(February 17, 2013 at 2:53 pm)genkaus Wrote: So, you got any actual arguments to make or what?No. It would be pointless to present anything until you recognize that naturalistic explanations of consciousness are not explanations at all, but rather insane delusions build on absurdities.
(February 17, 2013 at 3:29 pm)Annik Wrote: We know that thoughts are communicated through electrical and chemical signals through neurons…Telephones communicate our thought through electrical and chemical processes, too. What is the difference between a telephone signal and a neural one? It’s kind of silly to assert that one set of signals causes conscious while another does not if you cannot say what makes them so.
(February 17, 2013 at 3:29 pm)Annik Wrote: We know, vaguely, how our brains store information.Books store information too. The means of its storage says nothing about the subjective experience of processing information.
(February 17, 2013 at 3:29 pm)Annik Wrote: Scientists were able to record a thought in a living zebrafish's brain.Yesterday I saw a traffic signal turn red and all the cars stopped. Did I see a thought happen?
(February 17, 2013 at 3:29 pm)Annik Wrote: … we need our brains to experience consciousness.You cannot prove or disprove that statement. Any fair-minded person can see that this is a faith-based assumption.
Getting to the issue of brain chemistry, it is clear that changes in brain states affect experience just as much as experience changes brain states. That does not mean that brain states ARE experience. That’s a big huge unbridgeable gap that naturalists ignore and pretend does not exist. Or they say that someday maybe someone will be able to explain it by physical processes because, gee, it’s just so complex. You’re confusing a scientific problem with a metaphysical one.
