Darwinism, education, materialism's fatal flaw

Ofcourse. The brain that controls the motorcycle cannot be located inside the motorcycle - or the engine. Also, if something goes wrong, the bike can break down.So even if we prod with the bike and make it stop working etc, that doesn't mean the human brain that functions outside of the system, will stop working. Essentially, this means that even if our brains can be tampered with to induce experiences, it doesn't mean that consciousness is fully dependent on the brain. It just means that any ties it has naturally (consciousness) - can be tampered with naturally.Tell that to Shraff please.

I can't in the natural. Because we're under natural law, and death is the end naturally, then if you stop my brain you end my natural existence.No consciousness can be found in the natural, after death. So I cannot prove consciousness is beyond the brain, but if we kill the motor engine do we kill the driver?

Shraff, 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. 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.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.Dan; Neutral.

*Whack*.

Who cares? That's not important. We're establishing as to whether mind exists after the brain, Not if brain exists after the mind. We know the latter not the former, so don't be insulting.I've already admitted that while we are in the natural - our minds are very much dependent on our brains, naturally.Your question means, according to my analogy; If the mind dies does the brain continue?. Hence - a mikey cabbage. You're forgetting that my comparison is pertaining to what I'm talking about. 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. If the machine functioning - shifting through the gears - is apparently a mindful endeavour of the machine - (it is if looking at the machine only) - THEN that mind has ceased to exist when the engine is switched off, according to our knowledge. (Our knowledge in the analogy is that we can only look at the engine).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.Thus concerning your question about the motorcycle: If there is only one motorcyclist and one motorcycle in my analogy (which there is) - then if that individual rider ceases to exist, then the motorcycle could or could not run, but essentially and eventually it will cease functioning completely. But we can say that it will not run properly without a driver, (it won't function properly anymore). It might run in neutral untill it runs out of fuel.So there are many possibilities. The motorcycle might continue to run, but will not be functioning properly. For example, you won't catch it changing gears, It will just be a switched on machine. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-31-2004 11:39 AM

Wrong. From looking at the engine and it's parts you cannot detect the driver. That's reality - which you are apparently denying for sake of debate. 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.You haven't understood my analogy from my perspective, and what I mean by it.Assume this premise;We can only detect the engine and it's interacting parts.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.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. 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.You are ignoring reality. IN REALITY you cannot locate a driver in an engine or it's interacting parts.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 bikeConclusion; 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. 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. Since we cannot detect any mind beyond the engine, then why invoke it?Do u agree with the blue argument? Yes or no answer please, thankyou.If u need further explanation, consult Dr Dan for three sessions of hand puppets.^{ylpmi siht dluow tahw , enigne eht tceted ylno dluoc ew fi taht, si tniop eht tub, ytilaer ni detceted eb nac revird a taht si - tnemugra siht fo noitatufer eht}This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-02-2005 17:55 AM

I gave the answer. The difference is that we know there's a driver. Whereas with brains, we don't know there is any supernatural mind behind a brain.I was trying to show that our limited science makes us conclude that a brain is the "all" concerning mind.Nevertheless; Reason?? What reason? Is there a reason for the universe and it's laws? Is there a reason I should have a brain and it should work? Why should it? Why would it? Why should there be a reason why the engine goes? It does, and the engine is evidence enough, like the brain.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.If you're invoking an outside force - why should it be a being with a mind?Sorry, but if that's the information you have - then Ocamm's razor must apply.An on switch is needed to start an engine, any fantasies about a being starting it is Occam's razor.A driver cannot be located in an engine. Exactly. That's my whole point.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.You invoke a driver willy nilly but you won't invoke a supernatural mind concerning unexplained brainless phenomenon syndromes, and mindful poltergeist activity. So you don't agree that all the mindful attributes are accounted for by the brain? Are you invoking a supernatural soul? If not - why? You invoked a driver as an outside source.As for the hand puppets, it was just a joke. I'll tell Dan he's snide for you. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-02-2005 20:15 AM

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