A Jealous God: Science’s Crusade Against Religion

_{William Dembski

November 1, 2005

Religion, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Pam Winnick’s new book, A Jealous God: Science’s Crusade Against Religion, is out in stores. It provides a nice counterblast to Chris Mooney’s diatribe about the Republican/conservative hijacking of science.

Comments

YAY! It finally let me post part of what I wanted to post!!! *Dances jig of gleeBombadill_{November 4, 2005
November
11
Nov
4
04
2005
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

(quote) Study of sixty three heart attack victims who were declared clinically dead but later revived and interviewed, reported having well structured, lucid thought processes with memory formation and reasoning, durin the time that their brains were not functioning. (end quote)Bombadill_{November 4, 2005
November
11
Nov
4
04
2005
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

Study Published in "Resuscitation" in 2001, by Physician Sam Parnia and Peter Fenwick, Neuropsychiatrist of The Instititute of Psychiatry Ã¢â‚¬â€œ London:Bombadill_{November 4, 2005
November
11
Nov
4
04
2005
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

Testerschoice, I don't doubt what you write about the researches of neuroscientists, or that there is no experimental evidence for a non-material mind. But I am puzzled about something: If the "5" I think is nothing but my own brain activity, and the "5" you think is nothing but your brain activity, then it follows that the "5" you think and the "5" I think are different things since our brains are materially different. We are talking about two different things when you speak of "5" and I speak of "5". I wonder how we are to communicate at all since I don't experience your brain activity and you dont't experience mine.taciturnus_{November 4, 2005
November
11
Nov
4
04
2005
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=388Bombadill_{November 4, 2005
November
11
Nov
4
04
2005
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT}

Taciturnus, Yes, that is the idea. While neuroscientists have not been able to map every concept to specific patterns of activity at the cellular level, every week a new paper is out from a group that has mapped types of thought to specific populations of cells or areas in the brain. If you want to posit that something beyond the brain activity is neccesary for thought, you have to demonstrate that. So far, nobody has experimentally.testerschoice_{November 4, 2005
November
11
Nov
4
04
2005
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

Testerschoice, So when I think of a number, "5" for example, the "5" I think is the brain activity itself, not something beyond the brain activity that corresponds to that activity? Dave t.taciturnus_{November 4, 2005
November
11
Nov
4
04
2005
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

Lurker, It does not matter what the probability of it is. If the universe was started with any other combination of constants it would (probably) not result in a universe like our own, and thus we would not be around to know otherwise. Again, I recommend you check out the weak-antropic principle. It is like saying if somebody wins the lottery, they must be cheating (analogous to fine-tuning) because the probabiliy of guessing and getting it right is so low.testerschoice_{November 4, 2005
November
11
Nov
4
04
2005
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT}

Taciturnus, Ã¢â‚¬Å“The model I am working under is that thought is brain activity.Ã¢â‚¬Â That is the model I am working under, yes.testerschoice_{November 4, 2005
November
11
Nov
4
04
2005
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT}

Testerschoice, I know you are already responding to several people, so I'll understand if you do want to respond to me as well. I was wondering if you could expand on what you mean by this statement from post #119: "The model I am working under is that the activity in the brain corresponds to thoughts." This sounds like it implies that thoughts are something separate from the brain to which brain activity maps. That's what I get from the word "corresponds". If I understand your position correctly, there are no such things as thoughts separate from the brain. Brain activity IS thought. Or, more accurately, thought is brain activity since not all activities of the brain are thoughts. Would your position be more accurately characterized as: "The model I am working under is that thought is brain activity." Cheers, Dave T.taciturnus_{November 4, 2005
November
11
Nov
4
04
2005
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT}

"That is the point. It shows why the fine tuning argument is fundamentally flawed." No. You're putting the cart before the horse. The probability of drawing 1 number (any number) out of 10^200 is 100%. The probability of drawing the *correct* number is 1 in 10^200. Our universe is that correct number, any old universe won't do.Lurker_{November 3, 2005
November
11
Nov
3
03
2005
11:56 PM
11
11
56
PM
PDT}

Anteater, That is the point. It shows why the fine tuning argument is fundamentally flawed.testerschoice_{November 3, 2005
November
11
Nov
3
03
2005
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT}

"If the universe were not, we would not be here to say otherwise." That seems circular.anteater_{November 3, 2005
November
11
Nov
3
03
2005
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT}

Cambion, I think you have characterized my point well. I also agree with your point about doing more research on the subject. If you are going to posit a mind/brain connection where the mind is separate from the brain, there needs to be more research to justify it.testerschoice_{November 3, 2005
November
11
Nov
3
03
2005
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT}

testerschoice: 'From what we've seen in neuroscience research, we can explain what we perceive as mind as an emergent property of a large group of well coordinated neurons." jboze3131: 'Yes, but it's possible there is more to it, in the form of a non-physical mind that interacts with our physical brain.' ((I apologize if anyone feels miscontrued.)) To me, this is very reminiscent of evolution vs. ID. The latter in both cases is definitely possible, but requires an additional parameter which science has no direct observational evidence for. Thus, science takes the former as provisionally true, unless evidence of the latter arises. I would encourage all the ID proponents to get cracking on the research. There's a lot of interesting stuff that could be done. A couple of examples: If evolution was front-loaded with the information required for the formation of much of what appears to be truely novel, then one would hypothesize the genes required to from some putatively designed structure to be present in organisms that lack this structure, but are simply tucked away in the genome's "junk" DNA. If a designer (possibly a transcendent one) is continually injecting information into the evolving biosphere what would it look like? One obvious answer is that the genes coding for a putatively designed structure (like the bacterial flagellum) should appear all at once all together in the phylogeny of life. This would be a much stronger demonstration than apparent IC. Someone should be doing this stuff. I'm surprised I don't hear about anyone attempting it.cambion_{November 3, 2005
November
11
Nov
3
03
2005
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT}

mtgcsharpguy, You are right, we still have not fully explained how the all the processing is done in the brain. However, the partial explanation I have given is infinitely better than your idea that the mind is separate from the brain and affects it through some?? mechanism since you have close to NO evidence to back up your claims. Until you provide evidence for a mind separate from the brain, I will continue to call it an assertion without basis. Secondly, it's neuronet, not neronet. Before you call someone as ass, learn to actually make your point intelligently. Also, your point is plain wrong, their are a mutlitude of pathways that go from "neuronet to stimuli". Study the visual system (or any sensory system for that matter) and you will see networks of neurons that process stimuli and extract features, from lines to shapes to objects. Read up on the microcircuitry of the occipital lobe, and you will see exactly what I am saying.testerschoice_{November 3, 2005
November
11
Nov
3
03
2005
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

Jeesh, evne your referenced "peer-reviewed" journal states my case: "How such a robust, high-level representation is achieved by neurons in the human brain is still unclear." Of course it's unclear. Like biochemistry, the more we learn, the more we realize it's way too complicated to be explained away by current science!mtgcsharpguy_{November 3, 2005
November
11
Nov
3
03
2005
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT}

testerschoice: "I have demonstrated a correlation and causation between what people report as their thoughts and brain activity." No you haven't. You've produced speculation. Nothing more. Even the most notable neurologists will admit that different neronets are excited by the same stimuli. There's no agreed upon mapping of neronet-to-stimuli pathways as the brain reacts very differently to the same situations. So, your argument doesn't hold, I'm afraid. It looks as though you are just talking out of your azz!mtgcsharpguy_{November 3, 2005
November
11
Nov
3
03
2005
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT}

Wow, 120 comments!!!!!!!!!!!mtgcsharpguy_{November 3, 2005
November
11
Nov
3
03
2005
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT}

Jboze, Sorry, correction. Your idea is that the mind has thoughts and the mind causes activity in the brain to execute those thoughts. Either way, my previous statement holds, just wanted to make sure I am not misrepresenting your opinion.testerschoice_{November 3, 2005
November
11
Nov
3
03
2005
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

Jboze, "if these scans actually showed THOUGHTS, the scans should be able to read these thoughts, label them, count them, measure themÃ¢â‚¬Â¦etc. they cant. the activity itself isnt the thought- its the mind working thru the brain to express the immaterial thoughts. youve yet to show that brain cells firing are the thoughts themselves." Brain cells firing in response to specific images. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15973409&query_hl=15 The model I am working under is that the activity in the brain corresponds to thoughts. The model you are working under is that the brain activity is somehow influenced by the mind to cause thoughts. You have yet to show how the "mind" affects brain activity. Until you do, your point is an assumption. I have demonstrated a correlation and causation between what people report as their thoughts and brain activity. You have not shown either a correlation or causation between the "mind" and brain activity. Until you do, I am going to have to assume you are talking out of your ass.testerschoice_{November 3, 2005
November
11
Nov
3
03
2005
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

tester- what you said in 109 is that brain activity can be recorded. brain activity is the same as thoughts? YOU prove THAT. brain activity in a certain area doesnt equal the color red or the scent of something, or remembering how something tastes. you still have to show that the brain activity involved is actually the thoughts im speaking of. brain activity is just that- the brain acting in certain areas...the mind couldnt possibly express iself in this world without the brain could it? so, youre showing nothing when it comes to thoughts themselves. if these scans actually showed THOUGHTS, the scans should be able to read these thoughts, label them, count them, measure them...etc. they cant. the activity itself isnt the thought- its the mind working thru the brain to express the immaterial thoughts. youve yet to show that brain cells firing are the thoughts themselves.jboze3131_{November 3, 2005
November
11
Nov
3
03
2005
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

Lurker, Read the paper. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16150703&query_hl=13testerschoice_{November 3, 2005
November
11
Nov
3
03
2005
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

Jboze, We are going around in circles. Answer my questions in post #109. Until you do, your points are not supported. They are assertions. m*h_bar governs the universe.testerschoice_{November 3, 2005
November
11
Nov
3
03
2005
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

A researcher can stimulate my nerves in such a way as to duplicate severe pain in my arm. No guarantee that I'll feel pain severely or even at all. I may even enjoy it! How can a researcher tell if it's 'feel good' pain or 'hurts bad' pain by looking at a chart/scan? They can't.Lurker_{November 3, 2005
November
11
Nov
3
03
2005
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

testers- your links didnt show THOUGHTS themselves. they showed certain areas of the brain activating during certain behaviors. no one could argue that those brain activations themselves are thoughts. youre merely showing certain parts of the physical apparatus being used to express thoughts. youre not showing, in any way, that these brain activities in themselves are the thoughts. as for pain you mention...were not talking about emotional pain in that sense. no brain scan can tell you what mood you currently have. because you cant, in any known way, measure mood. you COULD hook a person to a brain scan all day and the researcher wouldnt be able to, via the scans, tell you a single thought youhad...nor a single feeling or emotion you had during that entire day. which leads us to believe that thoughts and emotions themselves are material. you keep linking to studies showing brain activity during certain behaviors, but thats not mind, those arent thoughts. its almost as if you want the mind to work WITHOUT the brain, which surely isnt going to happen. the brain is merely the organ used in this physical world to express the thoughts and emotions (both of which you have yet to link to studies that show we can measure thoughts. you keep linking to stuff that shows we can measure brain activity. a response in the brain isnt the same as a thought of the color red or the taste of something. a neural event doesnt equal a goal or an aspiration. if it did, we should be able to read the exact goal and emotion, dream, fear, etc.) a scan might be able to show that the brain is reacting to a certain internal fear, but that scan cannot label the fear and tell you what it consists of. you seem to want the mind to work on its down outside of the brain. you want the driver (the mind) to walk instead of drive the car (the brain). of course thats not going to happen. youve still yet to show how brain activity itself equals a tangible thought that we can point to, label, measure, etc.jboze3131_{November 3, 2005
November
11
Nov
3
03
2005
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

Cambion, My father actually bought me that book! I have only read bits and pieces, but what I read sounded interesting. Right now my classwork and research occupy most of my reading time. :(testerschoice_{November 3, 2005
November
11
Nov
3
03
2005
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

This debate reminds me of a book I read a couple years ago: Frank Vertosick. The Genius Within: The Intelligence of Every Living Thing. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0151005516/002-5116373-9752044?v=glance One of his basic theses is that Darwinian adaptation molds a genome to reflect environment in much the same way as neurological processes mold the human brain to reflect its environment (i.e. alleles that are not as fit as some others die out, novel benficial alleles are promoted; while neurons send out axons in all directions, but those axons that receive stimilus are kept around). Thus, the cellular networks of proteins within a bacteria are of a similar nature as the neuronal networks within our brains. Both of these networks encaptulate an "intelligence" in this sense defined as a fit to the environment, one sort of workable solution for being alive. Anyway, I thought it was interesting, you might want to give it a read...cambion_{November 3, 2005
November
11
Nov
3
03
2005
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

Lurker, It's a shame you used the pain example. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16150703&query_hl=13 As for dreams, refer to post #49.testerschoice_{November 3, 2005
November
11
Nov
3
03
2005
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

If everything is physical then everything can be boiled down to a number, graph, chart, etc. You can't do that with thoughts. You can record brain scans all day long and you'll never know what the person was thinking. Just as the researchers at the sleep clinics. Do you think they can tell you what the person was dreaming about - even in very broad terms? You can look at my brain scan and you'll never know if I'm in pain or if I'm feeling good - or both.Lurker_{November 3, 2005
November
11
Nov
3
03
2005
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply