignorance to deny the soul. the interesting thing is how "science" people think everyone who doesn't believe science has all the answers are stupid.. you'd probably call the people in the middle ages stupid, wouldn't you? basically, anyone with a different view on things than you are ignorant and stupid and morons, aren't they? actually, everyone who hasn't come out of your mothers womb at the same time as you are stupid, aren't they? classifying the sould as a myth, legend or fable won't hold up.. the sould manifests itself in everyday life.. it gives you thoughts, feelings and stuff like that. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You sound angry. lower threshold for aggression and aggression raises stress hormones |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, you've been increasing your insult to content ratio, so I thought I'd follow it up, you trolling bearded man. no hard feelings, though... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Whoops, now there goes the dopamine! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
let's have sex |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I have a headache. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh, baby, you always say that... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think that's the central point on which we disagree. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
But you can only conclude that there's a soul if you have evidence that the mind has certain properties that make it "real" and "able to gain knowledge through observation", correct? That evidence doesn't exist for you and not-exist for someone else who has a different explanation for it! Consciousness is an observed phenomenon, like rain or electricity. And like those phenomena you can develop natural or supernatural explanations depending on your predilections (whether the natural or supernatural view has had more success illuminating the world is left as an exercise for the reader). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Actually I don't believe in the soul as a seprate entity somehow 'inside' us. The word soul is derived from the Hebrew word ,nephesh, which means to breathe. In this sense, we ARE souls, that is, living creatures. I agree that consciousness is an observed phenomenon albeit a recursive one(self awareness). Also, not everything we observe has a physical explanation(representation by a mathmatical model). I have no problem with the physical explanation of the how we see, hear, think, but there is no physical explanation of how we aquire a physical explanation. As for the models themselves, they do not capture the experience of what they represent. This lead me to believe the the mind has no physical existance but is real nonetheless. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
there is no physical explanation of how we aquire a physical explanation. You'll have to be more specific. If you answer this post at all, let this be the point you respond to because it's the most interesting. As for the models themselves, they do not capture the experience of what they represent. Of course not - if the models were perfect they would be the things they are modeling. And human existence doesn't come with a guarantee that we'll be able to understand and model everything, even imperfectly. This lead me to believe the the mind has no physical existance but is real nonetheless. Well yes, because it's not a thing but an activity, in my humble opinion. It does seem to be rather dependent on one particular organ though. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
In other words, there can be no mathmatical model for the act of thought. To illustrate, the symbols we use to represent logic(math) or communicate thought(language) are only responsible for their transmission, not their generation or origin. If they were, translation and therefore this conversation would be impossible. If that is true about language and math which originate with the mind, it is also true about the mind's relation to the brain. BTW Sorry for the delay, I'm at work and a bit distracted. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
In other words, there can be no mathmatical model for the act of thought. First of all, that's a pretty strong positive statement. How could you prove such a thing? Does cognitive science say that mathematical models for thought are impossible? If you have a specific reason why "man will never walk on the moon" I'd like to hear it. Second of all, a model doesn't have to be 100% isomorphic in order to be valid. The models are models, not the things themselves. We abstract general rules from specific cases - it would be nice to be able to reconstitute the specific cases from the general rules but not being able to do so (e.g., to construct an AI) doesn't mean that those general rules are invalid. We can't create lifesize tectonic plates but we have a pretty good idea what they're about. Thirdly, the lack of a current "perfect" naturalistic explanation does not mean that the supernatural explanation is true - that's both an and a . Our current knowledge of gravity is kind of sketchy but that doesn't mean it won't improve or that we should abandon physics and assume that invisible gravity-demons are behind it. To illustrate, the symbols we use to represent logic(math) or communicate thought(language) are only responsible for their transmission, not their generation or origin. If they were, translation and therefore this conversation would be impossible. If that is true about language and math which originate with the mind, it is also true about the mind's relation to the brain. That's a nasty mess of vagueness and non-sequiturs. Try again when you aren't at work because there's no way I'm wading into that. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
look, guys, it seems to me that this whole argument could 300! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
