Atheism, Theism, Science & Philosophy

[Fidel_Castronaut]

No response to my post, love? No wukkas. In your own time :-)

[Creed of Heresy]

Yeah. You guys have fun with this guy. Trying to have a rational discussion with someone who openly states that rationality is irrelevant is a waste of time. My advice, which you may choose to disregard if you may (but I promise you it will improve your lives greatly) would be to just let this bleating lamb go unanswered.

[downbeatplumb]

Yeah. You guys have fun with this guy. Trying to have a rational discussion with someone who openly states that rationality is irrelevant is a waste of time. My advice, which you may choose to disregard if you may (but I promise you it will improve your lives greatly) would be to just let this bleating lamb go unanswered.

I'm sure they'll run away coz of the "nasty atheists" soon, this one is the delicate little flower.

[Whateverist]

Whether or not it was intentional is arguable.

Read the entire "Post: #29" on page 3 from Creed, and you will see why he/she is going to be ignored. This user is a spiteful, arrogant and discourteous individual who seems to take pleasure in being extremely aggressive. In his/her signature it states: "Creed of Heresy's kill-count: Al-Fatihah, JesusSaves, ibm.somethingorother, Gilgamesh - 2 weeks. Don't fuck with me, I'll gladly see your ass banned and I won't think twice about causing your forcible departure." I rest my case.

I can see why you think that. Though, I think it is irrelevant.
Your opinion of Creed shouldn't lead you to disregard his arguments, because they may be valid.

Right is right; regardless of whether or not you like the person.

In his shoes I would also ignore Creed. Whether or not any of his arguments are valid, why should I wish to converse with someone who is so openly hostile to anything I have to say? ["Right is right"? Really? Sounds like something some shallow fundamentalist would say.]

I'm pretty embarrassed about the tenor of this thread. More often a theist will show up spouting trite bible passages interpreted literally. Those who engage that kind of poster will strive to get them to concede anything at all with no success.

Here we have a theist who starts off conceding that the bible is not the revealed word of god, that the significance of Jesus is not the magic of his sacrifice and that creationism is bunk. Why is everyone so anxious to drive him off? Makes me think we only deserve to attract the stupidest theists to this site. Maybe that's all most of us want, theists who live down to our expectations.

Count me out. Enjoy your lynching.

[Love]

Incidentally, the reverse theory, that consciousness can exist absent a brain, would also be ridiculed, unless you can provide any evidence of it. You've made, or at least alluded to, this claim; care to take us through your reasoning for thinking so? Given that, as you say, a number of the functions of the mind/brain are still beyond science, how would you go about proving that one can exist without the other?

Also, for something you claim is beyond reason, science sure has learned a lot about concepts like love and the brain states that evoke such feelings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_basis_of_love

I wouldn't be so quick to declare what is and isn't within the purview of science; history has a habit of proving people who talk like that wrong.

I concur absolutely that making the sweeping statement of: "consciousness can exist absent a brain" would also be ridiculed also. I think reasonable speculation without the need for firm conclusions is the key for topics of this level of complexity.

I spend of lot of time researching topics that are often refuted by mainstream science. For instance, parapsychology (psychokinesis, ESP, remote viewing and astral projection) are considered to be clandestine, and are very well hidden from the general public. There exists in the public domain official U.S. (and former Soviet Union) declassified documents that infer this is an area of great interest and research to the military. I have also viewed peer reviewed academic literature on the subject of the brain being a receiver of consciousness. There are also the obvious anecdotal testimonies of people who claim to have experienced NDEs and OBEs et cetera. I also watched a documentary in which an MD from United States stated that a blind patient had an OBE and could see her unconscious body being operated on, and confirmed this by identifying medical aparatus, for example. Obviously, none of this is "proof" as it is only in mathematics that something can truly be "proved", but there is some intriguing evidence in what I have described.

Indeed, in nuclear medicine an electron microscope can be utilised to analyse the synapses of individual neurons, in which the neurotransmitter system resides; correlations can be studied. In essence, however, all this really shows is that certain neurotransmitter systems (involving dopamine, serotonin, norepinephrine and oxytocin) are somehow involved in this process of experiencing love. Again, this is an example of extreme material reductionism and makes no account for the actual subjective "experience" of love. In my view neural correlations and reductionist mathematical models are the closest science will ever come to explaining what love and consciousness really are. Again, I quote from Aristotle: "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts". The holistic experience of love, which can include "how it works" in a material sense (the biological basis of such), is a much richer way of perceiving love than reductionist rationalism can provide.

[Joel]

In his shoes I would also ignore Creed. Whether or not any of his arguments are valid, why should I wish to converse with someone who is so openly hostile to anything I have to say? ["Right is right"? Really? Sounds like something some shallow fundamentalist would say.]

That's true, but that's not what I'm saying.
You don't have to converse with someone you don't like, but you shouldn't disregard their argument just because you don't like them. Your opinion of someone does not invalidate their argument.
So what if it's something a fundamentalist would say? Right is right, after all...

[thesummerqueen]

The tone of this thread isn't all that bad, whateverist, and having a different belief in bullshit from others is no reason to give someone special leniance.

[The Grand Nudger]

Incidentally, the reverse theory, that consciousness can exist absent a brain, would also be ridiculed, unless you can provide any evidence of it. You've made, or at least alluded to, this claim; care to take us through your reasoning for thinking so? Given that, as you say, a number of the functions of the mind/brain are still beyond science, how would you go about proving that one can exist without the other?

Also, for something you claim is beyond reason, science sure has learned a lot about concepts like love and the brain states that evoke such feelings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_basis_of_love

I wouldn't be so quick to declare what is and isn't within the purview of science; history has a habit of proving people who talk like that wrong.

I concur absolutely that making the sweeping statement of: "consciousness can exist absent a brain" would also be ridiculed also. I think reasonable speculation without the need for firm conclusions is the key for topics of this level of complexity.

I spend of lot of time researching topics that are often refuted by mainstream science. For instance, parapsychology (psychokinesis, ESP, remote viewing and astral projection) are considered to be clandestine, and are very well hidden from the general public. There exists in the public domain official U.S. (and former Soviet Union) declassified documents that infer this is an area of great interest and research to the military.

Militarys also invest heavily in "batbombs". There's nothing clandestine in that research anymore -nor is there anything clandestine in the fact that both sides abandoned the research because it was fruitless-producing no results (research initially engaged in, mind you, because both sides mistakenly thought that the other side might be developing pixie-dust based weapons).

I have also viewed peer reviewed academic literature on the subject of the brain being a receiver of consciousness. There are also the obvious anecdotal testimonies of people who claim to have experienced NDEs and OBEs et cetera. I also watched a documentary in which an MD from United States stated that a blind patient had an OBE and could see her unconscious body being operated on, and confirmed this by identifying medical aparatus, for example. Obviously, none of this is "proof" as it is only in mathematics that something can truly be "proved", but there is some intriguing evidence in what I have described.

I don't see any intriguing evidence for disembodied consciousness in any of that, though I see intriguing evidence for a whole host of other shit-granted.

Indeed, in nuclear medicine an electron microscope can be utilised to analyse the synapses of individual neurons, in which the neurotransmitter system resides; correlations can be studied. In essence, however, all this really shows is that certain neurotransmitter systems (involving dopamine, serotonin, norepinephrine and oxytocin) are somehow involved in this process of experiencing love. Again, this is an example of extreme material reductionism and makes no account for the actual subjective "experience" of love. In my view neural correlations and reductionist mathematical models are the closest science will ever come to explaining what love and consciousness really are. Again, I quote from Aristotle: "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts". The holistic experience of love, which can include "how it works" in a material sense (the biological basis of such), is a much richer way of perceiving love than reductionist rationalism can provide.

Reductionism actually helps to further enhance my personal experience of love (and detracts from it in no way). In this comment I see that you are comfortable with the notion that at least some portions f the experience we call love can be quantified and shown to occur in a very material sense - why this isn't enough for you, and why you feel comfortable invoking un-evidenced unknown-unknowns to explain whatever remains unknown is a mystery to me(just how is that supposed to work?). The whole being greater than the sum of the parts does not rely on anything immaterial, nor does subjective experience - countless examples can be given that require very little in the way of deep philosophical consideration. A combustion chamber, drive shaft, and wheel - on their own...amount to very little-together they do work. Your subjective experience is to be expected, you aren't using someone else's senses to experience are you? They aren't trapped in your head and you are incapable of transporting yourself to theirs..correct?

[A_Nony_Mouse]

I want to understand why you think that just because science has currently recognized where mystical feelings have come from (in the brain), but not yet WHY the brain would cause such a thing to occur, that means to you that there needs to be some sort of external agent. Or perhaps not 'needs' but simply 'is'.

There are many things science hasn't found yet. But 100 years ago, there were many more, and science eventually found answers for them. None of them involved divinity. I want to know, essentially, why you fill your gaps with god instead of understanding that eventually - perhaps after your death, but eventually - these questions will get answered.

So the question you're really asking is about "the God of the gaps", right? Science has not filled that gap; therefore, God did it/it must be God. I am well aware of this line of thinking as a former atheist.

And of course that god is running out of gaps to hide in. Those that remain become smaller and smaller by the day. And most of the ones it hides in were discovered in the last century by science.

I have already explained to you my position on this matter. Because you refuse to read about philosophy,

Philosophy without physical evidence is mental masturbation.

it is very difficult to have a discussion with somebody who refuses to think about things in any other way than from a "rationalist" perspective. Because you want a "rational" answer to your questions, I cannot provide one; I concede the point that I cannot provide a rational answer to your question.

Rational thought is the only legitimate thought. All else is delusional.

In the other thread, you stated something vulgar about philosophy (that it is "mental wanking"). That just comes across as somebody who is too lazy and dismissive to try and learn this very challenging field of study. I feel that philosophy, advanced mathematics, theoretical computer science, and theoretical physics are probably the most challenging fields of study.

A question for you. What is a scientific theory?

You name four fields. Three of those four are quite likely to have the same people involved in at least two and certainly some involved in all three. The odd man out is philosophy which has no necessary connection to physical evidence and has never contributed anything significant much less lasting to the betterment of the human condition.

I am certain you will disagree. I am equally certain you cannot produce any physical evidence contrary to those statements.

[downbeatplumb]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Men_Who_Stare_at_Goats

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC2TzspJn5A