It's really nobody's business if people have faith in a creator. Just sayin.

To some extent, yeah. To combat the theistic implications of the fine-tuning of the universe, some people have created literally infinite entities out of thin air (many worlds.)

Social Darwinism is a thing, though.

"Fittest" is a really loaded word. It's like a justification unto itself that those who survive were the most capable of surviving.

But he forgot to mention that nothing about being capable of surviving is necessarily conducive to long term ascension of a species to grander heights. But that's the notion social Darwinist alphas feed themselves.

And it builds their egos and they survive. But the species is actually getting dumber, partly due to the layman's understanding of science.

Survival of the fittest is really a misnomer. And is of great service to those who survive.. But I don't know how else you'd put it. Survival of the fortunate, maybe...Survival of the lucky.

It does. You just aren't deep enough to get it. You're shallow and you talk a lot, and all of your discussions are predicated in nonsense drivel you proclaim to be common sense.

Just because something is fascinating doesn't mean it's fiction. Materialists would do well to recognize this.

We can't even explore ideas, because everything interesting is beyond the skeptics meager imagination.

It may be, bit it's a matter of how you react to life. Like, nothing is concrete, and would a mundane reality not be so temporal. How do we look at this. I am totally biased towards excitement and wonder, I admit. I despise being told reality is "just" anything.

It actually is elementally fantastical. I think we need to overcome the hardwiring that tells us the Earth is flat, you know? It seems very...permanent, I guess, from an ignorant perspective. We would do ourselves a favor to view it more as a phantasm, more imaginary, purely from the surface of things.

Knowing as we do entropy and the fact that we're spinning through space. There is nothing to be gained from the archaic perspective of flat earth.

*dismiss

*dism8ss

Yes, it's our responsibility to analyze speculative ideas, not outright dismissed them as flying spaghetti monsters.

And by the way, the idea that reality isn't a fantasy is also just speculation.

This life may be pure fantasy. There is no evidence to the contrary.

Give me a break, dude. What I said is far more interesting than the pedantic.

I'll forfeit discussing particles and waves since no living human can address that question with any wisdom.

But I think I bring up an interesting notion, that atoms self-identify when presented with the alien other. That this action creates a modicum of comprehension each time.

I think consciousness is just the natural self-identification that occurs when any particle is confronted with outside interference.

An atom on its own may be infinitely aware, but when influenced by another atom it perceives more of what it means to be itself, through the force of having to perceive what it's not like to be the other. In other words, identity is formed in contrast with what we are not.

And I believe this holds true down to the atom itself. Self-awareness is information in the discongruency between the self and the "alien."

You think those brain states are ‘god’? Why?


No, just that, in those situations, people have reported experiencing God. There is no absolute way to verify it, but certainly the experiences can't mean God definitely doesn't exist.

God hasn't made Itself readily apparent, so why would you think evidence comes to those who do not seek? Yet sometimes it does, through psychedelics or NDE's for instance.

But, anyway, it's always seemed odd to me that people think if there was a God it would be self-evident. Considering how vastly different and may I say, dull, the world would be if that were the case.

Well, God isn't an unfeasible hypothesis, tested through faith. IMO it can be a scientific endeavor, though I'm not sure any true evidence could ever be verified. So my question would be, are all things that are actualized always verifiable? And can such things still be considered "science," If humored by an objectively responsible observer.

Mysticism is just the knowledge that none of you know what you're talking about.

Nah. Atheism is the belief in the disbelief of the existence of God. They believe it's the right mode of mind, just like the devout. And, by the way, agnostics don't believe in God, either.

So explain how meat can interpret everything it encounters immediately? It prostitutes our conception of everything.

Just look how we worship meat! Where's the neurological connection?

I think God can be excused if we're to label him a dictator, though I'm not too familiar with dictators that are omni-anything. God is everywhere, is all-powerful, and all-knowing. He has the responsibility to dictate.

The world you ask for is dead at its heart. What alternative would we have but to believe in God, and then, why would we even bother? So, it is the best of possible worlds. I mean, to take this to the extreme, you're asking, "If there's a God, why aren't people always happy?"

That consciousness is generated by the brain, though no one has explained how, is a premise of neuroscience? Why call it science, then, and not neuroinduction?

Incorrect. Do you know how your car works? And yet, you know the car works because of the things in the car, not because of an intangible non-physical process. If we studied the brain and found things that were non-physical, then we could state, "maybe its this non-physical stuff that causes consciousness."

Does a car work without a conscious component? No, it doesn't.

Panpsychism isn't funny. Of COURSE electrons are self-aware. You just don't have the brain to figure how.

Does anyone know what's going on in this world anymore? And now that all the soldiers know the enemy, who wants to kill and die for warlords anymore. 21st century war is lazy and lumbering. GOOD.

We put chips in monkeys' brains and they died. That's how far along neuroscience is. Barbarism.

Who's insulting who? I don't even take this conversation seriously -- you've insulted half the people in it!

Of course the brain and the body are one: the brain is a part of the body. The body, even the brain, is not located "in the brain", though, and yet, we actually are our entire bodies -- not just our brains.

That's so ludicrous -- the idea that the rest of our bodies are all in service of the brain. How ridiculous.

We are our whole bodies, including, but not limited to, our brain. If, when you refer to yourself as "me" you're referring strictly to your brain, you're a cartoon villain.

How is one supposed to even argue with the backwards assumption that all we are is our brain. It's so patently false. Might as well argue with flat Earthers.

The only scientifically supported assertion (mine) on this thread is not the strawman. Your attempt to claim that I have asserted that I know how consciousness is produced without question is the strawman, and it is pathetic that you keep going with it, even though I have addressed it numerous times in this thread. You're basically just a creepy little troll with no argument, and too much emotion.

There there, buddy, you lost. But there will be more mountains to climb. Take it easy.

Yes, you not knowing how the brain produces consciousness yet insisting everyone believe it does is a strawman.

How?" is still a mystery, but the leading theory is that all structures of the brain operate in a complex network of unparralleled sophistiction. By produce, I mean emit, generate, or otherwise enable. Much like eyesight is produced by the brain, so too is consciousness

No one knows how, but God forbid anyone disagree that it's been proven to.

I also feel all this has a lot more to do with the "woo" of electricity than physicalists tend to let on. Aren't we as much, if not more so, electricity than physical matter? In any case, we're not divisible from electricity. And yet, there is this duality.

It's quite possible, even probable, that there is a distinction between the physical moon, as processed internally, and what is actually out there.

I'm afraid that, until you can show how the brain produces consciousness, the question will always be up for debate.

Some of you want to close the book now, because you fathom that that's an impossible task.

There's no precedent whatsoever for the brain or consciousness to say, "This is what happens when the brain happens." You're essentially just classifying matter, and you don't know how matter works, either.

The final truth being that you have no idea how neurons and electrical impulses create individualized people. You just think if you repeat enough times that they do, it will magically become fact.

You can cut the brain up, switch consciousness on and off like a light bulb...and still this isn't incontrovertible proof of anything.

If we all thought as you do, there would be no science. You see, we don't formulate our beliefs until we have proof (unless ensuing proof can be predicated upon belief.)

So, explain it already. The brain is complicated and consciousness is a mystery is just another God-of-the-gaps, though.

If I'm wrong, then, by all means, explain it. Explain how consciousness is produced.

Fact: Neuroscience has not explained consciousness. Period.

From what I can garner, not anything of substance.

What are you saying, exactly?

lol. Yeah, right. They have no clue.