[marcobiagini]

In the following site I analyze the incongruencies of the materialistic conception of the mind, on the basis of our present scientific knowledges about brain and matter.
This analysis points out how the laws of physics prove that the brain cannot generate consciousness, which existence implies the presence in man of a unbiological/unmaterial element. 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/fede...englishnf.html

Let's discuss my arguments here.

Marco Biagini

Ph.D in Solid State Physics

[tom mccurdy]

If this were true... and you have proved God, then we would really have something now wouldn't you. However considering that you're not on the news right now, I must assume that this is less than definite proof. Although I will eventually have the time to read it through, I will say right now, that I am more or less atheist and am very skeptical of scientific manipulation of facts in the quest to prove the existance of god. I will return when I have read it and am prepared to discuss.

[ccristi99]

...to save people some time the proof goes like this: "science cannot explain consciousness, therefore there must be a soul". Oh yeah, also all animals are biological robots.

I'm afraid no amount of wishful thinking can turn Pinocchio into a real boy...

[tom mccurdy]

Wow, this guy seems to have almost no idea what he's talking about.
Quote:
Every materialistic attempt to explain the existence of consciousness implies that what suffers, loves, desires, feels etc. in us are objects such as electrons or electromagnetic fields. The point is that objects can feel nothing at all; objects cannot feel happiness, sadness, love, anger,self-awareness, etc. Science has proved that the equations of the electromagnetic field are universal; they describe the electromagnetic field within our brain as well as within a copper wire or an atom. There is no trace of consciousness, sensations, emotions, etc. in the equations of physics. These equations do not explain the existence of consciousness and our capacity to feel. If one hypothesizes that the electromagnetic fields are responsible of our sensations, emotions and thoughts, the only logical conclusion would be that also our television, our washing machine, etc. sometimes would be happy or depressed.

That's a bit like saying because electrical impulses are responsible for the movements of our legs, that washing machines should be able to run, so electrical impulses can't be responsible for the movement of our legs. Geez. This guy is completely ignoring the relevance of organization of particles and the resulting emergent traits of groups of particles. Washing machines and televisions perform different functions not because they're made of different particles, but because the particles they are made of are arranged differently.
Quote:
To ascribe to the electrons in our brain the property to generate consciousness, and not to ascribe the same property to the electrons moving in a bulb, is in contradiction with one of the fundamental principle of physics, the Pauli Exclusion Principle, which establishes that all electrons are equal and indistinguishable, that is they have all exactly the same properties.

The Pauli Exclusion Principle states that no two particles of half-integer spin within a single atom can have the same quantum numbers. What the heck is this guy talking about?
Quote:
On the other hand, consciousness transcends the laws of physics and cannot then be considered the product of biological and cerebral processes.

He might very well be right about this, but he certainly has no way to be as sure as he seems to think he is. If it was that cut and dry that consciousness is contracausal, then we wouldn't have much of a debate, would we?
Quote:
A phenomenological theory is only an approximated and simplified version of a first-principle theory, that represents the exact explanation of natural phenomena. Biology and neurology are examples of phenomenological theories, while physics is the only first-principle theory, from which all the other natural sciences derive. Of course, since first principle calculations are very lengthy and arduous, we need also simplified theories in order to treat more easily systems formed by many atoms.

It might be pointed out that QED is the closest thing we currently have to a "first-principle" theory and that even the rest of physics is ultimately derived from it. If we discover the TOE, then that will become the only "first-principle" theory. There is no reason here to assign any heightened importance to all of physics.
Quote:
We do not know yet the exact successions of chemical reactions occurring in all biological processes, and biology has the task to discover these successions; however, exactly as in the case of the combination lock, the laws of physics establish that no successions of chemical reactions can generate consciousness, sensations, emotions or thoughts. Hence, a non-physical element (the soul) must exist as the source of our consciousness and our psychical life.

I would like to see the law of physics that states consciousness cannot possibly be generated from successions of chemical reactions. He again seems to be denying that any emergent properties exist, which clearly is not true.
Quote:
The laws generating all chemical, biological, neurological processes are now perfectly known.

Well, unless he uncovered the TOE and neglected to tell, this simply isn't true.
Quote:
Today we are able to do first-principle calculations for molecular systems formed by many atoms; this means that we can calculate the solutions of the equations of quantum physics also for macroscopic systems. The point is that we already know what KIND of information we can get from a first-principle calculation for every possible molecular system. In fact from the solution of the Schroedinger equation for a molecular system we know that we can obtain information such as charge distributions or energy spectra. By no means we can obtain consciousness, emotions, feelings, etc. These are not possible outputs of a first-principle calculation. Even if we had a supercomputer with the capacity to find the wave function for our brain, we could find from the wave function only properties such as charge density or energy spectra.

Well now Mister, you couldn't generate language, gender, culture, the final scores of college football games, and a score of other things that without question have a physical origin. The fact that he thinks this is somehow of significance is laughable.
__________________

[tom mccurdy]

Originally Posted by loseyourname I found a little snippet from a book last night that is particularly relevant to this topic: The fundamental principle is deadly simply, but at the same time almost endlessly versatile. Increased complexity will essentially be a matter of adding components of the same basic type; the neurons in a flatworm and the neurons in a human brain work on the same fundamental principles. From which it does not follow, however, that the capacities of the human brain are essentially just those of a densely packed conglomeration of flatworm ganglia. The marvelous thing about electrical circuits is that adding components is not merely a matter of enlarging the system, but sometimes means changing the systems's capacities in novel and remarkable ways. In particular, the evolutionary step that interposes neurons between sensory neurons and motor neurons is revolutionary: it permits the building-in of a basic world-representation, and it can provide for increasingly fancy updating of that world-representation through learning. As the interneuron pool proliferates under evolutionary pressure for more competitive sensorimotor coordination, the innate world-representation improves and the dimensions of plasticitiy ramify. Neurophilosophy, Patricia Smith Churchland

www.physicsforums.com

[tom mccurdy]

www.physicsforums.com

Originally Posted by Wave's_Hand_Particle There can be no doubt that consciousness is widespread throughout 'all' living things. Just what level of consciousness exists within the brain of a Dolphin for instance?..the brain size and construction are very similar to Human brain make-up. Just what a Dolphin make's of say..the Physics Forum I do not know I have seen documented evidence of Dolphins being video taped live, and their images sent to an underwater Television monitor. The Dolphins appeared to recocnize each other upon the monitor( monitor was below water at one end of the pool, and camera was one the surface at the other). The Dolphins actually took it in turns to go and look into the camera, whilst the rest of them watched TV! I do not foresee the day just yet, that Dolphins start ordering TV dinners! I think conscious awareness is ill defined. Soul awareness can be attributted to the self through 'ego' and there is evidence that one's ego can invoke an higher opinion of worth, above others? I am not saying that 'souls' do not exist, there is lots of evidence, that lots of people subscribe to this line of thought, it exists in the mind of those who prefer certain answers to certain questions?

[PROFET]

marco,

What you wrote was pure genius. There it is, proof, that god exists, not to me, I only need faith, but to other people.

Have faith
alex

[Guille]

Originally Posted by PROFET marco, what you wrote was pure genius there it is , prove, that god existst, not to me, i only need faith, but to other people. have faith alex

Profet, this kind of thing is what I dislike in you in the forum. Most of my friends in toe quest are theist, or beleive in god. I admit it when they have something writ,e either about god or not. I agree with their theories when i think they are right... But you, you just agree, in avery dislikefull manner, with all of those who beleive in god and say something in favor of him/it. The proofs in that webpage are absolute rabish, and even my cousine, Mauro, who you well know, and is only 8 (nearly 9) years old, could proof them wrong. Don't lower your until-know good thinking level, I liked it.

[enton]

Originally Posted by marcobiagini In the following site I analyse the incongruencies of the materialistic conception of the mind, on the basis of our present scientific knowledges about brain and matter. This analysis points out how the laws of physics prove that the brain cannot generate consciousness, which existence implies the presence in man of a unbiological/unmaterial element. 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/fede...englishnf.html Let's discuss my arguments here. Marco Biagini Ph.D in Solid State Physics

As a christian I am particularly interested to shar with you the Biblical explanation of the existence of souls. Christians are not worried about the exposition of science inasmuch as for us, science do help in proving the existence of God. Now regarding souls. Souls are often mentioned in the Bible as separate from spirits. Likewise, it is manifested clearly that a human being is composed of three: body, soul and spirit. Literally speaking, body is this flesh, posture and visible figure that move. Spirit is the continuous breath we exhale and inhale. Now soul? That's the main question. Soul is the entire body and spirit together with works, desires, thoughts and movements. But only the flesh or the body of a person dies or can be killed. The soul and spirit cannot die naturally or cannot be killed by men, only the God of spirits can kill these two components of a human being.

[enton]

Originally Posted by PROFET marco, what you wrote was pure genius there it is , prove, that god existst, not to me, i only need faith, but to other people. have faith alex

According to Hebrews 11:1 of the King James Version of the Bible, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."