C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Great set of unanswerable questions for an atheist…
Unless the stock answer is … “just you wait, science will discover all the answers.”
Which is not really an answer.
- Status
Unless the stock answer is … “just you wait, science will discover all the answers.”
Which is not really an answer.
T
tonyrey
Guest
B
Bradski
Guest
- (name removed by moderator)ut from all senses which are received by different areas of the brain, plus your sense of self, which is activated within the somatosensory cortices in the right hemisphere.
- Even a basic study of neurobiology would tell you that this question makes no sense.
- Again, there is no one part. Although your sense of self, plus all external information received by the more basic areas of the brain, coupled with the emotions in the prefrontal lobes, especially the orbital and medial regions, all these areas are involved.
- Mental activity is a combination of electrical and chemical changes in the microstructure of neuron circuitry.
- These are all emotions. Senses if you want to be picky. All concerned with the prefrontal lobes and all governed by structures and systems selected for particular purposes over millions of years.
Do not bother to ask me any more questions unless you want to specifically address any of the above points. And you will need to read up on them. I’m not interested in discussing complex matters of neural biology which simply consists of you asking what you consider to be a zinger of an unanswerable question if I feel you haven’t bothered to investigate the matter yourself.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Here’s another question scientists cannot answer:
Why does the human brain reach so far as to understand the origin of the universe to a remarkable degree produced by science when in fact, such knowledge has no relevance to human survival? If the ages of biological evolution were blindly searching for a method of adaptation and of survival, what survival value has knowledge of the Big Bang?
Man’s striving to understand the deepest mysteries of nature and the supernatural cannot possibly be related to his survival alone. All the other beasts of the earth survive quite well with not an inking of God. Man is a freak of nature, meaning this is not his ultimate abode; but he knows this in his gut, unless for some perverse reason he chooses to ignore or deny it.
B
Bradski
Guest
Why do you make such blatantly incorrect statements without any attempt at finding an answer? Which is, in this case:
Neotony. It’s an evolutionary theory that says that we retain juvenile characterictics. The most important being the ability, and desire, to learn. In other words, curiosity.
What’s over that hill? What happens if I throw this dead animal on the fire? What happens if I bang these two rocks together?
It’s why you read history or study architecture or travel to other countries and try different foods. It served us well and we can’t simply switch it off. Hence curiosity about things that have no direct relevance to propogating your genes.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Survival value is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of the origin and biological development of living organisms. Inorganic structures are invulnerable and incomparably more durable. Simplicity is the best guarantee of stability and permanence in a violent universe. Complexity is undoubtedly a disadvantage. Monocellular organisms like amoeba have survived for billions of years whereas complex forms of life like dinosaurs have become extinct. Nor is there any explanation of how the initial increase in complexity occurred, let alone internal organisation or the urge to survive.The most dangerous threat to the survival of life on this planet is the most complex structure known to science: the human brain…
T
tonyrey
Guest
The outstanding characteristics of a purposeless universe are parsimony, monotony and cacophony. Cosmogony, harmony and polyphony are the result of deliberate organization. The ability and desire to learn presuppose the existence of a conscious mind rather than a mindless brain.
T
tonyrey
Guest
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Man is the only animal that worships a Creator.
Atheism drives us back into the animal kingdom.
Atheism drives us back into the animal kingdom.
B
Bradski
Guest
You must run some sort of removal company associated with football.
You didn’t ask for a definition of self. You asked what physical phenomena are involved. You have been given the answer.
As to the next two points, your link, an article by Raymond Tallis, doesn’t refute anything I said. He is well enough acquainted with neurobiology to know what parts of the brain are associated with consciousness and decisions. This is information any graduate would know. But Tallis appears to be a dualist. At least, he infers that there must be something other than chemical and electrical activity which produces, for example, consciousness and decision making.
Unfortunately, he doesn’t say what this is. He is just reluctant to accept that this IS all that there is. A common enough reaction from most people. But it isn’t acceptable to simply say that ‘it doesn’t work like that’. He needs to say how it DOES work. A shrug of the shoulders doesn’t count.
So here’s an opportunity for you to describe how it does actually work. How something immaterial connects with the physical. To explain the conduit between the two. And answers such as ‘the soul’ are nothing more than Tallis’s shrug of the shoulders. Incidentally, I wouldn’t spend too much time looking for an answer from Tallis that infers the divine. He’s an atheist.
And no, you have no more control over your mental activity than you do over the workings of your spleen. Unlike your spleen, however, the activity of the mind in some cases calls for options. When one option is chosen, you have the sense of having made a choice. That is, you have a sense of control over the outcome.
As regards truth, if someone lies to you, you have an emotional response. If you feel that something is bad, as opposed to good, you have an emotional response. If your sense of freedom is restricted, you have an emotional response. If your sense of justice is thwarted, you have an emotional respone. When you feel love, it is an emotional response.
All these responses are emotional and you can physically see different parts of the brain light up in an MRI scan when someone thinks of these concepts. That is, there are areas of the brain associated with them. This is indisputable.
And of course parts of the brain themselves do not realise they exist. Although your point in mentioning that escapes me. Incidentally, it’s because the brain contains no sensory nerve endings. You can sense, spatially, where any part of your body is with the exception of the brain.
So…where is this connection between whatever you think the mind is, and the brain? If you have no answer, I’m going with what we have already, thanks very much.
B
Bradski
Guest
We never left it, Charles.
B
Bradski
Guest
And a few more thoughts on Tallis’s article:
One of his main complaints about the brain’s activity being the mind itself is that he seems to think that an interaction of, say, light reflected from a glass, captured by the eye and transmitted to the relevant neurons, must be a two way street. That somehow there has to be a corresponding interaction in the opposite direction. And that this is impossible. To which I would agree. But what on earth is it required for?
The impression that we have of the glass, which is caused by firing of relevant neurons, is just that. An impression. It isn’t the glass itself. There needs to be no outward flow of anything at all to ‘fix’ the glass in position. The glass doesn’t even have to be where we think it is. Our mind is simply saying that there appears to be an object made from what looks like glass in a position apparently a certain distance from the observer.
The mind doesn’t fix things in the material world. It doesn’t give us an accurate physical description via the senses. It quite often gives us the wrong information. There is no possibility of a ‘two way street’ and no requirement either.
And if there was ever a doubt as to his reliance on the Cartesian Theatre, this will put it to rest:
‘To press this point a little harder: conscious experiences and observed nerve impulses are both appearances. But nerve impulses do not have any appearance in themselves; they require a conscious subject observing them to appear…’
‘A conscious subject observing them’. Classic dualism. He is saying that the mind (the action of chemical and electrical impulses onto neurons) require ‘somebody to see it happen’. When it is the mind itself, the actions upon the neurons, which IS the mind. Where does his homunculus exist? Any idea? He never says.
In conclusion, he asks:
The first and most obvious question is: Why, if the brain is not the basis of consciousness, is it so intimately bound up with it?
Would that he had an answer, rather than spend a few thousand words saying nothing more than: ‘I don’t understand how it could work like this’.
If you refute something, it is generally accepted that it is because you have a better theory. So where, again, does this homunculus live and how does it immaterially connect with the material world?
Maybe you can find an article somewhere that does that. I’m not sure that you personally have any idea.
One of his main complaints about the brain’s activity being the mind itself is that he seems to think that an interaction of, say, light reflected from a glass, captured by the eye and transmitted to the relevant neurons, must be a two way street. That somehow there has to be a corresponding interaction in the opposite direction. And that this is impossible. To which I would agree. But what on earth is it required for?
The impression that we have of the glass, which is caused by firing of relevant neurons, is just that. An impression. It isn’t the glass itself. There needs to be no outward flow of anything at all to ‘fix’ the glass in position. The glass doesn’t even have to be where we think it is. Our mind is simply saying that there appears to be an object made from what looks like glass in a position apparently a certain distance from the observer.
The mind doesn’t fix things in the material world. It doesn’t give us an accurate physical description via the senses. It quite often gives us the wrong information. There is no possibility of a ‘two way street’ and no requirement either.
And if there was ever a doubt as to his reliance on the Cartesian Theatre, this will put it to rest:
‘To press this point a little harder: conscious experiences and observed nerve impulses are both appearances. But nerve impulses do not have any appearance in themselves; they require a conscious subject observing them to appear…’
‘A conscious subject observing them’. Classic dualism. He is saying that the mind (the action of chemical and electrical impulses onto neurons) require ‘somebody to see it happen’. When it is the mind itself, the actions upon the neurons, which IS the mind. Where does his homunculus exist? Any idea? He never says.
In conclusion, he asks:
The first and most obvious question is: Why, if the brain is not the basis of consciousness, is it so intimately bound up with it?
Would that he had an answer, rather than spend a few thousand words saying nothing more than: ‘I don’t understand how it could work like this’.
If you refute something, it is generally accepted that it is because you have a better theory. So where, again, does this homunculus live and how does it immaterially connect with the material world?
Maybe you can find an article somewhere that does that. I’m not sure that you personally have any idea.
T
tonyrey
Guest
I spend quite a lot of time removing junk but I’m not at all interested in football.
I should have thought a materialist would explain how the self is explained by physical phenomena, an **entity **rather than a collection…
“associated” is the key word…
Whether Tallis is an atheist is irrelevant. It is the inadequacy of materialism that “matters”.
In other words it is an illusion! If we have no more control over our mental activity than the spleen we can hardly be rational beings. There are far more ways of being wrong than right. The truth is not found by instinct or conditioned reflexes or a mechanistic process. It is discovered as the result of hindsight, insight, foresight, oversight, intuition, inspiration, moral awareness and personal experience. Otherwise we should rely on supercomputers to make all our decisions for us. Would you do that? If not why not?
Association does not imply causation.
Then how does the whole brain know it exists? Where is the location of consciousness
What does “your” refer to?
There is no need to explain a connection because it is based on the materialist’s dogma that everything has physical cause or relationship.
Truth is not subjective but objective. It is the correspondence of a belief or statement to an aspect of reality.
Goodness is also objective. It refers to positive aspects of reality like life, harmony, development, fulfilment, love and happiness.
Justice is also objective. It is based on the fulfilment of human rights and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity which don’t exist in the scientists’ scheme of things.
Love is not solely an emotion because it recognises the intrinsic value of other beings and treats them with respect and compassion even to the extent of self-sacrifice.
The prefrontal lobes are biological organs which are not even aware they exist. No scientist has specified the location of consciousness because it doesn’t exist! It is intangible like the mind, truth, goodness, freedom, justice and love.
“selected for particular purposes” presupposes the existence of purposeful organisms without explaining how purposeless inorganic structures were transformed into purposeful organisms…
B
Bradski
Guest
You have stated that there is more than the physical mind. You have linked to articles that suggest that there is more than the physical mind. But in neither case are you prepared to give an alternative.
If, as you say, the mind is more than its physical components, then it is now incumbent upon you to explain the non-physical component of it and to tell us how the two are connected.
That’s a requirement because beyond any doubt whatsoever, the material brain is a required component of who we are.
Where is the homunculus? Bring this 19th century concept into the 21sr.
T
tonyrey
Guest
You have overlooked a few points and questions in my post:
- I should have thought a materialist would explain how** the self** is explained by physical phenomena, an **entity **rather than a collection. What is the source of unity?
- If we have no more control over our mental activity than the spleen we can hardly be rational beings. There are far more ways of being wrong than right. The truth is not found by instinct or conditioned reflexes or a mechanistic process. It is discovered as the result of hindsight, insight, foresight, oversight, intuition, inspiration, moral awareness and personal experience. Otherwise we should rely on supercomputers to make all our decisions for us. Would you do that? If not why not?
- Association does not necessarily imply causation.
- How does the whole brain know it exists? Where is the location of consciousness?
- What does “your” refer to in “your body”?
- There is no need to explain a connection because it is based on the materialist’s dogma that everything has a physical cause or relationship.
- Truth is not subjective but objective. It is the correspondence of a belief or statement to an aspect of intangible reality.
Goodness is also objective. It refers to positive aspects of reality like life, harmony, development, fulfilment, love and happiness (which don’t exist in the scientists’ scheme of things)…
Justice is also objective. It is based on the fulfilment of human rights and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity (which don’t exist in the scientists’ scheme of things).
Love is not solely an emotion because it recognises the intrinsic value of other beings and treats them with respect and compassion even to the extent of self-sacrifice.
(which doesn’t exist in the scientists’ scheme of things). - The prefrontal lobes are biological organs which are not even aware they exist.** No scientist has specified the location of consciousness** because it doesn’t exist! It is intangible like the mind, truth, goodness, freedom, justice and love.
- “selected for particular purposes” presupposes the existence of purposeful organisms without explaining how purposeless inorganic structures were transformed into purposeful organisms…
“component” gives the game away! The body explains what we are but not **who **we are.
For materialists the brain is the homunculus because they believe it isthe source of our consciousness, identity (even though it changes), freedom of choice (even though it is a physical organ), power of abstract thought, decision-making, moral awareness and responsibility, human rights and capacity for unselfish love…
For anyone else there is no homunculus but a** person **who transcends the material world, has a soul, is aware of spiritual values and capable of self-determination in accordance with the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity (which would have no rational basis in a purposeless universe where we exist for no reason whatsoever and are related solely by an accident of birth…)
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Some left it when Christ offered us something better down the road.
When we deny Christ we are on the road, like all other mere animals, of discovering that life can be “nasty, brutal, and short.”
Go into any jail and observe for yourself the condition of mere animalism without Christ.
B
Bradski
Guest
I’m not going to quote any of Tony’s post because none of it is relevant to the question that has been asked repeatedly and will now be asked again:
If the activity of the brain is not the mind, then what is the mind and how does it connect to the brain?
Simple enough question. Which I am almost certain I will have to ask at least once more. But not that often, because after a while it becomes apparent that the answer is: I don’t know.
If you DO know, then please enlighten us.
If the activity of the brain is not the mind, then what is the mind and how does it connect to the brain?
Simple enough question. Which I am almost certain I will have to ask at least once more. But not that often, because after a while it becomes apparent that the answer is: I don’t know.
If you DO know, then please enlighten us.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Perhaps as much to the point, if the activity of the brain is purely material, how (and why) does matter construct or grasp purely mental realities?
For thousands of years this question has been asked of materialists, with no satisfactory answer.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
The book Descartes’s Error applies to Thomist as it does Cartesians like myself. The issue is that not everything must be explained to the physical. If the sun is coming through a window, the shades can be drawn. Think of the brain as the shades and the sun as the soul. You cannot disprove the soul’s existence. I would like to know what atheists have to say about conscience though. Hegel wrote that “following conscience is its own self divine worship, for its action is the contemplation of its own divinity”. Is this closer to your own belief than that of Christians? (I have a follow-up question)
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Saying that people function more humanly when they believe in a higher power doesn’t seem to be to be an argument for the higher power. There might be an argument there but there is a step missing in the syllogism that needs to be filled. My argument is that conscience itself speaks to the idea of a God. Just as someone can have a sense that the world is real, so one can have a rational sense that God exists because the conscience is a dialogue with a high power.
- Status