Explain THIS!!

by MrMoe 46 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Grout

  What is it that makes a person self-aware?

  Well, science narrowed it down to the brain some time ago, and has by a process of elimination excluded quite a lot of the brain from being a seat of self-awareness. I'm not up on the latest research, but I seem to recall that there were a few substructures in the brain that are candidates, and laboratory tests are underway.

  I cannot prove that there are no psychic powers, any more than you can prove that there is not an invisible dragon in my garage. That's a straw man. But a person of science will not believe that something exists without repeatable evidence.

  And don't even bother with that "understanding how it works" crap. Many great insights start with unexplained observations. The key is that the observations must be REPEATABLE. In lieu of repeatable observations, psychic friends substitute handwaving and anecdotes. Any rational being should be ashamed to be associated with such frippery.
• 

  Xander

  I seem to recall that there were a few substructures in the brain that are candidates

  You misunderstand me. The brain works as a collection of cells that send electrical impulses between each other. What about THAT makes me self-aware? I mean, my computer is a collection of an awful lot of parts that send electrical impulses, and it is most certainly not self aware. The internet is a collection of computers sending impulses all around the world. No inherenet sentience there, either.

  What is it about the pattern if impulses in the human brain that make us self-aware? Not WHERE is this center of conscience. But WHY is it? Could it be that the pattern of impulses that carry our personality and ability to be self-aware can match a pattern of someone who lived before? If, even for a moment, it does, does anything unusual happen then?

  Is this completely a red herring and something else entirely could be at work?

  I'm not saying 'look, here is the reason why people could be psychic.' It's just that it can't be ruled out. No, it can't be scientifically proven, so I don't require anybody to believe it to be so. I do, however, take exception to you criticizing those who do believe what, by your own admission, cannot be disproved.
• 

  Grout

  I do, however, take exception to you criticizing those who do believe what, by your own admission, cannot be disproved.

  Apparently you missed the point. I do not criticize the belief per se, but its flimsy basis.

  I'm open to any possibility that is indicated by repeatable observation and/or experiment. Maybe somebody will someday repeatably demonstrate psychic powers. If that happens, I'll be the first to sign up for lessons. But, in the meantime, to affirmatively believe that psychic powers actually do exist -- without solid repeatable observations as a basis -- is to invite well-deserved ridicule.

  The number of things that cannot be disproved is infinite. It is not a religious axiom but a practical requirement of science that any theory, in order to earn the name "theory", must be disprovable. Otherwise, science would be overrun with nonsense.

  And here's the key: Each individual mind faces the same choice: Either discard theories that cannot be disproven, or be overrun with nonsense. I have chosen the former. It is sad how many choose the latter.

  Edited by - grout on 13 June 2002 16:43:16
• 

  funkyderek

  What is it about the pattern if impulses in the human brain that make us self-aware? Not WHERE is this center of conscience. But WHY is it?

  Why, as in what purpose does it serve, or why as in, what is the mechanism by which it works?

  Could it be that the pattern of impulses that carry our personality and ability to be self-aware can match a pattern of someone who lived before?

  It seems unlikely. There are so many possible combinations that the likelihood of two brains having the same configuration "even for a moment" is so improbable that it would never happen even once in the lifetime of the universe.

  Is this completely a red herring and something else entirely could be at work?

  It could be that nothing at all is at work. As there is no objective evidence for the existence of psychic powers, why try to find possible explanations?
• 

  Xander

  what is the mechanism by which it works

  I guess if I had to pick from those choices, I'd say this one. In short, why is the pretty basic physics going on in my head enought to make me self-aware when it is not enough to make a computer self-aware. There is some difference, and I don't accept that "It's more complex" is a good explanation - else the obvious point of 'what does it mean when we make a CPU that IS as complicated as the human brain'.

  is so improbable

  I wouldn't discount improbable things from happening. Look at a strand of DNA. Granted, it didn't START that complicated, but what are the odds of the creation of self-replicating molecules that eventually lead to the DNA we all have? And yet, here we are. I'd say the universe stacks the deck in its own favor from time to time.

  why try to find possible explanations

  The reason many look is because odd things happen that need explanation. Things turn on, things move on their own, etc. A lot of it can be explained by specific proven phenomena. Some can't. And the higher functions of the human brain still is mostly mystery.
• 

  MrMoe

  tisk tisk tisk

  You cannot disproove it either. I beleive, but hten again, I have seen and felt it all first hand.

  Derek - You on yet still for that tarot reading? If so, when? How much is it to call to Ireland anyhow? Do you have Internet at home? ? If so, do you have a microphone?

  Kisses,

  Moe
• 

  Grout

  And the entire explanation just goes zoom right past them.

  Like I said: The human race is a questionable investment. But I've got nowhere else to go.
• 

  invisible

  OK Grout, run it past me then, your whole essence of what you believe to be true, do you accept everything, absolutely everything just on the pretext that another scientist cooked up some data in another part of the world? By which measurements psychologically do you thus use for such tests? Do you use only those that equate to your own reasoning or do you also accept as fact subconsciously many things that you have not yet measured on the other side of the world, but prepared to only follow the data patterns presented?

  Thats a rather narrow minded science you're partaking in there Grout, tell you what, start a new post: Science and psychic capacities, how measured? Lets see the feedback.

  Frippery my ass!!

  Celtic Mark celebrating our differences.
• 

  Xander

  Either discard theories that cannot be disproven, or be overrun with nonsense

  I simply maintain this choice you present is too limited. A rational person can still accept theories solely on the basis that they cannot be disproven and not have to accept ALL such theories.

  I can believe the universe has a definate ending point, and nothing lies beyond (?null space?). This cannot be disproven. Would you assume I am letting myself be 'overrun with nonsense' for believing a theory solely on the basis that it cannot be disproven?

  I can believe that humans evolved completely without a creator. Or, evolved with the assistence of some higher beings. Neither theory can be disproved. One must obviously be true. Would I be letting myself be 'overrun with nonsense' for believing either one of them?
• 

  Grout

  invisible, you don't know me, but you're gonna have to trust me on this:

  I do not understand what you are asking for.

  Please try again, and I promise to try to answer you.