Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-11-2009, 11:56 PM
 
63,570 posts, read 39,862,781 times
Reputation: 7821

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
But without any evidence to support you, you claim that one of the component pieces of the brain used to create sapient thought will continue to be sapient even after the rest of the brain is dead.
Wrong . . . still stuck on the physical/material. The composite that is produced by brain activity continues to exist even after the brain stops functioning. Existing products do not disappear because the factory that made them stops producing.
Quote:
But we know that simply isn't true. Without the rest of the brain, the electro-chemical energy in the brain is nothing more than some electrons and protons that attract particles with opposite charges, and repulsion particles with the same charge. They are not capable of thought on their own.
Wrong . . . since what is produced exists independently and interacts with the universe AS A COMPOSITE beyond the level of the indiviudal brain activity that produces it . . . it clearly doesn't need the brain to interact with the universe . . . only to keep being produced.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-12-2009, 06:18 AM
 
Location: OKC
5,421 posts, read 6,491,598 times
Reputation: 1775
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I suspected as much. That means my abstraction level discussion similarly sailed over your head as well. none of the individual components of brain activity do anything sapient. The composite of a sequence of them (self) does . . . just as a sequence of notes individually are not a melody . . . the composite of a sequence is. Do you see the parallel. Melody "exists" only at a higher level of abstraction than the notes that comprise it. It remains an abstraction without reality because it cannot interact with the universe AS A COMPOSITE. Our self is a COMPOSITE of a sequence of brain activity that only comes into being at a level of abstraction above the individual activity . . . EXCEPT that it interacts with the universe AS A COMPOSITE . . . meaning it is REAL and everything that is real and not illusion or pure abstraction is comprised of some form of energy in its composite form.

You would write it off as a "function" of brain activity . . . meaning you have no idea what it is or how it becomes self-aware as a composite. Just as a computer function is a description of some set of mathematical or logic processes that produces an outcome . . . except there is no known "function" that we know of that produces self-awareness from individual brain activity. Since the activity occurs at the quantum level in quantum time (read Penrose) we experience our awareness as instantaneous. But it is a sequence of brain activity that aggregates into awareness in quantum time (a sort of pre-time) . . . because the only time we can measure is that which we measure with our awareness already in existence.
What you say here is untrue in some cases, and unsupported by any evidence in others. But your abstractions don't "sail above" anyone's head. You simple aren't that good at expressing yourself, and so it adds to the confusion already existing because of your convoluted theory.

And you also make several obvious errors of logic. Just as your melody can't exist without the notes compose it, neither can sapient thought exist without without a brain. For some reason, you don't seem to get that. You believe that once the notes are stuck once, the melody continues to be played for ever. In other words You fail to distinguish between "evidence that thought existed" with ongoing thought. So by your theory, the fact that a thought once occurred, then that is proof that thinking is ongoing. But of course that's not true.
Quote:
"You would write it off as a "function" of brain activity . . . meaning you have no idea what it is or how it becomes self-aware as a composite."
That's not true. There's nothing magical about being self-aware. The brain organizes information it acquires, and in functioning brains it is able to self-reflect. But there is no self-awareness when the brain is destroyed. That should be obvious.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2009, 06:31 AM
 
Location: OKC
5,421 posts, read 6,491,598 times
Reputation: 1775
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Wrong . . . still stuck on the physical/material. The composite that is produced by brain activity continues to exist even after the brain stops functioning. Existing products do not disappear because the factory that made them stops producing.
Wrong. Just because a product exists, that doesn't mean the factory is still capable of producing that product, And in your analogy, it is the factory that is thinking, the residual energy from that thinking is the product. But residual energy is not the same thing as sapient thought.

The energy that leaves the brain, if any leaves at all, is not "thinking." It is a by-product of thinking. Thinking only occurs in a working factory.



Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Wrong . . . since what is produced exists independently and interacts with the universe AS A COMPOSITE beyond the level of the indiviudal brain activity that produces it . . . it clearly doesn't need the brain to interact with the universe . . . only to keep being produced.
You do realize that in that last sentence you give away your entire argument, right? Because being sapient is the ongoing process of producing thoughts. And here you admit that you can not produce new thoughts, or be self-aware, without a functioning brain. You've all but conceded in that last sentence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2009, 06:37 AM
 
5,004 posts, read 15,328,283 times
Reputation: 2505
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianR View Post
[SIZE=2]I'd like to present some quotes from historians, scholars, scientists, paleonttologists and others, on the FATAL flaws in the THEORY, (yes, its still just a theory) of evolution.

ON THE THEORY ITSELF
"Evolution is not only under the attack of fundamentalists Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism."-Discover, "The Tortoise or the Hare?" by James Gorman.

Christopher Booker, a writer for the London Times, a man who accepts evolution said, "It was a beautifully simple and attractive theory. The only trouble was that, as Darwin was himslef at least partly aware, it was full of collosal holes." Regardin Darwons Origin of the Species, he said, "We have here the supreme irony that a book which has become famous for explaining the origin of the species in fact does nothing of the kind."

Darwin himslef, when speaking of the evolution of the eye said, "To suppose that the eye could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."-The Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin, 1902 edition.

ON THE FOSSIL RECORD
Think of this, millions upon millsion of bones and fossils have been unearthed by scientists in the past. Now, if evolution, a process that is to be incredibly slow, taking millions of years, were true, there should be even more millions of fossil records of slowly changing animal and plant forms. But there is simply none, not one.

"Darwins theory has always been closley linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is strictly not true."-The Bulletin of Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History. The Bulletin went on to say that Darwin "was embarrased by the fossil record because it didnt look the way he predicted it would, the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution." It goes on to say that after more than a century of collecting fossils, "we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transistion than we had in Darwins time."

Steven Stanbridge in The New Evolutionary Theory says, "The known fosil record is not, and never has been, in accord with slow evolution." He went on to say that there has been a "general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another."

"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places."-The Neck of the Giraffe, Francis Hitching

"It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evoution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled." -The Synthetic Origin of Species, Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson

With refenrence to the above, New Scientist said that there is not "enough evidence from the fossil material to take our theorising out of the relms of fantasy." Thus the intermediate, evolving depictions of creatures are as Francis Hitching put it," Pure fiction in most respects, sheer invention."-The Neck of the Giraffe

Commenting on the total lack of evidence from the fossil record when compared to the Genesis account of creation, that the animals were all created in their own time, Englands Kentish Times said, "The creation account of Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rahter in the oldest rocks, developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."

Harmonizing with the above state of the sudden appearance of living things over slow evolution, Francis Hitching again says, "Fish jump into the fossil record seemingly from nowhere: mysteriously, suddenly, full formed."

Commenting on the belief that warm blooded birds came from cold blooded reptiles, the French evolutionist Lecomte du Nouy, said, "This stands out today as one of the greatest puzzles of evolution." He also made the admission that birds have "all the unsatisfactory characteristics of absolute creation."-Human Destiny
---------------
These are but a scant few things said about the theory of evolution. The proponants of this theory are blind to the facts. They choose to stick their heads in the sands and ignore scientific truth. Never before has such an absolutely, positvely, disproven theory been presented as undeniable, hardcore scientific fact. The scientists who value honesty and who uphold themselves to present the truth, are doing themselves a great discredit. They know themselves this theory is not true, there simply is no evidence for it. Why, they have to make up, as said above, "from the realms of fantasy," supposed evolving creatures.

I find it funny how so many atheists and proponents of evolution look down upon those who believe in a god, as though something to be pitied-they are undeveloped mentally, sitting in darkness.They laugh at faith, saying it is rediculous to believe in something that isnt real or tangible. Well, do not you atheists and believers in evolution do the same? You believe in something that is simply not true. There is no evidence for evolution, and the scientists know it. You have faith in a broken theory that is not tangible, and never will be. You have made Darwin your supreme god in a pantheon of lesser demi gods of scientists who push this theory forward. You bow down before the Theory of Evolution and burn the incense. It is the same as bowing down before a lifeless idol of wood to worship it-and just as rediculous.
[/SIZE]
This is a great post. reps to you. Did you know that Darwin was not an atheist but an agnostic?

What else I found that was interesting is in the book Who God Changes Your Brain. While the scientist appears to believe in evolution, at least to me, he also proves that your brain is wired to God. Only God could do that. He shows how contemplative prayer and other forms of meditation cause one to have an experience of God. But he also talks very little about the books by Dawson and others that say that religion is bad and goes on to write about all the wonderful things that religion has done for mankind. And he talks about how when a person thinks of God and positive things his brain changes to the better, he is more well adjusted and healthy and happier. But when people are negative, which also includes the teachings of a fearful God, it changes the brain in negative ways and people are less heathly and happy. Great book as are all of Dr. Andrew Newberg's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2009, 06:55 AM
 
5,004 posts, read 15,328,283 times
Reputation: 2505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torrey View Post
Fatal flaw in the TOE? What about the bigger flaw in the Old Testament about Adam and Eve? There's no proof they ever existed, or that any of the creation theory in the book of genesis ever happened. It's all disputable. Christians have their faith, and Creationists have their own version of faith in their ideas.

Shall we leave each of them to their own ideas?

For there to be a God, Torrey, it doesn't mean that the Bible has to be accurate on all accounts. My feeling is that man was trying to understand his world in the Old Testament. Jesus, who was a mystic, experienced God and talked about him in a difference sense, not like the Old Testament punative God, and then Paul came along and messed up Christ's teachings.

But all mystics experience God as Love. Not as a God that punishes, etc. But if a mystic holds onto beliefs that are in the Bible, as many do, then they are just holding onto beliefs as most people do, because it is hard to change one's thinking.

In Buddhism and Hinduism hell is not a place of torment but is in your mind, the life you experience. And at least the Pope has said the same--the last Pope.

But to just dismiss what Adrian has written is to be like some Christians that will not change their own views in light of evidence.

For a long time I just believed that God created through evolution. This may change my views. God is not always in books but in the brain and you experience this God through meditation and/or contemplative prayer. There is a reason why we are wired to God, and there is a reason why we can reach this God through certain methods. Blessed are those that just believe in God without proof. They have an easier go of it.

Perhaps there was an Adam and Eve, but I still think it is just a creation story. If it is true, I still don't think it took a literal 6 days.

Last edited by Mattie Jo; 04-12-2009 at 07:03 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2009, 07:19 AM
 
5,004 posts, read 15,328,283 times
Reputation: 2505
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
The physical body and brain will no longer produce consciousness . . . but what has already been produced must have some fate. Like the TV programs broadcast into the universe . . . destroying the TV transmitter does nothing to those programs already broadcast. Our consciousness is "broadcast" as some composite form of energy we recognize as Self. Interfering with the production system (brain) or destroying it only has an impact on any future "broadcasts." Does that answer your questions, Boxcar?
Mystic, it has been proven that at the point of death consciousness expands. Unless you want to believe that you just go out with a big bang.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2009, 07:22 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,513 posts, read 37,061,236 times
Reputation: 13985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattie Jo View Post
Mystic, it has been proven that at the point of death consciousness expands. Unless you want to believe that you just go out with a big bang.
Really? Where can I see this proof?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2009, 07:38 AM
 
Location: OKC
5,421 posts, read 6,491,598 times
Reputation: 1775
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Really? Where can I see this proof?
Sorry, but that will require a subscription to the National Enquirer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2009, 07:50 AM
 
Location: South Africa
5,563 posts, read 7,199,999 times
Reputation: 1798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattie Jo View Post
This is a great post. reps to you. Did you know that Darwin was not an atheist but an agnostic?
Wrong!
There is a rumor running around that Charles Darwin recanted on his death bed. Actually there was no recanting, but this rumor is not the only misconception about Charles Darwin.


There are two very common misconceptions about Charles Darwin. This re-canting is only one of these misconceptions. The other is that Mr. Darwin was an atheist; he was not. Darwin was a Deist, not a Theist, but most definitely not an Atheist. It was those that followed him who turned his theory into an anti-spiritual Atheist view, not Darwin himself. These misconceptions can be shown false with Darwin's own words. And frankly there is no better way to prove it.
Link (suggest you read it in full)
No Good Reason "Natural Selection" Should Shock the Religious

But please indulge me one more rather lengthy quote, to further clarify the atheist misconception. This passage begins later after the above quote from page 421, and runs onto page 422 of the sixth edition,


"... It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life. Who can explain what is the essence of the attraction of gravity? No one now objects to following out the results consequent on this unknown element of attraction; notwithstanding that Leibnitz formerly accused Newton of introducing "occult qualities and miracles into philosophy."
I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one. It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, "as subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion."
A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws."
Why, it may be asked, until recently did nearly all the most eminent living naturalists and geologists disbelieve in the mutability of species? It cannot be asserted that organic beings in a state of nature are subject to no variation; it cannot be proved that the amount of variation in the course of long ages is a limited quantity; no clear distinction has been, or can be, drawn between species and well-marked varieties. It cannot be maintained that species when inter crossed are invariably sterile, and varieties invariably fertile; or that sterility is a special endowment and sign of creation.
The belief that species were immutable productions was almost unavoidable as long as the history of the world was thought to be of short duration; and now that we have acquired some idea of the lapse of time, we are too apt to assume, without proof, that the geological record is so perfect that it would have afforded us plain evidence of the mutation of species, if they had undergone mutation."
Mutability Vs. Immutability Not Creation Vs. Evolution

Now from this, we can see that Darwin's primary concern was about how species change over long periods of time. His debate was between the idea of species being mutable vs. immutable, again not between creation vs. evolution. Since Mr. Darwin saw no good reason for his work to shock the religious feelings of anyone, he was in no way challenging the existence of God.
Google is your friend.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2009, 07:53 AM
 
19,045 posts, read 25,153,086 times
Reputation: 13485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
Sorry, but that will require a subscription to the National Enquirer.
I'd rep you but the site won't let me. LOL!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:41 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top