Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why materialist neuroscience must necessarily remain a pseudo-discipline

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

At MercatorNet today:

all that fMRI ((brain imaging) really does is show which brain areas have high oxygen levels when a person is thinking something. It simply cannot tell us what people are thinking, because many brain centres are active and those that are active may be activated for many reasons. Each brain is unique so data from studies must be averaged. But thoughts are not averaged; they belong to the individual.

Then, when you are done with that you run smack dab into the hard problem of qualia.

Qualia? As Mario Beauregard and I (Denyse O’Leary) wrote in The Spiritual Brain,

There are good reasons for thinking that the evidence for materialism will actually never arrive. For example, there is the problem of qualia. Qualia (singular, quale) are how things appear to us individually—the experiential aspects of our mental lives that can be accessed through introspection. Every person is unique, so complete understanding of another person’s consciousness is not likely possible in principle, as we saw in Chapter Four. Rather, when we communicate, we rely on general agreement on an overlapping range of meaning. For example, historian Amy Butler Greenfield has written a three-hundred-page book about one primary color, A Perfect Red.

As “the color of desire,” red is a quale if ever there was one. Reviewer Diane Ackerman notes:

Anger us, and we see red. An unfaithful woman is branded with a scarlet letter. In red-light districts, people buy carnal pleasures. We like to celebrate red-letter days and roll out the red carpet, while trying to avoid red tape, red herrings and going into the red. Indeed, fashion houses rise and fall on the subtleties of shades of red. Yet, however “red” affects us individually, we agree communally to use the word for a range of meanings and connotations, not merely a range in the color spectrum. (pp. 104–5)

Sometimes, the signals can be completely opposite and we still converge on a common meaning! In the United States, red connotes “conservative” in politics; in Canada, it connotes “liberal.”

Scan that, genius. Your first task will be to sort out the people who are exclusively Canadian in culture from those who are exclusively American in culture, and good luck with it. You picked it up; you own it.

Materialist neuroscience has a hard time with qualia because they are not easily reducible to a simple, nonconscious explanation. In The Astonishing Hypothesis, Francis Crick grumbles:

It is certainly possible that there may be aspects of consciousness, such as qualia, that science will not be able to explain. We have learned to live with such limitations in the past (e.g., limitations of quantum mechanics) and we may have to live with them again.

Crick was a real scientist, honest enough to admit that. Don’t expect quacks, cranks, and hustlers to notice, or want to. They take refuge in pseudo-disciplines, claiming that, as a book review in The Scientist put it,

“‘Brains are hot,’ Sally Satel and Scott O. Lilienfeld acknowledge in Brainwashed, their ‘exposé of mindless neuroscience’ (mostly practiced not by neuroscientists, they stress, but by ‘neuropundits,’ among others). The ‘mediagenic’ technology of fMRI imaging has made the brain, aglow with metabolic hotspots, into a rainbow emblem of the faith that science will soon empower us to explain, control, expose, exploit, or excuse every wayward human behavior from buying to lying, from craving to crime.”

This is not so much an unsolved problem as an unsolvable one, at least in the terms in which the materialist wants it solved.

Comments
keiths, I truly doubt you ever truly were a Christian for I hold that once you have had a personal experience of Christ, however minor or great, there is no undoing such an experience for a person having such an experience, as this following women did,,
Have You Experienced Jesus - Episode 8 - video Excerpt: Kay Sorenson a former Las Vegas Singer at the age of 46 had an amazing born again experience https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNcXkMxQjDU&feature=player_detailpage#t=400s
,, has their heart changed from the inside out not the other way around. You seem to have merely assented to a personal opinion of Jesus and then later, with no root within yourself (parable of the sower), changed your mind when circumstances became contrary, and not to have personally experienced Him or His word (as the parable of the sower holds) and to have developed a meaningful relationship with Him!
What we need is a living encounter with God! - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnlTIODfbhY
Ask yourself keiths have you truly had what you can call a 'living encounter' with God where you knew that you knew that God had done something real in your life? As to your strawman version of the soul keiths, I've been a Christian for most of my adult life, gone to many different types of Churches from strict Catholics to dancing Pentecostals, and I have never heard such a strict definition for the soul as to exclude any negative feedback for the body whatsoever. In fact, in many places in scripture it mentions a constant battling against the desires of the flesh,,, for instance this scripture from St. Paul comes to mind:
Romans 7 15-25 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.
Now I certainly don't see how you can square that with your strawman definition of the soul keiths!,,, but more importantly keiths, you have blatantly ignored results of the science I presented for you,,, https://uncommondescent.com/neuroscience/why-materialist-neuroscience-must-necessarily-remain-a-pseudo-discipline/#comment-459110 ,, as to the quantum foundation of reality itself. Results that establish consciousness as the base of reality by '80 orders of magnitude' no less. Results that literally blow any materialistic/atheistic conception of reality out of the water. Why do you ignore staggering results like these from what our best, most unambiguous, science can tell us about the nature of reality just to focus on your strawman version of a soul? Scientifically it is inexcusable for you to ignore such a staggering result and it clearly reveals that you could really care less about pursuing the truth but are instead a dogmatist who is only concerned with pushing your atheism! verse:
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
Quotes:
“No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” (Max Planck, father of Quantum Mechanics, as cited in de Purucker, Gottfried. 1940. The Esoteric Tradition. California: Theosophical University Press, ch. 13). Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics - John Hopkins University Excerpt: It is more than 80 years since the discovery of quantum mechanics gave us the most fundamental insight ever into our nature: the overturning of the Copernican Revolution, and the restoration of us human beings to centrality in the Universe. And yet, have you ever before read a sentence having meaning similar to that of my preceding sentence? Likely you have not, and the reason you have not is, in my opinion, that physicists are in a state of denial… https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-quantum-enigma-of-consciousness-and-the-identity-of-the-designer/ The Easter Question - Eben Alexander, M.D. Harvard Neurosurgeon - March 2013 Excerpt: More than ever since my near death experience, I consider myself a Christian -,,, Now, I can tell you that if someone had asked me, in the days before my NDE, what I thought of this (Easter) story, I would have said that it was lovely. But it remained just that -- a story. To say that the physical body of a man who had been brutally tortured and killed could simply get up and return to the world a few days later is to contradict every fact we know about the universe. It wasn't simply an unscientific idea. It was a downright anti-scientific one. But it is an idea that I now believe. Not in a lip-service way. Not in a dress-up-it's-Easter kind of way. I believe it with all my heart, and all my soul.,, We are, really and truly, made in God's image. But most of the time we are sadly unaware of this fact. We are unconscious both of our intimate kinship with God, and of His constant presence with us. On the level of our everyday consciousness, this is a world of separation -- one where people and objects move about, occasionally interacting with each other, but where essentially we are always alone. But this cold dead world of separate objects is an illusion. It's not the world we actually live in.,,, ,,He (God) is right here with each of us right now, seeing what we see, suffering what we suffer... and hoping desperately that we will keep our hope and faith in Him. Because that hope and faith will be triumphant. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eben-alexander-md/the-easter-question_b_2979741.html
Verse, music and bonus:
Matthew 13: %-6 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. Reckless - Jeremy Camp http://myktis.com/songs/reckless/ Here's The Craziest 'Reckless' Video You'll Watch All Day http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDkrSD8fOBo#at=54
bornagain77
June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT
Strange that you cannot reference your claims. The soul is punished for the very reason I stated.Joe
June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT
Joe, I used to be a Christian, I know a lot of Christians, I've discussed this with many Christians, and I've read a huge amount about Christianity. The views I laid out are in the Christian mainstream. For example, the soul's moral responsibility is very important to Christians who believe that the soul is rewarded or punished after death. If the soul isn't responsible, why would a just God punish it?keiths
June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
The soul, as most people (and most Christians) conceive of it, is in big trouble.
Nope, just the soul as you conceive of it. You and perhaps some other atheists on an agenda...Joe
June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
keiths:
No. The split-brain observations threaten: a) any view of the soul as an immaterial entity that is the seat of knowledge;
Wrong. Again the hardware issue.
b) any view of the soul as an IE that is the seat of beliefs; c) any view of the soul as an IE that is the seat of the will; d) any view of the soul as an IE that makes a person’s choices;
LoL! You just make stuff up. Where did you learn about souls and what Christians believe?
e) any view of the soul as an IE that experiences whatever the person is experiencing;
The test doesn't show that.
f) any view of the soul as an IE that can communicate, using our bodies to speak, write, etc.;
If the body is able- again the hardware issue.
g) any view of the soul as an IE that is morally responsible for a person’s actions;
No one I know thinks that. I was raised a Christian, went to Christian schools, and took classes about this stuff. We are not governed by our souls. It gives us life and basically records our actions, and perhaps even our thoughts. When we die it is examined and sorted. It is our essence. Oh it may also contain the basic programming for being a human. From what the Muslim clerics told me, that includes the program that it is a Muslim, born onto the one True God. Just sayin'.Joe
June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
bornagain,
Joe, it seems to me that his definition of the soul is one that practically no one adheres to in a strict sense, in that his notion seems to hold that the body has no input whatsoever as to what the soul perceives and can do whilst in the body.
Not true. He includes sensations:
Souls are immaterial subjects of mental properties. They have sensations and thoughts, desires and beliefs, and perform intentional actions. Souls are essential parts of human beings…
keiths
June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
Joe,
So the best keiths can claim is that the split brain experiment calls into question one very narrow view of what a soul is and what it does.
No. The split-brain observations threaten: a) any view of the soul as an immaterial entity that is the seat of knowledge; b) any view of the soul as an IE that is the seat of beliefs; c) any view of the soul as an IE that is the seat of the will; d) any view of the soul as an IE that makes a person's choices; e) any view of the soul as an IE that experiences whatever the person is experiencing; f) any view of the soul as an IE that can communicate, using our bodies to speak, write, etc.; g) any view of the soul as an IE that is morally responsible for a person's actions; ...and so on. How many theists at UD would not agree with at least one of the views laid out above? The soul, as most people (and most Christians) conceive of it, is in big trouble.keiths
June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
Joe, it seems to me that his definition of the soul is one that practically no one adheres to in a strict sense, in that his notion seems to hold that the body has no input whatsoever as to what the soul perceives and can do whilst in the body.bornagain77
June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
So the best keiths can claim is that the split brain experiment calls into question one very narrow view of what a soul is and what it does.Joe
June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
keiths, I need more than you say-so and I do not see how the split-brain study has anything to do with it.Joe
June 26, 2013
June
06
Jun
26
26
2013
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
Joe, Most Christians see the soul as Richard Swinburne does:
Souls are immaterial subjects of mental properties. They have sensations and thoughts, desires and beliefs, and perform intentional actions. Souls are essential parts of human beings...
It's easy to see how the split-brain studies threaten this concept of the soul.keiths
June 26, 2013
June
06
Jun
26
26
2013
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
Our essence being forged by our lives....Joe
June 26, 2013
June
06
Jun
26
26
2013
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
My PoV of the soul could be totally wrong but I never knew of the soul to be our controller and over-seer and communicator of all we do. I always thought of the soul as more of a life-force that carries our essence with it when the body dies.Joe
June 26, 2013
June
06
Jun
26
26
2013
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
Joe, of related interest to a 'hardware malfunction' feeding false impressions to the mind, it is interesting to note how this ties into Decartes' infamous 'demon argument'. Almost everyone knows Decartes' truism
"I think therefore I am!"
How Decartes arrived at this popular truism is fairly interesting in that he imagined a Demon with almost unfathomable powers of deception, and his conclusion from his 'demon argument' was as follows,,
"Descartes remarks that he can continue to doubt whether he has a body; after all, he only believes he has a body as a result of his perceptual experiences, and so the demon could be deceiving him about this. But he cannot doubt that he has a mind, i.e. that he thinks. So he knows he exists even though he doesn’t know whether or not he has a body." http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/philosophy/downloads/a2/unit4/descartes/DescartesDualism.pdf
How Decartes old Demon argument ties into keiths' split-brain anomaly, is that in a certain sense it seems that the 'I' of self, the mind, is literally living in Decartes old demon haunted world. In that the 'I am' of mind stays singular,
one expert comments that in such (split-brain) cases, “speech, verbal intelligence, calculation, motor coordination, verbal reasoning and recall, personality and temperament are all preserved to a surprising degree in the absence of hemispheric interconnection.”
,,but the 'I am' is forced to deal with conflicting perceptions about reality.,, As Tim Bayne of the University of Oxford has put it in his book 'The Unity of Consciousness'
“The received view within psychology and philosophy is that the split?brain (commissurotomy) procedure leads to a breakdown in the unity of consciousness. Disunity models of the split?brain can be divided into two classes: two?streams models, according to which patients have two streams of consciousness, and partial unity models, according to which patients have a merely partially unified consciousness. Both models are motivated by the cognitive and behavioural disunities that patients exhibit in certain laboratory conditions, but they struggle to account for the cognitive and behavioural unity that patients demonstrate in everyday life. Preferable to disunity models is a full unity ‘switch’ model, according to which consciousness in the split?brain rapidly switches between hemispheres. It is argued that only the switch model can account for both the behavioural disunities that split?brain patients exhibit under experimental conditions and the behavioural unities that they exhibit outside of such contexts.” Note this section in particular: “the cognitive and behavioural unity that patients demonstrate in everyday life.” In short, I am suggesting that the patient referred to in this video, though they may exhibit some bizarre things, like the left hand sometimes doing things that the right hand wants to reverse and so on, and expressing two views of God, would not likely themselves support the idea that there are two separate persons, nor would observations support that when it comes to everyday life. And Bayne seems to have concluded that such observations as there in split-brain patients can be better accounted for via an ‘alternation’ between the two centres of consciousness. http://creation.com/atheism-theism-brain-split http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199215386.001.0001/acprof-9780199215386
Thus while certainly interesting, keiths materialistic hypothesis of 'one brain/two minds' is lacking in its explanatory power for base unity of 'self' that is observed. Moreover and ironically, it seems that in a larger sense that these split brain cases are offering a certain amount of empirical proof for Decartes old 'Demon argument' for mind, in which, as was stated in the first reference I listed, 'the demon could be deceiving him about this. But he cannot doubt that he has a mind'. Moreover Joe, it seems that keiths doesn't even begin to appreciate just how deeply the divide between objective and subjective is. Perhaps a bit of Nagel can cure his lack of comprehension as to how deep the problem actually is:
What is it like to be a bat? - Thomas Nagel http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/nagel_nice.html "I have argued patiently against the prevailing form of naturalism, a reductive materialism that purports to capture life and mind through its neo-Darwinian extension." "..., I find this view antecedently unbelievable---a heroic triumph of ideological theory over common sense". Thomas Nagel - "Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False" - pg.128
It is also interesting to note that the strict demarcation between objective and subjective extends all the way down into quantum mechanics:
How observation (consciousness) is inextricably bound to measurement in quantum mechanics: Quote: "We wish to measure a temperature. If we want, we can pursue this process numerically until we have the temperature of the environment of the mercury container of the thermometer, and then say: this temperature is measured by the thermometer. But we can carry the calculation further, and from the properties of the mercury, which can be explained in kinetic and molecular terms, we can calculate its heating, expansion, and the resultant length of the mercury column, and then say: this length is seen by the observer. Going still further, and taking the light source into consideration, we could find out the reflection of the light quanta on the opaque mercury column, and the path of the remaining light quanta into the eye of the observer, their refraction in the eye lens, and the formation of an image on the retina, and then we would say: this image is registered by the retina of the observer. And were our physiological knowledge more precise than it is today, we could go still further, tracing the chemical reactions which produce the impression of this image on the retina, in the optic nerve tract and in the brain, and then in the end say: these chemical changes of his brain cells are perceived by the observer. But in any case, no matter how far we calculate -- to the mercury vessel, to the scale of the thermometer, to the retina, or into the brain, at some time we must say: and this is perceived by the observer. That is, we must always divide the world into two parts, the one being the observed system, the other the observer. In the former, we can follow up all physical processes (in principle at least) arbitrarily precisely. In the latter, this is meaningless. The boundary between the two is arbitrary to a very large extent. In particular we saw in the four different possibilities in the example above, that the observer in this sense needs not to become identified with the body of the actual observer: In one instance in the above example, we included even the thermometer in it, while in another instance, even the eyes and optic nerve tract were not included. That this boundary can be pushed arbitrarily deeply into the interior of the body of the actual observer is the content of the principle of the psycho-physical parallelism -- but this does not change the fact that in each method of description the boundary must be put somewhere, if the method is not to proceed vacuously,,," John von Neumann - 1903-1957 - The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, pp.418-21 - 1955 http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/neumann/
In fact one can chase the demarcation between subjective and objective, all the way down to a single bit of information and conscious observation of that single bit:
Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation: Zeilinger's principle Zeilinger's principle states that any elementary system carries just one bit of information. This principle was put forward by Austrian physicist Anton Zeilinger in 1999 and subsequently developed by him to derive several aspects of quantum mechanics. Some have reasoned that this principle, in certain ways, links thermodynamics with information theory. [1] Quantum physics says goodbye to reality - Apr 20, 2007 Excerpt: They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell's thought experiment, Leggett's inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we're not observing it. "Our study shows that 'just' giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics," Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. "You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism." http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640
Further thoughts from Johnny Raatz
Introspective Argument http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=twuvx7Ag63k#t=208s
Quote:
"Descartes said 'I think, therefore I am.' My bet is that God replied, 'I am, therefore think.'" Art Battson - Access Research Group
Verse and Music:
Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'" Evanescence - My Heart Is Broken http://www.vevo.com/watch/evanescence/my-heart-is-broken/USWV41100052
bornagain77
June 26, 2013
June
06
Jun
26
26
2013
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
No, obviously you mean "anyone else". And you still have not referenced your claims.Joe
June 26, 2013
June
06
Jun
26
26
2013
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
Anyone else, you mean.
No, I mean anyone.keiths
June 26, 2013
June
06
Jun
26
26
2013
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
Anyone else, you mean. As far as I cann see it has been defended.Joe
June 26, 2013
June
06
Jun
26
26
2013
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT
Anyone out there willing to defend the idea that each of us has an immaterial mind or soul that constitutes our true self, and that the body, including the brain, is merely a vehicle “inhabited” and controlled by the mind or soul?keiths
June 26, 2013
June
06
Jun
26
26
2013
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
Well keiths, onlookers have seen that I have answered your tripe. And they know why you just ignore it or post more tripe to try to refute it.Joe
June 26, 2013
June
06
Jun
26
26
2013
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
bornagain, The onlookers aren't stupid. They know you haven't answered my questions, and they have a pretty good idea why.keiths
June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT
supplemental notes on the brain: Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth - November 2010 Excerpt: They found that the brain's complexity is beyond anything they'd imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study: ...One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor--with both memory-storage and information-processing elements--than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth. http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-20023112-247.html Does Thinking Really Hard Burn More Calories? - By Ferris Jabr - July 2012 Excerpt: Although the average adult human brain weighs about 1.4 kilograms, only 2 percent of total body weight, it demands 20 percent of our resting metabolic rate (RMR)—the total amount of energy our bodies expend in one very lazy day of no activity.,,, —Resting metabolic rate: 1300 kilocalories, or kcal, the kind used in nutrition —1,300 kcal over 24 hours = 54.16 kcal per hour = 15.04 gram calories per second —15.04 gram calories/sec = 62.93 joules/sec = about 63 watts —20 percent of 63 watts = 12.6 watts So a typical adult human brain runs on around 12 watts—a fifth of the power required by a standard 60 watt lightbulb. Compared with most other organs, the brain is greedy; pitted against man-made electronics, it is astoundingly efficient. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=thinking-hard-calories Appraising the brain's energy budget: Excerpt: In the average adult human, the brain represents about 2% of the body weight. Remarkably, despite its relatively small size, the brain accounts for about 20% of the oxygen and, hence, calories consumed by the body. This high rate of metabolism is remarkably constant despite widely varying mental and motoric activity. The metabolic activity of the brain is remarkably constant over time. http://www.pnas.org/content/99/16/10237.full Alan Turing and Kurt Godel - Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition - video (notes in video description) http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8516356/ Are Humans merely Turing Machines? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cvQeiN7DqBC0Z3PG6wo5N5qbsGGI3YliVBKwf7yJ_RU/edit Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test - Douglas G. Robertson - 1999 Excerpt: Chaitin’s Algorithmic Information Theory shows that information is conserved under formal mathematical operations and, equivalently, under computer operations. This conservation law puts a new perspective on many familiar problems related to artificial intelligence. For example, the famous “Turing test” for artificial intelligence could be defeated by simply asking for a new axiom in mathematics. Human mathematicians are able to create axioms, but a computer program cannot do this without violating information conservation. Creating new axioms and free will are shown to be different aspects of the same phenomenon: the creation of new information. “… no operation performed by a computer can create new information.” http://cires.colorado.edu/~doug/philosophy/info8.pdfbornagain77
June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT
Keiths, you have been answered and you, because you are dogmatically committed to atheism no matter what the evidence says to the contrary, refuse to accept the answer. I even referenced a article directly addressing your video on its own terms for good measure, apparently to no avail! Joe was right,,
believe it or not there are people who really believe there is positive evidence for unguided evolution. Nothing gets through to either hemisphere for those wretched few.
You are wedded to a materialistic answer and are completely blind to any other answer save the one you want to see. If you were practicing science rationally instead of just trying to convince others of your religion you would, as I did, go down the the foundation of reality itself in quantum mechanics and make your case from there, again, as I did! But no keiths, you are not interested in scientifically and rigorously building a case from the ground up, you are only interested in, for whatever severely misguided reason, maintaining your atheism (a worldview which can't even ground our ability to reason in the first place I might add keiths). But keiths, not that you will really be interested, but perhaps for the sake of Joe, I found this piece of trivia today which, though not conclusive as the evidence from quantum mechanics is in overturning your atheistic position, severely compromises your materialistic worldview as to what you a priori expected:
Scaling of Brain Metabolism and Blood Flow in Relation to Capillary and Neural Scaling - 2011 Excerpt: Brain is one of the most energy demanding organs in mammals, and its total metabolic rate scales with brain volume raised to a power of around 5/6. This value is significantly higher than the more common exponent 3/4 (Quarter Power Scaling) relating whole body resting metabolism with body mass and several other physiological variables in animals and plants.,,, Moreover, cerebral metabolic, hemodynamic, and microvascular variables scale with allometric exponents that are simple multiples of 1/6, rather than 1/4, which suggests that brain metabolism is more similar to the metabolism of aerobic than resting body. Relation of these findings to brain functional imaging studies involving the link between cerebral metabolism and blood flow is also discussed.,, General Discussion Excerpt: ,,It should be underlined that both CBF and CMR scale with brain volume with the exponent about 1/4 which is significantly different from the exponent 1/4 relating whole body resting specific metabolism with body volume [1], [2], [3]. Instead, the cerebral exponent 1/6 is closer to an exponent,, characterizing maximal body specific metabolic rate and specific cardiac output in strenuous exercise [43], [44]. In this sense, the brain metabolism and its hemodynamics resemble more the metabolism and circulation of exercised muscles than other resting organs, which is in line with the empirical evidence that brain is an energy expensive organ [10], [17], [18]. This may also suggest that there exists a common plan for the design of microcirculatory system in different parts of the mammalian body that uses the same optimization principles [45].,, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3203885/
The preceding experiments are very unexpected to materialists since materialists hold that 'mind' is merely a 'emergent property' of the physical processes of a material brain. But why should 'thought' which is presupposed to be result of, and subservient to, the material processes of the brain constrain the material brain to operate at such a constant and optimal metabolic rate whereas the rest of body fluctuates in its metabolic activity? The most parsimonious explanation for such a optimal constraint on the brain's metabolic activity is that the material brain was designed, first and foremost, to house the mind and give the mind the most favorable metabolic environment possible at all times.bornagain77
June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT
When the woman’s right hand picks up the cigarette and puts it in her mouth, and her left hand plucks it out before her right hand can light it, what is her soul trying to do?
Keep her from smoking. A malfunction is what caused her to smoke in the first place
“Malfunctioning hardware” is a non-answer.
Perhaps to you. But then again any answer that refutes your nonsense will be a non-answer to you. I have asked you for references and you have not provided any. Methinks you don't know anything about souls and what they are supposed to do.Joe
June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
bornagain, Why don't you try answering the questions I just asked Joe? Since your position is so strong, and mine so weak, it should be a walk in the park for you. Show the world why no reasonable person should doubt the existence of the immaterial soul. Here are the questions again:
When the woman’s right hand picks up the cigarette and puts it in her mouth, and her left hand plucks it out before her right hand can light it, what is her soul trying to do? Does her soul want to smoke or not? When the man attacks his wife with one arm and defends her with the other, what does his soul want? To attack her, or to defend her?
keiths
June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT
Joe, Your answer doesn't make sense. When the woman's right hand picks up the cigarette and puts it in her mouth, and her left hand plucks it out before her right hand can light it, what is her soul trying to do? Does her soul want to smoke or not? When the man attacks his wife with one arm and defends her with the other, what does his soul want? To attack her, or to defend her? "Malfunctioning hardware" is a non-answer.keiths
June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT
keiths If patient with split brain operation can be aware of the issue that "his left arm has mind of its own" that would suggest the person's mind is still unified and can recognize the problem. Probably he's even thinking it's strange. Again, sorry I didn't familiarize myself with the topic but I also think the patient can overcome strange new situation through training. Specialized training will likely enable patient to establish control over the contrasting "hemispheres gone wild". It appears that brain's two hemispheres specialize in different domains and operate by providing us with contrasting data processing results. All of us here are probably aware of hundreds of contrasting thoughts popping in our minds daily. We filter out most of them - for example "I should buy Lawrence Krauss's book"; examine some of them - for ex. "That lady looks fantastic!" and act only on few of them - for ex. "It's a hot day, have another beer" :)Eugen
June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT
How can you reconcile these observations with the idea of a single immaterial soul?
Malfunctioning hardware. I have seen people with an intact brain pick up a cigarette with their left hand and place it in there mouth. Their right hand plucked it out and threw it away before the left hand could light it. Then they started cursing. I have seen women accept a drink with their left hand and throw it in someone's face with their right. I have seen people make turns without using their turn signals. It's as if they don't know what they are doing and this exactly what we would expect if their brain hemispheres couldn't communicate. And believe it or not there are people who really believe there is positive evidence for unguided evolution. Nothing gets through to either hemisphere for those wretched few.Joe
June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT
Keiths, the following thoughtful article on your video,,, Brain split between atheism and theism Published: 15 June 2013 (GMT+10) http://creation.com/atheism-theism-brain-split ,,,clearly exposes the fact that you are trying to force the evidence into your a priori conclusion. You have no warrant for concluding as you are concluding save for your philosophical bias you have beforehand. i.e. you are assuming your conclusion into the evidence and are not 'proving' your conclusion from the evidence. You really need to get away from so called Darwinian science so that you may see how to practice science faithfully instead of trying to force the evidence to fit your philosophy!bornagain77
June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
keiths:
What do you think about the patient whose right hemisphere believes in God and whose left hemisphere is an atheist?
Eugen:
That’s easy, the right hemisphere is correct! :-)
Why am I not surprised at your choice? :-)
Like Bornagain said, the patient as a person is intact.
An intact person isn't simultaneously a theist and an atheist. We are talking about a divided person -- one half believes one thing and the other half believes the opposite.
Anyway, if split brain patient’s name was John Smith and we ask him: “John, do you feel as one person?” I think he would answer “Yes.”.
Sure, because the left hemisphere is the one that answers. It controls speech. The left hemisphere feels like a single person, and so does the right. Yet each hemisphere can think, believe, desire and choose things that the other hemisphere does not. Split-brain patients will say things like "My left arm has a mind of it's own." When they say that, it's the left hemisphere talking. And they're right -- their left arm really does have a mind of its own -- the right hemisphere! Recall these examples from my post at TSZ:
One patient was seen to pick up a cigarette with her right hand and place it in her mouth. Her left hand plucked it out and threw it away before the right hand could light it. In another case, a man attacked his wife with one arm while defending her with the other.
How can you reconcile these observations with the idea of a single immaterial soul? It just doesn't make sense.keiths
June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
semi related note: The Mind Is Not The Brain - Scientific Evidence - Rupert Sheldrake - video (w/Referenced Notes) https://vimeo.com/33479544 Rupert Sheldrake talks of a internet site that he has set up especially for skeptics/atheists so they can do the experiments online for themselves to see if these simple tests for the effect of 'mind' really do hold up to scrutiny: Here is the online test site: Online Tests - Rupert Sheldrake invites you to participate in his ongoing research. No previous experience is necessary, and the online tests can be done immediately. Most of these experiments are suitable for use in schools and colleges, and some make an excellent basis for student projects. http://www.sheldrake.org/Onlineexp/portal/index.html Here is an interesting video which was loaded last year: Rupert Sheldrake Lecture: The Science Delusion - video description: Temenos Academy 6th February 2012 at the Lincoln Centre Dispelling the Ten Dogmas of Materialism and Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry http://vimeo.com/37792854bornagain77
June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
1 17 18 19 20 21

Leave a Reply