Blasphemy or Biblical?

[_subgenius]

Again, you don't seem to be addressing anyone's arguments but your own. To hear you tell it, scientists believe the skull acts as some sort of bone beaker, full of some cocktail of bubbling chemicals. The brain is not a flagon of chemicals. It is a highly complex organ. When you talk about consciousness as a "chemical reaction" you're not describing anyone's scientific viewpoint.
If you'd care to try to educate yourself quickly on how the brain works and start again, I'd be all ears. :)

I am beginning to feel bad that you may actually be unable to grasp simple concepts...because it is clear you are unable to read a complete post.
If you bother to actually read, you will see that my "argument" assumes nothing that is not known.
First we have what you have already conceded...the brain is the source of consciousness...complex or simple.
Beyond that we have two choices to make
1. Consciousness is natural
2. Consciousness is supernatural
If it is (1) then the rules are simple, no matter how complex the bio-mechanical system is..these rules still apply....protons, electrons, positive charge, negative charge...all adhere to the same rules whether in a complex human brain or in a frog's big toe.
If it is (2) then....well, that probably scares you

When you talk about consciousness as a "chemical reaction" you're not describing anyone's scientific viewpoint.

except yours, of course (and honestly science demands that it is biomechanical, but that may to be difficult a concept for you at this point)
...let us see what you cited here : viewtopic.php?p=574477#p574477
specifically this little gem about consciousness - (emphasis mine)
"...to understand the neural and psychological mechanisms that underlie it."
"In medicine, consciousness is assessed as a combination of verbal behavior, arousal, brain activity and purposeful movement." - please, describe how any one of the previous listed are distinct and separate from any and all chemical reaction......i can wait.

what has become obvious is that "you think" that "you think", which under natural law is impossible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_hand_syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_of_a ... _of_agency

[_Buffalo]

Again, you don't seem to be addressing anyone's arguments but your own. To hear you tell it, scientists believe the skull acts as some sort of bone beaker, full of some cocktail of bubbling chemicals. The brain is not a flagon of chemicals. It is a highly complex organ. When you talk about consciousness as a "chemical reaction" you're not describing anyone's scientific viewpoint.
If you'd care to try to educate yourself quickly on how the brain works and start again, I'd be all ears. :)

I am beginning to feel bad that you may actually be unable to grasp simple concepts...because it is clear you are unable to read a complete post.
If you bother to actually read, you will see that my "argument" assumes nothing that is not known.
First we have what you have already conceded...the brain is the source of consciousness...complex or simple.
Beyond that we have two choices to make
1. Consciousness is natural
2. Consciousness is supernatural
If it is (1) then the rules are simple, no matter how complex the bio-mechanical system is..these rules still apply....protons, electrons, positive charge, negative charge...all adhere to the same rules whether in a complex human brain or in a frog's big toe.
If it is (2) then....well, that probably scares you

When you talk about consciousness as a "chemical reaction" you're not describing anyone's scientific viewpoint.

except yours, of course (and honestly science demands that it is biomechanical, but that may to be difficult a concept for you at this point)
...let us see what you cited here : http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 77#p574477
specifically this little gem about consciousness - (emphasis mine)
"...to understand the neural and psychological mechanisms that underlie it."
"In medicine, consciousness is assessed as a combination of verbal behavior, arousal, brain activity and purposeful movement." - please, describe how any one of the previous listed are distinct and separate from any and all chemical reaction......i can wait.

what has become obvious is that "you think" that "you think", which under natural law is impossible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_hand_syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_of_a ... _of_agency

Are you going to present some sort of cogent argument?

While you're at this line of "reasoning," perhaps you can posit that "chemicals" in the muscles are insufficient to explain the phenomenon of "strength." And that if strength comes about naturally, a frog and a human should have identical strength, since they both rely on the same basic structure types. :)

We can apply your reasoning to so many areas. Aluminum and electronics cannot account for flight. A car is made of the same materials, yet it can't fly. Ergo, flight can only be explained supernaturally. :)

Computer chips are made of silicon. So are breast implants. Yet breast implants can't compute. The missing ingredient must be magic! :)

[_bcuzbcuz]

Computer chips are made of silicon. So are breast implants. Yet breast implants can't compute. The missing ingredient must be magic! :)

Ahhh! I like it. It all makes sense now. Big breasts and computers generate the most money. It is magic.

[_Themis]

First we have what you have already conceded...the brain is the source of consciousness...complex or simple.
Beyond that we have two choices to make
1. Consciousness is natural
2. Consciousness is supernatural
If it is (1) then the rules are simple, no matter how complex the bio-mechanical system is..these rules still apply....protons, electrons, positive charge, negative charge...all adhere to the same rules whether in a complex human brain or in a frog's big toe.
If it is (2) then....well, that probably scares you

Depends on how you define supernatural and natural.

[_subgenius]

Are you going to present some sort of cogent argument?

obviously, you are incapable of recognizing it, in any form.

While you're at this line of "reasoning," perhaps you can posit that "chemicals" in the muscles are insufficient to explain the phenomenon of "strength." And that if strength comes about naturally, a frog and a human should have identical strength, since they both rely on the same basic structure types. :)

regardless of their "strength" the muscles still adhere to the same fundamental natural laws...you are way off...wood has the same basic structure...but a 2x4 has greater strength than a toothpick...their complexity or relative sizes do not change their fundamental adherence to the laws of "wood"...ie, combustible.

We can apply your reasoning to so many areas. Aluminum and electronics cannot account for flight. A car is made of the same materials, yet it can't fly. Ergo, flight can only be explained supernaturally. :)

idiotic

Computer chips are made of silicon. So are breast implants. Yet breast implants can't compute. The missing ingredient must be magic! :)

i don't even think you are coherent anymore...or is this code for a distress signal? tap once if your captors are still in the room with you....


wow...when you lose...you lose BIG

[_Buffalo]

idiotic

I'm glad you can recognize your argument for what it is when it is applied generally. That's progress.

[_Themis]

Here is the definition of supernatural

"Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

Now if you mean beyond scientific understanding the I could agree at least to some extent since science does not have it all figured out. There are many different arguments about consciousness and what it is or means. Now if you mean beyond the laws of nature then we will have to look at what that means as well. That could be to much trouble since there is just as much or more arguments about it. For me the laws of nature would be just what is possible. Of course that does not help, but what is it that we need beyond what are brain and body are made of that are necessary to have a consciousness. Religion doesn't know enough to even begin to provide anything useful here.

[_gdemetz]

As I stated before, I don't believe that OBE's are exactly the same as NDE's. I realize that OBE's are a rare occurrence, but many of the testimonies of the people who had them are very consistent, and they provide very strong evidence of the spirit within man.

[_Drifting]

As I stated before, I don't believe that OBE's are exactly the same as NDE's. I realize that OBE's are a rare occurrence, but many of the testimonies of the people who had them are very consistent, and they provide very strong evidence of the spirit within man.

No they don't.
The rare minority of the human races experience that they relate as an out of body experience only provides you with strong evidence because it affirms that which you already believe. In fact the evidence being that more than 99% of the worlds population do not experience out of body experiences leaves us with the conclusion that there is hardly any evidence of the spirit within man. Factually speaking that is.

[_gdemetz]

A rare species only needs to be seen once to confirm it's existence.