Some of you may me startled by the title, but it is indeed true. And i specify below exactly why. The sure-fire way to convince me to become an atheist (something i will never rule out, although deism would be my preferred standard option) would be to refute the below.
From my own blog , so this is not copy-pasted(in case someone runs a search).
http://scientificphilosopher.wordpress. ... rstand-it/ (http://scientificphilosopher.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/the-human-conscious-will-we-ever-understand-it/)
One of the most puzzling aspects of trying to fully understand our brain is that of human consciousness .We speak , we think, we feel, we understand, we strategize – and much of this is shared with animals. The remarkably puzzling thing is, what part in us exactly 'feels' the pain?
Some can rightly assert that the stimulus is detected by a sense organs receptor, and by a nervous pathway travels to the brain where it processes everything, and then produces a response (the brain is by-passed in a reflex response). This explanation would be an accurate explanation had the question been titled "how do we detect our environment". This simply explains how our body detects and processes stimuli, but it does not explain what part 'feels' any of it.
Consider a mildly warm tea cup. Perhaps you are sitting on your sofa on a lazy sunday morning, sipping tea – or coffee – and the mild warm sensation of the gently flowing down your throat can be felt. We can easily explain how the warm tea is detected. We can explain what part of the brain it is processed. However, what is the 'raw' feeling of warm tea being swallowed?
If you touch a fire, the reflex response and what happens on the basic cellular level can be understood, but that's simply neurotransmitters being transmitted across synapses. Exactly what is the 'raw' feeling of the agony one gets when they touch a flame? How can seemingly unconscious atoms simply being transmitted translate to a 'feeling' of raw pain?
If we designed a robot to have a complex CPU, to be able to respond, understand, think of it's own accord, no matter how complex this CPU was, would it ever be able to feel? Would the electrons flitting across it's circuit boards ever translate to that 'raw' feeling we humans possess ?
My conclusion: There is something else, something more, an essence that simply can not be due to natural process's(it can be evoked by natural processes but itself is an external force or reality that enables us to 'feel'. We have dissected the brain, analysed it, have volumes of books on the nervous system, and yet, i thoroughly doubt there ever will be an answer to this.
I can use any example. Say you tap the palm of your hand, or you hold an ice cube.
You can tell me how it happens: stimulus, sensory neuron, transmitters.
You can tell me where it is processed : brain
Why it's useful: protection ect
How it's come about: (to the atheist, or to some theists, random mutation and natural selection over an age via evolution).
But that is that 'raw' feeling of the 'cold' ice cube?
God of the Gaps, and non sequitur.
If you're interested in the nature of human consciousness, I'd suggest reading some Nicholas Humphrey.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"God of the Gaps, and non sequitur.
If you're interested in the nature of human consciousness, I'd suggest reading some Nicholas Humphrey.
Logical fallacies galore. Nothing's changed.
All can be safely ignored until evidence is forthcoming that it's not completely made up emotional reasoning.
> If you touch a fire, the reflex response and what happens on the basic cellular level can be understood, but that's simply neurotransmitters being transmitted across synapses. Exactly what is the 'raw' feeling of the agony one gets when they touch a flame? How can seemingly unconscious atoms simply being transmitted translate to a 'feeling' of raw pain?
Since even simple animals experience pain, it can't relate to high-level consciousness. Therefore, it must be simply neurons acting in a specific way. Here's how it came to be:
Evolution.
> If we designed a robot to have a complex CPU, to be able to respond, understand, think of it's own accord, no matter how complex this CPU was, would it ever be able to feel? Would the electrons flitting across it's circuit boards ever translate to that 'raw' feeling we humans possess ?
It could certainly be designed to have something similar to human feelings. It would be programmed to find certain stimuli aversive, and the response to receiving aversive stimuli is what we call "pain."
Frank
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"My conclusion: There is something else, something more, an essence that simply can not be due to natural process's(it can be evoked by natural processes but itself is an external force or reality that enables us to 'feel'. We have dissected the brain, analysed it, have volumes of books on the nervous system, and yet, i thoroughly doubt there ever will be an answer to this.
Argument from ignorance.
Shut up.
Quoteblah blah blah blah
but I WANT there to be a GOD!!
[spoil:2zv98qte](//http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm127/aitm356/ATT10952419.jpg)[/spoil:2zv98qte]
Basically, you just "feel" like there must be "something more" than a natural process... therefore, you conclude that there is not only "a" god, but your specific god.
Of course, this line of reasoning can also be used to conclude that we are psychic puppets of reptilian aliens from outer space.
Point being, this sort of reasoning is neither necessary nor sufficient to prove the existence of anything.
Your asking questions about conciousness and qualia that neither philosophers of the mind nor cognitive scientists fully understand. You seem to be jumping from a "how can this be?" to therefore there is some external explanation. Seemingly trying to support some kind of dualist position also ("how can unconsious atoms...?" etc.)
In fact, part of your question nonsensically makes a good bit of your post pointless. Atoms aren't concious, but we- constellations of atoms- have conciousness. Therefore conciousness would appear to have a far more likely chance of being an emergent property with little to do with the atomic level.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"One of the most puzzling aspects of trying to fully understand our brain is that of human consciousness .We speak , we think, we feel, we understand, we strategize – and much of this is shared with animals. The remarkably puzzling thing is, what part in us exactly 'feels' the pain?
The part connected to the nervous system.
QuoteIf we designed a robot to have a complex CPU, to be able to respond, understand, think of it's own accord, no matter how complex this CPU was, would it ever be able to feel?
Possibly.
QuoteMy conclusion: There is something else, something more, an essence that simply can not be due to natural process's(it can be evoked by natural processes but itself is an external force or reality that enables us to 'feel'. We have dissected the brain, analysed it, have volumes of books on the nervous system, and yet, i thoroughly doubt there ever will be an answer to this.
Your reasoning is flawed. God of the Gaps. Argument from incredulity. Fail.
As soon as you're ready to solve the mind-body problem with dualism, I'll be sure to get back to you.
Your feelings are the emergent properties of neuronal circuitry.
Still tasty tea though.
Ah. The "God makes a concious effort to bring us pain"-argument.
Hadn't seen that one in quite a while.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"God of the Gaps, and non sequitur.
If you're interested in the nature of human consciousness, I'd suggest reading some Nicholas Humphrey.
Can you direct me to which book? I'll take a look at it.
...nnnnope, still atheist.
Your argument boils down to an argument from ignorance: "I don't know what a feeling is and how it works. | Therefore, it must be an essence that is a soul!" No. The red line indicates the position of where the conversation should have ended, but of course you are kinda dumb and go past that.
All arguments from ignorance are of the form, "I don't know what it is; therefore, it must be this other thing." If you don't know what it is, you don't know that it is that other thing! It is bizarre that anyone who pretends to be a reasonable thinker would state this.
This proves that the title is as ridiculous as it sounds. Or maybe we should add, "... but only if you're stupid," to the end.
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Your asking questions about conciousness and qualia that neither philosophers of the mind nor cognitive scientists fully understand. You seem to be jumping from a "how can this be?" to therefore there is some external explanation. Seemingly trying to support some kind of dualist position also ("how can unconsious atoms...?" etc.)
In fact, part of your question nonsensically makes a good bit of your post pointless. Atoms aren't concious, but we- constellations of atoms- have conciousness. Therefore conciousness would appear to have a far more likely chance of being an emergent property with little to do with the atomic level.
I can understand atoms designed together to prove conciousness, the problem is however, what part of us 'feels' that raw emotion?
Like i have said, we can get robots to respond to stimuli, react, but will a robot -however complex- ever be able to have that 'raw' feeling of pain?
If so, exactly what 'part' of it is going to 'experience' this? What is that 'raw' emotion?
Reading replies, we can deduce how it is caused, why it's useful, perhaps a belief of how it came to be, but not what it actually is.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"I can understand atoms designed together to prove conciousness, the problem is however, what part of us 'feels' that raw emotion?
Like i have said, we can get robots to respond to stimuli, react, but will a robot -however complex- ever be able to have that 'raw' feeling of pain?
If so, exactly what 'part' of it is going to 'experience' this? What is that 'raw' emotion?
Reading replies, we can deduce how it is caused, why it's useful, perhaps a belief of how it came to be, but not what it actually is.
If anything, your question of what it is, is rather obvious: a feeling is a pattern of brain activity. If I stimulate your brain, you will 'feel' it, although not as a brain-zappy sensation — your brain is numb. If I zap your somatosensory cortex, you will feel one of many feelings in your body indistinguishable from the 'real thing.' If I zap your brain in a certain pattern about your limbic system, you will feel rage, happiness, or even an orgasm indistinguishable from the real mccoys. Thus, there is no need for the qualia of feeling.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"...nnnnope, still atheist.
Your argument boils down to an argument from ignorance: "I don't know what a feeling is and how it works. | Therefore, it must be an essence that is a soul!" No. The red line indicates the position of where the conversation should have ended, but of course you are kinda dumb and go past that.
All arguments from ignorance are of the form, "I don't know what it is; therefore, it must be this other thing." If you don't know what it is, you don't know that it is that other thing! It is bizarre that anyone who pretends to be a reasonable thinker would state this.
This proves that the title is as ridiculous as it sounds. Or maybe we should add, "... but only if you're stupid," to the end.
Man, i was hoping to convert the masses with this thread, and especially their cheif-woman! You have foiled my plan.
:cry:
My argument is not "hey jimmy, i can't understand this, therefore it must be a God".
My argument is that we are creatures who have immeasurably precise designation and placement of atoms. If we also designed a robot with a cpu this time with amazing complexity, could it 'feel'?
I think the answer is no. I can understand responding to stimuli, how the nervous system works, how it all occurs...but the 'raw' agony of touching a flame? However precisely designed i am, there is may be another element here which definitely escapes understanding.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Quote from: "mendacium remedium"I can understand atoms designed together to prove conciousness, the problem is however, what part of us 'feels' that raw emotion?
Like i have said, we can get robots to respond to stimuli, react, but will a robot -however complex- ever be able to have that 'raw' feeling of pain?
If so, exactly what 'part' of it is going to 'experience' this? What is that 'raw' emotion?
Reading replies, we can deduce how it is caused, why it's useful, perhaps a belief of how it came to be, but not what it actually is.
If anything, your question of what it is, is rather obvious: a feeling is a pattern of brain activity. If I stimulate your brain, you will 'feel' it, although not as a brain-zappy sensation — your brain is numb. If I zap your somatosensory cortex, you will feel one of many feelings in your body indistinguishable from the 'real thing.' If I zap your brain in a certain pattern about your limbic system, you will feel rage, happiness, or even an orgasm indistinguishable from the real mccoys. Thus, there is no need for the qualia of feeling.
That's how i will be 'caused' to feel, but what exactly is 'feeling'.
Nervous system with collisions and movements of neurotransmitters across synapses/other functions --->
Somehow the 'raw' agony of pain? How does the collision of atoms, even though they can be detected, evoke a complex response, ever lead to 'feeling'.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"My argument is not "hey jimmy, i can't understand this, therefore it must be a God".
My argument is that we are creatures who have immeasurably precise designation and placement of atoms. If we also designed a robot with a cpu this time with amazing complexity, could it 'feel'?
I think the answer is no. I can understand responding to stimuli, how the nervous system works, how it all occurs...but the 'raw' agony of touching a flame? However precisely designed i am, there is may be another element here which definitely escapes understanding.
No, that's an argument from ignorance. You are trying to fill in your lack of knowledge of how 'feelings' work and what they are with the conviction that it must be of some nature. Like going as far as saying that a computer CAN'T 'feel' the way you do, no matter how sublty its programmed. Really? You don't know
anything about feelings and yet you're going to make some grand pronouncement about its nature? What an arrogant prick you are.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"That's how i will be 'caused' to feel, but what exactly is 'feeling'.
The 'cause' and the 'feeling' are the same, from different points of view. They are duals to each other.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Nervous system with collisions and movements of neurotransmitters across synapses/other functions --->
Precisely.
Nothing. There's nothing demonstratably separate in terms of phenomena to fill in the other side, and thus an explanation is unnecessary.
:popcorn: :popcorn:
> I can understand atoms designed together to prove conciousness, the problem is however, what part of us 'feels' that raw emotion?
Feelings are an illusion.
Picture our ancestors, as far back as you wish. Some things reduced the probability of living to reproduce, others increased that probability. Putting one's hand in a fire, and many other things we label "painful," reduced that probability. The individuals in the community who had an aversion to the things that reduced the probability of surviving and reproducing had more offspring. Their genes became more wide-spread in their community. Those who had no aversion to the experiences which reduced the probability of surviving and reproducing had fewer offspring; their genes became rarer.
Today, we call the aversion to experiences that reduce the probability of surviving and getting our genes into the next generation "pain." Pain is an illusion, created by the brain, to make it more likely that we will avoid experiences which reduce the probability of surviving and getting our genes into the next generation.
All emotions: love, territoriality, anger, fear, etc., are there because they helped our ancestors survive and reproduce. That's all.
That, by the way, is what I meant when I wrote "evolution."
Frank
Excellent post Frank.
What do you mean be "'raw'"? Is the opposite cooked emotions or processed emotions? By "'raw' agony" are you asking about the source? I don't know what modifying these words with "'raw'" is intended to portray.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"I can understand responding to stimuli, how the nervous system works, how it all occurs...but the 'raw' agony of touching a flame? However precisely designed i am, there is may be another element here which definitely escapes understanding.
Or, to rephrase, It escapes my understanding, therefore there must be another element. Which is just a restatement of "I can't explain it, therefore God."
You
specifically state it as the argument from ignorance, then claim that it's not. But that's all it is. "We don't understand it" is as valid an explanation as the refutation of the lightning god by the explanation of static electricity. That you don't understand something, that no one understands it, that no one may ever understand it - isn't the slightest shred of evidence of any "other element".
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"...nnnnope, still atheist.
Your argument boils down to an argument from ignorance: "I don't know what a feeling is and how it works. | Therefore, it must be an essence that is a soul!" No. The red line indicates the position of where the conversation should have ended, but of course you are kinda dumb and go past that.
All arguments from ignorance are of the form, "I don't know what it is; therefore, it must be this other thing." If you don't know what it is, you don't know that it is that other thing! It is bizarre that anyone who pretends to be a reasonable thinker would state this.
This proves that the title is as ridiculous as it sounds. Or maybe we should add, "... but only if you're stupid," to the end.
Man, i was hoping to convert the masses with this thread, and especially their cheif-woman! You have foiled my plan.
:cry:
My argument is not "hey jimmy, i can't understand this, therefore it must be a God".
My argument is that we are creatures who have immeasurably precise designation and placement of atoms. If we also designed a robot with a cpu this time with amazing complexity, could it 'feel'?
I think the answer is no. I can understand responding to stimuli, how the nervous system works, how it all occurs...but the 'raw' agony of touching a flame? However precisely designed i am, there is may be another element here which definitely escapes understanding.
I believe that you may be unaware of just how complex the human brain actually is. We humans on planet Earth only just recently passed the point at which the total computing power of every single computer in the world
combined equals the computing power of a
single human brain. Add to this the fact that the human brain stores data in a "holographic" manner, and you have a level of complexity that we cannot really comprehend.
What's meant by "holographic" memory is that a specific memory is not stored in a specific neuron or set of neurons, but is rather distributed throughout the brain in such a way that the information would still exist if part of the brain were removed. Every part of the brain contains a 'fuzzy' image of the information contained by the whole. It's a kind of computing that we haven't even gotten close to designing. There are over 200 billion neurons in your brain, and each neuron is connected to between 5,000 and 20,000 other neurons. And the impulses that travel between neurons are regulated by dozens of different factors, which can be arranged in hundreds of different ways. Our brains aren't running on a string of ones and zeros like a computer, they are instead running on a myriad of different types of electro-chemical impulses, more like an alphabet or a language than simple binary.
That consciousness should be an emergent property of such unbelievable complexity is hardly surprising.
The question "what am I" is far more complex than the simplistic answer "you are a meat computer." You're more than that, and yet less. You are a by-product of complexity. You are a process which is dependent on a meat-computer to run, because no other computer could possibly run such a process.
What this means is that consciousness is amazing, breathtaking, and mind-boggling. What it
doesn't mean is "therefore God."
> What's meant by "holographic" memory is that a specific memory is not stored in a specific neuron or set of neurons, but is rather distributed throughout the brain
Here's a neat proof of that:
Sign your name on a piece of paper. Then sign it on a white board or wall in much larger letters. The two signatures look essentially the same, and a handwriting expert would identify them as the same. But the muscles that are recruited for the small signature, and therefore the motor neurons involved, are completely different from those used in the large signature. Yet both sets of neurons know how to sign your name, even the first time you write it large, when those neurons have never done the task before.
Frank
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Some of you may me startled by the title, but it is indeed true. And i specify below exactly why. The sure-fire way to convince me to become an atheist (something i will never rule out, although deism would be my preferred standard option) would be to refute the below.
From my own blog , so this is not copy-pasted(in case someone runs a search).
http://scientificphilosopher.wordpress. ... rstand-it/ (http://scientificphilosopher.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/the-human-conscious-will-we-ever-understand-it/)
One of the most puzzling aspects of trying to fully understand our brain is that of human consciousness .We speak , we think, we feel, we understand, we strategize – and much of this is shared with animals. The remarkably puzzling thing is, what part in us exactly 'feels' the pain?
Some can rightly assert that the stimulus is detected by a sense organs receptor, and by a nervous pathway travels to the brain where it processes everything, and then produces a response (the brain is by-passed in a reflex response). This explanation would be an accurate explanation had the question been titled "how do we detect our environment". This simply explains how our body detects and processes stimuli, but it does not explain what part 'feels' any of it.
Consider a mildly warm tea cup. Perhaps you are sitting on your sofa on a lazy sunday morning, sipping tea – or coffee – and the mild warm sensation of the gently flowing down your throat can be felt. We can easily explain how the warm tea is detected. We can explain what part of the brain it is processed. However, what is the 'raw' feeling of warm tea being swallowed?
If you touch a fire, the reflex response and what happens on the basic cellular level can be understood, but that's simply neurotransmitters being transmitted across synapses. Exactly what is the 'raw' feeling of the agony one gets when they touch a flame? How can seemingly unconscious atoms simply being transmitted translate to a 'feeling' of raw pain?
If we designed a robot to have a complex CPU, to be able to respond, understand, think of it's own accord, no matter how complex this CPU was, would it ever be able to feel? Would the electrons flitting across it's circuit boards ever translate to that 'raw' feeling we humans possess ?
My conclusion: There is something else, something more, an essence that simply can not be due to natural process's(it can be evoked by natural processes but itself is an external force or reality that enables us to 'feel'. We have dissected the brain, analysed it, have volumes of books on the nervous system, and yet, i thoroughly doubt there ever will be an answer to this.
I love this argument.
Moron: What is responsible for the feeling you get when you feel pain.
Me: Uh.....the brain?
Moron: But what is responsible for the RAW feeling.
Me: The brain?
Moron: I know but what is responsible for the RAW, RAW, RAW feeling.....
Me: Dear God shut up.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"God of the Gaps, and non sequitur.
If you're interested in the nature of human consciousness, I'd suggest reading some Nicholas Humphrey.
Can you direct me to which book? I'll take a look at it.
http://www.humphrey.org.uk/ (http://www.humphrey.org.uk/)
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Blah blah blah, argument from incredulity, blah blah blah.
You can't reconcile qualia with sensory input, therefore gods!
You'll have to do better than that mendacium remedium.
This is one of those non-sequiturs we were talking about the other day.
Quote from: "FrankDK"Since even simple animals experience pain, it can't relate to high-level consciousness. Therefore, it must be simply neurons acting in a specific way.
Even single celled organisms withdraw from painful stimuli.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"[spoil:63y4ht9f]Some of you may me startled by the title, but it is indeed true. And i specify below exactly why. The sure-fire way to convince me to become an atheist (something i will never rule out, although deism would be my preferred standard option) would be to refute the below.
From my own blog , so this is not copy-pasted(in case someone runs a search).
http://scientificphilosopher.wordpress. ... rstand-it/ (http://scientificphilosopher.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/the-human-conscious-will-we-ever-understand-it/)
One of the most puzzling aspects of trying to fully understand our brain is that of human consciousness .We speak , we think, we feel, we understand, we strategize – and much of this is shared with animals. The remarkably puzzling thing is, what part in us exactly 'feels' the pain?
Some can rightly assert that the stimulus is detected by a sense organs receptor, and by a nervous pathway travels to the brain where it processes everything, and then produces a response (the brain is by-passed in a reflex response). This explanation would be an accurate explanation had the question been titled "how do we detect our environment". This simply explains how our body detects and processes stimuli, but it does not explain what part 'feels' any of it.
Consider a mildly warm tea cup. Perhaps you are sitting on your sofa on a lazy sunday morning, sipping tea – or coffee – and the mild warm sensation of the gently flowing down your throat can be felt. We can easily explain how the warm tea is detected. We can explain what part of the brain it is processed. However, what is the 'raw' feeling of warm tea being swallowed?
If you touch a fire, the reflex response and what happens on the basic cellular level can be understood, but that's simply neurotransmitters being transmitted across synapses. Exactly what is the 'raw' feeling of the agony one gets when they touch a flame? How can seemingly unconscious atoms simply being transmitted translate to a 'feeling' of raw pain?
If we designed a robot to have a complex CPU, to be able to respond, understand, think of it's own accord, no matter how complex this CPU was, would it ever be able to feel? Would the electrons flitting across it's circuit boards ever translate to that 'raw' feeling we humans possess ?
My conclusion: There is something else, something more, an essence that simply can not be due to natural process's(it can be evoked by natural processes but itself is an external force or reality that enables us to 'feel'. We have dissected the brain, analysed it, have volumes of books on the nervous system, and yet, i thoroughly doubt there ever will be an answer to this.[/spoil:63y4ht9f]
(//http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vS1woxe72O8/TV1qdrYmAFI/AAAAAAAABL4/zqkVd7FIzvo/s1600/see%2Bthis.jpg)
I like my tea hot, not warm and my beer cold, also not warm. What does the warm tea theory have to say about that? This "warm tea" theory gives no more plausible evidence that God exists than the tea leaves left behind gives one the power the read the future.
Cup of tea, - therefore god.
But whose god? :-k Man has created thousands of them.
> Even single celled organisms withdraw from painful stimuli.
They withdraw from aversive stimuli, but whether they experience "pain" as we define it is another question. This is splitting hairs, to a certain extent, but I think it's important to the OP's point.
That ineffable experience we call pain (or emotions in general) is specific to organisms with an organized, neuron-based brain. It's how evolution coped with the task of getting organisms to avoid aversive stimuli. Clearly, in one-celled animals, there is a different mechanism involved.
But your point is well-taken. The continuation of all life depends on individual organisms' ability to evade death and reproduce.
Frank
Quote from: "pr126"Cup of tea, - therefore god.
But whose god? :-k Man has created thousands of them.
The god of tea, of course.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"The god of tea, of course.
Holy crap, you're a Home Erectus too. I need to check and see how many of them we got now.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Quote from: "mendacium remedium"My argument is not "hey jimmy, i can't understand this, therefore it must be a God".
My argument is that we are creatures who have immeasurably precise designation and placement of atoms. If we also designed a robot with a cpu this time with amazing complexity, could it 'feel'?
I think the answer is no. I can understand responding to stimuli, how the nervous system works, how it all occurs...but the 'raw' agony of touching a flame? However precisely designed i am, there is may be another element here which definitely escapes understanding.
No, that's an argument from ignorance. You are trying to fill in your lack of knowledge of how 'feelings' work and what they are with the conviction that it must be of some nature. Like going as far as saying that a computer CAN'T 'feel' the way you do, no matter how sublty its programmed. Really? You don't know anything about feelings and yet you're going to make some grand pronouncement about its nature? What an arrogant prick you are.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"That's how i will be 'caused' to feel, but what exactly is 'feeling'.
The 'cause' and the 'feeling' are the same, from different points of view. They are duals to each other.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Nervous system with collisions and movements of neurotransmitters across synapses/other functions --->
Precisely. Nothing. There's nothing demonstratably separate in terms of phenomena to fill in the other side, and thus an explanation is unnecessary.
""feelings"" (psyching your brain into believing something) is how MAGIC works. Ask any witch and Bob's Your Uncle - that's her answer. Yep. This argument from MR is no different than listening to people describe their witchcraft......all day long up One side and down the other. You ask them 'But how do you Know?" and they answer "But I just
DO!"
goes on and on............
This is how magic works.
YAY!!! Can't 'splain that.
[spoil:2al6elw3]It's such a relief to come out of the Broom Closet and know that MR understands magic completely. Eeesh I was getting lonely here.[/spoil:2al6elw3]
:rollin:
repaired for typo
Quote from: "the_antithesis"Quote from: "pr126"Cup of tea, - therefore god.
But whose god? :-k Man has created thousands of them.
The god of tea, of course.
So Bertrand Russell was right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot)
You know, I was waiting for someone to ask who was the god of tea and then say something lame like Earl Grey. But I've reconsidered.
No, no, no! That RAW feeling of pain you get is certainly not connected to any kind of deity. It has been personally revealed to me that when any type of chemical, powder og organism meets and mixes with water little microscopic elves are born. Most tea types are strong, and the strenght of whatever the new element added to whatever increases the size of these elves. The warmer the water is, the stronger they are. Freezing the water/tea might kill them altogether, but they can be strong and nifty fuckers.
You see, they can't survive in the water, they need a carrier, so this raw pain is actually them jumping around in your throat, clinging to the walls and digging themselves into your very being. Sometimes they will mate with the elves that already live in your blood, and this is actually what causes AIDS, cancer and low self-esteem. Luckily our bobies have gotten used to the elvish presence and can usually deal with them. And when strong enough, they will usually leave on their own to biuld their magic kingdom in the sewers. Where they keep crocodiles as pets, you see, this is where all the crocodiles in the sewer escapes from.
You should always be friendly with the inner elves. They don't want to hurt you, but if you're rude they'll give you AIDS. They do love giving people AIDS. If you want to make them your friends and get control over your own body you must simply shave your head, as well as all other hair on your body and have sex with an four-legged animal no older than two months.
If you wish to eradicate them entirely however, you must not cut your hair, but BURN IT OFF. A ritual dance is also required. In the nude, of course. Your hair, which must be to meter long before you set it on fire, shall slowly burn away while you jump and slap yourself on the ass. It's required that you run a distance of 3.92 kilometers as well, and while this is done you must repeatedly scream: "Kazvacho 'n to pre-wa schant ni voxxi coxxi zoply ba vooovooo".
This will annoy the elves so much that they will leave.
(Of course, they will return next time you drink a fresh cut of tea)
BEWARE OF THE TEA!!!
Cotton Mathers (of Puritan fame) once said that a tooth ache was gods reward for sinning. Maybe MR is on to something, (as opposed to be ON something)
This thread is funny .
Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"No, no, no! That RAW feeling of pain you get is certainly not connected to any kind of deity. It has been personally revealed to me that when any type of chemical, powder og organism meets and mixes with water little microscopic elves are born. Most tea types are strong, and the strenght of whatever the new element added to whatever increases the size of these elves. ...
This will annoy the elves so much that they will leave.
(Of course, they will return next time you drink a fresh cut of tea)
BEWARE OF THE TEA!!!
All this only goes to prove the greatness of the Invisible Green Leprechaun (BPUH).
Frank
Green?! I can assure you that in MY private revelation he FELT very BLUE. Besides, the color of the Invisible Blue Leprechaun isn't really important, as, no matter his greatness he is just the messeger of the Old Grey Owl, all else is unimportent as she is the only path to truly understand the microscopic elves living in your body.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Some of you may me startled by the title, but it is indeed true. And i specify below exactly why. The sure-fire way to convince me to become an atheist (something i will never rule out, although deism would be my preferred standard option) would be to refute the below.
From my own blog , so this is not copy-pasted(in case someone runs a search).
http://scientificphilosopher.wordpress. ... rstand-it/ (http://scientificphilosopher.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/the-human-conscious-will-we-ever-understand-it/)
One of the most puzzling aspects of trying to fully understand our brain is that of human consciousness .We speak , we think, we feel, we understand, we strategize – and much of this is shared with animals. The remarkably puzzling thing is, what part in us exactly 'feels' the pain?
Some can rightly assert that the stimulus is detected by a sense organs receptor, and by a nervous pathway travels to the brain where it processes everything, and then produces a response (the brain is by-passed in a reflex response). This explanation would be an accurate explanation had the question been titled "how do we detect our environment". This simply explains how our body detects and processes stimuli, but it does not explain what part 'feels' any of it.
Consider a mildly warm tea cup. Perhaps you are sitting on your sofa on a lazy sunday morning, sipping tea – or coffee – and the mild warm sensation of the gently flowing down your throat can be felt. We can easily explain how the warm tea is detected. We can explain what part of the brain it is processed. However, what is the 'raw' feeling of warm tea being swallowed?
If you touch a fire, the reflex response and what happens on the basic cellular level can be understood, but that's simply neurotransmitters being transmitted across synapses. Exactly what is the 'raw' feeling of the agony one gets when they touch a flame? How can seemingly unconscious atoms simply being transmitted translate to a 'feeling' of raw pain?
If we designed a robot to have a complex CPU, to be able to respond, understand, think of it's own accord, no matter how complex this CPU was, would it ever be able to feel? Would the electrons flitting across it's circuit boards ever translate to that 'raw' feeling we humans possess ?
My conclusion: There is something else, something more, an essence that simply can not be due to natural process's(it can be evoked by natural processes but itself is an external force or reality that enables us to 'feel'. We have dissected the brain, analysed it, have volumes of books on the nervous system, and yet, i thoroughly doubt there ever will be an answer to this.
Yay. Another "I, personally, don't understand it, therefore God is proved" argument. Finally, the same old argument stated in another way.
(//http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzpp7njJkH1rplp87o1_500.jpg)
I notice the OP likes to create these threads and then abandon them. Perhaps he finds himself unable to defend his theses?
I offer gentle mockery and a big, fat "LO-O-O-O-O-O-O-OSER!" in his general direction. :popcorn:
*logs in after several-week absence*
*laughs hysterically at OP*
*vanishes into the night*
Quote from: "overlord fombax"*logs in after several-week absence*
*laughs hysterically at OP*
*vanishes into the night*
who was that masked man?
Quote from: "Davka"I notice the OP likes to create these threads and then abandon them. Perhaps he finds himself unable to defend his theses?
"Perhaps" is a wonton waste of pixels. Those of us who have been here for a while know that it's the truth. Faced with a fact that he finds uncomfortable, he either ignores the post or claims that the fact isn't a fact. Since most posts in his threads contradict his ideas, he ignores most of them, to the point of eventually abandoning the threads.
QuoteI believe that you may be unaware of just how complex the human brain actually is. We humans on planet Earth only just recently passed the point at which the total computing power of every single computer in the world combined equals the computing power of a single human brain. Add to this the fact that the human brain stores data in a "holographic" manner, and you have a level of complexity that we cannot really comprehend.
What's meant by "holographic" memory is that a specific memory is not stored in a specific neuron or set of neurons, but is rather distributed throughout the brain in such a way that the information would still exist if part of the brain were removed. Every part of the brain contains a 'fuzzy' image of the information contained by the whole. It's a kind of computing that we haven't even gotten close to designing. There are over 200 billion neurons in your brain, and each neuron is connected to between 5,000 and 20,000 other neurons. And the impulses that travel between neurons are regulated by dozens of different factors, which can be arranged in hundreds of different ways. Our brains aren't running on a string of ones and zeros like a computer, they are instead running on a myriad of different types of electro-chemical impulses, more like an alphabet or a language than simple binary.
That consciousness should be an emergent property of such unbelievable complexity is hardly surprising.
The question "what am I" is far more complex than the simplistic answer "you are a meat computer." You're more than that, and yet less. You are a by-product of complexity. You are a process which is dependent on a meat-computer to run, because no other computer could possibly run such a process.
What this means is that consciousness is amazing, breathtaking, and mind-boggling. What it doesn't mean is "therefore God."
The only good post in this entire thread. He actually answered the question, and he wasn't a complete ass like some of you guys.
Quote from: "Farroc"The only good post in this entire thread. He actually answered the question, and he wasn't a complete ass like some of you guys.
The worst post in this thread. Congrats.
First of all...
What question? MR actually asked us a genuine question?
Please link me.
Also: You may want to reread the thread. Reimu is always worth reading for instance.
Furthermore: Stromboli and Hydra and others in this thread are usually very patient with people who come over here. As they have been with MR.
Quote from: "Farroc"The only good post in this entire thread. He actually answered the question, and he wasn't a complete ass like some of you guys.
Oh we are sorry Lord of the internet.
Your extensive time here certainly has warranted you being able to tell us how to reply to members who have a clear track record of hitting and running from actual debates they pretend to want to have when they come up against any sort of resistance.
Still, you've certainly put us in our place...whoever you are.
Quote from: "Bibliofagus"Also: You may want to reread the thread. Reimu is always worth reading for instance.
Yeah. Reimu made some good points, imho. It's a shame they were wasted on the intended recipient.
QuoteFurthermore: Stromboli and Hydra and others in this thread are usually very patient with people who come over here. As they have been with MR.
Yep. Up until about the umpteenth time I read the same terrible arguments filled with terrible logic and the same troll-and-run pattern. Then I get a little fed up.
Here is the profound argument we are supposed to seriously consider:
(//http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/36069743.jpg)
Frankly, I'm surprised he got as many serious responses as he did.
Quote from: "Farroc"The only good post in this entire thread.
Bullocks. There have been quite a good number of responses to MR.
QuoteHe actually answered the question, and he wasn't a complete ass like some of you guys.
Bull. I answered the question(s) on the first page via critique, like several others, and not everyone was an ass. Not that some others being an ass (which I don't necessarily like all the time) in any way makes their criticism therefore poor.
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Quote from: "Farroc"The only good post in this entire thread.
Bullocks. There have been quite a good number of responses to MR.
QuoteHe actually answered the question, and he wasn't a complete ass like some of you guys.
Bull. I answered the question(s) on the first page via critique, like several others, and not everyone was an ass. Not that some others being an ass (which I don't necessarily like all the time) in any way makes their criticism therefore poor.
I was patient with MR when he first arrived......... patient for about 2 pages until I figured out he was not going to respond to honest, legitimate questions. MR wishes to steer/manipulate any/all conversation to suit his goals; ignoring some wonderful debates (not from me) from members here. I've come to the conclusion that MR drops these innocuous bombs of theist-bewilderment upon us to watch us twirl and swirl.......especially rail against one another as this thread and several others before has surely proven. He pretends a puzzlement as though he's interested in input when truly he seeks to just fluster members here.
LOL
So..........anyone who thinks they have just cause to question the integrity of members here having shown sharply targeted responses to our theist-troll-bomber of insidious crap... well, they've just not been around enough to experience the width, length and wealth of bullshit MR is prepared to squander here.
For...........what IS exactly the proper response to walls of text of completely treacherous, deceitful, uninteresting tripe?
How is this man any different than Stupid Dave who twirled us all with tales of Noah's Ark and his **proof**?
MR offers us
(//http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zHpSBzIl8Yk/T7wEIqxHhxI/AAAAAAAAAXQ/hGYPQkckjvQ/s1600/bullshit.jpg)
time and time and time again..................... and again.
This is a bad as a Goldilocks argument for God: This tea is too hot, no God. This tea is too cold, no God. This tea is just right, God exists.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Some of you may me startled by the title, but it is indeed true. And i specify below exactly why. The sure-fire way to convince me to become an atheist (something i will never rule out, although deism would be my preferred standard option) would be to refute the below.
From my own blog , so this is not copy-pasted(in case someone runs a search).
http://scientificphilosopher.wordpress. ... rstand-it/ (http://scientificphilosopher.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/the-human-conscious-will-we-ever-understand-it/)
One of the most puzzling aspects of trying to fully understand our brain is that of human consciousness .We speak , we think, we feel, we understand, we strategize – and much of this is shared with animals. The remarkably puzzling thing is, what part in us exactly 'feels' the pain?
Some can rightly assert that the stimulus is detected by a sense organs receptor, and by a nervous pathway travels to the brain where it processes everything, and then produces a response (the brain is by-passed in a reflex response). This explanation would be an accurate explanation had the question been titled "how do we detect our environment". This simply explains how our body detects and processes stimuli, but it does not explain what part 'feels' any of it.
Consider a mildly warm tea cup. Perhaps you are sitting on your sofa on a lazy sunday morning, sipping tea – or coffee – and the mild warm sensation of the gently flowing down your throat can be felt. We can easily explain how the warm tea is detected. We can explain what part of the brain it is processed. However, what is the 'raw' feeling of warm tea being swallowed?
If you touch a fire, the reflex response and what happens on the basic cellular level can be understood, but that's simply neurotransmitters being transmitted across synapses. Exactly what is the 'raw' feeling of the agony one gets when they touch a flame? How can seemingly unconscious atoms simply being transmitted translate to a 'feeling' of raw pain?
If we designed a robot to have a complex CPU, to be able to respond, understand, think of it's own accord, no matter how complex this CPU was, would it ever be able to feel? Would the electrons flitting across it's circuit boards ever translate to that 'raw' feeling we humans possess ?
My conclusion: There is something else, something more, an essence that simply can not be due to natural process's(it can be evoked by natural processes but itself is an external force or reality that enables us to 'feel'. We have dissected the brain, analysed it, have volumes of books on the nervous system, and yet, i thoroughly doubt there ever will be an answer to this.
I'm going to sum up your entire argument in one, simple sentence: "I do not understand the laws of nature, therefore god exists."
If you want to become an Atheist, you need to do 2 things:
1: Read your damned holy book, whichever it may be, and use your common sense.
2: Read some science books and gain a true understanding of Nature in its true beauty.
"Add plausible evidence"
Wait a second, so there's evidence already around that he can add to?
Quote from: "Rin Hato""Add plausible evidence"
Wait a second, so there's evidence already around that he can add to?
His evidence is fallacious argument that have nothing to back them up except appeals to ignorance.
Quote from: "Hydra009"Frankly, I'm surprised he got as many serious responses as he did.
MFW he got a serious response.
(//http://atheistforums.com/download/file.php?avatar=21917_1363121551.jpg)
Quote from: "Davka"I notice the OP likes to create these threads and then abandon them. Perhaps he finds himself unable to defend his theses?
I offer gentle mockery and a big, fat "LO-O-O-O-O-O-O-OSER!" in his general direction. :popcorn:
I predict he will be gone several weeks before writting more bullshit threads. Somehow he is hoping we will forget his bullshit.
Quote from: "St Giordano Bruno"This is a bad as a Goldilocks argument for God: This tea is too hot, no God. This tea is too cold, no God. This tea is just right, God exists.
Where any temperature is "just right".
1. If tea exists, God exists.
2. Tea exists.
3. Therefore God exists.
Another theist argument from ignorance............the feeling of pain is demonstrated throughout the animal kingdom clear down to invertebrates and is not exclusive to a high order cerebral cortex cognitive brain but can be seated in the lower brain stem as well.
This is a human ego centric ignorant "common sense" attempt to try to understand a natural phenomenon in which the individual questioning it does not know enough to even ask the right question but is clouded by the idea we are "created in God's image" crap of being special.
Furthermore, if there is a soul component to a human..... Where is it when the brain is damaged?
A person can lose the memory, morality, and experience delusions and hallucinations all from brain injury or disease. In a coma, a person can remain alive but feel no pain at all.............so how is that related to the existence of a soul?
There is no evidence of human conscious or thoughts...........without a functioning brain....
....when the brain ceases to function for good, as in death; so does everything else..............as a result there is no evidence for a soul.
Humans have to learn to get beyond the limitations of their "common sense" fallacies and desire to have a causality agent (baggage from our natural selection of the fear of the unknown being a predator) as excuses for anything they are ignorant about.
Do you realize what the bottom line is here?
For centuries now........science has been demonstrating that there is a natural explanation for everything we don't understand. When given enough time we have solved so many natural phenomena of the past as we continue to do so today and will in the future.
The person of faith sees that if this continues............if science finds life existing somewhere else in our solar system/universe......if science reveals the complete process of abiogenesis, or if science can create life in the lab from inanimate matter............and if science finds the factors behind what caused the big bang...........then there will be no more need to attribute the supernatural to these phenomenon....
They are actually in a war against their very survival............and within their ignorance they are getting more desperate every day.
Quote from: "PghPanther"For centuries now........science has been demonstrating that there is a natural explanation for everything we don't understand. When given enough time we have solved so many natural phenomena of the past as we continue to do so today and will in the future.
No it hasn't! No we won't! They're just making stuff up! Science proves God but the Scientists won't admit it!
(//http://www.uselessgraphics.com/lala.gif)
/fundamentalist
http://renasherwood.hubpages.com/hub/Go ... ses_of_Tea (http://renasherwood.hubpages.com/hub/Gods_And_Goddesses_of_Tea)
Oh, bloody hell!
What a silly, silly OP. I want my 2 minutes back.
When I read your fallacy laden posts, I get an involuntary response of mild disgust. Hey! Did I just prove that god exists?
1. If MR's fallacious posts cause involuntary disgust, god exists.
2. MR's fallacious posts make me disgusted.
Conclusion. Therefore god exists.
Yep, makes sense to me.
Alright guys,
We just need to acknowledged we can not grapple or 'hack' human consciousness. In terms of science, there is so much more we have to learn, and the human brain has puzzled us.
My argument does not come from the 'god of the gaps' argument. I merely assert that we live in the physical. Sight, pain, all of these 'sensations' should not exist in a stimulus-response world.
The most complex robot could never 'see' or 'feel'. Yes, it could 'respond' , 'detect' , 'plan', but never 'feel'.
You can tell me what causes pain, how it came about, what it's used for, what it does, but no-one can put a hand on that 'raw' feeling, which is a collosal gap that does make me lean towards the idea of there being an added component - not a soul, but certainly something else we have not discovered, and that we will never discover, because you can not tangibly 'touch' your mind.
QuoteWe just need to acknowledged we can not grapple or 'hack' human consciousness.
Why? That won't prove anything, it'll just show that there's stuff we don't know yet.
QuoteIn terms of science, there is so much more we have to learn, and the human brain has puzzled us.
We've made huge progress the last few years, though. We can already make you feel stuff by hooking an electrode into your brain, to show you just how much of the process of feeling is physical.
QuoteMy argument does not come from the 'god of the gaps' argument.
Yes it does. Just watch.
QuoteI merely assert that we live in the physical. Sight, pain, all of these 'sensations' should not exist in a stimulus-response world.
If they "should" not exist, that just means your model of looking at the world is wrong. They "do" exist.
QuoteThe most complex robot could never 'see' or 'feel'. Yes, it could 'respond' , 'detect' , 'plan', but never 'feel'.
You don't know that, you just think that because it would prove your point. Fact is, we've never built a robot that could feel, but we've not built all possible robots either. So we can't be sure yet.
QuoteYou can tell me what causes pain, how it came about, what it's used for, what it does, but no-one can put a hand on that 'raw' feeling,
Right.
Quotewhich is a collosal gap
Watch this word. Watch what it does to your argument.
Quotethat does make me lean towards the idea of there being an added component - not a soul, but certainly something else we have not discovered, and that we will never discover, because you can not tangibly 'touch' your mind.
BOOM. From the gap rises the god. Guess how we call this fallacy? It's interesting that you didn't catch your own fallacy when you
literally say "there is this gap in science, which makes me think there's a god".
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"You can tell me what causes pain, .
We have nerves, nerve endings. :shock: :shock: :shock: Google it.
jesus MR............ this is getting kinda silly don't you think?
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Quote from: "mendacium remedium"You can tell me what causes pain, .
We have nerves, nerve endings. :shock: :shock: :shock: Google it.
jesus MR............ this is getting kinda silly don't you think?
I know how pain is caused.
I know how it came about to exist.
I know the mechanisms.
But what is the 'raw' emotion?
Nerve endings are not the 'raw' agony.
The gap i talk about is the difference between a 'raw agony' and neuro-transmitters going across synapses and being detected.
Yeah. Which is a gap in science. And you're using it to justify your belief in god. Which is a "god of the gaps" fallacy. "We don't understand this, therefore god."
It's literally the same thing as one thousand years ago someone going "Oh, bright light comes from the sky and then trees catch fire. It must be god."
It's amazing that you don't understand this.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"You can tell me what causes pain, how it came about, what it's used for, what it does, but no-one can put a hand on that 'raw' feeling, which is a collosal gap that does make me lean towards the idea of there being an added component - not a soul, but certainly something else we have not discovered, and that we will never discover, because you can not tangibly 'touch' your mind.
I'm not sure what it is that you're actually trying to identify here. That raw feeling that you're trying to describe is the pattern of neurons in your brain firing in response to a stimuli.
And I can quite easily touch your mind. I'll need you to put your head in a big magnet to do it though.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"The gap i talk about is the difference between a 'raw agony' and neuro-transmitters going across synapses and being detected.
I've asked you before, but you did not respond (or likely read) it: What does adding "raw" mean--uncooked, unprocessed? Does it have some solid definition or is it just a slippery word to prevent people from grabbing hold of your question too tightly?
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"I know how pain is caused.
I know how it came about to exist.
I know the mechanisms.
But what is the 'raw' emotion?
Nerve endings are not the 'raw' agony.
The agony is how the brain interprets the signals coming from the nerves. Pain is nothing more than a survival mechanism.
There is no need to evoke anything magical to explain this process.
MR, you're aware there are people with a rare condition who don't feel pain, right? Their life pretty much sucks. Pain is necessary for survival and makes all kinds of evolutionary sense.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Blah, blah, blah, magic and mysticism, blah, blah, ambiguous terminology, blah, blah, blah, blah, we don't understand, blah, blah, we will never understand because..., blah, blah, blah, we can't build robots exactly like us, therefore God.
I have to admit, it's not your least compelling argument ever.
Holy smokes the title of the thread is very funny.
Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"MR, you're aware there are people with a rare condition who don't feel pain, right? Their life pretty much sucks. Pain is necessary for survival and makes all kinds of evolutionary sense.
I completely acknowledge that. I acknowledge you can operate a body, use anesthesia, and they won't feel pain.
My argument is only , when someone does feel pain we can talk about how the pain is caused, (stimulus, sensory neuron), how it travels (transmitters across synapses), how it's detected/processed in the brain. That's all fair.
But that is what it does, how it helps, how it's processed.
What is the 'raw' agony of touching a fire?
Quote from: "Plu"Yeah. Which is a gap in science. And you're using it to justify your belief in god. Which is a "god of the gaps" fallacy. "We don't understand this, therefore god."
It's literally the same thing as one thousand years ago someone going "Oh, bright light comes from the sky and then trees catch fire. It must be god."
It's amazing that you don't understand this.
Thank you for acknowledging it's a gap. A lot of people were trying to 'force' the issue that there is no 'gap' here and it's just 'neurons gonna neuron'.
It just fascinates me...what exactly is the 'raw' feeling of pain.
To be honest I only half understand what you're even talking about, but I see no problems with gaps in our understanding of the universe. Only in people trying to claim the gap must be a god, like you are.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Alright guys,
We just need to acknowledged we can not grapple or 'hack' human consciousness.
I can do so just fine. I don't even have to touch the brain itself to do some rather ham-handed 'hacking.' I can, for instance, turn your Broca's area off entirely with a magnetic induction loop, rendering you with the complete inability to comprehend words and symbols, and all the accompanying thought that comes from that. A few minutes later, that ability comes back as the neurons get themselves in order again.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"In terms of science, there is so much more we have to learn, and the human brain has puzzled us.
My argument does not come from the 'god of the gaps' argument. I merely assert that we live in the physical. Sight, pain, all of these 'sensations' should not exist in a stimulus-response world.
Because you say so, and yes, this
is a "god of the gaps" type argument because you assert something about the nature of sensation without positive evidence of the assertion, which you just did again — I quote, "all of these 'sensations' should not exist in a stimulus-response world."
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"The most complex robot could never 'see' or 'feel'. Yes, it could 'respond' , 'detect' , 'plan', but never 'feel'.
Again, because you say so.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"You can tell me what causes pain, how it came about, what it's used for, what it does, but no-one can put a hand on that 'raw' feeling,
Because you say so.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"which is a collosal gap
'Colossal,' because you say so.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"that does make me lean towards the idea of there being an added component - not a soul, but certainly something else we have not discovered, and that we will never discover, because you can not tangibly 'touch' your mind.
Because you say so.
Quote from: "Plu"To be honest I only half understand what you're even talking about, but I see no problems with gaps in our understanding of the universe. Only in people trying to claim the gap must be a god, like you are.
What i am trying to claim is that the 'raw' feeling of pain can not be explained using the physical.
We can explain how it's caused, what it does, why it's there, how it can be stopped,
but the actual 'raw' feeling...the ability to 'feel' that raw feeling, definitely is not materialistic...
Even if you design the most complex of robots which can detect, sense, respond, survive, i really do not see how electrons swirling through circuit boards will ever produce a robot that 'feels'.
I think there is something else here something within every living thing that feels.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Quote from: "Plu"To be honest I only half understand what you're even talking about, but I see no problems with gaps in our understanding of the universe. Only in people trying to claim the gap must be a god, like you are.
What i am trying to claim is that the 'raw' feeling of pain can not be explained using the physical.
Because you say so. All you can do is shake your finger insipidly at the sensation and scream, "YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN IT!!!!"
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"but the actual 'raw' feeling...the ability to 'feel' that raw feeling, definitely is not materialistic...
Because you say so.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Alright guys,
We just need to acknowledged we can not grapple or 'hack' human consciousness. In terms of science, there is so much more we have to learn, and the human brain has puzzled us.
My argument does not come from the 'god of the gaps' argument. I merely assert that we live in the physical. Sight, pain, all of these 'sensations' should not exist in a stimulus-response world.
The most complex robot could never 'see' or 'feel'. Yes, it could 'respond' , 'detect' , 'plan', but never 'feel'.
You can tell me what causes pain, how it came about, what it's used for, what it does, but no-one can put a hand on that 'raw' feeling, which is a collosal gap that does make me lean towards the idea of there being an added component - not a soul, but certainly something else we have not discovered, and that we will never discover, because you can not tangibly 'touch' your mind.
(//http://us2.veselba.kafence.com/pix/tabeli/despair/jesus_facepalm.jpg)
QuoteWhat i am trying to claim is that the 'raw' feeling of pain can not be explained using the physical.
First off, it cannot be explained
currently. You can't predict the future, so you can't make blanket statements.
Second off, even if it could never ever ever be explained, that still doesn't require a god, and this is still a god of the gaps argument.
So even
if you were right about it being unexplainable, which has not been shown, you'd
still have no argument for god.
What is the "raw" feeling?
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Quote from: "Plu"To be honest I only half understand what you're even talking about, but I see no problems with gaps in our understanding of the universe. Only in people trying to claim the gap must be a god, like you are.
What i am trying to claim is that the 'raw' feeling of pain can not be explained using the physical.
Because you say so. All you can do is shake your finger insipidly at the sensation and scream, "YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN IT!!!!"
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"but the actual 'raw' feeling...the ability to 'feel' that raw feeling, definitely is not materialistic...
Because you say so.
Because it is not materialistic. Your 'mind' is not material either.
These things are 'made' by the physical, but themselves aren't physical.
Quote from: "Rin Hato"What is the "raw" feeling?
I can use any example. Say you tap the palm of your hand, or you hold an ice cube.
You can tell me how it happens: stimulus, sensory neuron, transmitters.
You can tell me where it is processed : brain
Why it's useful: protection ect
How it's come about: (to the atheist, or to some theists, random mutation and natural selection over an age via evolution).
But that is that 'raw' feeling of the 'cold' ice cube?
Quick poll guys:
Do you think if i designed a robot to move, 'detect', 'plan', 'strategize', the electrons whizzing around it's circuit board to it's CPU would ever result in the robot 'feeling'?
As I thought.
You've literally made up something that nobody knows the meaning of and has no basis in reality out with your own incoherent ramblings.
Here, let me try:
You know Cracklin Oat Bran? Why does it taste so good? You can tell me why I would find the sense of taste particular to Cracklin Oat Bran pleasing, but what is the "raw" pleasure I get? There must be done higher entity that gives me the "raw" pleasure when I eat Cracklin Oat Bran.
Quote from: "Rin Hato"As I thought.
You've literally made up something that nobody knows the meaning of and has no basis in reality out with your own incoherent ramblings.
Here, let me try:
You know Cracklin Oat Bran? Why does it taste so good? You can tell me why I would find the sense of taste particular to Cracklin Oat Bran pleasing, but what is the "raw" pleasure I get? There must be done higher entity that gives me the "raw" pleasure when I eat Cracklin Oat Bran.
LOL :rollin:
Let me extrapolate my argument from yours:
You can tell me how the sensation of taste comes about
You can tell me what happens on the molecular level
You can tell me how the system arose
BUT you can not tell me what that 'raw' emotion of taste is, and how neurotransmitters being detected = raw feeling.
We can't tell you, because you just made it up. There is no "raw" feeling. It's just word salad you thought up while on drugs.
"Woah, man, hey, what about that "raw" feeling man? Like, we can feel, but what is, like the "raw feeling, man? This is some good shit man, spiritual."
You still have not provided ANY evidence that god exists... you simply pointed out that we don't understand certain things yet... Even if that did prove a god exists, that still comes nowhere close to proving that the judeo/christian god is it.
Keep trying
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Quick poll guys:
Do you think if i designed a robot to move, 'detect', 'plan', 'strategize', the electrons whizzing around it's circuit board to it's CPU would ever result in the robot 'feeling'?
Well, I seriously doubt you could do it, but I'm damned sure that once our technology has reached sufficient levels that someone could easily do this, in-fact, very soon a computer will be made that could realize greater power than the human brain, in which case, it would easily be able to comprehend feelings if programmed as such.
Your analogies are weaker than the smell of an odourless gas.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"It just fascinates me...what exactly is the 'raw' feeling of pain.
Exactly what you say it is - a feeling. What is a feeling? Something that occurs in living creatures. That you want it to be more than that has nothing to do with reality. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Because it is not materialistic. Your 'mind' is not material either.
These things are 'made' by the physical, but themselves aren't physical.
Because you say so.
Let me try another tact. How do you know you are not a p-zombie? That is, a human-shaped being that has all the outward appearance and behavior of a human being with qualia — that is, it moves, 'detects', 'plans', 'strategize', and even has the clever programming to 'think' that it 'feels', yet does not actually 'feel'? How do you know you are not a cleverly programmed biological robot, such that you need all that non-material stuff to exist to explain you? How do you know you are are a real person that actually feels, rather than a clever automaton that only behaves as if they 'feels'?
The real question is: if you design a robot to move could it ever understand "raw" movement?
Oh, sure maybe it could tell you how it happens; maybe it could tell you where it is processed; maybe it could tell you why it's useful; maybe it could tell you how it's come about
But what is that 'raw' movement of the 'move' order
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Quick poll guys:
Do you think if i designed a robot to move, 'detect', 'plan', 'strategize', the electrons whizzing around it's circuit board to it's CPU would ever result in the robot 'feeling'?
Why not, given sufficiently powerful hardware and suitable programming? You've given no argument any more convincing than "CPUS
CANT FEEL—THEREFMORE, FEELING > PHYSICAL!" You've given nothing to establish 'feelings' as anything separate from 'processing.'
What about monkeys? Do they feel 'raw' pain?
How about fish?
How about the ancient fish from which we evolved?
How about the ancient plants?
At what point during our evolution did the non materialistic power decide to insert the 'raw' pain experience 2.0 into its proper physical slot?
I thought for a second I saw God's image in my cup of tea, but it turned out to be just mine as I was looking down in it.
MR..jeeez..
Masturbation feels good generally.. It's, for lack of a better term generally slippery friction does the trick so why not non slippery? Why not coarse sandpaper to the pecker till shavings fall off? Why? Because God hates you and wants you to burn in hell forever so he invented slippery friction..
I hope that helps and here's to slippery friction. Now go rape Mary Palm and all her sisters some more.. :roll:
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Alright guys,
We just need to acknowledged we can not grapple or 'hack' human consciousness. In terms of science, there is so much more we have to learn, and the human brain has puzzled us.
My argument does not come from the 'god of the gaps' argument. I merely assert that we live in the physical. Sight, pain, all of these 'sensations' should not exist in a stimulus-response world.
Nonsense. Thoughts, emotions, and other mental activities are material events, signified by the exchange of microvoltages along neural circuitry that is attuned to the phenomenon being sensed or pondered. Consciousness is the recursive phenomenon of the brain observing itself in action.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"The most complex robot could never 'see' or 'feel'. Yes, it could 'respond' , 'detect' , 'plan', but never 'feel'.
I don't trust anyone who claims to have certain knowledge of the future.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"You can tell me what causes pain, how it came about, what it's used for, what it does, but no-one can put a hand on that 'raw' feeling, which is a collosal gap that does make me lean towards the idea of there being an added component - not a soul, but certainly something else we have not discovered, and that we will never discover, because you can not tangibly 'touch' your mind.
That's because the mind is a process, not an object. You're making a category error here.
And in any event, none of this stuff you're peddling has anything to do with any god.
My Corvette doesn't have a turbo-supercharger -- therefore god doesn't exist is just as logical.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Quick poll guys:
Do you think if i designed a robot to move, 'detect', 'plan', 'strategize', the electrons whizzing around it's circuit board to it's CPU would ever result in the robot 'feeling'?
Well, I'm holding a basic version of such a thing in my hands. It's called an iPod.
Sensory information is detected and sent to the brain, right?
Similarly, a touch input on the screen is sent to the CPU.
This is literally what "feeling" is.
QuoteDo you think if i designed a robot to move, 'detect', 'plan', 'strategize', the electrons whizzing around it's circuit board to it's CPU would ever result in the robot 'feeling'?
If we were to design it for that, probably, yes. Of course it would have a massively different kind of architecture behind it, because we currently don't want robots to feel, we want them to do useful work. The reason you can't imagine a robot 'feeling', is because you're thinking about an extension to our current electronic hardware, which is absolutely
not designed for the task.
It's about as pointless as asking if we'll ever design a pizza that has feelings. Of course we won't, that's not what we make them for. When we need a feeling robot, we'll model it after the kind of thing that we know has feeling, which will probably be an organic processing unit of some sort, because that kind of hardware is far more suited to the purpose.
Of course, the first steps have already been set. Here's an example of a feeling robot:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/201 ... nd-control (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-12/04/insect-mind-control)
You might want to move the goalpost now by claiming that it's not a robot if it contains organic parts (which of course is a meaningless statement, because it's all just molecules) to keep your argument going a few years longer.
QuoteMy argument is that we are creatures who have immeasurably precise designation and placement of atoms. If we also designed a robot with a cpu this time with amazing complexity, could it 'feel'?
I think the answer is no. I can understand responding to stimuli, how the nervous system works, how it all occurs...but the 'raw' agony of touching a flame?
If a computer was given organic receptors underneath an organic skin, and was given currents from these receptors that were processed like ours... why not? Just because we don't have that technology yet doesn't mean one day we couldn't make an organic robot that runs on a man-made brain.
And why do we know the "raw" feeling of anything, as opposed to any other animal? How do we know that an eel, elephant, cat or dog isn't what feels the most "raw" feeling and we merely feel "less raw" feelings? What about sight? There animals that can see in spectrum's beyound or vision... can they see more "raw" light waves? What about dogs, who's sense of smell is far superiour to ours?
For that matter, what part of us feels the "True raw" feelings? If you burn your finger, it will feel different from burning your foot, tongue, eye, lip, etc.. If you pierce your nose it is vastly different from having your tongue, ear or nipple pierced. Would your genitalia not be the best organ for sensing the "True raw" feelings of something, because of its abundance of receptors?
Sorry, but the fact that we don't have a uniform sense of touch rules this out to me. Added onto the fact that animals may feel and interpret their senses different than ours, and the concept of a "raw" feeling seems baseless.
These objects would feel like nothing if there was nothing to perceive them. There is no objective feeling or perception of anything.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"LOL :rollin:
Let me extrapolate my argument from yours:
You can tell me how the sensation of taste comes about
You can tell me what happens on the molecular level
You can tell me how the system arose
BUT you can not tell me what that 'raw' emotion of taste is, and how neurotransmitters being detected = raw feeling.
Has it ever occurred to you that you might be asking the wrong question?
That there is no 'raw' sensation. That it is just a chain reaction from an initial stimulus?
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"LOL :rollin:
Let me extrapolate my argument from yours:
You can tell me how the sensation of taste comes about
You can tell me what happens on the molecular level
You can tell me how the system arose
BUT you can not tell me what that 'raw' emotion of taste is, and how neurotransmitters being detected = raw feeling.
I didn't know that taste was an emotion. What the hell are you talking about?
Quote from: "NitzWalsh"Quote from: "mendacium remedium"LOL :rollin:
Let me extrapolate my argument from yours:
You can tell me how the sensation of taste comes about
You can tell me what happens on the molecular level
You can tell me how the system arose
BUT you can not tell me what that 'raw' emotion of taste is, and how neurotransmitters being detected = raw feeling.
I didn't know that taste was an emotion. What the hell are you talking about?
I wouldn't ask him that, because I'm not sure he even knows. It's just a load of shit that he made up.
MR.. I'm obviously a heretic of the worse kind because I don't really like tea all that much and definitely don't get your divine hardon sipping warm tea..
I do however take out my pecker and jerk off in public to a good cup of coffee, but that's only because I was a bottle baby. God has nothing to do with it. :roll:
What about drinking a pepsi ? This also proves god exists ?
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"MR, you're aware there are people with a rare condition who don't feel pain, right? Their life pretty much sucks. Pain is necessary for survival and makes all kinds of evolutionary sense.
I completely acknowledge that. I acknowledge you can operate a body, use anesthesia, and they won't feel pain.
My argument is only , when someone does feel pain we can talk about how the pain is caused, (stimulus, sensory neuron), how it travels (transmitters across synapses), how it's detected/processed in the brain. That's all fair.
But that is what it does, how it helps, how it's processed.
What is the 'raw' agony of touching a fire?
And you answer your own question, ie. stimulus, neurons, synapses, and processing in the brain, then focus entirely on this "raw" sensation that has no real objective meaning outside of the neural processing you just described.
That
is your answer. Touching a fire, and that "raw agony" is your body's way of telling you to get the fuck away from the fire because it'll severely damage your body. The more damaging, the more intense the pain. It's your internal warning system, but it also has coping mechanisms like doing an endorphin dump to block the pain signals after the initial shock so it's more bearable. Go to your local college and take a few 200-300 level psych courses, and you can learn all about the nervous system.
Everyone knows the real proof of god is the sound of one hand clapping. Can you describe it? Can you even tell me how it's done? Of course not, only god knows for sure.
BTW, drinking coffee is a much better way to prove the existence of god. I only drink tea when i'm in a Chinese restaurant, and you know the Chinese are a godless people.
Quote from: "NonXNonExX"Everyone knows the real proof of god is the sound of one hand clapping. Can you describe it? Can you even tell me how it's done? Of course not, only god knows for sure.
BTW, drinking coffee is a much better way to prove the existence of god. I only drink tea when i'm in a Chinese restaurant, and you know the Chinese are a godless people.
:rollin:
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"but the actual 'raw' feeling...the ability to 'feel' that raw feeling, definitely is not materialistic...
I see what you're doing here. It's actually kind of clever. Let me break it down. All of your argument attempt to dismiss any physical process as a possibility for some thing, any thing, so that the only thing left is your god. Actually, you're not even to that point yet. You just want an admission that it must be supernatural, then you'll move on to narrowing it down to only your god in later arguments. In this case you do that in several steps.
1) Admit the existence of all known physical processes involved
2) Claim that none of those physical processes are what you're talking about
3) Make up a completely undefined term to describe what you're talking about
4) Resist all requests to define that term
5) Insist that all physical processes presented do not address this undefined concept
So long as you never define the term "raw feeling" you can continue to deny that any physical process mentioned deals with it. You get to group them with the physical processes you've admitted to, but keep this undefined term separated from them by a shroud of "what the hell is this guy talking about?" This argument is pointless until you have clearly defined the concept so that all can understand it. But your argument will fall apart the very moment you do. Same old head games and dishonest argument style you've been using the whole time, only this time you've found a way to shroud it in more confusion than usual. Well played.
Is it sad that most of MR's questions can be googled?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion)
definitions and articles concerning *raw emotion* can be found online in the plenty category.
Just because human beings have complicated minds and are capable of raw emotional responses, etc does nothing to prove a creator. Nothing.
MR needs to get OUT of the "I have no answer for _________" therefore insert God.
derrr
this is getting old
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Alright guys,
We just need to acknowledged we can not grapple or 'hack' human consciousness. In terms of science, there is so much more we have to learn, and the human brain has puzzled us.
We're learning more about the human brain all the time.
QuoteMy argument does not come from the 'god of the gaps' argument. I merely assert that we live in the physical. Sight, pain, all of these 'sensations' should not exist in a stimulus-response world.
Of course they should.
QuoteThe most complex robot could never 'see' or 'feel'. Yes, it could 'respond' , 'detect' , 'plan', but never 'feel'.
This is nothing more than your opinion. Homo Sapiens is the most complex robot we are aware of, and we certainly seem to see and feel.
QuoteYou can tell me what causes pain, how it came about, what it's used for, what it does, but no-one can put a hand on that 'raw' feeling, which is a collosal gap that does make me lean towards the idea of there being an added component - not a soul, but certainly something else we have not discovered, and that we will never discover, because you can not tangibly 'touch' your mind.
This is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. You don't know what consciousness is, so you decide that this particular area of ignorance is a good place to put your god.
What you are doing is no different from primitive people concluding that because they do not understand lightning, it must be sent from the gods. The history of science is a steady replacement of supernatural explanations with natural ones. So far, nothing we have examined has turned out to require a supernatural explanation. I see no reason why consciousness should be any different.
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Is it sad that most of MR's questions can be googled?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion)
definitions and articles concerning *raw emotion* can be found online in the plenty category.
Just because human beings have complicated minds and are capable of raw emotional responses, etc does nothing to prove a creator. Nothing.
MR needs to get OUT of the "I have no answer for _________" therefore insert God.
derrr
this is getting old
Yes, really all of his arguments break down to exactly the same claim, don't they? "We don't understand it, therefore God." The only real deviation from that is the enormous amount of assumptions he makes in each argument, each one convenient to his argument.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Quote from: "Rin Hato"As I thought.
You've literally made up something that nobody knows the meaning of and has no basis in reality out with your own incoherent ramblings.
Here, let me try:
You know Cracklin Oat Bran? Why does it taste so good? You can tell me why I would find the sense of taste particular to Cracklin Oat Bran pleasing, but what is the "raw" pleasure I get? There must be done higher entity that gives me the "raw" pleasure when I eat Cracklin Oat Bran.
LOL :rollin:
Let me extrapolate my argument from yours:
You can tell me how the sensation of taste comes about
You can tell me what happens on the molecular level
You can tell me how the system arose
BUT you can not tell me what that 'raw' emotion of taste is, and how neurotransmitters being detected = raw feeling.
The "interpretation" the brain does about the sensations he gets and "tell" the body what is happening, can be understood by neurological and electro biochemistry studies. This happens mostly with all social animals with nervous systems evolved.
Such an interpretation, even if partially explained means absolutely nothing that part yet unexplained suggest something supernatural, same way with quantum physics, atomic theory, abiogenesis, the multiverse, evolution...
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Quote from: "mendacium remedium"You can tell me what causes pain, .
We have nerves, nerve endings. :shock: :shock: :shock: Google it.
jesus MR............ this is getting kinda silly don't you think?
I know how pain is caused.
I know how it came about to exist.
I know the mechanisms.
But what is the 'raw' emotion?
Nerve endings are not the 'raw' agony.
I don't even know what the hell you are asking. Nerves transmit sensations to the brain, which registers the sensations as pleasant, painful, burning, itching, whatever. What is it that you need to know? And how does ANY of it translate as evidence of God?
One would think you could get more "plausible" evidence drinking strong spirits, or even experimenting with hallucinogenic drugs.
I'll save 9 pages of reading, but I bet that God still dosn't exist. Except of course Odin, God of War.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Let me extrapolate my argument from yours:
You can tell me how the sensation of taste comes about
You can tell me what happens on the molecular level
You can tell me how the system arose
BUT you can not tell me what that 'raw' emotion of taste is, and how neurotransmitters being detected = raw feeling.
These are the exact same arguments used by Vitalists, now rejected by mainstream scientists, to assert that that molecular activity and bodily functions can't solely account for life, hence living entities are fundamentally different from non-living entities and must have some raw non-physical vital life force that makes them different from non-living things. A Vitalist would say that although we can explain reproduction, development, growth, metabolism, self repair, immunological self defense etc that doesn't account for the force of life itself. This position would of course necessitate that something could possess all of the aforementioned properties yet not be alive, a position to me at least which seems patently absurd.
Regarding your own position about neurological activity not being able to account for consciousness or 'qualia', we can apply a similar argument. If your being consistent, you should admit the possibility that some Humans who possess all the same physical processes, faculties and behaviors as you, are in fact not conscious because they somehow lack this "raw vital non-physical consciousness". These zombies, indistinguishable from normal Humans, laugh when amused, eat when hungry, cry when they are upset, behave as though they love their children, conduct scientific experiments and engage in profound philosophical arguments about the nature of consciousness, however they are not in fact conscious, because by some freak of nature they don't have this mysterious " raw vital feeling". Could we conduct a scientific experiment to prove who were the zombies and who were the real conscious people with raw feelings? No, hence this 'raw feeling' becomes entirely meaningless and unverifiable.
The belief in some vital essence of consciousness seems to me to be a prime example of approaching things completely backwards, it's like saying you can imagine a locomotive with it's engines at full power, all of it's parts working and fully operational, it's on the track, it's wheels are spinning and it's engines are chugging away but it's not moving anywhere because it lacks the "raw motion" that makes it move.
There are experts in the history of religion that believe many religions began with drug experiences.
Quote from: "robandrob1"Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Let me extrapolate my argument from yours:
You can tell me how the sensation of taste comes about
You can tell me what happens on the molecular level
You can tell me how the system arose
BUT you can not tell me what that 'raw' emotion of taste is, and how neurotransmitters being detected = raw feeling.
These are the exact same arguments used by Vitalists, now rejected by mainstream scientists, to assert that that molecular activity and bodily functions can't solely account for life, hence living entities are fundamentally different from non-living entities and must have some raw non-physical vital life force that makes them different from non-living things. A Vitalist would say that although we can explain reproduction, development, growth, metabolism, self repair, immunological self defense etc that doesn't account for the force of life itself. This position would of course necessitate that something could possess all of the aforementioned properties yet not be alive, a position to me at least which seems patently absurd.
Regarding your own position about neurological activity not being able to account for consciousness or 'qualia', we can apply a similar argument. If your being consistent, you should admit the possibility that some Humans who possess all the same physical processes, faculties and behaviors as you, are in fact not conscious because they somehow lack this "raw vital non-physical consciousness". These zombies, indistinguishable from normal Humans, laugh when amused, eat when hungry, cry when they are upset, behave as though they love their children, conduct scientific experiments and engage in profound philosophical arguments about the nature of consciousness, however they are not in fact conscious, because by some freak of nature they don't have this mysterious " raw vital feeling". Could we conduct a scientific experiment to prove who were the zombies and who were the real conscious people with raw feelings? No, hence this 'raw feeling' becomes entirely meaningless and unverifiable.
The belief in some vital essence of consciousness seems to me to be a prime example of approaching things completely backwards, it's like saying you can imagine a locomotive with it's engines at full power, all of it's parts working and fully operational, it's on the track, it's wheels are spinning and it's engines are chugging away but it's not moving anywhere because it lacks the "raw motion" that makes it move.
+1 great post would read again
Jesus, this jumped up half a dozen pages since I last saw it. Ô_o
And the moral of this story is: There is no plausible evidence for the existence of God.
Quote from: "St Giordano Bruno"One would think you could get more "plausible" evidence drinking strong spirits, or even experimenting with hallucinogenic drugs.
This is why I'm drinking Long Island iced tea to find evidence for this thread...you know, for science.
Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"Quote from: "St Giordano Bruno"One would think you could get more "plausible" evidence drinking strong spirits, or even experimenting with hallucinogenic drugs.
This is why I'm drinking Long Island iced tea to find evidence for this thread...you know, for science.
Unfortunately this thread doesn't exist, so you can just keep drinking.
My favorite non-evidence is "see this watch, see the stars, therefore god."
Quote from: "NonXNonExX"My favorite non-evidence is "see this watch, see the stars, therefore god."
A friend of mine told me the universe was all perfectly ordered and harmonious, so I asked for evidence and his evidence was that his wife smiles at him.
Quote from: "NitzWalsh"Quote from: "NonXNonExX"My favorite non-evidence is "see this watch, see the stars, therefore god."
A friend of mine told me the universe was all perfectly ordered and harmonious, so I asked for evidence and his evidence was that his wife smiles at him.
The fact that a woman would actually smile at someone so dumb....well, he just might be on to something.
Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"Quote from: "NitzWalsh"Quote from: "NonXNonExX"My favorite non-evidence is "see this watch, see the stars, therefore god."
A friend of mine told me the universe was all perfectly ordered and harmonious, so I asked for evidence and his evidence was that his wife smiles at him.
The fact that a woman would actually smile at someone so dumb....well, he just might be on to something.
It's the devil, probably.
Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"Quote from: "NitzWalsh"Quote from: "NonXNonExX"My favorite non-evidence is "see this watch, see the stars, therefore god."
A friend of mine told me the universe was all perfectly ordered and harmonious, so I asked for evidence and his evidence was that his wife smiles at him.
The fact that a woman would actually smile at someone so dumb....well, he just might be on to something.
Thinking the same thing. Someone showing ANY appreciation for that level of stupid might have to qualify as divine intervention of some sort.
Wow........ all this time here. And we've finally evidence that a god exists. LMAO
Quote from: "Rin Hato"As I thought.
You've literally made up something that nobody knows the meaning of and has no basis in reality out with your own incoherent ramblings.
Here, let me try:
You know Cracklin Oat Bran? Why does it taste so good? You can tell me why I would find the sense of taste particular to Cracklin Oat Bran pleasing, but what is the "raw" pleasure I get? There must be done higher entity that gives me the "raw" pleasure when I eat Cracklin Oat Bran.
**beats table with fist** OMG ROFLMFAO
Oh Rin........ I owe you one (a funny).
ROFL
I wonder if god's coffee cold turkey has got mendacium on the run (the phrase make sense?)
Quote from: "NitzWalsh"Quote from: "NonXNonExX"My favorite non-evidence is "see this watch, see the stars, therefore god."
A friend of mine told me the universe was all perfectly ordered and harmonious, so I asked for evidence and his evidence was that his wife smiles at him.
I once had someone use the old "A laughing baby, a sunrise, ..." line on me.
I'm amused that MR was reduced to this non-argument. We went from the universe proving God down to a cup of coffee proving feelings.
Quote from: "widdershins"Quote from: "NitzWalsh"Quote from: "NonXNonExX"My favorite non-evidence is "see this watch, see the stars, therefore god."
A friend of mine told me the universe was all perfectly ordered and harmonious, so I asked for evidence and his evidence was that his wife smiles at him.
I once had someone use the old "A laughing baby, a sunrise, ..." line on me.
Pretty much the exact same thing, I was surprised he didn't mention his babies since he's got 2 of them.
QuotePretty much the exact same thing, I was surprised he didn't mention his babies since he's got 2 of them.
I think the fact that he has 2 explains perfectly well why he didn't mention them :wink: