How could Nye of have dropped the ball?

[too-open-minded]

I was thinking back to the ken ham and Bill Nye debate, when where does consciousness come up. Nye completley dropped the ball, in my opinion. How could he say we don't know?

 

If you ask me, consciousness comes from the brain. It is the projected processing from all of our senses and emotions tied together.

How could he have just said "I don't know, it's a mystery."

[CharonY]

Well, it depends on how accurate and detailed your answer is. Of course it is a brain phenomenon, but the precise mechanisms as a whole are elusive. A statement as this:

 

 

 

If you ask me, consciousness comes from the brain. It is the projected processing from all of our senses and emotions tied together.

 

 

Does not really tell you much, doe it? What is a projected processing, and what are emotions. How are the "tied" together? This does not really tell us how it work, does it? You might as well state that there are neuronal processes that do it. Probably not wrong, but not really informative either.

[swansont]

"We don't know" is IMO a much better answer than "God did it". I don't think that's dropping the ball. Science isn't the side in this debate that claims to know everything.

[too-open-minded]

If I were on the podium, I could have at least given something better than "We don't know."

 

If I was Bill Nye, I would've said something along the lines of.

- "You ask where does consciousness come from, that is your question. Ken over here says, consciousness came from god and that's it. Where is the beauty in that? Where is the aesthetically pleasing notion that there is something great going on right before our eyes. To say god did it, that's not right. Even if you're right and god did do it, he had to have a way to do it! Gravity, force, cells, atoms, all the laws of physics and nature themselves exist because they're the mechanics to the ticking clockwork that is life itself. Maybe we shouldn't argue if god did it or not, maybe we should argue how god did it. Something did it and if it was god, god had to have the mechanics to do it right. Consciousness, I'll explain where science comes along in this. Our brains are the most complex organs in our body, were still learning about the brain. With what we do know significantly less than what we don't. Our brains have senses, things that enable us to process our environment. Humans have evolved and adapted some of the most complex senses we know of, those being emotions. What the brain does is it takes in information with it's emotions and basic senses, processes it, and projects a relative reality. Our relative reality is consciousness, we think were here and were aware of our existence, that's consciousness. We have the senses to sense the world around us in an instance, the attention span to remember those instances, and a brain to process it all. It's sights, sounds, touches, tastes, smells, anger, love, jealousy, empathy, happiness, sadness, fear, curiosity, and memories all together that truly captivate what consciousness really is. Scientists are on the brink of explaining how consciousness works through neuronal processing. Right down to the electrical impulse and synapse release in the brain. Maybe electrical impulse and synapse release in the brain isn't aesthetically pleasing to you, but to us trying to understand the universe. To us wanting to unlock the mysteries to life, it is. This is why I'm here right now debating you. You're views hinder scientific growth, God did it... That's a cop out. If God did do it, can we atleast agree that god did it and this is how he did it."

 

Wam-bam-slam.

Edited June 25, 2014 by too-open-minded

[swansont]

The problem with that approach is then the other person moves one level deeper. How did the brain develop? Repeat s necessary. Eventually you will get to a stage where you must say "We don't know". IMO it's much better for one's credibility to say "I don't know" than to try and hand-wave an answer, and pretend to know more than one actually does.

[Deepak Kapur]

When I think something and that produces dopamine (or any other chemical) in my body/brain, it is not at all clear how 'thinking' influences atoms/molecules and enhances their production...

 

Moreover, when I lift my hand, it is not at all clear how the 'thought' instructs the neurons of my brain, which then eventually tell the muscles and sinews in my hand/arm to lift my hand up...

 

As far as hitting a road block, when we have to say 'I don't know', these road blocks will keep on occuring ad infinitum even if we have found everything/god/the underlying consciousness/the matrix/whatever.....

[CharonY]

The problem with that approach is then the other person moves one level deeper. How did the brain develop? Repeat s necessary. Eventually you will get to a stage where you must say "We don't know". IMO it's much better for one's credibility to say "I don't know" than to try and hand-wave an answer, and pretend to know more than one actually does.

 

Precisely. If a scientist (or science communicator) gets all hand-wavy it just gives anti-science people credibility and legitimacy to their data-free approaches.

[too-open-minded]

I understand the opposing argument, creationists will ask down to the point where we have to say "I don't know." My argument is why should we give them just that? Why should we give them what they want to hear? We may not entirely know, but we sure as hell know more than nothing. We know enough to put up an argument, in my opinion that is.

 

Side note - and if they really have to ask, how did the brain develop? Say - "I don't know, but it looks to me like your god created something called evolution. Maybe you should ask him."

Edited June 25, 2014 by too-open-minded

[swansont]

I understand the opposing argument, creationists will ask down to the point where we have to say "I don't know." My argument is why should we give them just that?

 

Because once we cede the intellectual honesty high ground, we can't legitimately complain about their intellectual dishonesty.

[too-open-minded]

How is that ceding intellectual honesty high ground?

 

Our debates, controversies, discrepancies, entirety of not seeing eye to eye with people like creationists isn't something we can dance around. Expecting them to play our game of facts and logic, thus educating them. I don't think it's going to work that way. In the tense that debate was in, neither side gets no where with both sides being sure they won.

 

All I'm saying is arguments along the lines of - "Well if your god created everything he had to have a way to do it, not just out of thin air. Can we agree that he had to have mechanics to do it, you believe in atoms, why is consciousness coming from the brain such a crazy notion?"

 

One thing to take into consideration, we're not debating someone who isn't intelligent. If you ask me people who are die-hard religious bible thumpers, are more scared of ceasing to exist. This is all they have in their head and it's more of a psychological factor. That's just me though, maybe I'm wrong

 

Bottom line though, how does an argument along the lines of which I'm speaking, how does that cede intellectually honest high ground and lead to a path of intellectual dishonesty?

[swansont]

How is that ceding intellectual honesty high ground?

 

Our debates, controversies, discrepancies, entirety of not seeing eye to eye with people like creationists isn't something we can dance around. Expecting them to play our game of facts and logic, thus educating them. I don't think it's going to work that way. In the tense that debate was in, neither side gets no where with both sides being sure they won.

 

All I'm saying is arguments along the lines of - "Well if your god created everything he had to have a way to do it, not just out of thin air. Can we agree that he had to have mechanics to do it, you believe in atoms, why is consciousness coming from the brain such a crazy notion?"

 

One thing to take into consideration, we're not debating someone who isn't intelligent. If you ask me people who are die-hard religious bible thumpers, are more scared of ceasing to exist. This is all they have in their head and it's more of a psychological factor. That's just me though, maybe I'm wrong

 

Bottom line though, how does an argument along the lines of which I'm speaking, how does that cede intellectually honest high ground and lead to a path of intellectual dishonesty?

 

Claiming we know something that we don't is intellectually dishonest IMO. It's exactly what the creationists do when they invoke a goddidit answer. Answering the question under scrutiny with "it's the brain" is so simplistic that I'd feel patronized had I asked the question — of course it's the brain — and insulting peoples' intelligence is IMO not a good tactic. So all you would succeed in doing is delaying the question where you have to answer "We don't know" by one (the unit here is turtles, BTW) and you risk coming off as a dick in the process.

 

In the long term, credibility is stronger when you admit what you don't know rather than bluff and eventually be called on it. It improves the odds someone will trust you when you do have an answer.

 

Also, one has to consider that this was a debate, which means there is a finite amount of time allowed to respond. I didn't watch it, but there's the possibility that a long-winded answer that ended up at the same place (we don't know) would have denied him time to explain something else that we do know.

[too-open-minded]

I understand completely what you're saying. However I don't think saying "We don't know" is better than saying "We aren't entirely sure but....." To me, saying we don't know is giving them, the whole "Well the only explanation then is god."

 

If we tell them it's from the brain, that's not insulting their intelligence. Maybe even a compromise could be made. One being something like, "if god is responsible for consciousness he needs to have a mechanism in our natural world to cause this. That mechanism being neuronal function in the brain. I would assume god created atoms, photons, and molecules for the same reasons."

 

I just can't personally accept "We don't know." Because we do know a little more than none, as don't implies.

[Deepak Kapur]

We can also say to them, ' If your god did it, he also 'needs explanation regarding his existence'.

 

They aren't able to answer such questions....rather than saying that he was always there......and this is no explanation whatsoever.