Our Brain, Our Brain on "God"

[POI]

The default position is that a physical brain is necessary to produce "conscious thought". Theists will argue, in addition, an "external source" is also necessary to give us some or all of our "conscious thought". And by 'external source', this could mean a Christian God, another god(s), or maybe even an evil source, or other such as acting as a 'medium' for dead relatives/other.

For debate: Does the material brain need/require an external source, or 'god(s)', to give us any information? I'm leaning towards no-ish. Why?

1) The only time we get information in which we could not have conjured up completely on our own is when we engage other humans/other. Such as, in a classroom, communicating with others at work, etc... However, when one states they are receiving messages from some "invisible/external source", it seems to be information they can manufacture on their own?
2) If a part of our brain becomes damaged, altered, or destroyed, which controls particular function(s), the brain is no longer able to produce/function in the same manor.
3) Brain tumors have been known to change a person's personality and/or impulse behaviors. It is no longer thought to be because of "evil" external sources.

I'll stop here....

[Diogenes]

The chemicals reacting aren't the emotions themselves.
Go in the chemistry lab and ask the chemist "hey man, where do you keep the "love" chemicals...are they in the freezer?" lol.

Yes, you are missing something...you are missing the love and grace of Jesus.
Newsflash, amigo; you are special...you were created in the image of the living God...and he loves you...you were on his mind when he created you.

Actually, the electrical impulses ARE the emotions themselves. The fact that you don't understand how that works is not an argument; it is a confession. The flippant '"hey man, where do you keep the "love" chemicals...?' is not an argument, but confirms ignorance of how the brain works.
The rest of this effort consists of mere claims rather than argument supported by evidence.

[SiNcE_1985]

Actually, the electrical impulses ARE the emotions themselves.

Um, no they aren't.

In the same way a digital image of a loving father giving his child a teddy bear, the pixels that make up the digital image isn't the "love" itself.

So, lets try not to jump in to conversations unless we know what we are talking about.

The fact that you don't understand how that works is not an argument; it is a confession.

Oh, so because you made one of the most baseless and empty assertions that I've ever seen on this forum..

"Actually, the electrical impulses ARE the emotions themselves."

You made that assertion^, without providing the least of an argument based on inference or deductive reasoning..

Because you did this, that is supposed to demonstrate your superior knowledge of this subject, over mines?

The flippant '"hey man, where do you keep the "love" chemicals...?' is not an argument, but confirms ignorance of how the brain works.
The rest of this effort consists of mere claims rather than argument supported by evidence.

Still nothing?

Next..

[TRANSPONDER]

Not quite. Even if that was true, it would be your assertion against his, and the mere existence of an alternative claim means that yours has no force.

But there is more. We know that stuff works because of biophysics and, substance dualism theory aside, the default is that stuff works without anything more than physics. This is the material default, which is a basic logical position known in apologetics to everyone but religious apologists.

Your claim fails doubly because the naturalist theory has the default, not the supernaturalist ones.

But more, research shows that neuron responses to sensory input release chemicals that give emotional responses to back up ideas and thoughts.

You lose on three levels.

The molecules of emotion, a kind of neuropeptide, change the chemistry and electricity of every cell in the body and mind. Feelings literally alter the electrical frequencies generated by our bodies producing a nonverbal communication.26 Jan 2007"

(just lifted off the internet.

I know, not Authoritative. But it shows that it is Known as a theory or hypothesis. I'll try to find something explaining the science.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #83]

With all due respect, how about talking to me, instead of at me.

You are filibustering.

Nothing you said even remotely touches my case for mind/body dualism.

[William]

The default position is that a physical brain is necessary to produce "conscious thought".

This assumes then that conscious thought is necessary?

Theists will argue, in addition, an "external source" is also necessary to give us some or all of our "conscious thought". And by 'external source', this could mean a Christian God, another god(s), or maybe even an evil source, or other such as acting as a 'medium' for dead relatives/other.

It appears to be the case that (in general) theists and atheists accept/agree that mind is immaterial and the difference is that the theists believe that the mind doesn't die when the brain which hosted (or created it) it does.

For debate: Does the material brain need/require an external source or 'god(s)', to give us any information?

This is certainly the case for many things thought about. There appears to be a correlation between thought and external events which together produce information.
As to "gods" being an aspect of that external source of information, the definition varies but the general theists consensus is that gods are immaterial and thus it would be impossible to verify using physical science.
More importantly, (re "us") what information is it that the brain - in correlation with the external source (universe) - is giving and to whom is it giving it, and what relationship do brains have with whom it is giving said information to?

I'm leaning towards no-ish. Why?

1) The only time we get information in which we could not have conjured up completely on our own is when we engage other humans/other. Such as, in a classroom, communicating with others at work, etc... However, when one states they are receiving messages from some "invisible/external source", it seems to be information they can manufacture on their own?
2) If a part of our brain becomes damaged, altered, or destroyed, which controls particular function(s), the brain is no longer able to produce/function in the same manor.
3) Brain tumors have been known to change a person's personality and/or impulse behaviors. It is no longer thought to be because of "evil" external sources.

I'll stop here....

I have bolded the words in your sentences which require identifying as to the source of said entities...as generally theists claim that those are made by an immaterial entity (god) while atheists claim they are made by material entities (brains) so the question to be asking is "what are WE talking about when WE mention US and OTHERS?".

General theists argue these are immaterial entities which are experiencing being human while atheists argue these are immaterial entities created by brains.

The first question to answer therefore, is why brains created these immaterial entities and then gave these IE's sentience and then move on to explaining exactly what they/we/us/others are.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #83]

With all due respect, how about talking to me, instead of at me.

You are filibustering.

Nothing you said even remotely touches my case for mind/body dualism.

With all die respect, don't tell me how to frame my posts. And second, you may wave the rebuttal aside, but others will see the point being made - you have nothing but a faithclaim (that there is Something More to consciousness than the brain) and materialism has some science and logical backiup.

The default position is that a physical brain is necessary to produce "conscious thought".

This assumes then that conscious thought is necessary?

Theists will argue, in addition, an "external source" is also necessary to give us some or all of our "conscious thought". And by 'external source', this could mean a Christian God, another god(s), or maybe even an evil source, or other such as acting as a 'medium' for dead relatives/other.

It appears to be the case that (in general) theists and atheists accept/agree that mind is immaterial and the difference is that the theists believe that the mind doesn't die when the brain which hosted (or created it) it does.

For debate: Does the material brain need/require an external source or 'god(s)', to give us any information?

This is certainly the case for many things thought about. There appears to be a correlation between thought and external events which together produce information.
As to "gods" being an aspect of that external source of information, the definition varies but the general theists consensus is that gods are immaterial and thus it would be impossible to verify using physical science.
More importantly, (re "us") what information is it that the brain - in correlation with the external source (universe) - is giving and to whom is it giving it, and what relationship do brains have with whom it is giving said information to?

I'm leaning towards no-ish. Why?

1) The only time we get information in which we could not have conjured up completely on our own is when we engage other humans/other. Such as, in a classroom, communicating with others at work, etc... However, when one states they are receiving messages from some "invisible/external source", it seems to be information they can manufacture on their own?
2) If a part of our brain becomes damaged, altered, or destroyed, which controls particular function(s), the brain is no longer able to produce/function in the same manor.
3) Brain tumors have been known to change a person's personality and/or impulse behaviors. It is no longer thought to be because of "evil" external sources.

I'll stop here....

I have bolded the words in your sentences which require identifying as to the source of said entities...as generally theists claim that those are made by an immaterial entity (god) while atheists claim they are made by material entities (brains) so the question to be asking is "what are WE talking about when WE mention US and OTHERS?".

General theists argue these are immaterial entities which are experiencing being human while atheists argue these are immaterial entities created by brains.

The first question to answer therefore, is why brains created these immaterial entities and then gave these IE's sentience and then move on to explaining exactly what they/we/us/others are.

The Theory is that conscious thought is necessary for survival. In critters, remember, not just humans. No. Materialism maintains that the 'mind' consciousness is material. Because electric impulses are matter in motion. Electric, light and x-ray particles are as much matter and bricks, wood and porridge.

There is no valid reason to believe that the order as part of the human survives death.

The passage about the gods being immaterial - inasmuch as it is saying anything at all - fails because anything immaterial is pretty much saying 'does not exist'. There is some failure of theist thought that believes in a complex intelligence of cosmic size that can do stuff and is made of nothing at all. The case for this being seems based on a mix of obsolete easy placeholder answers, stubborn denial and ignorance.

The remainder is just posing questions based on an already debunked supposition - Mind is immaterial. Electricity is material. question - anyone who thinks that the computer works by the immaterial is either ignorant or lying. Which is it?

[SiNcE_1985]

With all die respect, don't tell me how to frame my posts.

And second, you may wave the rebuttal aside, but others will see the point being made - you have nothing but a faithclaim (that there is Something More to consciousness than the brain) and materialism has some science and logical backiup.

Nothing to see here.

Moving along.

[TRANSPONDER]

With all die respect, don't tell me how to frame my posts.

And second, you may wave the rebuttal aside, but others will see the point being made - you have nothing but a faithclaim (that there is Something More to consciousness than the brain) and materialism has some science and logical backiup.

Nothing to see here.

Moving along.

Moving along where? You have nothing but faithclaims.

Ok, you want to wave away all i said. I had a look for some videos explaining the research that has shown the brain working. But they were to lecture - like or went off into philosophy, which only poses questions; it takes science to provide answers. But the upshot is that we know which bits of the brain activate when we have thoughts.

Even without the materialist default, the evidence is that it is the brain working with electricity (which is matter - particles) makes this effect. We already know reactions that are triggered by the brain for survival )or used to be) and chemical release to emotions. There is just no reason to pop a god in there other than the popper dearly wants there to be a god.
No evidence, nothing but faithclaims. Nothing to see there, folks. And I am talking to them because they matter. An individual believer doesn't, only their case - if they have one.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #88]

I have questions that science isn't in the position to answer.

[POI]

This assumes then that conscious thought is necessary?

Allow me to clarify. If 'consciousness' exists without, or, outside being directly connected to a physical brain, demonstrate it. Can you do that? You may wish to argue some/all of your thoughts are 'given'. Which insinuates/assumes there exists some origin/builder/operator outside the physical brain. But, if we take away your brain, can demonstration still be made for a source to the thoughts for which you argue are not your own, or, are instead by way of self-manifestation alone?

In other words, we know "brain-states" come from brains. Demonstrate the source of these "brain-states" come from elsewhere?

I'm going to stop here because the fundamental question still remains.

Can you demonstrate a builder/operator for the human brain?