This is a nice post and its refreshing to read someone who seems open to entertaining the fact that there are other points of view. However, since the post doesn't really seem to take a stand on the issues I raise, I won't comment.hiyymer wrote:
I think you make some good points although I often disagree with your choice of words and how you characterize what you call the "monist" view. In particular you seem to equate physical causation with randomness, when it is quite the opposite. I get the feeling that what you are trying to say is that the reality revealed by science is meaningless and nihilistic, and in that sense I agree with you. In the "monist" view what occurs follows prescribed laws of nature and is therefore deterministic, not random. In other words, if science were able to determine the exact initial state of every atom in a human body at one instant of time, then it could in principle predict the next state of that human body in the next instant of time by the physical laws of nature (including all the state of all the neurons in the brain). But it would take a supercomputer a billion years to make the determination. But if life is deterministic in that sense, then what we experience in our mind as "will" cannot actually exist, and nothing matters. You got that right. I share your frustration with people who use science as a weapon against religion, but refuse to acknowledge the implications of science for their own sense of self causation and will and power.
How human language refutes atheism
Re: How human language refutes atheism
Those who are most effective at reproducing will reproduce. Therefore new species can arise by chance. Charles Darwin.
- eXcommunicate
- Mr Handsome Sr.
- Posts: 821
- Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:49 pm
- Location: Indiana, USA
- Contact:
Re: How human language refutes atheism
We are open to entertaining plenty points of view if they include arguments that don't insult our intelligence.This is a nice post and its refreshing to read someone who seems open to entertaining the fact that there are other points of view.
Michael Hafer
You know, when I read that I wanted to muff-punch you with my typewriter.
One girl; two cocks. Ultimate showdown.
You know, when I read that I wanted to muff-punch you with my typewriter.
One girl; two cocks. Ultimate showdown.
- FBM
- Ratz' first Gritizen.
- Posts: 45327
- Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
- About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach" - Contact:
Re: How human language refutes atheism
eXcommunicate wrote:We are open to entertaining plenty points of view if they include arguments that don't insult our intelligence.This is a nice post and its refreshing to read someone who seems open to entertaining the fact that there are other points of view.

I think that's what bothers me about his whole scheme. It really doesn't matter to me if he believes in some whacked-out theory, but he comes here and tries to convince us that our understanding of science, philosophy, logic and the like are inferior. We point out his errors and he stubbornly denies, evades, misrepresents, etc, then denies that he's denying, evading, misrepresenting, etc. There's no helping some people. If he's determined to believe in this fantasy, he will do so, no matter how much reasoning shows him to be wrong. Some people are like that, especially religious believers. Can't change them; they can only change themselves. Let him have it, IMO.

"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken
"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."
"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."
- Tero
- Just saying
- Posts: 51397
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
- About me: 15-32-25
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: How human language refutes atheism
?? knowledge is not located in a particle??spinoza99 wrote:Eriku,
Do you deny that an immaterial force has the ability to coordinate the neurons in your brain? Do you believe all effects (including language) are the result of the movement and sequencing of bodies?
I've said elsewhere that it's possible to write an alogrithm for manipulating the brain. If you know what neurons to fire in what order then you can manipulate the brain to manipulate the body. However, it takes knowledge to do this and knowledge is not located in a particle.we can influence and fool people's consciousnesses, even alter them greatly through sensory deprivation, drugs or meditation... if that is the case then what's the problem?
All knowledge is contained in particles. There is no other way to store information.
- Thinking Aloud
- Page Bottomer
- Posts: 20111
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:56 am
- Contact:
Re: How human language refutes atheism
The same place that a blackbird knows which berries to eat.spinoza99 wrote:I'm still waiting for a good materialistic definition for how material can know something. A human can choose a correct sentence form a list of infinite incorrect sentences. Where is this knowledge located in space?
The same place that a leafcutter ant knows to chop bits of leaf off a plant to take back to its colony.
The same place that a captive dolphin knows to perform a trick to get its fish.
It's called learning and we, and every other animal, are able to do it through observation, replication, repetition and also instinct. Our ability to learn directly affects our ability to survive and breed, and that's all everything ultimately comes down to, in terms of how we animals are made up.
There's no difference between a human choosing the correct sentence and a blackbird choosing the right berry. For a human, the ability to choose the correct sentence may mean the difference between getting a job or not; which directly affects that particular human's survival and reproductive chances. For the blackbird, the choice of right berry has exactly the same ultimate result.
There is no knowledge repository that we all tap into. The knowledge we have is what we've learned, and it's stored in our brains and recalled, usually imperfectly, at will. When our brain stops, so does our knowledge. (No, I don't know how the brain works - ask someone qualified in that area if you want to know more about how the brain stores information.) If knowledge was elsewhere, we wouldn't forget things, or mis-remember. You can test this by taking a new born baby and keep it isolated from any contact with anyone and anything for the first 18 years. If knowledge is "out there" somewhere, it'll be just fine when you release it, and be able to choose the exact right sentence from a million sentences.
http://thinking-aloud.co.uk/ Musical Me
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: How human language refutes atheism
I'm still waiting for a good definition for how something that is immaterial can know something.spinoza99 wrote:I'm still waiting for a good materialistic definition for how material can know something. A human can choose a correct sentence form a list of infinite incorrect sentences. Where is this knowledge located in space?Eriku wrote:You don't understand language. Have a look at syntactical structures... we don't memorise word sequences or have a random word chain generator in our head, we consider full functions...
An example:
I went to the supermarket
If you analyse this sentence "I" is the subject "went" is the verb and "to the supermarket" is the object. "to" and "the" are grouped under the category of the object to which they correspond.
But, from a scientific standpoint, how the brain can "know" has been one of the most puzzling problems. Nobody has had much of a clue until very recently. Let's get the nature of the problem right though - "I don't know" is not the same as "I can't possibly have an explanation." There was a time when we didn't know how the planets revolved around the sun, either. People replaced a natural explanation for it with an "immaterial intention" that caused the planets to stay where they were. The ancients said Atlas held up the world on his shoulders....the middle ages Christians said God made the planets go. It's all just a way to take "I don't know" and replace it with an arbitrary explanation that makes one feel better.
Modern science has uncovered that certain sections of the brain are responsible for certain things, even our moral sense. Neuroimaging technology has shown this. The structures in the brain operate by using electromagnetic energy to receive information from the outside world, process it, retain some of it as memories, and use that information to make judgments. Clusters of brain cells somehow give rise to more complex behaviors and emotions, such as altruism, sadness, empathy and anger.
Basically, groups of neurons form functional networks which do the thinking, remembering, perceiving, interpreting, moralizing, dreaming, longing, etc. The structures in the brain do these things without the need, as far as we can tell, of an outside "immaterial" influence.
The reality is though, quite candidly, there is much about the brain that is still yet unanswered, not the least of which is exactly HOW these structures in the brain accomplish their task.
You, Spinoza99, have preconceived that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the brain to do it itself, and you surmise that there MUST be some "immaterial" entity at work. However, there is no indication that that's necessary, and there is every indication that the brain is doing these functions on its own. Scientists are making progress every year toward a more complete understanding of how that occurs.
How does immaterial learn?spinoza99 wrote:How does material learn?How do we learn this?
Here's some info on how the brain learns: http://www.nichcy.org/EducateChildren/e ... in101.aspx and http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/brai ... _brain.pdf
Essentially - the structures of neurons within the brain, using energy, interact to form operations and structures which create our thoughts, feelings, emotions, decisions, dreams, and such. "Material" doesn't learn - brains learn.
You don't have to code the language. You just have to code the ability. That's why there are myriad languages. The words aren't coded - they are invented by the brains. The brains are capable of language. You don't have to code every instruction and every output - we're not card reading computers.spinoza99 wrote:I'm very skeptical that Natural Selection is responsible for language. Number one language can't possibly be encoded in the DNA because language is something you can't code. You have to code every instruction and every output. There are infinite outputs for a language, you can't code that. Number two this statement is wrongEriku wrote:He'd do well to start with evolution
It's not necessarily that language itself conferred the advantage - the large, more capable brain is a powerful tool and only one of its many abilities is language. As it happens, language does provide a huge advantage - even rudimentary grunts and calls provide an advantage - because messages can be sent over longer distances than face-to-face, and knowledge can be passed from one generation to another (even very basic knowledge).spinoza99 wrote:Not only do the beneficial codings survive but also the mediocre. You only need to pass on your genes, and the mediocre pass on their genes too. A human that does not speak can also pass on its genes. Second, you would need two humans to have the same mutation at the same time, moreover, the first step towards language was probably only a few words, so you really expect a language with a few words to confer an advantage?It starts as stupid unconscious matter, where the programmings that prove beneficial survive rather than those which don't (though not 100%),
However, the reason humans became successful is because of their large, complex brain that allow them to think, plan, reason, create and imagine better than any other creature.
This has nothing to do with atheism. Plenty of believers in god also accept the theory of evolution - like, oh, most Catholics (and the Catholic hierarchy), most Jews, many Protestants, etc.spinoza99 wrote:Ok, let's look at the baby-steps hypothesis. I'll assume you mean a billion baby steps. Let's try to think of what the minimum odds are for one baby step, what has to happen in the DNA coding. Proteins are between 50 and 2000 amino acids long and there are 20 of them. It would be illogical to think that a protein could function with less than 50 amino acids since we have no evidence for that, but since we're so desperate to cling to atheism let's be dishonest and say that it's 30. Further, how precisely built are these protein? In Microbiology of the Cell, by Bruce Albert which is a standard Darwinist text he says:then after a few billion billion tiny steps
Necessary for what? When? And, why can they only be sequenced "one" way?spinoza99 wrote:
Proteins are so precisely built that the change of
even a few atoms in one amino acid can sometimes disrupt the structure of the
whole molecule so severelv
that all function is lost
Unfortunately he doesn't give us many statistics or evidence so that we can evaluate that but he does give us one:
the amino acid sequence
of histone H4 from a
pea and from a cow differ at only 2 of the 102
positions.
That would mean that 100 of those amino acids mostly likely are necessary and can only be sequenced one way, but let's be dishonest and say that only 90 are necessary.
Evolution doesn't say the string of 90 or 100 were formed "spontaneously," though, does it?spinoza99 wrote:
What are the odds of forming a protein 90 amino acids long spontaneously?
However, what you've described is a straw man. Evolution doesn't suggest it happening that way.spinoza99 wrote:
around one in 10^90. That's just one protein. That's how hard it is to do one baby step. There are about two million known proteins, though they all have different function, even if you imagine that a million protein sequences are available for a certain function, the odds are still one in 10^84. I've already stated numerous times in this forum that if each atom were to try to form a protein for every nanosecond in the history of our universe that would still only bring us to only 10^106 events.
It didn't have to all at once.spinoza99 wrote:
Third, Natural Selection has to select for 20,000 proteins in the human body,
That question is not unanswered. However, you'd have to crack the binding of an evolutionary biology textbook.spinoza99 wrote:
as well as every single character trait. How are traits which are so far down on the list of hierarchy of vital traits ever to be shaped by Natural Selection?
No it isn't. It absolutely is NOT a necessary consequence of materialism or monism that there be a random word generator in our heads.spinoza99 wrote:No, I don't seem to think that, but that is a necessary consequence of monism/materialism.Anyway, I'll add what Pinker wrote in "the Language Instinct" (which is a great, but at times demanding read about our innate language abilities) about the implausiblity of a random word generator in our head, like spinoza seems to think
And, you're making false associations anyway. Like ...all atheists are monists/materialists - or if monism/materialism is wrong then there is a god, etc.
One, so what if it was a necessary consequence of monism/materialism? Either we have language or we don't. Either it evolved or was specially created. Dualists can certainly accept evolution, and due, and so can monists, and monists can believe in gods and often do.
But, you don't need an immaterial force that can manipulate the brain, because that superchain doesn't exist.spinoza99 wrote:Right, that's why we need an immaterial force that can manipulate the brain.In trying to fit such a superchain in a person's memory, one quickly runs out of brain."
Which remains to be established. Why would we "admit" that?spinoza99 wrote: Once you admit that an immaterial force can coordinate material,
An "immaterial force"? Do you mean like "gravity?" Sure, gravity can coordinate material, but it does so mindlessly.
But, if you mean some thing other than matter and energy as we know it - you'll have to establish it exists first, before anyone is going to admit anything about it.
Mere anthropomorphism.spinoza99 wrote:
it's quite logical that since the universe is coordinated that it too is the result of a mind.
- FBM
- Ratz' first Gritizen.
- Posts: 45327
- Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
- About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach" - Contact:
Re: How human language refutes atheism
CES, as usual,
Can I borrow your brain sometimes?
Anyway, I don't think Mr. Spin is so interested in this discussion any more, since he's been innundated with flaws in his 'reasoning'. His post rate has fallen dramatically in the past day or so.

Anyway, I don't think Mr. Spin is so interested in this discussion any more, since he's been innundated with flaws in his 'reasoning'. His post rate has fallen dramatically in the past day or so.
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken
"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."
"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."
- Gawdzilla Sama
- Stabsobermaschinist
- Posts: 151265
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
- About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
- Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
- Contact:
Re: How human language refutes atheism
Priests only have so much material to work with, when they run out they have to start repeating themselves or flee. Nothing new here.FBM wrote:CES, as usual,Can I borrow your brain sometimes?
Anyway, I don't think Mr. Spin is so interested in this discussion any more, since he's been innundated with flaws in his 'reasoning'. His post rate has fallen dramatically in the past day or so.
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: How human language refutes atheism
Yes, I deny it to the extent it is different from, say, the immaterial force of gravity which operates to "coordinate" two or more bodies. Magnetism can also coordinate two or more bodies.spinoza99 wrote: Do you deny that an immaterial force has the ability to coordinate the neurons in your brain?
By 'immaterial' I believe you mean something other than that which exists in the natural universe. If that's the case, yes I deny it.
Not all effects, but a lot of effects.spinoza99 wrote: Do you believe all effects (including language) are the result of the movement and sequencing of bodies?
Of course it's not located in a particle. It's located in a structure of particles that operates according to natural processes.spinoza99 wrote:I've said elsewhere that it's possible to write an alogrithm for manipulating the brain. If you know what neurons to fire in what order then you can manipulate the brain to manipulate the body. However, it takes knowledge to do this and knowledge is not located in a particle.we can influence and fool people's consciousnesses, even alter them greatly through sensory deprivation, drugs or meditation... if that is the case then what's the problem?
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: How human language refutes atheism
Fleeing priests....what a nice image...Gawdzilla wrote:Priests only have so much material to work with, when they run out they have to start repeating themselves or flee. Nothing new here.FBM wrote:CES, as usual,Can I borrow your brain sometimes?
Anyway, I don't think Mr. Spin is so interested in this discussion any more, since he's been innundated with flaws in his 'reasoning'. His post rate has fallen dramatically in the past day or so.


Re: How human language refutes atheism
Every thing I don't understand god must have done ,I could read a book or a paper ,I could ask an expert in the field but these things would take some time and effort and anyway some of the answers are not known or are just too complicated for me to understand .That's OK though god must have blessed me with a brain of such a limited capacity so that I can think more things are evidence for god.
It all reminds me of a Mormon who wisely said (with that glowing sickly smile they have ) "We KNOW why you don't believe, Eddy .God just doesn't want you to believe yet ."
It all reminds me of a Mormon who wisely said (with that glowing sickly smile they have ) "We KNOW why you don't believe, Eddy .God just doesn't want you to believe yet ."




Give me the wine , I don't need the bread
Re: How human language refutes atheism
This is a very important point. And I'm glad someone is willing to stand up for this idea.Tero wrote:
All knowledge is contained in particles. There is no other way to store information.
If knowledge is stored in particles then why is it that two carbons atoms will exhibit different qualities. They are exactly the same. Why would they do different things?
Let me explain further. To get certain one-celled organisms you need to sequence 600,000 base DNA pairs into a certain sequence. (The odds of which are one in 10^3600 but that doesn't matter here) T G A C are all composed of the same structure. But if what you say is true, that knowledge is located in the particle, then why would one one T do something different than another T. For example, let's say you have this sequence:
TTTTAGGCCTTAAG
And now it is necessary for a T to follow. Why would one T know that his time to attach is now, and the other G A C know that their time to attach is not now? In other words, these four nucleic acids, all 600,000 of them need to know the proper sequence of the whole organism. Moreover, they don't need to just know the sequence of that organism, but every T G A C needs to know the sequence of every being in all of existence. They all need to know what organism is currently being sequenced and behave accordingly. How could that information possibly be encoded in the carbon and hydrogen and nitrogen? It makes far more sense that that knowledge exists in an immaterial mind that has power and will to move the nucleic acids where it wants.
Those who are most effective at reproducing will reproduce. Therefore new species can arise by chance. Charles Darwin.
- Gawdzilla Sama
- Stabsobermaschinist
- Posts: 151265
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
- About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
- Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
- Contact:
Re: How human language refutes atheism
Alas, Babble on.
Re: How human language refutes atheism
Just not listening LALALALALALA What a fucking shame I wasted all that time getting a genetics degree when They could have just told me Goddunnit !




Give me the wine , I don't need the bread
-
- "I" Self-Perceive Recursively
- Posts: 7824
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:57 am
- Contact:
Re: How human language refutes atheism
Well that one was short enough that I actually read all the way through!spinoza99 wrote:This is a very important point. And I'm glad someone is willing to stand up for this idea.Tero wrote:
All knowledge is contained in particles. There is no other way to store information.
If knowledge is stored in particles then why is it that two carbons atoms will exhibit different qualities. They are exactly the same. Why would they do different things?
Let me explain further. To get certain one-celled organisms you need to sequence 600,000 base DNA pairs into a certain sequence. (The odds of which are one in 10^3600 but that doesn't matter here) T G A C are all composed of the same structure. But if what you say is true, that knowledge is located in the particle, then why would one one T do something different than another T. For example, let's say you have this sequence:
TTTTAGGCCTTAAG
And now it is necessary for a T to follow. Why would one T know that his time to attach is now, and the other G A C know that their time to attach is not now? In other words, these four nucleic acids, all 600,000 of them need to know the proper sequence of the whole organism. Moreover, they don't need to just know the sequence of that organism, but every T G A C needs to know the sequence of every being in all of existence. They all need to know what organism is currently being sequenced and behave accordingly. How could that information possibly be encoded in the carbon and hydrogen and nitrogen? It makes far more sense that that knowledge exists in an immaterial mind that has power and will to move the nucleic acids where it wants.

But I can now only assume that you are taking the piss, because surely nobody could be aware of the concept of DNA sequencing without also knowing that what you've written is so obviously absolute bollocks.
[Disclaimer - if this is comes across like I think I know what I'm talking about, I want to make it clear that I don't. I'm just trying to get my thoughts down]
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests