Intelligent Design: Evolution 2.0

[Illyrius]

55 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

It's odd that you would bow to someone who completely misrepresents what was said.  Did you think it a great rebuttal to the things I didn't say? 

I like what he said, if he truly misrepresented what you said that is between you and him.

[I'mConvinced]

2 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

I like what he said, if he truly misrepresented what you said that is between you and him.

You liked what he said but it wasn't true, that's not just between me and him as you're agreeing with his incorrect statement.  I said consciousness and what exactly that is has been a contentious issue.  He then took that to mean I could provide proof of consciousness being a physical thing...that is a complete misrepresentation of what i said. 

[I'mConvinced]

As for people who might actually be interested in the debate there are a number of points that need addressing if we are to believe consciousness is spiritual and non-physical.  As far as which is "most likely," the scientific evidence is currently on the side of consciousness being an emergent property.

Here are the reasons:

1. No method has ever been devised or even proposed that could test for or measure consciousness as a "fundamental property of matter." You don't see physicists trying to detect this property in particle accelerators. The idea is pure ontological speculation.

2. Meanwhile, we do know that the awake brain is conscious, whereas the asleep (or dead) brain is not. (Asleep here refers to "dreamless sleep".) So there is already good reason to believe that consciousness results from something going on in the brain.

3. The brain is neurally almost equally active during dreamless sleep as when awake. In fact it has been shown that sensory brain areas still receive and process sensory information such as sound when sleeping or under general anesthesia. And yet there is no consciousness. So consciousness requires not just brain activity, but a special kind of brain activity.

4. The change in conscious state, including dreaming, dreamless sleep, and general anesthesia, can be observed in the brain wave oscillation patterns measured via EEG. The EEG measures wide-spread synchronized neural activity. So whatever consciousness is, it seems to relate to certain types of global neural activity patterns in the brain.

[Illyrius]

1 minute ago, I'mConvinced said:

You liked what he said but it wasn't true, that's not just between me and him as you're agreeing with his incorrect statement.  I said consciousness and what exactly that is has been a contentious issue.  He then took that to mean I could provide proof of consciousness being a physical thing...that is a complete misrepresentation of what i said. 

In that case yes, i agree.

But, since there are many here who see consciuoness as something purely material (physicial), i am interested since i am not insider in science, what is this issue about? Can you give me some description of this issue?

[I'mConvinced]

Just now, Illyrius said:

In that case yes, i agree.

But, since there are many here who see consciuoness as something purely material (physicial), i am interested since i am not insider in science, what is this issue about? Can you give me some description of this issue?

Absolutely.  I have put the main points in the post above so hopefully it gives an idea of the problems.  I'm not here to say exactly what consciousness is as no-one knows but if it does not arise from the physical brain then the points above need addressing.

[Illyrius]

Just now, I'mConvinced said:

Absolutely.  I have put the main points in the post above so hopefully it gives an idea of the problems.  I'm not here to say exactly what consciousness is as no-one knows but if it does not arise from the physical brain then the points above need addressing.

Thanks.

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Crazy Horse said:

Eveything isnt essentially mechanical, the evidence is how plants and humans react to loving intentions.

Yes it is, its called stimulus, its a survival mechanism 

https://www.sciencealert.com/plants-really-do-respond-to-the-way-we-touch-them-scientists-reveal

1 hour ago, Crazy Horse said:

Sheldrake is a practicing reacher,

Yes, he reaches alright 

1 hour ago, Crazy Horse said:

hes a scientist?

No. 

1 hour ago, Crazy Horse said:

Because the universe is expanding.

The proof that the speed of light is changing comes from the data of the scientists themselves.

No, that's the error bar, it accounts for the clumsiness of the instruments trying to measure the speed of light 

Its pretty hard to get a perfect time down to hundredths of a second for something that goes 186,000 miles per second in a vacuum but we got in the ballpark hundreds of years ago with calculations. It's not an anomaly, it's impressive. 

Scientists do not support Sheldrake's whacky claims, they understand the complexity and variances as instruments improve. 

1 hour ago, Crazy Horse said:

I think evolution has a purpose, to demonstrate is diviness.

Sorry, that makes no sense at all. 

1 hour ago, Crazy Horse said:

Not all biological material is inherited, our consciousness for one.

You know how to cry breath and take sustenance, and quickly learn to recognise parents, genetically 

1 hour ago, Crazy Horse said:

Minds are not inside the head only, NDEs has demonstrated this idea repeatedly.

No it hasn't 

Its demonstrates that some people hallucinate when their brain is shutting down and often imagine exactly what they have been told generation after generation to expect at that very time

1 hour ago, Crazy Horse said:

Memories are not wiped out at death, verifiable past life remembrances demonstrate this.

No they dont

1 hour ago, Crazy Horse said:

Sheldrakes experiments, scientific experiments have demonstrated how people can predict who's on the other end of the phone, way above the 50/50 level of chance.

No they have not. 

What would that prove anyway? That we can anticipate who is likely to call at certain times of the day? I hate to tell you this, but that's not a super power. It's intuition. We know what times of day people are at work, who is a night owl, who is an early riser, its not a supernatural talent, its your brain using logic. 

1 hour ago, Crazy Horse said:

Mechanistic medicine isnt the only type of medicine to work. Faith healing for one.

 

.

Does not work and is a sham.

When has anyone faith healed a severed limb back? 

 

So, what about the TED talk? Found anything in it that you wish to question or prove untrue? Are you game to return the courtesy of hearing your side of the story and offering comment with supporting information? 

[Crazy Horse]

14 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

So, no I didn't, I said it was a contentious issue.  I have also told you that brain damage and it's associated affect on personality is evidence.  It's not my fault you don't want to consider it in your close-minded world view.

contentious

kənˈtɛnʃəs/

adjective

causing or likely to cause an argument; controversial.

"a contentious issue"

synonyms:controversial, disputable, debatable, disputed, contended, open to question/debate, moot, vexed; 

Can you tell me how it is not a contentious issue or how saying it is a contentious issue means that I claim it is physical without question? 

No it isn't, it's a way of backing up a point.  I understand you can't present any links because you are talking unprovable metaphysics.

It's not bloody brilliant, he doesn't even understand my argument....sharp as a football maybe.  I would present evidence for both sides but no one here wants that, they just want their world view confirming and anything outside of it ins't worth considering.  I've not met such a bunch of disingenuous people asking for evidence they will simply ignore

I'll ask this though, for all those that think consciousness comes from outside the brain then please explain why people who suffer certain types of brain damage have significant and instant changes in their personality? Not just their abilities but their actual personality.  Oh of course people here don't want links...

Yeah - I may be as sharp as a football, but at least Im not lying to myself.

See ya..

[psyche101]

1 minute ago, Crazy Horse said:

Yeah - I may be as sharp as a football, but at least Im not lying to myself.

See ya..

[psyche101]

2 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

The question begs.

Who DESIGNED science?

 

 

You just don't understand science one bit do you. 

[Hre2breal]

13 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

As for people who might actually be interested in the debate there are a number of points that need addressing if we are to believe consciousness is spiritual and non-physical.  As far as which is "most likely," the scientific evidence is currently on the side of consciousness being an emergent property.

Here are the reasons:

1. No method has ever been devised or even proposed that could test for or measure consciousness as a "fundamental property of matter." You don't see physicists trying to detect this property in particle accelerators. The idea is pure ontological speculation.

2. Meanwhile, we do know that the awake brain is conscious, whereas the asleep (or dead) brain is not. (Asleep here refers to "dreamless sleep".) So there is already good reason to believe that consciousness results from something going on in the brain.

3. The brain is neurally almost equally active during dreamless sleep as when awake. In fact it has been shown that sensory brain areas still receive and process sensory information such as sound when sleeping or under general anesthesia. And yet there is no consciousness. So consciousness requires not just brain activity, but a special kind of brain activity.

4. The change in conscious state, including dreaming, dreamless sleep, and general anesthesia, can be observed in the brain wave oscillation patterns measured via EEG. The EEG measures wide-spread synchronized neural activity. So whatever consciousness is, it seems to relate to certain types of global neural activity patterns in the brain.

Hey I actually like this, its very interesting...I was just talking about this on another thread earlier...The dreamless sleep an youve helped explain a few things so thanks...Its not all bad dude we can be civil you know..I see your coming from a real place of knowledge here...I find it very interesting I honestly do..

Edited February 22, 2018 by Hre2breal

[I'mConvinced]

6 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

Yeah - I may be as sharp as a football, but at least Im not lying to myself.

See ya..

No, you're just misrepresenting other peoples opinions, not appologising for your error and then running away.  

See ya.

[psyche101]

8 hours ago, Illyrius said:

Can someone in plain words explain to me why is there even a thought that universe is not intelligently designed?

Thanks.

Because evidence does not support that view 

[I'mConvinced]

2 minutes ago, Hre2breal said:

Hey I actually like this, its very interesting...I was just talking about this on another thread earlier...The dreamless sleep an youve helped explain a few things so thanks...Its not all bad dude we can be civil you know..I see your coming from a real place of knowledge here...I find it very interesting I honestly do..

Thanks.  I'm not trying to crush people's belief here I just find that science leads us to more answers than metaphysics alone.  I don't know what it all truly means but it's extremely exciting finding out.

[Crazy Horse]

10 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

consciousness t he said but it wasn't true, that's not just between me and him as you're agreeing with his incorrect statement. I said consciousness and what exactly it has been a contentious issue.  He then took that to mean I could provide proof of consciousness being a physical thing...that is a complete misrepresentation of what i said. 

This is a lie.

I asked you pointedly, "what is the point of contention? that mind is non-physical?", you replied, yes.

There was no, "what exactly it has been" aspect to my question.

My question was more pointed than that.

 

 

[Hre2breal]

Just now, I'mConvinced said:

Thanks.  I'm not trying to crush people's belief here I just find that science leads us to more answers than metaphysics alone.  I don't know what it all truly means but it's extremely exciting finding out.

Deffinately I see your point well done..an thank you..This is cool stuff..

[Crazy Horse]

4 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

No, you're just misrepresenting other peoples opinions, not appologising for your error and then running away.  

See ya.

Why would I want to talk to someone who lies to themself and to other folk too?

Bye bye..

[I'mConvinced]

Just now, Crazy Horse said:

This is a lie.

I asked you pointedly, "what is the point of contention? that mind is non-physical?", you replied, yes.

There was no, "what exactly it has been" aspect to my question.

My question was more pointed than that.

 

 

A point of contention - yes it is.  What is so hard to understand? It is contentious because we are here arguing it.  If it is not contentious then provide me your unquestionable evidence that it isn't physical.    There is no lie just you misrepresenting me.  I've even told you directly what my opinion is but you STILL keep banging on about something I never actually said.

[jmccr8]

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

 

If you've stopped ringing the bell, why?

 

 

Will

Who says I have, I am a gramps now and am a little more discriminate.

jmccr8

[I'mConvinced]

11 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

Why would I want to talk to someone who lies to themself and to other folk too?

Bye bye..

I don't know but you could talk to me instead maybe? 

[Crazy Horse]

10 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

A point of contention - yes it is.  What is so hard to understand? It is contentious because we are here arguing it.  If it is not contentious then provide me your unquestionable evidence that it isn't physical.    There is no lie just you misrepresenting me.  I've even told you directly what my opinion is but you STILL keep banging on about something I never actually said.

So if you agree with it being a point of contention, that consciousness is non-physical, which you did, then please just explain this point of contention?

Because I cannot see any contention with this idea that consciousness is non-physical, yet you do!

Fine, please tell us?

Then we can all move on..

[Crazy Horse]

3 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

I don't know but you could talk to me instead maybe? 

What do you think I have been doing all this time?

Smoke signals..

[Illyrius]

47 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

No.

After obtaining his PhD, Sheldrake became a fellow of Clare College,^[32] working in biochemistry and cell biology with funding from the Royal Society Rosenheim Research Fellowship.

He is a biologist, like Dawkins.

So I guess Dawkins is not a scientist too.... knew something was fishy about him....

Or....

Sheldrake was simply excommunicated after a "heretical" hypothesis?

hahahahahahaha!!!!!!

Edited February 22, 2018 by Illyrius

[I'mConvinced]

2 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

So if you agree with it being a point of contention, that consciousness is non-physical, which you did, then please just explain this point of contention?

Because I cannot see any contention with this idea that consciousness is non-physical, yet you do!

Fine, please tell us?

Then we can all move on..

Already done and some of us are quite happy discussing it.

[I'mConvinced]

11 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

What do you think I have been doing all this time?

Smoke signals..

I'm not sure, you think you've been talking to a liar and that sure isn't me.