im on vacation and got some little free time so if he wants to play we will play

obadiah777: ARGUING WITH TRUTHISLIGHT IS LIKE ARGUING WITH A MENTALLY DEFICIENT CRETIN THAT NIGGA DONE LOST HIS MIND IN THE NINETIES HE IS A WALKING TALKING AND TYPING SHELL OF A PERSON

greatgenius: im on vacation and got some little free time so if he wants to play we will play

YEAH WELL YOU ARE A BIGGER AND STRONGER MAN THAN I AM. I CANT SEEM TO BE ABLE TO STOMACH HIS TIRADES FOR MORE THAN 2 POSTS BEFORE I CUT OUT

truthislight:

we are created in the image of God.

That is the mind we have/intelligence, other than that i dont know what extra ordinary thing we have that makes us special.

this is some nonsense you just uttered( excuse my language)borne out of extreme ignorance..

you just said we were created in the image of God. in other words the essence of God.. ie we have the same essence and nature that makes God who he/she/it is, and yet in the same sentence say, you don't think you are special or extraordinary.. wow.. yet you call this God powerful and worship her..see mockery..time to wake up god brother.

mazaje:
So what does our soul make our body do?. . . Is it our soul that make us reason, think, dream, display emotion etc?

What does the soul make our bodies do? Everything. If you recall, I said earlier that the soul is the real person while the body is the 'container' so essentially, it is the soul who is reasoning, dreaming, thinking e.t.c through the body. It is because we have a soul that our bodies have a conscious life. Without a soul, our bodies are just mere lifeless matter.

Thought is something that develops with time based on stored memory and knowledge which have everything to do with the brain, the will to think I believe is a function of stored memory and knowledge which is all initiated in the brain

I hope you do realize that by saying this, you are giving the brain a personality of it's own i.e. the brain itself is learning and choosing to do stuff and consequently making the body do stuff.

. . .Infants who have no knowledge of anything or stored memory in their brains are unable to think for themselves, they can only speak to themselves. . . .As we grow and store more memory in our brains and gain more knowledge, we develop the ability to internalise this speech, and can eventually have a purely internal monologue. . . .

First of all I don't know how you know that infants cannot think for themselves but what is funnier is that you follow it up by saying that they can only speak to themselves (what are they saying to themselves if they cannot think?). Even funnier is that you promptly follow that up by saying that they grow up to internalize this speech (I would have thought that internalized speech is a way of speaking to oneself). My friend, you confuse me.

So my answer to you question is yes, you can chose what you want to think about and go ahead to think about it. . .The thinking all involves different mechanisms in the brain. . .The will to think I believe is all initiated in the brain. . .

Basically, you are saying that your brain is you and it has a will of it's own i.e. at the core of your person, it is all chemical reactions upon chemical reactions happening in grey matter. Are we in agreement?

Mr_Anony:

What does the soul make our bodies do? Everything. If you recall, I said earlier that the soul is the real person while the body is the 'container' so essentially, it is the soul who is reasoning, dreaming, thinking e.t.c through the body. It is because we have a soul that our bodies have a conscious life. Without a soul, our bodies are just mere lifeless matter.

Ok, but the problem with these claim is that it has no scientific backing and it has no evidence to back it up. I will like to think of the mind as completely different from the brain but all studies show other wise. . .All studies have shown that the brain is the man since it controls everything from voluntary to involuntary actions, and we can't do anything without it. . .If it is true that the soul controls the brain and some how leaves the body after the brain dies then it is very possible for us to detect that IMO. . .But the problem is that there are very good reasons to believe it is not true. . .When you damage certain areas of the brain faculties are lost. . .If a person has a major physical change to their brain (due to injury, surgery, disease or oxygen starvation), it will often bring about a major change to their personality. Many people who suffer accidents that cause brain injury also undergo a personality change. It used to be common practice to lobotomise (surgically remove the frontal lobes of the brain) dangerously violent people as this brought about a dramatic change in their personality - they became much more subdued and docile.

There have been several cases where a person went into hospital for an operation, something went tragically wrong, perhaps with the anaesthetic, and the person suffered massive brain-damage as a result. Healthy, thinking, reasoning person before the operation, and a vegetable afterwards. What happened to the soul? Did the material drugs damage the immaterial soul? Does a person with a brain damage suffer a damaged soul?. . .A person with a damaged brain loses to recognize faces, can't get the words out, loses his ability to remember languages and words, body metabolism changes in some cases etc. . .Why is it that when you damage on part of the brain subjectivity is lost?. . .You can damage more and everything will be lost, yet we are told to believe that if you damage everything at death all our faculties will be back and we will remember our lost friends and relatives because we have a soul. . .If we truly have a soul why does the same soul loses its ability to remember anything when the brain is damaged but the same soul is said to be able to do same after we die?. . .

I hope you do realize that by saying this, you are giving the brain a personality of it's own i.e. the brain itself is learning and choosing to do stuff and consequently making the body do stuff.

The brain is the man and the man can do nothing without it. . .

First of all I don't know how you know that infants cannot think for themselves but what is funnier is that you follow it up by saying that they can only speak to themselves (what are they saying to themselves if they cannot think?). Even funnier is that you promptly follow that up by saying that they grow up to internalize this speech (I would have thought that internalized speech is a way of speaking to oneself). My friend, you confuse me.

I saw it on the discovery science channel, they conducted some experiments and came to the conclusion that infants can't really think internally but develop the ability to do so as they grow up after their brain is able to store memory and gain knowledge. . .

Basically, you are saying that your brain is you and it has a will of it's own i.e. at the core of your person, it is all chemical reactions upon chemical reactions happening in grey matter. Are we in agreement?

The brain is the person because without your brain you will not be able to think or reason. . .I can have all my organs and systems intact and functioning perfectly but once the part of my brain that is responsible for consciousness is damaged I will be in a vegetative state. When part of it is damaged I will not be fully conscious or aware of my environment, I can lose all my memory completely, or my behavior can be altered completely depending on the extent of damage to my brain. . .

mazaje:

Ok, but the problem with these claim is that it has no scientific backing and it has no evidence to back it up. I will like to think of the mind as completely different from the brain but all studies show other wise. . .All studies have shown that the brain is the man since it controls everything from voluntary to involuntary actions, and we can't do anything without it. . .If it is true that the soul controls the brain and some how leaves the body after the brain dies then it is very possible for us to detect that IMO. . .But the problem is that there are very good reasons to believe it is not true. . .When you damage certain areas of the brain faculties are lost. . .If a person has a major physical change to their brain (due to injury, surgery, disease or oxygen starvation), it will often bring about a major change to their personality. Many people who suffer accidents that cause brain injury also undergo a personality change. It used to be common practice to lobotomise (surgically remove the frontal lobes of the brain) dangerously violent people as this brought about a dramatic change in their personality - they became much more subdued and docile.

There have been several cases where a person went into hospital for an operation, something went tragically wrong, perhaps with the anaesthetic, and the person suffered massive brain-damage as a result. Healthy, thinking, reasoning person before the operation, and a vegetable afterwards. What happened to the soul? Did the material drugs damage the immaterial soul? Does a person with a brain damage suffer a damaged soul?. . .A person with a damaged brain loses to recognize faces, can't get the words out, loses his ability to remember languages and words, body metabolism changes in some cases etc. . .Why is it that when you damage on part of the brain subjectivity is lost?. . .You can damage more and everything will be lost, yet we are told to believe that if you damage everything at death all our faculties will be back and we will remember our lost friends and relatives because we have a soul. . .If we truly have a soul why does the same soul loses its ability to remember anything when the brain is damaged but the same soul is said to be able to do same after we die?. . .

Good questions you raise here but they are also raised as question 9 so I'll respond to them as we move further down.

The brain is the man and the man can do nothing without it. . .

I saw it on the discovery science channel, they conducted some experiments and came to the conclusion that infants can't really think internally but develop the ability to do so as they grow up after their brain is able to store memory and gain knowledge. . .

The brain is the person because without your brain you will not be able to think or reason. . .I can have all my organs and systems intact and functioning perfectly but once the part of my brain that is responsible for consciousness is damaged I will be in a vegetative state. When part of it is damaged I will not be fully conscious or aware of my environment, I can lose all my memory completely, or my behavior can be altered completely depending on the extent of damage to my brain. . .

So your answer here is that the brain is the man i.e. the brain has a will, a personality and an intelligence on it's own and at the core of these are chemical reactions resulting in direct response to external stimuli. Is this a fair representation of your stance? If so, let us proceed to the next question. If not, clarify.

Secondly, I am very interested in that discovery channel study. Please see if you can find me a link.

greatgenius:


now my question...
do you agree or can you say going by your analogy(since the bulb filament was lightless or should i say lifeless before the current gave it light)then that a "lite bulb filament is CURRENT MADE LIGHT or The illumination is Current made light?..

well, the filament glows red via the action of the current.

But the current is not the filament.

So also the light from the bulb is neither the filament nor the current.

But the objective of bringing the filament and the current together is to get the light.

this ^^^ was the reason for the arrangement to get the light/soul.

greatgenius: another dancing around.. oh so now the spirit is not God? lol since you want to play semantics here lets play.. is God the father not equal to the son or word?

i am not a trinitarian that is why it is easy to sort things out.

greatgenius: this is some nonsense you just uttered( excuse my language)borne out of extreme ignorance..

you just said we were created in the image of God. in other words the essence of God.. ie we have the same essence and nature that makes God who he/she/it is, and yet in the same sentence say, you don't think you are special or extraordinary.. wow.. yet you call this God powerful and worship her..see mockery..time to wake up god brother.

did not the bible say image of God? Did it say "essence" of God?

Na you sabi.

Then a gorilla is also in the essence of god.

Mr_Anony:
Good questions you raise here but they are also raised as question 9 so I'll respond to them as we move further down.

OK. . .

So your answer here is that the brain is the man i.e. the brain has a will, a personality and an intelligence on it's own and at the core of these are chemical reactions resulting in direct response to external stimuli. Is this a fair representation of your stance? If so, let us proceed to the next question. If not, clarify.

As I aforementioned, personally I will like to believe that the mind is different from the brain but so far all the evidence I have seen suggested other wise, so I will go with the evidence. I remember the first time my friend's late dad was involved in an accident that left him brain damaged. . .He could not remember his name, could not speak, could not read or remember his wife and kids. . .Hmmmmm. . .It was so bad then. . .If he had a mind that was different from his brain, how come he lost everything after his brain was damaged. . . Mundane activities like talking became a big problem. . . .Hmmm. . .I just want to follow the evidence and so far I think it all points to the brain, a lot is yet to be discovered about the brain and how it functions, but I personally believe the brain is the mind based on all the available evidence. . .If the mind exist on its own then it should be able to do things independent of the brain. . .For now I will go with what I have stated that the man is the brain. . .

Secondly, I am very interested in that discovery channel study. Please see if you can find me a link.

Its a documentary I saw on TV(discovery science) but will look it up and drop some links if I can find. . .

mazaje:

OK. . .



As I aforementioned, personally I will like to believe that the mind is different from the brain but so far all the evidence I have seen suggested other wise, so I will go with the evidence. I remember the first time my friend's late dad was involved in an accident that left him brain damaged. . .He could not remember his name, could not speak, could not read or remember his wife and kids. . .Hmmmmm. . .It was so bad then. . .If he had a mind that was different from his brain, how come he lost everything after his brain was damaged. . . Mundane activities like talking became a big problem. . . .Hmmm. . .I just want to follow the evidence and so far I think it all points to the brain, a lot is yet to be discovered about the brain and how it functions, but I personally believe the brain is the mind based on all the available evidence. . .If the mind exist on its own then it should be able to do things independent of the brain. . .For now I will go with what I have stated that the man is the brain. . .



Its a documentary I saw on TV(discovery science) but will look it up and drop some links if I can find. . .

Ok, so we proceed:

Question 4: By what means does it become disconnected from the body at the point of death?

My answer: This question like it's predecessors assumes that a non-physical soul is physically connected to a physical body therefore it asks a question of mechanism to which I have to say that the question is irrelevant to the definition of the soul.

What we can know from a physical perspective is that a person is alive when the soul is present in the body but when the soul leaves, the person dies even if all physical matter which is his body remains intact. As for the mechanism of connection of the non-physical to the physical, it is not possible for me to give such an answer. This would be like asking "by what means does information disappear from a writing on piece of paper at the point of erasure?"

My question: How do you explain human subjective consciousness?

The following is an explanation of my question:
So far, you hold that there is no non-physical aspect of you but that chemical reactions in your brain produce non-physical thoughts. You also hold that your brain which is a physical object is capable of consciousness of which consciousness to you is reduced to stimuli which the brain processes by affecting particular chain reactions. You also hold that not only does the brain process these information, it evaluates them and and makes choices based on this information. Essentially as far as you are concerned, man does not have a physical brain per say, man is a brain i.e. the whole essence of man is his physical brain and there is nothing non-physical to man's essence.
If this is true, how do you explain subjective opinion of reality? because if man is a brain and the brain is essentially chemical reactions responding to external stimuli, then it follows that the nature of man's consciousness ought to be objective because the same stimuli must produce the same reactions and therefore no two men would be able to disagree with each other as long as they are interacting with the same information/stimulus.
Secondly, man cannot possibly have abstract ideas and concepts like morality, legality, democracy or capitalism or socialism e.t.c. because there is no direct link between the observation of physical objects and the formation of such abstract ideas.
Thirdly, pleasure and pain (especially as concerning abstract ideas) would not exist or at least the stimuli will give pleasure objectively and there will be no such thing as preferences.

truthislight:

well, the filament glows red via the action of the current.

But the current is not the filament.

So also the light from the bulb is neither the filament nor the current.

But the objective of bringing the filament and the current together is to get the light.

this ^^^ was the reason for the arrangement to get the light/soul.

again you are dancing
1. the filament glows red vai the action of the current..same way the lifeless body animates via the power of the spirit of God
2. yes we know and have established that the current is not the filamet just like the spirit is not the body or you are not your body.
3. yes light from the bulb is neither the filament nor current.. same way life or what you have chosen to call living soul here is not either the body or spirit but a combination of both body and power of the spirit is what brings the life as you know it..
4.(But the objective of bringing the filament and the current together is to get the light)..again we have established that..the objective of the spirit animating the body is to experience life in physicality..or be a living soul as you have termed it..

at this point either you refusing to acknowledge that you are God made man because of fear that your "god" will strike you for heresy or you really lack understanding...

truthislight:

i am not a trinitarian that is why it is easy to sort things out.

ok you failed to answer the question! i didnst ask you about trinity! we havent gotten to that..i ask you if you believe that God the father is equal to God the son or word.. oh and I disagree you sort things out easily..

truthislight:

did not the bible say image of God? Did it say "essence" of God?

Na you sabi.

Then a gorilla is also in the essence of god.

first everything in its core is in the essence of God.. The true nature and essence of God is not its form. form is an illusiion. God can take on any form and all forms..in your purest form as a light being you can take on any form.. God is not a personification.. she/he/it is simply THE CREATOR. he created you in her image and likeness to create your world as God in flesh..image and likewise here means you are a microcosm of it..not necessarily the form. you were created with the creative power of the universe on your lips. you are a microcosm of her. like God you are a creator and you create your world from the power of your mind. like God your real essence is energy, a light being.. you have all the power of the universe in you... you just ignorant to it..

I saw it on the discovery science channel, they conducted some experiments and came to the conclusion that infants can't really think internally but develop the ability to do so as they grow up after their brain is able to store memory and gain knowledge. . .

Secondly, I am very interested in that discovery channel study. Please see if you can find me a link.

hi mazaje is this what you were referring to?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2256036/Babies-begin-learning-language-mothers-theyre-womb.html

Mr_Anony:

Ok, so we proceed:

Question 4: By what means does it become disconnected from the body at the point of death?

My answer: This question like it's predecessors assumes that a non-physical soul is physically connected to a physical body therefore it asks a question of mechanism to which I have to say that the question is irrelevant to the definition of the soul.

What we can know from a physical perspective is that a person is alive when the soul is present in the body but when the soul leaves, the person dies even if all physical matter which is his body remains intact. As for the mechanism of connection of the non-physical to the physical, it is not possible for me to give such an answer. This would be like asking "by what means does information disappear from a writing on piece of paper at the point of erasure?"

To be candid you have not said anything meaningful here. . .When a person dies, does the soul just fly out of the body or what?. . .If you do not know or can not answer then its best to just say so. . .

My question: How do you explain human subjective consciousness?

The following is an explanation of my question:
So far, you hold that there is no non-physical aspect of you but that chemical reactions in your brain produce non-physical thoughts. You also hold that your brain which is a physical object is capable of consciousness of which consciousness to you is reduced to stimuli which the brain processes by affecting particular chain reactions. You also hold that not only does the brain process these information, it evaluates them and and makes choices based on this information. Essentially as far as you are concerned, man does not have a physical brain per say, man is a brain i.e. the whole essence of man is his physical brain and there is nothing non-physical to man's essence.

Yes, If there is more to the brain then why is it that changes to the brain can alter a person's behaviour completely?. . . As I aforementioned, it used to be common practice to lobotomise (surgically remove the frontal lobes of the brain) dangerously violent people as this brought about a dramatic change in their personality - they became much more subdued and docile. Their personality and behaviour changes completely. People that suffer brain damage also experience a complete change in their behaviours, they become new beings. . .Does the damaged material brain damage the immaterial soul?

If this is true, how do you explain subjective opinion of reality? because if man is a brain and the brain is essentially chemical reactions responding to external stimuli, then it follows that the nature of man's consciousness ought to be objective because the same stimuli must produce the same reactions and therefore no two men would be able to disagree with each other as long as they are interacting with the same information/stimulus.
Secondly, man cannot possibly have abstract ideas and concepts like morality, legality, democracy or capitalism or socialism e.t.c. because there is no direct link between the observation of physical objects and the formation of such abstract ideas.
Thirdly, pleasure and pain (especially as concerning abstract ideas) would not exist or at least the stimuli will give pleasure objectively and there will be no such thing as preferences.

The part I have highlighted in bold is just not true. You are just begging the question. The thought process in the brain are different for different humans. They are not all the same. We do not know every thing about the brain but to reduce it as an organ that is essentially a chemical reaction that is responding to external stimuli alone is simply begging the question. . . . I don't know the answer to all the questions you have asked, but one fact that has been empirically shown and demonstrated is that the brain controls and coordinates actions and reactions, it allows us to think and feel, and enables us to have memories and feelings – all the things that make us human. but, our brains are all wired differently, how our brain process information also differs. . .How hormones also affect our brains differently and make us behave differently as well. . .But it has been empirically shown that the four lobes of the brain determines who we are and the reasons behind our perceptions. . .Any damage to any of the lobes has direct effect on our behaviour and personality for example a damage to the frontal lobe leads to

Increased or decreased problem solving ability and creativity
Alteration in talking habits
Reduced sexual interest or peculiar sexual habits
Impaired risk-taking ability
Reduced or no sense of taste and/or smell
Impaired spontaneity and mental flexibility
Increased susceptibility to distractions

But even that varies from individual to individual. . .

mazaje:
To be candid you have not said anything meaningful here. . .When a person dies, does the soul just fly out of the body or what?. . .If you do not know or can not answer then its best to just say so. . .

The answer I gave you is very clear. Since the soul is non-physical, it becomes irrelevant to ask for a mechanism explaining how it leaves the body. It is a bit like asking how non-physical information 'flies out' of a physical disk when it is deleted.

Yes, If there is more to the brain then why is it that changes to the brain can alter a person's behaviour completely?. . . As I aforementioned, it used to be common practice to lobotomise (surgically remove the frontal lobes of the brain) dangerously violent people as this brought about a dramatic change in their personality - they became much more subdued and docile. Their personality and behaviour changes completely. People that suffer brain damage also experience a complete change in their behaviours, they become new beings. . .Does the damaged material brain damage the immaterial soul?

As I said earlier, we will treat this when we get to question 9.

The part I have highlighted in bold is just not true. You are just begging the question. The thought process in the brain are different for different humans. They are not all the same. We do not know every thing about the brain but to reduce it as an organ that is essentially a chemical reaction that is responding to external stimuli alone is simply begging the question. . . .

But the part in bold is precisely what you have done.

Let me remind you of what you said earlier

mazaje:
I said acknowledged that my thoughts are non physical but without my brain I can not have them since they are chemical reaction in the brain, that is a scientific fact, do you dispute that fact?. . .My thoughts are non physical and as such can not be measured. . .

Here you said that your thoughts are merely chemical reactions. . .and a while later you said man is more or less his brain i.e. his thoughts, reasoning, will and emotions are chemical reactions

Even though we ignore how absurd it sounds coming from your worldview that the measurable physical can create the immeasurable non-physical, it sounds even more absurd to me that two brains receiving the same input should not have the same chemical reactions and therefore end up with the same thought. That is very unscientific.

I don't know the answer to all the questions you have asked, but one fact that has been empirically shown and demonstrated is that the brain controls and coordinates actions and reactions, it allows us to think and feel, and enables us to have memories and feelings – all the things that make us human. but, our brains are all wired differently, how our brain process information also differs. . .How hormones also affect our brains differently and make us behave differently as well. . .But it has been empirically shown that the four lobes of the brain determines who we are and the reasons behind our perceptions. . .Any damage to any of the lobes has direct effect on our behaviour and personality for example a damage to the frontal lobe leads to

Increased or decreased problem solving ability and creativity
Alteration in talking habits
Reduced sexual interest or peculiar sexual habits
Impaired risk-taking ability
Reduced or no sense of taste and/or smell
Impaired spontaneity and mental flexibility
Increased susceptibility to distractions

My question was not about the abilities of the brain. It was about it's individual subjectivity.

But even that varies from individual to individual. . .

Exactly. Why?

I asked a very simple question earlier and i wonder why mazaje keeps avoiding it.

We have the ability to manipulate brain chemistry in the lab... is it possible to engineer an abstract thought just by injecting a neurotransmitter?

davidylan: I asked a very simple question earlier and i wonder why mazaje keeps avoiding it.

We have the ability to manipulate brain chemistry in the lab... is it possible to engineer an abstract thought just by injecting a neurotransmitter?

I don't know. . .

mazaje:

I don't know. . .

Then how come you know that the thoughts are the chemical reactions in the brain?

Mr_Anony:
Then how come you know that the thoughts are the chemical reactions in the brain?

Read his question again and understand what he is asking. . .

Mr_Anony:
Then how come you know that the thoughts are the chemical reactions in the brain?

precisely what i was going to ask next.

mazaje:

Read his question again and understand what he is asking. . .

very simple... you said (paraphrasing here) that thoughts are purely a result of chemical reactions in the brain. Since it is possible to actually create dopamine in the lab or serotonin... is it possible to create a specific thought pattern by injecting a specific concoction of neurotransmitters into the brain?

mazaje:

Read his question again and understand what he is asking. . .

I think he is asking exactly what I am asking

davidylan:

very simple... you said (paraphrasing here) that thoughts are purely a result of chemical reactions in the brain. Since it is possible to actually create dopamine in the lab or serotonin... is it possible to create a specific thought pattern by injecting a specific concoction of neurotransmitters into the brain?

Do you deny the fact that thoughts are as a results of complex chemical reactions in the brain?. . .I said I don't know but the fact I know is that thoughts are a complex chemical reactions in the brain, do you deny that fact?

Mr_Anony: I think he is asking exactly what I am asking

Do you deny the fact that thoughts are a series of complex chemical reactions in the brain?

mazaje:

Do you deny the fact that thoughts are as a results of complex chemical reactions in the brain?. . .I said I don't know but the fact I know is that thoughts are a complex chemical reactions in the brain, do you deny that fact?

You obviously do not know this but somehow you keep mislabeling it as a "fact". Based on what empirical evidence?

I asked a very simple question... if you believe that thoughts are purely a result of complex chemical reactions in the brain then how is it impossible to engineer a specific thought pattern by making up a complex mix of brain chemicals in the lab?

That should be a very simple question that should help us validate your "fact" no?

You are misconstruing several issues here to pass across an invalid opinion. the brain is the master-switch (see it as the thought-processing center) and it does this by the manipulation of a complex chemical reaction. But are these chemical reactions themselves SOLELY responsible for thought? the answer is an obvious NO to those who are truly objective seekers of the truth. If the answer were yes (as you falsely claim) then why is it not possible to simply inject everyone with a specific concoction of chemicals to induce the exact same train of thought? Why do identical twins (with identical brain chemistry) grow to be fully independent humans with the ability to process information independent of each other? Why do drugs that alter brain chemistry produce vastly different reactions in different individuals?

I saw an analogy by greatgenius that perfectly explains this conundrum. Without the filament in a bulb there is no electricity... but is the filament the sole reason a bulb lights up?

Mr_Anony:
The answer I gave you is very clear. Since the soul is non-physical, it becomes irrelevant to ask for a mechanism explaining how it leaves the body. It is a bit like asking how non-physical information 'flies out' of a physical disk when it is deleted.

So bits and bytes are non physical things?. . .When the bits are deleted they get removes from where they are stored. . .

As I said earlier, we will treat this when we get to question 9.

OK. . .

But the part in bold is precisely what you have done.

Let me remind you of what you said earlier


Here you said that your thoughts are merely chemical reactions. . .and a while later you said man is more or less his brain i.e. his thoughts, reasoning, will and emotions are chemical reactions

Even though we ignore how absurd it sounds coming from your worldview that the measurable physical can create the immeasurable non-physical, it sounds even more absurd to me that two brains receiving the same input should not have the same chemical reactions and therefore end up with the same thought. That is very unscientific.

Which scientific theory says that two brains receiving the same input must react the same way?. . .Which scientific theory tells you that two brains must end up with the same thought after receiving the same stimuli?. . .

Exactly. Why?

Because different brains react differently. . .

mazaje:
Which scientific theory says that two brains receiving the same input must react the same way?. . .Which scientific theory tells you that two brains must end up with the same thought after receiving the same stimuli?. . .

Lets not get ridiculous here. Scientific theory states that for a purely physical/chemical process... as long as ALL conditions remain the same, you are likely to end up with the exact same result. Our brains reaction to the same physical stimuli is almost always identical... EXCEPT in the case of thought patterns. Why?

mazaje:
Because different brains react differently. . .

and this is because?

For example - every heart will react the exact same way to adrenaline... why do thought patterns differ for every individual to the exact same shot of serotonin?

davidylan:

You obviously do not know this but somehow you keep mislabeling it as a "fact". Based on what empirical evidence?

I asked a very simple question... if you believe that thoughts are purely a result of complex chemical reactions in the brain then how is it impossible to engineer a specific thought pattern by making up a complex mix of brain chemicals in the lab?

That should be a very simple question that should help us validate your "fact" no?

You are misconstruing several issues here to pass across an invalid opinion. the brain is the master-switch (see it as the thought-processing center) and it does this by the manipulation of a complex chemical reaction. But are these chemical reactions themselves SOLELY responsible for thought? the answer is an obvious NO to those who are truly objective seekers of the truth. If the answer were yes (as you falsely claim) then why is it not possible to simply inject everyone with a specific concoction of chemicals to induce the exact same train of thought? Why do identical twins (with identical brain chemistry) grow to be fully independent humans with the ability to process information independent of each other? Why do drugs that alter brain chemistry produce vastly different reactions in different individuals?

I saw an analogy by greatgenius that perfectly explains this conundrum. Without the filament in a bulb there is no electricity... but is the filament the sole reason a bulb lights up?

You are the one that is getting it wrongly, I agree with a lot of what you have written, but there are some misconception on your part as well. My position is thoughts happen as a result of complex chemical reactions that occur in the brain. . .I never said the chemical reactions are what trigger thought, but they are responsible for the process. . .Just to ask, what do you believe triggers thoughts and reasoning?. . .

davidylan:

Lets not get ridiculous here. Scientific theory states that for a purely physical/chemical process... as long as ALL conditions remain the same, you are likely to end up with the exact same result. Our brains reaction to the same physical stimuli is almost always identical... EXCEPT in the case of thought patterns. Why?

and this is because?

For example - every heart will react the exact same way to adrenaline... why do thought patterns differ for every individual to the exact same shot of serotonin?

This is just like asking me why do all human beings have different finger prints. . .I said I don't know. . .I will ask some professionals when I get to school a later and see if they can give me an answer. . .For now I don't know. . .

mazaje:

You are the one that is getting it wrongly, I agree with a lot of what you have written, but there are some misconception on your part as well. My position is thoughts happen as a result of complex chemical reactions that occur in the brain. . .I never said the chemical reactions are what trigger thought, but they are responsible for the process. . .Just to ask, what do you believe triggers thoughts and reasoning?. . .

Now we are getting somewhere... i think everyone here agrees with you that chemical reactions in the brain are responsible for the thought process. Just the same way your leg is responsible for forward or backward movement... but is your leg solely responsible for getting you from point A to B? Is your leg not merely a vehicle to accomplish a conscious choice made by your brain that your leg had absolutely no part in determining? Did your leg unilaterally decide to travel to Lagos on its own without your own input?

I am squarely of the opinion that there is a non-physical portion of the human that is responsible for triggering thought. Your brain chemistry only serves as the messenger to shaping those thoughts.

mazaje:

This is just like asking me why do all human beings have different finger prints. . .I said I don't know. . .I will ask some professionals when I get to school a later and see if they can give me an answer. . .For now I don't know. . .

Actually it is not as straight-forward since finger prints are a physical quality that you do not control... YOU can control your own thoughts... how do you do it? Simply by upping your dopamine levels?

If i may throw this in - what is responsible for subjective reality?