Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Quote:Ok, so you're arguing for something that's independent of natural processes in that first paragraph, it's supernatural/magic, gotcha.
On some occasions, for the sake of argument I argue for the supernatural, however, the most accurate representation of my position is that there are no real supernatural events. All activity is natural, however all activity does not comply with the rules which govern material activity. In this sense materialists have hijacked the word "Nature" .
Quote:You argue that all things that can't be proven to exist in a state independent of physical processes, should be discounted, and then go on to argue for the existence of a consciousness. Am I to infer that consciousness HAS been proven to exist independent of physical processes (proof please)? So you're arguing for the existence of a consciousness, which isn't natural, but supernatural?
I am arguing that Consciousness has a relationship with material, however, it survives this relationship and it also preceded the relationship.
There are those who have vehemently argued that the brain produces consciousness, however, studies conducted by the scientific community have demonstrated that while the brain is dead, and the heart is not functioning, in many reported cases consciousness survives. I posted a link to a lecture given by Dr. Parnia relating to his investigation into near Death Experiences and the temporary survival of consciousness while a person is clinically dead. No Brain activity or heart function, no other functions of the organs.. If you listen carefully to the last 45 seconds of this video you will hear Dr. Parnia say that he and other Doctors have conducted studies wherein people who were dead were resuscitated and were able to report with great accuracy exactly what was happening in the room.
Quote:Also: Why are you discounting thing's that can't be proven (Especially when it can't be proven that this consciousness exists)? It can't be proven to exist, nor can it be proven to not exist, unless it is impossible (triangles with 7 sides and what-have-you).
I think this thread before it is over will help convince you that consciousness exists...
(May 22, 2011 at 12:05 pm)Whirling Moat Wrote: Peace...
This video, with the accent and all..is seriously flawed...
Here is a quote taken from 00:52 of the video "Without evidence from the cube itself, we can only ever make valid justifiable statements about what is not inside the cube"
He goes on to say at 01:12 "What if we were talking about a realm of existence independant of universe that like the cube is physically inaccesible to us, would things be different, would we be able to deduce precisely what occupies such a realm.."
According to his logic any statement about what the object must be is flawed since without looking into the cube the possiblities are endless. This is very ridiculous when you apply this reasoning to the being which created the universe. If we are asking "Who created the process by which everything comes into existence" the possibilities for what is inside the cube is limited not endless. There could be no wooden spoon or ant or egg or anything else in there...The only thing which could be in the cube would be something which is not a product of the physical creation process.
The question would be, "What created everything?" Are the possibilities endless? No....We would have to subtract from the possibilities everything which cannot be proven to exist independent of physical processes. That leaves us with one real thing-Consciousness. Consciousnesss must be in the box.....
Whirling Moat
The question "would we be able to deduce precisely what occupies such a realm.." was followed by "such as a divine being.." and he stated that while we can list countless numbers of beings that could not exist.. We could not list those that do... I'm not sure if you followed what the person was saying.. The analogy stopped at "knowingness" and did not progress into comparing material items in this universe ..
As it stands consciousness is a property of matter..
Otherwise you would need to provide evidence that consciousness exists outside of being created by, supported by matter.. (You'd have to prove it exists in another realm and know its properties in that realm as well) AND that this consciousness is not inert... AND that this consciousness existed prior to material life.. AND describe the type of environment wherein this consciousness resides outside of the material universe.. AND that this consciousness has the ability to create material life from its non material existence... AND that this particular consciousness is the only of its kind.. AND that this particular non inert non created by or supported by consciousness created the laws of physics that make up the current universe as we know it..AND that periodically this consciousness becomes incarnate..
But that's your own separate belief system..
The video was simply saying that one does not have the ability to state conclusively anything about the realm outside of this one especially as it relates to the concept of "god"..
I'm not sure your statement is specific enough for my tastes. As it stands consciousness is predominantly a property of matter, but not entirely. It's not nearly as conclusive as you're making it out to seem. There was a very long and recent thread about that.
I think the video was simply saying that one does not have the ability to use logic of evidence conclusively about the realm outside of this one, which is flawed. You can have logical or illogical things outside of this universe, but the author obviously had no interest in the logically possible, yet emperically unevidenced.
I did a search.. I did not see where someone proved that consciousness is independent of matter.. Are you suggesting that there is evidence of an immaterial world that is not created or supported by matter?
I don't understand your last paragraph.. please clarify..
I went over this ad nauseum in another thread about souls in another thread. Until you eliminate all possibility that information can be attain or processed without brain function, you can't suppose that the the all of the mental constructs (materialists call mind, some religious call souls and differintiate from personality and processing) is completely dependant on the brain. Death is a process for sure, but at what point does the mind cease? If there is even once case of verifiable information after this point (which is yet to be defined) then that would indicate a non-materialistic brain-mind consciousness. As of yet science is still trying to define that point I believe. one of many sites (it was top of my google search) But I don't think it's nearly as definitive as you're making it seem.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
May 26, 2011 at 10:00 am (This post was last modified: May 26, 2011 at 11:09 am by Whirling Moat.)
Peace...
Quote:Replace the cube analogy with say, my clenched fist and I ask you "What am I holding in my hand?", without any evidence you have no basis to assert anything, be it a shiny coin, or nothing at all, but you may infer logic to remove what is impossible for me to be carrying, for example it is impossible for the fictional monster Godzilla to be in my hand hidden from your view.
I completely get the analogy, the cube, the fist..yeah I get it...Without having evidence there is no point at which to reasonbly begin guessing. Got it...
Now..Let say we stick with your clenched fist and we begin reducing the possibilities by everythingelse in the world, and then the solar system, and then the galaxy, and then the cluster of galaxies, and then we say everything in the universe except your clinced fist and lets say Eli Manning's Superbowl ring..Thats it..Now what is in your clinched fist?
Quote:Why a who? Why do you ask "Who" created the process by which reality can come to be and not "What".
Okay..."What"..doesn't change much, but okay..
Quote:You are missing the point of the experiment, wooden spoons, ants or eggs are not logically impossible, they manifest in reality, they actually do exist, we gave them labels and definitions. You have no basis to remove these logically possible items from the list of what might be inside the cube without evidence first.
You are missing the point...lets say the question was asked about the cube at .00001 seconds after the rupture of the Singularity...It would very unreasonable to say that a spoon or egg or anything of the would be in the box. The question we are trying to figure out is what is in the box where nothing created existed? The only reasonalbe choice would be to place in the box the only reality which would not have resulted by the material creation of the Universe..like beauty, meaning, et al...The only problem would be the argument that all of these things exist because of materiality...We can have these discussions, however we have to get to this point first.
(May 26, 2011 at 9:59 am)tackattack Wrote: I went over this ad nauseum in another thread about souls in another thread. Until you eliminate all possibility that information can be attain or processed without brain function, you can't suppose that the the all of the mental constructs (materialists call mind, some religious call souls and differintiate from personality and processing) is completely dependant on the brain. Death is a process for sure, but at what point does the mind cease? If there is even once case of verifiable information after this point (which is yet to be defined) then that would indicate a non-materialistic brain-mind consciousness. As of yet science is still trying to define that point I believe. one of many sites (it was top of my google search) But I don't think it's nearly as definitive as you're making it seem.
Please read my post carefully..
I did not say brain function was needed for mental constructs.. I said I did not see where someone proved that consciousness is independent of matter.. and then I asked.. Are you suggesting that there is evidence of an immaterial world that is not created or supported by matter?
No, I'm suggesting that there is no scientific evidence for consciousness independent of the brain (matter). I wouldn't expect there to be scientific/ materialistic evidence on such. There is however experiential and verifiable indicative evidence, that most materialists choose to ignore to support knowledge outside of the functioning of the brain as we currently understand that matter to work. As long as the evidence type matches the type of proof I see it as valid evidence, but I'm sure many here don't and would require substantial proof for substantial claims. However, I might add, that how much difference to the wold (in an individualistic experiential, not societal understanding) being flat or being round actually have? Little, IMO, and a far more disparate number of people believe in/ don't believe in the concept of a soul or consciousness outside matter. I don't think it stretches reason much at all, but I'm probably more biased than anyone will give me credit for, and wouldn't require the huge mountains of objective evidence professed by the nay-sayers.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
May 26, 2011 at 2:23 pm (This post was last modified: May 26, 2011 at 3:16 pm by Eudaimonia.)
(May 26, 2011 at 1:13 pm)tackattack Wrote: No, I'm suggesting that there is no scientific evidence for consciousness independent of the brain (matter). I wouldn't expect there to be scientific/ materialistic evidence on such. There is however experiential and verifiable indicative evidence, that most materialists choose to ignore to support knowledge outside of the functioning of the brain as we currently understand that matter to work. As long as the evidence type matches the type of proof I see it as valid evidence, but I'm sure many here don't and would require substantial proof for substantial claims. However, I might add, that how much difference to the wold (in an individualistic experiential, not societal understanding) being flat or being round actually have? Little, IMO, and a far more disparate number of people believe in/ don't believe in the concept of a soul or consciousness outside matter. I don't think it stretches reason much at all, but I'm probably more biased than anyone will give me credit for, and wouldn't require the huge mountains of objective evidence professed by the nay-sayers.
Tack,
Please note.. My position relates to matter.. not brains (specifically).. your argument re. consciousness and the brain is not one that should be positioned my way...
Also, I am unsure of your definition of materialist.. I'd like to know to see if your definition regarding materialists applies to me .. It seems you have a lot of assumptions about me and are arguing those assumptions rather than strictly what I have presented..
It is my understanding that the scientific method allows for rigorous theories of many things that can not be sensory experienced.. but I am unaware of any study that indicates that an immaterial world exists.. Assuming they are rigorous and peer reviewed.. I would be interested in being directed towards such studies...
(May 26, 2011 at 1:13 pm)tackattack Wrote: No, I'm suggesting that there is no scientific evidence for consciousness independent of the brain (matter). I wouldn't expect there to be scientific/ materialistic evidence on such. There is however experiential and verifiable indicative evidence, that most materialists choose to ignore to support knowledge outside of the functioning of the brain as we currently understand that matter to work. As long as the evidence type matches the type of proof I see it as valid evidence, but I'm sure many here don't and would require substantial proof for substantial claims. However, I might add, that how much difference to the wold (in an individualistic experiential, not societal understanding) being flat or being round actually have? Little, IMO, and a far more disparate number of people believe in/ don't believe in the concept of a soul or consciousness outside matter. I don't think it stretches reason much at all, but I'm probably more biased than anyone will give me credit for, and wouldn't require the huge mountains of objective evidence professed by the nay-sayers.
Tack,
Please note.. My position relates to matter.. not brains (specifically).. your argument re. consciousness and the brain is not one that should be positioned my way...
Also, I am unsure of your definition of materialist.. I'd like to know to see if your definition regarding materialists applies to me .. It seems you have a lot of assumptions about me and are arguing those assumptions rather than strictly what I have presented..
It is my understanding that the scientific method allows for rigorous theories of many things that can not be sensory experienced.. but I am unaware of any study that indicates that an immaterial world exists.. Assuming they are rigorous and peer reviewed.. I would be interested in being directed towards such studies...
You doubt whether the immaterial world exists? That is probably because you fail to understand the implications of quantum physics.
Here is an article written by a Professor at John Hopkins University relating to the Quantum nature of Creation...Read the last paragraph carefully where he says this " The Universe is immaterial, mental and spiritual. Live and enjoy". http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf
Please note.. My position relates to matter.. not brains (specifically).. your argument re. consciousness and the brain is not one that should be positioned my way...
Also, I am unsure of your definition of materialist.. I'd like to know to see if your definition regarding materialists applies to me .. It seems you have a lot of assumptions about me and are arguing those assumptions rather than strictly what I have presented..
It is my understanding that the scientific method allows for rigorous theories of many things that can not be sensory experienced.. but I am unaware of any study that indicates that an immaterial world exists.. Assuming they are rigorous and peer reviewed.. I would be interested in being directed towards such studies...
Ok fine I completely admit to some basic assumptions about the average atheist I come across on this site, because frankly it save tons of time.
Perhaps you could answer this: Where/What in your understanding is the seat of consciousness? What are the attributes that constitute consciousness?
To answer your question, I define Materialsim in the strict sense as the theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of observable matter and physical phenomena.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
(May 26, 2011 at 8:42 am)Whirling Moat Wrote: On some occasions, for the sake of argument I argue for the supernatural, however, the most accurate representation of my position is that there are no real supernatural events. All activity is natural, however all activity does not comply with the rules which govern material activity. In this sense materialists have hijacked the word "Nature".
And you suppose spiritualists ingeniously improved the word 'Natural' by adding the prefix "Super" to it? Because nothing has explanatory power in describing reality until you remember to include 'Super' or 'Spirit' into the description?
This concludes my super-response.
Quote:There are those who have vehemently argued that the brain produces consciousness, however, studies conducted by the scientific community have demonstrated that while the brain is dead, and the heart is not functioning, in many reported cases consciousness survives. I posted a link to a lecture given by Dr. Parnia relating to his investigation into near Death Experiences and the temporary survival of consciousness while a person is clinically dead. No Brain activity or heart function, no other functions of the organs.
Bullshit. What kind of idiots do you take us for? There's a difference between being assessed as "clinically dead" and actual brain-stem death. Guess which one is irreversible?
