Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: average joe who wrote (6074)	5/30/2010 11:50:07 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

ROTFLMAO!!!

To: average joe who wrote (6074)	5/30/2010 7:41:31 PM
From: Greg or e	Respond to of 69300

"I just want to be clear on your position. Do you think it was wrong for God to punish people who sacrificed their children with fire to false gods and engaged in ritual sex with animals as part of their worship?" Message 26570296

To: average joe who wrote (6074)	5/31/2010 9:01:06 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

Theories Built on Sinking Sand by Bradford RLC posted Mind/Brain Thought Experiments at Viewpoint. Quoting: The debate between those who believe that everything is reducible to material substance and those who believe that there's more to reality, especially the human being, than just matter is one of the most interesting of the perennial controversies in philosophy. It goes back at least to the ancient Greeks and has popped up repeatedly throughout the history of Western philosophy. In 1714 Gottfried Leibniz, one of the greatest philosophers and mathematicians in history invited us to consider an interesting thought experiment that he, and many others, believed shows the inadequacy of physicalism (i.e. the belief that everything is explicable in terms of purely physical or mechanical processes): Suppose that there be a machine, the structure of which produces thinking, feeling, and perceiving; imagine this machine enlarged but preserving the same proportions, so that you could enter it as if it were a mill. This being supposed you might visit its inside; but what would you observe there? Nothing but parts which push and move each other, and never anything which could explain perception. RLC resumes commenting: The machine, of course, is analogous to the brain. If we were able to walk into the brain as if it were a factory, what would we find there other than electrochemical reactions taking place along the neurons? How do these chemical and electrical phenomena map, or translate, to sensations like red or sweet? Where, exactly, are these sensations? How do chemical reactions generate things like beliefs, doubts, regrets, certainty, or purposes? How do they create understanding of a problem or appreciation of something like beauty? How does a flow of ions or the coupling of molecules impose a meaning on a page of text? How can a chemical process or an electrical potential have content or be about something? RLC is right on point. Those who assume that thought is nothing more than physical dynamics of the brain are making a category error in presuming that mind and spirit are completely reducible to neurochemical reactions. If RLC is correct then bedrock assumptions of ID gain credence. The most basic of them is that the capacity to reason could have pre-dated the advent of life on earth. Keep this in mind when encountering comments about the demise of ID. It takes quite a bit more than the ToE to debunk ID. In fact many at TT would argue that the ToE could provide evidence for guided outcomes. But even if you reject this you do not have a theory, whose theoretical evolutionary tenets, provide the framework on which causal mechanisms, generating consciousness, can be pegged. To do so you must first debunk Leibniz. Have at it. telicthoughts.com