Drinking a cup of tea can add plausible evidence God exists

[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/


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?

[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.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

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.

[FrankDK]

> 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

[the_antithesis]

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.

[aitm]

blah blah blah blah

but I WANT there to be a GOD!!
[spoil:2zv98qte][/spoil:2zv98qte]

[Seabear]

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.

[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.

[Hydra009]

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.

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?

Possibly.

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.

Your reasoning is flawed.  God of the Gaps.  Argument from incredulity.  Fail.

[ThePilgrim101]

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.

[Bibliofagus]

Ah. The "God makes a concious effort to bring us pain"-argument.
Hadn't seen that one in quite a while.

[mendacium remedium]

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.

[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.

[mendacium remedium]

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.

[Hakurei Reimu]

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.