I contend that save there exist a being which inhabits the body, there could be no such thing as the senses, no such thing as thought, and no such thing as emotion.

To be clear, I say that the being utilizes the particles which form a body, as instruments of perception: and I deny the reverse - which would be to say that dead particles assemble over time, and through evolution, into a perceptive being.

I say that a robot cannot taste an orange, or enjoy s.ex, however it may be formed, now or in the future.

I say that cameras, even computerized cameras, do not have the faculty of sight.

I say that audio recorders cannot hear.

I say that perception is only open to a person, and that matter, and the body, is not, and cannot, be a person.

I say that experience is only open to a person.

I therefore say that that which is not material, evidentially exists.

I task the atheist to identify, define and locate the self.

Deep Sight: I contend that save there exist a being which inhabits the body, there could be no such thing as the senses, no such thing as thought, and no such thing as emotion.

To be clear, I say that the being utilizes the particles which form a body, as instruments of perception: and I deny the reverse - which would be to say that dead particles assemble over time, and through evolution, into a perceptive being.

I say that a robot cannot taste an orange, or enjoy s.ex, however it may be formed, now or in the future.

I say that cameras, even computerized cameras, do not have the faculty of sight.

I say that audio recorders cannot hear.

I say that perception is only open to a person, and that matter, and the body, is not, and cannot, be a person.

I say that experience is only open to a person.

I therefore say that that which is not material, evidentially exists.

I task the atheist to identify, define and locate the self.

its simple, robots, etcs arent made of carbon molecules, neither do they have replicating and mutating dna.

And the area for "self" has been recently found. This is the the dorsal fronto-median cortex (dFMC), an area on the midline of the brain directly above the eyes.

http://phys.org/news106936688.html

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/14/health/self-control-brain/

ooman:

its simple, robots, etcs arent made of carbon molecules, neither do they have replicating and mutating dna.

And the area for "self" has been recently found. This is the the dorsal fronto-median cortex (dFMC), an area on the midline of the brain directly above the eyes.

http://phys.org/news106936688.html

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/14/health/self-control-brain/

O, no, please try again.

The link you posted identified an area responsible for self-control - it did not identify the self.

Here are the exact opening words from your link -

The area of the brain responsible for self-control—where the decision not to do something occurs after thinking about doing it—is separate from the area associated with taking action, scientists say in the August 22 issue of The Journal of Neuroscience

Read more at: http://phys.org/news106936688.html#jCp

Before you can talk of "controlling" something - the thing must exist, no?

So please, you have not identified the self, or located it.

ooman:

its simple, robots, etcs arent made of carbon molecules, neither do they have replicating and mutating dna.

This does not address the question asked sir. In simple terms, the question asked is whether or not a material construct (evolved or created, regardless) can have perception and experience.

Deep Sight:

O, no, please try again.

The link you posted identified an area responsible for self-control - it did not identify the self.

Here are the exact opening words from your link -

The area of the brain responsible for self-control—where the decision not to do something occurs after thinking about doing it—is separate from the area associated with taking action, scientists say in the August 22 issue of The Journal of Neuroscience

Read more at: http://phys.org/news106936688.html#jCp

Before you can talk of "controlling" something - the thing must exist, no?

So please, you have not identified the self, or located it.



This does not address the question asked sir. In simple terms, the question asked is whether or not a material construct (evolved or created, regardless) can have perception and experience.

Do you need to be told that it takes a decisive mind to make up a "self"?

The brain has perception and experience, so material construct in specific configuration can and do have perception. What we dont have an evidence for is your "being that inhabits the body"

ooman:

Do you need to be told that it takes a decisive mind to make up a "self"?

The brain has perception and experience, so material construct in specific configuration can and do have perception. What we dont have an evidence for is your "being that inhabits the body"

No, dear, the brain does not have perception of itself as a brain.

Address this point: Only a person can see. Not a brain. Not neurons or sensors. Only a person. Perhaps I elaborated it better here - >

Deep Sight:

The bold in red is the saddest part: namely that the materialist atheist infers or states that such are nothing but the work and product of tiny pieces of matter, which, for their own unknown purposes and motivations, collectively work together in an intricate system to deliberately produce such. It's unthinkably and lamentably st.upid, that they cannot discern the clear evidence of a personal being existing therewith, and the aggregation of matter about it, which is called a body, being nothing but its material support system for life in a material world.

The eye.

The eye is more than enough food for thought - not its unfathomable complexity - which is quite another proof, no, not even that: rather the fact that it represents perception through sight - and this is only possible to a personal being. To see a thing, a feel a thing, to hear a thing, to smell a thing, to taste a thing: these faculties are only possible where there is a being that is seeing, a being, that is feeling, a being, that is tasting, etc. The physical apparatus by itself can only transmit and interpret signals - if there were no being to experience the interpreted signals, there would be no experience.

Which is why I refer thinkers to meditate on the corpse. To observe its as-built functionalities and ask themselves: WHAT were those functions serving?

They are only functions built for a being.

This is the simple, plain and evident truth that any child can see and discern; however, as the saying goes: a little learning, is often a terrible thing.

What can I say?

Deep Sight:

No, dear, the brain does not have perception of itself as a brain.

Address this point: Only a person can see. Not a brain. Not neurons or sensors. Only a person. Perhaps I elaborated it better here - >

no need for stories. What is a eye without a brain, what is a brain without a eye? Complement of both makes for a function. The decisive part of the brain is the self, the self is not complete without the eye and other organs. They all work together to make a complete human. Simple

ooman:

no need for stories.

This is what lazy people say when they don't want to read and analyze.

What is a eye without a brain, what is a brain without a eye? Complement of both makes for a function.

A function for who?

For who to see?

The decisive part of the brain is the self,

Please don't be a dolt, this fine Sunday, there is no part of the brain called "the self"

the self is not complete without the eye and other organs.

O really? So your "self" is not the same "self". if you lose a body part? A finger, or an eye, for example? Do you become a different "self"?

They all work together to make a complete human. Simple

They work together to form a complete human body sir. You have not found your "self" in any part therein.

Deep Sight:

This is what lazy people say when they don't want to read and analyze.



A function for who?

For who to see?



Please don't be a dolt, this fine Sunday, there is no part of the brain called "the self"



O really? So your "self" is not the same "self". if you lose a body part? A finger, or an eye, for example? Do you become a different "self"?



They work together to form a complete human body sir. You have not found your "self" in any part therein.

Why have you betrayed reason?

Lazy? Maybe, but to things unworthy.

A function for the whole system.

No part called self? Not one that you know of.

there is a difference between "complete" and "different". Something may be the same thing, but incomplete. Do you need to be told that?

1. Does your body become incomplete when you lose a body part? Yes, it does.

2. Does your "self" become incomplete when you lose a body part?

Deep Sight:
1. Does your body become incomplete when you lose a body part? Yes, it does.

2. Does your "self" become incomplete when you lose a body part?

except if you loose a part of your brain, then you become mad, then you have lost your "self"

ooman:

except if you loose a part of your brain, then you become mad, then you have lost your "self"

Losing a part of the brain is what makes people mad?

Deep Sight:

Losing a part of the brain is what makes people mad?

yeah. Madness does not immediately result into blindness for instance. You dont need to loose all of your brain to loose your "self".

ooman:

yeah. Madness does not immediately result into blindness for instance. You dont need to loose all of your brain to loose your "self".

Lol. I won't worry with you.

Deep Sight:

Lol. I won't worry with you.

Another pointless thread.

^^^ Do you really expect me to bother with a man who, in such few posts, renders such scandalous illiteracy? A man who says that there is a part of the brain called "the self" and that madness is caused by losing a part of your brain.

Lol. Enjoy jaare. I will await better denouncers of my very simple - even simplistic - posers.

Deep Sight:
^^^ Do you really expect me to bother with a man who, in such few posts, renders such scandalous illiteracy? A man who says that there is a part of the brain called "the self" and that madness is caused by losing a part of your brain.

Lol. Enjoy jaare. I will await better denouncers of my very simple - even simplistic - posers.

You mean people with the same level of illiteracy as you? That you should do.

The person is truly a miracle. The mental man, the physical man, the spiritual man. There's a miracle in life. The ancients recognized. Our people deny, foolishly reducing themselves to products of randomness and bonobo dna. They ignore the designer of this miracle of life and become foolish in their thinking, ungrateful, speculators of arrant nonsense

Romans 1:21 Because when they knew and recognized Him as God, they did not honor and glorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile and godless in their thinking [with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations] and their senseless minds were darkened. 22  Claiming to be wise, they became fools [professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves]. 23  And by them the glory and majesty and excellence of the immortal God were exchanged for and represented by images, resembling mortal man and birds and beasts and reptiles.


Fools who claim to be wise. A waste of words...

Deep Sight: I contend that save there exist a being which inhabits the body, there could be no such thing as the senses, no such thing as thought, and no such thing as emotion

Would you agree that lower animals also have a 'being'?

Joshthefirst:
Fools who claim to be wise. A waste of words...

Interestingly, at least 3/4 of your interactions on this forum has been with atheists or about atheism. Your recycling plant is doing quite well.

aManFromMars:
Interestingly, at least 3/4 of your interactions on this forum has been with atheists or about atheism. Your recycling plant is doing quite well.

I tend towards evangelism. And most of the time you guys start the interaction. Its like I threaten you with my words, no? I've appealed to be ignored many times.

Besides, I love you guys. And I love the human beings who would like your very appealing fantasies of life, who would derail. So I give regular doses of the truth to stand against your falsehoods.

Joshthefirst: I tend towards evangelism. And most of the time you guys start the interaction. Its like I threaten you with my words, no? I've appealed to be ignored many times.

Besides, I love you guys. And I love the human beings who would like your very appealing fantasies of life, who would derail. So I give regular doses of the truth to stand against your falsehoods.

Make we no derail deepardo thread. a mind may be watching...

aManFromMars:
Would you agree that lower animals also have a 'being'?

Yes.

Hmmmm!

Great post Ooman.

ooman:

Do you need to be told that it takes a decisive mind to make up a "self"?

The brain has perception and experience, so material construct in specific configuration can and do have perception. What we dont have an evidence for is your "being that inhabits the body"

That ^ was beautifully said.

If you add the aspact of the animating force that powers the brain and body, then, the bible becomes your ally.

ooman:

no need for stories. What is a eye without a brain, what is a brain without a eye? Complement of both makes for a function. The decisive part of the brain is the self, the self is not complete without the eye and other organs. They all work together to make a complete human. Simple

The question to ask is:

why does an immaterial being need a material eye to see ?

Such a being should transcend the body rendering the material eyes redundant.

But is the revers not the case ? Close or plug off the eyes and see how super this being is. Smh.

Deep Sight:
^^^ Do you really expect me to bother with a man who, in such few posts, renders such scandalous illiteracy? A man who says that there is a part of the brain called "the self" and that madness is caused by losing a part of your brain.

Lol. Enjoy jaare. I will await better denouncers of my very simple - even simplistic - posers.

Actually, madness is no big deal.

All it takes is for the brain to lose some part of its imformation.

Just losing the address to your home is madness.

By the time you walk to and fro of the both extremes of your street for a day, not knowing your home, because its been lost in your brain, then those that care about you will send you to the right home > psychiatric home.

What do we call that ^

@OP, is there a part of your body called Mouth? Is it your teeth, tongue or lips?

If you lose all your teeth, have you lost your Mouth?

Does your mouth become incomplete when you lose your tongue? Yes.

Does your Mouth become incomplete when you lose your tongue?

I contend that we have a Mouth that actually contains those other organs. It is only the willfully deluded and spiritually blind that will deny this super-glaring fact.

THERE IS A MOUTH THAT CONTAINS THE TEETH, TONGUE AND LIPS

^ You consider your self -(the person that you are) to be the sum of the parts of your body?

truthislight: Hmmmm!

Great post Ooman.



That ^ was beautifully said.

If you add the aspact of the animating force that powers the brain and body, then, the bible becomes your ally.

This animating force is not necessary. What powers you is the food you eat.

You may starve yourself and let us see if your animating will sustain you

truthislight:

The question to ask is:

why does an immaterial being need a material eye to see ?

Such a being should transcend the body rendering the material eyes redundant.

But is the revers not the case ? Close or plug off the eyes and see how super this being is. Smh.

Sorry but by observation, you are wrong. Blind people aren't super in any way, they are infact called the less priviledged so try again.

ooman:

This animating force is not necessary. What powers you is the food you eat.

Well then, go ahead and assemble matter in the form and look and feel of a man(animal) and pump Oxygen into it and see it start breathing and come to life.

And dont forget, feel free to feed it also.

Have a nice day.

Peace.

ooman:

Sorry but by observation, you are wrong. Blind people aren't super in any way, they are infact called the less priviledged so try again.

again, you got me on the wrong end.

I was actually taking your side.

That if there is a transcendental being inside the human person, it will not need a physical eye to see when the eye are closed or bad.

Go read it again.

You may have to learn to cool down a bit also.

Peace.