The problem knowledge poses to atheism

[Svartalf]

Randomness is the driving wheel of evolution theory, and it has been shown empirically that a system modeled after evolution theory, using randomness as the driving wheel, produces results which are sometimes beyond the ability of sentient programmers to fully comprehend, let alone create.

Do you believe those computer programmers can program a being to write something like a symphony of shostakovich?

A machine could be programmed to create music following the rules of fugue and counterpoint, which could at least get us passable versions of Bach, Rameau or Couperin... Programs with too many random factors, or too loose rules might not produce music at all, just mostly noise.

[spinoza99]

You didn't answer the central thesis that we're arguing about. I want an answer to these three questions, which are essentially the same question anyway.

Who in the world thinks he violated physical laws by writing his 9th symphony? ... How does any of the brain's function violate any physical law?

Do you think he wrote it due to obedience of a physical law? If he didn't violate physical laws, then he was obeying them.

But, o.k., let me take a crack at it - his brain thought thoughts (all without violating any physical laws) by means of his neurons gathering and transmitting electromagnetic signals. Neurons do not violate physical laws by doing this, and it is very well understood how neurons work and what their structure is. The various structures of the brain - frontal lobe, parietal lobe, cerebral cortex, etc. operate to create thoughts - when Beethoven moves his fingers, signals are sent electromagnetically to the muscles which move the body - the energy needed to do this is provided by food. No energy is created or destroyed, and things that are not in motion are set in motion by application of force.

Pay attention to the words in bold. You don't account for how those brain areas are coordinated. It took him about five years to write the symphony. You agree that actions are due to what I call the Samuel Cooleridge theory of brain functioning: the right synapses in the right order. According to this website, I was actually quite shocked but some neurons fire a thousand times per second:
http://www.neurophysiology.ws/synapse.htm
"Recall that the approximate 1 ms required for a single action potential imposes an upper limit of about a thousand impulses per second on a neuron's firing rate."

How do you explain the fact that those neurons are coordinated?

He wasn't forced. I can't imagine why the fact that Michaelangelo formed in his mother's womb according to natural laws means he had to be "forced" to sculpt a statue....

If he wasn't forced then he did it on his own free will. If we are free to control our own bodies, then our bodies' movements are not the result of physical and chemical processes. If they are not the result of chemical and physical processes then what are they the result of?

****

You're the one who keep saying that I "must" believe the brain is an input/output device. I need not believe that.
The brain does receive information, and does do stuff with that information. But, that's not all it does.

Pay attention to the words in bold. If you believe the brain does anything beyond merely follow instructions, then you believe the brain interprets material, decides on a desired result then coordinates its neurons to achieve that result. You believe the brain coordinates and decides. How can these instructions to coordinate be located in space when the number of things that the brain can coordinate are infinite? Moreover, how can the brain decide anything when it is just obeying physical laws.

If you are suggesting, though, that the mind is UNDETECTABLE and exists but outside of matter AND energy, then that's where you've got some work to do. I'm not from Missouri, but I'd appreciate it if you'd show me - show your work there. On what basis do you claim this "immaterial mind" exists.

I have done this many times, including asking you for an answer to the three questions that started a post, to which I never got an answer. The source of coordination can not be because other material is coordinated. Intelligence routinely picks the right choice out of odds that are larger than one in 10^10,000. If you tell a computer (something without knowledge) to write a grammatically correct English paragraph 100 words long it will fail every time because the odds of that are well beyond one in 10^10,000 and have already put that number in perspective many times when you consider that there are only 10^80 atoms in our universe. The human on the other hand will pass that test every time. Material bounces around according to Brownian Motion, essentially random, no purpose. Moreover, I'm sure you agree that the most fundamental building block of the universe, a one dimensional string (if that theory is true) can not act in conjunction with other strings. Therefore you need an immaterial mind with power over material to move the bodies where it wants.

There are plenty of instances where coordination is not intended - we've talked about some. Crystals. Ice cubes. The Andromeda Galaxy. The Milky Way Galaxy. The Sol Solar System. The planets. The Earth and Moon. The oceans and the land. Elements of the periodic Table.

The difference between crystals and an enzyme that catalyzes a reaction is that an enzyme exhibits specified complexity. The enzyme must make a choice selected from an infinite set. It must select the proper proteins and then force them to react 10,000 times faster than had it not been for that enzyme. In crystals, the milky way, the earth and moon, there is no requirement that a specific choice be made. The moon is just revolving around the earth and if it were to change its course nothing major would happen. If the enzyme choose the wrong protein, then something indeed major happens because the entire cell's life to an extent depends on that enzyme.

Molecules. Polymers. Nucleotides. amino acids, proteins.... Ribonucleic Acid.... deoxyribonucleic acid.... All these things formed -- coordinated - without any intention.

Again, with this list unless they work together to effect a cause that nothing else can do, they're not coordinated. So when amino acids form, such that a specific protein is formed, they are coordinated. You have no evidence that the above are formed without intention, and you know full well the amazing odds that it takes to form them. To believe that proteins are not intended when they clearly exhibit purpose and when their odds of forming spontaneously is so enormous is simply not logical. If you want to believe that they are not intended then you can but I want us to agree on the facts: 1, that proteins perform specific functions in the cell and 2, that the odds of them forming at random are beyond one in 10^100. Common sense tells us that when two things are built to work together and their odds of arising at random are larger than one in 10^100, then it is logical to conclude that they were designed for that purpose. For example, a wheel that fits on to only one axle. Both the axel and the wheel were intended for each other. We see this behavior in the youtube video I sent you. The chaperones were designed to carry the proteins.

I most certainly can believe that knowledge, will and power arose after material. Knowledge, will and power are functions of the material (matter and energy). There was no konwledge, will or power before there was matter and energy....As for "you can't believe that knowledge, will and power arose because of material luckily got coordinated the right way..." Why not? First of all - your use of the word "luck" is inappropriate. Certainly some luck is involved, but it's not "random."

This is a very important point. We know that material (let's say Excel trying to spell an English word), when forced to choose the right answer among a finite set, will choose each choice indiscriminately. It only simulates will because we humans force it to, has no knowledge of the right choice, and it only has power because we humans endow it with that capability. Sometimes it will choose the right answer. If somehow material fell into a sequence such that knowledge, power and will came into existence, then it would be reasonable that the sequence would have to remain as such. There is no reason why material would remain as such because material is always moving and further material does not care what it does. Second, that sequence would have to be infinite because the amount of correct answers the human can answer are infinite. It can always just say one of an infinite number of correct sentences. Thirdly, every day humans make correct choices over and over again, the source of this knowledge cannot be the proper sequencing of material because material is only right once in a blue moon, humans are right almost all the time, for example, when you get up to start your day, you make probably 50 decisions, 48 of them probably correct, you choose the right soap and shampoo to use, you choose to turn on the hot water, you choose to turn it off, you choose to pick your keys, etc.

We do have a (partially) coordinated universe without knowledge, will and power. There is no evidence that any god exists.

We have evidence that God exists, because there is no satisfactory account for coordination through purely material means. I've asked you several times for an account for coordination through pure material means and I haven't gotten one.

Either: some coordination requires mind
Or: all coordination occurs without a mind



*****

And now the side issues:

Mind and brain, however, are not synonymous. "Mind" means "the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc." That's the "mind." And, "brain" means " the part of the central nervous system enclosed in the cranium of humans and other vertebrates, consisting of a soft, convoluted mass of gray and white matter and serving to control and coordinate the mental and physical actions." The mind is the part of the brain that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc. The mind is part of the brain, but parts of the brain are not the mind. The brain has other structures that do other things besides reason, think, feel, will, perceive or judge. Those other parts of the brain are not the mind.

Were not worried about what other people think the mind is, we're worried about whether or not my thesis is correct.

1. So what if we would be "stuck" with that question? The fact that a question is difficult, not at present answerable, or unpleasant, is no "reason" to think a proposition wrong. Maybe god does have a brain, and we don't know how that brain was "coordinated."

I used a poor choice of words. What I meant to say was, mind must come before matter. To suggest that God has a brain would be to say that matter comes before mind, which is not possible in my humble opinion.

Some coordination is intended, and other instances of coordination are not.
I suppose another option could be some intention is embodied, and other intention is not. Although, there is no evidence of disembodied intention.

Since you don't back this up with reasoning, proof, logic or evidence I won't comment.

You take a logical leap, though - you claim that a few instances of commonalities among names - which are hardly known to be "correct" choices - means YOUR BROTHER is involved. Why? Because his name was Michael? And, again the few examples of "right answers" (you don't know what a right answer is in that circumstance), are hardly extraordinary. I was just thinking about a customer and shortly thereafter he called. Magic? Telepathy? Mind control? What is it? Couldn't be coincidence....just couldn't be.....right?

There has to be a limit however to your skepticism. This is what juries do to determine guilt. For example, there is only a possibility that if your finger prints were on the gun, and the bullet matches that gun, and that there is a receipt documenting you bought the gun and that the man killed was having an affair with your wife and you had no alibi, there is still the possibility that someone else fired the gun and somehow got your fingerprints put on the gun. You can't just say coincidence is coincidence no matter how long the odds are. There is a point when the coincidences keep happening hard and heavy and point to an intelligence that disbelief then becomes illogical. I've had this debate with atheists befor and their eternal response is just to deny. It doesn't matter how astonishing the evidence is they will always deny. I've been down that road before. I'm not wasting my time with it. If you're open-minded to changing your views and are eager to learn then you can find other people who express this thesis easily.

Things that get coordinated with intention seem to always have a body associated with it. Like, when a beaver builds a damn or a human builds a house. There is no evidence for intention that is disembodied. Unless you have some....if so, please present it - or sum it up.

What you're saying is because I can't see it, it therefore does not exist, which is not logical. Plenty of things exist that cannot be seen.

[electricwhiteboy]

Provide a mechanism for information to exist without energy or matter. NO WAIT, YOU CAN'T.

[thepill]

God

reasoning: if the human mind can have power over bodies then perhaps there is a divine mind with power over bodies

I have not mentioned God in this paper until now, though it should have already been obvious where I am going with my points. God is simply that mind which has the knowledge, power and will to control certain bodies in our universe. God is also that intelligence that assigned properties to the objects in our universe. This definition of God implies that God is not omnipotent or free to do whatever it wants. God only has power over a limited number of bodies at any finite period of time.

Sorry mate, couldnt be bothered to read it all. Got bored early on and skip to the conclusions.

I think I can draw from this that your god has no relationship to any earthly worshipped god and is therefore in no need of worship or prayer from me or anyone else. Come to think of it, your god does has something in common with the earthly gods.

Whether your god exists is irrelevent to me, again something it has in common with the earthly gods. So if you dont mind I just continue not praying or worshipping your god, just like those earthly gods.

I'm happy for you to postulate 'god' as the creator of the universe as long as it is via the big bang and to have any other properties that dont contradict what science tells us about the universe.
As long as he is not some friendly looking white bearded tosser who want me to stick my arse in the air and point my nose at mecca 5 times a day, sing hymns, worry about how much sinning I've done today or the such like.

[Coito ergo sum]

You didn't answer the central thesis that we're arguing about. I want an answer to these three questions, which are essentially the same question anyway.

Who in the world thinks he violated physical laws by writing his 9th symphony? ... How does any of the brain's function violate any physical law?

Do you think he wrote it due to obedience of a physical law? If he didn't violate physical laws, then he was obeying them.

The laws of physics are not commands to be obeyed. They are explanations of the way matter and energy behave in the universe. My answer is that Beethoven wrote everything he wrote all in accordance with Newton's laws. He and all his parts remained at rest or in motion absent the application of force -- and, Force always equaled mass times acceleration. And, for every action there was an equal and opposite reaction.

These laws are not commands that he do this or that. So, my answer is that yes he did everything he did "in obedience" to Newton's laws, but those laws did not compel him to do anything in particular. So, if you're trying to suggest that I "must" believe that the physical laws required Newton to write his symphonies, let me step out in front of that and say: NO. The fact that everything he did was in accordance with the physical laws does not mean that he was COMPELLED to take this action or that action.

But, o.k., let me take a crack at it - his brain thought thoughts (all without violating any physical laws) by means of his neurons gathering and transmitting electromagnetic signals. Neurons do not violate physical laws by doing this, and it is very well understood how neurons work and what their structure is. The various structures of the brain - frontal lobe, parietal lobe, cerebral cortex, etc. operate to create thoughts - when Beethoven moves his fingers, signals are sent electromagnetically to the muscles which move the body - the energy needed to do this is provided by food. No energy is created or destroyed, and things that are not in motion are set in motion by application of force.

Pay attention to the words in bold. You don't account for how those brain areas are coordinated. It took him about five years to write the symphony. You agree that actions are due to what I call the Samuel Cooleridge theory of brain functioning: the right synapses in the right order. According to this website, I was actually quite shocked but some neurons fire a thousand times per second:
http://www.neurophysiology.ws/synapse.htm
"Recall that the approximate 1 ms required for a single action potential imposes an upper limit of about a thousand impulses per second on a neuron's firing rate."

How do you explain the fact that those neurons are coordinated?

What do you mean "how do I explain it?" They grew that way, all in accord with the natural laws of physics, biology, and chemistry, etc. Using a simple example, Carbon and Oxygen "coordinate" to form carbon monoxide or dioxide, depending on the circumstances. The atoms within the cells of the brain likewise coordinate to form molecules which coordinate to form polymers, which coordinate to form nucleotides and amino acids, which coordinate to form more complex structures called cells, and ultimately the cells coordinate to form the structures in the brain -- no magic is needed.

He wasn't forced. I can't imagine why the fact that Michaelangelo formed in his mother's womb according to natural laws means he had to be "forced" to sculpt a statue....

If he wasn't forced then he did it on his own free will.

That's what it seems like. As I type here today, I feel as if it is of my own free will. I have no reason to think Michelangelo also did not feel the same way. If we are preordained to do these things, then it doesn't feel that way, and there is no evidence that we are, in fact, preordained, nor is predestination a necessary outgrowth of a natural, non magical fetal development.

If we are free to control our own bodies, then our bodies' movements are not the result of physical and chemical processes.

That, my friend, is an unwarranted conclusion. There is no reason why we can not be free to control our own bodies be the result of physical and chemical processes. Our brains use physical, chemical, electromagnetic, and biological processes to move. You make an unwarranted logical leap, when you suggest that yours is a "necessary" conclusion.

If they are not the result of chemical and physical processes then what are they the result of?

They are the result of chemical and physical (and electromagnetic and biological) processes, AND we appear to have free will (and there is no evidence that we are predestined).

****

You're the one who keep saying that I "must" believe the brain is an input/output device. I need not believe that.
The brain does receive information, and does do stuff with that information. But, that's not all it does.

Pay attention to the words in bold.

Spinoza - I wrote the fucking words.

If you believe the brain does anything beyond merely follow instructions, then you believe the brain interprets material, decides on a desired result then coordinates its neurons to achieve that result.

Yeah - that's an o.k. summary of what it does.

You believe the brain coordinates and decides.

Sure.

How can these instructions to coordinate be located in space when the number of things that the brain can coordinate are infinite?

Nobody said the number of things the brain can coordinate is "infinite." "Indefinite" in number, perhaps. But, "infinite?" That's your assumption without foundation.

Moreover, how can the brain decide anything when it is just obeying physical laws.

Because physical laws are not an impediment to the brain's decision-making. What makes you think that physical laws prohibit structures that can make decisions?

If you are suggesting, though, that the mind is UNDETECTABLE and exists but outside of matter AND energy, then that's where you've got some work to do. I'm not from Missouri, but I'd appreciate it if you'd show me - show your work there. On what basis do you claim this "immaterial mind" exists.

I have done this many times,

...haven't, actually.

including asking you for an answer to the three questions that started a post, to which I never got an answer.

I have answered them all, quite directly, as anyone can see. You, on the other hand, generally refuse to answer questions, except by asking me questions.

Asking me questions is not the same as answering the questions I pose to you. Your questions to me are not answers.

The source of coordination can not be because other material is coordinated.

For at least the third time, nobody said that it was. You seem to be locked in on this point - "the source of coordination can not be because other material is coordinated." It doesn't have to be. The source of coordination could be because the properties of Carbon and the properties of Oxygen are such that when they get in close enough proximity they will bond to form Carbon Monoxide. They coordinate and have nothing at all to do with "other matter being coordinate." Carbon coordinates into diamonds not because "other matter is coordinated" but because pressure it comes under pressure.

Intelligence routinely picks the right choice out of odds that are larger than one in 10^10,000.

Sometimes. You have a foundational issue with the "right choice" - there is nothing determining what choices are right and what are wrong. Those are generally value judgments, and one intelligence may view one choice as right and another as wrong, and a second intelligence may view it exactly the opposite.

If you tell a computer (something without knowledge) to write a grammatically correct English paragraph 100 words long it will fail every time because the odds of that are well beyond one in 10^10,000 and have already put that number in perspective many times when you consider that there are only 10^80 atoms in our universe.

So what?

The human on the other hand will pass that test every time.

So what? Human brains aren't computers. Human brains are biological. Whole different set of laws apply - biology.

Material bounces around according to Brownian Motion, essentially random, no purpose. Moreover, I'm sure you agree that the most fundamental building block of the universe, a one dimensional string (if that theory is true) can not act in conjunction with other strings. Therefore you need an immaterial mind with power over material to move the bodies where it wants.

I don't agree. In String theory strings do interact. That's the whole point of string theory. They do act in conjunction with other strings. Strings in string theory are the most elementary particles - one dimensional but "string-like."

You don't need an "immaterial mind" - all you need is a brain and energy with which to apply force to the things moved.

There are plenty of instances where coordination is not intended - we've talked about some. Crystals. Ice cubes. The Andromeda Galaxy. The Milky Way Galaxy. The Sol Solar System. The planets. The Earth and Moon. The oceans and the land. Elements of the periodic Table.

The difference between crystals and an enzyme that catalyzes a reaction is that an enzyme exhibits specified complexity. The enzyme must make a choice selected from an infinite set.

No. Enzymes don't make "choices."

It must select the proper proteins and then force them to react 10,000 times faster than had it not been for that enzyme. In crystals, the milky way, the earth and moon, there is no requirement that a specific choice be made.

Neither in enzymes. There is no conscious choosing going on. The enzymes react with substances.

The moon is just revolving around the earth and if it were to change its course nothing major would happen. If the enzyme choose the wrong protein, then something indeed major happens because the entire cell's life to an extent depends on that enzyme.

The enzyme isn't "choosing." It's reacting. It's just a protein. In an enzymatic reaction there are molecules at the beginning of the reaction called substrates which form products. Enzymes are usually fairly specific in terms of which reactions they catalyze. They are catalysts. They don't "choose." They react.

Molecules. Polymers. Nucleotides. amino acids, proteins.... Ribonucleic Acid.... deoxyribonucleic acid.... All these things formed -- coordinated - without any intention.

Again, with this list unless they work together to effect a cause that nothing else can do, they're not coordinated.

What are you even talking about? Unless they "work together to effect a cause that NOTHING ELSE CAN DO, they're not coordinated?" That's ridiculous. You've now descended to the point of the words you use just having made up meanings.

So when amino acids form, such that a specific protein is formed, they are coordinated. You have no evidence that the above are formed without intention, and you know full well the amazing odds that it takes to form them.

The point is - that every step of the way, intention is not needed. You surmise intention without evidence, or even reason. The processes work just fine, sir, without your assumption.

To believe that proteins are not intended when they clearly exhibit purpose

They don't clearly exhibit purpose. They clearly exhibit acting and reacting like proteins.

and when their odds of forming spontaneously is so enormous is simply not logical.

Actually, the odds are pretty good when you consider what proteins formed out of. In the right conditions, protein formation is inevitable. Those conditions may well be rare, as we see no other planet in our solar system where they formed. However, there are plenty of planets out there on which the amino acids that form proteins could have formed. With maybe 10 quadrillion planets in the universe, it seems fairly likely that one or more would have the right set up for amino acids to form.

If you want to believe that they are not intended then you can but I want us to agree on the facts: 1, that proteins perform specific functions in the cell

They act like proteins in the cell

and 2, that the odds of them forming at random are beyond one in 10^100.

I don't know. I never said they formed at random. I don't trust your math though, but I haven't checked it. I just find it irrelevant, since they didn't form "at random." Undirected, but not random. Particles in the solar system don't fly about completely randomly. If they did, there would be no planets, no sun, no oceans, no chemicals, no amino acids. It's the lack of randomness that's important here.

Common sense tells us that when two things are built to work together and their odds of arising at random are larger than one in 10^100, then it is logical to conclude that they were designed for that purpose. For example, a wheel that fits on to only one axle. Both the axel and the wheel were intended for each other. We see this behavior in the youtube video I sent you. The chaperones were designed to carry the proteins.

I saw no youtube video, but if you "sent" it to me, then I didn't get it because apparently my PM's are turned off. But, once again, the odds of them "randomly" arising spontaneously is not relevant. It's the odds of them arising non-randomly, as they did, that's at issue.

I see the sun and the Earth revolving around each other in an organized fashion. Do I conclude that they were "intended" to be that way? No, of course not. They occured that way because of the matter and energy behaving like matter and energy in the quantities that were there.

I most certainly can believe that knowledge, will and power arose after material. Knowledge, will and power are functions of the material (matter and energy). There was no konwledge, will or power before there was matter and energy....As for "you can't believe that knowledge, will and power arose because of material luckily got coordinated the right way..." Why not? First of all - your use of the word "luck" is inappropriate. Certainly some luck is involved, but it's not "random."

This is a very important point. We know that material (let's say Excel trying to spell an English word), when forced to choose the right answer among a finite set, will choose each choice indiscriminately.

Only if it's programmed that way. It can be programmed not to choose randomly.

It only simulates will because we humans force it to, has no knowledge of the right choice, and it only has power because we humans endow it with that capability. Sometimes it will choose the right answer. If somehow material fell into a sequence such that knowledge, power and will came into existence, then it would be reasonable that the sequence would have to remain as such. There is no reason why material would remain as such because material is always moving and further material does not care what it does. Second, that sequence would have to be infinite because the amount of correct answers the human can answer are infinite. It can always just say one of an infinite number of correct sentences. Thirdly, every day humans make correct choices over and over again, the source of this knowledge cannot be the proper sequencing of material because material is only right once in a blue moon, humans are right almost all the time, for example, when you get up to start your day, you make probably 50 decisions, 48 of them probably correct, you choose the right soap and shampoo to use, you choose to turn on the hot water, you choose to turn it off, you choose to pick your keys, etc.

I decide what "right" is.

None of what you just wrote has anything to do with there being some undetectable "mind" floating about out there. Our brains are perfectly capable of interacting with the environment and making judgments. Our brains decide what is "right" and what is "wrong." Take the brain away, and no choice is right and no choice is wrong. there is no intention without the brain. There is no will without the brain. There is no knowledge without the brain. It's all in the brain. Knowledge and will and intention are not separate things from the brain. They are created BY the brain.

We do have a (partially) coordinated universe without knowledge, will and power. There is no evidence that any god exists.

We have evidence that God exists, because there is no satisfactory account for coordination through purely material means. I've asked you several times for an account for coordination through pure material means and I haven't gotten one.

I've asked you a ton of times for any evidence that there is this "mind" floating about that you speak of, and you've not presented it.

A satisfactory account for "coordination" through purely material means? You haven't even been consistent in your definition of "coordination." Matter coordinates according to the laws of physics all the time. Clearly, that happens. You've acknowledged it happens. You then take issue, however, that things with "specified complexity" (an undefined term on your part) are the things that can't be coordinated naturally. You cited as an example - enzymes, because they "choose" things to do. However, you're just dead wrong - they don't exercise "choice" - choice entails value judgment and conscious opting for one thing over another - enzymes damn well do NOT do that. They are chemicals that react according to known and regular biological laws - they catalyze reactions under certain conditions. That's all. And, they are coordinated.

Either: some coordination requires mind
Or: all coordination occurs without a mind

Some coordination requires or occurs as a result of a brain. No coordination has ever been shown to be the result of a brainless mind.

*****

And now the side issues:

Mind and brain, however, are not synonymous. "Mind" means "the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc." That's the "mind." And, "brain" means " the part of the central nervous system enclosed in the cranium of humans and other vertebrates, consisting of a soft, convoluted mass of gray and white matter and serving to control and coordinate the mental and physical actions." The mind is the part of the brain that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc. The mind is part of the brain, but parts of the brain are not the mind. The brain has other structures that do other things besides reason, think, feel, will, perceive or judge. Those other parts of the brain are not the mind.

Were not worried about what other people think the mind is, we're worried about whether or not my thesis is correct.

Dude - what the hell? You said that I shouldn't use the word mind because my usage was the same as "brain." So, you instructed me to use "brain" and not "mind." I was clarifying for you that my use of the word "mind" is different from "brain."

And, your thesis is "not even wrong."

1. So what if we would be "stuck" with that question? The fact that a question is difficult, not at present answerable, or unpleasant, is no "reason" to think a proposition wrong. Maybe god does have a brain, and we don't know how that brain was "coordinated."

I used a poor choice of words. What I meant to say was, mind must come before matter. To suggest that God has a brain would be to say that matter comes before mind, which is not possible in my humble opinion.

Your opinion based on.....? You're the one who said your god was neither omnipotent nor omniscient. Perhaps your god is just working with the materials on hand?

Mind, however, need not come before matter. It is just as conceivable that matter would come before mind. One thing is for sure, the only "minds" of which we have any "evidence" came AFTER matter, matter having been here billions of years before the first mind. All we have to support your supposition that there was a mind before there was any matter is: (a) rhetorical argument based on no empirical or physical evidence, and (b) wishful thinking.

Some coordination is intended, and other instances of coordination are not.
I suppose another option could be some intention is embodied, and other intention is not. Although, there is no evidence of disembodied intention.

Since you don't back this up with reasoning, proof, logic or evidence I won't comment.

Don't back what up?

One, you admitted above that some coordination is intended and other instances are not. You said, and I quote "Either: some coordination requires mind" -- see - some...if some requires a mind, then the rest doesn't, right?

Two - there is no evidence of disembodied intention. That's an assertion on my part that there is no evidence. I cannot prove that there is "no evidence." If there is evidence, show it. You haven't. You can't. You define your "mind" and "intention" out of the physical universe by calling it "immaterial." The only way you can get at it, then, is to create a rhetorical structure that definitionally creates a logical box. That's easy to do - however, the hard part is translating your wordplay into reality - and showing that in the real world your wordplay is in accord with reality.

All you've ended up showing is that you believe, because you want to, that a mind existed before matter, and that all matter therefore comes into being and moves around because of the intention of this mind. At bottom, your entire "theory" is just a wish.

You take a logical leap, though - you claim that a few instances of commonalities among names - which are hardly known to be "correct" choices - means YOUR BROTHER is involved. Why? Because his name was Michael? And, again the few examples of "right answers" (you don't know what a right answer is in that circumstance), are hardly extraordinary. I was just thinking about a customer and shortly thereafter he called. Magic? Telepathy? Mind control? What is it? Couldn't be coincidence....just couldn't be.....right?

There has to be a limit however to your skepticism. This is what juries do to determine guilt. For example, there is only a possibility that if your finger prints were on the gun, and the bullet matches that gun, and that there is a receipt documenting you bought the gun and that the man killed was having an affair with your wife and you had no alibi, there is still the possibility that someone else fired the gun and somehow got your fingerprints put on the gun. You can't just say coincidence is coincidence no matter how long the odds are. There is a point when the coincidences keep happening hard and heavy and point to an intelligence that disbelief then becomes illogical. I've had this debate with atheists befor and their eternal response is just to deny. It doesn't matter how astonishing the evidence is they will always deny. I've been down that road before. I'm not wasting my time with it. If you're open-minded to changing your views and are eager to learn then you can find other people who express this thesis easily.

I haven't denied. I've taken care to read every word and not dismiss your arguments out of hand. You simply make unwarranted assumptions and draw unwarranted conclusions. And, juries decide things based on evidence. If there is no evidence, all the coincidences in the world don't justify conviction.

I am always open to learn - which is why I read your "thesis" with care. Again, I've explained where you've gone wrong. You either can acknowledge where you are suggesting that something is a necessary conclusion when it isn't, or you won't. Since you appear to have a definite agenda in mind that you wish to support, I imagine that you'll have a hard time doing that. If you are open-minded though, you'll understand what I'm saying.

Things that get coordinated with intention seem to always have a body associated with it. Like, when a beaver builds a damn or a human builds a house. There is no evidence for intention that is disembodied. Unless you have some....if so, please present it - or sum it up.

What you're saying is because I can't see it, it therefore does not exist, which is not logical. Plenty of things exist that cannot be seen.

[/quote]

Wow - that was weak.

Plenty of things exist that can't be seen. However, we don't believe things exist without evidence of their existence, and logical arguments are not evidence.

Einsteins theory of relativity required proof, and got it. String theory is, right now, a nice mathematical equation, and the key project for scientists now is to figure out a way to test it.

I am more than willing to be open to the suggestion that there are disembodied minds - but I have to be just as open to the possibility that you suggest - a mind that preceded everything - as someone else's concept of a mind that came after matter - or an infinite number of minds - or an infinite number of universes, each with its infinite number of disembodied minds, or undetectable ghosts (plenty of people have reported seeing ghosts). So, once I open the door to YOUR theory of a disembodied mind (without evidence), then I have to accept every other possibility of equal weight - in other words, I should accept almost anything without evidence.

[spinoza99]

If we are free to control our own bodies, then our bodies' movements are not the result of physical and chemical processes.

That, my friend, is an unwarranted conclusion. There is no reason why we can not be free to control our own bodies be the result of physical and chemical processes. Our brains use physical, chemical, electromagnetic, and biological processes to move. You make an unwarranted logical leap, when you suggest that yours is a "necessary" conclusion.

If they are not the result of chemical and physical processes then what are they the result of?

They are the result of chemical and physical (and electromagnetic and biological) processes, AND we appear to have free will (and there is no evidence that we are predestined).

Well, it's nice to know I'm your friend. I really appreciate it that, even if it's not sincere, because most atheists insult me, even just writing the fact that they insult me will give them a reason for them to tell me why they insult me. Anyway, this I think is the most important part of the debate. I'll answer the rest later, but I really want to nail this part down.
You said "we appear to have free will" does that you mean you think free will is just an illusion? You also said: "There is no reason why we can not be free to control our own bodies be the result of physical and chemical processes." I think you mean "and also be the result of ..."
Regarding the second statement, I find that very difficult to believe. If a phenomenon is a direct result of a physical law, there is certainly no choice involved, especially in dead objects. In living beings, I'm really at a loss at where choice comes in. If a decision is the result of a physical process, let's say, for example, a blond asks me out on a date and I say no because my DNA predisposes me to hate blonds then I didn't choose that decision, it was the inevitable result of my DNA, right? If I make a choice, I have to choose which neurons to fire, right? I really don't see how that can not be true.

[FBM]

It's easier to understand if you take a minute to ponder the implications of this work done by neuroscientists: http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v11 ... .2112.html

Nature Neuroscience 11, 543 - 545 (2008)
Published online: 13 April 2008 | doi:10.1038/nn.2112


Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain
Chun Siong Soon1,2, Marcel Brass1,3, Hans-Jochen Heinze4 & John-Dylan Haynes1,2


Top of pageThere has been a long controversy as to whether subjectively 'free' decisions are determined by brain activity ahead of time. We found that the outcome of a decision can be encoded in brain activity of prefrontal and parietal cortex up to 10 s before it enters awareness. This delay presumably reflects the operation of a network of high-level control areas that begin to prepare an upcoming decision long before it enters awareness.

Top of page
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Stephanstrasse 1A, 04103 Leipzig, Germany.
Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience, Haus 6, Philippstrasse 13, 10115 Berlin, Germany.
Department of Experimental Psychology and Ghent Institute for Functional and Metabolic Imaging, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.
Department of Neurology II, Otto-von-Guericke University, Leipziger Strasse 44, 39120 Magdeburg, Germany.
Correspondence to: John-Dylan Haynes1,2 e-mail: haynes@bccn-berlin.de

[spinoza99]

Top of pageThere has been a long controversy as to whether subjectively 'free' decisions are determined by brain activity ahead of time. We found that the outcome of a decision can be encoded in brain activity of prefrontal and parietal cortex up to 10 s before it enters awareness. This delay presumably reflects the operation of a network of high-level control areas that begin to prepare an upcoming decision long before it enters awareness.

I'm aware of this and I find it very interesting, however I don't think it relates to the present discussion. What they're saying is decisions are decided on in the prefrontal and partietal areas before the awareness area knows about it. Coito and I both believe in decision we're just arguing over whether or not decision originate in the immaterial or the material.

[FBM]

It has a great deal to do with the discussion of free will. Free will requires conscious choices. If choices are made unconsciously, then our perception of having free will is an illusion. And a major portion of your argument falls apart.

[Coito ergo sum]

You said "we appear to have free will" does that you mean you think free will is just an illusion?

If it is, I wouldn't know, now would I?

We appear to exist, too. Maybe reality is just an illusion. I can't know that though, and it is difficult to go through life on that assumption. Savvy?

You also said: "There is no reason why we can not be free to control our own bodies be the result of physical and chemical processes." I think you mean "and also be the result of ..."

Yes.

Regarding the second statement, I find that very difficult to believe.

It is, nonetheless, true, your difficulty notwithstanding.

If a phenomenon is a direct result of a physical law, there is certainly no choice involved,

In that phenomena, yes. Brains think, though, and judge, and decide. Almost nothing in the universe chooses anything. Humans and animals do, because of one key difference that we and animals have that is not present in the rest of the universe. Brains which have the capacity to make judgments and decisions.

especially in dead objects. In living beings, I'm really at a loss at where choice comes in.

The brain, typically.

If a decision is the result of a physical process, let's say, for example, a blond asks me out on a date and I say no because my DNA predisposes me to hate blonds then I didn't choose that decision, it was the inevitable result of my DNA, right?

The brain can make judgments and choices. Our brains do not operate on a wholly "stimulus - response" mechanism. It's not a card-reading machine with nothing but "if-then" commands.

If I make a choice, I have to choose which neurons to fire, right? I really don't see how that can not be true.

Yes, and the brain does that. There are structures in the brain. You are not "in" your body, you ARE your body (including the brain).

[Clinton Huxley]

You're wasting your time, Cog. The wrong is so deep on this one that there is no rooting it out.

[stripes4]

Fudge packers !!!

[Coito ergo sum]

Fudge packers !!!