Scientific Proof of the Existence of the Soul and God

[marcobiagini]

Materialism and atheism are incompatible with the scientific view of the universe.
Science has in fact proved that all chemical, biological and cerebral processes consist only in some successions of elementary physical processes, determined in their turn only by the laws of quantum mechanics. Such a view of biological processes does not allow to account for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies then the presence in man of an unphysical element.
Such element, being unphysical, can be identified as the soul.

My name is Marco Biagini and I am a Ph. D. in Solid State Physics;
I would like to invite you in the site:

http://xoomer.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/englishnf.html

where I analyse in detail the incongruencies of the materialistic conception of the mind, on the basis of our present scientific knowledges about brain and matter.
In the first article entitled “Mind and brain” you can find a general discussion of the mind and brain problem from a scientific point of view.
In the second article entitled “Scientific contraddictions in materialism”
you can find an explanation of the fundamental inconsistencies of the typical arguments used by materialists, such as the concept of emergent, macroscopic or holist property, complexity, information, etc.
Basically, science has proved that the so-called emergent properties are nothing but either ordinary geometrical properties (since matter is placed in the space) or arbitrary classifications of some successions of elementary physical processes; in other words, they are only abstract concepts used to describe in an approximated way the real processes.
Since consciousness is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any concepts or classifications, the materialist attempts to explain consciousness as an emergent property
are absolutely inconsistent from a logical point of view.
No entities which existence presupposes the existence of consciousness can be considered as the cause of the existence of consciousness.

The problem of the existence of the soul is strictly connected to the one of God's existence, as I explain in the section called “FAQ: answers to visitors' questions”, where you can find the answer to many other typical questions, such as "Are there any scientifically proved miracles?", "Does the existence of the universe imply the existence of God?", "Can science explain God?", "Can science establish which is the true religion?", "Can science explain consciousness in the future?", and many others.

An independent argument to prove directly the existence of God is the following.
Science has proved that the state of the universe is determined by some specific mathematical equations, the laws of physics; the universe cannot exist independently from such equations, which determine the events and the properties of such events (including the probability for the event to occur, according to the predictions of quantum mechanics). However we know that a mathematical equation cannot exist by itself, but it exists only as a thought in a conscious and intelligent mind. In fact, a mathematical equation is only an abstract concept, which existence presupposes the existence of a person who conceives such a concept. Therefore, the existence of this mathematically structured universe does imply the existence of a personal God; this universe cannot exist by itself, but it can exist only if there is a conscious and inteligent God conceiving it according to specific mathematical equations. Some people object that the mathematical equations are not the principles ruling the universe, but they are only a representation imagined by man. Someone else claims that math is only the language used to describe the universe. This objections however do not stand, as we can easily understand with the following consideration: if the state of the universe was not really determined by some mathematical equations, one couldn't explain how it is possible to predict so precisely all mechanical, electrical, magnetic, chemical and biological phenomena only by the same system of mathematical equations. Since one century, we observe a systematic confirmations of the laws of physics, in our numberless studies on newer and newer systems and materials. Consider that it is possible to invent infinite different mathematical equations, which wouldn't be able to predict the processes we observe in nature. It is not possible to account for the extraordinary agreement between the experimental data and the laws of physics without admitting that the state of the universe (what the phylosopher Kant called "noumenal" or "thing-in-themselves" reality) must necessarily be determined by some specific mathematical equations. The existence of these mathematical equations implies the existence of a personal, conscious and intelligent Creator. Atheism is incompatible with the view of the universe, presented by modern science.

Marco Biagini

Ph.D in Solid State Physics

[Eileen]

Good luck here, dude. That's all I've got to say.

[Dunearhp]

These arguments are just based on a combination of circular and axiomatic reasoning. The axioms are far from stable. It reminds me of the "God is perfect therefore he must exist", arguments.

Consistent arguments must be incompatible with human biology.


Ph.D in Solid State Physics

Is this an infomercial?

Oh, and the website is broken as well.

[Shai Gar]

DUDE. you are almost correct. except you fail to understant that physical matter is just a belief that the entity has, we are its functions. our minds are its ideas

[Dunearhp]

Consistent arguments must be incompatible with human biology.


I just want to clarify what I mean by this.
All of human reasoning is based on the axioms we deduce from the world as we grow up. Our brain, as a connectionist system, is good at recognizing patterns. As an infant, we decide on axioms based on patterns. Objects fall towards the ground, so we decide that objects must always fall towards the ground. The axiom follows the observation. It "models" the observation. Notice that the rule that causes the objects to fall was in existence before we made our axiom. Our axiom is just an approximation of the rule. Gravity varies, and things with a low enough density will float.

My primary point is that we deduce our axioms based on patterns, not logic. This makes us naturally susceptible to taking bad axioms at face value.

The mathematical equations we use to describe the universe are only approximate models. We choose our axioms to best suit the "obvious". Often, we trip up (Difference between Euclidian and Non-Euclidian geometry for example) and have to revise our axioms.

The universe doesn't use our equations. It does all of its calculations empirically.

[Shai Gar]

i wonder which will win? historical imperative? or narrative casualty

[Chicken]

So, I'm going the be the inconsiderate ass and post my own views on this here. As far as I gather from what you're saying, it could easily be simplified into:

Our perceptions are what decides the universe.

I think that about sums up what was said, without all the ins and outs above. However, it's an interesting concept to ponder upon. I've always thought that the world is shaped by people who dare to dream up something new. No matter how outlandish or insane a dream may seem, there can always be pieces of the puzzle which are potentially constructed to fit correctly into this dream. Mathematics is a good example of that. Although a lot of people would argue that mathematics is the ultimate concrete and logic, it isn't, really. As stated, and I agree, it's abstract. Of course, if we're trying to fit the pieces into our own puzzle, and there is a deciding force (consciousness) guiding us along to do so, our pieces we devise will obviously be biased. Pieces shaped to fit in where we want them. The woodworkers and carpenters of imagination. We can take a beam and sand it down until it fits anywhere we want it to.

[CoHo]

This is just an add this person will never respond again, he's posting this on all types of forums:
http://www.itsallpolitics.com/viewtopic.php?t=2176

http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=001936;p=1

http://www.thechristiandefense.com/ftopic4028.html&sid=494a2df12b48a1e8fdca8ae0e7bfb752

http://www.newhumanist.org.uk/forum/threads.php?id=1014_0_23_0_C

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=44702

Can we have this removed? Tis spam!

[Claverhouse]

But Good spam.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

Spam of Heav’n! on Thee I feed,
For Thy flesh is meat indeed.
Ever may my soul be fed
With this true and living bread;
Day by day with strength supplied,
Through the life of Him who died.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

Do they give Ph. D's in pseudo-science now?

[Sackanaka]

Thank you Claverhouse, for giving me another reason to revere Spam.
It's quite a staple in Hawaii you know?

hm, it's hard for me to listen to
1) People who emphasize their status or credentials, especially when one mentioning of PhD will do
2) Long drawn out arguments
a. especially ones that fall apart from the start, begging questions
3)
These arguments are just based on a combination of circular and axiomatic reasoning. The axioms are far from stable. It reminds me of the "God is perfect therefore he must exist", arguments.
Ontology has been pwnd time and time again (Poor Anselm! :cry: )
4) arguments that assume they are right by refuting opposition

[Lee]

Initially this sounded interesting and well, it was however the author makes some strange coclusions. Just because we do not understand consciousness doesn't mean that we automatically make the leap and say there must be a soul :wacko: among a buch of other things.

The whole thing is rather misleading, kinda like -

"Come find all the answers you were seeking, God, the devil, heaven, hell and the meaning of life!!!!!"

The author then redefines the meaning of God, Devil, heaven, hell and the meaning of life and then answers on his own terms and then doesn't answer very much at all, I do not even agree with the conclusions anyway......still, it was interesting anyway, better than the majority of spam.

edit: If the guy feels like returning and discussing further I would be happy to listen, but I do not think he will.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

we do not understand consciousness

You said it right there.

[Hypnos]

As a physicist, I think the OP is full of shit.

[YardGnome]

He has been responding to his threads on other forums does that still make it Spam?

[pintpi]

As a physicist, I think the OP is full of shit.
That is what I thought too until I saw he has a Ph. D. in Solid State Physics. When you see something like that you know it has to be true.

[YardGnome]

This objections however do not stand, as we can easily understand with the following consideration: if the state of the universe was not really determined by some mathematical equations, one couldn't explain how it is possible to predict so precisely all mechanical, electrical, magnetic, chemical and biological phenomena only by the same system of mathematical equations.


Maybe mathematics are just an attempt at explaining these phenomenon? Math still hasn't explained everything in the universe... Which came first the chicken or the egg?

[Dman]

Such a view of biological processes does not allow to account for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies then the presence in man of an unphysical element.


Sorry guy, but your whole thesis is blown by that one statement. All you’re really saying is that we don’t know enough about how the brain works yet, so that proves there is a God. Nonsense.

Hope there’s still time to change your major…or profession for that matter, mister salesman. If you buy my book I’ll show you how you are wrong…

[booyalab]

Maybe mathematics are just an attempt at explaining these phenomenon? Math still hasn't explained everything in the universe... Which came first the chicken or the egg?

The chicken...*sees everyone looking at her* WHAT?!

[mgb]

He has been responding to his threads on other forums does that still make it Spam?

When you join a forum and start a thread encouraging other people to "check out your site" it's spam. Replies or not.

And Dman hit the nail the head.

[marcobiagini]

If the guy feels like returning and discussing further I would be happy to listen, but I do not think he will.

I would certainly be willing to discuss here, as I have done in some other forums, but I need some good arguments to discuss. Unfortunately I find no good argments in the posts I have read here. I think that most people here have simply misunderdood my argments; my suggestion is then to read then more carefully.

best regards,

marco

[Hypnos]

I would certainly be willing to discuss here, as I have done in some other forums, but I need some good arguments to discuss. Unfortunately I find no good argments in the posts I have read here. I think that most people here have simply misunderdood my argments; my suggestion is then to read then more carefully.

best regards,

marco
Look, your reasoning has some serious holes:

* The fact that there is mathematical precision in physics means that there is a singular metaphysics. Whether or not this is the result of intelligent design is a largely aesthetic question.

* While only a small subset of math describes the physical universe, somehow we all agree one the right answers to math problems. Again, there is nothing to distinguish intelligent design or the universe just being what it is.

I'm an atheist because I have aesthetic objections to God. If God made our metaphysics and our universe evolved thusly, who made God? *shrug* Why have a God+universe, when you can just have a universe? These are the same objections I have to Kant.

Paraphrasing Julian Schwinger, "Science is the differential equation, and God is the boundary condition." We keep marching towards a prime mover we will never really know.

[marcobiagini]

Why have a God+universe, when you can just have a universe?


My point is that you cannot just have a universe, for two reasons:

1) The state of the unverse is determined by some mathematical equations, which existence presupposes the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind (hence a God is necessary for the existence of the universe) .

2) The universe is determined only by the laws of physics, while consciousness trascends such laws; hence consciousness trascends the universe.

Marco

[Dunearhp]

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Hypnos]

My point is that you cannot just have a universe, for two reasons:

1) The state of the unverse is determined by some mathematical equations, which existence presupposes the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind (hence a God is necessary for the existence of the universe) .
Logic can be taken to be metaphysical just as easily as it can be argued to be a conscious construction. That we all get the same answers to math problems can be attributed to as singular metaphysics, or Kant's a priori synthetes.


2) The universe is determined only by the laws of physics, while consciousness trascends such laws; hence consciousness trascends the universe.

Marco
Does it? There is nothing that demonstrates the difference between a really intelligent robot and a human. There is no way to know whether or not your decisions are predetermined or conscious.

Even if it does, what is there to say that there is any consciousness other than our own?

[Architectonic]

Which came first the chicken or the egg?

Why does anything have to come first?

[Architectonic]

My point is that you cannot just have a universe, for two reasons:

1) The state of the universe is determined by some mathematical equations, which existence presupposes the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind (hence a God is necessary for the existence of the universe) .

2) The universe is determined only by the laws of physics, while consciousness trascends such laws; hence consciousness trascends the universe.


I'm sorry, but neither of those reasons are logical.

Why does consciousness trascend the laws of physics?

Even though the universe seems to be determined by mathematical equations, how does this presuppose the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind?

[Lee]

My point is that you cannot just have a universe, for two reasons:

1) The state of the unverse is determined by some mathematical equations, which existence presupposes the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind (hence a God is necessary for the existence of the universe) .

2) The universe is determined only by the laws of physics, while consciousness trascends such laws; hence consciousness trascends the universe.

Marco

That is only a theory, it is not proof, it simply indicates that man still has a lot more to learn.

It is interesting though.

[marcobiagini]

That is only a theory, it is not proof, it simply indicates that man still has a lot more to learn.


Some considerations about what we still have to learn, and what we already know.

In order to give a scientific explanation of consciousness, a new set of laws of physics would be necessary. However the laws of physics consist of a system of mathematical equations. Their mathematical structure exclude the possibility that these equations can be modified; in fact, even a slight change in a mathematical equation would generates radical changes in all its solutions. We have already found billions and billions of correct solutions from the laws of physics; if we changed them, we would suddenly cast away all these correct solutions. On the other hand, every day we find a systematic experimental confirmation of the laws of physics on ever new systems. To hypothesize that the laws of physics are wrong would be equivalent to say that all these billions and billions of systematic and quantitative experimental confirmations are only a lucky coincidence. In these last decades, we have done many more experiments than in all history, but the laws of quantum electrodynamics, discovered in the beginning of last century, have never been changed. On the basis of the number of experimental tests, we can say that quantum electrodynamics is the oldest scientific theory in history.
Since the laws of physics are the foundations of all modern science, I think that the hypothesis of a new set of laws of physics represents a jump out of science into the field of phylosophical speculations; the fact itself that those who want to deny the existence of the soul are forced to hypothesize a new set of laws of physics proves the incompatibility between science and materialism.
Advances in science has never dethroned and can never dethrone well established facts, supported by billions and billions of systematic and quantitative experimental data. It would be equivalent to hypothesize that one day science will discover that the earth does not orbit around the sun, but it is motionless at the center of the universe. The statement "maybe one day science will discover that..." is no longer a rational statement, because of the wide and systematic experimantal confirmation obtained by the laws of physics. The laws of physics establish some firm points, which must always be considered when we make a rational and scientific hypothesis.
Today we have billions of billions of data confirming that cerebral, biological, chemical and molecular processes are determined uniquely by Quantum Electrodynamic. Since no Quantum Electrodynamic processes generate consciousness, this is equivalent to say that we have billions and billions of data conferming that no cerebral processes generate consciousness. Advances in physics allow us to discover new processes at higher and higher energies; this is the only possible advances in physics, but this kind of advances lead us farther and farther from consciousness, because no high energy processes occur in our brain. Consider that in modern particle accelerators, it is possible to reach energies a billion of times superior to the energies of chemical and biological processes. Nevertheless, in the hope to discover some new processes, scientists have to design new accelerators, able to reach even much greater energies.
There is another fundamemtal point; history shows that scientific progress has been possible only when scientists began to compare theoritical results with experimenal data. Since all our measurement instruments work and are designed on the basis of the laws of physics, and since consciousness transcends such laws, it is not possible to design any instruments able to measure consciousness. Without such measurement instruments, it will never be possible to reach any scientific progresses in the explanation of the existence of consciousness. It is useful to observe that, in spite of the great scientific progresses reached in the fields of the natural sciences, no steps have ever been done in history in such direction, as it is proved by the fact that science is not able to explain, neither in principle, the existence of consciousness, neither the existence of the most banal sensation.

Marco

[file cabinet]

for those of you wish to read most of Marco's prewritten responses go here:
http://xoomer.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/answersnf.html

he has also made the exact post elsewhere on the web as noted previously in this thread:
http://www.google.com/search?q=fedeescienza

now, marco, why are you here?

[Lee]

for those of you wish to read most of Marco's prewritten responses go here:
http://xoomer.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/answersnf.html

he has also made the exact post elsewhere on the web as noted previously in this thread:
http://www.google.com/search?q=fedeescienza

now, marco, why are you here?

I think they are extracts from his website.

[Lee]

What if we could write a program that perfectly emulated human thought, would it be conscious?

Even if consciouness is supernatural as you suggest, why does it seem tied to reality to the extent that it cannot exist without it, what happens to consciouness when we die?

If this supernatural consciouness persists after death, where was it before life, where did it come from?

If the reality of neurons firing, the brain growing and evolving as a direct product of the laws of physics created consciouness, then is it not a logical process born out of reality and not supernatural?

If I could get a mass of people, to behave and act just like a mind but on a larger scale, do them people become collectively a conscious entity?

You claim that it is impossible for atoms to create consciousness because they themselves are not conscious, but atoms can be wet even though singularaly they are not wet.

[file cabinet]

I think they are extracts from his website.

did you see how many different forums he's posted the exact same thing to[refer to the google link I posted]?

[Lee]

did you see how many different forums he's posted the exact same thing to[refer to the google link I posted]?

oh well, we can still debate why we think he is wrong, it's just like somebody posting a link to a site and saying "hey! look at this" , we then go look, come on back to argue about stuff, like logic and voices in our heads.

Who cares how many places he posted stuff on? or if he's using prewritten responses? now we know he is using prewritten messages we can treat them as such.

[Geoff]

Some considerations about what we still have to learn, and what we already know.

In order to give a scientific explanation of consciousness, a new set of laws of physics would be necessary. However the laws of physics consist of a system of mathematical equations. Their mathematical structure exclude the possibility that these equations can be modified; in fact, even a slight change in a mathematical equation would generates radical changes in all its solutions. We have already found billions and billions of correct solutions from the laws of physics; if we changed them, we would suddenly cast away all these correct solutions. On the other hand, every day we find a systematic experimental confirmation of the laws of physics on ever new systems. To hypothesize that the laws of physics are wrong would be equivalent to say that all these billions and billions of systematic and quantitative experimental confirmations are only a lucky coincidence. In these last decades, we have done many more experiments than in all history, but the laws of quantum electrodynamics, discovered in the beginning of last century, have never been changed. On the basis of the number of experimental tests, we can say that quantum electrodynamics is the oldest scientific theory in history.
Since the laws of physics are the foundations of all modern science, I think that the hypothesis of a new set of laws of physics represents a jump out of science into the field of phylosophical speculations; the fact itself that those who want to deny the existence of the soul are forced to hypothesize a new set of laws of physics proves the incompatibility between science and materialism.
Advances in science has never dethroned and can never dethrone well established facts, supported by billions and billions of systematic and quantitative experimental data. It would be equivalent to hypothesize that one day science will discover that the earth does not orbit around the sun, but it is motionless at the center of the universe. The statement "maybe one day science will discover that..." is no longer a rational statement, because of the wide and systematic experimantal confirmation obtained by the laws of physics. The laws of physics establish some firm points, which must always be considered when we make a rational and scientific hypothesis.
Today we have billions of billions of data confirming that cerebral, biological, chemical and molecular processes are determined uniquely by Quantum Electrodynamic. Since no Quantum Electrodynamic processes generate consciousness, this is equivalent to say that we have billions and billions of data conferming that no cerebral processes generate consciousness. Advances in physics allow us to discover new processes at higher and higher energies; this is the only possible advances in physics, but this kind of advances lead us farther and farther from consciousness, because no high energy processes occur in our brain. Consider that in modern particle accelerators, it is possible to reach energies a billion of times superior to the energies of chemical and biological processes. Nevertheless, in the hope to discover some new processes, scientists have to design new accelerators, able to reach even much greater energies.
There is another fundamemtal point; history shows that scientific progress has been possible only when scientists began to compare theoritical results with experimenal data. Since all our measurement instruments work and are designed on the basis of the laws of physics, and since consciousness transcends such laws, it is not possible to design any instruments able to measure consciousness. Without such measurement instruments, it will never be possible to reach any scientific progresses in the explanation of the existence of consciousness. It is useful to observe that, in spite of the great scientific progresses reached in the fields of the natural sciences, no steps have ever been done in history in such direction, as it is proved by the fact that science is not able to explain, neither in principle, the existence of consciousness, neither the existence of the most banal sensation.

Marco

Heh, good luck trying to convince anybody of something with this load of bunkum. You're on the wrong forum for that, dude.

Just because our current understanding of the laws of physics do not permit a detailed set of equations to measure consciousness does not in any sense rule out the development of one in the future.

Your mind is closed to advancement, which is rather worrying. You are effectively stating that the mass of accumulated data means that we can never understand consciousness. What a ridiculous argument.

To take an argument, we perceive that a colour is red (measurable scientifically) yet can not write down mathematically that we are 'angry'.
However, we have made strides towards understanding consciousness here. We know some of the drives behind consciousness. We know why anger is fuelled by hormone and pheromone responses - physical responses to stimuli. We do not yet know how to accurately predict that response but we can measure its effect and have a better understanding now than we had 10 years, ago, and that was better than 100 years ago and so on.

Simply put you sound like one well known scientist a 100 or so years ago who said (paraphrasing) that everything had been discovered and science had little less to develop. You just have a weak view of the scientific process as a closed loop and fail to see that with insight it can be brought to a further level. To build on Lee's argument, if a closed computer system can be programmed with a set of mechanical and measurable rules that one day create a consciousness, this destroys your argument - there is nothing transcendental happening - no consciousness as a special 'outside of the universe' factor.

Do you accept that physics does not yet accurately predict the behaviour at a quantum level of, say, all the atoms in a human brain? There is absolutely no reason why physics can not reach this level of understanding, it is a typical scientific goal aspired to, and worked upon by many.
Once these atoms are precisely described by way of an accurate physical model and equational analysis (which will require the help of a computer who's operational parameters we can not yet meet), then ask me again whether there is any valid reasoning for your poorly argued transcendental hypothesis.

Good luck with this one... :whistle:

-Geoff

[marcobiagini]

now, marco, why are you here?


To give you some good arguments to think about.

Marco

[marcobiagini]

Do you accept that physics does not yet accurately predict the behaviour at a quantum level of, say, all the atoms in a human brain? There is absolutely no reason why physics can not reach this level of understanding, it is a typical scientific goal aspired to, and worked upon by many.
Once these atoms are precisely described by way of an accurate physical model and equational analysis (which will require the help of a computer who's operational parameters we can not yet meet), then ask me again whether there is any valid reasoning for your poorly argued transcendental hypothesis.


You have missed the point: quantum mechanics already predicts all possible molecular processes, ncluding cerebral processes, since such processes consists only in some successions of elementary physical processes.
So we already know that consciousness transcends the physical/biological reality.

Let me give you an example:
to open a combination lock, we need know the combination. Even if we do not know the combination, and therefore we cannot open the lock, we already know what kind of process will occur when we find the combination.
The laws of mechanics establish that the only kind of process we will get is the opening of the lock; the laws of mechanics establish that the combination will not make the lock begin to think, feel pain or pleasure, feel sadness or joy.
Similarly, Quantum Electrodynamics establish that every biological process consists only in some successions of chemical reactions, which, in their turn, consist in successions of kinetic and electromagnetic processes, that is movement of particles, emission and absorption of photons. We do not know yet the exact successions of chemical reactions occurring in all biological processes; however, exactly as in the case of the combination lock, the laws of physics establish that no successions of chemical reactions can generate consciousness, sensations, emotions or thoughts. Hence, a non-physical element (the soul) must exist as the source of our consciousness and our psychical life.


marco

[Lee]

The answer to consciousness probably lies in what we do not know we do not know, if you know what I mean.

You speak from a position of mankind knowing everything or at least knowing what we do not know. The mystery will no doubt be deeper still.

[Geoff]

You have missed the point: quantum mechanics already predicts all possible molecular processes, ncluding cerebral processes, since such processes consists only in some successions of elementary physical processes.
So we already know that consciousness transcends the physical/biological reality.

Let me give you an example:
to open a combination lock, we need know the combination. Even if we do not know the combination, and therefore we cannot open the lock, we already know what kind of process will occur when we find the combination.
The laws of mechanics establish that the only kind of process we will get is the opening of the lock; the laws of mechanics establish that the combination will not make the lock begin to think, feel pain or pleasure, feel sadness or joy.
Similarly, Quantum Electrodynamics establish that every biological process consists only in some successions of chemical reactions, which, in their turn, consist in successions of kinetic and electromagnetic processes, that is movement of particles, emission and absorption of photons. We do not know yet the exact successions of chemical reactions occurring in all biological processes; however, exactly as in the case of the combination lock, the laws of physics establish that no successions of chemical reactions can generate consciousness, sensations, emotions or thoughts. Hence, a non-physical element (the soul) must exist as the source of our consciousness and our psychical life.


marco

Your argument is so weakly defined. Quantum mechanics already predics all possible molecular responses? Why havent you won the lottery yet by applying your 'finished' quantum mechanics theory.

You just have a closed mind to the advancement of science.

Your example is entirely bogus. I can see why you say that a mechanical lock should not be able to think yet how do you suddenly surmise out of empty space that


the laws of physics establish that no successions of chemical reactions can generate consciousness, sensations, emotions or thoughts. Hence, a non-physical element (the soul) must exist as the source of our consciousness and our psychical life.

Again, what a poorly defined argument. You are leaping to an ill defined conclusion. The current understanding of chemical reactions do not allow us to fully explain the generation of consciousness. Of *course* it is possible at some time in the future to explain this by way of physics. It so patently true as to be a non-issue. Do you not realise that brain wave patterns and activity are entirely measurable by current technology? We do not fully understand the processes, as the brain is such an advanced result of evolution, yet the neurological responses and patterns of particular thoughts and consciousnesses are already measurable by way of brain scans.. we are reaching an understanding of the chemical processes as time goes on.
You need to remember to construct from your starting premise. An individual synapse fires in response to a chemical stimulus (internal or external). The whole behaves as a brain because of the huge number of synapses involved. The rapid succession of electrical activity across the brain is an easily measurable consequence of thought. One day we will be able to understand *exactly* why the brain works as it does - but there is nothing in the process that requires anything outside of the laws of physics. The laws are just theories, and they are being developed over time to include an understanding of the brain wave mechanics.

Let me put it this way, create a machine that models *exactly* -atom by atom- a human brain in every sense, and then apply stimuli to it. It will exhibit consciousness in the same way as newly born infant brain ie without experience and neurological pathways that are developed by that experience - or do you believe that some external magic is required to make it work? That makes no sense!

-Geoff

[greenintp]

Nicely put. ;-)


These arguments are just based on a combination of circular and axiomatic reasoning. The axioms are far from stable. It reminds me of the "God is perfect therefore he must exist", arguments.

Consistent arguments must be incompatible with human biology.



Is this an infomercial?

Oh, and the website is broken as well.
:laser:

[Architectonic]

The laws of physics establish that no successions of chemical reactions can generate consciousness, sensations, emotions or thoughts.

Simply stating this does not make it so.

You can't jump to that conclusion yet because our understanding of science is wholly incomplete.

Nevertheless, if you want to even get close to logically proving your statement then you will need to work through the laws of physics until we get to the point where we find that our knowledge is too limited. At that point we should research what we don't know and try and improve our understanding.
Hopefully by that point you will have realized that although your statement may be a possibility, you have no logical proof that it is true.

[jimkopelli]

Just because mankind can't play God and create conciousness (oh, wait, that's called reproduction) doesn't mean that there has to be a God to play Mankind.

He's never going to realize anything he doesn't want to.

[Ascending]

Sesquipedalia verba anyone?

Marco, I'm curious, would you mind taking this test? http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm

[YardGnome]

Hey Marco, did you get your degree at an accredited college?

[songbird36]

This is spam - get rid of it, Admins!

[Geoff]

I dunno, the destruction of weak arguments can be an entertaining diversion ;). Maybe this should be in the playground!

[Dman]

Unfortunately I find no good argments in the posts I have read here. I think that most people here have simply misunderdood my argments; my suggestion is then to read then more carefully.

best regards,

marco

In other words

a) no one dumb enough to fall for your nonsense; or
b) no one asking the kind of questions you want to respond to, i.e. the easy ones; or
c) no one knows what exactly your point is because it isn’t easy to “underdood” your “argments” or read “then” carefully.



In order to give a scientific explanation of consciousness, a new set of laws of physics would be necessary.

You don’t need to get into wordy explanations to try to explain this reasoning. Laws of physics are just that – LAWS. We may come up with a different interpretation of how those laws work, but a “new set of laws” that rejected everything else is, once again, nonsense. You simply build on what you already know. You don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

You got a hard row to hoe on this forum my friend, but keep trying. It's fun.

[Geoff]

I dont disagree with you Dman, but remember that the laws are only accepted theories, so we should remember the possibility of them being varied with further evaluation of the scientific process.

-Geoff

[file cabinet]

file cabinet, PhD

[Sackanaka]

:shock:

:lol:

i'm not sure just how much more can be said in this thread

[Architectonic]

I'm still looking forward to Marco's detailed (not skipping any steps) scientific explaination that explains exactly why consciousness can not be explained by science. ;)

[SensEye]

...the laws of physics establish that no successions of chemical reactions can generate consciousness, sensations, emotions or thoughts. Hence, a non-physical element (the soul) must exist as the source of our consciousness and our psychical life.


marcoI don't think the laws of physics establish any such thing. Of course, I don't have a Ph.D. in physics, but am I going to take your word for it? Absolutely not.

OFF TOPIC PS> I don't understand why anyone would call for this thread to be deleted. Regardless of whether one agrees with his opinion or finds he has posted it on various sites, it is a valid opinion and I don't consider it disruptive or spam like.

[Geoff]

I don't think the laws of physics establish any such thing. Of course, I don't have a Ph.D. in physics, but am I going to take your word for it? Absolutely not.

OFF TOPIC PS> I don't understand why anyone would call for this thread to be deleted. Regardless of whether one agrees with his opinion or finds he has posted it on various sites, it is a valid opinion and I don't consider it disruptive or spam like.

Exactly, it isnt dumped spam, and he has posted some replies.. at least a little!

-Geoff

[Architectonic]

Of course, I don't have a Ph.D. in physics, but am I going to take your word for it? Absolutely not.

I don't see how having a PhD in physics will make any difference.


Disclaimer, I have several immediate family members who have PhDs in physics and none of them believe there is scientific proof of god.

[YardGnome]

Anyone see any similarities between this guy and John Titor - Time Traveler?

[Warrior413]

intpwned!
:laser:

There are many flaws in your logic which have already been pointed out. Your position won't even allow you to take in additional information and comments. If you intend to defend your position, prewritten statements will get you nowhere.

I wonder why he even bothered.

-Warrior413, PhD in Finger-painting.

[Daedalus_daemon]

so what about the little black ball theory?

[Claverhouse]

PLACE-HOLDER FOR CLASSIC STATUS