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....

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #69]

The computer has a particular purpose. In order for the computer to have a purpose, someone, or something had to give it that purpose. Does our brain have a purpose?

Of course. An evolutionary purpose - to enable survival. The Facts and Evidence is that brains evolved to aid reaction to threats to survival or opportunities to survive. Brain to process sensory input; motor - brain to trigger response.

That's all the 'something' needed for a brain, and while argument for our brain being so much more is a bit of a gap for a god, it really isn't enough to flummox an atheist who has seen it all before.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #71]

So then, evolution is a thing which can give the brain a purpose? Does evolution have a purpose? If so, who are what gave evolution its purpose?

[Clownboat]

This is quite comical!

<Snipped justification for why you appealed to authority>

Well, that would be because the facts, and evidence for this would be overwhelming and therefore, they cannot deny it.

Please provide the facts and evidence for examination in place of an appeal to authority. I am generally interested in seeing the facts and evidence you have that would suggest a dead body reanimated after 3 days.
Also, please supply the best facts and evidence to support the Biblical claim that the bodies of many dead saints came out of their graves and walked the streets of Jerusalem appearing to many.

Much appreciated!

and also note that you were unable to address the two question I posed to you.

My friend, I did not ignore this question in the least.

You dodged providing an answer to the question, you did not ignore the question. Either way, to dodge or to ignore is to not provide an answer.

Again again: (Copy/paste) Humans throughout all known time and throughout the entire globe it seems have invented gods, the examples above I would assume are the reasons. Do you have a different thought as to why these god concepts came about? If people from Asia came to the Americas 15,000 years ago as is currently thought, by what mechanism did their god concepts come about?
(If the term 'god concepts' is confusing you, insert another word, but I cannot think of one that is more descriptive of what I mean than the term I have been using).

You are comparing Christianity to "god concepts" from the beginning of time, and I have demonstrated that Christianity is not in the least some sort of "god concept".

Every religion has its god concept or god concepts. Christianity included, even though they can't agree if the god concept is one or 3 beings/gods.

In other words, Christianity is not built upon any sort of "god concept" but is rather built upon what is claimed to be an historical event which folks claimed to have witnessed in the face of those who would have had every reason to put a stop to it.

I'm sorry, but the Garden of Eden story (original sin concept for the god concept to then save us from) is not a historical event. If I'm wrong, I'm interested in hearing why you think the story is historical.

It is built upon the fact that Paul was opposed to this movement to the point of putting folks to death, only then to become the reason for the spread of Christianity all over the known world at the time.

Unfortunately, humans killing each other over their preferred god concepts is not something that is in short supply. So if Paul did this, it is very normal sadly.

So no! I did not ignore the question in the least.

Correct, you dodge it. Hopefully you answered it this time as I'm very interested in your thoughts on the matter.
I'm sure there are many readers that would also like to hear your thoughts on how so many different religions came about in the Americas (for starters).

Ishtar Is the Earliest Deity in Written Evidence
They date back to the Late Uruk period of Sumer in Southern Mesopotamia, from around the 5th century BCE, a period we might call the very dawn of history.

How do you propose that the god concept Ishtar came about? I already listed why I believe that humans have created god concepts, but I would like to hear your thoughts in case I need to sharpen my thinking.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #69]

The computer has a particular purpose. In order for the computer to have a purpose, someone, or something had to give it that purpose. Does our brain have a purpose?

I find this question irrelevant. The theist will argue the brain cannot function on its own accord. So, all the theist needs to do is to demonstrate a builder/operator. Can you do that, or am I to chase the rabbit trail instead?

[Clownboat]

So then, evolution is a thing which can give the brain a purpose?

Not necessarily. Evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
If a 'better' brain was a survival advantage to a population of animals, evolution is the process that best describes how the brain got 'better'. Evolution does not equal giving a brain a purpose though.

Does evolution have a purpose? If so, who or what gave evolution its purpose?

The fact of evolution, that populations change is not purpose driven as far as I can tell. For all we know, there is some god concept driving evolution, though that isn't necessary.
The theory of evolution (that currently best describes the fact of evolution above) is a mechanism. Assuming a 'who' is to assume facts that are not in evidence. Especially when a 'who' isn't necessary for the proposed mechanism to explain the facts.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to POI in post #69]

The computer has a particular purpose. In order for the computer to have a purpose, someone, or something had to give it that purpose. Does our brain have a purpose?

This is an interesting area of discussion. Computers and hammers are both tools. We give a computer a purpose; that is, we built it to accomplish a task. We give a hammer a purpose, to drive in nails or other objects by percussive force.

The quantum difference between a hammer and a computer is the computer's ability to control movement as opposed to being moved. This leads to a 2d Q-leap; the CPU of the computer is getting so large and complex it may start to generate it's own initiative.
But where is its purpose from? We must conclude that things and people have no purpose themselves; that its (our) purpose can only be given to it by a creator.
From this you can conclude 1) We were not created; therefore we have no purpose;
or, 2) There is a creator who had a purpose for creating us.

So with option 1) we recognize we have no assigned purpose. We merely evolved. We can then choose to have what ever purpose we want.
With option 2) we agree we have a purpose because we believe in God, or we believe there is a God because we must have a purpose.
If we believe in God then we must agree our only purpose is to do His will.
The problem with this is that we still do not know our true purpose, the reason for that purpose. We do not know because we know nothing about what he wanted, what he designed us for, designed us to do, our 'purpose.'

"To serve God" tells us nothing, nothing in terms of ultimate meaning. It is just an acknowledgment that God made us for a reason and that reason (whatever it is; we don't know) is our purpose. Isn't that circular?

[POI]

As I continue to await an answer to my repeated unanswered question, I will post a 20-minute video (kinda relevant, kinda not, but still fascinating all-the-same):



Christians, can you demonstrate the builder/operator of human brains?

[Diogenes]

As I continue to await an answer to my repeated unanswered question, I will post a 20-minute video (kinda relevant, kinda not, but still fascinating all-the-same):



Christians, can you demonstrate the builder/operator of human brains?

OK! Since you're so persistent . . .

Their silence is telling. They have no answer, so . . . I'll have to answer for them. "No. We have no answer."

I kinda' sorta' tried to answer it with Post #76, which basically says "It's an assumption."

[POI]

Their silence is telling. They have no answer, so . . . I'll have to answer for them. "No. We have no answer."

I kinda' sorta' tried to answer it with Post #76, which basically says "It's an assumption."
[/size]

Yes. You did. And when a theist is pressed upon their own blank assertions, this is the usual....

[SiNcE_1985]

A dodge?

Yes. You don't want to address the fact that consciousness cannot be detected without a brain, so you dodge this observation and instead ask other questions.

I addressed it by saying that the origins of consciousness precedes the detection of consciousness.

And then I asked those other questions.

When we don't know something, religious people insert their favorite god concepts.

And when atheists don't know something, they insert their favorite scientific concept.

That is all you are doing here.

No, I did more than that.

Asking currently unknown questions so that you can then insert your preferred god. You and your reasoning is tired and nothing new. It is known as god of the gaps.

I am not saying "Goddidit" based on what I don't know.

But rather, based on what I do know.

Now that is just silly. I observe that consciousness cannot be detected outside of a functioning brain and you think I need to explain the origins of the body in order to make the claim I made.

This is irrelevant and now a strawman.

I am talking about origins.

The origins of consciousness.

To go from no life to life...unawareness to self-awareness.

You already said you don't know, so we are just playing with house money right now.

Again, that's just silly. My claim is a true observation, you can either address it or dodge it by asking irrelevant questions.

Let me know when you have a true observation as to consciousness originating from nonliving, unconsciousness material.

Any observation of that?

Nope.

Next..

Quite the demand from someone who resorts to dodges, but don't worry, I'm up to it.
You asked: "So, what was the brain doing before consciousness evolved into it?"
Now that we have removed smoking blunts and drinking, the brain was responding to its environment and controlling tasks such as breathing and digestion to name a couple.

Ok, so now we know what the brain was doing (according to you)...now, where did this self-awareness come from?

C'mon, keep it going.

This is your bad and do try to be more honest. You specifically mentioned millions of years for a teeny tiny change to occur.
Copy/paste: "this whole evolutionary process takes hundreds of millions of years for one teeny tiny change to occur"

I know what I said.

It is called sarcasm.

Please correct your thinking. It does not take millions of years for bacteria to obtain the ability to digest nylon or for things to become immune to pesticides and antibiotics.

Ohh, really...how long does it take for bacteria to become conscious??

And don't just tell me, demonstrate it.

This is show & tell.

Anyone can say anything.

Let's do some science!!

Internal dialogs with the self is what I propose to you

So, there is this substance matter...and for whatever reason, it was shaped and configured by mindless and blind process into what we call a brain.

And also for whatever reason, it began to react to its environment (whatever that means), and then for whatever reason, it began to have internal dialogs with itself?

You've never observed any of this, did you?

No.

You are relying on the unseen.

You are relying on...faith.

, but let's for the sake of argument go with 'I don't know'.

Yes, let's go with that.

Honesty is the best policy.

Your questions has been answered now let's see just how meaningless it was to ask.

I guess you and I have different definitions of "has been answered".

I don't know how consciousness emerged, but I observe it cannot be detected outside of a functioning mind.

1. I've never observed it.
2. Therefore, it can't happen.

That, my friends, is what you call a non sequitur...as the conclusion in #2 doesn't follow from the premise of #1.

Therefore there is nothing for me to retract. I also note that we can affect our consciousness with mind altering drugs.

This is a moot point because I already acknowledged that there is a mind/body correlation.

This is just another observation that suggest that consciousness is an emergent property of a functioning brain. What do you have as an observation that would suggest that consciousness doesn't require a functioning brain?

If the mind cannot owe its origins through any naturalistic processes, then it logically follows that its origins are owed to an unembodied mind.

You are forced to dodge. Consciousness cannot be detected outside of a working brain. You can't make this observation go away, nor how drugs affect our consciousness, so you are forced to dodge the question.

Origins.

Derp. So since we detect it, it therefore originated.

Switch that sentence around to avoid putting the cart before the horse.

Now, why is it that we cannot detect consciousness outside of a functioning brain and why does brain trauma and mind altering drugs affect our consciousness?

First off, I do not even agree that we can't detect consciousness outside of the brain...that is another subject altogether.

My point is; that consciousness cannot have originated by anything within the brain.

My question remains; how can mental constructs originate from physical entities?

Let's go with 'I don't know' for now

We will go with 'You don't know' for now, and later.

so we can focus on the actual observations mentioned above. Will you address:
1) Consciousness cannot be detected outside of a working brain.

Um, no.

I do not accept that premise.

That is also not where my focus is, which is on the origins of consciousness.

I already addressed your "detection" spiel and my response will not change.

2) Mind altering drugs affect our consciousness when the brain is effected by the said drugs.

Yeah, and a bad transmission in an automobile affects our method of mobile transportation.

That doesn't mean we can't get out of the car and walk, though.

Catch my drift?

3) Brain trauma can affect and change a persons consciousness.

Two things that correlate (mind/brain) will always have the ability to affect each other.

That says nothing about origins, does it?

No, it doesn't.

So, nothing you've said thus far in any way addresses..

1. The origins of consciousness.

2. The unaccounted for entity which experiences emotional states...as no physical part of your brain is in itself experiencing these emotional states.

All of these are observations that consciousness is an emergent property of a working brain, but I'm open to better explanations, but you don't seem to have any.

1. The mind correlates with the body.

2. Therefore, consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.

Yet, another non sequitur.

More dishonesty. I observe that we cannot detect consciousness outside of a working brain, that mind altering drugs do affect our consciousness as well as brain trauma. What I'm not doing is making unsubstantiated claims. This is where you are being dishonest.

Already addressed this.

I must have missed something. Please point to the observations you have made that suggest your case about consciousness and where it derives. I would like to compare that to the observations that suggest a mind is behind consciousness.

I will do it..one more time.

Let's say there is an obvious and unmistakable picture of you as a screen saver on your PC.

Now, I want you to explain the origins of the picture on your screen.

Simple enough, right?

Not so fast.

Here is the catch..

The answer that you give have to lie WITHIN the computer.

No outside or external cause can be used to explain the origins of your picture on the screen.

Explain how the picture can be an emergent property/image of the computer with no external assistance (lack of a better term).

Can you do it? No, you can't.

In fact, it isn't even conceivable (naturally).

The only way to accomplish this would be for the computer to have built-in "input" data capabilities, which will allow it to receive data from external sources that CORRELATES with the PC.

But this is something that intelligent designers do, NOT mindless and blind naturalistic processes.
.....

Now, take that same analogy and apply it to the mind/body.

The body has built-in "input" capabilities, which allows us to receive data (ears, eyes)...and these capabilities were built-in to our systems by a Cosmic Designer/Engineer.
....

Of course, I predict you ain't rocking with what I'm saying, which is why I kindly ask you to carry on with your explanation of how the picture on your PC can be an emergent property of the PC.

I know that your faith likely want let you learn about this, but I'll post it anyway:
Clouds are made up of tiny water droplets. When these droplets grow, they eventually become too heavy to stay suspended in the sky and fall to the ground as rain.
No gods are required for this very natural process.

Gen 1:1

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth".

Strawman. No one here has claimed that the amygdala is sad. That you fail to address what is actually said (below for you) in place of making strawman arguments suggest that you don't have any observations about where consciousness comes from

Um, my question was essentially "what part of you is sad", at which you began to throw this "amygdala" stuff around as if it is the end all/be all of the discussion.

So, that's what I went with.

It seems that your goal is to point to things you think are unknown.

It is known to me.

Let's allow this for the sake of argument even though you are stating unknows as if you had this information.
Therefore.....?????????????????????????????????????

Therefore...Goddidit.

Well, that is simply not true.
You love from the depths of your ventral tegmental area, your hypothalamus, your nucleus accumbens, and other vital areas of the brain.

Your ventral tegmental area isn't sad.

Your hypothalamus isn't sad.

Your nucleus accumbens isn't sad.

Nor is any vital areas in your brain...sad.

You can remove the (X) now that you have been informed where such things are happening.

X remains.

I assume you have corrected your thinking on this now that you have been informed.

"Informed" lol.

Why insert some spiritual thing while ignoring what we already know about the brain?

I go where the evidence takes me.

We are all more than just blobs of matter

Not really.

Without God, our existence is no more special than that of cockroaches or ants.

, your faith however has taken over and the rest of your sentence seems like nothing more than religious fantasy.

Yeah, and your notion that a mindless and blind process can give you eyes to see and ears to ear...that seems like nothing more than voodoo science fantasy.

Naturalistic sci-fi.

I'm open to being shown to be incorrect though if you are up to it. Please try to do more than offer up things on par with "allahu akbar" though.

Open your heart, and let God in.

I offer up actual observations. All you offer here are 'ifs' and on top of that you make the leap to a specific god concept and then spout claims about this god concept as if you actually had knowledge of it. Surely you see that my reasoning is better.

Your reasoning is better?

I want you to blindfold yourself and draw a portrait of Joe Biden sitting in the Oval Office.

I'm willing to bet my life that you can't do it.

No one can do it.

Well, if a blind person can't draw the person, then a blind process can't MAKE the person.

That's my reasoning.

You will convince me of your reasoning when you can blindly draw the picture.

You have been shown to be wrong. We know where love is processed in the brain, we even know the chemical behind it (Oxytocin), just like we understand about pain and so on. Did you know that the same parts of the brain light up when discussing your favorite sports team as when you (generic you) are discussing your favorite god concept? Both have their fanatics I observe.

Correlation has nothing to do with origins, amigo.

It doesn't deserve an answer. There is a what that experiences 'happy'. When you internalize this, it seems you come up with a 'who', and that my friend is where my observation comes to life. Consciousness cannot be observed outside of a working brain. If brains develop enough, an internal dialog could result in a 'who' concept like you have now done yourself. Thank you for suggesting that my observation is sound by doing that what I suspect takes place to arrive at a 'who'.

You are filibustering.

When you are "happy", there is no physical part of your brain that (in itself) is happy.

Therefore, your happiness corresponds with an unseen entity that is not accounted for by any physical means.

The physical part of you cannot account for the mental part of you...thus, no naturalistic explanation can be provided as to the origins of this mental "self" of you.

When God created you, he was able to make a marriage between the physical self, and the mental self...something that is impossible by way of natural processes.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates

Saying "you just don't get it" is slander?

"
The internalized concept of a 'who' that a functioning mind that is capable of internalizing questions arrives at would be my guess.

Yeah, that would be your uneducated "guess".

"Who" is doing the internalizing?

The 'who' is the natural result of a mind that is capable of internalizing thought and having an inner discourse.

Well again, if you shape all of the brain matter you have at your disposal...how are you gonna get this brain matter to become self-aware?

Where are you getting this "mind" that you speak of? Where will it come from?

What is the spark that will ignite this brain to go from unaware, to self-aware??

If you want this brain to think of an apple, where will the thought of an apple come from?

If you want it to exhibit the emotion of love, where will you get the thought of love from?

As far as we can tell, there are only parts of a brain that experience these emotions though. Do you acknowledge where fear and love for example are processed? Do you see that a 'who' isn't necessary, but how it is a natural place to arrive at once internal dialogs are able? This is why I claim you are doing a disservice by inserting a 'who'. The inner dialog most of us have when reading for example is not some 'who' inside of us. It seems to just be the brain doing what it does. Do you have observations to the contrary?

A disservice by inserting a "who"??

Yet, every time you've ever said "I am (insert emotion)", you've demonstrated that there is in fact a "who".

Brain vs. Mind: What are the differences? At its simplest, mind refers to our ability to think, feel, and engage in physical activity. The brain, on the other hand, refers to the physical organ in our head that supports these functions.
Both have been explained!

Right, and the two harmonize together quite well, don't they?

The brain = the car

The mind= the human driving

A jacked-up mind is detrimental to the well-being of the car.

A jacked-up car is detrimental to the well-being of the human driving it.

Harmony.

See Socrates.

See Jesus of Nazareth.

Just chemicals reacting to their environment best I can tell. Certainly not from the gods or fairies, unless I'm missing something. Am I missing something?

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.

Think about it...the God who created this universe loves you.

Open your heart, brethren.

Then don't ask questions like "what was the brain doing before consciousness". Again, it wasn't smoking blunts or drinking 40's!

It might as well have been...gotta do something while it waited for this phantom consciousness to do its thing.

It was doing things like controlling heart beats.

Ok, so what came first, the heart, or the brain?

Chicken & egg problem all over again.

I bolded a specific question for you. Can you form a reasonable reply?

What question?