RE: consciousness?
February 17, 2013 at 5:14 pm
(This post was last modified: February 17, 2013 at 5:15 pm by Ryantology.)
ChadWooters Wrote: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.
Wow, says the guy whose alternative explanation is IT MUST BE MAGICAL SOUL MAGIC
Quote: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.
But, it's not silly to assert metaphysics when there exists zero evidence of anything metaphysical?
It's obvious that what makes one signal different from another is the content in the signal, and the objects transmitting/receiving it.
Quote:Books store information too. The means of its storage says nothing about the subjective experience of processing information.
Books store information on their own?
Quote: You cannot prove or disprove that statement. Any fair-minded person can see that this is a faith-based assumption.
You know you're dealing with an intellectual lightweight when you see someone assuming that all statements of faith are 100% equally valid.
Quote: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.
YOU CAN'T PROVE IT IS NATURAL RIGHT THIS MINUTE THEREFORE IT DEFINITELY IS NOT
Are you really this retarded, or are you a Poe?
