consciousness?

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

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.

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.

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?

… 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.

[Annik]

Please read all of my post before stamping your feet by being obtuse:

Now, this isn't to say that all animals are conscious just because they use neurochemicals. It's how the brain and these chemicals interact that is the real star. Baking soda and vinegar are boring until someone puts them together.

[Ryantology]

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

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.

Books store information too. The means of its storage says nothing about the subjective experience of processing information.

Books store information on their own?

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.

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?

[Angrboda]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaFZTAOb7IE

[Neo-Scholastic]

IT MUST BE MAGICAL SOUL MAGIC

You put words in my mouth. Strawman.

But, it's not silly to assert metaphysics when there exists zero evidence of anything metaphysical?

Your naturalistic bias has already precluded you from considering evidence.

It's obvious that what makes one signal different from another is the content in the signal, and the objects transmitting/receiving it.

The content in question is thought in both instances. And you have not provided a distinguishing property that allows one to generate qualia but not the other.

Books store information on their own?

And what is the difference between the two areas of physical storage other than the mode of writing?

You know you're dealing with an intellectual lightweight when you see someone assuming that all statements of faith are 100% equally valid.

Strawman. I never said faith statements are equally valid. Only that yours is absurd. I’ll take that as an admission that your belief is based on faith and not evidence.

YOU CAN'T PROVE IT IS NATURAL RIGHT THIS MINUTE THEREFORE IT DEFINITELY IS NOT

Strawman. I’m only saying that it’s an open question. You will not acknowledge that fact because you have already closed your mind to other possibilities.

[fr0d0]

Give it up already Chad. You've won these points several times over in this discussion.

[Ryantology]

Your naturalistic bias has already precluded you from considering evidence.

There is no evidence to consider.

The content in question is thought in both instances. And you have not provided a distinguishing property that allows one to generate qualia but not the other.

A telephone signal is not a thought.

And what is the difference between the two areas of physical storage other than the mode of writing?

Nothing fundamental. What's your point?

Strawman. I never said faith statements are equally valid. Only that yours is absurd. I’ll take that as an admission that your belief is based on faith and not evidence.

You implied the living shit out of it.

It is a statement that the leap of faith needed to believe a naturalistic explanation is relatively small, because all other suggestions are backed by no evidence of any kind. Your assertion is 100% faith-based, and as such, absurd doesn't begin to describe it.

Strawman. I’m only saying that it’s an open question. You will not acknowledge that fact because you have already closed your mind to other possibilities.

You are entirely incapable of providing a convincing argument that the question is open. Why should I treat your completely, entirely, wholly 100% baseless assertions as if they were anything but the ramblings of a lunatic?

[Rayaan]

I know that our consciousness is most likely a result of chemical and electrical interactions in our brains, and evolution as well, but still I find consciousness to be so much more beautiful than that; I just can't believe that the self-awareness of a collection of stardust particles is exclusively a result of some accidental, probabilistic events occurring on a small planet in this cold and dark universe without having any kind of a planner (and purpose) behind it. It's possible, but seems very unlikely to me.

If you see a number of cards arranged in the shape of a three-story house, would you think that it was created by someone or that it was created merely by the wind?

Which is more likely and why?

[Jackalope]

I know that our consciousness is most likely a result of chemical and electrical interactions in our brains, and evolution as well, but still I find consciousness to be so much more beautiful than that; I just can't believe that the self-awareness of a collection of stardust particles is exclusively a result of some accidental, probabilistic events occurring on a small planet in this cold and dark universe without having any kind of a planner (and purpose) behind it. It's possible, but seems very unlikely to me.

You do realize that this is nothing but an argument from ignorance, correct? I view it as little more than "We don't know, therefore let's let our imaginations run wild" - not that there's anything wrong with imagination, unless it's being used as a proxy for knowledge.

[Rayaan]

You do realize that this is nothing but an argument from ignorance, correct? I view it as little more than "We don't know, therefore let's let our imaginations run wild" - not that there's anything wrong with imagination, unless it's being used as a proxy for knowledge.

Well ... I call that inductive reasoning, not ignorance.