Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Intrinsic Honesty of Atheism
#76

The Intrinsic Honesty of Atheism
(04-28-2024, 12:46 AM)airportkid Wrote:
(04-27-2024, 11:44 PM)Dānu Wrote: If you don't know how then you don't know that.

Doubtful.  Knowing that too much sun exposure causes burns is a connection understood for millenia without knowing how the sun makes all that heat.  There are uncountable other examples of our knowing the "that" without knowing the "how".  I'd even say MOST of what we know is more knowledge of that rather than how.

Yes, people thought that the light from the sun that they could see was causing sunburn. It turns out that it wasn't the light that they could see, but something they couldn't see, ultra-violet light, that causes sunburn. That's why people still think that you can't get sunburn on a cloudy day. Excellent example.
Mountain-high though the difficulties appear, terrible and gloomy though all things seem, they are but Mâyâ.
Fear not — it is banished. Crush it, and it vanishes. Stamp upon it, and it dies.


Vivekananda
Reply
#77

The Intrinsic Honesty of Atheism
I posted this summary, linked below, back in 2020. It covers many of the issues being discussed, and shows to what extent consciousness research has progressed since philosopher David Chalmers pointed out the "hard problem" way back in the 1990s.

https://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/sho...#pid191686

I present this instead of citations of research. It is generally understood that popular presentations of scientific research for a general audience, written by qualified scientists, refer back to large numbers of individual experiments which have been peer-reviewed.

I have read a fair number of such books by scientists studying consciousness, and have already posted other summaries. Beyond a point, people aren't really interested in the details.
Reply
#78

The Intrinsic Honesty of Atheism
(04-27-2024, 11:44 PM)Dānu Wrote: If you don't know how then you don't know that.

So if I don't know how a magician managed to produce an illusion or a how a special effect designer managed to produce a specific effect in a movie, I cannot know that the magician or the special effect designer produced such effect? That seems like a rather dubious proposition.
Reply
#79

The Intrinsic Honesty of Atheism
(04-27-2024, 11:44 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(04-27-2024, 10:14 PM)Alan V Wrote: The hard problem is how the brain generates the mind, not whether.

If you don't know how then you don't know that.

Stir a brain up then and see how much cogent thought comes out of it. Or show how a mind might exist without a material substrate.
On hiatus.
Reply
#80

The Intrinsic Honesty of Atheism
(04-27-2024, 11:44 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(04-27-2024, 10:14 PM)Alan V Wrote: The hard problem is how the brain generates the mind, not whether.

If you don't know how then you don't know that.

I'm not sure I see your point. We have a mind. "Cogito, ergo sum" and all that. It doesn't seem to be generated anywhere else but the brain. You can transplant a lot of organs these days and it doesn't affect the mind, but if you mess with the brain, everything goes wrong with the mind.

You said "If you don't know how..." OK, yes, but there are some things we "know" that are not yet provable. Gravity travels, but how?

Likewise, we can be pretty sure that "the mind" somehow "resides" in our brain even if we don't know exactly what differentiates brain and mind.
Two paths diverged in the woods, and I managed to take both...
The following 1 user Likes Cavebear's post:
  • epronovost
Reply
#81

The Intrinsic Honesty of Atheism
(04-27-2024, 01:19 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(04-27-2024, 02:15 AM)Huggy Bear Wrote: *emphasis mine*

Look no further than yourself...

*emphasis mine*

You yourself acknowledge that the information provided adheres to SCIENTIFIC standards:


Yet you posted that disclaimer as if it discredits the peer reviewed article.

The report you linked to does not refer to NDEs.  It's about
end-of-life dreams and visions—which are a totally different thing.

The reason ELDV's were brought up is because you aren't able to study NDE's in the same way you can with patients in hospice, hence why you can find peer reviewed research on the subject. Why YOU would take issue with it makes zero sense because you see both as nothing more than the brain having hallucinations. 

(04-27-2024, 01:19 PM)SYZ Wrote: And 81.5% of the subjects were religious and believed in God. (!)

How is this relevant? This another example of you attempting to discredit scientific research by poisoning the well.

These are terminally ill patients, do you think the researchers are able to be selective? Don't most people believe in God? 84.2% of the subjects found their experience to be distressing, seems like their religion didn't comfort them much.


(04-27-2024, 01:19 PM)SYZ Wrote: Further, it in no way shows a valid example of scientists "scrambling"
to "discredit" peer reviewed papers.  Finally, there is nothing wrong
with scientists rebutting their peers' reviews.  That's how and why
science works so effectively and so consistently.  And is something
religion lacks.

I'm guessing you don't fully understand the mechanics of peer reviews.
What are you talking about? I said it was you ATHIESTS scrambling to discredit peer reviewed articles to which you asked me to provide evidence for:

(04-22-2024, 03:50 PM)SYZ Wrote: Can you give us a couple of examples of what you've seen when
atheists "scramble" to discredit peer-reviewed science?
*emphasis mine*

To which I provided an example of YOU doing exactly that.
Reply
#82

The Intrinsic Honesty of Atheism
(04-28-2024, 04:04 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(04-27-2024, 11:44 PM)Dānu Wrote: If you don't know how then you don't know that.

Stir a brain up then and see how much cogent thought comes out of it. Or show how a mind might exist without a material substrate.

I guess we're just going to ignore the multiple cases where blood has been drained from the brain and the brain cooled to a hypothermic state, zero brain activity, yet the patient was able to recall events that took place during the operation.

Non functioning brain yet, consciousness fully intact.
Reply
#83

The Intrinsic Honesty of Atheism
(04-28-2024, 01:09 PM)Huggy Bear Wrote:
(04-28-2024, 04:04 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Stir a brain up then and see how much cogent thought comes out of it. Or show how a mind might exist without a material substrate.

I guess we're just going to ignore the multiple cases where blood has been drained from the brain and the brain cooled to a hypothermic state, zero brain activity, yet the patient was able to recall events that took place during the operation.

Non functioning brain yet, consciousness fully intact.

Without a link, why should I pay it any mind? Support your claims. Come on, Huggy, you've been around long enough, you should know this.
On hiatus.
The following 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • SYZ, Deesse23, brewerb
Reply
#84

The Intrinsic Honesty of Atheism
(04-28-2024, 01:17 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(04-28-2024, 01:09 PM)Huggy Bear Wrote: I guess we're just going to ignore the multiple cases where blood has been drained from the brain and the brain cooled to a hypothermic state, zero brain activity, yet the patient was able to recall events that took place during the operation.

Non functioning brain yet, consciousness fully intact.

Without a link, why should I pay it any mind? Support your claims. Come on, Huggy, you've been around long enough, you should know this.

Because they've been linked plenty in threads relating to NDE's, which you were in btw, not trying to derail this thread into another one about NDE's.
Reply
#85

The Intrinsic Honesty of Atheism
(04-28-2024, 12:53 PM)Huggy Bear Wrote:
(04-27-2024, 01:19 PM)SYZ Wrote: The report you linked to does not refer to NDEs.  It's about
end-of-life dreams and visions—which are a totally different thing.

The reason ELDV's were brought up is because you aren't able to study NDE's in the same way you can with patients in hospice, hence why you can find peer reviewed research on the subject. Why YOU would take issue with it makes zero sense because you see both as nothing more than the brain having hallucinations.

You cannot study either alleged NDEs or ELDVs with any scientific
certainty or conclusivity.   Third-party hearsay is not evidence (as you
should know.)

(04-27-2024, 01:19 PM)SYZ Wrote: And 81.5% of the subjects were religious and believed in God. (!)
(04-28-2024, 12:53 PM)Huggy Bear Wrote: How is this relevant? This another example of you attempting to discredit scientific research by poisoning the well.

What the???    I'm not and never have "discredited" scientific research.
It's the theists of all shapes and sizes who do this repeatedly.  Anybody
who seriously believes in the existence of paranormal phenomena (miracles,
resurrection etc) or supernatural entities (devils, gods etc) by default is
diminishing the very nature of the sciences.

And of course the belief in God is relevant to NDEs or ELDVs.  Theists
are more susceptible to believing in conspiracies, and more gullible in
accepting other disinformation—such as absurd claims of pre-death
visions.  Let's face it; an individual who truly thinks he or she is talking
with a mythical god has to be pretty credulous.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 2 users Like SYZ's post:
  • TheGentlemanBastard, Cavebear
Reply
#86

The Intrinsic Honesty of Atheism
(04-28-2024, 01:09 PM)Huggy Bear Wrote: ...I guess we're just going to ignore the multiple cases where blood has been drained from the brain and the brain cooled to a hypothermic state, zero brain activity, yet the patient was able to recall events that took place during the operation.

Non functioning brain yet, consciousness fully intact.

These claims most definitely require an accredited link.
Where were these procedure undertaken?  Who performed
them;  who were the patients? and how and when were
their recollections recorded?   Simple questions.

Otherwise they're nothing more than theist wishful thinking
and/or a total misunderstanding of surgical procedures.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply
#87

The Intrinsic Honesty of Atheism
(04-28-2024, 05:36 AM)Cavebear Wrote:
(04-27-2024, 11:44 PM)Dānu Wrote: If you don't know how then you don't know that.

I'm not sure I see your point.  We have a mind.  "Cogito, ergo sum" and all that.   It doesn't seem to be generated anywhere else but the brain.  You can transplant a lot of organs these days and it doesn't affect the mind, but if you mess with the brain, everything goes wrong with the mind.  

You said "If you don't know how..."  OK, yes, but there are some things we "know" that are not yet provable.  Gravity travels, but how?

Likewise, we can be pretty sure that "the mind" somehow "resides" in our brain even if we don't know exactly what differentiates brain and mind.

This all descended from Alan claiming that consciousness is necessarily dependent on the brain and reasoning from that premise. Yes, you can be pretty sure and I am pretty sure that it is, but that's not the same standard as necessarily the case. If I wake up in the morning and my daughter's keys are gone and her car is gone, I can be pretty sure that she took the car. But it isn't necessarily the case that she took the car as there are other scenarios which would result in the same set of facts. Until you rule out those other scenarios, you can be pretty sure, but you can't claim that it is necessarily true.
Mountain-high though the difficulties appear, terrible and gloomy though all things seem, they are but Mâyâ.
Fear not — it is banished. Crush it, and it vanishes. Stamp upon it, and it dies.


Vivekananda
Reply
#88

The Intrinsic Honesty of Atheism
(04-28-2024, 01:52 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(04-28-2024, 12:53 PM)Huggy Bear Wrote: The reason ELDV's were brought up is because you aren't able to study NDE's in the same way you can with patients in hospice, hence why you can find peer reviewed research on the subject. Why YOU would take issue with it makes zero sense because you see both as nothing more than the brain having hallucinations.

You cannot study either alleged NDEs or ELDVs with any scientific
certainty or conclusivity.   Third-party hearsay is not evidence (as you
should know.)
Tell me you don't know the definition of hearsay without telling me...

Hearsay is third party information that is unsubstantiated, medical research relies on self-reported data, in fact what medical research do you know of, involving patients that doesn't use the self-reporting method?

(04-27-2024, 01:19 PM)SYZ Wrote: And 81.5% of the subjects were religious and believed in God. (!)
(04-28-2024, 12:53 PM)Huggy Bear Wrote: How is this relevant? This another example of you attempting to discredit scientific research by poisoning the well.

What the???    I'm not and never have "discredited" scientific research.
It's the theists of all shapes and sizes who do this repeatedly.  Anybody
who seriously believes in the existence of paranormal phenomena (miracles,
resurrection etc) or supernatural entities (devils, gods etc) by default is
diminishing the very nature of the sciences.

And of course the belief in God is relevant to NDEs or ELDVs.  Theists
are more susceptible to believing in conspiracies, and more gullible in
accepting other disinformation—such as absurd claims of pre-death
visions.  Let's face it; an individual who truly thinks he or she is talking
with a mythical god has to be pretty credulous.
[/quote]
You clearly didn't read the study, most cases involved seeing a deceased relative, I don't think the study ever claimed anyone saw God.

"I'm not and never have "discredited" scientific research"  Dodgy
Reply
#89

The Intrinsic Honesty of Atheism
(04-28-2024, 02:00 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(04-28-2024, 01:09 PM)Huggy Bear Wrote: ...I guess we're just going to ignore the multiple cases where blood has been drained from the brain and the brain cooled to a hypothermic state, zero brain activity, yet the patient was able to recall events that took place during the operation.

Non functioning brain yet, consciousness fully intact.

These claims most definitely require an accredited link.
Where were these procedure undertaken?  Who performed
them;  who were the patients? and how and when were
their recollections recorded?   Simple questions.

Otherwise they're nothing more than theist wishful thinking
and/or a total misunderstanding of surgical procedures.

Just so we're clear, what's you definition of accredited?
Reply
#90

The Intrinsic Honesty of Atheism
(04-28-2024, 01:32 PM)Huggy Bear Wrote:
(04-28-2024, 01:17 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Without a link, why should I pay it any mind? Support your claims. Come on, Huggy, you've been around long enough, you should know this.

Because they've been linked plenty in threads relating to NDE's, which you were in btw, not trying to derail this thread into another one about NDE's.

Oh, that horseshit?
On hiatus.
The following 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • SYZ
Reply
#91

The Intrinsic Honesty of Atheism
(04-28-2024, 03:54 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(04-28-2024, 01:32 PM)Huggy Bear Wrote: Because they've been linked plenty in threads relating to NDE's, which you were in btw, not trying to derail this thread into another one about NDE's.

Oh, that horseshit?
He is usually not that coy, is he?
R.I.P. Hannes
The following 1 user Likes Deesse23's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#92

The Intrinsic Honesty of Atheism
(04-28-2024, 03:33 PM)Huggy Bear Wrote: Hearsay is third party information that is unsubstantiated, medical research relies on self-reported data, in fact what medical research do you know of, involving patients that doesn't use the self-reporting method?

Lots of stuff: developing vaccinations, determining causal relationships between substances and diseases or disorders, and so on, and even diagnoses, while started by self-reporting, require things like MRIs or lab-work -- i.e., objective information -- to narrow down, say, whether the pain in my hip was osteonecrosis or bone cancer. The only thing I could tell them is that my hip hurt.

So plenty of things don't rely on self-reporting, and its utility is limited by its subjective nature.
On hiatus.
The following 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Alan V, pattylt, SYZ
Reply
#93

The Intrinsic Honesty of Atheism
(04-28-2024, 03:54 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(04-28-2024, 01:32 PM)Huggy Bear Wrote: Because they've been linked plenty in threads relating to NDE's, which you were in btw, not trying to derail this thread into another one about NDE's.

Oh, that horseshit?

This peer reviewed article says otherwise.

https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-stud...-paper.pdf
[Image: 91d9w3c.png]

[Image: 6sMMAsa.png]

You further prove my point by continuing to dismiss peer reviewed articles.
Reply
#94

The Intrinsic Honesty of Atheism
(04-28-2024, 01:32 PM)Huggy Bear Wrote: Because they've been linked plenty in threads relating to NDE's, which you were in btw, not trying to derail this thread into another one about NDE's.
Please derail this thread. Please provide link(s) to this event. Please convince me the supernatural exists. All my life i have been waiting for evidence sufficient warrants such a belief. Please provide me the information, so i can become a theist, so i can be saved, go to heaven. I am so much look forward to an eternal life. What a bliss, eternal happiness, frolicking, praising and worshiping the christian god. Especially the worshiping, forever. Oh man, please tell me its true!
R.I.P. Hannes
Reply
#95

The Intrinsic Honesty of Atheism
People generally are not up-to-date on the most current consciousness studies. I am some years behind myself. The field is very complex, and has made major advances in the last two decades.

However, the somewhat-dated book (2014) which I summarized (linked again below) discussed how scientists understand that consciousness is brain-dependent, in case anyone just breezed by the evidence.

https://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/sho...#pid191686

This isn't too tedious to read through, considering its importance to this debate. I think the evidence is nearly conclusive, considering that scientists now claim to know when a person is conscious just by brain scans which show certain characteristic patterns of activity. Effectively, the activation of certain circuits of the brain in such patterns IS consciousness working on something or other.

This is not to say that we humans are nothing but brain activity. That is a confused notion of the self. The self is the whole body with its brain, which may or may not be conscious at any given time, and with its stored memories, abilities, and so on. The idea that consciousness is somehow the essential self and not just a brain function is most likely a leftover theistic misconception based on the soul concept.
Reply
#96

The Intrinsic Honesty of Atheism
(04-28-2024, 06:27 PM)Huggy Bear Wrote: ... continuing to dismiss peer reviewed articles ...

You seem to think sheer peer review fully validates a published study.  It doesn't, not by itself.

The strength of validity lies not in mere peer review but in a study's being cited in other studies, and corroborated by other independent studies.  And what really strengthens a theory is its spreading into arenas beyond its own narrow focus.  This is where the NDE studies come up weak.  Valid courses of investigation produce an increasing following of study, with accumulating corroboration.  The NDE hypothesis has done the opposite, supplanted by genuinely valid studies of the brain and consciousness that replace the NDE notion with better understanding.

You're clinging to the mast of a sinking ship.  Let it go.
Reply
#97

The Intrinsic Honesty of Atheism
(04-28-2024, 07:05 PM)airportkid Wrote:
(04-28-2024, 06:27 PM)Huggy Bear Wrote: ... continuing to dismiss peer reviewed articles ...

You seem to think sheer peer review fully validates a published study.  It doesn't, not by itself.

The strength of validity lies not in mere peer review but in a study's being cited in other studies, and corroborated by other independent studies.  And what really strengthens a theory is its spreading into arenas beyond its own narrow focus.  This is where the NDE studies come up weak.  Valid courses of investigation produce an increasing following of study, with accumulating corroboration.  The NDE hypothesis has done the opposite, supplanted by genuinely valid studies of the brain and consciousness that replace the NDE notion with better understanding.

You're clinging to the mast of a sinking ship.  Let it go.

I posted peer reviewed articles because that's what y'all claimed was acceptable evidence, It's exactly what y'all asked for. What you're attempting to do now is move the goalposts.
Reply
#98

The Intrinsic Honesty of Atheism
(04-28-2024, 06:27 PM)Huggy Bear Wrote:
(04-28-2024, 03:54 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Oh, that horseshit?

This peer reviewed article says otherwise.

https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-stud...-paper.pdf
[Image: 91d9w3c.png]

[Image: 6sMMAsa.png]

You further prove my point by continuing to dismiss peer reviewed articles.

Yes, one example is convincing, especially based on self-reporting from someone you claim was brain-dead and the authors themselves write "suggestive of the survival of consciousness after death, if new cases can be found and adequately investigated [...]".

[Image: gZsxwaj.gif]
On hiatus.
Reply
#99

The Intrinsic Honesty of Atheism
(04-28-2024, 01:32 PM)Huggy Bear Wrote:
(04-28-2024, 01:17 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Without a link, why should I pay it any mind? Support your claims. Come on, Huggy, you've been around long enough, you should know this.

Because they've been linked plenty in threads relating to NDE's, which you were in btw, not trying to derail this thread into another one about NDE's.

Yeah, I'd like a link to the report/case (multiple) stating that blood being drained from the brain then cooled to a hypothermic state during an operation then revived.

I think you're breaking one of your lords commandments.

Edit: This link has several issues: https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-stud...-paper.pdf

It's a secondhand story(ies) about NDE's than actual medical evidence of NDE's. There is assertion that all blood was drained but no actual medical report.

Found these articles about the authors in your link:

https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/artic...lly#Career
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bruce_Greyson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
The following 2 users Like brewerb's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, Deesse23
Reply

The Intrinsic Honesty of Atheism
(04-28-2024, 08:05 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Yes, one example is convincing, especially based on self-reporting from someone you claim was brain-dead and the authors themselves write "suggestive of the survival of consciousness after death, if new cases can be found and adequately investigated  [...]".

[Image: gZsxwaj.gif]

One example is all you asked for... You asked for a link and that's exactly what you got... A link.

(04-28-2024, 01:17 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Without a link, why should I pay it any mind? Support your claims. Come on, Huggy, you've been around long enough, you should know this.

Another attempt at moving the goalposts? How many links do you need to be convinced Thump?

I guess we're also going to skip over the part which states the subject's claims "to have perceived events inaccessible to his or her normal senses has been CORROBORATED and VERIFIED".

If you know of a better way to research NDEs without using the self reporting method, I'm all ears.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)