[Guest]

First, let me state some facts: (I'm sure their facts.)

1) We only use a certain amount of percentage of our brain.

2) Our brain functioning consists of neurons moving between nerve endings, correct?

3) Before we came to this earth, we where spirits, (like a glove, hand is the spirit, glove is the body, body can't move without the spirit) when we die our spirits leave. Don't argue, its fact.

4) Our body is controlled by the nerves which is controlled by the brain.

Now, depending if you believe in Christ, the Atonement, and the Resurrection, when Christ returns our spirits will be reunited with our bodies and be made perfect like Christ.

Now the questions.

What is controlling the brain and telling it to fire those neurons and how?

My theory is this:

We control our brain through a certain degree of telepathy, so with that you have to wonder: what else can we do when we are made perfect like Christ?

Personaly, I think we can fly.

Feel free to drop a line if you have any questions, comments, concerns.

Please nothing vulgar, profain, perverted, or rude. This is for fun.

-5dollers

[Guest]

So, this marks the... *recounts* 5th religious discussion that I have read on these forums, and I have to say, as a religious individual I would be very unlikely to come to this forum to discuss beliefs, facts, or methods of discussing this with hardly any of you. While I will certainly admit that several of the speakers (not all) on the religious side have chosen a poor approach for this discussion (namely: These are facts. I said so. Get over it.), there is a fairly distinct lack of respect, or open mindedness coming from the Atheist/Agnostic side of the fence, and a complete lack of willingness, let alone desire to try to understand where the religious individuals are coming from. For instance, it was said during the "how to tell a blind man what green is" talk that only some people claimed to be able to communicate with God, but that's okay, those people are wacky anyways.

Science, faith, discussion, and even thought all must be approached with the idea that there may (and likely is) information out there that you do not yet possess. Even if you do not believe, or think there is sufficient proof (and from a scientific standpoint, there certainly isn't) for what is being said, what is very routinely brought to the table is an attempt at educating people like me (in a format that is frighteningly near to a lecture) as to why anyone who would hold beliefs similar to mine must be "wacky," and is done so with a rather self-righteous attitude (I thought that was our thing?). So, while I do not pretend to have the answer to the God question or the ability to convince any of you to change your beliefs, I would not even begin to discuss them with a group that so often approaches mocking my side of the discussion.

All of that said, nothing that a religious individual can present can be called Scientific fact. However, much of it can be called "documented History." We accept a great deal (possibly too much) documented History as being true. I don't see why this aspect of it gets such a special level of scorn and disbelief.

[Guest]

So, this marks the... *recounts* 5th religious discussion that I have read on these forums, and I have to say, as a religious individual I would be very unlikely to come to this forum to discuss beliefs, facts, or methods of discussing this with hardly any of you.

I actually really enjoy it, and while sometimes the occasional insensitive remark or angry jab gets thrown in there, I am interested to hear what the other side has to say. I do wish that we had more scientific evidence to back our side up, and that is why I fully understand their position in not believing in something that they cannot see, hear, or even have reasonably explained to them.

I enjoy discussions like this because it helps me to discover the decisions and beliefs that I take for granted or have not looked at from a different angle. It is a challenge that I think makes me stronger.

It is encouraging to hear your input, SG.

[Izzy]

Just because you cannot see or even hear God when he speaks to you does not imply that he doesn't exist.

Maybe I should have used an anology with a deaf and blind man.

-5dollers

I'm pretty sure that if someone/thing is speaking to me, but I can't hear/see/feel/smell/taste any of it, then either a)It isn't happening, b) I'm imagining it, either purposely or on accident, or c) I'm lying and telling people what I'm hearing/seeing/etc.

I'd still be able to give my explanation to the blind deaf guy. Helen Keller seemed to do fairly well.

EVERYONE has the ability to communicate with our Father in Heaven. Most just choose to ignore him in full.

Nuh-uh. I most certainly never did when I was younger. And you didn't/haven't either. Everyone (almost everyone) has the ability to hallucinate, but luckily our species has evolved to the point where the 'hallucination gene' has somewhat been eliminated, and made-up axioms tend not to go without question or some serious pondering. If you say you have spoken to god, whilst not not sleeping, then we can conclude that unfortunately for you, your ancestors chose poor mates, and the gene still runs strong in your family. (Though I'm not completely certain the 'hallucination gene' exists, hallucinating can be hereditary, in the sense that a family's DNA has developed a mutation, causing to bodies to maturate with deformations, primarily ones which deprive the brain of sufficient amounts of oxygen.)

You didn't describe the color green. You only described that the light is absorbed by the object and green is reflected. (Paraphrased of course.) As my coach always says "JAQF, Just answer the fricking question." How bout it? And you never even answered the actual question I asked. The one about the blind man was just an analogy to help you understand the first question with a little symbology.

I realy should have made the analogy about a deaf and blind man.

You have a go at it then. What really is green? Dictionary.com doesn't describe it any better than I did. A blind man doesn't need to experience green to understand that it exists. We have tons and tons and tons of eye-witness accounts of green, with everyone non-color challenged person having the ability it see it themselves. Green exists, we have evidence of it. Where's the evidence for your god?

I would very much appreciate it if you would take a look around. Look at what the thing mannature has done, and has created. We humans have conquerd conquered, destroyed, and discovered so much about this amazing planet. With all this, and we are the ONLY species on this rock that is like us, you intend to believe that we evolved from a lesser being? because we're the result of the 'lesser beings', us being smarter and more capable of them is unusual? You think that because we're 'extraordinary', a god must have put us here?

I just have to say, you must be one sad individual.

-5dollersIzzy

Ah, much better.

[Guest]

So, this marks the... *recounts* 5th religious discussion that I have read on these forums, and I have to say, as a religious individual I would be very unlikely to come to this forum to discuss beliefs, facts, or methods of discussing this with hardly any of you. While I will certainly admit that several of the speakers (not all) on the religious side have chosen a poor approach for this discussion (namely: These are facts. I said so. Get over it.), there is a fairly distinct lack of respect, or open mindedness coming from the Atheist/Agnostic side of the fence, and a complete lack of willingness, let alone desire to try to understand where the religious individuals are coming from. For instance, it was said during the "how to tell a blind man what green is" talk that only some people claimed to be able to communicate with God, but that's okay, those people are wacky anyways.

Actually, I kind of agree with you there, in the sense that there is a fundamental difference of perspective that discussion will not resolve. I try to show respect, though, for the individual if not for the belief. In my opinion, I do understand where religious individuals are coming from, as I have been religious myself, though of course I may be wrong. But from my perspective I do not consider the religious mindset to be as valid a perspective as my own, I view it as delusional. This is not a lack of respect. I consider the possibility that God exists but without reason to support it I can only consider it to be about as remote a possibility as you can get. I think the understanding you feel is lacking could only be had by a leap of faith, a willingness to believe without reason. Only then could I see your point of view. But I've been there and done that, doing it again isn't something I could do with sincerity.

Science, faith, discussion, and even thought all must be approached with the idea that there may (and likely is) information out there that you do not yet possess. Even if you do not believe, or think there is sufficient proof (and from a scientific standpoint, there certainly isn't) for what is being said, what is very routinely brought to the table is an attempt at educating people like me (in a format that is frighteningly near to a lecture) as to why anyone who would hold beliefs similar to mine must be "wacky," and is done so with a rather self-righteous attitude (I thought that was our thing?).

A self-righteous tone is not intended, I hope my arguments stand up on their own. The discussions are fun for their own sake in my opinion, though we have been over this area a lot. When I start doing nothing but repeat myself, I won't bother anymore. But for now, I like IDoNotExist's approach, and it's always fun to discuss this kind of stuff if you've got the right people to discuss it with. Still, I will not mince words to imply that I have more belief in the correctness of another's opinion than I actually do.

All of that said, nothing that a religious individual can present can be called Scientific fact. However, much of it can be called "documented History." We accept a great deal (possibly too much) documented History as being true. I don't see why this aspect of it gets such a special level of scorn and disbelief.

In short, because the documentation in question is likely to be inaccurate since:

1) it was likely to have been driven by political motives

2) the claims it makes are utterly insane. No mocking tone intended, really if you approach the Bible with an open mind (putting aside our cultural bias toward accepting it as unquestioned truth) a lot of it is just unbelievable

[Guest]

Actually, I kind of agree with you there, in the sense that there is a fundamental difference of perspective that discussion will not resolve. I try to show respect, though, for the individual if not for the belief. In my opinion, I do understand where religious individuals are coming from, as I have been religious myself, though of course I may be wrong. But from my perspective I do not consider the religious mindset to be as valid a perspective as my own, I view it as delusional. This is not a lack of respect. I consider the possibility that God exists but without reason to support it I can only consider it to be about as remote a possibility as you can get. I think the understanding you feel is lacking could only be had by a leap of faith, a willingness to believe without reason. Only then could I see your point of view. But I've been there and done that, doing it again isn't something I could do with sincerity.

The issue with this, of course, being that you are as justified in seeing me as delusional as I am in seeing you as ignorant. I don't consider you to be ignorant, I just consider you to be wrong. However, you seem to be assuming that I am referring to the Bible. I am not. I am referring to historical texts (which sadly I cannot cite appropriately right now, since I'm not at home, and I'm aware that this detracts from my statement) that describe the actions and lives of both the leaders surrounding the time period from 0 A.D. (how terribly named) and 100 A.D. that really lack proper explanation without the context of the Bible added. That said, I am...unique among Christians in that I do not view the Bible as fact in and of itself. I consider several events of it to be a manner of historic text, and the rest of it to be parable.

And I'm being sucked in. This is going to be my last post, however I will certainly continue reading.

[Guest]

The issue with this, of course, being that you are as justified in seeing me as delusional as I am in seeing you as ignorant. I don't consider you to be ignorant, I just consider you to be wrong.

I know, and I don't mind

However, you seem to be assuming that I am referring to the Bible. I am not. I am referring to historical texts (which sadly I cannot cite appropriately right now, since I'm not at home, and I'm aware that this detracts from my statement) that describe the actions and lives of both the leaders surrounding the time period from 0 A.D. (how terribly named) and 100 A.D. that really lack proper explanation without the context of the Bible added. That said, I am...unique among Christians in that I do not view the Bible as fact in and of itself. I consider several events of it to be a manner of historic text, and the rest of it to be parable.

I know that other texts back up the Bible in a sense of certain large scale events occurring, and for example, I don't doubt that some bloke called Jesus existed. But what the Bible does is put those events in a religious context, making claims that God got involved in various ways. This is what I consider to be unreliable, and unsupported elsewhere. If you just consider external sources you have no basis for a religious belief, it's pretty much just a bunch of iron age tribes fighting for land and power, followed by the existence of a messiah cult.

And I'm being sucked in. This is going to be my last post, however I will certainly continue reading.

lol, yeah that happens

[Guest]

Judging by recent posts I think we've strayed a little. I suggest we get back on topic, whatever that is. Personally I'd like to hear more about whether human sentience is "special" in some way, particularly if it's special in a way that implies we have a spirit. What's to suggest we are more than meat, other than our fairly understandable tendency to want to think we are?

[Guest]

Not really adding into the discussion, just curious to know, what exactly are the Dead Sea scrolls? (I could Google it, but I'm not. )

[Guest]

But to say that we are not unique, is its own stretch of belief. When do you think we made the jump from complete intinct to awareness. The first being to become self aware, how was he/she able to get the others around him/her to see the same as he/she did, get them to think, to consider, to ponder. Do you think that we can teach a dog to recognize its existance and not just act on instinct and survival? Something is different about us. We are special, and if you think that I need to create a God in my mind to believe that I am special and better than the animals around me, then please, explain my existance as a sentient.

Why does self-awareness have to be an all-or-nothing proposition? Can't we have it in degrees? And why does it have to be something that was given to us? Do you remember the instant you became aware of your own existence? Of course not. Most of us don't remember much of our lives, if any, before the age of about 5. This is because our brains were not sufficiently developed to retain complex information. Does this mean we have no "soul" until that age?

To put it bluntly, I think it's arrogant to consider ourselves "superior" to other animals -- that we are complex and self-aware, and the rest of the animal kingdom is made up of stimulus-response automatons. It is equally arrogant to believe that we have "achieved" the ultimate in self-awareness, as implied by your "flash of inspiration" description. If our evolution continues on its present course (of which there is no guarantee) it is perfectly plausible that in a few hundred thousand years, our descendants will think us dim-witted and simple-minded, probably enough so to consider us a separate species (apart from any physical traits).

Besides, other animals do have self-awareness, just not to the same degree as we do. Most apes will clue in that when they look in a mirror, what they see is their own reflection. Surely you cannot believe that a chimpanzee, say, has exactly the same sense of self as an ant (i.e. none), whereas we are in possession of the ultimate in awareness. If we did, would we even be having this discussion?

[Guest]

Nuh-uh. I most certainly never did when I was younger. And you didn't/haven't either. Everyone (almost everyone) has the ability to hallucinate, but luckily our species has evolved to the point where the 'hallucination gene' has somewhat been eliminated, and made-up axioms tend not to go without question or some serious pondering. If you say you have spoken to god, whilst not not sleeping, then we can conclude that unfortunately for you, your ancestors chose poor mates, and the gene still runs strong in your family. (Though I'm not completely certain the 'hallucination gene' exists, hallucinating can be hereditary, in the sense that a family's DNA has developed a mutation, causing to bodies to maturate with deformations, primarily ones which deprive the brain of sufficient amounts of oxygen.)

I know you never prayed on your knees at night. You don't have to tell me that.

You have a go at it then. What really is green? Dictionary.com doesn't describe it any better than I did. A blind man doesn't need to experience green to understand that it exists. We have tons and tons and tons of eye-witness accounts of green, with everyone non-color challenged person having the ability it see it themselves. Green exists, we have evidence of it. (The blind man doesnt.) Where's the evidence for your god? (It's "the God" I'm sure that I don't own him.)

The blind man doesn't know what green is. He doesn't even know what light is. It's a leap of faith and trust the blind man must take from somebody that it is green. The evidence of God is all around you that you are just flat out either blind, ignorant, or dumb to see it. Do you truly believe that the universe was created randomly, and that life was created randomly? Random is a form of chaos. The universe is organized.

For me personaly, I have seen the power of God. THAT is my proof.

[Guest]

Judging by recent posts I think we've strayed a little. I suggest we get back on topic, whatever that is. Personally I'd like to hear more about whether human sentience is "special" in some way, particularly if it's special in a way that implies we have a spirit. What's to suggest we are more than meat, other than our fairly understandable tendency to want to think we are?

I agree. Original question was "What is controlling the brain." I've pointed this sidetrack some time ago.

[Guest]

I agree. Original question was "What is controlling the brain." I've pointed this sidetrack some time ago.

To me that's a bit of a misleading question since it contains the assumption that something other than the brain is controlling the brain. In my opinion that assumption is probably a more interesting topic for discussion than any conclusions that would be derived from it.

There seems to be a natural tendency to assume that the mind cannot be just physical because of what it is and what it can do. The question of how the mind works is not fully answered. But replacing a natural question with a supernatural question doesn't give an answer either, it's just a lazy way to dismiss it all as an insoluble mystery. It is also incompatible with the facts. If the human brain were nothing but an interface between a spiritual self and the physical world, it would be quite different. Its physical workings would probably be quite simple, and the nature of one's "self" would not be determined by the state of the physical brain, as it clearly is.

[Guest]

It should be phrased: we only use a fraction of our brain conciously.

[Guest]

If you say you have spoken to god, whilst not not sleeping, then we can conclude that unfortunately for you, your ancestors chose poor mates, and the gene still runs strong in your family. (Though I'm not completely certain the 'hallucination gene' exists, hallucinating can be hereditary, in the sense that a family's DNA has developed a mutation, causing to bodies to maturate with deformations, primarily ones which deprive the brain of sufficient amounts of oxygen.)

O.o Whoa...

Don't you think it's a bit much to say that belief in God is caused by a genetic defect? Especially since you provide no credible evidence, other than your own opinion and an untested theory. You may have noticed the "heredity" of religion because children tend to have the same beliefs as their parents, but that doesn't make it genetic. Children of smokers are far more likely to smoke. Does that mean there's also a smoking gene? And what about alcoholism, or spousal battery? Is your view of the universe really that deterministic?

I don't believe in God, but I also don't think that people who do are insane, sick, or hallucinating. I would not attempt to have a rational discussion with such people. I normally avoid this type of discussion, because they almost never lead to a better understanding by anybody, and have a tendency to end in emotional and abusive exchanges. However, I do often wonder where faith comes from. What does God provide that life does not? Why, apart from being raised that way, do normal, healthy, sane people need God? Is it the comfort of believing that your otherwise (mostly) unremarkable existence is part of a greater plan? Is it fear of death, and the promise of immortality? I admit that I am not entirely comfortable in the knowledge that my life will someday end, and that my last days will likely not all be wine and roses. But I don't grin and bear it for a vague promise of an idyllic afterlife. If my life does not give me satisfaction, I take it as an indication that I need to change it.

But what puzzles me the most is that I also know people who share the same view -- who would change their lives if it did not satisfy them, or who are completely satisfied with their earthly life -- yet still believe in, and need, God. This is what I would like to, but unfortunately probably never will, understand.

[Guest]

Thank you, d3k3. Anyone who was wondering what exactly it was that I was talking about, please read Izzy's post, that d3k3 quoted, and tell me what reason I would have to continue along THAT vein of conversation without doing so in an abusive and retaliatory manner.

As for the original question: What controls the brain... Technically speaking the brain is controlled by electric synapses between nerve endings and shifting chemical balance. What causes that system to result in rational thought (or even basic motor functions) is far beyond me, and at the moment, I believe it is far beyond science, at the moment. However, the theory on that is that actually observing the brain to any great degree requires physical access to it. A person does not behave normally (or in any circumstances short of torture, at all) with holes in their skull, or worse, parts of their skull removed, which makes observing the brains actions and reactions regarding a humans behavior, emotions, and reaction to their environment difficult. As to what caused the whole system to occur, and what sustains its existance, well... I would say that your guess is as good as mine, just more people are making my guess than yours.

[Izzy]

Omfg.. I had an awesome response typed out for this, and then the internet died. TWICE. I'm incredibly upset, especially since that was like over an hour of typing that I just cba to do again.

I know you never prayed on your knees at night. You don't have to tell me that.

What, that's your only response? Of course I never prayed, it doesn't even work. Even if the studies didn't suggest this, what's the point of a system where prayers are answered on a yes-no-maybe/today-never-someday basis? I can get the same results without wasting my time, thanks.

(It's "the God" I'm sure that I don't own him.)

The blind man doesn't know what green is. He doesn't even know what light is. It's a leap of faith and trust the blind man must take from somebody that it is green. The evidence of God is all around you that you are just flat out either blind, ignorant, or dumb to see it. Do you truly believe that the universe was created randomly, and that life was created randomly? Random is a form of chaos. The universe is organized.

For me personaly, I have seen the power of God. THAT is my proof.

No, it is your god. As in, the god you specifically believe in. I'm sure even people of the same denomination as you have different opinions of how this god really is like. Take SG as an example. He doesn't take the bible literally whereas you seem to. Clearly, the way he envisions his/your god is going to be different from the way you do. The Abrahamic god isn't THE god, simply one of many. Be honest to yourself, if you would have been born in India or somewhere in Africa, you wouldn't even believe in the same god as you do now. You'd be all "Those Christians are wrong! I'm right! How can they be so stupid and not see the evidence?!" And, of course, they'd retaliate with "Nuh-uh! Our GOD, LORD, and SAVIOUR, is AWESOME. He's GREAT. YOUR gods don't even exist." This, of course, should be followed by groans from atheists.

I'm ignorant, blind, and dumb? F off you bloody hypocrite. WHAT evidence are you referring to? If you have any, please enlighten me, because I'm rather curious to know! I've asked before anyway, so bring me the damned evidence. If you can manage to find some that I can't tear to shreds (which would be simple enough if some existed), then bring it forth. If you can't find any, then we can either conclude that you believe false facts (though this is already obvious from the OP), or that you believe in your god because of faith. Personally (that's with two L's you benighted fool), if it's the faith factor, I can stop caring/wasting my time now. You're free to believe what you want because of faith, I don't particularly care, though I won't agree with you. However, if you choose to believe in flawed information, I don't really want you spreading your fallacies like a disease. I think it's the civil duty of a more informed person to help you out, rectifying your way of thinking and generally making sure you don't cause any unnecessary mayhem.

Dude, the origin of the species WAS NOT RANDOM! Also, and I'm sure I've said this before (or was it in another thread?), the only reason the universe is so ordered is because it's so old. As time went on, the universe expanded and the room for order outweighed the amount of chaos. Essentially:

That isn't proof. You haven't even told us what you experienced..

1:24 AM. I'm going to bed. Ffs, I was supposed to be done with this at midnight. Damn internet. Sorry, it really was better/longer then first time..

[Izzy]

I meant that hallucinating can be hereditary, and to see god you must be either dreaming or hallucinating. I never said either was true to believe in god.

[Guest]

You know, I was pointed here a couple of days ago, and actually wrote much of a lengthy post, commenting on almost all of 5dollers posts. But as I started on page 7, there was a power cut and POOF, all gone

So I think I will just make a more humble attempt for now.

I know you never prayed on your knees at night. You don't have to tell me that.

I did, then I grew up.

(It's "the God" I'm sure that I don't own him.)

He was clearly referring to "the god you believe in", don't be so pedantic. Should we instead say "Your imaginary friend"? Would that be better?

The blind man doesn't know what green is. He doesn't even know what light is.

First I will get the fact that not every blind man was born blind, and all that that implies about your assertion.

He could do. Science has taken human understanding far beyond that which is immediately perceived by the senses (and shown a lot of that to be faulty to boot.)

This hypothetical blind man could potentially learn and understand about the electromagnetic spectrum (of which visible light is just a small part, and "green" is represented by about 520 to 565 nanometer wavelengths) just as we can learn about black holes, quasars and quantum mechanics, even though we can not see much, if anything, of what they are directly. Knowledge and understanding has outgrown primitive naive reliances on the immediately perceived.

It's a leap of faith and trust the blind man must take from somebody that it is green.

Please define "Faith" (a pet interest of mine.)

Is it really? Why would he really care to be honest? Does a blind man care if his jacket is green or pink?! I think a rational blind man would often be able to tell, through simple observation and memory etc. whether the person telling him was likely to be honest or not, and if they had any reason to deceive him.

The evidence of God is all around you that you are just flat out either blind, ignorant, or dumb to see it.

Yes, thank you 5dollers; when in trouble in a rational discussion go ahead and resort to thinly veiled insults. That is always likely to impress. <_<

What you did there was a version of the Logical Fallacy known as the Genetic Fallacy. Essentially declaring that you (and any other believer) can just ignore any arguments form him (or anyone who doesn't believe as you do actually - that's convenient!) because they are all either blind, ignorant or dumb.

But if you think it's a fair argument to use, I guess I can do the same, right? (I can't do it, I have to adjust more than the object, I can't leave that tangled mess of grammar as is.)

The evidence of The Flying Spaghetti Monster is all around you; if you can't see that then you are either just flat out blind, ignorant, or too dumb to see it.

Do you truly believe that the universe was created randomly, and that life was created randomly?

No, I am not so naive to assume the universe or life was 'created' at all. That would be your theistic bias.

Actually understanding the FACT and theory of evolution and much of what has been termed "Cosmic evolution", and the work in Abiogenesis and Cosmology, I have a real appreciation of where the evidence lies in those areas. Even though both are far from complete. But neither is pointing toward any conclusion that they were "random." (I think many creationists in particular have a really poor grasp of what they word actually means - they seem to assume a false dilemma of it being a black and white issue: Design or Pure Chance.)

Random is a form of chaos. The universe is organized.

You reckon?

Doesn't look all that organised to me:

Perhaps you are focusing too much on one tiny fraction of the whole! Pockets are perfectly normal, to be expected, in large disorganised objects/places. In fact, if such a huge area showed no signs of local order at all, that would be evidence of a 'fix.'

Here's a good trick I learned in a statistics class: get the students to either flip a coin 100 times and write down the results, or to make the results up (without you knowing who used what method.) Then amaze them by figuring out which were genuine and which the fakes. The trick is to look for sequences of just heads or just tails, if there are NO sets of either 9 the same in a row, or a few 8s in a row, then it is probably a fake. You would expect such pockets of apparent order in a purely random sample. But not in one that someone tried to look random.

There is a hel of a lot more to the nature of the universe and its structures of course, but this will do for now. You don't seem like someone actually interested in the truth, unless it is 'your' Truth^TM to be perfectly honest.

And this is all nothing but an Argument from Ignorance anyway 5dollers

For me personaly, I have seen the power of God. THAT is my proof.

And we should believe you, just because you say so?!

Next:

I agree. Original question was "What is controlling the brain." I've pointed this sidetrack some time ago.

And the answer is: This is a Complex Question (yes, yet another logical fallacy.)

You assume in that question that the brain is controlled by something. If we do not accept that assumption (which I do not) then how or why should we answer the question?

I take it that this assumption is based on you belief in dualism, that the mind/soul is something other than the brain. This was most strongly advocated by Rene Descartes. I have read his Meditations when he espouses this. He was a smart guy, but the deeper you look , the more atrociously bad you find those arguments to be.

A fella by Ludwig Wittgenstein (of whom I have read a little, I wouldn't advise it; he will make you brain dribble out of your ears!) a couple of centuries later, was a major developer of a far better philosophical model which has been borne out remarkably well by modern science, including that of neurobiology and the cognitive sciences. This model is known as Functionalism.

Basically this presents what we call "the mind" as a label for the functions that result from the physical workings of the brain - the firing of neurons and so on. So according to the results of the efforts of those who have spent their entire professional careers on working on the puzzle that is the human brain and mind; you have it COMPLETELY BACKWARD: The Brain is what controls, or more accurately "creates" (and constantly recreates) the human mind.

The Brain is the CPU of the body, the control centre. It is what does the controlling, not what gets controlled.

Now this reminded me of one of your initial 'Facts.'

You mentioned the common assertion that humans only a "certain percentage of our brain."

That percentage is 10%

This is false.

BUT it is false in an interesting way. It's one of those cases where someone has misinterpreted an explanation, and that misunderstanding has spread .

In this case the actual explanation was this:

On avereage, at any given moment, about 10% (or less) of the neurons in our brain are firing. Very rarely does it exceed this amount.

You see the confusion?

We use (of course we do) all of our brain, every single neuron, but just NOT at the same time. There are actually good reasons for this. Two being that:

1. The brain uses a hel of a lot of energy (as much as 20% of the entire body's total!) firing all those neurons at once would use far too much, basically wiping us out. (No energy left, what if a lion chooses to strike at that moment?)

2. That much electrical energy across the brain? Would probably burn it out as well! Like shooting a 100 volt current through a 20 volt resistor.

The brain actually have a lot of neat little tricks to conserve and minimise energy usage. Another fascinating subject, probably lost on you due to your reliance and strict adherence to your little doctrine.

[Izzy]

The brain actually have a lot of neat little tricks to conserve and minimise energy usage. Another fascinating subject, probably lost on you due to your reliance and strict adherence to your little doctrine.

I read it all and thought it was brilliant. Damn on the power loss. I wrote out a fairly long post too (not now, before), and my internet died twice, without it being recovered. I'll bet nearly anything he uses another fallacy next, which unfortunately I can't remember the name of. (Taking two somewhat related events, putting them together, and saying god did it?) Oh, and I'm female.

[Guest]

I did, then I grew up.

...

Should we instead say "Your imaginary friend"? Would that be better?

...

Please define "Faith" (a pet interest of mine.) Go read a dictionary. There are clear and common definitions that you can simply look up, rather than trying to coax someone into defining it without one in a rather underhanded attempt to make someone seem foolish.

...

The evidence of The Flying Spaghetti Monster is all around you; if you can't see that then you are either just flat out blind, ignorant, or too dumb to see it.

...

That would be your theistic bias.

You reckon?

Doesn't look all that organised to me:

Actually, since you seem to follow science a great deal, it's remarkable how much we once saw as chaos has later appeared to be structured, if in a way that does not make sense to us. How often are the same constants used in unrelated fields? How often do evolved, and seemingly random events in nature or life seem to be designed using geometry on closer inspection? It's certainly not proof, but it IS cool.

...

You don't seem like someone actually interested in the truth, unless it is 'your' Truth^TM to be perfectly honest.

...

And this is all nothing but an Argument from Ignorance anyway 5dollers

...

Another fascinating subject, probably lost on you due to your reliance and strict adherence to your little doctrine.

I actually responded to a couple things in your quote (though I hadn't intended to). My intent isn't really to argue any of your points, for reasons mentioned above, but rather to answer your pet interest with my pet peeve, and possibly point you towards some interesting research.

The POINT of my post was:

Yes, thank you 5dollers; when in trouble in a rational discussion go ahead and resort to thinly veiled insults. That is always likely to impress. <_<

Wisdom from ADParker: Why bother with veils?

[Guest]

Actually, since you seem to follow science a great deal, it's remarkable how much we once saw as chaos has later appeared to be structured, if in a way that does not make sense to us. How often are the same constants used in unrelated fields? How often do evolved, and seemingly random events in nature or life seem to be designed using geometry on closer inspection? It's certainly not proof, but it IS cool.

It's WAY cool and one of my favourite things. It's a feature of the universe in particular and mathematics generally, and always indicates structure (often acting in unexpected ways). Indeed without structure we cannot have complexity. Our universe is clearly structured and it seems to me that all observable phenomena can be explained in terms of its structure. Which leaves our old friend God out of a job. Where's his place in this?

(PS. by structure I mean logic and consistent laws of physics, just to be clear)

[Guest]

It's WAY cool and one of my favourite things. It's a feature of the universe in particular and mathematics generally, and always indicates structure (often acting in unexpected ways). Indeed without structure we cannot have complexity. Our universe is clearly structured and it seems to me that all observable phenomena can be explained in terms of its structure. Which leaves our old friend God out of a job. Where's his place in this?

(PS. by structure I mean logic and consistent laws of physics, just to be clear)

Well, again, I don't want to argue, so I'll just state my belief and you can feel free to rip it apart as you feel, but MY belief, and I believe that this is shared, is that it's not like God is sitting wherever he chooses and playing the Universe like a video game. There's no flinch reactions, or sudden changes to point to and go "this is where God interfered, and made X happen." Rather, it's the opposite. The common belief is that God is everywhere, and at every time, so these things aren't necessary. After all, if I've built something correctly, I won't be stepping in very often to make repairs, or adjust things so they travel on the right course, and even if I do, it will be very rare, and my intent will be to make it very subtle. Rather, it's that structure that we see in what would otherwise be randomness that makes me believe. It's hard to look at those consistencies, and that level of order, and NOT see some sort of overarching design, which I choose to call God. After all, Mathematics and Science did not create these things, and these constants were not designed to exist everywhere (otherwise pi would likely be a more rational number). Math doesn't create anything, and in its purist form, neither does Science. Rather, they observe, and report.

Edited March 11, 2009 by SomeGuy

[unreality]

I like where SomeGuy is going with this, and in a lot of ways I agree. There is definitely an order-out-of-chaos thing going on in the universe - but we diverge when you decide to call this balance 'God'. Why? <- I'm not asking that incriminatingly but I am genuinely curious: what prompted you to use the God label for the balance and order in the universe?

[Guest]

I like where SomeGuy is going with this, and in a lot of ways I agree. There is definitely an order-out-of-chaos thing going on in the universe - but we diverge when you decide to call this balance 'God'. Why? <- I'm not asking that incriminatingly but I am genuinely curious: what prompted you to use the God label for the balance and order in the universe?

Lack of a better explanation. I could call it FSM, or aliens, or I could view the whole thing like the Men In Black ending sequence where there's the gigantic aliens playing marbles with each of our galaxies (which would imply that we were crafted by giant aliens), but I think that all of them are lacking even the small bit of evidence that supports the existence of a God as defined by the Christian/Jewish/Islamic communities. The fact that one of them actually has events as part of the doctrine that are (to a degree) supported by history doesn't hurt this. The only thing that doesn't make sense to me is the scope of it all. After all, it's a big universe, and we are only an itty bitty part of an itty bitty portion of it. However, since the God that i believe in is basically the watchmaker God from the... I forget what period, I'll say I'm not opposed to the idea that there are other watches out there, or that there's something planned that's larger than our little Earth. However, I can't really come to grips with the idea that this was all chance.

[unreality]

the watchmaker is from the Classicism period

And I'd agree - if there is a god, we're a speck - perhaps an interesting speck, but a speck nontheless, a piece of a grander picture much larger and more complex than ourselves ;D