ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

The Science delusion.

Updated on May 3, 2017
Source

For some years now I’ve been hearing about the science delusion. Is it true? Or is it just a ploy by the religious to counter what Dawkins calls militant atheism?

There are several points the proponents of the science delusion sight as proof that science has become a religion:

The assertion is: Science claims to already know the nature of reality in principal, leaving only the details to be filled in.

Science is a religion. People say: I don’t believe in god, I believe in science. In other words it’s a world view. A materialist world view.

Rupert Sheldrake tells us there are 10 dogmas of science which have limited it, and in fact tainted it.

1 Nature is mechanical and machine like. Humans are machine like, as are brains

2 Matter is unconscious. Animals aren’t conscious and we shouldn’t be either and probably aren’t.

3 The laws of nature are fixed. They can’t change.

4 The total amount of energy and matter is always the same. It sprang from nowhere at the instant of the big bang.

5 There is no purpose in nature.

6 Heredity is material. It’s all about genes.

7 Memories are stored in the brain as material traces.

8 Your mind is in your head.

9 Telepathy and psychic powers can’t exist because the mind is just the brain and it can’t affect the outside world.

10 Mechanistic medicine is the only real medicine.

So, let me start by saying I do agree that scientists can be dogmatic, so can people who think they know science and that is a bit of a danger. So what is it about science that allows it to become dogmatic? Scientists. Human beings. Media, Public understanding. In other words: science isn’t dogmatic, people are.

The scientific method is anything but dogmatic. And so what makes some scientists fall to dogma? Answer in a nut shell: Belief.

Belief is the enemy of science. There’s also convention, tenure , ego’s, old boys clubs etc. But belief is the main problem. People want certainty, desperately. For centuries we had absolute certainty. God or the gods, did their thing and who were we to even wonder about how it all works? We could never figure it out ourselves.

But we did wonder anyway, as is evidenced by books like Genesis and many other creation myths. So much so that early scientists and observers challenged religious ideas of nature and were proven right.

Then things became less certain. And as science grew and evolution reared it’s head, even god was in question.

For a while, after Newton, we thought we had certainty again.

The world ran like a clock work. It was mechanistic. Soon we’d know everything. And then two things happened that turned it all on it’s head. I say two, but it’s more like five. First, Einstein shocked the scientific world with relativity. Heisenberg and co gave us QM, and Hubble told us the universe isn’t static, it’s expanding. And then came Big Bang. That’s one.

Two is Lorenz, Mandelbrot, and perhaps a dozen others and their observations taken together suddenly formed a new science called chaos theory. That’s five.

Now we’re really uncertain as to what’s really going on so people hang on to the small certainties they think they have.

In debates and general conversations, you can see the belief some people have in such ideas as the many worlds theory, string theory, the Big Bang, etc.

Yet these theories are often not provable or more to the point, not falsifiable, and aren’t science fact.

A theory is a model created from facts. It’s an interpretation of observed or collected data from experiment. But it’s not a fact until it’s been proven by experiment. If it’s good it will usually predict something about reality. If it can’t be falsified even in principal, it’s just a guess.

So before I look at the so called ten dogma’s, let me say that there is nothing wrong with letting science form our world view. That is to say, to adopt the scientific method as a method for thinking about the world. It's the best tool we have to date. Part of that method being not having a stake in what the truth is.

Faith is the end of logic. Belief is never a requirement. Either something is a fact, or it’s a lie or guess. Believing a fact is redundant. We accept facts. But they have to be true facts. In fact, we can only accept them conditionally unless they are indisputable, like: I either ate an apple today or I didn’t. That’s an absolute fact. Or a tautology like: all black birds are black.

A lie certainly should not be believed, and speculation isn’t to be believed either. It is true or not, and requires evidence to back it up.

So, does science claim to have the basis or framework for reality? No. Scientists, not science, claim to have pieces of the puzzle, but few if any would tell us we have all the answers, or even close. We’ve known that isn’t true since Einstein. There are way too many competing interpretations for the facts we have.

Is science a religion? No. But that doesn’t stop people from using its findings to help them understand the universe and help form their world view. And there are religions like scientific pantheism that do exactly that. But science is a method, a tool. It can’t be a religion.

So to dogma number one: Nature is mechanical and machine like. Humans are machine like, as are brains.

I do hear that from some scientists and philosophers, but it’s not exactly true. Biology is decidedly dynamic. Not what we think of when we say machine like. A car is a bunch of metal and glass etc, with no idea what it is or does. We put it together in such a way that we can fill it with gas and drive around. A car doesn’t do anything without an operator. Neither does any other mechanical machine.

Biology is complex and dynamic. It’s the operator, not the machine. But that doesn’t imply a supernatural element to nature, which is what most scientists are saying when they say mechanical.

Nature, which we are part of, is endlessly creative and complex. Anything but machine-like.

Yes, everything follows the laws of physics, which aren’t laws at all, but rather the nature of nature. But that nature facilitates all we see including biology. Without limits/order nothing can function at all.

So the problem is the idea of a supernatural. Surely it too would have order/limits or it couldn’t function. So in light of the supernatural not being falsifiable even in principal, we can’t factor it into scientific inquiry and have to keep looking to the natural for information.

What scientists and philosophers should do is: stop saying mechanical when we mean natural.


“Matter is unconscious. Animals aren’t conscious and we shouldn’t be either and probably aren’t.”

I’ve never heard scientists say any such thing. But again, semantics get in the way here.

Consciousness is self evident. No one needs to prove it exists, just how it works in detail. But what is consciousness? Being awake? Being able to reason? Self awareness? So many definitions, so many aspects. Yet at its root, its complex awareness.

All biology is aware. Were a bacteria not to have even rudimentary awareness, it would keep bumping its head on the same obstacle and never get to its food, or take care of its needs. So to say animals aren’t aware is absurd.

Is matter aware in any way? Why should it be? It doesn’t need to be. And what is meant by matter? An atom? It has a nature. Auto response.

I do think auto response is the precursor to awareness. But that’s a model that still needs to be researched properly. But a precursor is not awareness itself, any more than rudimentary awareness is the same as human awareness/consciousness; and even though it’s all just a matter of degrees of complexity.

To say there is something other than energy and matter is to allude to a supernatural, and as there is no evidence a supernatural and some claim there can’t be, it can’t be added to our knowledge base in any meaningful way. So that objection is futile.

Are the laws of nature unchanging? Yes and no. Yes because experiment proves it. No, only in the sense that conditions can change and thereby change values. Water boils at 100 degrees C. Everyone knows that. But it’s not exactly that simple. It depends on altitude and purity. Additives may make water boil slower or faster. Altitude alters boiling point as well.

But if you replicate your conditions exactly, it will always give the same results. Speed of light is constant. Right? Only in a vacuum. Light moves slower through water, for instance. It bounces off things.

So yes, the nature of nature is constant. But it can be different in different conditions. Yet be constant in those conditions.

Is the total amount of energy in the universe always the same? Conservation of energy says yes. But it’s state alters. This is the basis of thermodynamics, which is a well tested and proven set of laws or natures of nature/physics.

Did it spring from nowhere at the start of the big bang? Hardly. The big bang is the most widely accepted theories of our origins. But it’s not alone. There are at least three other good competitors these days. And no tests have yet been done to prove it. Only mathematics.

Is it likely to be the answer? It’s a good theory, but unless it’s proven we can’t give it better than a good chance. Evolution is a fact. Big Bang isn’t.

So let’s say it is true. What does it say about energy? Well, it says the singularity was in an almost infinitely compressed state. What was? Some say all the matter in the universe. I’ve heard all the mater and energy in the universe. But I’ve never seen a version of the theory that says energy appeared from nothing.

I have heard recent claims from Hawking and Kraus that the universe came from nothing, but they are redefining nothing to be something. To be precise: quantum fluctuation. This supposed nothing spontaneously creates particle pairs which usually annihilate each other almost instantly. It’s well known that empty space is teaming with quantum activity.

It’s a kind of potential energy in the vacuum./ or fabric of space as Einstein said. Hardly nothing. Just apparently nothing. Not nothing at all. You can’t get something from nothing at all.

Einstein showed that matter has vast amounts of energy in it. He also said that matter was created not by mass, but by energy tensor density and momentum. That translates to dense energy below light speed creates matter. He also said:

“The mass of a body is a measure of its energy content.” Annalen der Physik 18, 639-641 (1905).

"It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing — a somewhat unfamiliar conception for the average mind. Furthermore, the equation E = mc², in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa. The mass and energy were in fact equivalent, according to the formula mentioned before." Albert Einstein.

This was shown to be true experimentally by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932,.

And then there's: "We have been all wrong! What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been lowered as to be perceptible to the senses."

So all the matter of the universe is condensed energy. So the BB would have been super dense energy. All indications are this is the case if BB happened. So it didn’t create energy, it was energy. And all the serious competition begin with energy.

Thermodynamics tell us energy can’t be created or destroyed. It transforms from state to state.

Is it fact? Yes. It’s held up under testing for almost 100 years. So I’d say it’s highly probable.


Is there purpose to the universe? Are we talking objective purpose? Is that even a rational question? Purpose is a subjective thing. I have my own purpose, that being trying to figure out the universe. But that’s my subjective purpose. My wife sees my purpose quit differently, as does my employer, my kids, the tax man. But while I fill some of those purposes gladly, I don’t think the tax man’s purpose for me is any way my purpose. Even if I am fulfilling it like it or not. Same with a god’s purpose for me were there one. It’s not my purpose, even if it’s my function.

Only subjective things have purpose. There is probably no such thing as objective purpose, and if there is, like procreation, gene imperatives etc, while it’s fun, you’re usually not thinking about spreading your genes, and actively trying to prevent it in many cases.

If we need purpose, we make it for ourselves. A god doesn’t give you a purpose. What ever purpose it has for you is it’s purpose. You may willingly fulfill it, but others may not. Purpose relative to the individual, not universal.


Is heredity about genes? Partly. It’s about DNA, which is more than just genes. A lot of code regulates how genes are copied, spliced, and expressed. Mutations there can be far more serious for better or worse than gene mutation.

I’m not sure where the speaker thinks it could or should come from.

Are memories stored in the brain? Short of having a soul I can’t see anywhere outside the body they could be stored. The brain being the most logical place. Science can’t take souls into consideration. They don’t seem to be falsifiable. Not that people haven’t tried. Scientists have to study what can be studied.

Same goes for minds.


Psychic phenomenon may or may exist. But if they do they aren’t necessarily supernatural. And this has been studied at great length both in the US and Russia for obvious reasons. So far, nothing showing it’s a fact.

Dr Persinger, of the god helmet fame, thinks if your brain were tuned to the earth’s magnetic field, telepathy would be possible. But our brains aren’t tuned to it. Who knows? So far, telepathy is still speculative.


As to medicine: a couple hundred years ago going to the doctor was a risk. They often made things worse. In those days there only was alternative medicine. We’ve come a long way in a short time. So its little wonder the focus is on modern medicine. Not that it’s perfect by any means. But it’s more effective than faith healing by a long shot. Might non standard treatments work? Sure. And if they prove themselves they become accepted.

Criticism of science is fine. But the objections to it by people who talk about the science delusion are only doing to counter Dawkins book “the god delusion”. Trying to make the point that if belief in god is a delusion, so is belief in science.

In a sense any belief is potentially delusional. To accurately talk about science you have to be up on what science actually says, what is fact, what is almost fact through experiment, and what’s just an unproven or completely un-falsifiable interpretation/guess.

Media and the public need to be far more educated about science than they are. That would help a lot. There is no science delusion; only science ignorance. Particularly, but not confined to, the religious community and its interests.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      4 hours ago from Texas

      You - "No. Wrong again. It’s you. You’re the one projecting. If you can’t understand a concept, admit it."

      I know you are, but what am I?

      Y0u - "Who’s talking sight or hearing? You don’t get it, I know."

      Sensory information. In awareness, sensory information is what you're aware of. Keep up.

      You - "Why? Because you believe it can’t be proven? It has been. It proves itself. It doesn’t need any other proof for us to know it’s a fact."

      You say it proves itself rather than pointing to the physical proof we have. You can't point to anything, so you say this instead. The mind proves (because we know it exists though there's no evidence) that there's at least one thing that exists that we have no proof of. So, by the standards you stated, it's useless to consider.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      12 hours ago from Ottawa

      You - "You don’t listen, do you? I don’t believe or have faith in anything whether you can get your head around that or not."

      “It's not me, Ron. You reject so fully the concept of you holding a belief that you simply cannot accept it. Rather than recognize that, you project it onto me. It's not me. Like you said, you should look at yourself.”

      No. Wrong again. It’s you. You’re the one projecting. If you can’t understand a concept, admit it.

      “This isn't the first time during the course of this discussion that you’ve struggled to grasp something so relatively simple. Your mind is made up and there's no willingness to assess yourself and fix it. It's everyone else's issue but yours.”

      You talking about yourself again? You’re the one who has problems with simple logic and you know it. Hence why you’re such a good projector.

      You - "The scientific method gets answers. That’s a fact proven over and over again. No need for belief or have faith.

      “Yes, the method is effective, but that's not the part that requires faith.”

      You’re right for once.

      “ Though the method is effective, there's no guarantee it will get us to where you assume it will. It's not the method that requires faith, it's the destination that you believe the method will ultimately reach.”

      And I’ve told you a million times I don’t have faith it will. I know, however, it’s the only method we have that stands a chance. Try wrapping your head around that for once.

      You - "Not exactly. Awareness is there in a rudimentary way, but not human consciousness. That does take several physical properties like memory, for a start. Without which it couldn't have context or continuity."

      “What you call "human consciousness" doesn't necessarily include memory “

      Bull shit.

      “and all of that. Someone with Alzeimers may not have access to their memories, but is still very much conscious. Even without context or continuity, one can still be conscious.”

      They are aware, yes. Awake, yes, And they still have some memory. But they aren’t who they were. Alzheimer’s is a bad example.

      “Without sight you are still aware, and aware you can't see. Without the ability to hear you're not getting sensory information, but can still be aware that you can't see/hear anything. The guy in Metallica's "One" is aware. He can't see, can't hear, doesn't have sensory information, but is still aware.”

      Who’s talking sight or hearing? You don’t get it, I know.

      “But what I'm calling into question is your claim about awareness being there in a "rudimentary way". You claim the mind is an emergent property of the brain. Yet, as you've stated, organisms that don't even have a brain are aware.

      Again, awareness isn’t thinking like humans do. It comes in degrees and gets more complex as the organism you’re talking about gets more complex as they develop brains and as brains get more complex. .

      Without a brain of some sort you’re a plant or bacteria. Human consciousness evolved due to human brains. Hence emerging from it. What’s not to understand about that?

      “When evidence suggests a brain isn't necessary to create awareness, you move the proverbial cheese and claim physical material of the body still creates awareness, just at a lower, more rudimentary/fundamental level.”

      No, not awareness. Human consciousness. Come on now, try to keep up.

      You - "And I'm not the one who said your version couldn't be proven eventually if it's true, you did. I think if it's real, there is a way to prove it. If not, there isn't and then there's no way to prove it isn't either, short of finding the real answer."

      “And I've pointed out that the mind disproves this view. It's real, but there's no way to prove it. When you say "real", you mean material.”

      No I don’t. And stop telling me what I mean. Try listening instead.

      You - "And many Christians might agree, but I'm talking to you, and you believe it can't be proven. So to me it's useless to even consider."

      “Then the mind's existence should be looked at the same way.”

      Why? Because you believe it can’t be proven? It has been. It proves itself. It doesn’t need any other proof for us to know it’s a fact. Unlike imaginary gods, souls and the imaginary supernatural. Why can’t you grasp this simple fact? I know you’re not stupid.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      38 hours ago from Texas

      You - "Wrong. You’re not good with logic are you?"

      You - "You don’t listen, do you? I don’t believe or have faith in anything whether you can get your head around that or not."

      It's not me, Ron. You reject so fully the concept of you holding a belief that you simply cannot accept it. Rather than recognize that, you project it onto me. It's not me. Like you said, you should look at yourself.

      This isn't the first time during the course of this discussion that you've struggled to grasp something so relatively simple. Your mind is made up and there's no willingness to assess yourself and fix it. It's everyone else's issue but yours.

      You - "The scientific method gets answers. That’s a fact proven over and over again. No need for belief or have faith.

      Yes, the method is effective, but that's not the part that requires faith. Though the method is effective, there's no guarantee it will get us to where you assume it will. It's not the method that requires faith, it's the destination that you believe the method will ultimately reach.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      39 hours ago from Texas

      You - "Not exactly. Awareness is there in a rudimentary way, but not human consciousness. That does take several physical properties like memory, for a start. Without which it couldn't have context or continuity."

      What you call "human consciousness" doesn't necessarily include memory and all of that. Someone with Alzeimers may not have access to their memories, but is still very much conscious. Even without context or continuity, one can still be conscious.

      Without sight you are still aware, and aware you can't see. Without the ability to hear you're not getting sensory information, but can still be aware that you can't see/hear anything. The guy in Metallica's "One" is aware. He can't see, can't hear, doesn't have sensory information, but is still aware.

      But what I'm calling into question is your claim about awareness being there in a "rudimentary way". You claim the mind is an emergent property of the brain. Yet, as you've stated, organisms that don't even have a brain are aware.

      When evidence suggests a brain isn't necessary to create awareness, you move the proverbial cheese and claim physical material of the body still creates awareness, just at a lower, more rudimentary/fundamental level.

      You - "And I'm not the one who said your version couldn't be proven eventually if it's true, you did. I think if it's real, there is a way to prove it. If not, there isn't and then there's no way to prove it isn't either, short of finding the real answer."

      And I've pointed out that the mind disproves this view. It's real, but there's no way to prove it. When you say "real", you mean material.

      You - "And many Christians might agree, but I'm talking to you, and you believe it can't be proven. So to me it's useless to even consider."

      Then the mind's existence should be looked at the same way.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      39 hours ago from Ottawa

      “You're rejecting one possiblity in favor of another. There's no factual information to inform your decision, so all that's left is feeling. You're choosing to believe one reality over another.”

      Wrong. You’re not good with logic are you?

      You - "I do not believe in god etc, means I lack that particular belief which you hold."

      Right, you've got a different one.

      No. I don’t have one. But I know how hard that is for you to get your head around.

      You - "To ask Sadam to prove he had no weapons of mass destruction was insane. How do you prove you don’t have something?"

      “Easy. Prove to the cops you don't have illegal drugs in your house. I bet you'll figure it out.”

      Cops not finding them doesn’t prove I don’t have them. It just means they can’t charge me. Again, logic man. You can’t prove a negative. It’s the cops burden to prove the positive. And with weed being legal in Canada since the 17th of October, all the drugs in my house are legal now. ;)

      You - "... if your only interested in truth, those positions can’t get you any."

      “None of them can. You believe the one you've chosen eventually will. That's faith in your belief system.”

      You don’t listen, do you? I don’t believe or have faith in anything whether you can get your head around that or not. And you can’t make me. I have conditional opinions based on facts, logic, and probability. That’s not faith or belief by any definition. And you trying to twist it into what it isn’t is just typical of what you do with everything.

      You - "But that doesn’t mean you can’t have educated opinions based on facts and what is known."

      “Right, and I'd say that's true of both of our belief systems.”

      And you’d be utterly wrong.

      You - "I think the best course of action is to explore the idea of human mind being due human brain."

      “Yeah, and when you're on your death bed and we still don't know? You just ride it out, through faith. It's all the same thing.”

      What a load of illogical bullshit. Lol…

      You - "arguing with someone of an opposite view is one of the ways I learn."

      “Just as you're learning now you're a faithful believer too.”

      No, I’m learning how illogical and ridiculous you can be. You should look at yourself.

      You - "It’s a “method”, not a belief."

      “Science is a method. You're faith in it is a belief.”

      Wrong again. I’m a sceptic even of science. I know, however, the method is sound and logical if followed. It’s a tool. Do you have faith your hammer can hammer in nails? You don’t need to believe it, it works. The scientific method gets answers. That’s a fact proven over and over again. No need for belief or have faith. But does everyone follow the method? No. Do they make assumptions about what factual data means? Yes. Is that science? No. That’s philosophy and interpretation. If it’s a useful model then fine. But until it’s proven it shouldn’t be believed to be true. Once proven there’s no need for belief, it’s fact.

      You - "Obviously believing lies is dangerous. Believing facts is redundant. Belief in them or against them is useless.

      “There's no question where there's facts. But we still don't have those. Once there's fact, there's no need to choose what you believe.”

      There never is. But you’re wrong again There are plenty of facts. The question is, are there enough to see the entire picture? No. But there enough to make models and play with and explore them. Unless of course you can’t ever prove your ideas even in principal.

      You - "It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t hope and work toward goals."

      “Right, and what is hope? Faith. Belief that things will be fine. That it'll go the way you believe it can and/or will.”

      No. Hope is hope. I hope Trump won’t get elected again. Were I American I might work toward that goal, as you should. But it has nothing to do with faith or belief.

      You - "In my opinion it’s not. It’s a bad thing for many reasons."

      “It's not good or bad. It's simply necessary until confirmation is achieved.”

      No it isn’t. It’s detrimental to the search for truth.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      40 hours ago from Ottawa

      "It would appear mine can be tested as well. We keep removing all the stuff that could explain it being an "emergent property" of the brain, like removing brains from the equation, and it's still there."

      Not exactly. Awareness is there in a rudimentary way, but not human consciousness. That does take several physical properties like memory, for a start. Without which it couldn't have context or continuity.

      And I'm not the one who said your version couldn't be proven eventually if it's true, you did. I think if it's real, there is a way to prove it. If not, there isn't and then there's no way to prove it isn't either, short of finding the real answer.

      And many Christians might agree, but I'm talking to you, and you believe it can't be proven. So to me it's useless to even consider.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 days ago from Texas

      You - "And there's lots of other answers that don't include things that can't be tested."

      It would appear mine can be tested as well. We keep removing all the stuff that could explain it being an "emergent property" of the brain, like removing brains from the equation, and it's still there. Is that not proof? No, then we just move to the next possibility, the "non-material energy" that creates atoms is in itself aware. Sure, we'll go with that. Don't have to prove it, just have to have something else other than what I'm saying. It's not that there's a soul, it's that there's an inherent "awareness" at the most fundamental levels. How this continues to support your view and not mine is mind-boggling. Or maybe it's boggling the fundamental elements of my brain.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      3 days ago from Ottawa

      "Yet, as you pointed out, even bacteria is aware. No complex structure to point to to say that's what's generating it. It would seem the data is very much in my favor"

      Sure. If you could prove souls exist, and if there were no other possibilities. But there are. I've given you my hypothesis before. I think atoms and the nonmaterial energy that creates them may have a pre-awareness in that it may sense things like proximity, interaction, etc. It's environment. That would get increasingly more complex and strong as the organisms evolved in complexity.

      It's simple and straight forward. And it's my best guess. But unlike yours, it can be falsified. And there's lots of other answers that don't include things that can't be tested.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      4 days ago from Texas

      You - "No it isn’t. It could be. I’ll give you that. But only if the person you’re talking about believes the negative. If I said there defiantly is no god or souls or supernatural, that would be a belief based on nothing but my feelings"

      You're rejecting one possiblity in favor of another. There's no factual information to inform your decision, so all that's left is feeling. You're choosing to believe one reality over another.

      You - "I do not believe in god etc, means I lack that particular belief which you hold."

      Right, you've got a different one.

      You - "To ask Sadam to prove he had no weapons of mass destruction was insane. How do you prove you don’t have something?"

      Easy. Prove to the cops you don't have illegal drugs in your house. I bet you'll figure it out.

      You - "... if your only interested in truth, those positions can’t get you any."

      None of them can. You believe the one you've chosen eventually will. That's faith in your belief system.

      You - "But that doesn’t mean you can’t have educated opinions based on facts and what is known."

      Right, and I'd say that's true of both of our belief systems.

      You - "I think the best course of action is to explore the idea of human mind being due human brain."

      Yeah, and when you're on your death bed and we still don't know? You just ride it out, through faith. It's all the same thing.

      You - "arguing with someone of an opposite view is one of the ways I learn."

      Just as you're learning now you're a faithful believer too.

      You - "It’s a “method”, not a belief."

      Science is a method. You're faith in it is a belief.

      You - "Obviously believing lies is dangerous. Believing facts is redundant. Belief in them or against them is useless.

      There's no question where there's facts. But we still don't have those. Once there's fact, there's no need to choose what you believe.

      You - "It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t hope and work toward goals."

      Right, and what is hope? Faith. Belief that things will be fine. That it'll go the way you believe it can and/or will.

      You - "In my opinion it’s not. It’s a bad thing for many reasons."

      It's not good or bad. It's simply necessary until confirmation is achieved.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      4 days ago from Ottawa

      “How is it not exactly as I described it? How is it not a belief? Your predicting how things will turn out because that's what you believe to be true without confirmation. How is that not an alternate belief?”

      You really don’t know?

      “Choosing not to believe, as you put it, is actually just choosing an alternate belief:”

      No it isn’t. It could be. I’ll give you that. But only if the person you’re talking about believes the negative. If I said there defiantly is no god or souls or supernatural, that would be a belief based on nothing but my feelings. Not believing those things exist does not mean I believe they don’t. Believing they don’t would be an alternate belief, as you suggest.

      I have no belief on the subject. I do not believe in god etc, means I lack that particular belief which you hold. I can’t believe it, as there’s no real proof to be had that can’t explained by other means. But I can’t say invisible pink squirrels don’t exist. It’s a matter of logic.

      To ask Sadam to prove he had no weapons of mass destruction was insane. How do you prove you don’t have something? You can prove you have something, but not that you don’t. Same with gods etc. Unless one shows up and makes it clear it exists, no proof for it, no proof against it. Taking a strong stand either way is a matter of belief/faith. But both are weak positions to hold.

      And if they are weak positions to hold because they are really just a guess based on personal feelings, not facts or real evidence, if your only interested in truth, those positions can’t get you any.

      But that doesn’t mean you can’t have educated opinions based on facts and what is known. That’s how we make new discoveries and make advancements. So personally, going by what we know right at this moment, I think the best course of action is to explore the idea of human mind being due human brain.

      Others are exploring other models/guesses. We’ll see what happens.

      In the mean time, arguing with someone of an opposite view is one of the ways I learn. So I get to explore my opinions and modify them. Doesn’t mean I am married to them. I’ll drop them like a hot potato if I discover they are wrong. I’ve done it before. I don’t believe my opinions, they are models which I’ll defend to the death in order to get the best out of my opponent, and myself.

      It’s a “method”, not a belief. In fact it’s what I call the philosophy no belief. There is no reason to believe anything in the positive or negative. There are only three states: fact, speculation, and lie.

      Obviously believing lies is dangerous. Believing facts is redundant. Belief in them or against them is useless. It doesn’t change them.. Facts are facts. The only thing to do with them is accept them conditionally. Conditional on and new information that clarifies or modifies them. Belief in speculation can be as dangerous as belief in a lie for the same reasons. But it can also be devastating personally if you discover all you believed in was wrong. People have killed themselves over it.

      So there is no reason to believe anything. It’s a fact, or not. That goes for all of life. If you expect /believe something and then don’t get it, you can be devastated. But if you train yourself to expect/believe nothing, anything beyond that makes you happy.

      It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t hope and work toward goals. But you don’t have to invest belief in them, just logical thought and work.

      So lack of belief leaves you open to new evidence and understanding.

      It’s a method for getting truth, making sure your not fooling yourself and saving yourself mental anguish if you’re wrong.

      Now ask me. Do I believe in the method? No. I don’t have to. It works for me. If it didn’t I’d have dropped it.

      But yes, it does take active work. People are used to believing. They want to believe. They are even told by religion that faith is a virtue. In my opinion it’s not. It’s a bad thing for many reasons.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      4 days ago from Texas

      Alright, I watched (or more accurately listened) to the video. I'm not hearing any support for your claim or anything that's arguing against mine.

      In fact, as you said, awareness doesn't require a brain. A soul, in my view, is one and the same as life itself. If an organism is alive, it's animated by life, that's the soul. And that is what is aware. Awareness also, of course, requires input from the sensory information from the body. But beyond that, awareness is a conscious self that observes sensory information and responds/reacts. That's the complicated part. That's the part there's no correlating brain activity, or in some cases no brain at all, to account for it. If it were created by the brain, as you suggest, then there would have to be a fairly complex mechanism to create it.

      Yet, as you pointed out, even bacteria is aware. No complex structure to point to to say that's what's generating it. It would seem the data is very much in my favor.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      5 days ago from Texas

      You - "That’s irrational self serving utter bullshit.."

      How is it not exactly as I described it? How is it not a belief? Your predicting how things will turn out because that's what you believe to be true without confirmation. How is that not an alternate belief?

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      5 days ago from Ottawa

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2a6lekGkgQ

      Check it out. It's 58 min, but the first 25 minutes are relevant to our brain discussions.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      5 days ago from Ottawa

      You - "That’s one side’s opinion. There are many others sides and opinions,, and the vast majority of neuroscientists still think it’s all brain."

      “If you read the article you'll see he's speaking in the context of very specific gathered data measuring electrical frequencies throughout the brain and body. It's not just a feeling or a hunch.”

      Perhaps not. But any conclusions drawn from the data other than the facts, is.

      “I understand there are others that think differently. What I'm showing you now is that what I'm describing is completely viable. There's evidence that actually supports the system works as I'm describing. This is what should be expected in this context.”

      Well so is the idea that there’s a cosmic consciousness that isn’t a god or supernatural and brain is like a receiver. Or the energy of the nonmaterial quantum has the building blocks for consciousness inherent in it. Or any one of a dozen other hypothesis out there.

      Again, awareness is basic to all living things, so doesn’t require brain. Your hypothesis matches that too. But my hypothesis is that rudimentary awareness turns in to complex consciousness due to complex brains, thus emerges from them. Nothing in your article suggests otherwise.

      “You're right, nobody knows for sure yet. So that's what it comes down to. Where does your faith lie? Do we just perpetually wait?”

      Yes, which is the opposite of faith.

      “When not finding an answer is the expected outcome for the other being true? But we can never know".

      When all other avenues are explored and have failed and your hypothesis become evident in some way some may go your way. But if it can’t be proven or no real evidence points to it, never. Maybe we’ll know when we’re dead.

      “ So do we just keep waiting, assuming we're right and we'll one day be vindicated?”

      I have a chance to be. You don’t, according to you.

      “ That's putting your faith elsewhere. It's all about faith.”

      You’re all about faith, and can’t nderstand others aren’t. That’s your problem, not mine.

      “ Choosing not to believe, as you put it, is actually just choosing an alternate belief:’

      That’s irrational self serving utter bullshit..

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      6 days ago from Texas

      You - "That’s one side’s opinion. There are many others sides and opinions,, and the vast majority of neuroscientists still think it’s all brain."

      If you read the article you'll see he's speaking in the context of very specific gathered data measuring electrical frequencies throughout the brain and body. It's not just a feeling or a hunch.

      I understand there are others that think differently. What I'm showing you now is that what I'm describing is completely viable. There's evidence that actually supports the system works as I'm describing. This is what should be expected in this context.

      You're right, nobody knows for sure yet. So that's what it comes down to. Where does your faith lie? Do we just perpetually wait? When not finding an answer is the expected outcome for the other being true? But we can never "know". So do we just keep waiting, assuming we're right and we'll one day be vindicated? That's putting your faith elsewhere. It's all about faith. Choosing not to believe, as you put it, is actually just choosing an alternate belief.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      7 days ago from Ottawa

      ".... we know from electrophysiological (Rodriquez et al. 1999; Kornhuber and Deecke 1965) and functional imaging studies that our thoughts or mental images always are correlated with specific neuronal electrical activity and a corresponding local increase in blood flow in the brain.

      That part’s good.

      “It seems, then, that the general rule of brain function holds: the brain does not produce thoughts or mental images, just as it does not produce the light of vision or the strength of our movement. Instead the brain serves to bring the thought or mental image to consciousness by allowing it to be imprinted. The brain in this sense might be compared to the sand that provides enough resistance to receive the form of a footprint"

      That’s one side’s opinion. There are many others sides and opinions,, and the vast majority of neuroscientists still think it’s all brain.

      “I am firmly in the confident camp: a substantial explanation for the mind’s emergence from the brain will be produced and perhaps soon.” Antonio Damasio, PhD Quote from Scientific American

      I can produce lots more if you like, but what’s the point? We have to wait and see. Opinions don’t matter much even expert opinions. We need facts. But my opinion is that Antonio is probably right. We’ll see, but probably not all that soon.

      “Yes, by brain activity they determined which he was thinking about. But that's the point. Until they employed this method there was no activity in the brain to show that he was conscious and aware.”

      And how would anyone know unless they were engaging the subject? And why would there be a lot of activity in a coma patient unless he was being stimulated? And they didn’t monitor his brain 24 seven for 12 years. Plus, they can’t see all activity going on in neurons and synapses and microtubules. But when he was engaged they saw activity that correlated to thought/responses. . . .

      “All sensory information was shut down. Vegetative. Yet, he was very much conscious and aware.”

      Wrong. All ability to physically interact was shut down, but had all sensory information been shut down he couldn’t have been engaged by the Neuroscientist.

      “I'm glad you read it. If you find someone who says the opposite of something I'm saying, don't just say you could, do, show me. Maybe then we can actually get somewhere.”

      Again, what good does it do? You’ll believe your own interpretation of it anyway. Again, until this argument is solved with solid facts, all interpretations are just opinions. My opinion is that human mind is an emergent property of brain.

      Not awareness. That’s fundamental to biology, Human consciousness is just a more complex form of that due to brain. But thinking human mind is an emergent property of the system, centered in brain. That’s my opinion from the facts at hand and experience.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      7 days ago from Ottawa

      “But the "ultra-right" can have the propencity to be "ultra-wrong," while hiding behind a veneer of morality.

      Sorry, Ron, this is very off-topic.”

      Who said there was a specific topic? ;)

      In the US you can’t get elected unless you claim to be religious. In Canada claiming your religious is political suicide. We know some of our politicians are religious, No problem. The head of the New Democratic Party wears a turban.. But he better shut up about it and leave it out of the debate or he’s done for, as one Conservative Calvinists found out some years back.

      You can believe what you like and vote your conscience, but your supposed to be serving all the people, so you can’t base public political arguments policy on religious grounds.

      Even though the US has a specific separation of church and state, we practice it while they don’t. We’re a “multicultural” society, while they are a melting pot. I love Canada for that.

      Unfortunately I know nothing about Australian politics. Maybe you can enlighten me?

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      7 days ago from Ottawa

      "Didn't say it was the cause. It's an indicator. The flow of oxygen rich blood to a specific region of the brain indicates neural activity in that region."

      Then we have nothing to argue about on that issue.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      7 days ago from Tasmania

      Jeremy, there certainly are and there are some in Parliament. Everyone in the country is entitled to be represented there.

      But the "ultra-right" can have the propencity to be "ultra-wrong," while hiding behind a veneer of morality.

      Sorry, Ron, this is very off-topic.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      8 days ago from Texas

      You - "Show me where you get the idea that “extra” oxygen is the cause of activity."

      Didn't say it was the cause. It's an indicator. The flow of oxygen rich blood to a specific region of the brain indicates neural activity in that region.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      9 days ago from Texas

      Alan,

      I didn't even know there were any Pentecostals in Australia.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      9 days ago from Texas

      Brain Activity and Conscious Experience

      http://natureinstitute.org/pub/ic/ic13/brain.htm

      Section - The Brain's Role in Conscious Experience

      ".... we know from electrophysiological (Rodriquez et al. 1999; Kornhuber and Deecke 1965) and functional imaging studies that our thoughts or mental images always are correlated with specific neuronal electrical activity and a corresponding local increase in blood flow in the brain. Thus it appears that the thinking process, just as all the sensory processes studied above, leaves an imprint or reflection in the brain.

      It seems, then, that the general rule of brain function holds: the brain does not produce thoughts or mental images, just as it does not produce the light of vision or the strength of our movement. Instead the brain serves to bring the thought or mental image to consciousness by allowing it to be imprinted. The brain in this sense might be compared to the sand that provides enough resistance to receive the form of a footprint"

      You - "And you didn’t post this:"

      Didn't think I had to. I'm not going to post the whole article. But what I said is exactly that. By giving the patient directions to think about walking around his house to mean "yes", the area of the brain that's responsible for spatial reasoning is active. Like moving your hand, without hands, his mind is employing his brain to accomplish this task. Do this, this part of the brain lights up, do this, this other area lights up.

      Yes, by brain activity they determined which he was thinking about. But that's the point. Until they employed this method there was no activity in the brain to show that he was conscious and aware. All sensory information was shut down. Vegetative. Yet, he was very much conscious and aware.

      I'm glad you read it. If you find someone who says the opposite of something I'm saying, don't just say you could, do, show me. Maybe then we can actually get somewhere.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      9 days ago from Tasmania

      I have just heard that our new prime minister of Australia is a Pentecostal. How aweful! Frightening!

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      10 days ago from Ottawa

      • Okay, there seems to be some details you're not seeing or realizing in regards to the information provided so far. First off, I'm not misinterpreting or twisting anything from the quote. Did you read the entire article before critiquing my interpretation? I doubt it.”

      Point out where it says there is no correlation at all between brain activity and consciousness. Then I’ll show you articles that show there is. No, I agree. Not all brain activity is due to consciousness for obvious reasons. Consciousness is a relatively small part of brain. And brain isn’t all of consciousness. The entire body participates in giving us feelings and emotions and experiences. Lots of correlations there. Even the stomach has millions of neurons and even our gut bacteria produces hormones for us and give us cravings.

      I’ve told you this many times. The entire system is responsible for conscious mind, centered around brain. A bacteria has no brain, but it is aware of its environment and can learn and adapt. So awareness, the basis of consciousness is not down to brain. But it is down to electro-chemical activity in the entire system.. Language is correlated to specific parts of the brain. Damage can make us lose that ability. That’s a directly observable correlation, and there’s dozens more correlations of that type. The only thing I said bullshit to is the idea that there is zero correlation between observable brain activity and consciousness.

      There’s several parts to this. There’s awareness, and there’s physical experience like feelings, perception, the ability to deliberate, memory, etc. Each part is a separate area of study. Each may well be produced by different processes and different parts of body and brain. But we call the entire phenomenon mind. When I say centered around brain, it’s obvious that brain damage effects that system, so must be integral, even if it’s only the TV set that receives it all and puts it all together and plays it. I think its much more then that, but we haven’t got all the information yet.

      “Second, yes, experts challenge each other. Experts. In these discussions, when referring to a neurologist or a neuroscientist and their statements on a topic, your claims of "bullshit" are arrogant or highly ignorant, and I can't decide which”

      Neither. Informed opinion, much like theirs. We’re waiting for more information. The vast majority of neuroscientists agree with me. That may change, but right now brain/body=human consciousness/ thinking/ deliberation etc. is widely accepted by neuroscience.

      “ Sure, challenge whether or not I'm using it wrong. But you calling what they're saying needs to be illustrated through an expert saying something in contrary or documented evidence that conflicts. You're not qualified and it's pointless to take the time to type out your feelings on the matter because it's worthless. As would be my input if I did the same.”

      Of course I’m qualified. What’s a scientist? A human that studies science and works hard at it. I’ve been studying every day of my adult life. I’m not a scientist, I’m a philosopher of science, human psychology, religion etc. Like I said, don’t listen to one guy’s opinion, Read everything you can. Then form an opinion, and wait.

      “We're discussing what can be determined by observing physical brain activity. Neither of us are qualified to look at the scans ourselves and determine anything relevant.”

      Agreed.

      “When an expert makes a statement based on their informed observations throughout their career, making statements that reflects can potentially impact professional reputation, that's something you can work with.”

      Hardly. This science is in its infancy both in theories and tech. Every neuroscientist has their own opinion. Lots of bullshit out there right now.

      You - "and if the brain isn’t active neither is it"

      “The coma patient scenario shows that to be false....”

      Not really. There was brain activity. No activity, your dead. And again, we’re using tech that can’t see all activity nor know exactly what its doing. And you didn’t post this:

      But, as Owen watched Routley’s brain inside a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scanner, he saw a region of the motor cortex called the supplementary motor area—thought to play a role in movement—light up with activity. When he told Routely to relax, the activity ceased. And when he asked Routley to imagine walking around his house, he saw clear activity in the parahippocampal gyrus—a region of the brain that plays an important role in the encoding and recognition of spatial environment.

      After dozens of repetitions of these mental imagery tasks, Owen was sure that Routley was conscious.

      So it was only by watching bran activity that it was discovered he was still conscious. How’s that not directly correlating activity to consciousness?

      .

      .

      You - "And again, extra oxygen in the blood doesn’t cause activity, it’s a result of it. So you have it backward."

      Show me. I'm not taking your word for it considering that's completely wrong according to anything I've ever read on the topic. Show me this comes from a viable source, and not just you talking out of your ass.

      Show me where you get the idea that “extra” oxygen is the cause of activity. Obviously without oxygen your brain dies. But like running, thinking demands more than at rest oxygen. So activity draws more oxygen. Oxygen doesn’t cause running or brain activity, but it indicates them. That’s pretty basic stuff.

      You - "Christian weekend neurologists working for the military with a doctorate in linguistics don’t impress me."

      “Show me where you found he's a Christian and that you're not just talking out of your ass.”

      I thought I made clear that was a joke. I have no idea what he believes.

      • Deny

      • Reply

      Status: Approved.

      "Christian weekend neurologists working for the military with a doctorate in linguistics..."

      “Odd that Forbes would choose such an obvious clown. Guess they should have talked to you first.”

      Forbes? What does a conservative business rag know about neuroscience? About as much as Trump, most likely.

      • Deny

      • Reply

      One more thing about the neurologist who you called a "Christian weekend neurologist" ....

      “Impressed yet?”

      Nop.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      11 days ago from Texas

      Whoops, mixed up articles. The one you actually referred to as a "weekend neurologist" is the one Forbes is interviewing for an article called "What Are Some Concise Ways To Convince People That Consciousness Is Not An Emergent Property?"

      You really should read it. You seem to be under the impression that your "emergent property" theory is agreed on by the science community at large.

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2014/04/16/what...

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      11 days ago from Texas

      One more thing about the neurologist who you called a "Christian weekend neurologist" ....

      "We sat down with the editor of Neuroscience of Consciousness, Anil Seth....."

      .....

      "For this reason, we are delighted to be the official journal of the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness, which has long been the premier scientific organisation in this field and which has always promoted a multidisciplinary approach to consciousness science." - https://blog.oup.com/2015/11/can-neuroscience-expl...

      So the journal that he is the editor of is the "official journal of the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness".

      Impressed yet?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      12 days ago from Texas

      "Christian weekend neurologists working for the military with a doctorate in linguistics..."

      Odd that Forbes would choose such an obvious clown. Guess they should have talked to you first.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      12 days ago from Texas

      a neurologist and a neuroscientist

      Okay, there seems to be some details you're not seeing or realizing in regards to the information provided so far. First off, I'm not misinterpreting or twisting anything from the quote. Did you read the entire article before critiquing my interpretation? I doubt it.

      Second, yes, experts challenge each other. Experts. In these discussions, when referring to a neurologist or a neuroscientist and their statements on a topic, your claims of "bullshit" are arrogant or highly ignorant, and I can't decide which. Sure, challenge whether or not I'm using it wrong. But you calling what they're saying needs to be illustrated through an expert saying something in contrary or documented evidence that conflicts. You're not qualified and it's pointless to take the time to type out your feelings on the matter because it's worthless. As would be my input if I did the same.

      We're discussing what can be determined by observing physical brain activity. Neither of us are qualified to look at the scans ourselves and determine anything relevant. When an expert makes a statement based on their informed observations throughout their career, making statements that reflects can potentially impact professional reputation, that's something you can work with. If I site something from a published article from a well known publication, if that statement is "bullshit", you can be sure some other expert has responded to it specifically in some way. If you're right, go find that. That's a good way to fact check what you're using, and not just taking any old quote that helps you make a point.

      You wouldn't believe the lengths I actually go through to ensure I'm stating "bullshit".

      You - "and if the brain isn’t active neither is it"

      The coma patient scenario shows that to be false....

      "Routely had been completely unresponsive for the 12 years since his severe traumatic brain injury. He was thought to be in a vegetative state: complete unawareness of self or environment" - http://nautil.us/issue/64/the-unseen/the-ethics-of...

      For 12 years they thought he was vegetative (complete unawareness of self or environment). By all appearances completely unconscious. Yet he was conscious and lucid enough to be able to interact and answer questions by following described instructions. Able to do all of this without the brain looking like it was doing anything more than what was necessary to keep the body alive. Yet was capable of hearing, comprehending, and following instructions and questions.

      You - "And again, extra oxygen in the blood doesn’t cause activity, it’s a result of it. So you have it backward."

      Show me. I'm not taking your word for it considering that's completely wrong according to anything I've ever read on the topic. Show me this comes from a viable source, and not just you talking out of your ass.

      You - "Christian weekend neurologists working for the military with a doctorate in linguistics don’t impress me."

      Show me where you found he's a Christian and that you're not just talking out of your ass.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      12 days ago from Ottawa

      • You - "More bullshit. If you ever prove me wrong I'll admit it. You haven't yet."

      “How can I if you're going to dismiss expert statements? If you claim to know better than those who are experts in the field, then what would make you admit it?”

      First off, you interpreted his/her statement and tried to make it sound like no correlation at all had been made between brain activity and consciousness, which was not what they said or meant. Second: experts in science disagree with each other all the time. That’s how science advances. I’d argue with Einstein were he alive and I thought he was wrong. How many experts do think have tried to prove him wrong? Probably thousands. Experiment has always proved him right so far.

      That’s why an argument from authority is not good logic. For every expert that says left, another says right. Until you establish facts that the vast majority agree with due to experiment, its anyone’s game. So expert opinion is just opinion until its proven by experiment and then verified a hundred times or more.

      And my point was that there are many different types of scans. Being a so called expert in one doesn’t make you an expert in all of them. .

      Me- "How do you know it isn’t detected but the resolution isn’t high enough?"

      Because there's no activity. If there's no oxygenated blood flow, then there's no activity. No matter how deep you're able to plumb.

      Then your consciousness is gone, and thus no soul, And again, extra oxygen in the blood doesn’t cause activity, it’s a result of it. So you have it backward.

      “I am familiar with studies involving when the corpus callosum is severed. Again, the brain is the apparatus through which the soul interacts with the body and with the world. If it is damaged, that damage impacts the soul's ability to interact.”

      Kind of a useless soul then, isn’t it? It can’t function without a working brain and has no memory or functionality of its own, and if the brain isn’t active neither is it. What the hell is it good for? Nothing, and it’s not needed, obviously.

      A nd the upshot of that study is two wills. Did you grow a second soul suddenly? Not likely.

      Me- "Soon enough they will."

      Your faith-based statements don't decide anything.

      I knew you’d say something stupid. No, we’re not on the same level. It’s a fact that tech keeps getting better, like it or not. We will discover more as tech evolves and time goes by. Maybe we’ll eventually come to the conclusion you’re right. Don’t hold your breath. You’ll pass out.

      Me - "Come on, a military linguistic expert? Probably a fundamentalist Christian too. "

      “eah, when you skip the "research neuroscientist" part, that's what's left. I think it's obvious whose actions show them to be desperate.”

      Don’t know the difference between actions and comments? ;)

      Christian weekend neurologists working for the military with a doctorate in linguistics don’t impress me. Hey, he could be a smart guy. Who knows? And again, for every one of him there’s a dozen others that disagree. Who do we believe and why?

      I form my own opinions based on facts, logic, reason, experience and observation. And if something sounds like bullshit based on all of that, it becomes my opinion that its probably bullshit. Again, it doesn’t matter who said it or what kind of expert they might or might not be.

      I have a pretty good track record for being right, case in point Quantum Field theory. When the CD came out a physicist friend and I were talking about the fact that every time some new device comes out it has less moving parts than the last. I said that very soon we’d be playing music on a device with no mechanical moving parts, based on the recently discovered micro chip. A few years later we had the mp3 player. I could go on but I’m boring you, and my point is, I have confidence in my method because it’s gotten me results. Have I been wrong? Sure. I used to believe in souls. But that was before I learned not invest faith in anything.

      • Deny

      • Reply

      Each method returns a value called ...

      'decision'

      Each method has access to different databases, so each reaches a conclusion different than the other based on the incoming value. The two methods are then able to interact with one another, compare decisions reached, And determine which to return.

      What do you need a will of soul for then? Sounds like it works fine without it, particularly if the two come up with the decision and not the soul? No outside soul required. Will IS the decision. Before you make it you don’t know what your will is in your scenario. And that’s true in most cases.

      “But if this connection is somehow severed, then it's expected that each method would return a 'decision' value different than the other. And this, of course, would change the outcome of the operation.”

      Right. Two decisions = two separate wills. What’s the soul needed for? Nothing. Again, unless you quickly grow another soul as a result. No. Two separate wills means soul is not will. Simple as that.

      “Get it? This doesn't prove 'soul of will' false. It's an expected outcome.”

      Try again. You haven’t twisted it enough yet. Yes, two wills proves soul, should it exist, is clearly not will. Get it?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      13 days ago from Texas

      Re: severed corpus callosum

      Let's put this into the context of code.

      Let's say you have two methods that each accept a variable called ...

      'willOfSoul'

      Each method returns a value called ...

      'decision'

      Each method has access to different databases, so each reaches a conclusion different than the other based on the incoming value. The two methods are then able to interact with one another, compare decisions reached, And determine which to return.

      In the case of each side of the brain, it has access to different information than the other. When the same value is introduced into each, each returns a different value. When the two sides are able to collaborate, further calculation can be done. But if this connection is somehow severed, then it's expected that each method would return a 'decision' value different than the other. And this, of course, would change the outcome of the operation.

      Get it? This doesn't prove 'soul of will' false. It's an expected outcome.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      13 days ago from Texas

      You - "How do you know it isn’t detected but the resolution isn’t high enough?"

      Because there's no activity. If there's no oxygenated blood flow, then there's no activity. No matter how deep you're able to plumb.

      I am familiar with studies involving when the corpus callosum is severed. Again, the brain is the apparatus through which the soul interacts with the body and with the world. If it is damaged, that damage impacts the soul's ability to interact.

      You - "Soon enough they will."

      Your faith-based statements don't decide anything.

      You - "Come on, a military linguistic expert? Probably a fundamentalist Christian too. "

      Yeah, when you skip the "research neuroscientist" part, that's what's left. I think it's obvious whose actions show them to be desperate.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      13 days ago from Texas

      You - "More bullshit. If you ever prove me wrong I'll admit it. You haven't yet."

      How can I if you're going to dismiss expert statements? If you claim to know better than those who are experts in the field, then what would make you admit it?

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      13 days ago from Ottawa

      "Haha. Sure Ron. When you're shown to be wrong, don't admit it, "

      More bullshit. If you ever prove me wrong I'll admit it. You haven't yet.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      13 days ago from Ottawa

      You - "That’s a “functional MRI”. Different than a standard MRI, different than a Pet scan, different then new MR tech.."

      “Irrelevant. What's relevant is what specifically this piece of equipment is able to detect. While it can't determine what neurons are actually doing, it can show what regions of the brain are active. Any activity that would be creating the mental experience would be detected if that were how it worked.”

      How do you know it isn’t detected but the resolution isn’t high enough? MRI started at 3 T power. We’re now using 7 T. An 11.5 T model is in the works. Like with collider tech, we didn’t find the Higgs until we ramped up the power enough. No telling what we’ll be able to detect willh11.5 T or higher. And MRI isn’t the be all end all technology. It’s just what we have now.

      And from it we’ve already learned a lot about which regions of the brain are responsible for all kinds of things. We know we have three brains in one. The first is the brain stem. Its responsible for anger and fear and other emotions. The limbic system sits on top of that and is where the subconscious sits, aware of things consciousness is not aware of. It sends messages to the cortex, which is where the higher processing is going on. Frontal lobe is where our second thoughts come from. If this area is damaged we can’t make good decisions anymore.

      Most of what we know about how the mind works is by studying different types of brain damage and how they make people act, think, and feel.

      And your soul as will idea is proven false in that if we cut the connection between the two sides of the brain, you get two separate wills in one body. Two minds. Since you want proof and you’re sending me links, watch this neuroscience vid. He explains it better than me. And don’t complain about how long it is. It’s worth watching if you want to actually know whats going on in neuroscience.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvBfAqk70LU

      “The 'specifics' you keep trying to argue aren't the issue. It's that there's no general activity, much less specifics”

      Keep telling yourself that.

      “ If the brain operated as you claim, then that neurologist in the coma patient example would have been able to determine the mind was active by monitoring brain activity.”

      Soon enough they will.

      “But like it was said earlier, the physical activity of the brain shows to be "independent" of the conscious mind.”

      Don’t lie. It shows SOME activity to be independent of the conscious. Abnd I wouldn’t expect anything else.

      That conscious mind is what you claim to be "an emergent property of the brain", yet there's no physical activity, no 'specific' neuronal activity to point to to say, "See, there's the mind being created"

      You wish.

      It specifically addresses the idea of the mind being an "emergent property". Like this bit ....

      "If you frame the question right, it's pretty easy because claims of emergent consciousness are simply philosophical assumptions dressed up as science."

      - Marc Ettlinger, PhD linguistics, research neuroscientist at the Dept of Veterans Affairs

      Come on, a military linguistic expert? Probably a fundamentalist Christian too. Why not quote a plumber? Lol…. Your desperate, aren’t you?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      13 days ago from Texas

      "And no, he didn’t say that it has been observed that brain activity isn't related to what the conscious mind is doing."

      He said ... ".... is at least highly indirectly related."

      You - "... and if he did it’s clearly bullshit"

      Haha. Sure Ron. When you're shown to be wrong, don't admit it, instead say the professor of Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience is full of shit. Clearly you know better than he does. I don't know what I was thinking bringing it up.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      13 days ago from Texas

      Of course you do, Alan.

      I'm not analyzing actual fMRI scans. I'm taking the experts at their word.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      2 weeks ago from Tasmania

      Jeremy, although I was a radiographer for most of my working life, I did not learn MRI, CT or US. Therefore I cannot claim to know any more than you do about fMRI.

      However, any diagnosis using any of these modalities, requires interpretation of the images, with in-depth knowledge of the information being sort.

      I wonder if your own analyses are clouded with presumption and the interpretations you fancy.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      You - "That’s a “functional MRI”. Different than a standard MRI, different than a Pet scan, different then new MR tech.."

      Irrelevant. What's relevant is what specifically this piece of equipment is able to detect. While it can't determine what neurons are actually doing, it can show what regions of the brain are active. Any activity that would be creating the mental experience would be detected if that were how it worked.

      The 'specifics' you keep trying to argue aren't the issue. It's that there's no general activity, much less specifics. If the brain operated as you claim, then that neurologist in the coma patient example would have been able to determine the mind was active by monitoring brain activity. But like it was said earlier, the physical activity of the brain shows to be "independent" of the conscious mind.

      That conscious mind is what you claim to be "an emergent property of the brain", yet there's no physical activity, no 'specific' neuronal activity to point to to say, "See, there's the mind being created"

      I suggest you read this .....

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2014/04/16/what...

      It specifically addresses the idea of the mind being an "emergent property". Like this bit ....

      "If you frame the question right, it's pretty easy because claims of emergent consciousness are simply philosophical assumptions dressed up as science."

      - Marc Ettlinger, PhD linguistics, research neuroscientist at the Dept of Veterans Affairs

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      2 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "Functional magnetic resonance imaging or functional MRI (fMRI) measures brain activity by detecting changes associated with blood flow. This technique relies on the fact that cerebral blood flow and neuronal activation are coupled. When an area of the brain is in use, blood flow to that region also increases." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_magnetic_...

      That’s a “functional MRI”. Different than a standard MRI, different than a Pet scan, different then new MR tech..

      “Magnetic Resonance (MR) has empowered neuroscience with a tool to investigate the inner structure and workings of the central nervous system (CNS). Unlike many imaging techniques, MR offers multiple modalities in one package, enabling scientists access to a wide range of unknowns from microstructure to physiology of the brain.”

      So we’ve just begun.

      “It's not the specifics about what the neurons are doing or any of that. Whatever activity is being carried out by the brain, including neurons, it's going to be seen by increased oxygenated blood flow to that region.”

      Wrong. But nice try. Just increased oxygen in blood flow tells you something but not the specifics of what’s going on.

      “By this, it can be seen where and when the brain is active. As it says above, "the fact that cerebral blood flow and neuronal activation are coupled."

      Right. Still doesn’t tell you specifics about what’s actually happening.

      Re: the mind being an emergent property of the brain (your argument)

      Read this again ....

      "... a lot of what the brain does seems to unfold independently of consciousness, or is at least highly indirectly related." - Anil Seth, British professor of Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience at the University of Sussex

      This guy knows what he's talking about. And what he says here does not agree with what you're saying. If the neurons and other physical activities going on in the brain is what creates the mind, as you claim, then this would not be true. But it has been observed that brain activity isn't related to what the conscious mind is doing.

      Duh! Of course a lot of brain activity isn’t related to consciousness directly. I’ve told you before it’s a layer of brain function. The a larger layer is subconscious, and below that strictly functional. So he’s right a lot of what the brain does unfolds independently of consciousness. No surprise to me and absolutely in keeping with what I’ve said all along. And no, he didn’t say that it has been observed that brain activity isn't related to what the conscious mind is doing. You wish he had, and if he did it’s clearly bullshit.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      Alright, there are a couple of things in particular I'd like to focus on.

      Re: "If it’s neurons, how are you going to see what they are doing?"

      I'm going to start off by repeating this ...

      "Functional magnetic resonance imaging or functional MRI (fMRI) measures brain activity by detecting changes associated with blood flow. This technique relies on the fact that cerebral blood flow and neuronal activation are coupled. When an area of the brain is in use, blood flow to that region also increases." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_magnetic_...

      It's not the specifics about what the neurons are doing or any of that. Whatever activity is being carried out by the brain, including neurons, it's going to be seen by increased oxygenated blood flow to that region. By this, it can be seen where and when the brain is active. As it says above, "the fact that cerebral blood flow and neuronal activation are coupled."

      Re: the mind being an emergent property of the brain (your argument)

      Read this again ....

      "... a lot of what the brain does seems to unfold independently of consciousness, or is at least highly indirectly related." - Anil Seth, British professor of Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience at the University of Sussex

      This guy knows what he's talking about. And what he says here does not agree with what you're saying. If the neurons and other physical activities going on in the brain is what creates the mind, as you claim, then this would not be true. But it has been observed that brain activity isn't related to what the conscious mind is doing.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      2 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "Studying consciousness is both broader and narrower than neuroscience in general. Broader, because a singular focus on brain mechanisms neglects the essential contributions of other disciplines to what is ultimately a question about the human (and perhaps non-human) condition. Narrower, because a lot of what the brain does seems to unfold independently of consciousness, or is at least highly indirectly related." - editor of Neuroscience of Consciousness, Anil Seth"

      I don't completely disagree. So what?

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      2 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "The brain is obviously involved, and why would it be if your mind is supernatural?"

      “Because the mind uses the brain. Like in that example, the mind was active because it was listening and interpreting the instructions to know how to respond, but that could not be seen. What could be seen is when the mind began using the brain to imagine as per the instructions.”

      You keep saying it couldn’t be seen. If mind is a quantum state you’re not going to see it either. If it’s neurons, how are you going to see what they are doing? Not seeing it is irrelevant. It in no way suggests a soul. There are plenty of natural explanations we have to falsify. We can’t falsify souls according to you so there’s nothing to consider.

      "It’s called quantum consciousness."

      “Lawrence Krauss also conveyed that "No area of physics stimulates more nonsense in the public arena than quantum mechanics."

      Well quantum consciousness is being studied by some serious physicists like Roger Penrose. It’s not something from the public arena.

      But I agree 100 percent. I’ve always said exactly that myself.

      We have 12 or more interpretations of QM, including the Copenhagen interpretation. Not one interpretation has been proven. But the math works without requiring any interpretation. But we also know the math doesn’t tell the whole story. There’s a lot missing. Yet the public takes everything as if its fact when its not, And again, that’s the public’s delusion not the scientists, and I’ve always said scepticism is important in all aspects of knowledge.

      Me "It was seen acting. Almost the same thing. And again, what the heck is there to see besides that?"

      “If the mind were actually an emergent property of the brain like you claim then we should see the physical brain activity that generates it.”

      No we shouldn’t. Why would we? We do see brain activity to the extent we can with current tech. But how are you going to read information carried by neurons? We don’t have that tech now. Can you read information transmitted from the quantum? No. So we need more study, not throwing up your hands and saying its souls all the way down.

      "With what? Imagination?"

      With the hypothesis. The God and the story postulated.

      Right. Imagination.

      "And how would you know any of that?"

      “Common sense. You're not going to find the baker by looking in the cake. If he made it, he's not part of it. Clearly.”

      God doesn’t make cakes or watches We do. Nature doesn’t make cakes. But saying that if it made something it’s not part of it is not necessarily true if it makes things from self. Energy/ the nonmaterial substance that makes matter, creates from self, not nothing or by magic.

      "No god with half a brain would set things up that way."

      “Not necessarily. Your life is your own. Your choices are your own. You decide for yourself. You're choice isn't influenced by anything. It's all up to you, as it should be.”

      What are you talking about? It’s influenced by everything including brain tumors. . You clearly have no free will,

      Me "And then they kill themselves. Do you have a point?"

      “They had to kill their body, and their body wasn't on board with the decision.”

      Their body doesn’t care. Only the mind cares.

      Me "It doesn’t have a separate mind of its own that knows about death and that you want to kill it and it fights you. Come on. All that is conflicted mind."

      “Easy exercise. Hold your breath. Is your mind telling you to breath? No, your body is. If it were your mind, you'd experience it. You don't. Your body forces you to breathe.”

      Breathing is on auto. It’s not fighting the mind. It’s doing what it does. You can’t because you panic. That’s brain.

      And if you succeed, you’ll pass out and start breathing again. Not because the body is fighting you, but because that’s the consequence of lack of oxygen.

      Take a belt. Put it around your neck. Now take a breath and tighten it just with your hands. After a few seconds you’ll pass out, let go of the belt, and wake up a few seconds later. I tried it a few times when I was a kid. Not to kill myself. Just for the experience. You don’t panic. You took a breath. Your body doesn’t fight back. You just pass out.

      Me "What a ridiculous thing to say."

      “Yeah, I agree. Yet this is your stance.”

      Hardly, just your twisted interpretation of it maybe.

      "Who created god? Who created him or her or it?"

      “Time only exists here. Something needing to be created, to have a beginning, is only relevant here. Another clue that the God described is accurate according to the natural world we know.”

      Nonsense. . You don’t and can’t know that and it makes no sense. And according to the natural world we know there’s no god required. You can’t show your imaginary god world with no time exists, let alone tell me anything about it, like it has no time.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      "How is consciousness science different from neuroscience?

      Studying consciousness is both broader and narrower than neuroscience in general. Broader, because a singular focus on brain mechanisms neglects the essential contributions of other disciplines to what is ultimately a question about the human (and perhaps non-human) condition. Narrower, because a lot of what the brain does seems to unfold independently of consciousness, or is at least highly indirectly related." - editor of Neuroscience of Consciousness, Anil Seth

      https://blog.oup.com/2015/11/can-neuroscience-expl...

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      "The brain is obviously involved, and why would it be if your mind is supernatural?"

      Because the mind uses the brain. Like in that example, the mind was active because it was listening and interpreting the instructions to know how to respond, but that could not be seen. What could be seen is when the mind began using the brain to imagine as per the instructions.

      "It’s called quantum consciousness."

      Lawrence Krauss also conveyed that "No area of physics stimulates more nonsense in the public arena than quantum mechanics."

      "It was seen acting. Almost the same thing. And again, what the heck is there to see besides that?"

      If the mind were actually an emergent property of the brain like you claim then we should see the physical brain activity that generates it.

      "With what? Imagination?"

      With the hypothesis. The God and the story postulated.

      "And how would you know any of that?"

      Common sense. You're not going to find the baker by looking in the cake. If he made it, he's not part of it. Clearly.

      "No god with half a brain would set things up that way."

      Not necessarily. Your life is your own. Your choices are your own. You decide for yourself. You're choice isn't influenced by anything. It's all up to you, as it should be.

      "And then they kill themselves. Do you have a point?"

      They had to kill their body, and their body wasn't on board with the decision.

      "It doesn’t have a separate mind of its own that knows about death and that you want to kill it and it fights you. Come on. All that is mind."

      Easy exercise. Hold your breath. Is your mind telling you to breath? No, your body is. If it were your mind, you'd experience it. You don't. Your body forces you to breathe.

      "What a ridiculous thing to say."

      Yeah, I agree. Yet this is your stance.

      "Who created god? Who created him or her or it?"

      Time only exists here. Something needing to be created, to have a beginning, is only relevant here. Another clue that the God described is accurate according to the natural world we know.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      2 weeks ago from Ottawa

      • Re: "Neuroscience shows physical evidence of brain activity associated with the mind"

      “We've covered this. We just discussed an example where a neurologist while observing brain activity could not determine if the coma patient was conscious/aware until the patient began employing the brain to imagine. This is the equivalent of the patient being able to move an arm. Rather than an arm, it's the brain.”

      New research is being done comparing normal brains and damaged brains and coma patients. We need to know what to look for. This is new science with changing technology. The point is we can see brain activity associated with thinking. The brain is obviously involved, and why would it be if your mind is supernatural?

      In the absence of any evidence what so ever that a supernatural exists, the only thing we can study is the brain, and the first logical assumption to make is that brain is mind. The next best bet is that it has a lot to do with the quantum. Microtubules in the brain are main target of study. It’s called quantum consciousness.

      This has led some physicists to the idea that consciousness is a quantum system. Some go farther and say it may mean it’s due to a quantum field or group of fields. But in any case, it would be part of nature.

      So science is taking this study seriously and we will get answers eventually. Negative as well as positive. Perhaps someday we’ll have to consider souls of some sort, but not now. And then, it could turn out they are natural. I’m sure you wouldn’t like that.

      My best guess from what we do know is: mind is an emergent property. We’ll see.

      “But the mind is not, was not, ever 'seen'.”

      It was seen acting. Almost the same thing. And again, what the heck is there to see besides that? You don’t see atoms either, even with our best tech, but QM can predict what they will do, and tests verify the math. We know they exist, but its impossible to visualize what they look like and impossible to actually see them even in principal unless some future tech we can’t yet imagine changes that. Why should mind be any different?

      Re: "impossible to prove", "not a desirable thing to do because then there's no need for faith"

      “If it were any different it wouldn't be consistent.”

      With what? Imagination?

      “ If we're talking about the creator then you're not going to find evidence of Him in the creation. He's not made of physical stuff. We are. This place is. The creation. Not the creator. So that's consistent with what we're talking about.”

      And how would you know any of that? You can’t. You’re guessing on the basis of a bronze age myth. Hardly convincing.

      “The other thing, about faith, that has more to do with the context/subject, free will. We're talking about a creator whose intention is to create free will. If there were proof then it wouldn't be up to you to choose.”

      Utter illogical nonsense. It’s a lie created to keep you believing. It has nothing to do with freed will. It can only have to do with a nonexistent god. If I know this god exists, then and only then am I given a choice whether or not to follow it. Now you want me to swallow some bull about I need to choose him by accepting what some human like you tells me he exists, on a wild guess. It’s ridiculous. No god with half a brain would set things up that way. It’s just a dumb excuse. Biggest con in history..

      “These are just the facts of the matter.”

      Tell me that when you prove your god exists and he’s an egomaniacal retard. Right now it’s nonsense.

      Re: "Both in the mind. We're often conflicted."

      “Oh no,”

      Oh yes.

      “ the mind of a suicidal person is often of one and only one mindset.”

      And then they kill themselves. Do you have a point?

      “ That conflict doesn't come from the mind.”

      Sorry, yes it does. The mind fears pain. The body only forces you to eat, sleep defecate and procreate. It tells you if its too hot or cold. It repairs itself. It doesn’t have a separate mind of its own that knows about death and that you want to kill it and it fights you. Come on. All that is mind.

      “ It's from what's often referred to as the "reptilian" brain.”

      Where we get fear and aggression from. Yeah, the primitive mind. Your making my point for me.

      “The core. The body function section. This isn't the mind. “

      Only according to you. It obviously is.

      “This isn't something the mind has access to. “

      Wrong

      “The mind tells you to stop breathing, the body forces you to breathe.”

      Breathing is hard wired. It’s not controlled by mind, though mind can effect it. Perhaps even to the point of slowing it down long enough to pass out and breath normally again. You can’t chock yourself with a rope unless you hang yourself. You’ll jut pass out and let go of the rope. If someone else chocks you you still pass out before you die. Passing out isn’t a way the body is trying to save itself, it’s what happens if you can’t breathe.

      Re: "Life is self evident. Souls are a wild guess with no evidence to support it. Just wishful thinking. So is th e rest"

      What you call "life" I call soul. Both just as totally invisible to all detection as the other. Both just as "self-evident".

      You can call it what you like Prove souls exist. They are not self evident.

      • Deny

      Re: "No god is required. "

      “No baker is required.”

      Nature produces cakes though us. We are nature. No god required for cakes either.

      “ This cake is just how these ingredients interact with one another. It's just their nature. Every time you combine flour with eggs and milk butter and baking soda and baking powder and it gets heated this is the result.”

      No baker is required.

      What a ridiculous thing to say.

      Re: "That's what I mean by not required."

      “Yeah, I get that. What I'm trying to point out is the nature of atoms and those laws and the interplay between them is what makes it all work. When you say God isn't required you're not accounting for this.”

      No need to. That’s how nature works. No need for it to have been created. Who created your god? If you can say it always existed and wasn’t created, you can understand that nature didn’t have to be created. If you insist that everything must be created, then your god must have been created. Otherwise your reasoning is inconsistent.

      I know nature exists. I don’t know a god exists. You don’t either.

      “ Yes, once set in motion it doesn't require constant maintenance to continue on. So I guess there's no God required for that. But for it to be here at all, it does require a designer/law maker. That's not desire or belief. That's logic.”

      Who created god? Who created him or her or it? I’ll keep asking for infinity. No it’s not logical at all to add infinite middle men. What’s most logical from what we know is that nature in some form has always existed. And when I say nature I mean the nature of the energetic and creative non-material substance that creates all this from self.

      Want to call that god? I’d have to agree, at least metaphorically. you couldn’t be more made in its image. And it fits the definition nicely. That which creates all this. Except it’s not conscious as far as we know. What do you need egotistical middle men for? You can’t get closer to god than being part of it. And it doesn’t expect anything of you. But everlasting life? We could hope, but there’s no guarantee, and no evidence for it. I’m really not sure I’d want to live forever. I rather doubt it.

      Tell you what. I’ll live till I know everything. What’s left to live for after that? Guess I won’t know till I know everything. Good chance I’ll be bored to tears for the first time in my existence. Forever is a long time. I won’t be disappointed if when I die it’s over…. Obviously. Lol…

      Re: "Neuroscience isn't a behavioral science"

      “Right. It's the study of the behaviors of the physical brain. That can be observed and measured. Not the mind.”

      How do you know? You don’t. I think it may well be. So do many neurologists.

      Re: "All science is based on observation of behavior."

      “Right, but observing the behavior of the body is not observing the mind”

      Really? What would a body without a mind of some sort do? Be dead? We’re observing the effects of mind on body and thereby studyin

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      Re: "Neuroscience shows physical evidence of brain activity associated with the mind"

      We've covered this. We just discussed an example where a neurologist while observing brain activity could not determine if the coma patient was conscious/aware until the patient began employing the brain to imagine. This is the equivalent of the patient being able to move an arm. Rather than an arm, it's the brain.

      But the mind is not, was not, ever 'seen'.

      Re: "impossible to prove", "not a desirable thing to do because then there's no need for faith"

      If it were any different it wouldn't be consistent. If we're talking about the creator then you're not going to find evidence of Him in the creation. He's not made of physical stuff. We are. This place is. The creation. Not the creator. So that's consistent with what we're talking about.

      The other thing, about faith, that has more to do with the context/subject, free will. We're talking about a creator whose intention is to create free will. If there were proof then it wouldn't be up to you to choose.

      These are just the facts of the matter.

      Re: "Both in the mind. We're often conflicted."

      Oh no, the mind of a suicidal person is often of one and only one mindset. That conflict doesn't come from the mind. It's from what's often referred to as the "reptilian" brain. The core. The body function section. This isn't the mind. This isn't something the mind has access to. The mind tells you to stop breathing, the body forces you to breathe.

      Re: "Life is self evident. Souls are a wild guess with no evidence to support it. Just wishful thinking. So is the rest"

      What you call "life" I call soul. Both just as totally invisible to all detection as the other. Both just as "self-evident".

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      Re: "No god is required. "

      No baker is required. This cake is just how these ingredients interact with one another. It's just their nature. Every time you combine flour with eggs and milk butter and baking soda and baking powder and it gets heated this is the result.

      No baker is required.

      Re: "That's what I mean by not required."

      Yeah, I get that. What I'm trying to point out is the nature of atoms and those laws and the interplay between them is what makes it all work. When you say God isn't required you're not accounting for this. Yes, once set in motion it doesn't require constant maintenance to continue on. So I guess there's no God required for that. But for it to be here at all, it does require a designer/law maker. That's not desire or belief. That's logic.

      Re: "Neuroscience isn't a behavioral science"

      Right. It's the study of the behaviors of the physical brain. That can be observed and measured. Not the mind.

      Re: "All science is based on observation of behavior."

      Right, but observing the behavior of the body is not observing the mind.

      Re: "Biology certainly isn't just a behavioral science, but bases a lot of its understanding on behavior."

      Much like neuroscience, it's the study of physical biological activity. Not the mind.

      It's those that deal with the mind that are behavioral science. Because the mind can't be observed.

      Re:"And yes, again and again, it's a fact that biology accepts awareness in all biology as fact.

      I really don't get why you're arguing the point. Give it up."

      The problem we keep running into that continues this argument on is your very loose definition of "fact". If we're talking about empirical science, as you're correctly arguing biology is, then facts are confirmed in empirical tests as being so.

      This is not something behavioral sciences can achieve where the mind is concerned.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      2 weeks ago from Ottawa

      This is in regards to your constant statements about me needing to prove souls or God exists. "This is to confirm that there are indeed things that exist that there is no supporting physical evidence for and that your requirement that there be before something can be considered is flawed."

      Nop. That's nonsense. Neuroscience shows physical evidence of brain activity associated with the mind and making choices among other things. No we can't see a physical gland called mind. There isn't one. But mind exists, so not considering it would be stupid. Just as stupid as considering souls with less than zero evidence that they exist physical or otherwise.

      And I don't ask just for physical evidence. I'll take irrefutable logic, or self evidence. You can't supply any of the above..And your claim that its impossible to prove, and not a desirable thing to do because then there's no need for faith, makes it impossible for me to take it seriously let alone give it consideration.

      "Two opposing wills is the point"

      Both in the mind. We're often conflicted.

      "he words are irrelevant. It's the desire of the will. God created things "to do it" by imbuing His will in them to do as He desired. They wouldn't have done it otherwise. Life wouldn't exist if it weren't compelled."

      Sorry, sounds like fantasy to me.

      "Life is invisible physically. You and I are animated by life until life is no longer in us. That life, the soul, is self evident"

      Life is self evident. Souls are a wild guess with no evidence to support it. Just wishful thinking. So is the rest

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      2 weeks ago from Ottawa

      Of course there's a distinction between all sciences. So what? Neuroscience isn't a behavioral science in the standard sense. All science is based on observation of behavior. That's how things are defined, by what they do.

      Biology certainly isn't just a behavioral science, but bases a lot of its understanding on behavior.

      And yes, again and again, it's a fact that biology accepts awareness in all biology as fact.

      I really don't get why you're arguing the point. Give it up.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      2 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "Nature is what it is because it was created to be that way. Nature didn't just create it's own laws to compel itself to be. They didn't form over time and evolve to be as they are. Those 'laws', or the "nature of nature" was set right from the start.

      The cake didn't make itself, obviously."

      Projecting again? Back at you. There you go again stating what is and isn't required, all while acknowledging we don't know how it works. You have no idea what's required and what isn't, yet here you are making a statement as if you do. A statement of faith based in your belief system.

      No god is required. There may be one though you can't prove there is. If it did exist it may or may not have created anything. Who knows? Not you. But it isn't required.We know nature exists and that it works by simple rules.So far we have not found any reason to think it didn't create everything, and in fact, we know basically how it works and that no outside interference is required. It can do it all by itself. Perhaps it didn't. But there's no evidence to show it hasn't. .

      That's what I mean by not required.

      You can then argue that god created nature and then left it alone. But that's just a guess based on your desires and beliefs.

      Nature could have always existed in one form or other. And that's the most likely scenario considering there is no proof of or even implication of another, and zero proof of a god.

      Something has always existed. Had nothing at all existed at any point, nothing could exist now. So, its either an outside force, for which we have no evidence at all, or a non-material substance which I call energy because it fits perfectly, even though science won't call it that yet, and may never do.

      But we know this substance is highly energetic, transformative,and highly creative, as it creates the material world.

      So, from what we know, nothing else is required. If you claim otherwise its up to you to prove it.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      "No god is required. Nature is enough."

      There you go again stating what is and isn't required, all while acknowledging we don't know how it works. You have no idea what's required and what isn't, yet here you are making a statement as if you do. A statement of faith based in your belief system.

      Nature is what it is because it was created to be that way. Nature didn't just create it's own laws to compel itself to be. They didn't form over time and evolve to be as they are. Those 'laws', or the "nature of nature" was set right from the start.

      The cake didn't make itself, obviously.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      Ron,

      Re: "I agreed to that long ago"

      This is in regards to your constant statements about me needing to prove souls or God exists. This is to confirm that there are indeed things that exist that there is no supporting physical evidence for and that your requirement that there be before something can be considered is flawed.

      You - "And it’s not the body that fights back, it’s the conflicted mind."

      Two opposing wills is the point.

      You - "No god would need to say that after creating things to do it. And can proto bacteria understand language?"

      The words are irrelevant. It's the desire of the will. God created things "to do it" by imbuing His will in them to do as He desired. They wouldn't have done it otherwise. Life wouldn't exist if it weren't compelled.

      You - "But that all stems from need"

      A need that only exists because life is compelled by an unseen will to live.

      Life is invisible physically. You and I are animated by life until life is no longer in us. That life, the soul, is self evident. It can't be seen just as the mind can't be seen except through the behaviors of the body.

      God is the same way. He can't be seen or detected, but His existence is self-evident in the behaviors of His creation. The will imbued in the natural world that compels it to need and desire and to live.

      You look through the lens of science, don't see anything, and convince yourself there's nothing there. Clearly there is. That lens can't 'see' everything there is. That's self-evident.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      3 weeks ago from Ottawa

      Okay, I think it's time for a rerack. We've gotten a little off base. The original point I was attempting to make that got us off on this particular tangiant is that the mind is something that definitely exists, but that cannot be observed, other than in the 'self-evident' way you're speaking of. A fact which you've all but acknowledged, so we can move on.”

      I agreed to that long ago, but you mention it in the context of souls and supernatural as if to say it’s the same thing. It most certainly isn’t. We know mind exists regardless of not knowing exactly how it works. We don’t know a soul exists. Mind is self evident. Souls and gods aren’t. Now will you agree to that? If so we can indeed move on.

      Re: Purpose of life

      “That's it. The purpose of life is to live. Or, more specifically, "Be fruitful and increase in number". And you're right, we don't 'choose' these wants. They were chosen for us. This drive in our bodies exists despite us. If at any time you willingly want to die, you're going to have to kill the body. And it's going to fight back.”

      No god would need to say that after creating things to do it. And can proto bacteria understand language? News to me. And it’s not the body that fights back, it’s the conflicted mind. We don’t like pain. Humans fear death and its unknown. So even if you really want to die, part of you may not.

      “But that will to live isn't just another thing you can dismiss as an evolved trait. It kind of has to be there right from the beginning of life and evolution doesn't happen. Right from the start life was compelled to live and propagate.”

      But that all stems from need, which stems from biology/structure. Atoms obey laws. They aren’t really laws, of course, they are the nature of the atom. The bacteria doesn’t think about life or worry about death, it just does what its nature demands, and if it survives it replicates. It doesn’t have a survival instinct as such. No different than an atom. No god is required. Nature is enough.

      Me - "A divine purpose? Who cares?... And a divine purpose wouldn’t be an objective purpose, it would be the god’s subjective purpose for us."

      “You're exactly right, God's purpose would not be our objective purpose. But there's two sides to that. Our bodies are compelled, in this scenario, by God's will, but our will is our own. By design. That's the whole point to life and existence and all of it. Free will. If there were no free will, if we had no willful control or input, then life would be meaningless. We'd all be drones just going through the motions.”

      This is what its like to be a drone? Cool. Not so bad is it? So what if life were meaningless? Who cares? Getting emotional again?

      Again, our body is not compelled to survive. It’s compelled to eat when its hungry, procreate when its horny, go to the toilet when it needs to, and sleep when its tired, Those needs are felt and demand resolution Again, we often think of it as survival instinct, but really isn’t.

      In higher forms there’s fear. Fear of being hurt. We run, or stand and fight depending on whether we think we can win or not. That is an evolved trait, and again, it’s about mind, not body alone. You feel fear, but its source is a gland in the brain called the amygdale. The amygdala is the brain structure responsible for autonomic responses associated with fear and fear conditioning. It processes many of our emotions. That fight or flight response is what we call survival instinct.

      So bacteria probably don’t have fear or any sort of survival instinct as such. Nothing here gets you closer to the need for a god.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 weeks ago from Texas

      Show me. I must have missed something. Give me just one example.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      3 weeks ago from Tasmania

      How often has Ron done just that? Indeed!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 weeks ago from Texas

      When have I ever said you were wrong? I have said statements are wrong if they're objectively wrong. And there have been plenty of those. But I am constantly mindful of the statements I'm making. And I don't call out someone for being wrong for not agreeing to some belief. I call 'wrong' when statements are made during the course of a discussion that actually are demonstrably inaccurate. I expect you and Ron to do the same.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      3 weeks ago from Tasmania

      I have no problem with that.

      There is a problem with you insisting there is a designed purpose of a - metaphysical, if you like - being.

      I repeat, if you find it sits with your perceptions, you are free to keep believing.

      But don't extrapolate that belief as being accepted by others and call them "wrong" if they don't accept it.

      And before you add that term "Ron-ism" to the dictionary, be sure to ask his permission.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 weeks ago from Texas

      To use a Ron-ism, this is self-evident. It is a fact because the drive to live is the propelling factor behind evolution. Living things have to have the drive to live and reproduce or evolution doesn't happen. Evolved traits aren't beneficial if they're not employed in the interest of surviving.

      So it's a characteristic that had to be there from the beginning as there'd be no evolving up to that point.

      This isn't a belief. This is a logical deduction. You disagree?

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      3 weeks ago from Tasmania

      "But that will to live isn't just another thing you can dismiss as an evolved trait. It kind of has to be there right from the beginning of life and evolution doesn't happen. Right from the start life was compelled to live and propagate."

      This you state as a fact. As though some entity made a decree that there was a compulsion to live and reproduce.

      Sure one can say that every living thing does feel a compulsion to live and reproduce, BUT: I read into your statement the presumption that some other entity provided the compulsion.

      Fine; believe that if you wish, and it's a possibility if based upon a belief.

      If one does not have that belief in the first place, surely there is no need for the belief to be imperative. There are possibly other explanations.

      I keep my mind open.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 weeks ago from Texas

      "Instead, you tend to get all uppity when logical counters are made to your "statements of fact" based upon your beliefs."

      Name one logical counter you or Ron have made.

      Name one statement of mine you think of when you say "statements of fact" based upon my beliefs.

      I want to see and recognize in myself what you're talking about.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      3 weeks ago from Tasmania

      It does not matter to me whether you believe your god exists or not. The fact you believe it makes it real for you. The fact you believe the mind exists makes the mind real for you.

      From the moment of believing something is real it is human nature that you will want to search around for anything and everything that might support your belief and prove you are right.

      On the other hand, I don't feel a need to DIS-prove anything that you have said. One reason being that I can't disprove anything.

      My one worry is when anyone speaks of their god or anything as a fact to be accepted by everyone. Such a biased view implies a superiority in the belief over non-belief.

      This really, Jeremy, is the only reason I tend to get annoyed with your arguments. If you were to say, "Ok Ron, Ok, Alan, I hear what you are saying, you might be right, I must go away and think it through carefully. I will let you know my conclusions."

      Instead, you tend to get all uppity when logical counters are made to your "statements of fact" based upon your beliefs.

      Ball in your court.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 weeks ago from Texas

      Ron,

      Okay, I think it's time for a rerack. We've gotten a little off base. The original point I was attempting to make that got us off on this particular tangiant is that the mind is something that definitely exists, but that cannot be observed, other than in the 'self-evident' way you're speaking of. A fact which you've all but acknowledged, so we can move on.

      Re: Purpose of life

      That's it. The purpose of life is to live. Or, more specifically, "Be fruitful and increase in number". And you're right, we don't 'choose' these wants. They were chosen for us. This drive in our bodies exists despite us. If at any time you willingly want to die, you're going to have to kill the body. And it's going to fight back.

      But that will to live isn't just another thing you can dismiss as an evolved trait. It kind of has to be there right from the beginning of life and evolution doesn't happen. Right from the start life was compelled to live and propagate.

      You - "A divine purpose? Who cares?... And a divine purpose wouldn’t be an objective purpose, it would be the god’s subjective purpose for us."

      You're exactly right, God's purpose would not be our objective purpose. But there's two sides to that. Our bodies are compelled, in this scenario, by God's will, but our will is our own. By design. That's the whole point to life and existence and all of it. Free will. If there were no free will, if we had no willful control or input, then life would be meaningless. We'd all be drones just going through the motions.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      3 weeks ago from Ottawa

      “Life, all life, shows purpose in its actions. The universe, this planet, it all shows purpose in its behaviors and actions.”

      No it doesn’t. It has a purpose, yes: live. But beyond that, what would an objective purpose be? A divine purpose? Who cares? A natural function? Who cares? I can’t think of an objective purpose that makes sense. And a divine purpose wouldn’t be an objective purpose, it would be the god’s subjective purpose for us.

      A god adds zero to the equation..

      Purpose is by definition subjective. But function can be objective. The subjective purpose of biology is to live. So in that sense its an objective subjective purpose. Meaning our subjective purposes become our objective purposes. But it takes a subjective acceptance of the purpose to make it objective for us, or a hard wired imperative. We “want” to live, but we don’t choose our wants. So it’s both subjective and objective in different ways.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      3 weeks ago from Ottawa

      • You - "I’m taking all evidence into consideration from all sciences including quantum mechanics and quantum information theory and even quantum consciousness."

      “Irrelevant. On the specific point you were making that awareness/consciousness was a 'proven fact', no matter what science you pull from the answer is the same. Only behavior can be observed and we can only make observations, not establish any facts.”

      The phenomenon we call consciousness is a proven fact. It’s self evident, which means it proves itself, like the fact you can walk, or not. Nothing else is required. How it works isn’t proven, and I never said otherwise.

      You - "According to biology it’s fact."

      Still not true.

      The context of my answer was the idea that all of biology is aware. That is a fact.

      You - "My mind is open to actual real evidence of any kind."

      “Yet totally closed to anything I've said. You'll accept ideas that "suggest" consciousness or whatever but won't even consider what my ideas "suggest". So clearly not "of any kind".

      I said evidence. You can’t give me any by definition.

      You - "Projecting again? Yeah. That’s you, not me."

      ^ what projecting actually looks like ^

      You - "Show me they aren’t right."

      You can't be shown anything. That's apparent.

      Yup. That’s what your projections look like. So stop.

      You - "So what’s your point? I’m interested in all avenues of insight, aren’t you? To me psychology is far more interesting than psychiatry, of course."

      “My point is you're trying to claim this and that as "facts" when that's not true. It's not true for the same reason that any fields of study that have to do with the mind are in a separate branch of science. They're in a separate branch because the rest of the world accepts the truths that you continually reject.”

      What a load of crap. What rest of the world? The Christians? Flat earthers? Keep em. What do I care what they believe? I’m actually looking for real answers, not guesses.

      • Approve

      • Deny

      “This is another simple truth you refuse to acknowledge. If the universe isn't the result of a being deliberately creating it for a reason, then there is no purpose to life”

      It’s not true. No purpose for your life, perhaps. I feel sorry for you if you need an authority figure to give your life meaning. I don’t. It makes no difference to me if something other than myself has a purpose for me or not. Who cares? No god is required to give purpose to my life. Only I can do that. If you mean my function in nature, I fulfill that by living whether I like it or not. If you mean there’s no divine purpose, then I agree with you. Again, so what? Who cares? You do.

      “ What do you not get about that? That's not me arguing from an emotional place. That's me stating a simple truth. Not emotionally. Objectively”

      Hardly. It’s emotional. You care. I don’t. So what if there’s no divine purpose? You don’t live forever? I don’t expect to and I’m certainly not sure I’d want to. But you want to. It’s important to you. That’s an emotional belief and motive for belief and this argument.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 weeks ago from Texas

      In fact, if there's a bias in this discussion, it's yours and Ron's bias towards thinking of believers as being inherently foolish in their thinking. Prone to falling into all the usual pitfalls of a non-critical thinker.

      I get that much of that is true and probably safe to assume of a lot of believers. But it's a little aggravating that guys I've had such extensive conversations with continue to think so. Not only has nothing I've said has made you realize you're not dealing with that type, but you're basically more convinced of it based on what I've said.

      That stings a bit.

      In discussions like this it tends to be a speed bump I inevitably have to try to evade so we don't have to spend so much time on dealing with it in its various forms.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 weeks ago from Texas

      Alan,

      It's apparently not possible to sway your views, yet I continue to try like a fool.

      This isn't bias towards belief. It's an acknowledgment, based on observations across multiple fields of study. Like the observed behaviors that Ron points to to suggest the 'facts' regarding consciousness/awareness. Life, all life, shows purpose in its actions. The universe, this planet, it all shows purpose in its behaviors and actions.

      If you were to receive a text that says...

      "adir ldkekehrd..daeraeqa!@!@$"

      ... you might see that as something not sent with intent or purpose. You clearly just got "butt-texted".

      But if you receive a text that says...

      "Good morning Alan, how are you?"

      ... this is clearly a sequence of characters that shows purposeful intent and purpose.

      When we look at the universe, biological life, all of it, we see data like the second text. Purpose. Life is driven to live and survive.

      Everyday I write scripts that automate specific sequences of events to achieve a desired outcome. I know full well the difference between sequences that achieve a specific desired outcome and sequences with no deliberate goal. The behaviors and actions of the elements involved have to react/respond in very specific ways for the system to work.

      You and Ron look at a baked cake, stacked three layers high and frosted, and come away with the conclusion that all the ingredients just came to be like that. Just 'happened'. When I point out that the logical conclusion is that someone clearly baked this cake deliberately and purposefully, I'm accused of bias towards belief.

      What specifically do you mean by "rather than hard facts"? What "hard facts" am I rejecting through m belief bias?

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      3 weeks ago from Tasmania

      Sorry I am so ignorant. Obviously, being empirically based upon observation and experience - but always subject very much to the preconceived understanding of the person doing the investigation.

      Anyone doing scientific studies in the physical areas can, of course, also be prone to bias....but least they are more open to peer review and less manipulation and observer bias.

      I still say, viewing your inputs over a long time now, your conclusions do show considerable bias towards belief, rather than hard facts...imho.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 weeks ago from Texas

      Alan,

      You - "Jeremy, what proportion of the rest of the world?"

      What proportion? All of it. The consensus is that studies involving the mind are not in the same branch as all the rest of the physical sciences because they are not, and cannot be empirical.

      Both of you seem pretty adequately informed, so it's confounding that I'm having to try to explain this.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      3 weeks ago from Tasmania

      Jeremy, what proportion of the rest of the world?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 weeks ago from Texas

      Ron,

      You - "I’m taking all evidence into consideration from all sciences including quantum mechanics and quantum information theory and even quantum consciousness."

      Irrelevant. On the specific point you were making that awareness/consciousness was a 'proven fact', no matter what science you pull from the answer is the same. Only behavior can be observed and we can only make observations, not establish any facts.

      You - "According to biology it’s fact."

      Still not true.

      You - "My mind is open to actual real evidence of any kind."

      Yet totally closed to anything I've said. You'll accept ideas that "suggest" consciousness or whatever but won't even consider what my ideas "suggest". So clearly not "of any kind".

      You - "Projecting again? Yeah. That’s you, not me."

      ^ what projecting actually looks like ^

      You - "Show me they aren’t right."

      You can't be shown anything. That's apparent.

      You - "So what’s your point? I’m interested in all avenues of insight, aren’t you? To me psychology is far more interesting than psychiatry, of course."

      My point is you're trying to claim this and that as "facts" when that's not true. It's not true for the same reason that any fields of study that have to do with the mind are in a separate branch of science. They're in a separate branch because the rest of the world accepts the truths that you continually reject.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      3 weeks ago from Tasmania

      It's a simple point Jeremy that you cannot move beyond the notion there must be a purpose. That is a human construct and it presumes the human point of view is paramount.

      I disagree. My mind is open to there being NO purpose in human terms,

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 weeks ago from Texas

      You - "If it was a "simple truth," all of us "simple people" would be able to accept it as Truth."

      Yeah, you'd think. Yet you somehow manage to reject it.

      You - "That is the desire of your mind."

      No, no, no. What do you not get about this? If something isn't deliberately made for a purpose then there is no purpose in that thing. No reason it was made. It has to be made to have a purpose. If it wasn't deliberately made then there's no purpose. That's just a simple thing. What's so hard about that?

      You - "I read that Stephen Hawking did not dismiss totally the notion of a purpose, but that did not extend to the humanoid god of religious belief."

      What does that even mean? If not created by a being deliberately creating for some reason, then what purpose is there?

      You - "You cannot regard this as a universal truth. It is not objective, it's subjective - your own point of view."

      Yes I can because it is. It's objectively true. What purpose can there be if the universe just became without any deliberate intent? What's the purpose? There is none. This is a really simple point.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      3 weeks ago from Tasmania

      " If the universe isn't the result of a being deliberately creating it for a reason, then there is no purpose to life."

      You cannot regard this as a universal truth. It is not objective, it's subjective - your own point of view.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      3 weeks ago from Tasmania

      If it was a "simple truth," all of us "simple people" would be able to accept it as Truth.

      But whether there is reason or inherent purpose to this world does not need to depend upon the existence of a man-like, personification of a God. That seems to be what you are implying, Jeremy.

      That is the desire of your mind. It is no more a representation of The Truth than a Golden Idol being a god to worship.

      I read that Stephen Hawking did not dismiss totally the notion of a purpose, but that did not extend to the humanoid god of religious belief.

      I am with him in that respect.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 weeks ago from Texas

      You - "You argue from emotion when you talk about there being no meaning to life if there’s no god."

      This is another simple truth you refuse to acknowledge. If the universe isn't the result of a being deliberately creating it for a reason, then there is no purpose to life. What do you not get about that? That's not me arguing from an emotional place. That's me stating a simple truth. Not emotionally. Objectively.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      3 weeks ago from Ottawa

      • "The term behavioral sciences encompasses the various disciplines that explores the cognitive processes within organisms and the behavioural interactions between organisms in the natural world." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioural_sciences...

      • I’m taking all evidence into consideration from all sciences including quantum mechanics and quantum information theory and even quantum consciousness. Some of those ideas suggest . consciousness is inherent in the structure of the universe. Many of these ideas have not been proven or falsified. My mind is open to actual real evidence of any kind. All I’ve said is that all biology has some form of awareness. That is a fact from a science you haven’t mentioned: biology. All of biology has the capacity to recognize and react to its environment. That means awareness. Not human consciousness, obviously, but a rudimentary form of it. According to biology it’s fact.

      • Deny

      “Your unwillingness to acknowledge the simplest of points leads me to believe you're more concerned with 'winning' the discussion. Like acknowledging any point I make gives up ground in some way. This point about the inability to establish real facts in the same way we establish facts scientifically or just the inability to 'see' the mind are very clear and obvious points”

      Projecting again? Yeah. That’s you, not me.

      “Winning' in a discussion like this is to gain new understanding. New knowledge.”

      Couldn’t agree more.

      “ This isn't a competition. If we're not going to acknowledge and come to an agreement on any single point then the conversation isn't worth having.”

      Again, couldn’t agree more.

      • Deny

      “Your assumptions about me 'not wanting to admit' or that I 'go by feelings' is clouding your judgement.”

      It’s obvious from what you say. You argue from emotion when you talk about there being no meaning to life if there’s no god. So you’d rather believe in one so your life according to you then has meaning. That’s emotional thinking. And you have yet to admit you’re wrong about anthing. I can only go by what you say and how you behave.

      “You're a perfectly intelligent person, but your assumptions about me and what I must be doing are mucking things up.”

      Show me they aren’t right.

      “Psychology and psychiatry are in a separate branch of science than the physical sciences for a reason. They too observe behavior and make claims based on it.”

      So what’s your point? I’m interested in all avenues of insight, aren’t you? To me psychology is far more interesting than psychiatry, of course. But that’s not the point.

      “There's no factual evidence gathered by observing behavior. It's all statistical. If you were thinking rationally and clearly you'd realize this really simple fact.”

      If you were thinking rationally you’d realize that’s bullshit. QM and QED are all statistical analysis, and for what they do they are highly accurate.

      You - "Observation is evidence, unlike zero observation."

      “There's plenty of observation. Life and existence is evidence of what I'm saying. I acknowledge that I can't establish any hard facts due to the same reasons that nobody else can.”

      Utter nonsense. What you call observation is guessing Existence is obvious, but that a god did it, due to lake of evidence is a useless assumption that doesn’t gain you any knowledge at all.

      Re: MRI/PET

      “The point remains, a neurologist looking at the scans could not determine. There was no physical activity that showed the patient's mind being "created" by the brain.”

      And certainly no evidence that it isn’t.

      “You claim the brain creates the mind. If that were true then that should be detectable by these means”

      No it shouldn’t. That’s where you’re totally wrong. It’s not an organ. How is an MRI supposed to see anything but activity? And it does. And that shows that the brain is involved. Consciousness is probably also quantum, so not material. And, the whole system is involved.

      I said I think by all the evidence we do have, and that we don’t yet have, that the brain and the entire system creates consciousness. .That’s what’s most likely and what needs to be studied till we get answers.

      “I know your faith is strong in your belief system, but you have to see things as they really are and stop deluding yourself.”

      See? And then you say I’m getting you wrong. I’ve told you a hundred times I don’t have faith in anything. Yet you persist in this nonsense. You’re the one deluding yourself with faith, not me. And you desperately want to pin faith on me so we’re on equal ground. We’re not. Faith is nonsense. Why don’t you drop yours and end your delusion. I did.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 weeks ago from Texas

      "The term behavioral sciences encompasses the various disciplines that explores the cognitive processes within organisms and the behavioural interactions between organisms in the natural world." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioural_sciences

      That's what you're talking about. That's what this study is. It's behavioral science. A separate branch from the kind of science you keep trying to juxtapose into it.

      The vast collective of the scientific community agrees. These are not factually proven by any stretch. And the nature of the mind, the fact that it's invisible scientifically, is the whole reason the fields of study that deal with it are in a whole other category. Science agrees on that point too. The need to make the distinction.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 weeks ago from Texas

      Your unwillingness to acknowledge the simplest of points leads me to believe you're more concerned with 'winning' the discussion. Like acknowledging any point I make gives up ground in some way. This point about the inability to establish real facts in the same way we establish facts scientifically or just the inability to 'see' the mind are very clear and obvious points.

      'Winning' in a discussion like this is to gain new understanding. New knowledge. This isn't a competition. If we're not going to acknowledge and come to an agreement on any single point then the conversation isn't worth having.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 weeks ago from Texas

      Your assumptions about me 'not wanting to admit' or that I 'go by feelings' is clouding your judgement. You're a perfectly intelligent person, but your assumptions about me and what I must be doing are mucking things up.

      Psychology and psychiatry are in a separate branch of science than the physical sciences for a reason. They too observe behavior and make claims based on it.

      There's no factual evidence gathered by observing behavior. It's all statistical. If you were thinking rationally and clearly you'd realize this really simple fact.

      You - "Observation is evidence, unlike zero observation."

      There's plenty of observation. Life and existence is evidence of what I'm saying. I acknowledge that I can't establish any hard facts due to the same reasons that nobody else can.

      Re: MRI/PET

      The point remains, a neurologist looking at the scans could not determine. There was no physical activity that showed the patient's mind being "created" by the brain.

      You claim the brain creates the mind. If that were true then that should be detectable by these means.

      I know your faith is strong in your belief system, but you have to see things as they really are and stop deluding yourself.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      3 weeks ago from Ottawa

      You're talk about a pet scan, not MRI.

      PET and MRI scans can provide images of brain anatomy, structure and function. When a person perceives stimuli or thinks certain thoughts, neurons (nerve cells) in specific regions of the brain get “activated.” As these neural circuits or brain regions are activated, their metabolic needs increase and they consume more oxygen, which is supplied by increased blood flow. PET scans can measure blood flow, velocity and volume, as well as oxygen and glucose consumption.

      Read more here: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/technology/artic...

      • Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a medical imaging technique used in radiology to form pictures of the anatomy and the physiological processes of the body in both health and disease. MRI scanners use strong magnetic fields, magnetic field gradients, and radio waves to generate images of the organs in the body

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      3 weeks ago from Ottawa

      • You - "It is."

      Only if it's been observed/detected

      Observing/detecting behavior isn't the same thing. You can't establish something as fact based solely on behavioral observation. If you're going to uphold the standards by which you dismiss what I'm saying, then you have to do the same for this. Currently you are not.”

      I am. Observing/detecting behavior is exactly the same thing. Can I detect a soul or see its behaviour? No. And can know zero about it. You just don’t want to admit it to yourself you don’t have a leg to stand on. All you go by is feelings, your personal beliefs and hopes.

      You - "I do. You don’t. A lot of things are proven to exist indirectly."

      “Unless it's what I'm speaking of then I have to have hard evidence. Double standard. Instead you insist that the behavior I point to is somehow created by matter/materials and discredit my claim that it's proof of a soul because there's no physical evidence.”

      Observation is evidence, unlike zero observation.

      You - "Right. But we are directly observing what it does."

      Siri responds to you vocally and talks back. Does that mean "she" has a soul? Behavior can be duplicated. Faked. So, not proof of anything.

      Stop using this futile bogus argument. We aren’t talking AI and someone trying to fool you with it. Its irrelevant. We’re talking biology. Oh yeah, you’re talking purely speculative supernatural superstition. Go observe that.

      You - "If you can’t even in principal validate your claim"

      “According to the standards you uphold what I'm saying to that you don't uphold in relation to anything else.”

      I do. You’re the one who can’t tell the difference.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 weeks ago from Texas

      It tracks blood flow. That's what an MRI does. Blood flows to the areas of the brain that are active. Cerebral blood flow and neuronal activation are coupled. Though we know the mind was active because the patient could listen, understand, follow instructions, and use this method to communicate. But until the patient used these methods the neurologist could not determine whether he was conscious/aware or not.

      There's nothing else to see but blood flow. In this case, that's all that needs to be seen.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      3 weeks ago from Tasmania

      MRI uses effects occurring in just one element, Hydrogen, and maps those effects to give a composite analogy of what is going on in that tissue.

      Would you really expect it to give any more information than that?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 weeks ago from Texas

      Alan,

      Not what I'm saying. Here's the exchange ...

      Ron - "As far as we can tell, mind is am emergent property of brain/body. "

      Me - “Yet there's no brain activity to account for it”

      Ron - Says you.

      earlier ......

      Ron - "Start with microtubules and quantum waves in 100 million neurons and their connections."

      Ron - "Not by an MRI. Microtubules are quantum sized, as are the wave functions I’m talking about."

      Me - “If the brain creates the mind in the way that you suggest, that activity should be detected in an MRI.”

      Ron - "Sorry, no."

      ......

      "MRI (fMRI) measures brain activity by detecting changes associated with blood flow. This technique relies on the fact that cerebral blood flow and neuronal activation are coupled." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_magnetic_...

      Basically, Ron is trying to say the brain creates the mind and that the elements that he attributes this to are too small to be "seen" by an MRI.

      What I'm saying is that regardless of any of that, all brain activity requires blood flow, which an MRI can "see". Though microtubules cannot be seen, the blood flow required for this activity can be seen.

      There is no blood flow activity seen in an MRI that accounts for the creation of the mind. In the example given the neurologist could not see any activity in the patient's brain that showed he was aware/conscious. But he was able to confirm the patient could hear and actively use his mind to imagine given scenarios to answer questions. So, the use of the brain to imagine these scenarios could be seen, but the mind that was listening/comprehending the commands could not be seen.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      3 weeks ago from Tasmania

      An MRI, like any other piece of radiological diagnostics, is used to make a deduction about a diagnosis, linked usually with the results from various other modalities.

      An MRI cannot prove or disprove the existence of a "soul."

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 weeks ago from Texas

      You - "It is."

      Only if it's been observed/detected. Observing/detecting behavior isn't the same thing. You can't establish something as fact based solely on behavioral observation. If you're going to uphold the standards by which you dismiss what I'm saying, then you have to do the same for this. Currently you are not.

      You - "I do. You don’t. A lot of things are proven to exist indirectly."

      Unless it's what I'm speaking of then I have to have hard evidence. Double standard. Instead you insist that the behavior I point to is somehow created by matter/materials and discredit my claim that it's proof of a soul because there's no physical evidence.

      You - "Says you."

      Says a neurologist looking at an MRI

      You - "Right. But we are directly observing what it does."

      Siri responds to you vocally and talks back. Does that mean "she" has a soul? Behavior can be duplicated. Faked. So, not proof of anything.

      You - "If you can’t even in principal validate your claim"

      According to the standards you uphold what I'm saying to that you don't uphold in relation to anything else.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      3 weeks ago from Ottawa

      I envy your travels. I'd love to be able to do a tour around the world. Unfortunately my absence wasn't due to anything so entertaining. Mine was a group of computer problems and family issues. Such is life. Both issues have been resolved, so I'm back.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      3 weeks ago from Tasmania

      More and more fascinating. Welcome back. Where have you been? Traveling on a sunbeam?

      My own journey has been via Singapore, Edinburgh, Blackpool, Brighton UK, Ibiza and now Ostend in Belgium.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      3 weeks ago from Ottawa

      Just to get into this conversation I’ll explain my take on energy.

      The classic definition still used today is that energy is just work. It’s a property, not a thing in and of itself.

      This is fine for describing the Newtonian macro universe of matter. Quantum mechanics said everything is particles/matter.

      With Quantum Electro dynamic we discovered that photons are not matter. In fact, Feynman discovered that electrons are part of the electromagnetic field which is the basis for matter. Electrons don’t have their own charge, the field gives them charge.

      Then, several years ago science discovered that all subatomic particles are part of fields, not individuals. Moreover, the particle wave duality debate was solved. There are no subatomic particles. There are no individual independent waves. Particles are vibrations/waves in their respective fields. But physicists didn’t start talking about the fact that the QM world of particles is dead until very recently.

      Fields are universal. In the first Feynman lecture, available on youtube, he tells us that charge creates the electromagnetic field, and energy creates the gravitational field. How can something that’s supposedly just a property of matter create gravity? Mass. Mass is energy. Without it matter doesn’t and can’t exist. But energy exists without matter.

      Energy is conserved. It can’t be destroyed. It can only be transformed. The small amount of matter in a pen has a small amount of mass roughly equal to its weight on earth. Yet that mass represents a huge amount of energy. Transform that mass to energy and the pen is gone, but the energy is conserved.

      How can just a property be conserved when the object it was a property of is gone? It doesn’t make sense. The classic definition of energy must be inadequate. It’s been my hypothesis for years that it is a thing. Not a physical object, a nonmaterial substance.

      But until Quantum Field theory I didn’t feel vindicated in my view, even though I was confident in it. But now it’s obvious that the nonmaterial creates the material. What is this nonmaterial made of? All these fields are energetic, interactive, and creative. Their interactions cause this.

      Photons are waves of energy. Different wave lengths create different colours. They can’t stop. You can slow them down but never stop them, unless they are absorbed. And if you slow them down by making them go through water or something, as soon as they escape they increase speed toward and to light speed. Many physicists tell us light is energy. So how is that possible if it’s not a substance?

      The material world is made of one substance: quarks. It’s not material. But they make protons, neutrons and attract electrons. By adding protons and electrons, and by following simple rules over and over again under different conditions we get all the diversity of the universe. All from one nonmaterial substance. Amazing.

      The other amazing thing is that scientists are pretty sure all fields are different variation/forms of the same non-thing.

      Again, vindication for what I’ve been saying for years. This non-material substance that we haven’t named is energetic, interactive, and highly transformative and creative. I think it more than qualifies as energy.

      Without energy nothing moves or does anything, that includes fields. No charge, no gravity, no forces exist without energy. So what can we conclude? Energy is fundamental, not just a property. It’s at least the essential part of everything on all levels. Or, as I think, it’s the source of everything. Fields are variegated energy fields.

      If so, the classic definition is gone.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      3 weeks ago from Ottawa

      Sorry I haven’t been able to comment till now. Good to see you guys having a great conversation. I have a lot to read.

      Me - "Great. Yet you argued with me when I said all of biology has at least a rudimentary consciousness/awareness."

      “The difference is I 'believe' it. You state it as if it's established fact. It isn't.”

      It is.

      Me - "So,… energy. It’s the non-material unseen element that doesn’t weigh anything, except when its mass."

      “Energy can be measured”

      Most of the time, yes. Often indirectly.

      Me - "And behaviour is exactly what proves it exists."

      “You still don't get it.”

      I do. You don’t. A lot of things are proven to exist indirectly. You’re saying it proves things exist that can’t directly be proven to exist. I’m not denying that. But we can indirectly prove a lot of things exist. Yet you can’t say the same for souls. It’s apples and oranges. We can’t see atoms. We can only see molecules with the most advanced equipment. We have no idea what they look like, and every attempt at visualizing them has proved wrong. Yet we know they exist.. We can’t know that souls exist.

      Me - "As far as we can tell, mind is am emergent property of brain/body. "

      “Yet there's no brain activity to account for it”

      Says you.

      Me - "Behaviour is the way we directly observe it."

      “Indirectly”

      Right. But we are directly observing what it does.

      Me - "Prove souls exist and you’d have an argument."

      “I'm done.”

      If you can’t even in principal validate your claim, yeah, you were done before you started.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      3 weeks ago from Tasmania

      That's good, sorry for my misperception.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 weeks ago from Texas

      I do enjoy an argument/debate, but winning is not the goal. The goal is the discussion itself. To have my views and the way I see things challenged. To force myself to try to put into words and convey my thoughts. The act of conversing helps me define those abstract concepts bouncing around in my head. And if gives me insights from the perspectives of others across these topics. I like thinking about these things. And engaging in discussions is a good exercise in doing so.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      4 weeks ago from Tasmania

      Always on the lookout for a new approach:

      http://www.openculture.com/2017/08/reality-is-noth...

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      4 weeks ago from Tasmania

      The choice is made by you, from your point of observation.

      You can stop that electron moving by absorbing its energy into something else, then measuring the effect of that energy transferred.

      You can't hold that electron, as a particle, in your hand.

      When you observe something whizzing from one point in space to another, while you the observer are standing still, what can you know about that something? Precious little except that it's something and that it's whizzing!

      The nature if that something is different according to your point of view.

      In the physical life of our existence it is reasonable to equate that tennis ball in our hand to the one which a moment ago we observed whizzing through the air.

      But no one has ever put an electron in their hand and been able to examine it as a particle at rest, as in the case of a tennis ball.

      Immediately you try to, that electron changes its nature, more importantly the difference of location in space that gave it energy - that being the energy which gave it motion.

      Repeatedly, we see that "point of view" changes the way we perceive "reality."

      This applies to your and my views of religion; science; history; even regarding what we accept as fact.

      I don't expect you to agree with any of this.

      From my point of observation you appear to love an argument and win.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      4 weeks ago from Texas

      This page specifically addresses observing an electron from multiple perspectives. In short, unlike what you described, there's quite a lot that can be known about it's true nature as it whizzes by. Whether stationary or moving the same conclusions are reached....

      - https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/p...

      Also, an electron is a particle. It's regarded as a "thing". Though it has no mass.

      If properly understood, I don't see anything unnerving about the uncertainty principle in regards to a religious leaning. The inability to predict an electron's location doesn't suddenly make choices and decisions anything but mechanical.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      4 weeks ago from Tasmania

      Probably the biggest lesson for me is I can read through Stephen Hawking's book without necessarily understanding even 1/10th of it. But I will try to savvy it as much as possible without disparaging the bits I can't.

      His and the minds of ripened physisists are very clever and trying to understand this world....and throwing us the crumbs.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      4 weeks ago from Tasmania

      Not sure of this, but I get the impression this where that quantum choice comes in: how one (as the observer) regards that electron.

      Think of it as a tennis ball, whizzing through the air. You cannot know the true nature of the ball unless you catch it, stop it in its track and examine it. Now it has a different nature from when you saw it moving. Then all you could see was a whoosh! of motion. You could not be sure what it was; where is was at any moment - you could feel its presence from the rush movement of air, maybe. It was just a force to be reckoned with.

      Same with that electron. How do you regard it? As a "thing?" As something solid, with a personality, with form, character, diameter, weight? OR just as a force to be reckoned with?

      As the latter, it is what's creating a difference when it reacts with an opposing force within the nucleus - thus creating Energy.

      Now, considering all that IS consists of no-thing but fleeting materialisation of electron particles/forces that interact/dance with others, there is one hell of a space in the Big Ball Room.

      This is the most unnerving experience for anyone with a religious leaning:- the Uncertainty Principle.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      4 weeks ago from Texas

      Right, but without the electron and the nucleus there would be no force in that space.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      4 weeks ago from Tasmania

      What we know, see, feel as "matter" consists mostly of space.

      Think of the dimensions of an atom. The relative distance of an electron from the nucleus.

      What holds the electron at that distance from the proton? Answer, 2 Forces, a positive one and an opposing negative one. Those forces keep the two particals apart, there is a difference of location.

      As I explained previously, a difference creates energy because the particals want to come together, to equalise. That is the energy within matter. Energy is not some kind of imagined substance. It's a condition.

      As difference reduces so does energy.

      As difference is maintained, as when there is an opposing force creating resistance to change, that restricts the flow of energy.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      4 weeks ago from Texas

      You - "But all matter is a manifestation of energies."

      mass-energy - energy locked away in an object’s mass

      motion-energy - energy is associated with the motion of an object

      interaction-energy - energy can be stored in the relationships among objects

      In the above definitions the word 'objects' is matter. Notice how all forms for energy require an object/objects. Objects have energy. Without objects, where does the energy come from?

      So, how can you have energy to then manifest into matter?

    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)