do you mind showing mee the picture of a human though? A brain scan doesnt really show an actuall human thought. Otherwise, people could read other peoples thoughts from it. I mean, my cousins brother is a neurosurgeon, he operates on ahuman brain and he never saw a human though.  

I think he was saying that it's impossible that we're so distantly related to them, and that we supposedly share more in common with pigs. Is that true? I thought we were extremely close to Neanderthals and your link makes me think i'm correct..?

Anyways, when someone gets the chance, I'd love a reply to what I said a little while ago. Thanks for all the discussion guys!

I don't normally turn to Wiki, but it is free and mostly okay.  Take a look at this and read up on BCI devices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain–computer_interface

Your cousin is operating at the macro level on the physical brain, of course he's not going to see a "thought" and I'm sure you know that.  A "thought" however exists within the brain and can be accessed, which is what BCI devices do.

It's early days, of course, but just imagine in 100 years or so.  Or even a 1000.

You can't see oxygen either but do you believe in that? YES!!! Exactly, that was my point in the first place. Just because you cant see something doesnt mean that it doesnt exist.  Thoughts are caused by the complex movements and interactions of a range of very, very small chemicals that aren't significantly larger that O2 molecules.  Never mind the limits of human vision and the practicalities of being able to see inside the head of a living person, the laws of physics would prohibit us from seeing/recognising them in any meaningful way.

We can however stick electrodes in peoples brains and evoke or invoke a wide range of thoughts and emotions.  We can give drugs to people, with known mechanisms of action, which can influence their thoughts and emotions.  Brain injury either traumatic or otherwise can result in people being unable to have or process certain kinds of thoughts, the list goes on and on. Exactly, but i still havent see how a human thought looks like. Sure, we cant track them, acsess them and study them, but we can never actually see how they look like.  Like it or not this is evidence of the physical nature of thought.No, its the evidence of an exsitance of a human thought and that we can change them. I never denied that they existed nor did i say we cant operate on them. I just said there is no physical evidence of them.  Better evidence is dependent one or two factors; significantly better technology than we currently have or a major shift in ethics which  renders experimentation on live human subjects once again acceptable.

Evidently you can interpret it as 'yes' or 'no' because people do, as I showed. Arbitrarily announcing that it doesn't does not make you right. The brain activity is physical proof that a conscience thought has been made by the user. It may just be the areas of the brain that they are using to complete the task that light up, but it still provides physical evidence of the physical thought in the first place. And the fact that humans can sometimes make a thought with their subconscious  does not make any difference to an argument concerning the measurement of a conscience thought.

No its not .. It just shows the person thinking. Its an evidence for the existance and activity of a human thought and brain activity itself. Not an actual evidence that shows a human thought. And btw, a human soul has no physical evidence whatsoever but it doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

SCIENCE IS A BELIEF

It is not the same belief than religion because religion is a blind belief while science is "tested" belief.
In clear, Religion is all about belief in something without doubting, without asking yourself "where does it come from ? why ?". Religion is basically all about having faith in.
While in Science, you basically doubt about EVERYTHING, all the time. It is only when something has been proven/tested that you can come and say "it is true !" (your gravity example for example).
To me, it is not about "disbelief without evidence" but more "belief with evidence". 
Of course, Science is not about faith ...

There is also just some very little shit in Science/Research :
- experimental error : whatever the level, you can have something wrong in the raw datas (because of the sample or the material used)
- interpretation error : scientist making a wrong interpretation
This means that what is true is often wrong ... suggesting you "only" belief it is true because it seems, right now, at this time, in these condition, "true"

Also, one of the major flaw of science is that, for most of us, it escapes from our understanding and so we are completely unable to prove/test it by ourself. This means we are, again, believing in what is said to be "true" wether it is true or not. I may know that electricity is produced by an electron movement ... I basically completely unable to prove it, neither propose an experiment to prove it. I m like 99.99% of the populaition : I belief what scientifc book/master says ... like in a religion.
To take another example : a computer is basically a pure black box for most of us. Fews people will be able to explain, and fully understand (at 100%) how it functions.

You know, I still agree with you for most of your points. I just consider that, at the end, Science is still about "belief". You may not blindly believe to old text or to religious guy like in religion BUT you will still believe in the scientific community that may be wrong, may publish shit, are just human with subjectif judgement AND is dealing with so complex stuff that the average guy is barely able to get what is happening.
You just belief in "human research/progress/knowledge" in a way.

At the end, when all is said : it is still about "belief or not"

No its not .. It just shows the person thinking. Its an evidence for the existance and activity of a human thought and brain activity itself. Not an actual evidence that shows a human thought. And btw, a human soul has no physical evidence whatsoever but it doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

No, it's not a belief.  What you are talking about is people who don't understand things having no choice but to see it as a belief.  I understand that, and sympathise, but that itself doesn't make science a belief - that simply says some people have no choice, due to their own abilities, but to take it as a belief.

Again, the whole notion of error is why science isn't a belief.  Errors will always be outed in the end by repeated evidence.  The whole notion of science is to remove, over time, any bias or influence by the scientist, who is also a human being with all that brings.

Also, no believing in science is irrelevant.  You can chose not to believe in gravity but that won't affect the outcome if you step of a cliff.  No, you're talking about how lack of knowledge can result in belief, which isn't the same thing.  That's the fault of the individual's lack of knwoledge, no science.