for the Athiests, ect..Follow

The brain uses analog signals in the form of these chemicals, while computers today use digital signals. That's why some argue that using the current materials and technology that we build computers with, we will never be able to fully replicate the human brain. Aside from cloning one or somehow building one from scrath using materials other than metal and silicon, of course.

Step 1: Steal underpants
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit

Back on topic, I'd just like to point out one thing I noticed with Kelv's arguments:



Aren't you the one saying that conciousness happens outside of the laws of physics(and therefore seperate from the physical world), and so would therefore be some "magical thing" that happens somewhere in the convergence of all the biological reactions and electromagnetic blahblahblah that causes us to have consciousness?

Tell me, if consciousness happens outside of the mind and outside the laws of physics, how does that something communicate with the physical body? If I can recall my philosophy correctly, some of the major philosophists back in the day were always disputed because they couldn't figure out how this seperate, let's call it "spiritual", realm could communicate with this "physical" realm.

I give to you Occam's Razor: "when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better." Which would be simpler, then, in this case:

-There is some non-physical realm that controls an individual's consciousness, and it somehow communicates with the physical mind.
-The complex net of neurons in the human brain can communicate with each other, to create self-awareness and consciousness.

Keep in mind that we don't know how each of these would work completely, but logically I believe that my 2nd statement would be simpler, because it is contained wholely within the physical realm that we can look around and prove exists; whereas my 1st statement relies on the existence of an entire other realm that can't, by its very definition, be proven to exist.

well, it would be nice if people like kelv would do that, but it seems that people really dont need a knowledge of what they are talking about to debate it..

What would constitute a happy dream for an earthworm?

He gets the early bird.

Who says our conscious is not just a result of the bajillions of synaptic actions and reactions? All we need to have emotions is memory, and a will to survive. All the actions and reactions to perform these tasks are just details. Where do these things come from? All things are designed (by who?) to replicate themselves. From galaxies to amoeba, everything is designed to live, replicate itself, and die.

I noticed you added "WHO".

This is why people saying that "the toaster cannot have consciousness because it was designed to only cook bread" are missinbg the point.

If you are asigning the function of an object, you have to treat it like it was "designed" to do waht it does. Well "WAHT" designed us to do the things that we do?


LIfe started as a string of molecules. Then they linked and became a protein that was alive.

WHere does the actual "LIFE" thing come into play here?

They formed the protein because the laws of phyisics dictate that they must. The same as it dictate that magnets stick together.. waht makes it Life?

If you're all about that our minds and our brains are the same thing that's fine by me though.

Edited, Wed Jul 13 23:15:09 2005 by Kelvyquayo

Is anyone else amused by the fact that Kelv is arguing that physically based intelligence and emotion is impossible because electrons/atoms can't communicate, yet he's posting this on an internet web forum, using a computer system which relies entirely on manipulation of atoms and electrons to allow communication...?


As others have stated, just because the smallest "bit" of something can't think or act for itself does not in any way mean that a large number of those same bits, when formed in specific patterns, cannot in turn form far more complex patterns that you and I would interpret completely as thinking and acting for itself. When atoms form in certain patterns, they can create biological structures which we call life (there's a set of requirements for "life", but we'll just ignore that for now). Biological structures tend to react to things around them in very specific ways. Over time, those reactions and changes become very complex. When they get complex enough, they start to become more "intelligent". There's no hard line there. A plant pushing it's petals towards the sun isn't thinking about anything, but it does it anyway because that allows it to function better. Over time, those plants that do that will survive at a higher rate then those that dont. Animals can exhibit extremely complex behavior and even group dynamics. Humans have extended that to complex tool building and use and language to allow us to express even more complex ideas. But all of those are based on some very basic biological concepts.


The point that others are trying to make is that there is nothing magical needed to explain intelligence and sense of self. We may not be able to codify exactly how everything works, but we can certainly see that it's possible given the remarkable variations of biological response we can directly observe in the world around us. As someone pointed out earlier, bringing in a completely new concept to explain intelligence when it's not needed is a violation of Occam's razor. You're adding to the complexity of the problem instead of reducing it.


The biggest problem that religious folk have when arguing science is that they make the mitake of assuming that science must explain everything in order to be valid. That's absolutely not true. Science is not a big list of answers to all the questions in the universe. Science is a process, a method, and a way of thinking. The idea behind science is to develop a method of addressing problems so that maybe one day we can know the answers to all the universes questions. But not today. A scientist not knowing how something works is not a refuatation of science. It just means that we haven't figured it out yet. We can do one of two things:

1. Just slap a "God makes it that way" sticker on it, and forget about it.

2. Use science to gradually increase our understanding of that thing so that maybe one day we will have the answer.


Personally, I go with the second option. Going with the first ensures that we *never* know the answer. And no. Saying that God did it isn't an answer. It's a cop out. The second option gives us the ability to eventually know it. Given the sheer number of things we've discovered, it seems ludicrous to argue against the methodology of science. It's not perfect, but it's better then the alternative. You are sitting right now, reading words written on a computer that exists purely because scientists figured out things like advanced metallurgy/chemistry, electromagnetic theory, atomic theory, and a dozen other things along the way. Guess what? We are no where near to knowing everything there is to know about any of those fields. But, even without knowing everything, we're able to build computers that allow people to communicate across the globe.

Clearly, while science doesn't have all the answers, it "works". It's also clearly better then just assuming anything we don't know is unknowable/divine, since it allows us to know more in time.

I think I see what Kelv is getting at. At what point did humans become seperate from other animals? I mean on an emotional level. There are 4 basic needs that I can see for any complex organism (i.e. animals and such): Food, water, shelter, and a mate. I'll use a wolf pack as an example.

1. A wolf pack will hunt and kill - satifies the need for food.
2. The pack will drink from a stream - satisfies water.
3. The pack will take shelter in caves and tree stumps - satisfies the need for shelter from the elements.
4. The pack will seek out and mate with other wolves - satisfies the need to perpetuate the species.

Now, humans probably started out much the same way. We were instinctual creatures who did only those things we needed to survive. I get how the brain figures out basic tools; that's also instinct. Animals also use their environment to supplement their natural abilities.

At what point, or by what means, did humans develop cognative thought? A wolf is a wolf is a wolf. They live and die by instinct. What made man first look to the stars? Build a house? What force gave man the ability to paint, or sew, or build a rocket?

If all life on this planet started out as microbes, what made us special enough to jump so far ahead of every other living thing?


Anyways I think that's what he's asking. I don't pretend to know about electrons, or quantum-anything, or the ancient Mayan thesis on alien cheese.

Personally I'd say Both


"God makes it that way", BUT my belief in that has nothing to do with HOW things work, such as the things that science teaches us.


I DO know that science does not explain conciousness and so far it contridicts that it even CAN exist. Chemicals are chemicals, emotions are emotions.

A few points really quickly and then I'll leave you to your soapbox.

1. Slow down when you type. Kelv's post will still be there if you just take the time to write correctly. Nobody enjoys being forced to use the 'Idiot-to-English' dictionary in order to decipher the sanscript you spew forth onto the masses.

2. Learn to break the fuc[/b]king swear filter if you're going to curse. Seeing this (@#%^ing) only makes it harder to interprit what you are trying to say.

3. Stop throwing up strawman in response to Kelv's posts. If you disagree with what he is saying, take steps to prove him wrong rather than merely responding with [b]OMFG shut up Kelv ur teh suxorzzz!!!!!!11.

Please take these friendly suggestions under consideration as you climb back onto your soapbox, and perhaps you can help steer this argument back into the realm of science and point vs. counter-point.

First off let me repeat that I am pretty in the middle on this. I think the above statment makes sense with the bolded words switched around as well. Not perfectly of course, because the physical world is tangible and the spiritual world (if there is one) is pretty obviously immeasurable at this point. I think that both sides are lacking as far as irrefutable evidence one way or the other goes. I think calling people close minded, ignorant, or weak (both sides) is just a mean way of saying "I disagree". "But why?" "Because" "Because why?" "Because" etc...



1. Although "God may have made it that way" we have no real way of knowing, so we should gradually increase our understanding of that thing so that maybe one day we will have the answer.



It would be ludicrous to argue against the methodology of science. I just don't see why it has to be seen as the only option. If it weren't for scientists trying to find answers about the "intangible" we would be screwed, so why stop now.

Spiritual beliefs are more of a personal thing anyway. If scientists somehow prove that God exists its not like athiests' worlds will end. Things will change for them for sure as far as beliefs go but I doubt their lives will really change much.

Whatever internal meaning we attach to things that are scientifically immeasurable such as god, love, fear, and all that stuff aren't really good a good basis for any sort of logical argument as we are effected largely by our interpretation of certain occurences that lead us to think one way or another about those things. To bring these things under scrutiny is one thing, to belittle others for what internal meaning they have attached to certain events (for either side) is petty and harmful to good discussion. I know, I know... I did just that in another thread but nobody is perfect.

your right, i shouldnt be so aggressive, but i continue to get annoyed at people who cant seem to read or think for themselves. kelv has repeatedly said that conciousness is "physicslly impossible" when that very idea is unscientifically based and completely ludacrous. And no matter how many times people tell him that concet is so far out wack, he continues to stand by it. By the 20th post i kinda got annoyed at his complete unwillingness to admit his rather huge error in interpretation of pretty much all physics.

Im not just saying "***** you kelv your wrong", i have listed many times how and why the brain works, what conciousness is, and where our understanding of it is taking us, but all kelv can respond with is rediculous cliams that conciousness is impossible, which is completely unfounded and perhaps the most rediculous thing i have ever heard.

i was telling kelv to stfu for his own good, he was just getting deeper and deeper into this myth o fhis, and no amount of discussion was going to help him out.