10 Jul 13
Originally posted by PsychoPawnConciousness is the mystery. There aren't mysteries about it. The whole thing is a mystery science can't answer and there's a good chance it will always be so.
Of course there are myseries about consciousness that science can't explain. So what?
Religion doesn't provide anything but the most trivial of explanations that it does for everything: God just did it. It's not a real explanation with any actual evidence to back it up.
If "god said so" is the only reason you can come up with why you don't kill and eat other human beings vs pigs then I pity you.
I disagree with your statement about religion but can't see any sense arguing it with you. I don't plan to change my mind and I guess you feel the same.
Do you believe in the idea of a soul?
10 Jul 13
Originally posted by dryhumpConciousness is the mystery. There aren't mysteries about it.
Conciousness is the mystery. There aren't mysteries about it. The whole thing is a mystery science can't answer and there's a good chance it will always be so.
I disagree with your statement about religion but can't see any sense arguing it with you. I don't plan to change my mind and I guess you feel the same.
Do you believe in the idea of a soul?
I disagree. There are some things we know and some we don't. It's not just one thing.
Do you believe in the idea of a soul?
If you mean something that is separate from your body that somehow can exist outside it, no. I think a "soul" exists in as much as a "personality" exists.
10 Jul 13
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI'm willing to drop this if you are bored with the topic, but I am curious about your views on consciousness. Do you believe it to be a mere by product of bigger brains?
[b]Conciousness is the mystery. There aren't mysteries about it.
I disagree. There are some things we know and some we don't. It's not just one thing.
Do you believe in the idea of a soul?
If you mean something that is separate from your body that somehow can exist outside it, no. I think a "soul" exists in as much as a "personality" exists.[/b]
10 Jul 13
Originally posted by dryhumpConsciousness is a pretty vague term, but essentially, yes.
I'm willing to drop this if you are bored with the topic, but I am curious about your views on consciousness. Do you believe it to be a mere by product of bigger brains?
I think as we've studied other animals close to use we have and will find that there are different related abilities.
11 Jul 13
Originally posted by PsychoPawnYou believe it because you want to, we can agree that far, right? Certainly, science can't yet explain consciousness, and might never be able to. Many scientists advocate the bigger brain theory, but it's by no means a sure fire theory. Did you know that the ant has the biggest brain when compared to body size? Also, parrots are at least as intelligent as dogs, even though their brains are much smaller.
Consciousness is a pretty vague term, but essentially, yes.
I think as we've studied other animals close to use we have and will find that there are different related abilities.
11 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by dryhumpYou believe it because you want to, we can agree that far, right?
You believe it because you want to, we can agree that far, right? Certainly, science can't yet explain consciousness, and might never be able to. Many scientists advocate the bigger brain theory, but it's by no means a sure fire theory. Did you know that the ant has the biggest brain when compared to body size? Also, parrots are at least as intelligent as dogs, even though their brains are much smaller.
Sure, so what? We all believe what we want to believe. There isn't anyone holding a gun to my head forcing me to believe anything.
Certainly, science can't yet explain consciousness, and might never be able to.
I'd say the same about religion. The difference in my mind is that at least science is trying. Religion has given up and accepted the most trivial and meaningless of explanations and expects their followers to believe it on faith alone.
Many scientists advocate the bigger brain theory, but it's by no means a sure fire theory.
All theories can and do change as evidence dictates. No offense, but this isn't a major drawback in my opinion.
Did you know that the ant has the biggest brain when compared to body size? Also, parrots are at least as intelligent as dogs, even though their brains are much smaller.
Both cool facts. Also ants are supposedly the strongest when compared relative to body weight.
12 Jul 13
Originally posted by dryhumpThere was an interesting article about consciousness in New Scientist a few weeks ago. They got volunteers to make some trivial decision while under a PET scan, and looked at what parts of their brains were active. They found that the decision was made before the volunteer was conscious of it, but the process of them becoming conscious of the decision involved all areas of the brain being 'informed' of the decision. So consciousness is connected with the overall synchronization of the brain. I think there's been more progress in this area than you are imagining.
You believe it because you want to, we can agree that far, right? Certainly, science can't yet explain consciousness, and might never be able to. Many scientists advocate the bigger brain theory, but it's by no means a sure fire theory. Did you know that the ant has the biggest brain when compared to body size? Also, parrots are at least as intelligent as dogs, even though their brains are much smaller.
12 Jul 13
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThat doesn't "explain" consciousness. It just tells us something about how it works. Actually if, as the experiment suggests, free will might be an illusion, then the fact of our being conscious seems even weirder! Presumably it would make no difference to our behaviour if we were "functional zombies".
There was an interesting article about consciousness in New Scientist a few weeks ago. They got volunteers to make some trivial decision while under a PET scan, and looked at what parts of their brains were active. They found that the decision was made before the volunteer was conscious of it, but the process of them becoming conscious of the decision ...[text shortened]... zation of the brain. I think there's been more progress in this area than you are imagining.
12 Jul 13
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI actually did read that article. Consciousness is a subject I am fascinated by. I've been looking through some of the articles on this site
There was an interesting article about consciousness in New Scientist a few weeks ago. They got volunteers to make some trivial decision while under a PET scan, and looked at what parts of their brains were active. They found that the decision was made before the volunteer was conscious of it, but the process of them becoming conscious of the decision ...[text shortened]... zation of the brain. I think there's been more progress in this area than you are imagining.
http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Philosophy/Philosophy_of_Mind/Consciousness_Studies/
Some of it is too dense for me, but some of the articles are really good and understandable. I've been looking through the free will and determinism stuff a little deeper.
http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Free_Will_and_Determinism/
14 Jul 13
Originally posted by TeinosukeI wonder really if "tolerance" though popular, is a really to be admired quality. As your question pointedly illustrates, there are many brands of Christians, just as there are differing Muslims, Buddhists, and virtually every other major religious groups.
Because all Christians are exactly the same, you mean?
If members of a religion are morally opposed to anything, being tolerant of it would make them hypocrites.
14 Jul 13
Originally posted by normbenignTolerance is to be admired because there are people all over the world with widely divergent opinions and somehow we have to try to live together. If a person is not morally opposed to something, then his acceptance of it is not really "tolerant".
I wonder really if "tolerance" though popular, is a really to be admired quality. If members of a religion are morally opposed to anything, being tolerant of it would make them hypocrites.
14 Jul 13
Originally posted by normbenignI'm not sure what you think "tolerance" is, but I don't quite get your objection. If there is someone who is vehemently opposed to eating rice, then the best of luck to them. If they don't want to eat rice, that's not my problem. If they think I will go to the eternal burning rice field for eating rice, that's their opinion. It's no longer "tolerant" if they are actively trying to stop me from eating rice. Do you think rice worshippers should actively try to prevent others from eating rice if they don't want to be "hypocrites"?
I wonder really if "tolerance" though popular, is a really to be admired quality. As your question pointedly illustrates, there are many brands of Christians, just as there are differing Muslims, Buddhists, and virtually every other major religious groups.
If members of a religion are morally opposed to anything, being tolerant of it would make them hypocrites.