Darwinism, education, materialism's fatal flaw

quote:

---

I think there is evidence that while we are in the natural, the brain is where the mind resides, and if we switch off the brain - the brain ceases to exist, and any natural attributes that pertain to the mind.

---

Uhum.

quote:

---

But I disagree that there is no reason to suggest the mind lives on, because I have proved that while the motorbike engine can be killed, it won't kill the driver.

---

But that inane analogy doesn't prove anything unless you you can prove that the engine is the same as the brain.

quote:

---

This means that if the motorbike engine is stopped - the driver can carry on existing yet the mind that functions the motorbike is apparently not operating anymore - if we just look at the motorbike.

---

Which is an inane analogy, as the "mind" of your scenario would be the driver, not the engine. As such, if the driver dies, does the motorcycle continue as before? THAT is the real analogy question here.

Actually no your analogy doesn't work. You are trying to talk about the motorcycle and its engine, but then introduces a driver. So you are excerting outside control. [/quote]My point was that if the engine dies - then if we look at the engine alone, and we cannot know that there is a driver by looking in the engine - then from looking at the engine ALONE, the driver has ceased to be, if there is one.[/quote]Or the motor cycle was parked, or it is made of plastics and is only a model or whatnot. If you want to look at the relationship between the motorcycle and the engine, then you can work out a model where you can predict the interactions. There may or may not be a driver as long as there is no sign of him/her, and as such the existence of the driver is irrelevant.You have got to be careful about all those silly creationist analogies. They always end up trying to set up some unrelaistic environment because the real world doesn't fit their wild and crazy beliefs. Setting up an analogy that f.ex. if the world was aglass of watre then there were no dinosaurs because there iare no diinosaurs in the glass, that would be a poor analogy because the world is not like a glass of water in that scenario.As for the engine shifting gears etc, that would be the application of an outside influence that is detectable. So your claim doesn't work.

quote:

---

This means that when the engine revs, we say that the engine causes this as all the engine parts are accounted for. Since we don't know that there is a driver from within the engine - then any mind the engine has - ceases to exist when the engine dies. Or does it? Looking at the engine alone it does. This is why my analogy is far from inane. It is very relevant how I have explained it.

---

And this is where your claim is false. When looking at the engine, we will be able to examine what happens to the engine when it revs, and we will notice the outside force, the cable running to the trottle. So your simplistic claim doesn't fit reality. Your analogy is false.

quote:

---

Wrong. From looking at the engine and it's parts you cannot detect the driver.

---

But when looking at the engine in all its details, if the driver affects the engine, we would be able to note an action that did not have a cause. That would show us that there was an outside force. It is this that you have not dealt with in your arguement.

quote:

---

That's reality - which you are apparently denying for sake of debate.

---

Rather, you ignored that if the engine is changing speed etc, there is a detectable cause. It is your falwed argument. Don't blame me for finding the holes in it.

quote:

---

Apparently - the bike doesn't need one to run. Occams razor means that no driver is necessary as it has been explained, as you've just said - by a throttle cable moving, and parts interacting.

---

Ah, but the throttle cable moving for no discernable reason is the evidence for an outside force. So your arguemnt still founders

quote:

---

You haven't understood my analogy from my perspective, and what I mean by it.

---

No, I have not, as it doesn't make sense and have serious flaws in it. Yoru argument doesn't work the way you say it does. So of course, it is impossible to figure it out "from your perspective"

quote:

---

Assume this premise;

​

We can only detect the engine and it's interacting parts.

---

Yes.

quote:

---

Now try and see what I am saying. All that is required for the engine to function - is all the interacting parts, and they're all you've got to work with according to my analogy.

---

Yes. And...?

quote:

---

Now all we have is those parts to look at. My claim is that you cannot locate a driver in the engine, and any mind that controls the engine - cannot be detected, therefore when the engine switches off - any mind dies, according to the evidence.

---

More nonsense. If something happens by external force to alter the function of the engine, it would be detected. If it stipped, we would be able to detect that the fule stopped flowing or that electricity to the sparkplug no longer was generated, and that this happened for reasons that we can not detect within the engine. That evidences an outside force. So you are still wrong. We might not be able to detect a "driver," but we will know that there is a force from outside the engine that controls it.Your argument is flawed. (Perhaps you don't know enough about engines to make this argument?)

quote:

---

quote:

---

Actually no your analogy doesn't work. You are trying to talk about the motorcycle and its engine, but then introduces a driver. So you are excerting outside control.

---

It matters not logically. All we have is an engine. We can only make conclusions about what we have - and the analogy says that all you have is the engine and it's parts to look at.

---

And we note whether the forces and changes that are observable are explained by what we can see. If not, then we know there is an outside source, and we will even have a pretty good idea what that outside source does (pull throttle cable, stops gas flow or electricity, ect.).

quote:

---

You are ignoring reality. IN REALITY you cannot locate a driver in an engine or it's interacting parts.

---

But you can locate outside influences. So your argument still doesn't work.

quote:

---

Here is my argument;

​

We can only detect the engine and it's interacting parts.

​

the engine and interacting parts are all that are needed to work the bike

---

Which is not true, as the engine does not run the on/off switch, the throttle or a whole bunch of other factors that affects the engine. So your working engine only works without outside influence. There is energy use that is detectable, and which we will need to account for. There are physical changes that must be accounted for. If we can not, then we know that there are other aspects to the engine. So either we must conclude that more than the engine is needed, or the engine merely idles and never changes (until it runs out of fuel). You can not excert an outside force on the engine without it being detectable, per the first law of thermodynamics. If energy is added or removed, it violates the 1ToE, and we must conclude outside forces affecting our model. This is rather basic physics.

quote:

---

Conclusion; The engine when looked at alone, runs itself efficiently, with no detectable driver or outside influence needed. ALl the parts are accounted for - and it functions on it's own, without invoking "driverdidit" scenarios.

---

Your conclusion is false and not supported by the result as we would see it in real life, outside of your limited scenario which doesn't fit to begin with.

quote:

---

This is exactly the same as a brain. A brain and any mind thereof inside of it - are all accounted for in the parts of the brain.

---

Nope. There are many functions to a brain that are affected by outside forces and many results of a "mind" that are detectable from its resulting actions. So your claim is false.

quote:

---

Since we cannot detect any mind beyond the engine, then why invoke it?

---

Ahem, yes we can detect a "mind." The brain itself doesn't do anything but sit there as a ball of tissue. Any actions from the brain is the result of a "mind."

quote:

---

Do u agree with the blue argument? Yes or no answer please, thankyou.

---

No, I do not, as described above.

quote:

---

If u need further explanation, consult Dr Dan for three sessions of hand puppets.

---

And if you need further, try a gradeschool science textbook. Are we done with the stupid snideness now?

quote:

---

I gave the answer. The difference is that we know there's a driver.

---

In which case, the scenario you gave of us only being able to examine the engine is patently false. If we know there is driver, then it is because that driver is observable.

quote:

---

Whereas with brains, we don't know there is any supernatural mind behind a brain.

---

Rather, we have never ben able to identify even the slightest sign of one. Any proclamation of such a power is merely a wild guess; a case of whishful thinking being portrayed as factual or reasonable. It is right up there with the pink, invisible unicorn.

quote:

---

I was trying to show that our limited science makes us conclude that a brain is the "all" concerning mind.

---

Ah, so you are faulting the Scientific Method for only dealing with what is observable or meassurable. That certainly is true. But it doesn't fit with the example you gave regarding the motorcycle. And we have yet to identify anything regarding the brain that would require an outside force.

quote:

---

Nevertheless;

quote:

---

Ah, but the throttle cable moving for no discernable reason

---

Reason?? What reason? Is there a reason for the universe and it's laws?

---

There are forces and measurable effects. The trottle cable doesn't just move by magic. It moves because a force excerts effect onto it. That's one place where your model fails, this assumption that things happen and we are not able to meassure what affects it and from where the force comes.

quote:

---

Is there a reason I should have a brain and it should work?

---

There is the reality of it having evolved as a central processing unit for bodily functions over millenia.

quote:

---

Why should it? Why would it? Why should there be a reason why the engine goes?

---

Again, your claim does not match your posted evidence. At best, what you can ask is why there is an engine to begin with.It is important that your conclusions match the provided evidence. If you are going to make claims that are not supported by your example, or which contradicts tyour example, then you will get called on it. So why don't you redesign your example so it fits?

quote:

---

It does, and the engine is evidence enough, like the brain.

---

Not as you have presented it. perhaps you have some added insight into the model you developed, but as you have yet to share it with us, all we can do is note that as you described the engine model, it doesn't correlate to the brain/mind claims that you have made.

quote:

---

How fitting that you should suggest that there needs to be an outdide reason or influence. This is illogical with the evidence you have.

​

1. We only have the engine and it's parts.
2. All the parts needed to run an engine - run it succesfully.

---

AH, but you are now making a false claim. Gasoline and electricity runs into the engine and these are meassurable. So we already know that there is more to making the engine run than what you initially presented to us. We also know that there is an outside force that affects the speed of the engine as there is a meassurable force that changes the trottle, a force not generated from inside the engine. So given your "evidence" with no gasoline, no spark and no meassurable force on the trottle, no the engine does NOT run and it is not working.So your analogy is false until you rectify those glaring inconsistencies.

quote:

---

If you're invoking an outside force - why should it be a being with a mind?

---

It shouldn't, as long as we can meassure and explain through simple physics how the outside force gets implemented. But as we have random throttle movements not affected by the engine itself, you need some kind of outside decisionmaking. Again, your claim doesn't fit the reality of the model.

quote:

---

Sorry, but if that's the information you have - then Ocamm's razor must apply

---

Occam's Razor has to tell us that if there are forces at play that are not coming from the engine, they must come from the outside of the engine. And if these forces are not meassurable and predictable, then Occam's razor must conclude that there is some unknown force that does not respond to the engine but rather controls it.

quote:

---

An on switch is needed to start an engine, any fantasies about a being starting it is Occam's razor.

---

But reality, per Occam's razor, is that unless the force and trigger to start the switch can be found inside the engine, it must come from otside the engine. This is rather plain and simply physics, and it is a mystery to me why you feel that the model must reject this. If your model can only work if we reject basic physics, then it is a rather fantasy-driven model, don't you agree?

quote:

---

Scientists still haven't figured out all the answers to the mysteries of the brain, and they've only got the natural they can deal with.

---

What exactly is your claim here? You are rapidly enetring into my professional field here, and I can assure you that sofar you have not hit on anything "mysterious" that we must atribute to supernatural forces. Neurologists are not basing their models on supernatural miracles.

quote:

---

You invoke a driver willy nilly but you won't invoke a supernatural mind concerning unexplained brainless phenomenon syndromes, and mindful poltergeist activity.

---

because there are no such "unexplained brainless phenomenon syndromes." And no evidence that 'poltergeist" activity actually exists. People's fantasy is not evidence. Wishful thinking and beliefs are not evidence of anything.

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, I do not, as described above

---

So you don't agree that all the mindful attributes are accounted for by the brain?

---

Yes, I do.

quote:

---

Are you invoking a supernatural soul? If not - why? You invoked a driver as an outside source

---

A driver that is meassurable.Again, that your method is so flawed that it can't fit reality, that is not my fault; it is the fault of the flawed model as you have presented it. Science wortks and fits the evidence by its very nature. Wishful thinking and the trying to "define" reality into somehting it is not as the only foundation of your model merely shows that your model is a poor model.

quote:

---

quote:

---

a case of whishful thinking being portrayed as factual or reasonable. It is right up there with the pink, invisible unicorn.

---

How do you establish that it is pink and a unicorn if it is invisible?

---

He, he. The example was originally generated when there was a discussion about Pascal's Wager (If you have never heard about it, the history behind that argument is rather interesting. I can give you the link if you are interested).The essense of the pink invisible unicorn deals with blind faith. If you believe that there is a God, but you are wrong and instead there is the invisible pink unicorn, then the unicorn will punish you for believing in the wrong God.That aside, it does relate to how some people presume to speak for God, whether it is the creationists, the pro-lifers or the nati-gay crowd. They have a claim as to what God is all about, based on selective reading of the Bible, often directly speaking against God from other parts of the Bible.So they actually knows nothing about God, yet make claims in God's name, claims they can be no more sure off than they can of the color of the invisible unicorn.

The Red Hummer is still generated by chemical interactions between neurons. No, the brain doesn't "store" images like a computer stores files. But it is capable of retreiving specific images through chemical interaction between the nerves and through new connections (dendrites) that are laid down with memories. As such, the right nerve stimulation or chemical addition at the right spot in the right sequence and timing should generate an impression of a red hummer. Can we then generate a green hummer? Only if we also allow the brain to grow a few new connections associated with that memory.