ZenMode
Well-known member
Physically, yes. But are you your skin? Are you your bones? What is the "you" that is thinking thoughts? Feeling feelings, etc?
Archaeology of the New Testament
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
is everyone retarded?
beam me up scotty, there's no intelligent life down here.
beam me up scotty, there's no intelligent life down here.
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
No, I don't think that . A 'being' refers to a living person. That's ridiculous. And you cannot precisely scientifically explain what consciousness is or what causes it, so I'm not going to use sloppy, vague language to describe something that might exist at a higher level of reality than matter and energy.
Instead of trying to get me to use your words, you are going to have to accept my words. I think the best current explanation for the cause of a lawful and rational universe is some kind of higher rational agency or organizing principle. Common sense and logic tell me that the rational never comes from the inanimate and irrational.
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
you think neurology is not science?
fukc you, your words are dumb and you;re an imbecile.
First, you didn't explain anything. Science describes, it doesn't explain. Nobody has an explanation for why human-invented mathematics of motion, gravity, electromagnetism so perfectly describes and reflects the physical universe. That is totally unexpected and hints at a rational fabric underlying all reality which our rational minds can access.
Second, the physics of mechanics are not an 'after the fact' method of analysis. We can and do use the laws of motion to accurately predict the past. Give n enough information, that is precisely why we know when Halleys comet made a pass around the sun five thousand years ago.
The mathematical laws of physics seem to have an existence independent of spacetime and seem to exist in some kind of higher platonic realm. That is what the esteemed theoretical physicists Aleksandr Valenkin and Alan Guth say. I think that makes sense.
Correct.
The mathematical laws of physics seem to have an existence independent of spacetime and seem to exist in some kind of higher platonic realm. That is what the esteemed theoretical physicists Aleksandr Valenkin and Alan Guth say.
Neuroscience does not have a universally accepted definition for consciousness, nor can neuroscience scientifically explain what causes our subjective conscious experience
In general, atheists hate the idea of free will because it contradicts the notion of a pure materialistic determinism, where all human activities can be explained by inanimate atomic particles 'bumping' into each other, aka the laws of physics and chemistry.
"Quantum electrodynamics has not only survived but prospered after more than 50 years it has become the prototype against which every other quantum field theory is measured, and its status as the most successful theory we have ever had in physics remains unchallenged."
~ CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
weasel word idiot soup.
shut the fuck up.
its a result of neuronal activity designed to sense and predict the environment to aid in survival.
That's not a scientific explanation.
Just hollering that there is electrical activity between inanimate electrons in the brain does not explain how and why that creates a rich subjective mental experience, or why we have a unitary experience of a personal identity we think of as a "me" who is having these experiences.
Like MAGAts, I thought they believed that way so they couldn't be held accountable for their thoughts and actions.
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
it fully is a scientific explanation.
I hadn't thought of that, but it makes sense for those who want to escape accountability.
Nope, it's arm waving, it doesn't explain anything.
The first quarks and electrons appeared somewhere around a thousandth of a microsecond after the inflationary big bang started.
It's their way of saying "It's not my responsibility" or "It's not my fault". IMO, it's a very immature POV to dodge personal accountability.
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
of course it does. ganglion of cells... sensing things....
like an eye or an ear.
you're a fucking idiot grifter.
Correlation does not explain causation.
You can't make the jump from saying that electrons are conveying electrical signals in the brain, to saying that explains precisely why humans have a subjective mental experience and a unitary sense of personal identity we call "me" that experiences are happening to.
You are jumping over a a massive gap of unknowns and uncertainties to declare premature victory. That doesn't even remotely resemble scientific inquiry.