Winning the Creation Debate

[Sherlock Holmes]

What is a thought, other than the biochemical activities and bioelectrical potentials in your brain?

It could be the "thought" itself that gives rise to biochemical activities and bioelectrical potentials in your brain.

I think we just happen to have introspective self awareness. We can "think about our thoughts". And we describe them. We can describe the physical experience of having happy ones, sad ones, etc.

That doesn't change what they are.

This has been discussed for almost as long as we've had language, its called in the literature The mind body problem. There are several different views, dualism, materialism and more.

Before you running off your mouth, understand that science cannot help us decide which of these is real, these are philosophical questions not scientific questions.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That accusation is uncalled for, ad-hominem, let him speak; if you want more clarity ask, do not attack the man, ridiculous.

That is not ad hominem. Please look up that term before using it again

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What definition?

Of what is physical. Obviously.

My mind can affect the physical, my mind can make my brain produce signals that eventually get propagated to my hand and my coffee moves.

Your "mind" can do no such thing. Only the biochemical reactions and bioelectrical potentials in your brain can do that. So you must come to accept that your mind is nothing more than your physical brain.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It could be the "thought" itself that gives rise to biochemical activities and bioelectrical potentials in your brain.

Which would change nothing. We just call it a thought because we can consider it. The thought itself is caused by physical means.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Of what is physical. Obviously.

Where does science show that every observable physical phenomenon always has a physical cause? I know it's a belief, reasonable too, but it is just a belief.

Your "mind" can do no such thing.

How do you know that?

Only the biochemical reactions and bioelectrical chemicals in your brain can do that.so come to accept that your mind is nothing lore than your physical brain.

Like I just told you, this is an open issue in philosophy, called the mind body problem, if you believe this question has been settled then I'd love to see where you read that. Here, here's a round table academic discussion about this, audio and very informative:

The Mind/Body Problem - 45 minutes audio.



Frankly you are showing increasing signs of embracing scientism, that would explain much about the naive assertions you're always making.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Where does science show that every observable physical phenomenon always has a physical cause?

It doesn't have to show that. It's a definition.

You're confusing yourself.

How do you know that?

Because magic is off the table. You still haven't quite learned that lesson in the science section.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

It doesn't have to show that. It's a definition.

Oh, so this is not a scientific definition, gotcha.

You're confusing yourself.

Because magic is off the table. You still haven't quite learned that lesson in the science section.

What's "magic"? How can science help us understand magic?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Oh, so this is not a scientific definition, gotcha.

Meaningless

It's a definition. It's a mundane fact in science. You aren't going to cast any rational doubt on it with falsehoods and semantic tricks.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Meaningless

It's a definition. It's a mundane fact in science. You aren't going to cast any rational doubt on it with falsehoods and semantic tricks.

Calling your own claims meaningless is an interesting development.

Anyway, you wrote "Anything that can affect the physical IS, itself physical. Pretty much by definition." so please share the definition that misled you into thinking all physical phenomena have a physical cause, just share this definition that you keep speaking about and that you seem to have misinterpreted.

You can't claim to have some definition from some authoritative source that supports your conjecture and refuse to share said definition, well you can but most scientifically literate people would not be afraid to.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Calling your own claims meaningless is an interesting development.

I didn't do that. You dishonestly substituted a claim I didn't make and that didn't make any sense anyway for what I actually said.

Because that's what you do.

You're just not a very good faith poster, in topics like this where you know very little but are desperate to undermine the facts you know so little about.

You also are steeped in magical thinking. So you are trying to argue a magical, nonphysical soul. Your attempt is transparent and predictable. And your tactics are old and tired.

So get to it, without the bad faith tactics and falsehoods.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Oh and you chose to ignore my question which was

What's "magic"? How can science help us understand magic?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I didn't do that. You dishonestly subsistutted a claim I didn't make and that didn't make any sense anyway for what I actually said.

Because that's what you do.

You're just not a very good faith poster, in topics like this where you know very little but are desperate to undermine the facts you know so little about.

Erm did you say there was a definition you used, for "physical" why won't you tell us what it is?

(I know, because it doesn't say what you claimed it says!)

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Oh and you chose to ignore my question which was

What's "magic"? How can science help us understand magic?

Correct. I don't do the interrogation game. I'm not your assistant.

Just make your points by yourself.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Correct. I don't do the interrogation game. I'm not your assistant.

So unlike a proper scientifically literate person who makes claims about the world, you are content to make claims based on nothing other than your fertile imagination. If you had a definition you'd share it because to not do so makes you look like a pillock as we say in Britain.

Just make your points by yourself.

Yes, looks like I'll have to, you're useless at it.

 

[scruffy]

The mind body "problem" is not a problem at all, it's just mental masturbation by so-called "philosophers" with a 19th century understanding of science.

CAUSALITY is why we have a light cone. This was addressed and solved in the early 20th century by the great physicists and mathematicians, Einstein, Minkowski, Lorentz, even John von Neumann. Effects can not precede causes.

You can stimulate the brain electrically or magnetically and CAUSE thoughts. The cause is physical. Period, end of story.

I'm getting tired of doofus philosophers that want to encroach on science with no knowledge.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The mind body "problem" is not a problem at all, it's just mental masturbation by so-called "philosophers" with a 19th century understanding of science.

CAUSALITY is why we have a light cone. This was addressed and solved in the early 20th century by the great physicists and mathematicians, Einstein, Minkowski, Lorentz, even John von Neumann. Effects can not precede causes.

You can stimulate the brain electrically or magnetically and CAUSE thoughts. The cause is physical. Period, end of story.

I'm getting tired of doofus philosophers that want to encroach on science with no knowledge.

You are so ill prepared sometimes, its like shooting fish in a barrel:

See what it says "is still widely debated within science and philosophy".

We had all this crap last time when you kept saying "chaos has nothing to do with causality" an equally unhinged belief as I showed.

 

[scruffy]

You are so ill prepared sometimes, its like shooting fish in a barrel:

View attachment 1007436

We had all this crap last time when you kept saying "chaos has nothing to do with causality" an equally unhinged belief as I showed.

You and your idiotic AI again?

Once again trying to use bullshit off the internet as an authoritative source?

Old trick from an old dog.

You never heard of grandmother cells?

Go ask Alexa, maybe she can educate your ignorant ass.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You and your idiotic AI again?

Once again trying to use bullshit off the internet as an authoritative source?

Old trick from an old dog.

You never heard of grandmother cells?

Go ask Alexa, maybe she can educate your ignorant ass.

Very well, lets play the same game we did last time, my move: OK scruffy can you show me a source that says:

The mind body "problem" is not a problem at all, it's just mental masturbation by so-called "philosophers" with a 19th century understanding of science.

Do you have ANY source, science source, that supports (even loosely, I'm not expecting a literal quote) the claim you make above?

Now it's your move and I think this is the part where you make up excuses for not sharing a source, so off you go...

 

[scruffy]

Very well, lets play the same game we did last time, my move: OK scruffy can you show me a source that says:



Do you have ANY source, science source, that supports even loosely, the claim you make above?

Now it's your move and I think this is the part where you make up excuses for not sharing a source...

$50 an hour.

If not, go ask Alexa.

I'm not going to educate your silly ignorant ass for free.

However I'll point out how silly and ignorant you are, THAT I'll do for free in the interest of humanity.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

$50 an hour.

If not, go ask Alexa.

I'm not going to educate your silly ignorant ass for free.

However I'll point out how silly and ignorant you are, THAT I'll do for free in the interest of humanity.

As expected, no sources, just complaining and evasion, what a shallow fraud, you even almost had me fooled a few weeks ago, but old Sherlock's good, too good for you.