By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Is athiesm a belief? What is "God?"

pizzahut451 on 27 September 2010
GameOver22 said:
hsrob said:
pizzahut451 said:
zarx said:
pizzahut451 said:
highwaystar101 said:
pizzahut451 said:
highwaystar101 said:
pizzahut451 said:


there is no phisical evidence of a human thought either...just sayin

We can locate areas of brain activity by using magnetic resonance imaging. certain areas become active when people have certain thoughts. An example of this can give is the way we can communicate with people in a vegetative state. We can tell a person to think of playing tennis or navigate their house. We can detect their thoughts and interpret them as yes and no becasuse the two different tasks light up different parts of the brain when using an MRI machine. If they think of tennis it would be a yes, or if it is the navigation task we read that as no. I see that as pretty convincing physical evidence for human thought.

Heres an example: http://brainimaging.waisman.wisc.edu/~perlman/papers/Vegetative/Detecting-Awareness-in-the-Vegetative-State.pdf


Brain activity is not always a human though. And you cant just interpret  thoughts as yes or no. it doesnt work like that. But normaly, when a person thinks something, his or hers brain is active and that picture only shows the part of brain that is active when a person is thinking something, its not the picutre of an actual thought.

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.

but the physical changes in the brain during thought is physical proof of thought. You can prove something exists without seeing it. I mean can you see pain? no but I sure can prove that pain exists. 

Seeing is not believing any-more. 


Yes but the human thought itelf doesnt have a physical evidence. And that is my point. Of course, we can track thoughts and see how they work and where they work, but we dont actually have visual or physical evidence of a human thought.

You seem to be trying to equate visual with physical evidence, and they are just not even close to being the same thing.  I honestly think you are misapprehending people's meaning when they say 'physical evidence'.

What would you consider 'physical evidence' in this context?

I do not think he is equating visual and physical evidence. Visual evidence is a subset of physical evidence though. His point is that there is no direct physical evidence of a human thought. I cannot see, touch, or hear another person's thought in the same way I can see, touch, or hear (if I knock on it) the chair sitting in my room. The proof of a human thought is going to be through indirect physical evidence. For instance, I could carry on a conversation with you, and then I could infer that thoughts are responsibe for what you are saying. However, I cannot directly observe a human thought and point it out to you, but I could point out the effects of a human thought. He is simply talking about direct physical evidence while you are talking about indirect or inferential physical evidence. I think both of you are right, but you are talking about two different things.


Thank you my good friend :) You explained my point better than i could myself



Around the Network
dib8rman on 28 September 2010

 

@OP Sorry wfz, your class sounds like the standard fair for philosophy; I don't have a clue how the professors can stay in such classes. Perhaps calling themselves professor isn't enough and would rather be cited as a philosopher?

 

Anyway, I can't help but shake the vibe that people want to put a power level on god.

 

To say that God is physics or the law of physics is also inane. God is a title a law cannot assume the title god a law is a edict. The law is a dictation a dictation cannot be god. The statement that gravity and lift could be the parts that in sum are a god is a sign of time wasted on thinking.

 

Also if your looking for an answer on what god is then look no further than your mirror.

All "major" religions seem to say that god made man in his image. So clearly god looked like you or I.



I'm Unamerica and you can too.

The Official Huge Monster Hunter Thread: 



The Hunt Begins 4/20/2010 =D

Reasonable on 29 September 2010
pizzahut451 said:
GameOver22 said:
hsrob said:
pizzahut451 said:
zarx said:
pizzahut451 said:
highwaystar101 said:
pizzahut451 said:
highwaystar101 said:
pizzahut451 said:


there is no phisical evidence of a human thought either...just sayin

We can locate areas of brain activity by using magnetic resonance imaging. certain areas become active when people have certain thoughts. An example of this can give is the way we can communicate with people in a vegetative state. We can tell a person to think of playing tennis or navigate their house. We can detect their thoughts and interpret them as yes and no becasuse the two different tasks light up different parts of the brain when using an MRI machine. If they think of tennis it would be a yes, or if it is the navigation task we read that as no. I see that as pretty convincing physical evidence for human thought.

Heres an example: http://brainimaging.waisman.wisc.edu/~perlman/papers/Vegetative/Detecting-Awareness-in-the-Vegetative-State.pdf


Brain activity is not always a human though. And you cant just interpret  thoughts as yes or no. it doesnt work like that. But normaly, when a person thinks something, his or hers brain is active and that picture only shows the part of brain that is active when a person is thinking something, its not the picutre of an actual thought.

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.

but the physical changes in the brain during thought is physical proof of thought. You can prove something exists without seeing it. I mean can you see pain? no but I sure can prove that pain exists. 

Seeing is not believing any-more. 


Yes but the human thought itelf doesnt have a physical evidence. And that is my point. Of course, we can track thoughts and see how they work and where they work, but we dont actually have visual or physical evidence of a human thought.

You seem to be trying to equate visual with physical evidence, and they are just not even close to being the same thing.  I honestly think you are misapprehending people's meaning when they say 'physical evidence'.

What would you consider 'physical evidence' in this context?

I do not think he is equating visual and physical evidence. Visual evidence is a subset of physical evidence though. His point is that there is no direct physical evidence of a human thought. I cannot see, touch, or hear another person's thought in the same way I can see, touch, or hear (if I knock on it) the chair sitting in my room. The proof of a human thought is going to be through indirect physical evidence. For instance, I could carry on a conversation with you, and then I could infer that thoughts are responsibe for what you are saying. However, I cannot directly observe a human thought and point it out to you, but I could point out the effects of a human thought. He is simply talking about direct physical evidence while you are talking about indirect or inferential physical evidence. I think both of you are right, but you are talking about two different things.


Thank you my good friend :) You explained my point better than i could myself

Of course, all physical evidence is simply your brain decoding neural signals received via various receptors.  I don't want to get into the whole - how do we even know we're not just brains in a jar wired up to a VR simulator (or Keanu Reeves for that matter) - debate but of course all evidence technically is 'second hand' in that you experience the world second hand via decoded input not directly.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...