How many GODS do you have?

[Baruch]

You're misusuing the term "confirmation bias." Confirmation bias is when you notice every example that is consistent with your belief, and ignore every example that contradicts it. Like when you notice every red light that stops you, forget when they don't stop you, and conclude that red lights are out to get you.

So then...how many times have you seen a soul? Oh, you haven't? That's funny. I haven't seen a single soul in my life either. Then we can't be guilty of confirmation bias, now can we? You two, on the other hand, have zero evidence for any of your claims, but are convinced of them regardless. The bias is yours. Stop trying to drag us down to your level.

How many times have you seen a mind?  This is why in Behaviorism dogma, they assumed there was no mind.

People select evidence according to their emotional commitments … whether verses from the Bible or Das Capital.

And yes, we all ignore contradictory evidence, that Is where we say … that isn't valid evidence.  We have to protect our precious egos.

[Blackleaf]

How many times have you seen a mind?  This is why in Behaviorism dogma, they assumed there was no mind.

People select evidence according to their emotional commitments … whether verses from the Bible or Das Capital.

And yes, we all ignore contradictory evidence, that Is where we say … that isn't valid evidence.  We have to protect our precious egos.

Unlike the soul, the mind can be observed through science. So again, what evidence have we been ignoring? Or are you just committing a false equivalence fallacy? We know the answer. The question is will you admit it?

[Arik]

Unlike the soul, the mind can be observed through science. So again, what evidence have we been ignoring? Or are you just committing a false equivalence fallacy? We know the answer. The question is will you admit it?

That is bizarre BL.

Atheists glorify physical science but science is not something that lie there for all to see with a click of a button.
Science take time and I would say long long time to unravel all his secrets to serious scholars
So much evidences that is still to unravel will be unravel at a later stage beside physical science is not the correct type of science to unravel what lie behind the physical-material aspect of life such as the soul.

One reason why physical science is called such is because it study the physical aspect of what is there not what exist along with the physical aspect such as the soul.

I suppose atheists never ponder this simple point, isn't it BL?

Beside you have to consider that until few thousand years ago people live in caves and their main objective in life was to find food to eat rather than worry about physical science.
Occasionally they rather think about spirituality but they didn't yet come to the point in which they really understand real spirituality that is why they worship idols made of wood.

Only recently in the history of human evolution man (men & women) got interested in physical science and so far we know only a little of what is there that is why most of what is there is still hidden to us.
On the other hand real spirituality started as soon as people started ponder about real questions such as......who are we....why are we here...where are we going to.........and after sometime they understood what evolution and the scope of life is but I suppose for atheists will take a bit longer to understand and that is very very bizarre to see that people who lived few thousand years ago beat you in that task. Lol 

[Arik]

How many times have you seen a mind?  This is why in Behaviorism dogma, they assumed there was no mind.

People select evidence according to their emotional commitments … whether verses from the Bible or Das Capital.

And yes, we all ignore contradictory evidence, that Is where we say … that isn't valid evidence.  We have to protect our precious egos.

Our friend BL still doesn't know that at this stage in time physical science still doesn't know whether the consciousness is a product of the brain or it is totally separate and is not a product of the brain.

With this sort of knowledge BL tell us that he is better qualify to know so many other things about brain, mind, consciousness and soul.

How sad!

[Baruch]

Our friend BL still doesn't know that at this stage in time physical science still doesn't know whether the consciousness is a product of the brain or it is totally separate and is not a product of the brain.

With this sort of knowledge BL tell us that he is better qualify to know so many other things about brain, mind, consciousness and soul.

How sad!

Empirical science is hybrid.  It is both outside you (in observation and experiment) and inside you (perception).  What a lay person sees and what a scientist sees, isn't the same, because one has a much more refined perception.  Usually engineers for instance, see a Newtonian world, even though that isn't strictly what it is.  The first person to see reality this new way, in a new consciousness, was probably Archimedes.

[Baruch]

Unlike the soul, the mind can be observed through science. So again, what evidence have we been ignoring? Or are you just committing a false equivalence fallacy? We know the answer. The question is will you admit it?

You are equivocating.  You cannot see the mind or hear it.  The mind is a model, a construct that helps us understand ourselves and each other.  The hand, that I can see and feel.  Science says … we can see all sorts of invisible things.  And you can see with PET for instance, activity in the brain.  But that isn't your mind, that is just a physiological thing … that we choose to associate with mental activity.  It isn't the mental activity itself.

[Arik]

You forgot the last one:

religionists- I am the product of a spectacular god a god that has existed forever that knows everything before it ever existed and how it will react and how all life forms act even though they never existed prior to his inventing them, I am get to go to a special place when I die and spend eternity splayed on the floor singing his praises and worshiping him for ever and ever....amen

That may well be the attitude of a lot of religious people which I do not agree to but in your post there is something that attract my attention and that is when you say................... I am get to go to a special place when I die and spend eternity splayed on the floor singing his praises and worshiping him for ever and ever....amen

According to my beliefs the system doesn't really work like that.
A drop of water when she finally reach the ocean it become the ocean so at the same time when we reach the cosmic entity we become same same as the cosmic entity.
Why then should we worship ourselves?

[Blackleaf]

You are equivocating.  You cannot see the mind or hear it.  The mind is a model, a construct that helps us understand ourselves and each other.  The hand, that I can see and feel.  Science says … we can see all sorts of invisible things.  And you can see with PET for instance, activity in the brain.  But that isn't your mind, that is just a physiological thing … that we choose to associate with mental activity.  It isn't the mental activity itself.

It is mental activity. And until you provide evidence of your proposition, the brain as the source of the mind will remain the scientific (read: "true") position. You don't get to just ignore evidence when convenient and assert your own claims without evidence.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Anyway, after I perused this thread, I decided to look up some figures about the strength of bone compared to concrete and other ceramics. Here's what I found:

Bone: ~170 MPa (compression), ~104 MPa (tension), ~53 MPa (shear)
Concrete (<1yr): ~6.895 MPa (compression), ~1.379 MPa (tension) â€"no data for shearâ€"

So this notion that the skull is "thousands" of times softer than rock or concrete or ceramic is total bollocks. If anything, it's stronger than un-reinforced concrete. Also, bone is a natural composite material, hydroxylapatite in a collagen matrix, which means that it tends to be tougher than expected. Bone is not the weak, flabby material that Arik characterizes it as; it's been honed through a half billion years of evolution to be strong, rugged and tough, able to hold up to the insults of life.

Also, all those demonstrations are breaking bricks on easymode. The way they were arranged basically gave every engineering advantage to the breakers. If those were solid blocks of stone the same thickness, or made of hardened steel which is actually legitimately strong in that application, I might be impressed.

PS, yeah, I'm back, for a bit.

[Baruch]

It is mental activity. And until you provide evidence of your proposition, the brain as the source of the mind will remain the scientific (read: "true") position. You don't get to just ignore evidence when convenient and assert your own claims without evidence.

Yadayada ... and my dreams are views of eternity, disprove that.  Until then, you evidence for atoms is null and void.  In fact, the electron probability cloud goes out to infinity.  In repetitive solids, they overlap, hence conductivity.  Where does one atom end and another begin?  Why was "atomos" aka uncuttable ... cleverly extended once the atom was split?  Because scientists are ... rhetorical.

And yes, I am convinced you have no mind, just random atom movements, same as my hot tea.  My tea is sentient too!  I reject any evidence you care to bring up, because ... same reason you reject mine.

Just kibitzing ... some people survive a fall of 30 stories, but not uninjured ...

http://mentalfloss.com/article/63088/how-far-can-you-fall-and-still-survive

There is difference between static compressive strength, static tensile strength, and the dynamic versions of those.  And luck ;-)

[Arik]

Anyway, after I perused this thread, I decided to look up some figures about the strength of bone compared to concrete and other ceramics. Here's what I found:

Bone: ~170 MPa (compression), ~104 MPa (tension), ~53 MPa (shear)
Concrete (<1yr): ~6.895 MPa (compression), ~1.379 MPa (tension) â€"no data for shearâ€"

So this notion that the skull is "thousands" of times softer than rock or concrete or ceramic is total bollocks. If anything, it's stronger than un-reinforced concrete. Also, bone is a natural composite material, hydroxylapatite in a collagen matrix, which means that it tends to be tougher than expected. Bone is not the weak, flabby material that Arik characterizes it as; it's been honed through a half billion years of evolution to be strong, rugged and tough, able to hold up to the insults of life.

Also, all those demonstrations are breaking bricks on easymode. The way they were arranged basically gave every engineering advantage to the breakers. If those were solid blocks of stone the same thickness, or made of hardened steel which is actually legitimately strong in that application, I might be impressed.

PS, yeah, I'm back, for a bit.

I see..............so I suppose that anyone can break those materials by using only their bones or skull and the power of the mind is not necessary.
Is that so?

If you are so expert in the matter than I suppose you know why these people do not show a single scratch on their head and what about those guys that insert metal hooks through their flesh and at the end of the festival when they remove those metal hooks the hole close as nothing happen leaving no trace of blood or injuries.

How do you explain that?
Do you really think you can explain that with your compression, tension and shear logic?


https://newsfeeds.media/hindu-devotees-force-skewers-through-their-flesh-to-satisfy-the-god-shiva/

[Arik]

It is mental activity. And until you provide evidence of your proposition, the brain as the source of the mind will remain the scientific (read: "true") position. You don't get to just ignore evidence when convenient and assert your own claims without evidence.

Oh, I see..........

Here we got an other expert in the mind-brain issue.

Let us see where is this scientific position that give evidence that the consciousness is a product of the brain.

PS. I am prepared to wait for this evidence but only until Christmas. 

[Hydra009]

You don't seem to get it Hydra, do you?

There is always a strong connection between anatomical changes and technological changes.

In that case, I eagerly await a hand capable of using a N64 controller properly.

[Blackleaf]

Oh, I see..........

Here we got an other expert in the mind-brain issue.

Let us see where is this scientific position that give evidence that the consciousness is a product of the brain.

PS. I am prepared to wait for this evidence but only until Christmas. 

The evidence has been presented to you several times. Your inability to understand it doesn't mean the evidence isn't there. It just means that you're an idiot.

[Blackleaf]

Arik logic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lu5_5Od7WY

You can't argue with such sound logic!