Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

Options
1…457910…106

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    Quatermain
    Closed Accounts Posts: 243 ✭✭Quatermain


    mickrock wrote: »
    If you determine that an object was designed you infer that intelligence caused it, in this case humans and that it didn't come about by natural means.

    The fact that you know it was designed by humans doesn't alter the fact that you have inferred intelligence.

    If someone went to a distant planet and found a machine they could infer intelligent design, even though they don't know who the designer is. You don't need to know who the IDer to infer it.

    And here is where you fall down, in archaeological terms, anyhow. How do we know the items I mentioned were designed by humans? I shall tell you: through study and through experience. There have been arguments back and forth between the ages about various archaeological accouterments, and we have only arrived at what we know through a study of the one who did the designing. We look not only at the evidence they left behind, but at historical records, at buildings and landscape alteration, and stratigraphy records to create as perfect a picture of their life as we can. We can imply intelligence because we can point the finger directly at the people who did it hundreds or thousands of years ago, and say "That's the man, your honour".

    We study the one who did the designing just as much as we study the items they designed because we need to know why they needed these tools, and how they made them. It's not exactly a matter of philosophy, as you see it, it's a matter of practicality. Of solid facts. If you're seriously going to bring intelligent design into this, then go ahead and stack whatever you think designed the world and its inhabitants against my iron age blacksmith and his broadsword, and let's see who can produce the larger body of descriptive text, shall we?


  • Options
    #183
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    mickrock wrote: »
    Origin-of-life research has been at an impasse for decades.

    Scientists haven't a clue how life started:

    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2011/02/28/pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-but-scientists-dont-have-a-clue-how-life-began/

    "Scientists aren't positive, THEREFORE MAGIC!!"

    >.<


  • Options
    #184
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Oh ffs mickrock, please just stop until you've read up even a little on the subject. I don't think I can get much more embarrassed on your behalf. :(


  • Options
    #185
    endacl
    Registered Users Posts: 22,234 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Just spotted the thread. This again....? :o

    Anyone want to get me up to speed? Anything new from Mickrock or should I unsubscribe and not bother reading? Has his thinking evolved at all? Or his style of debate. Don't tell me he's actually gone and looked at any of the literature?!?


  • Options
    #186
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Same old nonsense, sorry to get your hopes up.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    endacl wrote: »
    Just spotted the thread. This again....? :o

    Anyone want to get me up to speed? Anything new from Mickrock or should I unsubscribe and not bother reading? Has his thinking evolved at all? Or his style of debate. Don't tell me he's actually gone and looked at any of the literature?!?

    I'd go and have a hot beverage and a bikkie if I were you.


  • Options
    #188
    endacl
    Registered Users Posts: 22,234 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    I'd go and have a hot beverage and a bikkie if I were you.
    Kettle's on.

    See y'all elsewhere...


    :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #189
    mickrock
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    It appears to be giving you the impression that a disparate group of individuals who happen to all believe there is no god (or 'intelligent designer') also not only agree on everything thing else but think exactly the same way.

    No, you all have different thoughts, opinions, beliefs and values which lead to different actions and ways of life.

    But since an atheist thinks there is nothing but matter and energy in the universe any mental activity must just be the product of these and so is meaningless and of no consequence.

    How can mindless matter and energy produce anything other than the illusion of meaning?


  • Options
    #190
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    mickrock wrote: »
    How can mindless matter and energy produce anything other than the illusion of meaning?
    How can meaning exist if not in the mindless matter and energy of the brain?


  • Options
    #191
    keane2097
    Registered Users Posts: 17,770 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    Why would anything in the spiritual realm have any more meaning than anything in the physical realm? There's no a priori reason to believe that anything a god does means anything either.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    mickrock wrote: »
    No, you all have different thoughts, opinions, beliefs and values which lead to different actions and ways of life.

    But since an atheist thinks there is nothing but matter and energy in the universe any mental activity must just be the product of these and so is meaningless and of no consequence.

    How can mindless matter and energy produce anything other than the illusion of meaning?

    Is thought itself not a form of energy?


  • Options
    #193
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    mickrock wrote: »
    But since an atheist thinks there is nothing but matter and energy in the universe any mental activity must just be the product of these and so is meaningless and of no consequence.
    Life has whatever meaning you give it - whether it's a meaning you pick up from a Bronze-Age book or whether it's something a little more up to date.


  • Options
    #194
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    keane2097 wrote: »
    Why would anything in the spiritual realm have any more meaning than anything in the physical realm? There's no a priori reason to believe that anything a god does means anything either.

    Also, why is everyone so obsessed with things "meaning" so much?

    Things that are meaningful to me: Lots.

    How much I want recognition that those things are meaningful to others: Little.

    How much I might campaign to have my meaningful things in the majority quite simply so that my world works in the way I want it to: Lots.

    Things that have absolute meaning: I don't know.


  • Options
    #195
    mickrock
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    doctoremma wrote: »
    How can meaning exist if not in the mindless matter and energy of the brain?

    If you think that mind/consciousness is just the result of brain activity (something for which there's no definite proof) then there wouldn't be any meaning.

    It might be a different story if consciousness was found to be non-local and the brain was more like a receiver and "tuned" into it, as some scientists are considering now.


  • Options
    #196
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Also, why is everyone so obsessed with things "meaning" so much?
    Along with fear of death, the It's one of the main hooks that religion uses to reel people in: a lot of people lead pretty meaningless lives and religion steps in to (a) declare that life actually does have a deeper "meaning" than the usual daily grind and (b) supply the "meaning" that it says is missing.

    There's also, I believe, a strong cognitive bias which sees "meaning"-seeking people inappropriately infer intention, where there is none -- it's sometimes called "Hyperactive Agency Detection", but there still aren't many good descriptions of this on the internet (this one is short and doesn't seem too bad).

    Reflexively, once one has been fished-in by the teleological declaration that there is a "meaning", it seems to be very easy for people to declare that meaning is something that the universe must supply, and that anything which doesn't provide some kind of grand purpose to life is therefore wrong. And probably dangerous too. The opposite, of course, is the case -- which explains why you don't find many atheists flying themselves into buildings and that kind of thing.


  • Options
    #197
    kiffer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    mickrock wrote: »
    If you think that mind/consciousness is just the result of brain activity (something for which there's no definite proof) then there wouldn't be any meaning.

    It might be a different story if consciousness was found to be non-local and the brain was more like a receiver and "tuned" into it, as some scientists are considering now.

    Some scientists...? who?


  • Options
    #198
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    mickrock wrote: »
    If you think that mind/consciousness is just the result of brain activity (something for which there's no definite proof) then there wouldn't be any meaning.
    Except that which you create yourself.
    mickrock wrote: »
    It might be a different story if consciousness was found to be non-local and the brain was more like a receiver and "tuned" into it, as some scientists are considering now.
    Citation needed.


  • Options
    #199
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    mickrock wrote: »
    If you think that mind/consciousness is just the result of brain activity (something for which there's no definite proof) then there wouldn't be any meaning.

    .

    Why?

    Genuine question.


  • Options
    #200
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    doctoremma wrote: »
    How can meaning exist if not in the mindless matter and energy of the brain?

    How can the matter and energy of the brain be "mindless" if it gives rise to mind?


  • Options
    #201
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Is thought itself not a form of energy?

    That's sounds a bit wooish:P

    What form of energy do you think a thought consists of?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    kiffer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    nagirrac wrote: »
    How can the matter and energy of the brain be "mindless" if it gives rise to mind?

    Exactly, it gives rise to mind, not the other way round.
    Clocks are made of cogs, but cogs don't know what time is.


  • Options
    #203
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    nagirrac wrote: »
    How can the matter and energy of the brain be "mindless" if it gives rise to mind?

    I was quoting someone else's inanity.


  • Options
    #204
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    nagirrac wrote: »
    That's sounds a bit wooish:P

    What form of energy do you think a thought consists of?

    That which is recorded by electroencephalography.


  • Options
    #205
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    kiffer wrote: »
    Some scientists...? who?

    Susan Pockett.
    She is not the only one proposing an EM field theory of consciousness, our very own John Joe McFadden also has a competing theory (the CEMI theory).

    http://www.psych.auckland.ac.nz/webdav/site/psych/shared/about/our-people/documents/sue-pockett/TheNatureofConsciousnessAHypothesis.pdf

    It is much too simplistic to state that mind emerges from brain. There are no known mechanisms at this point to explain how a single thought is generated by the brain, let alone explain the complexities of the binding problem and the hard problem of consciousness.


  • Options
    #206
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    That which is recorded by electroencephalography.

    EEG measures electrical activity in the brain, actually on the surface of the scalp. We know virtually nothing about how electrical activity translates to mind, there are countless theories on consciousness, most of them highly speculative. What is interesting about McFadden's and Pockett's theories is that they actually have quite a bit of supporting experimental evidence.


  • Options
    #207
    kiffer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Susan Pockett.
    She is not the only one proposing an EM field theory of consciousness, our very own John Joe McFadden also has a competing theory (the CEMI theory).

    http://www.psych.auckland.ac.nz/webdav/site/psych/shared/about/our-people/documents/sue-pockett/TheNatureofConsciousnessAHypothesis.pdf

    It is much too simplistic to state that mind emerges from brain. There are no known mechanisms at this point to explain how a single thought is generated by the brain, let alone explain the complexities of the binding problem and the hard problem of consciousness.

    It might take a while to work my way through that 120 page document... care to enlightened us as to what her main points are?


  • Options
    #208
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    nagirrac wrote: »
    EEG measures electrical activity in the brain, actually on the surface of the scalp. We know virtually nothing about how electrical activity translates to mind, there are countless theories on consciousness, most of them highly speculative. What is interesting about McFadden's and Pockett's theories is that they actually have quite a bit of supporting experimental evidence.

    It's all Greek to me. :(


  • Options
    #209
    kiffer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    It's all Greek to me. :(

    That's probably the point...


  • Options
    #210
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    kiffer wrote: »
    It might take a while to work my way through that 120 page document... care to enlightened us as to what her main points are?

    I never claimed to understand it:), I just posted it as a response to the question on scientists who have proposed theories of consciousness that provide a contrast to Crick's "astonishing hypothesis" that billions of firing neurons somehow generate conscious awareness.

    Have to run but I will provide my best shot at summarizing her work later. Her basic hypothesis is that consciousness consists of spatiotemporal patterns in the electromagnetic field, and that the brain generates these patterns and also responds to patterns i.e. firing neurons generate certain EM 3D patterns and 3D EM patterns cause neurons to fire.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,535 ✭✭✭swampgas


    nagirrac wrote: »
    I never claimed to understand it:), I just posted it as a response to the question on scientists who have proposed theories of consciousness that provide a contrast to Crick's "astonishing hypothesis" that billions of firing neurons somehow generate conscious awareness.

    Have to run but I will provide my best shot at summarizing her work later. Her basic hypothesis is that consciousness consists of spatiotemporal patterns in the electromagnetic field, and that the brain generates these patterns and also responds to patterns i.e. firing neurons generate certain EM 3D patterns and 3D EM patterns cause neurons to fire.

    Isn't every EM field "spatiotemporal" (i.e. has time and spatial dimensions) ?

    What does the word "spatiotemporal" actually add to the description?

    I have always assumed that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, based on how neurons interact. That interaction may be a combination of chemical and electromagnetic (EM) processes. Are you suggesting that EM fields being involved somehow ups the "woo" level?


Advertisement