marcobiagini

>>>If everything you say is true, that would render the processes of complex proteins and acids useless, as your arguments for the most part exclude important chemical reactions that take place in the body all together. As I have explained, the concept of complexity is subjective. Proteins are only set of particles. The fact that some molecules contains more particles than others, does not mean that these molecules can think or feel emotions. Since the concept of complexity is subjective, and subjectivity implies the existence of consciousness, the concept of complexity cannot be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness. This would be an obvious logical contraddiction. Marco

>>>>You still haven't started on the rest of my rather enormous post. I thought I had. Anyway, can you please repeat the points you think I have not answered, (only one at a time, please) I am will try to consider them. (probably this will not be possible till next weak) Marco.

>>>If theres a massive warehouse with only an apple lying in the middle of the floor, does that mean the apple doesnt exist because the vast majority of the space inside the warehouse is empty? Just because it happens to be 99.99 whatever percent, doesnt mean you can round to zero. You apparently have completely misunderstood my argiuments. My argument was that the true physical reality is diferent from what we see. When you see an apple, you imagine an object uniformly filled with motioless matter. Such object does not exist. What exist is instead a set of particles moving, acording to specific dynamical equaions, in a specific region of space. Marco

.

>>>Yes, but a "succession of processes" can exhibit properties which a single entity - or a collection of all entities involved in the proccess - cannot. Absolutely false. You fail to understand that such "properties" are only arbitrary concepts used to described approximately the REAL succession of microscopic elementary processes. (I have discussed this in details in my articles entitled "Scientific Contradictions in Materialism" on my site) >>>A computer can execute a program, where a random arrangement of the same transistors cannot. The point is that the word "program" represents nothing more than a succession of elementary processes. n other word you are simply using different words to indicate different successions of elementary processes. These words and these concepts however do not represent REAL properties, because they are only abstractions, existing only on your conscious mind. In the physical reality only successions of elementary processes exist. Since the existence of a concept, such as a "macroscopic property", implies the existence of consciousness, consciousness cannot be a macroscopic property. QED Marco

marcobiagini said in post # : No entities exist in the physical reality as we see it. ” >>>Gone to rather extreme nihilism have we? Not at all. Simply science have proved that solid objects are not uniformly filled with motionless matter, as we see them. Solid objects are at 99.999999% made with emptyness. >>>>If 'recognising pictures' is your criterion for consciousness, then all animals are conscious. Then a computer is conscious. The point is that "recognising picture" is NOT my criterion for consciousness. It is in fact possible to build a mechanism able to recognise a picture, but this mechanism does not have a visive sensation. For example, the authomac doors of a supermarket have no visive sensations, even if they open when you get near. Marco

>>>A computer uses electrons to transmit data, and they're the same electrons (not literally), yet the results we gather are much different from different computers, much different from what we tell it to do. From computers we simply obatined successions of electric impulses and successions of photons emitted by the screen. Nothing else. >>The whole section seems to me to be saying the equivilent 'We can't transmit pictures on light! It's LIGHT for god's sake!'. Pictures consists only in a geometrical distribution of light spots. No entities exist in the physical reality as we see it. Pictures are only optical illussions, and the existence of an illusion implies the existence of consciousness. Therefore conscioussnes canot be an illusion. This is obvious. Please read my article entitled "Scientific contradictions in materialism". Marco

>>>>Conciousness is held to be a property of a material system, not its individual components. Juat like every single other macroscopic process. As I have expalined in my article entitled "scientific contradictions in materialism" (you can find itin my site), consciousness cannot be considered a macroscopic property because this definition is inconsistent from a logical point of view; in fact, science has proved that the so-called macroscopic properties are only concepts used by man to describe in an approximated way real physical processes, which consist uniquely of successions of microscopic elementary processes. The macroscopic properties quoted by materialists, are not objective properties of the physical reality, but they are only subjective concepts; in other words, they are abstractions and ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria, a given succession of microscopic processes. The point is that the existence of a concept or idea implies the existence of consciousness. Therefore, the concept of macroscopic property implies the existence of consciousness. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered a macroscopic property of the physical reality, because the concept itself of macroscopic property implies the existence of consciousness. We have then a very direct logical contradiction. No concept which implies the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness. This is obvious. (see a more detailed discussion in my article) Marco

>>>>What you have said implies a force we have not yet been able to explain but in no way implicates the existance of an all powerful universe defining entity. What I have said implies that consciousness transcends matter and all interactons we know. >>>But that is only if you are correct in the assumption that it is not possible for an actual conciousness to exist in our universe as we know it today. This is only my first point. My second point is that future advances in science can never allow us to give an explanation of consciousness. In fact advances in science has never dethroned and can never dethrone well established facts, supported by billions and billions of systematic and quantitative experimental data. It would be equivalent to hypothesize that one day science will discover that the earth does not orbit around the sun, but it is motionless at the center of the universe. The statement "maybe one day science will discover that..." is no longer a rational statement, because of the wide and systematic experimantal confirmation obtained by the laws of physics. The laws of physics establish some firm points, which must always be considered when we make a rational and scientific hypothesis. Today we have billions of billions of data confirming that cerebral, biological, chemical and molecular processes are determined uniquely by Quantum Electrodynamic. Since no Quantum Electrodynamic processes generate consciousness, this is equivalent to say that we have billions and billions of data conferming that no cerebral processes generate consciousness. Advances in physics allow us to discover new processes at higher and higher energies; this is the only possible advances in physics, but this kind of advances lead us farther and farther from consciousness, because no high energy processes occur in our brain. Consider that in modern particle accelerators, it is possible to reach energies a billion of times superior to the energies of chemical and biological processes. Nevertheless, in the hope to discover some new processes, scientists have to design new accelerators, able to reach even much greater energies. There is another fundamemtal point; history shows that scientific progress has been possible only when scientists began to compare theoritical results with experimenal data. Since all our measurement instruments work and are designed on the basis of the laws of physics, and since consciousness transcends such laws, it is not possible to design any instruments able to measure consciousness. Without such measurement instruments, it will never be possible to reach any scientific progresses in the explanation of the existence of consciousness. It is useful to observe that, in spite of the great scientific progresses reached in the fields of the natural sciences, no steps have ever been done in history in such direction, as it is proved by the fact that science is not able to explain, neither in principle, the existence of consciousness, neither the existence of the most banal sensation. >>>How did you come to the conclusion that a god MUST exist? And why is the Christian faith specifically right, as opposed to any other faith in which humans possess souls? Please read my answers to these questions in the FAQ section in my site. Then we may discuss my arguments. Marco

In the following site I analyse the incongruencies of the materialistic conception of the mind, on the basis of our present scientific knowledges of brain and matter. This analysis points out how Quantum Electrodynamics proves that the brain cannot generate consciousness, which existence implies the presence in man of a unbiological/unmaterial entity. The problem of consciousness is then strictly connected to the one of the existence of the soul and, consequently, the existence of God. http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/englishnf Let's discuss my arguments here. Marco Biagini Ph.D. Graduated in Solid State Physics.