Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:There haves been a variety of references to this research in this thread, as if everything is all resolved and well understood. Yet when a specific paper has been presented, there have always been `.

Lies. Let's take a look at this shall we, by reference to some of those papers I've been talking about?
…. <some dialog omitted>

Miwayaki et al, 2008 wrote:More interesting are attempts to reconstruct subjective states that are elicited without sensory stimulation, such as visual imagery, illusions, and dreams. Several studies have suggested that these subjective percepts occur in the early visual cortex (Kosslyn et al., 1995), consistent with the retinotopy map (Meng et al., 2005; Sasaki and Watanabe, 2004; Thirion et al., 2006). Of particular interest is to examine if such subjective percepts share the same representation as stimulus-evoked percepts (Kamitani and Tong, 2005, 2006; Haynes and Rees, 2005). One could address this issue by attempting to reconstruct a subjective state using a reconstruction model trained with physical stimuli. The combination of elemental decoders could even reveal subjective states that have never been experienced with sensory stimulation. Reconstruction performance can also be compared among cortical areas and reconstruction models. Thus, our approach could provide valuable insights into the complexity of perceptual experience and its neural substrates.

What was that you said above again, about "tremendous unknowns, and things yet to be determined, and unanswered question after unanswered question"?

Let’s try to boil this down a little. The thrust of this research appears to be to use certain techniques to detect when someone is visualizing a predefined image. It appears that these images are still pictures, but it is easy to get lost in the technical jargon. And that there has been some success in doing this. 100% accuracy under certain conditions, and 10% accuracy or better under other conditions, although the specifics are not clear to me from the excerpts presented.
So far, this appears no different than what we have discussed previously. And I have said, this is impressive, but only the barest of beginnings. Now, in the above paragraph, the authors project where their research might take them (“Our approach could provide valuable insights, etc.”). Insights into what? For example, ”More interesting are attempts to reconstruct subjective states that are elicited without sensory stimulation, such as visual imagery, illusions, and dreams.” That would be pretty interesting. I see no claims of success yet in these areas.

Calilasseia wrote:
What was that you said above again, about "tremendous unknowns, and things yet to be determined, and unanswered question after unanswered question"?

Aren’t you just making my case? This literature documents what has been accomplished, and what has not. Don’t “subjective states elicited without sensory stimulation, such as visual imagery, illusions and dreams” remain tremendous unknowns? What am I missing?

Calilasseia wrote:
Game over methinks.

What game? And how is it over? I see tremendous unknowns. The authors of the above paper see tremendous unknowns. Don’t you see tremendous unknowns?

A simple question to ask at this point, though, is this: If you want to know what someone is thinking, why don’t you just ask them?

Calilasseia wrote:

Reconstructed images from all trials of the figure image session are illustrated in Figure 2A. They were reconstructed using the model trained with all data from the random image session. Reconstruction was performed on single-trial, block-averaged data (average of 12 s or six-volume fMRI signals). Note that no postprocessing was applied. Even though the geometric and alphabet shapes were not used for the training of the reconstruction model, the reconstructed images reveal essential features of the original shapes. The spatial correlation between the presented and reconstructed images was 0.68 ± 0.16 (mean ± s.d.) for subject S1 and 0.62 ± 0.09 for S2. We also found that reconstruction was possible even from 2 s single-volume data without block averaging (Figure 2B). The results show the temporal evolution of volume-by-volume reconstruction including the rest periods. All reconstruction sequences are presented in Movie S1.

Oh, so even though they didn't use geometric and alphabetic shapes during the neural net training of their computational model, the model still recognised them.

This might be impressive, if it was clear what was being discussed. Perhaps you would be willing to cut through the technical jargon and explain this in plain English.

Calilasseia wrote:

Once again, I see no "tremendous unknowns, and things yet to be determined, and unanswered question after unanswered question" in the above.

Miwayaki et al, 2008 wrote:Image Identification via Reconstruction
To further quantify reconstruction performance, we conducted image identification analysis (Kay et al., 2008; Thirion et al., 2006) in which the presented image was identified among a number of candidate images using an fMRI activity pattern (Figure 3A). We generated a candidate image set consisting of an image presented in the random image session and a specified number of random images selected from 2100 possible images (combinations of 10 × 10 binary contrasts). Given an fMRI activity pattern, image identification was performed by selecting the image with the smallest mean square difference from the reconstructed image. The rate of correct identification was calculated for a varied number of candidate random images.

In both subjects, image identification performance was far above the chance level, even up to an image set size of 10 million (Figure 3B). The identification performance can be further extrapolated by fitting the sigmoid function. The extrapolation suggests that performance above 10% correct could be achieved even with image sets of 1010.8 for S1 and of 107.4 for S2, using block-averaged single-trial data. The identification performance with 2 s single-volume data was lower than that of block-averaged data, but was still above the chance level for a large number of candidate images (above 10% correct with image sets of 108.5 for S1 and of 105.8 for S2).

In the following sections, we examine how multivoxel patterns and multiscale image representation, critical components of our reconstruction model, contributed to the high reconstruction performance.

So their model was able to isolate correctly the requisite image seen, out of a possible data set of tens of millions of images.

Once again, I see no "tremendous unknowns, and things yet to be determined, and unanswered question after unanswered question" in the above.

I will attempt to translate into plain English what I make up is being said here. There are a lot of images that they have on file (up to 10 million). They present an image to the subject. They use their scanning technique to look at what is going on in the brain of the subject. They then use the data gathered to record what the subject saw. They do a database lookup based on the brain scan, and viola, they pick out the picture they showed to the subject! And they are right “far above chance” level. And they think they could be right 10% of the time using some other parameters, but I will freely admit I am not sure what those were. Perhaps you could clarify.

So again, we have picture experiments. I am not sure what “far above chance level” is, but they are on to something. Doesn’t detecting thoughts which are NOT pictures remain a tremendous unknown? It seems so to me…

And isn’t asking people what they are seeing or thinking far simpler (and more useful)? That also seems so to me.

Calilasseia wrote:
Once again, I see no "tremendous unknowns, and things yet to be determined, and unanswered question after unanswered question" in the above.

Are we reading the same paper?

Calilasseia wrote:
Oh, so the authors not only demonstrated that their model correctly determined the nature of images seen, extracted the correct images from the fMRI data, and matched what was seen against a database of several million candidate images, but conducted a detailed analysis of the error profiles of different parts of their model, and demonstrated that the integrated whole minimised the errors arising at each scale in the final, combined result.
Once again, I see no "tremendous unknowns, and things yet to be determined, and unanswered question after unanswered question" in the above.

Perhaps you do you not see any unknowns because you aren’t looking for any? And I don’t think they claimed 100% accuracy for a database above 100 images. The precise claim for the 10 million case was unclear. Somewhere between 10% and “far above average”. There is plenty of room for the unknown there, it seems to me.

Calilasseia wrote:

The authors saved the best for the end, however:

Miwayaki et al, 2008 wrote:More interesting are attempts to reconstruct subjective states that are elicited without sensory stimulation, such as visual imagery, illusions, and dreams. Several studies have suggested that these subjective percepts occur in the early visual cortex (Kosslyn et al., 1995), consistent with the retinotopy map (Meng et al., 2005; Sasaki and Watanabe, 2004; Thirion et al., 2006). Of particular interest is to examine if such subjective percepts share the same representation as stimulus-evoked percepts (Kamitani and Tong, 2005, 2006; Haynes and Rees, 2005). One could address this issue by attempting to reconstruct a subjective state using a reconstruction model trained with physical stimuli. The combination of elemental decoders could even reveal subjective states that have never been experienced with sensory stimulation. Reconstruction performance can also be compared among cortical areas and reconstruction models. Thus, our approach could provide valuable insights into the complexity of perceptual experience and its neural substrates.

What was that you said above again, about "tremendous unknowns, and things yet to be determined, and unanswered question after unanswered question"?

This is not a result, but a research topic, is it not? To boldly go where no man has gone before? And hopefully get someone to fund it? You seem to imply it is a foregone conclusion that success is sure. To me, this is simply arguing from the future.

Calilasseia wrote:

Game over methinks.

At best it is “game on”. Go for it, my friend!

Calilasseia wrote:
Now let's move on to this paper:

Reconstructing Visual Experiences From Brain Activity Evoked By Natural Movies by Shinji Nishimoto, An T. Vu, Thomas Naselaris, Yuval Benjamini, Bin Yu, and Jack L. Gallant, current Biology, 21: 1641-1646 (11th October 2011)

Nishimoto et al, 2011 wrote:Summary

Quantitative modeling of human brain activity can provide crucial insights about cortical representations [1, 2] and can form the basis for brain decoding devices [3–5]. Recent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have modeled brain activity elicited by static visual patterns and have reconstructed these patterns from brain activity [6–8]. However, blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) signals measured via fMRI are very slow [9], so it has been difficult to model brain activity elicited by dynamic stimuli such as natural movies. Here we present a new motion-energy [10, 11] encoding model that largely overcomes this limitation. The model describes fast visual information and slow hemodynamics by separate components. We recorded BOLD signals in occipitotemporal visual cortex of human subjects who watched natural movies and fit the model separately to individual voxels. Visualization of the fit models reveals how early visual areas represent the information in movies. To demonstrate the power of our approach, we also constructed a Bayesian decoder [8] by combining estimated encoding models with a sampled natural movie prior. The decoder provides remarkable reconstructions of the viewed movies. These results demonstrate that dynamic brain activity measured under naturalistic conditions can be decoded using current fMRI technology.

Heh, not only are scientists reconstructing still images, they're now reconstructing movies played in the brain. Yet according to your tiresomely parroted assertions, Andrew, this is supposed to be impossible, and an instance of "ignorance and denial".

Andrew?

I believe I have pointed out, Calilasseia, that, detecting images of pictures or movies, from a pre-selected set (and using “education”, that is, calibration of the subject’s brain activity to help), while impressive, is not in the same class as detecting uncalibrated thoughts that do not involve imagery. So we are no further along in our discussion than we were before. The tremendous unknowns remain.

I am not sure who Andrew is, but would like to meet him!

Calilasseia wrote:
<other research along similar lines omitted…>
I think I've done enough here to demonstrate that the papers in question are completely devoid of "tremendous unknowns, and things yet to be determined, and unanswered question after unanswered question".

They are devoid of actually addressing the issue of detecting and interpreting uncallibrated symbolic thought.

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:The bottom line has been that discerning thoughts against someone’s will is extremely unreliable, if not impossible.

Lie. Read the above and fucking weep.

This is a strong accusation when you haven’t contradicted my point at all. Perhaps you will one day. The tremendous unknowns and unreliability remain. Let me know when the research pulls a list of fellow resistance members out of a victim’s brain.

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:It appears to me that this simply remains an assertion on your part.

Read the above and fucking weep. Game over.

No weeping. No game not involving pictures has even begun. I do concede, and have conceded, that detecting the images in the brain, even with all the limitations and caveats and calibration, and small subsets, is still quite impressive. But very, very limited. You can use it as proof positive that thoughts are purely material if you wish. Because of your worldview, your assumptions, your pre-disposition. In spite of the tremendous unknowns. Because you can’t afford to let a divine foot in the door.

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Which on its own destroys your apologetic attempt to label thoughts "immaterial" by appealing to their purportedly "hidden" status. But we've been through this about 40 pages ago, and you still didn't understand the elementary concepts then. Are you starting to make progress here?

There is no progress to be made. Keeping something material hidden by whatever means, is entirely different than keeping a thought hidden.

No it isn't. Read those papers and fucking weep.

I await my list of resistance members. Your own example, by the way.

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:The possibility exists that the material item can be found, by a variety of means. There is no possibility that the thought can be, unless the person in question voluntarily reveals it (coercion in all its forms aside, and there are many examples illustrating that this doesn’t work either).

Wrong. Those papers blow your assertions out of the water with a nuclear depth charge. Read them and fucking weep.

Your own example of the resistance members who have died without revealing their confederates proves my point. Your research doesn’t touch it. And by the way, this research has only been done with willing subjects, correct? Try it with the unwilling, and let me know how it turns out.

But to clarify, because I am interested in all this – are the people looking at the pictures while the experimenter are taking their brain scans or whatever. And then the experimenters are plucking a picture out of a database.

Or, are the people recalling a picture from memory, last seen many days ago, and then the experimenters are still successfully plucking that out of a database? I’m just wondering. I find some of the language a little tough to follow.

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:That is where we left it previously, and the pie analogy is no different than other examples presented.

Wrong. You really don't know anything about the science involved, do you?

If you wish to make an argument based on science, you must use science relevant to the point. What science is going to reveal the list of resistance members?

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Not in the second instance. It's entirely possible, in the second instance, for the fridge not to contain a pie. But of course, definitive determination of this is relatively easy. However, just because the determination of the status of an entity happens to be difficult, and requires diligent skilled labour, doesn't in any way make magic entities necessary for that entity. Is the penny dropping here?

Finding the pie is not the point. We know if can be found (or not), given a bomb expert of sufficient skill. The point is the inability of a bomb expert to find a thought that someone does not wish to reveal.

Those neuroscientists are pissing all over your apologetic assertions. Read those papers and fucking weep.

The brave members of the Maquis rise up to make my point!

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:It is the thoughts that I maintain have an immaterial component, as you well know.

But wait, it doesn't. Those papers point pretty conclusively to thoughts being entirely material processes. Along with the vast array of antecedent data about brain activity from the same scientific disciplines. Oh wait, how come is it that when key parts of your brain chemistry stop, so do your thoughts?

Viva La France!

Calilasseia wrote:
Indeed, I've a nice little experience of my own to bring to the table here, courtesy of my tonsillectomy in the year 2000. This is an operation that requires the patient to be under general anaesthesia, in order for the surgeon to perform it. Now, here's the fun part. I went through the usual procedure, lying on the operating table, and watching all those frighteningly professional theatre technicians prepping me for the op. Then, they deployed the standard "can you please count down from 10 to 1 backwards for us?" question as the anaesthetic was being injected. I made it to 4 before all the lights went out, and I was completely devoid of thoughts for the two hours of the operation. It was literally like having a switch thrown. One moment, I was awake and active, the next, I might as well have been dead, for all the activity I noticed for the two hour duration. Only when I came round, did I notice that, oh look, I'd been wheeled out of theatre into the post-op recovery room, and I was getting to grips with what was, in effect, a complete consciousness reboot.

Hmm. “A complete consciousness reboot”? The only part of your conscious thought that you don’t appear to remember was what happened when you were under the knife. It’s not like you couldn’t remember what happened before that, is it? You recall it well. This did not wipe your memory. It simply quiesced you. And your automatic brain functions continued, as they must, for you to live.

Calilasseia wrote:
Now if a simple chemical molecule such as etomidate, the intravenous anaesthetic used to propel me into deep anaesthesia, could have the effect of performing a complete consciousness shutdown, followed by a reboot once the effects wore off, I think it's pretty safe to conclude that your assertions about the "immaterial" nature of thoughts are complete hooey.

I keep wondering if we are in the same conversation. What does this have to do with anything? Yes, we live in material world, and yes, we are affected by a wide variety of drugs and chemicals, including the food we eat for lunch. To say that we are material is not something I disagree with. To say we are ONLY material – THAT I disagree with!

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote: A thought, on the other hand, can be real (formed in your mind), and unknown by any means, coercive or otherwise, unless you willingly reveal it.

Wrong. Go and read the neuroscience literature.

Viva La France!

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:
See above. Vague references do not advance the discussion.

Read those papers I've just presented and fucking weep.

You have made the references less vague. I appreciate that. They don’t negate your own example of the brave Maquis. Sorry.

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Pie doesn’t work like that.

Actually, it does. See above.

Viva the pie eating, pastry loving Maquis! You may take their pastry, but you’ll never get them to reveal their comrades!

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:I have given reasons for why it doesn’t work that way. You have made assertions and vague references.

See those detailed presentations of relevant scientific papers above?

Which don’t negate your own example of the Maquis?

Calilasseia wrote:
So much for "assertions and vague references". But then I knew you would be too indolent to do your homework on this, and actually chase up the papers. Congratulations for walking into the prepared trap as expected.

It’s the same trap from many pages ago, with the same result. It’s a good try, but you haven’t negated your own example.

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Oh wait, what was it I said above about entities requiring diligent skilled labour to ascertain? QED.

You are holding the thread of the argument only if you have provided sufficient reason to believe that thoughts are material and can be detected by material means, without the consent of the thinker. I do not believe you have established this.

Those papers I've just presented just did that.

First of all, the research was all done with the consent of the subjects, their voluntary cooperation, and pre-calibration of their mental activity, not to mention a limited set of pictures. Not of much use to the Nazis trying to identify previously unidentified resistance members, is it?

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:And once again, we're back to your woeful inability to comprehend processes.
Thoughts are processes. Which is why you won't detect them when those processes stop.

As I have observed in conversations with ADParker, I believe, thoughts are both processes, and the results of processes.

Ah, naive conflation of separate entities. A familiar part of the supernaturalist aetiology.

The end results of those processes are ideas. I think I told you this earlier in the thread.

Who is being naïve? Each thought in a train of thought is itself an idea. Separately storable and retrievable from memory. But you are not addressing the issue. You claim that thought is a “process”, and you appear to claim that thoughts stop and have no representation in your mind (or memory) when you stop thinking. I lose track of why you think that is important. But if that is what you claim, you need to explain your view on memory, and thoughts being stored in memory. Why does a person need to be thinking in order for you to examine their memory, for example? They can pull things from it easily enough, no? Can’t you, if these thoughts are strictly material?

Wilberforce1860 wrote: A train of thought goes in a direction and produces an end result. All of these are stored in memory and can be recalled, subject to the will of the thinker.

Calilasseia wrote:

And how is that processing and storage achieved? Oh wait, they're both products of brain chemistry. And come crashing to a halt when the requsite brain chemistry stops.

If you are making a point, I’ve lost it. What is your point?

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:They are therefore present to be detected, whether currently being "thought" or not. Assuming there IS some way of not only detecting their presence, but their content.

Those neuroscientists are queueing up again ...

Perhaps they can explain this better than you have, at least, from where I sit.

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Otherwise, how do you explain what we call our memory?

Oh wait, your computer has memory. Whilst remaining a mindless machine. This should be telling you something.

Another point, which, if there is one, I don’t follow.

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:ADParker has asserted that memory is really only “thinking the thoughts over again”. But what is your explanation for thinking the same thoughts? Or recalling something we have observed, such as the color of a dress we aren’t currently looking at, or where we left our keys?

Data storage underpinned by brain chemistry. Next?

Well, at least we both agree you can store thoughts and recover them. What is your evidence that you can pull stored memories from people’s brains? All of your research quoted above requires actual brain activity in order to be able detect the picture being viewed, does it not? You are detecting the result of sensory input on the other side of the eye, so to speak, as it is processed by the brain. Now, can you identify this picture 10 hours later, while the viewer is unconscious? The Nazis want to know!

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:This idea goes against common usage of language (e.g., recalling something from memory, memorizing a poem, etc.) as well as common every day experiences. Are you denying that thoughts are stored?

And here we have yet more naive conflation, between the process, the algorithm directing the process, and the generated data.

The latter two are stored. The first, by definition, not.

Tell me, do you know how neurons work? Because your above assertions suggest very strongly that you don't.

I know they exist. I do not know how they work. I maintain our understanding is extremely limited and just getting started. But tell me, and the Nazis, how to get the list of resistance members, and my knowledge of neurons and how they work will increase considerably.

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Are you claiming that you can only detect them if the person somehow recalls and thinks about them? I really am not sure what point you are trying to make.

The point I was making, was the elementary point that when certain parts of your brain chemistry come to a halt, so do your thoughts. That you were unable to discern this from my words in my post, is itself worryingly revealing.

Just tell me how to get the list of resistance members…

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Oh but wait, as long as the underlying brain chemistry is still active, we can detect the presence of thoughts. Indeed, scientists were able to do this before detailed resolution fMRI scanning became available. Ever heard of an electroencephalograph? It detects the tiny fluctuations of electrical current in your brain that arise from that chemistry. What's more, it tells us, every time, that when said chemistry stops, so does the detection of thoughts. All the electrical activity plummets to zero.

However, now that we have detailed resolution fMRI scanning technology, we can home in on individual thoughts, and work out what the person is thinking. I've presented papers here documenting the requisite experiments. The technology may be in it infancy, but it works. Which would be impossible if your assertions about thoughts being "immaterial" were true. Game over.

Where is my list?

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote: Are you claiming that you can determine the actual content of a person’s thoughts?

Like I said, the technology may be in its infancy, but it works, with respect to working out what images an individual has seen. It's only a matter of time before that technology will allow you to turn your dreams into watchable DVDs. Now there's a scary thought for you. Other researchers are working on determining language content of thoughts, such as the language content of our subvocalisations when we read text. Here's something for you to do some homework on while you're contemplating all of this: those self same neuroscientists have determined that the manner in which human brains process language, undergoes a rearrangement when those brains are affected by repeat episodes of temporal lobe epilepsy. There's a nice paper on this very subject in the European Journal of Neurology - let's see if you can find it shall we, without me doing your homework for you?

In fact, just to illustrate how much your apologetics constitute abject fail here, whilst checking the literature for some interesting papers to bring here next time you post fatuous and manifestly false assertions, I've just found something like two dozen other papers on apposite topics that I wasn't looking for originally. But which are going to come in very useful in this thread in the future. I love it when this happens. This should be telling you something very interesting, not least about the consilience of the scientific enterprise.

“The technology may be in its infancy,”

Really? I thought I was supposed to be weeping…

I’ll take that as a no. Sigh. No list of resistance members today…

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Is this any different than the research mentioned previously, where researchers were able to determine the movie someone was thinking about (out of a list of pre-selected movies)? If so, could you provide a reference?

And yet despite me having dropped this in your lap previously, you still think it's impossible to read someone else's thoughts. How cute.

The answer to my question is an obvious no. I’m not sure why you felt it important to re-iterate the same, very limited, research, that you already presented. (Don’t forget that I was impressed. But not enough. No list of resistance members…)

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:You seem to be claiming that yes, we can determine the thoughts of others (assuming they consent to being wired up, or scanned, so that you can try), with complete accuracy? That seems to be what you are implying when you say “work out what the person is thinking”. Detecting the presence of thoughts is far different than detecting their content.

Oh wait, what part of "determining the images observed requires detecting the content by definition" do you not understand?

Where is my list?

End of part 1 of 2. To Be continued.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:End of part 1 of 2. To Be continued.

Oh fuck.

Still trying to figure out what's on my desk, Wil? What's the problem? Is it proving impossible?

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Your statement that “the technology is in its infancy”, and “documenting the requisite experiments”, does not explain what you can and cannot do at present. But again, is this the movie thing?

Not just movies. It works for still images too. But the mere fact that it works at all drives a tank battalion through your apologetic assertions about thoughts being "immaterial".

I’ll surrender when you provide the list of resistance members. Meanwhile, I think your tank may be stuck.

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Certainly you would agree that guessing at what movie a person is thinking of (with 80% probability) is impressive, but not in the same league as determining, unsolicited, their actual thoughts?

Oh, and you think the same technology, once refined and packaged appropriately, won't be able to achieve the same results with people who don't know they're being scanned? How wonderfully naive of you.

No. But, give me the list of resistance members and I will agree – you win.

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Which is what you believe will be possible, correct? It seems to me that the exact material nature of thoughts remains unknown, undiscovered, and unproven.

Please, do go and learn something about neurons and brain chemistry, and how they underpin our cognitive processes. Use some of your own neurons for a change.

I’ll take that as a, yes Wilberforce1860, you are absolutely right. I can’t provide you with that list of resistance members based on my current understanding of neurons and how they work, and therefore, yes, the exact material nature of thoughts does remain unknown, undiscovered, and unproven.

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:And even if you COULD establish this, it does not address the origin of thoughts within each individual, which would still point to them having an immaterial component.

No it wouldn't. The only reason you think magic is needed is because you manifestly know bugger all about the actual science. Oh wait, material stimuli elicit thousands upon thousands of thoughts in all of our heads every day. Everything from the smell coming from the kitchen whilst your breakfast is cooking, through the sensation of your cat brushing against your leg, followed by its loud meowing as it demands you change its kitty litter and open the cat food, to the pretty girl on the bus to work whose gaze and smile give you a throbbing boner you weren't expecting to have at that moment, all of these material stimuli generate thoughts by the thousand in your head. Indeed, one of the papers I've been reading, informs me that whilst typing these words, there is a specific cluster of neurons in the brain, whose job is to match real world sensory data to words in the language being used. How that collection of neurons processes that data is now a subject of active research.

Since this explains nothing at all about the origination of thought (it just points out some of the things we might think about because we have senses), I will take this as another, yes, Wilberforce1860, you are right again. We absolutely know nothing about the origination of thought. Which, by the way, has not been in dispute on this list until your unsubstantiated claim to the contrary.

You do understand the difference between conducting research in an area, and actually having conclusive results, right?

Calilasseia wrote:

There is so much real, substantive knowledge out there that you are missing out on, by preferring cosy apologetics to real data. I would hate to live like you.

When I am not being told that results exist, when they don’t, I do learn things.

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Something you can’t quantify.

Wrong. Once again, all that neuroscience research is destroying your apologetics.

Where’s my list?

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Part of the reason that we remain at opposite poles on this issue, I believe, is that you look at any evidence that thoughts CAN be detected, such as the movie thing, as proof positive that thoughts are strictly material.

Several issues arise here. One, if you had bothered to familiarise yourself with my output more diligently, you would know that your above assertion was fundamentally flawed, not least because I've expended much effort educating supernaturalists about the distinction between proof and evidential support, a distinction you have manifestly failed to understand above.

Based on you comments above, it seems clear to me that you take the movie thing as proof positive that thoughts are purely material. For example, you said this:

Calilasseia wrote:However, now that we have detailed resolution fMRI scanning technology, we can home in on individual thoughts, and work out what the person is thinking. I've presented papers here documenting the requisite experiments. The technology may be in it infancy, but it works. Which would be impossible if your assertions about thoughts being "immaterial" were true. Game over.“

However, for all that, I still don’t have my list, proof positive that thoughts aren’t purely material. You make my point and don’t realize it.

Calilasseia wrote:
Two, supernaturalists have completely failed to provide a proper, rigorous definition of "immaterial" that allows an analysis even to begin on the subject, and none of your apologetics has come within light years of remedying that deficit.

You seek a definition of the immaterial that you can conduct laboratory experiments upon. What experiments do you propose for poetry, music and the arts? It isn’t the kind of thing you conduct such experiments on. The language used to describe an experiment is fundamentally different than the matter being experimented upon. Yet you insist on being able to do this. And refuse to consider it because you can’t. You remain stuck in one small materialistic little corner of the greater sandbox we call life.

Calilasseia wrote:
Three, since a key assertion on the part of supernaturalists, consists of asserting that their beloved "immaterial" entities are purportedly beyond the reach of material methods of detection and analysis, the application of that assertion to thoughts on your part is rendered null and void by all those scientific papers demonstrating that they are within the remit of material detection and analysis, an elementary concept you still manifestly struggle to understand.

I am still waiting for my list of resistance members. Your example. Where is it? What scientific paper demonstrates it’s acquisition?

Calilasseia wrote:
Fourth, the position I take when discussing these matters rigorously, is that whilst any "immaterial" entities that may actually exist are not categorically ruled out by the relevant science, as long as said "immaterial" entities can be ignored and treated as irrelevant in those papers, there is no reason to introduce these entities into our analysis, in accordance with the principle of parsimony expounded by a certain William of Ockham.

I think the principle of “See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” applies, not William of Ockham. Wasn’t he a cleric? Substitute “immaterial” for “evil”. If you want to find out more about the immaterial, you don’t look for it in science papers, Calilasseia.

Calilasseia wrote:
Until someone provides genuine evidence that such entities not only exist, but are necessary for our understanding of the universe and its contents, I simply treat the requisite assertions about these entities as discardable.

So long as you refuse to acknowledge the many things about life that science is not helpful for, you can’t help yourself.

Calilasseia wrote:
As a corollary of this, if someone exerts the diligent effort required to place "immaterial" entities on a proper, rigorous, evidentially supported footing, I'm prepared to accept that evidence.

Could you please provide an example of anything of a non-material nature for which you have accepted any evidence whatsoever in favor of? Because unless you can, your above statement rings manifestly hollow.

Calilasseia wrote:
Your apologetics don't meet the requisite standards of competence, but that isn't necessarily an indictment of your efforts, it's an indictment of the inadequacy of apologetics full stop.

I’m trying to work that out to see if it is a complement! Since you seem like a nice guy, unless the immaterial is involved (it seems to make you cranky), I will take it as one. Thanks!

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:I look to any evidence that thoughts CAN’T be detected (such as refusing to reveal other members of your resistance organization, under torture), as proof positive that they aren’t strictly material.

Correction, you clutch at whatever straws you can to uphold doctrinal assertions on this matter, regardless of what the data is actually telling us all.

This isn’t actually a straw, Calilasseia. It is a simple example, from your own mouth, that you have no answer for. Zero. Nothing. It is a great big, large, undeniable fact. Inconvenient, of course. But only one of many.

Calilasseia wrote:
YOU are the one who can't accept that your doctrine's assertions might be wrong, which is why you're resorting to ever more desperate measures to try and stop your doctrine being drowned by the tsunami of data rolling over it. Indeed, the entire concept of "immaterial" entities was only invented in its current form by supernaturalists, to provide a convenient excuse with which to hand-wave away the embarrassing level of observed irrelevance of their magic man.

I’m at least one step away from bringing God into the picture. The observations about the immaterial are simply that, observations. Do I believe they hint at the existence of God? Most certainly. Words, thoughts, feelings, the will, truth, beauty, logic, mathematics, love, music, paintings. All huge hints. All wonderful examples of the immaterial. Your response? Deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny.

Calilasseia wrote:
Until supernaturalists abandon this frankly dishonest foundation for the concept, and [1] ask themselves what would genuinely constitute an "immaterial" entity,

I’m not asking myself. I’m telling you. Words, thoughts, feelings, the will, truth, beauty, logic, mathematics, love, music, paintings. And we could add more. Design, architecture, imagination, computer software.

Calilasseia wrote:
[2] ask themselves how could one test for such an entity once a proper working definition existed,

Anything that it makes absolutely no sense to conduct a scientific experiment on, but which is vital to our everyday life. How’s that? I think everything I have listed above passes that test.

Calilasseia wrote:
and [3] set about conducting that test, whilst being honestly prepared to accept a negative answer,

Test conducted. Examples pass with flying colors.

Here’s a little test.

I’d like to get something for my Mother for her birthday.

What scientific test should I conduct to validate that my desire to do this is factual and evidentially established?

Calilasseia wrote:
the whole concept remains nothing more than a discardable apologetic excuse. Making yet more shit up to try and keep this previous piece of made up shit alive simply won't cut it, with those like myself, who understand the nature of genuine evidence.

I sincerely hope that you don’t want to throw away words, thoughts, feelings, the will, truth, beauty, logic mathematics, love, paintings, design, architecture and computer software, Calilasseia? And just discard it as irrelevant to your world?

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Both of these viewpoints are rooted in our worldviews

Yawn. Here we go again with the "worldviews" apologetic fabrication. Which, in the hands of supernaturalists, always means erecting a fake "symmetry" between uncritical acceptance of unsupported assertions of the sort that accompanies supernaturalist doctrines, and paying attention to the data, without any presuppositions in place, in the entirely proper scientific manner.

What do I have in support of my worldview? Words, thoughts, feelings, the will, truth, beauty, logic mathematics, love, paintings, design, architecture and computer software.

What do you have in support of your worldview? By your own admission, as far as I can tell, nothing.

For if we take away all of these immaterial things, science never materializes. Your entire world is built on the immaterial, and you can’t see it.

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:which hinge on different belief systems.

Yawn, yawn, yawn, here we go again with the bullshit about "belief systems".

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Your belief system

Doesn't exist. It's a figment of your imagination. Because, wait for it, I don't treat assertions uncritically as fact, which is what belief amounts to.

Do you believe in: Words, thoughts, feelings, the will, truth, beauty, logic mathematics, love, paintings, design, architecture and computer software?

Please do not use any of the above to substantiate your beliefs.

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:assumes

I assume nothing. I simply pay attention to data. Do learn this elementary concept.

You assume a huge number of things and don’t even seem to realize it. There is nothing more important than what a person believes (warning: assertion). Please explain anything to me at all without reference to:

Words, thoughts, feelings, the will, truth, beauty, logic, mathematics, love, paintings, design, architecture and computer software.

Each of these represents an assumption as well as a belief. Usually many assumptions and many beliefs. Why don’t you see any of these things? Because you take them for granted (that is, you assume them). Then, after taking them for granted, you use them to construct your little world of materialism that you defend against all comers. If they ask you what you are standing on, you say, “nothing”.

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:that the only reliable information is that provided by physical evidence and repeatable experiments.

How typically supernaturalist and presumptuous of you. Oh wait, I spent three years as an undergraduate mathematician, learning about deductive logic amongst other things, so I'm aware of other methods of generating knowledge. If the words "postfoundational axiomatic formal system" don't mean anything to you, then you're in no position to presume what I think.

Well, at least here you do admit that mathematics is one of the assumptions on which your world is built. That is progress. But you probably don’t see that it isn’t built on physical evidence or repeatable experiments.

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:While you state that you remain open to other possibilities, if they could be provided, you haven’t seen any, and continue to look for all explanations strictly via material means.

Oh wait, I'm on public record here, as stating that I'll happily accept proper, substantive work directed toward [1] placing the entire concept of "immaterial" entities on a rigorous foundation, [2] devising a means of determining if entities in such a class do actually exist, and [3] any unambiguous positive result arising from such test. But it would help if supernaturalists got off their backsides and did this work, instead of expecting me to treat apologetics as being on the same level as mathematical proof, which it isn't.

As I’ve observed above, I find your claim entirely hollow. And as for the evidence, what you seek is what your materialistic sandbox is built on, not something you can derive from it. Yet you insist on doing exactly that.

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:And dismiss any assertions, or purported evidence regarding the immaterial.

Assertions, as I've already told you, remain forever in that limbo known as truth value unknown, until some means can be devised to test those assertions. Here's a clue for you: apologetics doesn't constitute that test.

Are the following things true?

Words, thoughts, feelings, the will, truth, beauty, logic, mathematics, love, paintings, design, architecture and computer software

Please explain why, without reference to any of them.

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:What is this purported evidence that you simply dismiss? A variety of things that are unique to living things

Such as? Name one?

Wilberforce1860 wrote:and that cannot be explained or quantified in material ways.

Name one. I know for a fact you can't.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:The origin of thoughts and feelings (and by extension, intelligence)

Brain chemistry. Next?

This is an assertion, not an answer, and does not begin to address any of the issues involved. It is simply another way of your saying that the world is strictly material. Conduct an internet search on any of these topics and you will find “we don’t know”, and “very difficult and intractable problem” at the heart of the discussion.

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:The differences between thoughts and feelings and strictly material objects.

Elementary. It's the difference between entities and interactions.

I assume the “entity” is the material object, and the “interaction” is the thought or feeling. This is not nearly as well thought out as the table I posted on page 20, #385 and #387. But I think a more accurate paraphrase of your view is that it is the difference between chemicals, and chemical reactions. This is an assertion based on your worldview, and ignores the observations I make in the table on page 20, which includes that thoughts cannot be detected unless voluntarily revealed (which is not negated by the research you have quoted, which is based on cooperation from subjects, and which could not be done without their cooperation). It also includes that thoughts use symbols, and can be recorded with symbols, and understood long after their originators have passed on. None of which is remotely like a chemical reaction.

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:The expression of thoughts and feelings symbolically, via language.

Oh dear. You really haven't read the literature have you? Once again, at bottom, it's chemistry. Indeed, scientists have found specific genes that is responsible for our language ability. I've spent a fair amount of time expounding on the papers.

Expound away. This is the first I’ve heard of it. If there are relevant points to make, please do.

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:The origin of language.

Oh dear. This really is like taking candy from a baby. FOXP2 and ASPM.

Identification of genes associated with language tells us, in what way, how language originated?

There is a difference between being capable of language, and having one.

This is another one of those “intractable problems”.

You mention two proteins and act as if we know all there is to know about it. I will agree that it represents an advance in knowledge, but it begs the question of how the proteins (and DNA) originated in the first place, as well as how people came to have language at all.

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:The “immortality” possible for thoughts and feelings, when recorded on a variety of media (from clay tablets to computers, with clay tablets holding the record for longevity).

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

You think the persistence of material substances is a mystery?

Oh please, this is so funny. Pick up any textbook on physical chemistry, and look up Gibbs Free Energy and Enthalpy. And how this connects to Boltzmann's work on thermodynamics.

I am not posing this as a mystery, but as an attribute of thought that distinguishes it from material things. It is not the material that matters, but the symbols represented, which are independent of the material used. The immortality is independent of the medium, but it does require that intelligence continue to exist. Once intelligence is lost, the meaning of the symbols (and the need for them) is lost.

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:The independence of expressing thoughts and feelings from any particular media.

This is becoming absurd.

This is an assertion, not a response.

Calilasseia wrote:

Oh wait, Alan Turing had much to say on the universality of data processing in his 1936 paper on computable numbers.

Please elaborate.

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Our ability to imagine things that don’t exist. (If that isn’t an example of something that is immaterial, I am not sure what is).

This really is funny. You think our ability to make shit up needs magic input? For fuck's sake, it's easy peasy for any system that can perform the data processing required to gather and store data on its surroundings. Once such a system can fabricate an instance of the data connected to a real object, it can then fabricate a similar piece of data that is not connected to a real object. We're back to Turing again.

And just who/what is “processing” the data, and “fabricating” a similar piece of data? A machine? Driven by a program? Produced by what? Rocks? Chemicals? Or intelligent human beings? If so, you are simply making my point. Imagination requires intelligence, whose origin is unknown. Please spell out the chemical reactions that produce an imaginary thought.

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:The origin, existence and operation of the will.

Data processing. Underpinned by brain chemistry again.

Do chemical reactions make choices? Do programs make choices that are not predetermined by the software?

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:The existence of morality (or natural law, or the tao).

HA HA HA HA HA HA!

I've presented 15 papers on the biological and evolutionary origins of this in the past. Game over.

While I don’t doubt you, for the purposes of this discussion, since you are not presenting any ideas, this remains an assertion.

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Our ability to design things that have never existed.

Again, what makes you think fucking magic is needed to explain this? See my above paragraph on data processing.

There is no data processing without the design of software to drive it. Software is a product of human design. To argue that this somehow answers the question of how we design in the first place is rather circular, isn’t it?

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Our ability to recognize design.

HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Except that, oh wait, we don't have this ability. I'll demonstrate this to you in a trice. See these rocks in this picture below? One of those rocks was designed by a Palaeolithic human as a tool. Care to tell us which one, and what features make it appear "designed"? Only I've run this one past supernaturalists before, and none of them has been able to tell me.

Which Of These Rocks Is Designed.jpg

Let me answer your question with a question (I don’t have the picture in front of me, but let’s assume I do have difficulty distinguishing one of these rocks from any others). How did you come to the conclusion that one of these rocks was used by a Paleolithic human as a tool, and for what purpose?

To continue, we can recognize design because we also design. We design bricks for building things, and pottery for storing things. And archeologists use both of these man designed and man made objects to detect the presence of man, and in many cases, to date the finds, based on pottery styles. Are you saying the archeologists are making it all up?

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Thus far, you and others on this forum have only appeared willing to say something like “Well, we may not be able to explain certain things, or how certain things arose, but that doesn’t mean that we won’t find a material explanation for them.”

Read the scientific papers that have been presented here, by myself and others, and weep.

No tears yet. Did you have a specific point to make?

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:You characterize the apologetics of Christians and creationists as lame, and yet don’t find this kind of answer lame?

Oh wait, this might have something to do with the fact that science has set thousands upon thousands of precedents in this vein. Thousands upon thousands of precedents, of finding successful explanations for vast classes of entities and phenomena, including classes of entities and phenomena that the authors of your favourite mythology were too stupid to even fantasise about. We have a gigantic past track record of success to build upon that makes your mythology look like a eunuch in comparison. A vast track record of success that includes all sorts of developments, from the eradication of smallpox, through the development of manned spaceflight, to the manipulation of organismal genomes to order. NONE of this came from your mythology, and ALL of it came from the diligent search for material explanations. It's Game Over.

I assume you are saying that “We may not be able to explain certain things, or how certain things arose, but that doesn’t mean that we won’t find a material explanation for them” is not a lame form of apologetics?

I’m speaking at present of the many things you can’t answer, but assume with unwavering faith you will answer, based on a materialistic approach.

But let’s take one medical advance, like a vaccination for smallpox. What is the motivation for such an advance? I would say the desire to help and heal others. No motivation, no advance. This motivation flows from the tao. From our perception of a broken world in need of healing. But where do we get this perception of a broken world that needs healing? How do we know it is broken? Why do we wish to prevent death?

All of your scientific advances depend on the many things you stand on – the things that hold up your little corner of the sandbox called materialism. Words, thoughts, feelings, the will, truth, beauty, logic, mathematics, love, paintings, design, architecture and computer software. Without these, which you take for granted, you have nothing.

If you are looking for a spiritual track record, to the Christian, it is answered prayer. In my experience, these cannot be counted.

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Why aren’t you willing to look at “other ways of knowing” for the answers?

Making shit up isn't an "other way of knowing". Do learn this.

In what sense are the following ways of knowing “making things up”?

Presuppositions (things assumed as true, like logic, or the integers)
Emotions
Instinct
Ideas of self or others
Historical events and dates
A reliable witness
Religion and religious texts
Myths, fables (stories with a purpose or moral that are easy to remember)
Morality
Philosophy
Political documents and systems
Mathematics
Engineering
Authority
Scientific theories

Each of these fields has presuppositions on which it builds (things considered true, or self-evident), that have wide acceptance (among adherents or practitioners, because they ring true to them). They develop things that stand the test of time. Or they bear witness to things which have stood the test of time (reliable witnesses). Or they build on or extend these things (a new idea in mathematics or engineering, for example). Most fields of human endeavor deal with things uniquely human (systems of government, worship, justice, law enforcement, education, etc.). Science is tangential or not involved. What is central to them? Relationships between people.

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Why are you so committed to evolution as an answer for life’s origins

WRONG!

You can't even pay attention to what I and others here are telling you, to get even the basics right, can you?

Evolution is what happens ONCE SELF REPLICATING ENTITIES EXIST. The origin of life covers EVENTS BEFORE THE FORMATION OF SELF REPLICATING ENTITIES BY DEFINITION.

What I'm "committed" to, is the hard empirical evidence in over three hundred papers, that the chemical reactions postulated to be involved in the origin of life WORK. Which is far more substantive than mythological assertions about a magic man.

Come, come, Calilasseia. Please show me the series of chemical reactions that produced the first DNA. (And I don’t mean how do we synthesize DNA, now that we know it exists and what molecules it consists of).

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:that you fight at all costs to deny the immaterial?

Lie. Read what I've posted above.

Perhaps I am wrong, but have you ever conceded that there just might possibly, remotely, be anything other than the material? Your credibility is lacking on this issue, for lack of evidence. In all the wide world, your imagination can alight upon nothing that points beyond the material. As you have repeatedly, tirelessly, asserted. Nothing. Not one thing.

I further assert that the reason you can’t see it, is that you are standing on it, and refuse to look down.

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:To admit that the immaterial exists most certainly negates evolution

Bollocks. Oh wait, I dealt with this spastically palsied assertion in a previous post. All it means is that different rules apply to whatever "immaterial" entities are demonstrated to exist.

What “rules”? Your material, chemical reaction, matter-is-all-there-is, “rules”? There are no “rules”. What “rule” gives us the ability to create symbols and interpret them? It is an innate ability that is not present in any chemical reaction we can create. You assert, but cannot establish, that chemical reactions are all there is to it. The attempt to spontaneously generate life, as you hope so fervently to do, died in the 19th century. It was replaced by a simple observation, of the kind that, ordinarily, you would find essential. Life only comes from life. Hmmm. Darn. So far, no exceptions to this simple observation have been, well, observed.

But I am not arguing that your materialistic, rules-oriented, form of the immaterial, exists. I am asserting that the truly immaterial, non-detectable-by-your-scientific-experiments, yet observable and present, actually exists. Such as your own thoughts, separated from your cranium, and stuffed into your e-mails, for all who read them in the future, to see. Your own form of immortality. And without the loss of any of your grey matter! Hmm! Almost like mental telepathy, except with words and/or sounds!

Thought. Imagination. Creativity. Present, yet not seen, not heard and not felt (or at least not understood), unless you choose to let us know. If you were not typing on this forum – we would have no evidence that Calilasseia exists. It is only the immaterial part of you that you can project through the forum. So important – and yet, you are standing on it and, for some reason, can’t look down to realize it is there.

That list of resistance fighters that the movie watchers can’t pull out of your head – you can e-mail it to all of us, if you choose.

Calilasseia wrote:

It does NOT for one moment sweep aside the VAST body of evidence that evolutionary processes exist and work. If you think it does, it says more about your prejudices than it does about me.

There is much to debate here regarding these evolutionary processes, the vast body of evidence supporting them, and the exact nature of the processes themselves. But I will not attempt this in any detail in this thread.

None of them address, or can address, the thoughts in your head. Indeed, any scientific observations take for granted our ability to make them, and depend on that ability. To expect an experiment to explain the creator of an experiment, or what the creator was thinking, or even, what the experiment is about, is like expecting a piece of pottery to explain the potter.

I am not attempting to sweep any evidence away (though at a later time, might argue about what it is evidence for). I am pointing out it is irrelevant.

Suppose for the sake of argument you were to concede that thoughts (such as the list of resistance fighters), are not, and will never be, detectable without your assent. And this implies that they have a non-material component. They are real, and yet have some form of existence that is on a different plane than the material. It intersects with the material. It is expressed to others through material means. But it is not itself entirely material. Otherwise, we could get at it somehow. But we can’t. Suppose you were to concede this.

If you did concede it, wouldn’t that make evolution impossible? Evolution in the sense of molecules to man – chemical reactions to thoughts? Because the thought would have a component that the material cannot explain or duplicate. So it could not come about by strictly material means.

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:which attempts to provide a strictly material explanation.

But since this explanation WORKS, and has been DEMONSTRATED EXPERIMENTALLY TO WORK, this is why it persists. What part of "sticking what what FUCKING WORKS" do you not understand?

What part of not being able to detect my thoughts unless I tell you (or permit you to detect at least in part, from a pre-determined set of pictures, by politely letting you scan my brain while viewing one of said pictures, and act as your willing subject, though it would be simpler and easier to tell you to begin with, because I would have), do you not understand?

What part of having a hard time guessing “What am I thinking right now?”, do you not understand?

What part of “No, I won’t tell you who my resistance comrades are, even though you kill me”, do you not understand?

Now perhaps there is research that can detect thoughts, without any pre-conditions, expressed in words, but I can’t remember you referencing it. Have you?

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:To include the immaterial would negate the whole point of it.

Poppycock. This is a pathetic fantasy on your part. This assertion is as deranged as saying that discovering the existence of waves negates every piece of experimental evidence about the behaviour of particles. It's drivel.

Your analogy misses the point. Waves and particles can be expressed mathematically. The immaterial is the mathematics. That which describes waves and particles is itself neither wave, nor particle.

To pretend that mathematics is a wave or a particle is what you are doing, but without admitting it.

If you were to actually admit that mathematics is not a wave or a particle, or a material thing in any way (it describes material things; it isn’t material itself), then you admit that there are things which you have no materialistic explanation for. But you can’t admit that, or the whole idea of molecules to man evolution falls apart, for lack of an explanation of the immaterial. At best it is incomplete. It might be right in some respects, but it cannot be wholly right, and may even be almost entirely wrong.

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Because the point is to provide an explanation for life without reference to God.

Bollocks. Here we go again with this tiresome creationist fantasy, that any explanation dispensing with superfluous and irrelevant assertions about a magic man,

Setting aside for now the assertion that my beliefs are “superfluous and irrelevant”, you concede my point, do you not? That your objective is to explain life without reference to God?

The argument seems to go like this.

There is no evidence for God.
Evolution explains life, and we don’t need God in our explanation.
Since our explanation has no need of God, it is further evidence that there is no evidence for God.

On the other hand, if you were willing to concede that the immaterial (thoughts, feelings, mathematics) does indeed exist, and cannot be explained by wholly material means, then you have let the divine foot in the door. Because there must be some “other” thing out there besides the material that brings this immaterial stuff to bear. Once you do that, you no longer need to base all of your explanation on the material (nor can you). Some people will go with evolution anyway, and try to shoehorn God into it. I’m not one, but some do. Some people reject evolution, but aren’t sure who the super intelligence is.

Calilasseia wrote:
is purportedly inspired by wilful and malicious ideological rejection of your doctrine.

Willful might apply. Rejection does require an act of the will, I think. But I would not pass judgment on either the malice or the ideology. We all have reasons for believing as we do, and are reluctant to change them unless desperation (or some other powerful feeling) motivates us to seek different, or at least, additional, ones. Like the alcoholic, who, desperate to find an escape from alcoholism, turns to God. Or at least, to a spiritual program, like the 12 steps.

Calilasseia wrote:

What part of the word "irrelevant" do you not understand? Your magic man IS irrelevant, and we have the empirical data to this effect. It's GAME OVER. REALITY says your magic man is irrelevant.

You are standing on your evidence for the immaterial, but won’t look down to see it. At the moment, I’m just trying to encourage you to look down, to the immaterial and other ways of knowing. Later (not in this thread), I’ll go into more detail on my reasons for looking up. It’s all about the evidence that you say just isn’t there.

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:If you want an explanation that requires God, there is a much simpler (and to many, more plausible) explanation. God did it.

Except we have ZERO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for your mythology's merely asserted magic man.

I believe your basic premise is, that honestly, “I would be perfectly fine with God, if I could only find him out there somewhere. Give me something, anything, that is even remotely suggestive of God, and I would happily run with it. Why can’t I simply see God? Wouldn’t that make it all obvious? No faith required, just show me The Man?”

I am putting words in your mouth, so I must rely on you to confirm or correct me there.

Calilasseia wrote:
Once again, REALITY says your magic man is irrelevant. We need your magic man in much the same way as we need fishnet condoms and fur coats for tropical fish.

We do look at “reality”, a bit differently, which is the point of this thread.

But isn’t there a difference between evidence for God’s existence, and need for God? Are you saying that even if there was evidence for God’s existence, that you wouldn’t care, because we don’t need him anyway?

Wilberforce1860 wrote: But isn’t there a difference between evidence for God’s existence, and need for God? Are you saying that even if there was evidence for God’s existence, that you wouldn’t care, because we don’t need him anyway?

I don't see any evidence for God, and I don't see any need for God (or any other invented entity).

I think there is a want for God, a desire for God. Mostly by people who are too intellectually lazy to learn about the underpinnings of the world they are in and consider the actual underpinnings of their actions.

But a need? No.

There is no necessity.

If God-belief vanished overnight, the world would certainly lose something. Some people might be less inclined to treat their fellow man fairly without the threat of eternal damnation hanging over them, or less including to help without the promise of some eternal rewards spurring them on.

However, nothing in God-belief is actually necessary for any and all person or civilisation to continue to function.

To my mind, God is just as necessary and important as Bilbo Baggins, Atticus Finch, Sherlock Holmes or Don Quixote de la Mancha. The stories they're in reveal something about the human condition and they can be passed on enduringly for future generations, but ultimately, the world could go merrily sailing on if they'd never existed at all.

"the human condition" is such a stupid buzz word.

Scar wrote:"the human condition" is such a stupid buzz word.

That's because its three words.

What it means to be alive, then? Or, what it means to be an intelligent, social primate and interact with other, intelligent primates?

Any improvement?

Its not like its a new concept, or even a particularly recently invented phrase. Its been around for decades, so I'd hardly consider it a buzzword - which are usually characterized by rapid introduction, high usage and then equally rapid disappearance from common vocabulary.

Just a general observation, not necessarily pertaining to anyone in particular: It will generally be a futile and fruitless endeavour to engage in a discussion of specific points regarding topics like science with someone who does not have the fundamental ability to think properly.

For instance, suppose someone made the following argument: "All rabbits are white. That animal there is white. Therefore, that animal there is a rabbit."

You try to explain to him that his argument is structurally invalid and, by the way, it's also not true that all rabbits are white.

He responds by typing reams and reams of notes, often illustrated with charts and graphs, in attempt to prove that all rabbits are, indeed, white. All the while he is completely oblivious to the fact that his argument fails at the level of basic logic, even if he were to succeed in demonstrating that all rabbits are white.

I'm at a loss as to how one would deal with such a person, other than treating him as a source of entertainment and amusement.

Shrunk wrote:I'm at a loss as to how one would deal with such a person, other than treating him as a source of entertainment and amusement.

And by explaining things for the benefit not of that person but for those who might be otherwise sucked in by their nonsense.

ADParker wrote:

Shrunk wrote:I'm at a loss as to how one would deal with such a person, other than treating him as a source of entertainment and amusement.

And by explaining things for the benefit not of that person but for those who might be otherwise sucked in by their nonsense.

I can't imagine anyone being sucked in by Wilberforce's nonsense who's brain hasn't already been infested with the creationist mindworm. But some of the info provided here has been fascinating and important, like the neuroscience articles posted by Cali.

bert wrote:

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Why are you so committed to evolution as an answer for life’s origins, that you fight at all costs to deny the immaterial? To admit that the immaterial exists most certainly negates evolution, which attempts to provide a strictly material explanation. To include the immaterial would negate the whole point of it. Because the point is to provide an explanation for life without reference to God. If you want an explanation that requires God, there is a much simpler (and to many, more plausible) explanation. God did it.

I just laughed at this before (because it is laughable), but will respond this time.

"To admit that the immaterial exists most certainly negates evolution".
No it doesn't. Not unless by "immaterial" you really mean "The LORD GOD creating life on earth exactly as described in the book of Genesis"

Allow me to make ADParker's point a bit more clear, however futile my effort probably is.

For the sake of argument, let's assume god exists (or existed) and suppose the only thing he did was creating life and then let evolution run its course like described by the theory of evolution as supported by the wealth of evidence that science has collected so far. Do you understand, Wilberforce, that in this scenario there is the immaterial (god) AND evolution. Do you understand that the existence of the immaterial does not negate evolution?

Bert
It is sad what religion does to basic mental capabilities like logical reasoning

I find the artificial dichotomy between abiogenesis, and evolution, that evolution advocates feel obliged to make, to be quite awkward for you. On this very forum, every one who has spoken on the issue, to my knowledge, buys into materialistic abiogenesis, as an essential (logical) precursor to evolution. Otherwise, you just abandon the field to God, as you have just done, and if you are going to let Him in, why do you need evolution to explain life? That is my point.

I find your view of the immaterial a bit odd. You seem to limit it, in your argument, to God. I have argued in this thread that there is plenty of evidence for the immaterial in our everyday life, quite apart from God. And that it is this very quality of the immaterial that poses a problem for materialistic abiogenesis.

Given that you have life to start with, there is then the issue of whether evolution from molecules to man actually occurred. This is another question, but I won't address it in this thread.

ADParker wrote:

bert wrote:

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Why are you so committed to evolution as an answer for life’s origins, that you fight at all costs to deny the immaterial? To admit that the immaterial exists most certainly negates evolution, which attempts to provide a strictly material explanation. To include the immaterial would negate the whole point of it. Because the point is to provide an explanation for life without reference to God. If you want an explanation that requires God, there is a much simpler (and to many, more plausible) explanation. God did it.

I just laughed at this before (because it is laughable), but will respond this time.

"To admit that the immaterial exists most certainly negates evolution".
No it doesn't. Not unless by "immaterial" you really mean "The LORD GOD creating life on earth exactly as described in the book of Genesis"

Allow me to make ADParker's point a bit more clear, however futile my effort probably is.

For the sake of argument, let's assume god exists (or existed) and suppose the only thing he did was creating life and then let evolution run its course like described by the theory of evolution as supported by the wealth of evidence that science has collected so far. Do you understand, Wilberforce, that in this scenario there is the immaterial (god) AND evolution. Do you understand that the existence of the immaterial does not negate evolution?

Bert
It is sad what religion does to basic mental capabilities like logical reasoning

Or there could be an innumerable plethora of "immaterial entities", none of which touched on evolution in any way. There is simply no connection between "there is such a thing as the immaterial" and the possibility that evolution occurred (and continues to occur), it is a complete non sequitur.

Wilberforce1860; you have asserted numerous times now that the existence of "the immaterial" negates the possibility of life having evolved on this planet. I have yet to see from you what you think it is about "the immaterial" that could cause this negation. Care to elaborate?

I assert that we (and all of life) are a synthesis of the material and the immaterial. One evidence of the immaterial in even the smallest cell is its ability to make decisions (to eat or not to eat, to move), which represent an exercise of will. This decision making process is not present in strictly material things. The point is that strictly materialistic abiogenesis is impossible, because it cannot introduce the immaterial.

Shrunk wrote:Just a general observation, not necessarily pertaining to anyone in particular: It will generally be a futile and fruitless endeavour to engage in a discussion of specific points regarding topics like science with someone who does not have the fundamental ability to think properly.

For instance, suppose someone made the following argument: "All rabbits are white. That animal there is white. Therefore, that animal there is a rabbit."

You try to explain to him that his argument is structurally invalid and, by the way, it's also not true that all rabbits are white.

He responds by typing reams and reams of notes, often illustrated with charts and graphs, in attempt to prove that all rabbits are, indeed, white. All the while he is completely oblivious to the fact that his argument fails at the level of basic logic, even if he were to succeed in demonstrating that all rabbits are white.

I'm at a loss as to how one would deal with such a person, other than treating him as a source of entertainment and amusement.

Did you have a specific argument in mind?

Anyone who gives a flying fuck, raise your hands.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

I assert that we (and all of life) are a synthesis of the material and the immaterial. One evidence of the immaterial in even the smallest cell is its ability to make decisions (to eat or not to eat, to move), which represent an exercise of will. This decision making process is not present in strictly material things. The point is that strictly materialistic abiogenesis is impossible, because it cannot introduce the immaterial.

Assertion..refuge of the poorly informed - equipped with foggy language....do you really think a virus makes a "decision"???

Or your T-cells "decide" to attack it???

Or a slime mold goes on a hunger strike??

Do you think these colonies of bacteria "vote" and have done so for 3.5 billion years or so??? The luddites of the biome.



learn something

Archean[edit]
Some Archean rock formations show macroscopic similarity to modern microbial structures, leading to the inference that these structures represent evidence of ancient life, namely stromatolites. However, others regard these patterns as having been due to natural material deposition or other mechanism, and thus abiogenic. Scientists have argued for origin due to stromatolites because of the presence of organic globule clusters within the thin layers of the stromatolites, and of aragonite nanocrystals (both features of current stromatolites),[5] and because of the persistence of an inferred biological signal through changing environmental circumstances.[6][7]

Younger[edit]

Stromatolites in the Hoyt Limestone (Cambrian) exposed at Lester Park, near Saratoga Springs, New York.

Pre-Cambrian stromatolites in the Siyeh Formation, Glacier National Park

Stromatolites (Pika Formation, Middle Cambrian) near Helen Lake, Banff National Park, Canada
Stromatolites are a major constituent of the fossil record as to first forms of life on earth and date to 3.5 billion years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite

Tune your old TV between stations and watch the remains of the big bang....or dwell in a world most adolescents get past.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:I find the artificial dichotomy between abiogenesis, and evolution, that evolution advocates feel obliged to make, to be quite awkward for you.

You appear to be no more an expert on other people than you are on science.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:
I find the artificial dichotomy between abiogenesis, and evolution, that evolution advocates feel obliged to make, to be quite awkward for you.

That is, no doubt, due to you having been indoctrinated to conflate the two (and probably more).
Biological evolution ("evolution" is just change over time) is clearly a different subject than abiogenesis (the origin of life from a previous state of non-life). It may even be that some magical entity poofed life into existence after which that life evolved as the relevant sciences have revealed. But then it may be that reality only began last Thursday, including each of us with (false) memories of supposed past events.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:On this very forum, every one who has spoken on the issue, to my knowledge, buys into materialistic abiogenesis, as an essential (logical) precursor to evolution.

It is a rational most likely scenario yes. I don't know who you think assumes it to be both logical and essential.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Otherwise, you just abandon the field to God, as you have just done, and if you are going to let Him in, why do you need evolution to explain life? That is my point.

Then your point is ridiculous. What you have just displayed there is the typical "God of the Gaps" assertion, a specific form of the argument from ignorance logical fallacy (fundamental error in reasoning) which asserts that if we don't have an answer then the answer must automatically be "Goddidit".

In other words; even if we were to reject any and all "materialistic abiogenesis" hypotheses that would in no way make "Goddidit" even a viable alternative answer.

And why do we need..?! You seem to be assuming that if God exists then everything can be automatically 'explained' by "Goddidit", and any other explanation should be discarded. "Here is all of the collected evidence for biological evolution...of God exists? Forget it then, let's just say Goddidit and be done with it!" What next; "Beef comes from cows...oh wait God exists, so therefore beef doesn't come from cows, it is created directly by God!!!!!"

Wilberforce1860 wrote:I find your view of the immaterial a bit odd. You seem to limit it, in your argument, to God. I have argued in this thread that there is plenty of evidence for the immaterial in our everyday life, quite apart from God. And that it is this very quality of the immaterial that poses a problem for materialistic abiogenesis.

"Plenty of evidence" that you have failed to provide, or convince anyone but yourself of.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Given that you have life to start with, there is then the issue of whether evolution from molecules to man actually occurred. This is another question, but I won't address it in this thread.

"Molecules to man"?! Gotta love those ol' creotard chestnuts, they do make me laugh!

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

ADParker wrote:
Or there could be an innumerable plethora of "immaterial entities", none of which touched on evolution in any way. There is simply no connection between "there is such a thing as the immaterial" and the possibility that evolution occurred (and continues to occur), it is a complete non sequitur.

Wilberforce1860; you have asserted numerous times now that the existence of "the immaterial" negates the possibility of life having evolved on this planet. I have yet to see from you what you think it is about "the immaterial" that could cause this negation. Care to elaborate?

I assert that we (and all of life) are a synthesis of the material and the immaterial. One evidence of the immaterial in even the smallest cell is its ability to make decisions (to eat or not to eat, to move), which represent an exercise of will.

My confidence in your grasp of such biology is insufficient for me to buy your assertion that "the smallest sell" truly exercises "will". But even if that were true, it would not follow that it was evidence for the immaterial. You have merely insisted that things like will are immaterial and then used that as a basis to claim that an example of will is evidence of the immaterial. Your argument is therefore tragically circular.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:This decision making process is not present in strictly material things.

This is nothing but a rewording of your initial claim, more circular 'reasoning' in action. Do you have evidence that "strictly material" things cannot include decision making? Or for that matter that "the immaterial" cannot be an emergent property of biology?
Because as I see it one of your problems and biased assumptions is that the immaterial is magical. Call it what you will; "divine" or something, it makes no real difference. The point is that you think "the immaterial", things like thoughts and will require some kind of magic to exist. Evidence please.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:The point is that strictly materialistic abiogenesis is impossible, because it cannot introduce the immaterial.

And if you assert that enough times do you think it will suddenly become a fact?

ADParker wrote:

And if you assert that enough times do you think it will suddenly become a fact?

Well, it worked out quite well for a certain Austrian corporal!

ADParker wrote:[ Your argument is therefore tragically circular.

/thread

This little augur has drilled itself so deeply into WIlberforce1860 no light can penetrate. His arguments and queries have no direction, no point, and thus he concludes god did it.

You might note, WIlberforce1860, that the Buddha never touched on the topic of a god as the question was irrelevant. He did not do so for scientific purpose, he did so for spiritual purpose. It has none. Discrimination is the capacity to see life clearly and to choose wisely. The seeing and choosing is up to you, WIlberforce1860. Even if there is a god, it is still up to you.