How Can Molecules Think?

[Akita Suggagaki]

Something may be true or false. If there is no evidence for it being true then I won't accept it as being true. If there is no evidence that it is false, I won't accept it as being false. Quite often I will reserve judgement.

And in some cases, I will consider the evidence to be so strong that I will accept it as being true until such time as evidence to the contrary is presented. And if the evidence is extremely weak then I will accept it as being false until such time as evidence to the contrary is presented.

Belief in a proposition is like a flywheel. The more evidence you accept for it being true (or false), the faster the flywheel spins. And it takes a lot of evidence to the contrary to slow that wheel and to perhaps reverse its spin.

That seems to me to be the best course of action to take. You base your belief on the evidence presented and the strength of your belief is dependent on the quality and quantity of the evidence.

I can appreciate that position.

 

[AV1611VET]

It makes no sense whatever, and while there may be a dimbulb somewhere ...

Try to get a light bulb to come on in academia from my perspective!

I use more examples, hypotheticals, and challenge threads than Darwin has fans, and nothing seems to work.

We won't know until we get to Heaven though how effective our witnessing was.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I wish you guys would quit this particular bit of cut n paste
belittling nonsense. .. "Cannot possibly be true".

It makes no sense whatever, and while there may be a
dimbulb somewhere who thinks that, it's not remotely
correct to say it of all atheists.

It's fine to criticize, but, not so much if
it's nothing but falsehood and calumny.

And, speaking of evidence, I do not
believe you can quote one example or find
and atheist here who would agree with your claim.

"cut n paste?

You hear it that often?

 

[Bradskii]

In the year 2000, wasn't it true (according to what you just said here) that Pluto was our ninth planet?

If not, and you were sitting in on an astronomy test, and the question was asked as to what our ninth planet was, what would you have answered, other than "Pluto"?

You've probably had a few years to formulate an answer to such a statement as I made then. Because they're made quite frequently. And that is really the best you have come up with?

Honestly?

 

[Bradskii]

I can appreciate that position.

Use it as the default position from someone with my views and you won't go far wrong.

 

[Bradskii]

I use more examples, hypotheticals, and challenge threads than Darwin has fans, and nothing seems to work.

It's astonishing that you haven't worked out why.

 

[Estrid]

"cut n paste?

You hear it that often?

It's common as dirt.

And utterly unconvincing exceptin' to the one
saying it, for the reasons I noted, and to which
you are unable to reply with reason or example.

Plz desist from making things up.

 

[AV1611VET]

You've probably had a few years to formulate an answer to such a statement as I made then. Because they're made quite frequently. And that is really the best you have come up with?

Honestly?

You don't have the guts to answer that question, do you, Brad?

You're a typical academian, and a credit to your classmates here, in my opinion.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's astonishing that you haven't worked out why.

Oh, I know why.

Believe me, I do.

The Bible is crystal-clear on that point.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Use it as the default position from someone with my views and you won't go far wrong.

I try to abide by it myself.

 

[Bradskii]

You don't have the guts to answer that question, do you, Brad?

You're a typical academian, and a credit to your classmates here, in my opinion.

Shucks...thanks.

 

[sjastro]

Shucks...thanks.

You should be proud to be bestowed such a title.
I've been called a Satanist amongst the more colorful descriptions.

 

[doubtingmerle]

From the linked article at the beginning of this thread (i.e. "Is There Life After Death?")

"They see the brain as something that gathers information from the senses and feeds it to the soul. There the soul stores memories, makes decisions, and drives the body. The soul issues commands to the brain, which then controls the muscles in the body. They say the soul is in charge and will continue to be in charge long after the body is gone."

Yeah, no, this is wrong.

It's wrong? That section was supposed to be a summary of the Christian view. Let me try again. I rewrote my introduction as shown here. Does this look better?

Are we going to live forever? Suppose that you are in an airplane that crashes on takeoff. Your body is consumed by fire. Your brain is destroyed, never to function again. That brain has been the seat of your thoughts, emotions, and memory throughout life. It’s gone. Lights out. It’s all over. Or is it?

Some will tell me that the body has died, but something else lives on. They call this the soul. And ultimately, they say the soul is the seat of your mind. And so, they say, the mind can survive death.

If the soul is the seat of the mind, then what is the brain, and what does it do? It is obvious from science that nerves from the eyes, ears, and other sense organs connect to the brain, and feed information to the brain. And it is obvious that the brain connects to our muscles through nerves, and that the brain controls those muscle movements. So, could the brain be all there is? Or does a soul fit in there somehow?

Some see the brain as a device that gathers information from the senses and feeds it to the soul. There the soul processes the incoming information, saves memories, and makes decisions. The soul then somehow directs the brain to drive the muscles of the body. They say the soul is in charge, and it will continue to be in charge as the seat of your mind long after the body is gone.

But science has shown that it is truly the brain that is in charge. We think with our brains, not with immaterial souls. Let’s look at the evidence.
Is There Life after Death? - The Mind Set Free
​

BTW, you will be pleased to know that one of your questions got an honorary inclusion at the bottom of that page.

 

[AV1611VET]

You should be proud to be bestowed such a title.
I've been called a Satanist amongst the more colorful descriptions.

Not by moi.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've been called a Satanist amongst the more colorful descriptions.

I've been called a Homo.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I've been called a Homo.

Homo sapiens?

 

[durangodawood]

Jesus knew this, and/or figured this out, even when it came to himself and God in the OT, and reasoned that there was and intelligence behind it that was neither of them specifically, but that they were both locked into, along with everyone and everything else, and that he also claimed he came from, or was sent from, and existed with from before time, or this universe/reality, began, etc...

And by this, claimed that he knew his own destiny, and what he was supposed to do by the will of that One, for humankind, etc, and then did it, or saw it through of course, etc, but knew that none of it was him specifically also of course, etc...

And he tried his best to tell us all about this, etc...

But unfortunately not many caught on or got this, etc...

God Bless!

Whats the point of making the big machine just to watch it play out to and end you already know? This has no mythical appeal at all.

 

[Neogaia777]

Whats the point of making the big machine just to watch it play out to and end you already know? This has no mythical appeal at all.

Well, do you want to believe based on Truth, or how an idea appeals to you, etc...?

As for the point, that might take a little bit more explaining, or a little bit more writing...

Do you want to hear it...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Well, do you want to believe based on Truth, or how an idea appeals to you, etc...?

As for the point, that might take a little bit more explaining, or a little bit more writing...

Do you want to hear it...?

God Bless!

@durangodawood

In short, or the very, very short answer is: "God the Father's good pleasure", etc, which is why any of us (or this) are (is) even here, etc, including God the Son and God the Spirit, etc, but there is also very much more to it than just that also, etc, especially when it comes down to the rest of us not the Father, etc...

Want to hear it, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Some see the brain as a device that gathers information from the senses and feeds it to the soul. There the soul processes the incoming information, saves memories, and makes decisions. The soul then somehow directs the brain to drive the muscles of the body. They say the soul is in charge, and it will continue to be in charge as the seat of your mind long after the body is gone.

But science has shown that it is truly the brain that is in charge. We think with our brains, not with immaterial souls.

Do you really think such a reductionist view can adequately account for consciousness? For your consideration:

"The modern scientific worldview is predominantly predicated on assumptions that are closely associated with classical physics. Materialism—the idea that matter is the only reality—is one of these assumptions. A related assumption is reductionism, the notion that complex things can be understood by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things such as tiny material particles.

"During the 19th century, these assumptions narrowed, turned into dogmas, and coalesced into an ideological belief system that came to be known as "scientific materialism." This belief system implies that the mind is nothing but the physical activity of the brain. The ideology of scientific materialism became dominant in academia during the 20th century. So dominant that a majority of scientists started to believe that it was based on established empirical evidence, and represented the only rational view of the world.

"At the end of the nineteenth century, physicists discovered empirical phenomena that could not be explained by classical physics. This led to the development, during the 1920s and early 1930s, of a revolutionary new branch of physics called quantum mechanics (QM). QM has questioned the material foundations of the world by showing that atoms and subatomic particles are not really solid objects—they do not exist with certainty at definite spatial locations and definite times. Most importantly, QM explicitly introduced the mind into its basic conceptual structure since it was found that particles being observed and the observer—the physicist and the method used for observation—are linked. According to one interpretation of QM, this phenomenon implies that the consciousness of the observer is vital to the existence of the physical events being observed, and that mental events can affect the physical world. The results of recent experiments support this interpretation. These results suggest that the physical world is no longer the primary or sole component of reality, and that it cannot be fully understood without making reference to the mind.

"The shift from materialist science to post-materialist science may be of vital importance to the evolution of the human civilization. It may be even more pivotal than the transition from geocentrism to heliocentrism."

The Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science - OpenSciences.org