Glad you are feeling better!
1 Like
Pointing out the question of how the universe could exist if we weren’t there to observe doesn’t negate what science tells us , it only magnifies the problem that that materialists have in explaining reality minus a creator . No matter what observer materialists say is necessary for physical reality to exist - quantum mechanics - at the bottom of the glass all that is left is consciousness, this is the one undeniable fact of existence . For scientific materialists to maintain this position they have to pretend not to know things - quantum mechanics . There is absolutely ZERO scientific proof of matter creating consciousness. There is historical evidence of consciousness separate from matter - OBE and NDE . Even if you discount 99% of these accounts that is still exponentially greater then any record of matter creating consciousness . If consciousness is primal rather than emergent , which I believe it is , then this requires a necessary agent - God - for its explanation.
Hahahahaha - these experiences are told to us by alive human beings using their material matter ( 
) THIS is not demonstrable evidence - this is people filtering their “experience” through memory.
DEMONSTRATE “consciousness” existing outside of a brain…
2 Likes
Oh Fuck! You don’t have consciousness without something existing first. Quit being a fucktard. Consciousness is an emergent property of brain.
“Materialists have no problem at all.” The answer is “We don’t know yet!” AND NOT “god done it.” Your delusional deity, like all those that came before, can not even be considered until you provide some fucking evidence.
Then demonstrate consciousness without a brain.
OBE: A brain state containing sleep paralysis and phantom limb syndrome in which the body creates a phantom body.
NDE" Same fucking thing with religious delusions.
Then demonstrate consciousness without a brain. All you are doing is making dumb ass assertions. Where is your evidence?
1 Like
This is still an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Physical reality DOES exist, as do natural material phenomena, you’re the one adding magic from a fictional deity you can’t demonstrate any objective evidence for.
Science doesn’t prove things, that a fairly basic misconception for a start, and there is objective evidence that consciousness is a product of the material physical evolved brain. So you will have to move your imaginary deity into a different gap.
No there isn’t, there are an abundance of unevidenced claims, that like your rhetoric use argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies that base claims for supernatural fantasies on not having any objective explanation for something. Much of it of course is the same kind of chicanery religions have a long history of creating. You’d have to be a special kind of gullible fool to fall that bilge.
I don’t believe you, what objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
Some quantum physicists tell us that no observer is necessary for the wave function to collapse and establish a reality.
Did you not read my post number 332 quoting my post numer 313?
Just to clarify:
“There are several quantum theories extant and there are currently no absolute truths or conclusions about what comprises reality at the quantum level. The best known and more popular theories, of ‘Papa’ Heisenberg and John Wheeler, state that the collapse of the wave function can only be achieved by an “observer” to record a quantum phenomenon. But even here the observer does not have to be conscious, it can be a photographic plate.
Such observations/measurements necessarily need to be classical, which leads some to the erroneous suggestion that human consciousness is required to initiate the collapse.
And there are other current theories such as the de Broglie-Bohm theory, attested by further independent research by Chris Dewdney (Birkbeck College London) that discounts the need for observers or measurements to collapse the wave.
Then there are a range of ‘collapse theories’ that suggest the wave function will collapse randomly without any observation at all, as promoted by Markus Arndt and Roger Penrose (who introduces the concept of gravitational instabilities to initiate collapse).”
Quantum physics doesn’t fit classical Newtownian interpretations. There are no simple black and white, hard/fast answers. Thats what science tell us.
Its all relative as Albert might say.
Brains, neurons, neural pathways, nerves etc are made from matter.Do you really believe one celled animals are conscious? They are only capable of reacting to their immediate niche. Even when the development of an organism’s neural system becomes complex enough to perceive and respond to larger environments it is still only deemed sensate (from sensation)
Consciousness is a feature usually associated with the human brain, specifically the frontal lobe which “contains areas devoted to abilities that are enhanced in or unique to our species” (from Wikipedia) which confers awareness of one’s own thoughts and personal self perception separate to, and with regard to, the external world.
You are confusing the conscious state with the sensate; the response of the senses which does not necessarily include self-awareness, mindfulness, or self-consciousness.
I refute your claim; consciousness is not primal but is emergent. It relies on the evolution of complex biological neural systems which by all rational probability could be due to abiogenesis, but even as we are not absolutely certain of this, abiogenesis still has a more scientifically based likelihood than disembodied creator consciousnesses.
OBEs and NDEs are not verifiable proofs of disembodied experiences, but rather physiological and neurological reactions to extreme traumatic circumstances.
There is absolutely ZERO scientific proof of any god creating matter or consciousness. But science at least has the decency not make any such claims on the existence of gods, it merely asserts there is no available evidence.
You may make all the claims you wish about the disembodied consciousness of your god but you simply cannot invent his existence without evidence.
1 Like
AND it can be “shut off”. The body can live without any conscious awareness from the brain.
Post INDISPUTABLE evidence that consciousness emerges from the brain . Any time will do .
Right after you produce indisputable evidence that consciousness can exist on its own.
Its midnight Sunday/Monday here. Busy Monday, but I’ll be back.
1 Like
Barring some brain damage or defect, all human brains develop a consciousness.
There is ZERO consciousness that does not have a brain.
1 Like
Post INDISPUTABLE evidence that an H2O molecule is “wet”. Any time will do.
Idiot. The collection of H2O molecules into “water” (even a drop) is what gives the quality we describe as “wetness”.
You need a brain (and all that is involved collectively) to have the quality we describe as “consciousness”.
3 Likes
Personality changes resulting from brain damage, including cognitive decline in dementia sufferers. Physical changes in the brain lead to changes in the state of consciousness.
The complete loss of consciousness, including any sense of elapsed time, under general anesthesia
Brain scans showing localized spikes of electrical activity in the brain during specific mental processes
2 Likes
Shifting the burden of proof won’t wash sunshine.
It was you who claimed near death and out of body experiences prove consciousness independent of the brain. The burden of proof is yours. Not up to us to disprove your claim.
1 Like
I have a radio that the tuning knob doesn’t work and the antenna is broken . It still turns on and makes crackling noises but there is no music . Silly me , here I was thinking it was the radio that made the music until somebody showed me that it was just a receiver and the music came from somewhere else .
If we take the history of civilization with its untold record of claims of spiritual transcendence across all peoples around the world along with claims of OBE and NDE from the beginning of recorded history and we then discount 99.9% of those claims the remaining 0.10 is exponentially greater then any claims of matter producing consciousness where the evidence to back up such claims is absolutely 100% ZERO . Using Occam we can safely assert that the claims of transcendence through spiritual, near death or OBE vastly outweigh any counter claims that matter produced consciousness. This being the case then this would suggest a creator - God , is the necessary agent for consciousness .
I’m sorry about your radio. Maybe an aluminum foil hat would improve your reception.
My brain receives information through my senses and creates its own music.
2 Likes
Occam works for me . Anything v ZERO puts the balance in Gods favor.
Got any evidence to prove that matter produces consciousness?
No. Every creature that lives and ever lived is evidence of matter producing consciousness. OBE and NDE are transitory mental states caused by drugs, oxygen deprivation, injuries, etc.
1 Like
Try depressing your carotid artery and observe any changes in your consciousness. Then release it and feel the matter rushing back into your brain to restore your consciousness.
Truth is not a popularity contest. Your numbers are meaningless.
Faith, such as yours, in the innumerable claims of transcendent experiences, even including OBEs and NDEs, supposedly evidencing the realm of the supernatural (which they haven’t done, they remain claims) does not confer any more strength to the validity to your 0.1%, portion. It too, remains a claim and carries no validity in the quest for the elusive truth.
The probability of abiogenesis as having happened is not disproved even by the full 100% of your unevidenced “spiritual transcendence” claims. Abiogenesis has as much right to the evidence of the world around, as your claim that it proves the existence of a celestial disembodied consciousness. You still need to prove the existence of your god and the cosmology that supports it first before you can move onto establishing how consciousness can exist on its own.
The fact is, that while gods remain unevidenced, we have the proof around us that life began at some point in time, and further, it is comprised of the same atoms and elements, compounds and processes, found in the material composition of the Earth and in all the celestial operations of the Universe. Abiogenesis remains the most likely contender for that starting point and does not require the intrusion of a god.
Occam’s Razor favours the least complicated explanation, not the most popular.
A unevidenced god comes with no explanation of its existence nor for the mechanisms of it’s disembodied consciousness.
Science at least has the benefit of recorded and validated observations of its laws and theorems in physics, chemistry and biochemistry.
As difficult it might be to accept the inevitability of abiogenesis, it remains the most likely conceivable explanation for the genesis of life in the material reality and is therefore favoured by Occam’s Razor.
1 Like