Re: Kind of redundant post, but more specific question on \"thought\".
 

[ QUOTE ]
What empirical evidence exists to support the theory that we think?? our sense prove nothing and deliver no evidence towards the cause. As far as I can tell I am sure that I think based soley on rational, self evident truths.

[/ QUOTE ]

I "think" (lol) I just used the term "emperical evidence" wrong.

What you said then.

Re: Kind of redundant post, but more specific question on \"thought\".
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No one knows how our neurobiological processes produce consciousness. It's a complete mystery.

[/ QUOTE ]

It amazes me that a “scientist” is “allowed” to make statements such as these. But, if a believer would, he often would be considered “silly”.

I do not disagree with you at all in your statement.

[/ QUOTE ]


You make a good point. In a way it's not fair and in a way it is.

If you've actually studied something to a serious degree, you've given the subject a chance and met it on its own terms. If you haven't, it's usually not fair to make criticisms or major statements about the body of work. I think a lot of people feel entitled to make criticisms of particular areas of human research, theory, and endeavor with little experience with the field's best arguments, brightest minds, and most positive attributes. I've been in arguments with complete bullshitters on the net about science when it was clear they just googled something, weren't stupid, but didn't have enough background to really understand what they read.

I'm actually repeating what was told to me by one of my professors in neurobiology when I say we're clueless about how consciousness occurs. It is consistent with my own studies in the field. so I feel fairly confident in making the statement and I would be much less so in a field that I hadn't studied very seriously (like most branches of physics).

Re: Kind of redundant post, but more specific question on \"thought\".
 

"When I read this whole post, I couldn’t help but think this is how I think when I think of God."

Then don't add in stupid stuff about how some ho cheated on her husband and somehow got lucky enough to get out of it by starting a ridiculous religion. (Without that you have similar thoughts to mine when I talk about the uncertainty of conscious computers ever existing.)

Re: Kind of redundant post, but more specific question on \"thought\".
 

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
"When I read this whole post, I couldn’t help but think this is how I think when I think of God."

Then don't add in stupid stuff about how some ho cheated on her husband and somehow got lucky enough to get out of it by starting a ridiculous religion. (Without that you have similar thoughts to mine when I talk about the uncertainty of conscious computers ever existing.)

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

Blasphemy alert
 

Did you just call Mary, the Mother of Jesus, the Mother of The Son of God, our Virgin Mary, our Lady of The Immaculate Conception, a whore ?

May the Lord protect you.

http://www.iipg-queenofpeace.org/gospa.jpg

Re: Kind of redundant post, but more specific question on \"thought\".
 

[ QUOTE ]
...Then don't add in stupid stuff about how some ho cheated on her husband and somehow got lucky enough to get out of it by starting a ridiculous religion...

[/ QUOTE ]

Them’s fightin’ words, Buddy. I’ll be a gentleman and give you the opportunity to make what I would consider an honorable move and take back the statement. If not, I’ll be ready with both barrels.

In the spirit of full discloser let me tell you this, so we don’t have to resort to all out war* needlessly, your statement shows your ignorance** of marriage customs during the time of Mary.

I await your response. ( Btw, I will be busy the better part of this evening.)

* I have tried to be as objective as a believer could possibly be in the discourse here on the board. I think I would not be overreaching if I stated that I have been more objective (ironically) in general than some non-believers in particular. It does little good to have these types of discussions with totally closed minds on either side (this is not to say that either side would even think he could convince the other of much) - a total waste of time, and it has been done to death elsewhere. The “debate” thus far has been civil and interesting. Do you really want to change the integrity of the forum with insulting comments like the above? If so, then let’s "have at it", Brother.

** I use the word ignorant in its literal context. (Obviously, I think it ignorant in its figurative use also, but since that is a subjective point of view , totally irrelevant.)

Re: Kind of redundant post, but more specific question on \"thought\".
 

I am not an expert on neurobiology, however I believe what thoughts are is moderately well understood. They can be considered as patterns within the neuro-network that exists inside the mind.

If you are thinking of the sensation associated with thinking, which one might loosely consider as ones consciousness. I believe that’s an extension of the more mundane sensory network that has triggered some sort of feedback loop to create something quite amazing. Nature is full of such surprises -&gt; Cue picture of snowflake.

To elaborate, sensations are very important in the running of a life from. Further there seems to be some form of central interface for handling sensory impute. It seems quite natural for thought to use the same interface.

So in the same way that we might feel pain to alert us to some external event, we might feel a similar feeling to alert us to a thought that requires further attention. Or a pleasant sensation might encourage us to repeat the experience; in a similar way thought process in a certain direction could be encouraged.

So a link between senses and thought is to be expected. We might think therefore as thought as an extra sense, however unlike the other senses, we have direct control on what is experienced. I think the potential for some form of feedback loop is clear. The exact details might be difficult to work out, but still perfectly attainable IMHO.

Re: Kind of redundant post, but more specific question on \"thought\".
 

Take a close look at the books of Antonio Damasio.

Also, examine the emerging science of Consciousness Studies

You may find the short essay: The Brain and Field Theory of particular interest.

Re: Kind of redundant post, but more specific question on \"thought\".
 

"In the spirit of full discloser let me tell you this, so we don’t have to resort to all out war* needlessly, your statement shows your ignorance** of marriage customs during the time of Mary.

I await your response. ( Btw, I will be busy the better part of this evening.)"

If you are saying that even if Mary was not a virgin it didn't mean she cheated on her husband, (because she wasn't yet married or because Joseph was the father,) I stand corrected. If it did mean she cheated on him I will remind you that the Ten Commandments were already out there. If you are saying that she either cheated on her husband or she was a virgin, my statment stands.

Meanwhile I was actually paying you a compliment earlier. By pointing out that your intellectual stance on God makes a lot more sense than believing in silly religions.

Re: Kind of redundant post, but more specific question on \"thought\".
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you are saying that even if Mary was not a virgin it didn't mean she cheated on her husband, (because she wasn't yet married or because Joseph was the father,) I stand corrected.

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer would have a something similar ring as to what you stated in the above quote. I am not being coy, it is just pointless to get into the whole thing, now.


[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile I was actually paying you a compliment earlier. By pointing out that your intellectual stance on God makes a lot more sense than believing in silly religions.

[/ QUOTE ]


That is how I understood you. I thank your for the compliment.

Regarding religions being silly, you might indeed be correct. I have always entered into the discussion with that assumption for the sake of discourse. I have only tried to point out to you on various occasions that your view of my religion has many basics wrong. In the context of God exists it really isn’t as silly as it seems (not to suggest that you would not still find it silly). Even many (most) Christians have only the basic understanding of their religion. (Not to suggest I have much more than that.) So, it is not surprising to see that in yourself.


Again, I thank you for the discussion regarding the subject. I told you before something similar to this: That your generosity with your time (and not to insult you, but to keep the metaphor on point) is indeed Christian. I also look forward to more discussions about other topics.