It takes more than brains to think.
That’s not what I think.
It’s what Wilder Penfield thinks.
Penfield “was an American-born neurosurgeon at the Montreal Neurological Institute who pioneered surgery for epilepsy.”
Before we go any further let’s think about a scientist
…named ‘Wilder’.
Yeah.
Moving on…
He spent a lot of time poking people in the brain.
And like any good scientist, he learned stuff from his experiences.
Poked brains often result in seizures.
Poked brains never produce abstract thought.
Electrical stimulations don’t cause people to have ‘mathematics seizures’.
Poking a brain doesn’t make people contemplate morality or have a spasm of empathy.
Poked brains don’t pray.
I’ll take his word for it.
…I’ve never poked a brain personally.
…It’s probably illegal for me to even try.
Penfield’s observations caused him to write:
The patient’s mind, which is considering the situation in such an aloof and critical manner, can only be something quite apart from neuronal reflex action.
In other words…
…thoughts are not strictly functions of the physical brain.
Like any good scientist, Penfield started out as a Naturalist.
His experience caused him to become a Dualist.
Dualism is quite a bit different from Christianity but the point is…
…Penfield acknowledged that something outside the brain makes abstract thought possible.
The brain alone is not an adequate explanation for conscious experience.
This isn’t shocking really.
Reasonable people take this fact for granted.
Summarized by the old adage:
“It’s the thought that counts.”
Why would the thought matter if it’s just a neurological reflex?
Contemplate that for a moment.
Now contemplate how you have the ability to contemplate.
Then tell me where Penfield got it wrong.
And tell me how many brains you’ve poked.
128 Responses
* I should have added, “You probably know how I feel about anything that is generated from the Discovery Institute” 🙁
Just so we’re clear, Carmen.
You have exercised neither logic or reason in these final responses.
I guess that’s why it’s called abstract thinking.
Right.
It’s her personal bias that tells her ANYTHING that appears on certain websites is unworthy of her consideration. A very scientific and reasonable conclusion.
…plus Mother’s Day.
John,
“The point is, Jasmine, that religion makes people do bad things. The particular ‘brand’ of religion doesn’t matter.” No John, that wasn’t the point and you well know it. Since Tildeb identified the point and explained it thoroughly, I won’t belabour it.
I have never used the term, “stupid” and never would. Silly is another thing. Silly is what I think of stories about invisible beings/fairies/ghosts. . I do not believe in the supernatural and all gods fall into that category; of which there have been many since time began.
Jasmine,
“You simply prove my earlier theory: you believe what delusion you want to believe, regardless of visible proof”. You’re saying that to people who DON’T believe in the supernatural?? I must shake my head at that kind of irony.
Please keep in mind John, mrsmcmommy and Jasmine – YOU are the ones who are convinced that the invisible s/he/it is real, that your ‘experience’ with that same invisible entity is palpable and enlightening, and that you are somehow morally superior because of the thoughts you have about this ‘holy spook’.
Woah woah woah, dude. Hold the bus. I never said, nor implied, nor desired to imply I am in any way superior to anyone here, or anyone else for that matter. My own merit is worth less than peanuts, that’s why I needed Jesus in the first place.
Now that’s out of the way, answer me this: if I have physical proof of the supernatural, and you have your own proof for the lack thereof, who is to judge either person’s proof, and how are you to be objective about it? I myself am quite happy for my belief in – and proof of – God to be put under scrutiny, but you seem offended and reluctant at the thought of the possibility God could, in fact, exist, or that you could, in fact, be wrong.
Because here’s what I don’t get: why is your palpable evidence better than my palpable evidence? What makes yours “true-er” than mine? We could both argue this until we’re blue in the face, but you aren’t going to change your mind because when it comes down to it, if I was to call lightening down from the sky in the name of God and have it strike at your feet, you could find some excuse to explain it away with. You’ve made your choice. I respect that. I just don’t see why you can’t respect mine, and somehow see the need to troll a Christian’s blog.
Hey Jasmine,
I might be able to save you some time and energy.
Respond to anything Tildeb posts with this question: “Is your response just the result of local units obeying local rules?”
If he says, “Yes”, then you can say, “So was mine, have a nice day!” (Prediction: He’ll never say ‘Yes’…)
If he says, “No”, then you get to ask: “How is it that your asserted theory doesn’t apply to your own thoughts?” (Prediction: He won’t say ‘No’ either.)
He may come back with another fervent defense of what his non-belief. He may question my (or your) capacity for rational thought. He could repeat his loathing for Intelligent Design theory. Or he might once again remind us that Penfield is dead.
Atheist debate is kinda like a magic trick. They need to distract you in order to dazzle you. Keep focused. Tildeb is the one who suggested that our thoughts are nothing more than local units following local rules. Hold him to it.
Your suggestion is that abstract thought originates with your god. I asked – very early in this conversation – how you can deduce from Wilder Penfield’s observations 1) that it originates with ANY god and 2) how you can determine it’s YOUR god. The definition of abstract thought, by the way, is thought that is coherent and logical – you know, the thing that atheists keep hammering away at.
Not interested in your silly games, John. That should be apparent.
Sorry I didn’t communicate clearly. My question was not, “Where do you think that I think abstract thought originates?” Neither was it, “What is the definition of abstract thought?” My questions remain, “Do you believe that [your] statement qualifies as abstract thought? If so, where do you think abstract thoughts originate?”
Where do I think the ability for abstract thought originates? In my brain, John. Same as everyone else’s ability to use reason and logic. We’re ‘hardwired’ for that. Here’s an exploration of the thesis, from an evolutionary standpoint:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/05/31/did-humans-evolve-to-fill-a-cognitive-niche/
No doubt you’ll prefer the ‘godidit’ hypothesis, but it’ll come as no surprise to you that I lean towards Steven Pinker’s explanation. It’s far more logical and sensible. 🙂
Cool. I appreciate the answer.
Your brain and everyone else’s brain is ‘hardwired’ for reason and logic.
So, do ‘reason and logic’ exist outside your brain or do they originate in your brain?
John, I’ve just done a bit of digging around and it seems that the article you refer to comes from Evolution News; one of the domains of the Discovery Institute. Need this conversation go on?
If you want to cling to the delusion that your god is responsible for the part in our brain that is responsible for thinking and logic you go for it. I’ll cling to the hope that Tildeb suggested — that you’ll eventually use that part of your brain – no matter if it evolved or ‘godidit’ – to come to a sensible conclusion about life. After all, we are all in this together.
(Quite honestly, I have a Mother’s Day project to work on and grandchildren coming over this afternoon)
So close…
So close to an actual, intellectual exchange…
Then POOF…
Oh well. Happy Mother’s Day!
Here’s my advice to you Jasmine – if you’ve got PHYSICAL proof of the supernatural, you’ll be rich in no time!! 🙂
I have to laugh at the suggestion that I’m a troll – do you know how many times we get that charge levelled at us, for suggesting SENSE and LOGIC??
Oh, and as I asked mrsmcmommy – which god, Jasmine?
Which God? Now you’re being silly, Carmen. Isn’t it obvious? The right one, of course!
I’m loving this selective replying thing we’ve got going here. Let’s just pick the bits we like or have an answer for, shall we?
What kind of sense or logic is there in calling ABSTRACT thought sensible or logical? Doesn’t the word “abstract” mean the very opposite? My belief in the God of the Bible could be an abstract thought too, you know.
As for getting rich on my physical proof, ha! Haha! If you are so aware of the powers of a human brain, you should know that it is quite capable of choosing not to see what is clearly presented to it (Exhibit: this comment section). Take the philosophy teacher’s chair-that-does-not-exist experiment. People don’t see what they don’t want to see, regardless of proof.
As for not wanting to play games, joke’s on you my friend. You are already playing it admirably.
And John, I bow with respect to your superior knowledge and experience in this delicate art of debating the debatable. You need no electrode to be enlightened.
Bowing is unnecessary.
You’re doing fine, Jasmine.
Jasmine. ..sigh. .
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/abstract%20thought
abstract thought. Definitions of abstract thought. 1. n thinking that is coherent and logical. Synonyms: logical thinking, reasoning
Oh, my.
Keep in mind, John – there are lurkers.
Believe me, Carmen, I’m aware of the lurkers.
You keep in mind that there is more than one source for definitions.
“ABSTRACT
adjective, ˈabstrakt/
1.
existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.
2.
relating to or denoting art that does not attempt to represent external reality, but rather seeks to achieve its effect using shapes, colours, and textures.”
Huh. Okay. You’re really selling me on this one.
“if I have physical proof of the supernatural…” then get ready to receive your Nobel prize! I’ll sing your praises.
And you have just given physical proof you’re more interested in poking fun than answering legitimate questions.
John asks, “So, do ‘reason and logic’ exist outside your brain or do they originate in your brain?”
Poor question.
By phrasing ‘reason and logic’ as if they were things in existence, you’ve already set up the answer you presume. And this is helpful how?
Again, we have to be careful with the terminology, and ‘reason’ and ‘logic’ are terms we give to concepts. That doesn’t make them into real ‘things’ in existence. Reason, for example is a term used as both a noun and a verb. That’s a hint that what we’re talking about is not a thing but an idea that encompasses a rather large set of elements, some of which are things, some of which are actions or events. The term ‘reason’ is almost a code word for some kind of considered mental activity; ‘logic’ describes one kind… the standard form being true/false premises ordered to an aligned conclusion. There are many other forms of this process we call ‘reasoning’. That’s why we find it most useful to use logic when working within an axiomatic system but a completely inappropriate form to understand feelings.
Look, the first thing to realize is that we have a bicameral brain (really two very distinct ‘halves’ responsible for different functions but constantly communicating with its other half). Our brains receive sensory data and both sides build conceptual models of reality using this input (similar models from different areas of the brain for the same data) which we then we test for usefulness. We tend to pair down the models to keep only the model we assume is the most useful (even if exercising that model produces ongoing dysfunction). That’s how we ‘learn’ how to navigate our environments – with various degrees of success. But this kind of modeling is constantly being created and updated so we have another ‘process’ – for lack of a better word – that chunks this data into meaning. It is the meaning that we then primarily encode into memory and the means by which we recall memory (each of us does this slightly differently, which is why first person accounts even of the same event can produce rather strikingly different ‘eyewitness’ accounts . The point here is to remember that In this sense, our brains are meaning making machines. That’s what we do. We encode meaning .
Meaning is assigned to our models – some of greater importance, some of lesser – which is why, say, the smell of popcorn can mean one thing to one person and something entirely different to another. A piece of trivia might be remembered by one person (because of a higher degree of important meaning assigned to it) but not another. When we activate the meaning from our memory, we activate a chemical cascade that then opens and closes, creates and destroys, enhances and subdues various neural complex pathways we call neural ‘nets’. The more we use it, the more meaningful it is, the more efficient the net becomes (practice). The more we add to, the more the brain ‘grows’ to accommodate its importance (expertise). The less we use it, the more the net is paired down… usually during sleep.
Now, do reason and logic – the terms we use to describe particular kinds functions occurring in your brain – exist outside your brain?
No, of course not. It’s a brain activity we’re describing.
Do they originate in your brain? They describe a brain function so it’s a pretty safe bet they originated sometime in our biological history… a function we clearly share with many other closely related species but to extents different in each.
How does assigning this development to a POOF! moment caused by an unknown designing agency (Blessed be His name!) help us better understand brain function and advance our knowledge about it?
Well, obviously it doesn’t. At all. But it sure gives license to a lot of people to pretend they have an understanding. But this supposed understanding does not produce one jot or tittle of actual, applicable, demonstrable knowledge about the brain. Such a creationist belief is indisputably not an explanation, not an answer, not an understanding whatsoever. It is simply a belief claim that actually interferes with pursuing an honest inquiry into reality because the belief claim produces a pseudo-answer that answers nothing yet masquerades as if another ‘kind’ of knowledge just as well informed as anything adduced from the field of neuroscience. It’s not. The creationist/designing model is equivalent in all ways to ignorance… clothed and then sold (or indoctrinated into the vulnerable) to look like a knowledge claim. That is dishonest.
Reason and logic are indeed concepts. And concepts are what we consider when we think abstractly. This is what this entire post has been about.
I understand what you’re saying about reason and logic not being real ‘things’. Numbers are not real ‘things’ either but we don’t argue about whether or not they exist. Reason and logic are real from the standpoint that they must follow certain immutable rules or they break down. Physics does this too. Does physics arise from your brain? Does mathematics arise from your brain? If there were no brains, would math cease to exist?
The answer is going to depend on how we interpret the word ‘real’. And frankly, I’m too tired to try and unpack that tonight…
Describing what our brains do is very different from describing how they do it. The ‘how’ is a big enough mystery to accommodate both of our speculations.
John, you say “Numbers are not real ‘things’ either but we don’t argue about whether or not they exist. Reason and logic are real from the standpoint that they must follow certain immutable rules or they break down.”
This, in a nutshell, is the problem: understanding what abstract constructs are. Numbers are an excellent example. They are not real. They do not have any existence. They are a symbolic representation of differences in quantity. That’s it. They are a very handy way fro us to describe a relationship we notice in the real world… quantity. An abstract thought is no different: a symbolic representation of a relationship we notice about the real world and so we create a means to describe a relationship in order to model it. The terms we use like ‘reason’ and ‘logic’ are simply linguistic shortcuts that describe in a word complex processes. These terms emerge from the processes and so we quite accurately define what they are describing as an emergent property. And this order is essential to understand. Emergent properties ARISE from local units obeying local rules – a bottom up process (the meaning for numbers arises from grasping differences in quantity and are not bequeathed from some divine quantity-giver) – and are not a top down process inserted by some magical source in some magical way as you want to believe. This fundamental misunderstanding leads you into creating a model for some supernatural omnipotent creative and interactive agency seeding each brain with the ability to conceptualize… a model for which there is zero evidence for and overwhelming evidence against.
For your model to have any validity, you must link abstract thinking to this agency. Otherwise, you have just another version of the rain dance problem (I dance. It rains. I claim my dancing causes the rain and then pretend the rain is evidence for my claim.)
Tildeb, I truly do understand abstract constructs vs. concrete reality. This is why I said it matters how we define ‘real’. It’s not a simple problem that can be answered with a pithy sentence.
Again, HOW the brain works is a mystery. Your descriptions of WHAT the brain does offer no insight on HOW it functions. The difference between us is that I’ve never suggested (because I don’t think) your theories are useless. It isn’t reasonable for me to render a verdict on Atheism based on one conversation on one topic. For this reason, I have not (and will not) suggest that Penfield’s research is proof beyond question that Oogity Boogity exists. You keep leaping to conclusions that have not made.
I’m keenly aware that reality is a complex subject. Consciousness is something that I experience but can neither describe or explain. So is consciousness itself abstract?
I dance. It rains. I claim my dancing causes rain and then pretend the rain is evidence for my claim.
Neurons fire. I think. I claim the neurons cause the thought then pretend the EKG reading is evidence for my claim.
Is your analogy about thinking the same as rain dancing?
No.
Why? Because I can do what you can’t: I can link the neurons firing to thoughts. I can demonstrate where in the brain such a link can be found. I can interfere with that link and demonstrate its effect on the thinking.
You cannot link the rain to the dancing, cannot link abstract thought to some God. Your analogy fails.
I turn on the radio. I hear music. I interfere with the radio and it affects the sound. That doesn’t prove the radio is the source of the music.
But you can continue to follow the causal links! Stopping at some point and declaring the cause is some supernatural agency – as if this is an ‘answer’ reflective of modeling reality accurately – is more than just silly; not only does accepting such an ‘answer’ STOP honest inquiry dead in its tracks, it fools people into believing their belief alone is sufficient to describe reality. This is why respecting such belief – this other ‘kind’ of inquiry, another ‘way to know’ – is plainly foolish to anyone not indoctrinated into thinking this imposition of belief on reality (and then dismissing contrary and compelling evidence) is a VIRTUE! It’s not. At best it’s credulous if benign and at worst gullible if malignant. And supporting this method of thinking – this imposition of belief on reality and then using reality only in cases where it appears to agree with the belief – is demonstrably and knowingly and highly pernicious by its accumulative malignant effects.
Bingo!
Following the causal links leads us to the source of the music. It lies outside the radio itself.
I’m not the one who’s suggesting the radio is all we need to explain the music…That was, YOUR position.
John, you’re disappointing me. You can think better than this.
If we were like radios (and this is a legitimate empirical hypothesis), then we would have biological apparatus to receive some kind of signals (this falls under the purview of scientific inquiry), in which case Penfield would have been able to poke it and cause effect. There is no evidence that we possess any such apparatus and there is no evidence of any signals.
So, if you want to stick to this radio analogy, then DEMONSTRATE the analogous link between our brains receiving some form of signals from this agency please. You can do none of these (which makes the claim empty of any reasonable legitimacy). Without this LINK – the receiving of signals – you have no evidence, any more than the rain dancer does. Abstract thought is not evidence (it’s simply the rain YOU are attributing to the assigned cause without any evidence or legitimate reason to do so). This makes your claim a failed hypothesis so to continue with it is equivalent in all ways with just making stuff up.
What I’m about to suggest will certainly open me up to ridicule but I can’t help it. I’ve got to be honest.
You should consider becoming a dualist. The reason being, your thoughts have outgrown naturalism. You think outside the boundaries of your professed worldview.
The only ‘reality’ that atheism allows is concrete. As you have expressed, abstract concepts don’t ‘exist’ in the strictest meaning of that word. But most thinking requires abstract processing. Thoughts themselves are abstract concepts!
So naturalism forces you into a sort of paradox. You have to use abstract ‘things’ to describe concrete ‘things’ and those ‘things’ are two different concepts entirely.
Dualism, my friend. It’s not even close to Theism. You owe it to your brain to at least check it out.
And whilst none of this discussion may directly prove the existence of a deity, it neither disproves it. Which makes the vehemence of the argument all the more fascinating.
Prove and disprove are useful in axiomatic systems like logic and math. It’s not a particularly good way to approach doing science, which is a method of inquiry. Because theists make claims about reality, what it contains, how it works, what effects are caused by what, these are empirical claims. So, are they likely or probably true?
For anyone who is concerned with what is the case, respecting such theological claims that have very low probability or are highly unlikely to be the case means it’s a very poor model, a very poor method of inquiry. When these claims are taken seriously by a vast majority of the population who then act on them, something needs to be done to respond appropriately. That’s what you are calling ‘vehemence’ – a dedication to inform beliefs based on likelihood and probability rather than unsupported and ideas contrary to and even in conflict with explanatory models that consistently and reliably produces applications, therapies, and technologies that just so happen to work for everyone everywhere all the time. When it comes to issues that affect public policy and the well being of so many people that are supported not by evidence-adduced models but with contrary and deeply anti-scientific superstitious beliefs, then all of us are threatened by going along with such vast ignorance. One needs to look no further than today’s headlines regarding climate change denialism and anti-vaccine movements to see just how dangerous is the idea of accommodating the method of inquiry that raises faith to be a virtue, while knowing it produces no knowledge, no applications, therapies, or technologies that work, promotes beliefs that continue to divide people into Us and Them while vilifying the Other as immoral and evil, and that justifies ignorance and stupidity to be a reasonable and equivalent alternative to knowledge and wisdom.
Faith-based beliefs have been, are, and shall continue to be the cause of much unnecessary suffering no matter which guise it appears… a pernicious effect if not directly supported by advocacy then responsible for allowing a malignant effect by stopping honest inquiry and attacking the support for reasonable evidence-adduced responses to pressing global issues. If that concern is not worth some ‘vehemence’ – that is to say, a blunt critical analysis of how faith-based beliefs are ignorance-in-action – then what is?
Your argument is akin to an expert on dogs explaining why cats are poor companions, because dogs have better temperaments. In order for you to accurately uphold your argument that science explains everything and that there is no God, you need to do an equal amount of research into Christianity. Notice I’m not arguing over a scientific point? It’s because I’m not very scientifically educated. Should I be? Yeah probably, but only if I wanted to debate it. Don’t base your understanding of Christianity off limited study.
@ Jasmine
You say that my “argument that science explains everything and that there is no God” means that I “need to do an equal amount of research into Christianity.”
First, neither of these is my argument. I do not claim science explains everything. I do not claim there is no God. And I have researched various differences between many kinds of bibles. None of these have anything to do with my criticism of claiming abstract thought is evidence for some designing supernatural agency.
You say, “I do not believe in the supernatural ”
To stay on topic. Do you believe that statement qualifies as abstract thought? If so, where do you think abstract thoughts originate?
Let’s play a game. Depending on your answer to those first two questions, try to predict what my next question will be…
And John, if this is the kind of thinking that comes out of a brain WITHOUT having been poked by electrode, I can’t imagine what kind of thought process that would spawn.
It would spawn enlightenment.
“All thoughts are equal” is the message I’m getting from our non-theist friends.
Except for the thoughts that disagree with theirs, then theirs are superior.
It should thrill them to see that you’ve been paying attention!
You’ve a firm grasp on the concepts.
Jasmine and MrsMcMommy –
I’ll betcha that none of Tildeb’s or Carmen’s posts were the result of poking their brains with an electrode.
Well not YET, JB.
We can’t write posts like theirs just by poking brains with electrodes YET.
But just give it time…
In a few centuries, we’ll have little Tildebs and Carmens running around all over the place.
As long as there’s electricity, there’s more where they came from. #ItsJustScience
Thank God for smart people who I can rely upon to tell me when I’ve asked a silly question! Oh wait…
Carmen and tildeb, all I can do is marvel at the double standard. It’s a case of: “we are atheists who believe in respecting one another. However if you don’t agree with me, I won’t respect you”. See, it’s wrong for me to say to you, “that’s a stupid question”, but it’s okay for you to say it to me. It’s okay for you to say “this is logical sense”, yet if I think something I believe makes logical sense, you disrespect me. If you truly believed what you were saying, my beliefs would not be such an affront to you.
Also, if you truly understood human reasoning and the power of the brain – the debate of intelligent design aside – you would know that we are capable of convincing ourselves of outrageous things, to the point where we live in a fictitious reality entirely made up in our heads. If what I think is an illusion I want to believe in, what gives the right to be critical of it? You said, “criticizing such bad thinking is what people who respect what’s true do”. However if I criticize what could be your own delusion, I am suddenly the bad guy.
You may say that faith and Christianity is dangerous and has wrought no end of grief on this earth. Yet if I were to point out instances of atheism – exhibit Hitler – that promoted terror, all of a sudden I’m accused of tunnel vision. Both great and terrible things have been done in the name of God and in the name of atheism. Does the stigma of Christianity get a lot wrong? Heck yes. But I don’t see why God should get your disbelief because of the wrong done in His name any more than you think atheism should have disbelief for the same.
Jasmine, Hitler was a Catholic.
Well he was a man “who believed neither in God nor in conscience” by his own admission, and whose mission was to eradicate Christianity, in which he encouraged those under him – including a neo-pagan – who were anti-church to persecute churches regardless of denomination which eventually led to his effort to eliminate Catholicism itself, but yeah. We can call him a catholic.
I think if you read Mein Kampf you’ll find out about his religious conviction. He was certainly not an atheist.
Hitler was Amish.
Lenin was Southern Baptist.
Mao was most likely Reformed Lutheran.
The point is, Jasmine, that religion makes people do bad things. The particular ‘brand’ of religion doesn’t matter.
You’ve obviously not not studied Hitler, his rise to power, and how he executed his political goals because this simply isn’t true. You should know just how badly you’ve been misled and then rectify this deplorable lack of knowledge.
Sorry… one too many ‘not’. My bad.
But atheism’s brand of religion has never made anyone do bad things.
Precisely!
I don’t have the power to bestow the title of ‘enlightened’ so you’ll have to wait for Carmen.
You may be able to convince yourself that a non belief is another kind of belief, but do you also think a non woman is another kind of woman, a non bicycle another kind of bicycle, a non fish another kind of fish? Can you not see just how warped the linguistic contortion must be for you to equate atheism as a kind of religion? Again, this demonstrates an unwillingness to respect what’s true more than what you want to believe is true… in this case by torturing the language… with John’s hearty approval, of course. This raises the question about motivation and something you should think more about: why is it important to you to frame atheism in such a way?
One of the instructions I had at university was to read something. My task was to then ask an important question about it AND then explain why the question was important. This allowed me to really explore what constitutes good questions versus poor ones. Your question, “If God doesn’t exist, why waste so much time trying to convince people of it?” is not a very well crafted question because if your premise was true – that God doesn’t exist -then neither of us would be having this conversation. This is a poor beginning because we ARE having this conversation and so your premise is not the case. Anything that then follows is a waste of time for you to express. Nevertheless, I explained why I bother: because those who hold religious beliefs very often ac t on them and this has a tremendous pernicious effect on everyone. As part of ‘everyone’ I have skin in this game so it’s important to challenge bad ideas and tackle this problem of religious belief holding privilege and respect in our culture where it deserves none and still continues to cause harm.
Now you’ve jumped to the wrong conclusion, that I don’t respect you as a person. You, Jasmine, are not your beliefs. Your beliefs are not you. I can criticize your beliefs strenuously without for one second attacking you as a person. I can call your beliefs all kinds of names without for one second calling you names. Yes, I think your religious beliefs are foolish and if you act on them then they make you into a person who acts on foolish ideas. Change your beliefs, change this foolishness. You are still you, a person with all the same rights and freedoms I have, owed the same amount of respect I expect in return.
Atheism does not cause anything because it is a non belief in gods or a god and not another kind of belief. Hitler was a Catholic. Stalin trained as priest. What they produced in their totalitarian politics is equivalent to any theocracy and bears absolutely no relation, no impetus, no cause with non belief in gods or a god. I know you’ve been told a million times by religious apologists that these totalitarian states were an expression of atheism but that’s a lie. It’s a falsehood. It has no grounding in reality and does not link to non belief in gods whatsoever. if anything, the Dear Leader in a totalitarian state assumes the same mantle of authority and demand for submission you willingly grant to some god. Atheism has no means to motivate such behavior and, in fact, atheism expressed in secularism has a track record of achieving everything claimed to be the dominion of religion: peace, order, good governance, morality, lower rates of all kinds of social dysfunction, higher economic equity and so on. The vilification by the religious towards atheism is straight up disinformation that the foolish swallow wholesale without any critical chewing whatsoever. What you;ve written in this last comment is simply another case that proves my point. To square the round peg of non belief, you’ve manipulated the words to try to pretend atheism is a belief… a belief that your god does not exist. That’s how you continue to fool yourself. And this can be remedied by learning how to think better.
Okay, I’ll play along. The worst part about talking to an atheist is you can’t get any grace for being an imperfect human who asks flawed questions as a result.
Here’s a question: on what grounds do you base your understanding of who Christians think God is?
You said this: “those who hold religious beliefs very often act on them and this has a tremendous pernicious effect on everyone”. Those who hold no religious beliefs at all very often act on their own primal instincts to mistreat other human beings, and this has a tremendous effect on everyone. I don’t believe in “religious beliefs” as much as you do. In fact, I hate religion. Religion is all about man trying to please God by following rules and judging those who break them. God did not create religion. If you are an atheist based on your understanding of religion, then I can fully see why.
The truth of the matter is that Jesus fulfilled every religious law on our behalf, and instead of demanding we conform to His standard, He now empowers us to live righteously with peace and love toward our fellow man. The problem comes when people only see religion, not true transformation. When the message has been adopted and twisted, it becomes all too easy for an atheist to point the finger and say, “There! That’s the proof that Christianity is bad” whilst missing the true representation.
You see, you only have what your information tells you. You have your logic and your thinking. I have an experience you cannot understand. Even if I were to share the fact I’ve seen God perform miracles in front of my eyes, be that a man’s leg grow back, or a life turned inside out to bear fruit of peace and wellbeing, it doesn’t matter. You simply prove my earlier theory: you believe what delusion you want to believe, regardless of visible proof.
If God doesn’t exist, why waste so much time trying to convince people of it? The hours of time and thousands of words spent on the topic tends to be more a proof of His existence than the opposite. Then again, your highly evolved brains are so complex they would probably struggle to come up with that simple thought.
That’s a great question!
Let’s see if you get an answer…
I actually thought it was a silly question, John.
It’s very obvious to non-believers that the reason BELIEVERS write so much about it – and even employ apologists – is because you’ve all got to keep trying to convince people, including YOURSELVES, that the figment of your imagination(s) is real. It takes quite a bit; on a recent trip through the deep south, for instance, my daughter said, “Wow! We’ve seen lots of cows and lots more churches!”
There you go, Jasmine.
It wasn’t a good question. It was a silly question because Carmen says so and she’s driven through the deep south where they saw a lot of churches (and cows).
True to form, John. When you cannot come up with a sensible reply, rely on belittling. . classic. Really classic. Give yourself a big pat on the back for that, eh? 🙂 I mean, ANYTHING but critical thinking.
Cognitive dissonance par excellence.
Calling someone’s question ‘silly’ is belittling, Carmen. Did you give yourself a pat on the back?
Please turn your considerable critical thinking powers to the task of explaining how this is cognitive dissonance:
“It’s very obvious to believers that the reason NON-BELIEVERS write so much about it – and even employ apologists – is because you’ve all got to keep trying to convince people, including YOURSELVES, that the figment of your imagination(s) is real. It takes quite a bit; on a recent trip through to the East Coast, for instance, I said, “Wow! We’ve seen a lot of sky scrapers and humanists!”
To answer your question, Jasmine, ie bother because privileging religious belief in the public domain as if worthy of respect causes real harm to real people in real life all the time.
We shouldn’t privilege religious belief for many compelling reasons not least of which is because religious beliefs about reality are empty of any knowledge value yet presented to the world as if they are, as if they are explanations and answers. They’re not. They are just more faith-based belief claims masquerading as insight into reality. This crosses the imaginary boundary set out by Wilson (NOMA) that supposedly makes the incompatible compatible, makes religious belief compatible with contrary and conflicting scientific knowledge because they deal with different aspects of reality. This is crap. For example, in this post, John attempts to tell us that mind is evidence for a designing god because a writer for and a Fellow of the Discovery Institute (whose mission statement and reason for millions of dollars from the Templeton Foundation is to promote creationism in the public domain in the form of disguising it as ‘Intelligent Design’) co-opts a dead scientist named Penfield and cherry picks his comments about not being able to poke a brain and find an abstract thought as scientific support for believing that Oogity Boogity! is a causal agency for mind that is active in our reality.
Bunk.
This is horrendously bad thinking for many good reasons. Criticizing such bad thinking is what people who respect what’s true do. Excusing it is what mewling apologists and faitheists do who wish to pretend that contrary religious belief is magically compatible and reasonable with good science. It’s not… anymore than active pedophiles using the priesthood for their prey demonstrate compatibility with Catholic doctrine.
Serious question. Is the statement below just the result of local units following local rules?
“…privileging religious belief in the public domain as if worthy of respect causes real harm to real people in real life all the time.”
That’s not a serious question but a shortcut to making a false equivalency demonstrated by you selecting the word ‘just’.
just adv: simply; only; no more than (OED)
No emergent property is ‘just’ in this sense and you very well know this. Your question is intended to misrepresent local units obeying local rules right from the start and reveals no actual interest in finding out what’s the case.
Demonstrate (don’t claim) an alternative to the source of thinking translated into your personal writing that does not include any of your brain function (local units obeying local rules), please, and then I’l revamp my opinion about the seriousness of your question.
“Local units following local rules” is sufficient to describe Intelligent Design but your personal thoughts require additional considerations. Is that right?
No.
“Local units following local rules” is sufficient to describe both Intelligent Design and Atheism. Is that right?
No.
So you are aware of the dilemma your hypothesis faces.
I suggest you ignore it and go back to questioning my capacity for rational thought.
The problem isn’t mine; the problem is your selection of terms… first using ‘just’ and then substituting it with ‘sufficient’. I’ve already explained in detail why this terminology you’re selecting is a means for you to misrepresent. That’s your problem and not mine. All of this silliness can be avoided if what you really want is to learn how and why local units obeying local rules produce what appears to be designed. Assuming design first derails you into this silliness… something you seem determined not just to maintain but promote as if a legitimate criticism. It’s not. It’s inherently dishonest and speaks not to any dilemma you seem to assume my position must have but the highly questionable motivation of your intention here. Again, you demonstrate that your concern here is not about what is the case but about upholding the beliefs you want to have about it. That speaks to your intellectual integrity and not my non belief.
There you go!
Taking my suggestion. You’re welcome.
Hey, Tildeb.
I’m just letting you know we started another thread down below… I figured you didn’t see it because you haven’t added, “OOGITY BOOGITY” to it yet. 😉
Just a heads up.. I made a comment with a couple of links so it’s gone into moderation.
Another spectacular display here and fish here.
There is a good analogy when speaking of ‘consciousness’ and why so many neuroscientists call it an emergent property of the brain doing what the brain does. This analogy has to do with murrmuration – a specialized kind of flocking behaviour. Yes, the flock looks like one thing… seems to have concrete boundaries and instantaneous communication as if organized by a single and superior organizing mind. But does it? Once you model this behaviour, you soon find that you can reproduce its effects in any large organization where all that is really required is local units obeying local rules. That’s what our brains do: filled with local units obeying local rules. What emerges from local units obeying local rules is something that only appears to be separate from it… an invisible organizing agency to which it’s easy to assign control as if the flocking behaviour is evidence for the organizing agency but that is in fact entirely imaginary and a just-so fiction. This describes Intelligent Design perfectly.
You’re saying that the appearance of organization doesn’t prove organization? Is that right?
Let’s be careful with the terminology: very often we give names to ideas and concepts as proper nouns that are not concrete things in themselves but only by convention… thus giving the appearance of these words being real, discrete things in and of themselves endowed with particular properties. They’re not. They are symbolic representations of meaning that can and do change over time… by convention and not by any change in the words themselves. And this causes confusion about what ‘it’ is we are talking about when it comes to this ‘thing’ we call ‘consciousness.
For example, these symbols you see on your computer screen (and that you then form into words by training and that you have learned have associated meaning) do not contain independent properties that possess the meaning you interpret. That comes from you and is not evidence of the object we call a ‘word’. Yet we treat words as if they were real ‘things’. But this is true only by social convention and does not grant us ‘evidence’ for the reality – the independent existence – of the objects themselves.
This is the case with ‘mind’. And this is why neuroscientists today say mind is what the brain does: it’s an emergent property of local units obeying local rules. That we can construct new rules is one of the fascinating parts of neuroscience and, remember, we’re at the very beginning of this subject.
Okay…
“…we treat words as if they were real ‘things’. But this is true only by social convention and does not grant us ‘evidence’ for the reality – the independent existence – of the objects themselves.”
Am I correct that the above is a collection of symbolic representations of meaning that will change over time?
Many words do change their meaning over time. Just spend some time with a dictionary to find out just how common that change is. (It’s the evolution of the lexicon.) No doubt there will be better words or word to describe the idea of, say, a social convention. Is that a concept with which you disagree? I could pull a mrsmcmommy and pretend to turn the abstract concept of a social convention into a proper noun as if a real ‘thing’ by calling it a True Social Convention. Upon such word games is much theology built.
Yep.
The current social conventions regarding abstract thinking are subject to the evolution of the lexicon as explained by murrmuration of local units obeying local rules bearing in mind that words are not evidence for reality.
Consciousness is evidence for Oogity Boogity and any contrary data is silly. Good to know your position. Got it.
Tildeb,
John (and ilk) are so desperate for proof of (their) god they’ll grasp at anything. They’ve spent so long indoctrinated that they cannot see – yet – that there has never been any proof and never will be.
There never has been any proof and never will be…
I’d love to see the credentials you have that should cause me (and ilk) to take that statement seriously…
. . .and the ‘credential’ I need are. . . what, John? I read; I think critically. That’s what it takes.
I know you have been in on discussions of the bible (my Least Favourite Fiction) as proof. So I KNOW you know how far that discussion goes.
I read too. I think critically too.
Why are your faith statements superior to mine (and ilk)?
Mine are not ‘faith statements’, John. Remember?
Yes they are because you can’t prove them.
John, you are amusing me now. 🙂
But look, you keep trying to convince yourself that the imaginary sky-daddy is there and desperately seek confirmation of same – from whatever tenuous ‘proof’ you can muster; I’ll keep thinking sensibly, logically and critically.
Oh, and by the way. On the East Coast, many of those little churches are now private residences, i.e. they’re being put to much better use. 🙂
Glad you’re amused. That’s how I make a living 🙂
Any statement that you cannot prove is a faith statement. Some recent examples:
“John, you are amusing me now.”
“I’ll keep thinking sensibly, logically and critically”
“[church buildings] are being put to much better use.”
“They’ve spent so long indoctrinated that they cannot see – yet – that there has never been any proof and never will be.”
Ahhhh. .. not only are you a comedian but you’ve got your own dictionary? Now THAT’S impressive, John. 🙂
It’s odd that the only definition that I’ve ever been aware of is ‘declarative sentence/statement’. (?)
Ahhhh…so now you have issues with the term faith statement. Earlier you assured me, “Mine are not faith statements…”. I thought we both understood what that meant. That’s what I get for assuming.
How would you suggest we differentiate between my declarative sentences/statements and yours?
Just where are you going with this, John?
Well, disciplined and critical thinking is work and it can lead one away from long-established beliefs. Why might one want to do this if it may cause unwanted problems?
This is where the rubber of respect meets the road of what’s true: does the believer in practice respect what’s true more than what is believed to be true? Very often not, and this is the case here; what is believed to be true – Oogity Boogity! causes mind and abstract thinking is evidence for this claim because Penfield suggests as much and he was a brain scientist! – must be upheld against all contrary and conflicting data – there is no link demonstrated between the proposed cause (God) and the utilized effect (mind) – so the disciplined mind recognizes that the ‘evidence’ is not evidence at all but simply another claim. This is faith-based thinking in action – a method that never has, does not, and probably never shall produce any knowledge about reality. And this is a red flag to someone who thinks he or she does in fact respect knowledge over ignorance, evidence-based belief over superstitious nonsense, what IS the case over what is WISHED to be the case. What we are witnessing here is wishful thinking to support an empirical claim about reality without any evidence in its support combined with a rejection of any contrary data.
Tildeb, EXACTLY. You said it far better than I ever could, and have crystallized what I’ve been suggesting – the constant Christian ‘take’ on life; wishful thinking over critical thinking. John, however, cannot think any other way – he’s stated on another blog (or maybe on this one, I can’t remember) that without (his) god, a person cannot have morality. He suggested to John Zande just recently that true empathy is not possible without (his) god. In other words, atheists cannot have either. Of course, he’ll try to deflect my criticism with his semantic gymnastics (he’s known for them) but discerning readers know what I’m talking about.
I first was introduced to John on ‘Club’s blog and actually believed he was truly searching for answers. I have since recognized that his forays on atheists’ blogs reveal his disengenuous behaviour; he’s much the same as many of the other ‘faithful’ – their perceived moral superiority shows itself every response.
Just to derail the topic for a moment, Tildeb, I’d be interested to know your opinion on Gretta Vosper. . . And no, I don’t feel a bit bad for doing so on John’s blog. 🙂
I think John has never challenged himself to step aside of his thinking method and look at it critically using another. This, I think, is what an educated mind is trained to do. And this is the hopeful thing about such believers… that will recognize not the particulars of belief but the way in which they are justified as untrustworthy. It’s the identical method used to justify, say, alternative medicine, climate change denialism, anti-vaxers and -fluoridation proponents, and so on… a way of thinking that really does produce a vast amount of harm yet one that can be overcome by anyone who decides to respect what’s true more than what is believed to be true. John’s not stupid so I hold out hope he can come around… at his own pace and in his own time… and begin to think better than he does now and help reduce the power of harm and pernicious effects that enabling faith-based beliefs produces at a shockingly regular rate.
Gretta Vosper is accommodationism taken to the next level (sort of the proto-typical Canadian way). Her thesis (I heard her interviewed a few months back) reminds me of how the Jewish identity has evolved away from the religious tenets and towards more of a cultural identity. She thinks Chrsitianity can maintain its cultural importance only by getting rid of the religious. I wish her luck…. when the facts are that incompatible religious beliefs with reality still command tremendous public support (more Americans believe in the reality of demons than evolution, for example). I have never read of a conversion from believer to non believer without having to undergo direct challenging of beliefs (particularly the Problem of Suffering) and then really wrestling with the incompatibility of what IS (a biosphere predicated on ubiquitous suffering) with what is WISHED to be (designed and implemented and by a causal yet benevolent Creator).
So I have no idea why so many people assume it takes religion to build community, that getting rid of religious beliefs requires a substitute, that because atheism doesn’t offer a substitute it must not be the way forward! (This was the big problem priest-turned-atheist Eric MacDonald faced with the loss of his religious belief and simply couldn’t wrap his head around the idea that his longing for past community was never something New Atheism ever was meant to replace… although he did to make it so and but ironically blamed his failure on the wider atheist community!)
Vosper’s idea I think will eventually take root as more and more people recognize that we really can live full and meaningful and moral lives without any religious belief whatsoever. But some of traditions – Christmas, for example – are too well embedded in our culture to ever disappear so I think she’s on the right track in recognizing this but foolish to try to maintain a version of community based on a shared religious belief model without understanding the central importance of fundamental beliefs to keep indoctrinating youth into its indentured ranks.
“John’s not stupid so I hold out hope he can come around… at his own pace and in his own time”. I sincerely hope that’s true, Tildeb, and not our own wishful thinking. 🙂
Ha! As I said, it’s just a hope…
Of course, ours is a hope that has definite proof of fulfillment. I have witnessed many ‘deconverts’ in the last few years online. . . who knows? Maybe John will be appearing on Ark’s blog – as have a few others – to announce that he has ‘seen the light. . . as in, enlightenment. . .’! 🙂
That’s not my position. I thought it was yours.
Oogity Boogity and contrary data are on equal footing. Both just the result of local units following local rules. Neither one sufficient proof of reality. Since the meanings of social conventions changes over time, today’s reality will likely be different at some future time.
Unless you’re exempting your particular social convention from all that…
“The “enlightenment” that even our atheist friends have referred to in some of these threads is the soul/spirit/wisdom that God gave to humans. It sets them apart from the animals.”
. . . and which god would you be referring to, mrsmcmommy? And if you answer, “Yahweh”, I’d like to know just HOW you can determine that? From Wilder Penfield’s observations??
Using Penfeild to talk about modern neuroscience is like using phrenologist Gall to talk about modern reconstructive facial surgery. But that’s not why Penfield is selected by the such historic grave robbers as Egnor; he serves a purpose for promoting Intelligent Design because, gosh, brains are complex! It must have been designed by an intelligent one, Blessed be His name!
By definition, abstract thinking is removed from the concrete, the term ‘abstract thinking’ we give for thinking about and reflecting on events, ideas, attributes, and relationships separate from the objects that have those attributes or share those relationships.
Now the gist of what Egnor is saying is that such thinking must be different from the concrete (which is what Penfield supports, obviously) AND SEPARATE from the neurons and dendrites that are the objects necessary for the emergence of this kind of thinking. But is this true, and on what basis do we inform this model? Well, IDers like,Egnor care nothing for informing models with anything so inconvenient as facts and explanations that can be tested (if not from the brain then how is such thinking housed in it and able to interact with its constituent materials and chemicals?) – a position parroted by those who are sympathetic to an immaterial, property-less, outside-of-time supernatural yet intervening little magical driver organizing such thinking… but who don’t care to ponder this too ‘explanatory’ model too deeply to produce anything like knowledge.
Yes, abstract thinking is different from concrete thinking and, yes, there is no part of the brain that houses only such abstract thoughts. But is abstract thinking therefore separate from the neurons and dendrites activate when such thinking is done under scan? Not according to blood supply. Not according to chemical alterations. Not according to increased electrical activity. Not according to mirror neurons. This is where all the evidence points in only one direction: no, it’s not separate at all but highly integrated with all parts of the brain. Imagine a pink elephant and your visual center ramps up… identically with those who dream</i. of a pink elephant. Any and all demonstrations to date of such thinking is always attached to the objects of neurons and dendrites in areas of the brain where the concrete lives! In addition, demonstrations of abstract thinking can be affected directly by impairing those objects where the concrete thinking occurs. Coincidence? Hardly; we have enough compelling evidence to know that such thinking must be attached to them and exactly zero evidence for such thinking to be independent of these objects.
“Imagine a pink elephant and your visual center ramps up… such thinking is always attached to the objects of neurons and dendrites in areas of the brain where the concrete lives!”
Yes, there’s a connection between your brain and Mind, That was already covered in the Egnor article… (As well as your statement that abstract thought can be hindered by poking the brain in certain places.) Abstract thinking can be hindered or interrupted–but it can’t be CAUSED.
In other words, neurologists can’t MAKE someone think about certain things.
Science can’t stimulate the brain into having specific epiphanies.
Science can’t replicate the “voice” that people hear when they’re thinking to themselves.
That was the conclusion reached by the op-ed, and the reason the Penfield ultimately concluded there’s more to thought and consciousness than just the brain.
Now, perhaps your response would be something along the lines of “science can’t do any of those things YET.” And, in that case, I have no response.
I never claimed to be a prophet.
I just go where the evidence leads.
“I just go where the evidence leads.” And the evidence that it points to YOUR god is. . . ??
(not that I think you actually have any kind of evidence, mind you)
I can’t determine which God is behind the Mind from Penfield’s observations alone…
It could be the good, personal, loving God of the New Testament–or it could be a vengeful, warring god. It could be a god that abandoned its creation. Or perhaps many gods are still active in the world today. Maybe the New-Agers have got it right when they refer to a “Force” rather than a “God.” (Or maybe all of those beliefs are partly correct?) Penfield’s research isn’t enough to answer.
But, his work shows that the BILLIONS of people who believe there is more to existence than just cells aren’t unreasonable to think so.
I understand why you want to steer the discussion toward Yahweh, though. You’ve got him in a box. You’ve built a straw Yahweh so many times, you’re just itching to tear it down all over again. (That’s where you’re most comfortable. Talking about your concrete version of Yahweh, rather than answering a few abstract questions about a metaphysical world of any kind.)
Things like abstract thought and consciousness are topics the True Naturalists don’t like to discuss for long, before they want to switch horses and try demanding answers from me about exactly who God is and what he looks like and how he likes his eggs.
Slow down, Carmen. Let’s just admit there’s more to reality than cells first.
Excuse me, mrsmcmommy. I quoted your exact statements. Now who’s erecting straw men?
Unlike you, I don’t draw imaginary conclusions, something BILLIONS of people do every day. 🙂
Now, use that abstract thought of yours – and your brain – to think logically. It can be done, you know.
If I reach the same conclusions you have, then you’ll say I have “thought logically.”
But, if I reach a different conclusion, you will say I’m not using my brain right.
Perhaps, someday, Science will figure out what Penfield never could–which is how to shock certain parts of the brain to make people think specific things.
Then you can hook me up to a machine and help me think, “There is no God!”
For that matter, you can fix everyone. You can shock all the religious people in the world and make them think a True Atheist worldview makes sense!
Wouldn’t that be great?
It would certainly be an improvement on magical thinking. 🙂
But hey! If you want to stay infantilized for the rest of your life, who am I to suggest otherwise? 😉
Brave New World. 🙂 Science!
Actually, it’s been around for awhile. . and the beauty of it is that we’re learning more all the time! It reminds me of a saying – “Science explains most things; religion explains NOTHING”
…of course, religious people are in the majority. So, when we develop the technology to control people’s minds, it will be the Atheists who are hooked up to the electrodes.
Don’t worry, though. We’ll make sure to shock your “happy” center in your brain, so you’ll really like being a Christian!
#BraveNewWorld
“So, when we develop the technology to control people’s minds”. Interesting statement there, mrsmcmommy.
Religious leaders figured out a long time ago how to control people’s minds – at least, how to convince people that imaginary spirits were/are real. Here’s what they realized: That there are many people who WANT to be led; that they want answers – no matter how far-fetched; that the ‘father’ figure holds out great psychological appeal to people; and that – most important of all – if you start indoctrinating children very early, they’ll accept without question what a ‘power’ figure tells you. Oh, and if that doesn’t work, conjure up a very hot spot where people will go if they DON’T believe – you know, scare the bejesus out of them. Then you’ve got them HOOKED. Brilliant marketing scheme. (and don’t fool yourself, it’s a business, first and foremost). . .that was satire, in case you missed it – the ‘don’t fool yourself line. 🙂
Don’t believe me? Read what Jasmine wrote (and countless of those thousands and thousands of words written by believers) Then have a good look in the mirror. Controlling people’s minds? You and BILLIONS of other people are proof positive. 🙂
Let me help you understand what she’s saying, McMommy.
Only stupid people believe in God. Stupid people who allow their minds to be controlled by a slick sales pitch. We know that her mind isn’t being controlled because she says so.
So whatever sales pitch Carmen gives you…just follow it.
“Religious leaders figured out a long time ago how to control people’s minds – at least, how to convince people that imaginary spirits were/are real.”
Wow, I had no idea the church was that far advanced! Penfield would be jealous the church leaders figured out how to do that before he did…
🙂
But, of course, you just switched horses again. You’re not talking about literal mind control. You’re talking about the old fashioned way of teaching/discussing/convincing people to believe certain things.
I’m talking about how cool it will be someday, when science catches up, and we can produce artificial intelligence. Maybe my kids will have a robot that looks exactly like a human, and you can’t even tell the difference from the outside!
…they could zap certain parts of her brain and make her really proud of Science, for creating her. And my kids might program her so that every time someone mentioned “religion” she would laugh and shout “OOGITY BOOGITY!”
It would be very entertaining. Everyone would love Robot Carmen.
And the best part would be–no death! Because, they could just go to the store and buy another one to program exactly like her.
The marketing motto would be, “Robot Carmens….they used to be complicated. But it’s really just electricity!”
Until then the rest of us will just have to console ourselves by reading nonsense written by christians, whereby they make complete fools of themselves, eh? 😉
Sorry, 1 Corinthians 2:14
@ mrsmcmommy
Now you’re introducing the True Atheist worldview? Wow, the scope of your understanding all these imaginary categories of people who are True (Whatever) demonstrates your method… making stuff up, assigning it a word, and then capitalizing the first letter to make it into a proper noun… as if it’s real! Such linguistic artistry is a rare treat to behold. Why, you could make up anything and by doing this – POOF! – make into a True Thing!
@ mrsmcmommy, you say “Things like abstract thought and consciousness are topics the True Naturalists don’t like to discuss for long,.. ”
True Naturalists? Are you a True Gravityist? A True Germist? What on earth can you be talking about… except as an artificial category to differentiate those who are not satisfied with some empty knowledge claim about supernatural agencies of Oogity Boogity to act as a pseudo-answer… very often in place of an honest “I don’t know”… from those who are comfortable inserting the godidit whenever they face their own ignorance.
Science is a method of inquiry. I don;t know why you’re trying to paint this poking of a brain to make an abstract thought some kind of criticism against the necessary role the brain plays in ANY thinking. Where you go off the track sis presuming that there must be an invisible driver in some unknown seat directing by unknown means a process. You’re approach is to try to use Penfield as a means to include some kind of scientific veneer to a wholly religious – and knowledge-free – model that explains nothing. Now, you might be satisfied that the non answer ‘therefore God’ is the kind of explanation that solves these riddles but because it has no explanatory value, what you’re suggesting – ID in a nutshell – is equivalent in all ways to somewhat entertaining fiction. Four year olds might be satisfied with ‘therefore God’ to any ‘why’ and ‘how’ question but most grown-ups realize the uselessness of such a non answer. You have some catching up to do.
Ah, reading the Discotute’s Egnor, I see. Piece of advice: when reading any Discovery Institute writer claiming Intelligent Design fellowship with an historical figure, always go to the source.
For example, isn’t activating memory by stimulation considered ‘thought’? Do you consider it… what, water skiing? If producing auditory and visual hallucinations isn’t ‘thought’, then what is it… blinking? I mean, come on… produce evidence for any thought coming from a brain with no cellular activity and we’ll talk
In the meantime, here’s a pretty straight forward way of approaching the subject of consciousness if you have any real interest in gaining knowledge about it rather than exercise religious apologetics invoking agencies of Oogity Boogity!: the mind is what the brain does.
Thanks for the response, tildeb.
Any particular reason why your “mind is what the brain does” should be given more weight than Penfield’s assessment?
Sure. That’s what all all the evidence – for those who care to inform their reasons with anything more than just belief – points to.
To what evidence are you referring?
You may want to have Tildeb summarize Penfield’s assessment first. I’m not totally sure he understands the term ABSTRACT thought.
For example: Tildeb apparently read the article. But everyone knows there is a difference between hearing something and GRASPING it. Tildeb is literate, so he can decipher and repeat text–but we have developed computer software which can do that. So what’s the difference between a machine that parrots–and a human that can actually UNDERSTAND those phrases and concepts?
I won’t believe Tildeb fully understands Penfield’s assessment about “not being able to reproduce abstract thought” until Tildeb can explain Penfield’s thesis in his own words.
Then we can ask how that understanding came to be. Was it the result of an electric probe direct to the brain?
Well, you don’t have to ask ME how that understanding came to be… My answer is going to be that there’s a difference between concrete facts and abstract wisdom.
The “enlightenment” that even our atheist friends have referred to in some of these threads is the soul/spirit/wisdom that God gave to humans. It sets them apart from the animals.
Would you say there is a difference between having a seizure and ‘thinking’?
Yes, yes, I would…
And there is evidence to support that claim–since Penfield described all of his test subjects being able to tell the difference between the memories/emotions that were INDUCED…and the ones that arose “naturally,” when their own minds were in control…