Evolution Confusion

[Lost heros]

When you interact with stimuli in the outside world or have thoughts, electro-chemical signals can be witnessed.
In any study where a thought was observed there was always an electo-chemical signal.

Correlation =/= causation

It does when it always occurs. Now we're talking about basic statistics here.

In studies on rats where certain chemical receptors were blocked (chemical reactions couldn't take place), they responded to stimuli differently.

I don't assert that rats are capable of intellectual thought.

You do know you can't ignore what literally every neurobiologist has accepted as fact in their field right.

That's like saying telling a mathematician, "Sorry, but I don't assert that the summation of 2 and 3 is five."

[Mega City 5]

Withstand refutation? You've refuted absolutely nothing. You've asked us to do all the work for you and when we do provide the arguments, you'll disappear and then come back later abandoning said arguments hoping we forgot about them.

Would you briefly like to restate the unrefuted arguments? Preferably the ones where you actually think and reason for yourself and don't tell me to read a pile of articles when there are other things that I could be doing instead.

[Mavorpen]

Well.

Ok. I actually bothered to click on and read through this link. The major premise is: "All thoughts are accompanied by electrical impulses in the brain." To which I'll ask: "So what?"

Do you have a scientific hypothesis that can replace the current one?

[Geilinor]

All cells and reactions don't work the same way. You should know that.

Geilinor, I'll let you try again:

Prove to me that thought is reducible to chemical reactions in the brain. Your proof should take the following form:

A is the case.
B is the case.
Therefore, chemical reactions in the brain and thought are identical, or else, thought is produced by chemcial reactions in the brain.

Neurons transmit electrical signals in the brain.
Disorders affecting neurons such as Alzheimer's affect thought.

[Corunia and Mironor]

There are, then, the conceptually distinct claims:

1. Micro-evolution occurs. This claim is, I take it, evident beyond a shadow of a doubt.

2. Macro-evolution occurs. This claim is, I take it, less evident than the previous one.

3. The coming to be of the human race is explicable vis-a-vis macro-evolution. This claim is even less evident than the previous one.

4. Granted that the coming to be of the human race is explicable vis-a-vis macro-evolution, the entire "human experience," including morality, epistemology, etc., i.e., all of the things that ordinary would fall under philosophy, psychology, etc., may be explained by evolution. In other words, there is nothing about the human being which may not be explained by evolution. This claim is, as I suppose, the least evident of all four claims.

Macro-evolution is caused by a buildup of lots of micro-evolutions happening. Small changes are cumulative, causing much larger differences over time. And 3 is a result of 2, and there's plenty of scientific evidence for it. And 4 is caused by 2 causing organisms to gain more and more intellectual capacity over time.

[Mega City 5]

Do you have a scientific hypothesis that can replace the current one?

I reject your underlying premises and the validity of your question.

[Gim]

Geilinor, I'll let you try again:

Prove to me that thought is reducible to chemical reactions in the brain. Your proof should take the following form:

A is the case.
B is the case.
Therefore, chemical reactions in the brain and thought are identical, or else, thought is produced by chemcial reactions in the brain.

Neurons transmit electrical signals in the brain.
Disorders affecting neurons such as Alzheimer's affect thought.

I tell him the same concept in deductive reasoning and now he's ignoring me.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Do you have a scientific hypothesis that can replace the current one?

I reject your underlying premises and the validity of your question.

Now, if only arguments could be won this way...

[Lost heros]

Do you have a scientific hypothesis that can replace the current one?

I reject your underlying premises and the validity of your question.

If a current hypothesis has evidence that supports it and you don't have evidence for a new hypothesis or evidence that conflicts with the current one, then you don't have the standing to reject anything.

[Mega City 5]

Neurons transmit electrical signals in the brain.
Disorders affecting neurons such as Alzheimer's affect thought.

Believe it ir not, Geilnor, I already know that. What you are saying isn't new. What scientists are saying isn't new. The common objections about brain disorders and brain injuries isn't new. St. Thomas Aquinas knew about all of that in the 13th century, for crying out loud. "Brain injury inhibits thought, at least in some way." No duh.

All that this proves is that, in this state of life, there is some kind of relationship between brain activity and abstract thought. It need not be a causal one, and even if it be a causal one, it need not be in terms of efficient causality.

[Mavorpen]

Would you briefly like to restate the unrefuted arguments?

Restate them? No. I will gladly provide them for you.

Well absense of evidence is not evidence of absense.

Actually, it is. It just isn't formal proof.

I'm not telling you that you should accept my claim.

Oh, then there's no actual point here.

I'm simply saying that my claim is consistent with the facts.

It isn't though, unless you actually test it.

I'm making an extremely weak claim. I'm not asserting A. I'm asserting that possibly A. Note the modal difference.

Which is, again, not mutually exclusive with accepting B (that the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation). You're free to accept that A is possible, but that doesn't mean you're actually rejecting B. And if you ARE rejecting B, you need to actually provide a scientific alternative.

Good. I'm not making any further claims for the purposes of this thread. I don't claim to be able to prove, from a scientific point of view, that it happened that way.

Then this thread is pointless.

Of man's origin? If there are two possibilities and the evidence is just as easily explained by either, then any given piece of evidence proves one no more than the other.

Do you have data from empirical testing to support this? No? Well then, that's simply false.

You claimed that metaphysics is the lowest form of human knowledge and that you say this from experience.

I was actually joking with that to contrast with your incorrect claim that it's the "highest." It being the lowest isn't really my point. It's just lower than science.

I don't think you even know what metaphysics is.

It's entirely within your right to be wrong.

Of course, this isn't your fault. Most people don't.

There's no reason to, frankly.

Then you must grant that there are other sorts of proofs and other forms of evidence than those provided by the natural sciences.

I've never denied this, so I'm not sure why you're acting as though I have.

Therefore, you must grant the possibility of a philosophical proof of the intellectual soul, even though not provable within the context of natural science.

Again, I have never denied this. I simply have no reason to accept it being actually true, rather than simply possible, especially considering you're inherently making a claim that's within the context of natural science. Unless you're claiming that the "intellectual soul" doesn't interact with the physical body at all, of course.

Preferably the ones where you actually think and reason for yourself and don't tell me to read a pile of articles when there are other things that I could be doing instead.

These "other things" are applying your ignorance of basic biology and refusing to read things that WOULD help you understand. You are literally telling me it's not worth it to learn.

Also, I don't think I've EVER seen you think for yourself. You do nothing but parrot the garbage pseudoscience of Aristotle and others.

[Mavorpen]

Do you have a scientific hypothesis that can replace the current one?

I reject your underlying premises and the validity of your question.

Right, so you concede. Thank you.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Do you have a scientific hypothesis that can replace the current one?

I reject your underlying premises and the validity of your question.

You reject our reality and replace it with your own? Quite.

[Mavorpen]

All that this proves is that, in this state of life, there is some kind of relationship between brain activity and abstract thought. It need not be a causal one,

False. These experiments aren't correlation ones, they're experimental ones. By their very nature they establish causality.

and even if it be a causal one, it need not be in terms of efficient causality.

Do you have an alternative scientific hypothesis? No? Then yes, it does.

[Lost heros]

I reject your underlying premises and the validity of your question.

You reject our reality and replace it with your own? Quite.

Something tells me he isn't a Mythbuster.

[Gim]

Neurons transmit electrical signals in the brain.
Disorders affecting neurons such as Alzheimer's affect thought.

Believe it ir not, Geilnor, I already know that. What you are saying isn't new. What scientists are saying isn't new. The common objections about brain disorders and brain injuries isn't new. St. Thomas Aquinas knew about all of that in the 13th century, for crying out loud. "Brain injury inhibits thought, at least in some way." No duh.

All that this proves is that, in this state of life, there is some kind of relationship between brain activity and abstract thought. It need not be a causal one, and even if it be a causal one, it need not be in terms of efficient causality.

So, you're saying scientific breakthroughs have not happened as far as neurobioloyy is concerned since the 13th century? What conclusive evidence, do you think, is actually required? Opening up a brain and seeing electrical impulses, an act which is virtually impossible?

[Mega City 5]

Right, so you concede. Thank you.

You are assuming that all terms of the debate are scientific questions (and this in the sense of "natural science"). In other words, you are assuming that the origin of man is a scientific question, and you are assuming that it's a scientific question whether all forms of cognition are reducible to the body is a question of natural science.

How would you prove either claim? In fact, Mavorpen, I would like to note that you cannot prove either claim scientifically. You have to step outside of natural science in order to show me that either question falls within the domain of natural science.

In fact, I vehemently deny both.

Natural science appertains to what can be known about sensible things according to a certain universality and necessity. The origin of man, as such, is a singular instance which cannot be sensed or observed. It is a singular, contingent historical event. As such, properly speaking, it falls outside of the domain of natural science.

Whether or not all forms of human cognition are reducible to bodily states is not a scientific question. If there is a form of cognition which is not so reducible, then it cannot be observed or tested by means of the inquiry of natural science.

Until you can show me that either thing falls within the field of the natural sciences, I am perfectly free to reject the legitimacy of your question.

[Mega City 5]

False. These experiments aren't correlation ones, they're experimental ones. By their very nature they establish causality.

The argument is:

Every act of thought is accompanied by electrical and chemical activity in the brain.
Therefore, acts of thought are produced by or identical to electrical or chemical activity in the brain.

Doesn't follow.

Do you have an alternative scientific hypothesis? No? Then yes, it does.

Again, I reject this line of reasoning. This is ad ignorantiam.

[Mavorpen]

All terms of the debate are scientific questions (and this in the sense of "natural science"). In other words, you are assuming that the origin of man is a scientific question, and you are assuming that it's a scientific question whether all forms of cognition are reducible to the body is a question of natural science.

Yes, I am accepting the null hypthesis. And?

How would you prove either claim?

You don't prove the null hypothesis.

In fact, Mavorpen, I would like to note that you cannot prove either claim scientifically. You have to step outside of natural science in order to show me that either question falls within the domain of natural science.

Actually, I don't have to do anything. It's not my job to prove the null hypothesis. It's yours to give me a reason to reject it. And, well, that's something you utterly fail to do because let's face it, you don't know anything about this subject, and you don't WANT to.

In fact, I vehemently deny both.

I am aware you deny reality.

Natural science appertains to what can be known about sensible things according to a certain universality and necessity. The origin of man, as such, is a singular instance which cannot be sensed or observed. It is a singular historical event. As such, properly speaking, it falls outside of the domain of natural science.

I'm not sure why you think this gibberish is relevant to me or even means anything to me.

Whether or not all forms of human cognition are reducible to bodily states is not a scientific question.

Of course it is.

If there is a form of cognition which is not so reducible, then it cannot be observed or tested by means of the inquiry of natural science.

Which means it doesn't exist, yes.

Until you can show me that either thing falls within the field of the natural sciences, I am perfectly free to reject the legitimacy of your question.

You're already free to reject it. You're entirely free to be wrong. That's how this works. I'm also free to accept that you're wrong because you refuse to give me a reason to reject the null hypothesis, and instead choose to insist I disprove the existence of unobservable unicorns.

[Immoren]

I am getting mental image of person coming into chess club with snakes and ladders box, complaining about the fact that people play chess in chess club, instead of snakes and ladders, and go on the should play snakes and ladders.

[Mavorpen]

Every act of thought is accompanied by electrical and chemical activity in the brain.
Therefore, acts of thought are produced by or identical to electrical or chemical activity in the brain.

Indeed, this is true.

Doesn't follow.

Yeah, don't care.

Again, I reject this line of reasoning. This is ad ignorantiam.

Yes, I agree that the underlined statement is ad ignorantiam.

[Lost heros]

Right, so you concede. Thank you.

All terms of the debate are scientific questions (and this in the sense of "natural science"). In other words, you are assuming that the origin of man is a scientific question, and you are assuming that it's a scientific question whether all forms of cognition are reducible to the body is a question of natural science.

How would you prove either claim? In fact, Mavorpen, I would like to note that you cannot prove either claim scientifically. You have to step outside of natural science in order to show me that either question falls within the domain of natural science.

In fact, I vehemently deny both.

>Starts a debate about a scientific topic
>Rejects science

Logic.

Natural science appertains to what can be known about sensible things according to a certain universality and necessity. The origin of man, as such, is a singular instance which cannot be sensed or observed. It is a singular, contingent historical event. As such, properly speaking, it falls outside of the domain of natural science. [/quote}
We have a very understood theory that can explain the origin of man, maybe not so specifically as you'd like, but it does. It explains our patterns and behaviors, why we look like this, and more. Yet you want us to build a time machine so we can watch millions of years of evolution to unfold.

Whether or not all forms of human cognition are reducible to bodily states is not a scientific question. If there is a form of cognition which is not so reducible, then it cannot be observed or tested by means of the inquiry of natural science.

Until you can show me that either thing falls within the field of the natural sciences, I am perfectly free to reject the legitimacy of your question.

Do you have evidence of thoughts that aren't reducible to electro-chemical signals in the brain and nervous system? Because if so, you should publish that and you'll probably win the Nobel Prize. Because that would be pretty groundbreaking in the field of neurobiology.

[Mavorpen]

I am getting mental image of person coming into chess club with snakes and ladders box, complaining about the fact that people play chess in chess club, instead of snakes and ladders, and go on the should play snakes and ladders.

Personally, I have the mental image of a child taking an advanced English course with the knowledge that they would be asked to do summer reading, and then complaining that they have to do summer reading and refusing to do it, calling it pointless.

[Lost heros]

I am getting mental image of person coming into chess club with snakes and ladders box, complaining about the fact that people play chess in chess club, instead of snakes and ladders, and go on the should play snakes and ladders.

That is accurate and hilarious.

[Mega City 5]

Restate them? No. I will gladly provide them for you.

Cool.

Actually, it is. It just isn't formal proof.

Again, it isn't. It's an informal fallacy.

It isn't though, unless you actually test it.

False. That's not what "consistent" means. Consider the following modalities:

A is necessarily true.
A is possibly true.
A is possibly false.
A is necessarily false.

Which is, again, not mutually exclusive with accepting B (that the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation). You're free to accept that A is possible, but that doesn't mean you're actually rejecting B. And if you ARE rejecting B, you need to actually provide a scientific alternative.

Are you talking about the origin of man?

Do you have data from empirical testing to support this? No? Well then, that's simply false.

Again, you simply don't grasp the point that I am making.

Let us assume two propositions:

A is the case.
B is the case.

You have a piece of evidence C.

C is evidence for B if and only if C would be true if B is true and A is false.

If C is true and both A and B could still be true, then C is not evidence for B.

I was actually joking with that to contrast with your incorrect claim that it's the "highest." It being the lowest isn't really my point. It's just lower than science.

I am considering making a thread on this at some point. Would you be interested?

Again, I have never denied this. I simply have no reason to accept it being actually true, rather than simply possible, especially considering you're inherently making a claim that's within the context of natural science. Unless you're claiming that the "intellectual soul" doesn't interact with the physical body at all, of course.

How do you understand natural science? What does it do? What is it about?