Application for a Nobel Prize?

[Divine Insight]

Where do I apply for a Nobel Prize?

I just discovered a proof of why no eternal intelligent God can exist.

The proof is actually so simple it's hard to believe that no one saw before me.

Here it is:

Intelligence cannot exist without reliance upon the second law of thermodynamics. Especially if we are defining intelligence as dynamic conscious thought that is capable of memory and making logically reasoned decisions. The ability to do this requires the second law of thermodynamics in order to perform the necessary functions.

Yet if the second law of thermodynamics is in force, then the system must necessarily run down over time and eventually become inactive. In other words, no perpetual motion is permitted in a system where Entropy rules. Therefore any intelligent system cannot be eternal. Thus if an intelligent conscious God exists, it cannot be eternal. Or if an eternal "God" exists it cannot be intelligent or conscious.

Therefore no eternal intelligent conscious God can exist.

This proof already exists in known physics. Nothing new needed to be added.

So this is a universal truth I 'discovered' and not something I 'invented'.

Where do I apply for my Nobel Prize?

[mgb]

You say that "It does not contain the explanation for itself."

The problem is that your proposals don't contain an explanation for themselves either.

That is not a problem for me. I don't expect reality to jump up and explain itself, I have a mind...

What would be the explanation for non-material mind that can magically create a physical world and then explore it using evolved biological robotic humans? Not only this, but then how many of these proposed non-physical minds would their need to be?

I didn't say the world is 'magically' created. I don't know how many minds there are. Why would I have to know that?

You complain that scientists don't have an explanation for how a physical brain can produce a mind yet you have absolutely no explanation for your fantasies either.

Nobody can 'explain' reality in any final way. It is about interpreting the evidence in the most convincing way. It is about conviction, not explanation, as you are using the word.

That's the question that scientists are exploring.

So are others.

What you are proposing is that scientists just give up and toss their hands in the air like you are doing and proclaim that it must be an non-physical pink dust bunny doing it!

I didn't say they should. I said correlation is not necessarily causation. People should be acutely aware of this basic dictum.

pink dust bunny

Who said 'pink bunny dust'? Your arguments are emotionally loaded. You need to be careful with this; emotions won't solve philosophical or scientific questions.

You are far beneath the scientists on this one. There methods have proven to be successful. And the method your are using (pure guessing) had been proven to be quite unproductive and leads to false conclusions far more often than not.

Science is not the only path to knowledge. To argue that it is is scientism. My conclusions are not false.

[Divine Insight]

Nobody can 'explain' reality in any final way. It is about interpreting the evidence in the most convincing way. It is about conviction, not explanation, as you are using the word.

But your convictions are not convincing.

And apparently you are now confessing that you have "no explanation"

Science is not the only path to knowledge. To argue that it is is scientism. My conclusions are not false.

History has proven otherwise.

You said in a reply to DrNOGods.

Two different individuals can look at the same body of evidence (facts) and arrive at different conclusions. So when you say 'there is no evidence for' I disagree; I am looking at the evidence and I conclude that non material mind exists. Someone else might not.

This line of thinking is base on ancient ignorance that has long since been proven to be unproductive and leads to ridiculous and false conclusions.

People used to argue as your are arguing about diseases, and especially mental illness. They proclaimed that it was being caused by demonic possession or angry gods. At the time scientists could not demonstrate otherwise.

However, as science grew science finally was able to demonstrate convincingly the natural causes of these diseases.

So evidence is REAL. It's not open to personal subjective opinion as you claim.

In fact, this is the basis of science. You need to do more than just voice opinions and claim that they have every bit as much merit as scientific truths. That doens't hold any water.

Yet that is precisely what you are doing here.

You may as well be saying that your explanation for human brain activity is "Demonic Possession".

In fact, that's precisely what you are proposing although perhaps without demanding that it's actually "demons" behind the possession.

But this is really all you are doing. You are arguing for ancient superstitious ideas over proven science.

Just because science hasn't yet understood exactly how a brain gives rise to conscious awareness is no justification to be jumping back to the superstitious mentality of the dark ages. We already know that those superstitious guesses don't pan out.

[mgb]

But your convictions are not convincing.

They Are convincing. To me and to others. What is or is not convincing to you is not the final measure of things.

And apparently you are now confessing that you have "no explanation"

That depends on what you mean by 'explanation'. What is energy? Science does not know. What is existence? It does not know.
If any part of reality is to be fully explained all of it must be explained.

History has proven otherwise.

'I think, therefore I am' is not science, it is philosophy.
Knowledge comes through many sources; science cannot tell someone what it is like to jump out of a plane (with or without a parachute). It has to be experienced to be known. Science cannot know what it is like to compose a symphony; it has to be directly experienced to be known. There are many ways to knowledge. It is either narrow minded or arrogant to say 'our way is the only way'.

This line of thinking is base on ancient ignorance that has long since been proven to be unproductive and leads to ridiculous and false conclusions.

That is wrong. What evidence means is often subjective:

Two detectives go to a crime scene-

There is an empty wallet on the floor.
The jewelry box is open and empty.
Valuable paintings are missing...etc.

One detective says 'It is, no doubt, a robbery, plain and simple'.
The other detective says 'No. It is only set up to look like a robbery'.

Which is it? What the evidence means is often subjective.

So evidence is REAL. It's not open to personal subjective opinion as you claim.

That is exactly what I said, all of reality is evidence. I said 'evidence for' is in the understanding.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 91 by mgb]

science cannot tell someone what it is like to jump out of a plane (with or without a parachute). It has to be experienced to be known.

Certainly some aspects of this experience could not be appreciated without actually jumping out of a flying plane at altitude, such as the apprehension one might feel, fear of the parachute not opening (assuming this wasn't a suicide event), etc. But science could certainly accurately describe the physics involved and some of the physical effects that would be experienced related to free falling, wind effects, etc. So for science to weigh in on this you'd have to more precisely define the phrase "what it is like."

Same with some of the other analogies you are making.

Two detectives go to a crime scene-

There is an empty wallet on the floor.
The jewelry box is open and empty.
Valuable paintings are missing...etc.

One detective says 'It is, no doubt, a robbery, plain and simple'.
The other detective says 'No. It is only set up to look like a robbery'.

Which is it? What the evidence means is often subjective.

This is only a description of a possible first impression. In a real scenario the detectives would gather additional evidence, look at timelines, interview potential witnesses, etc. to see if they could resolve the case to a positive conclusion. This is how science also works as far as interpreting evidence. It is not as if some evidence becomes available and different scientists interpret it differently initially, and that is the end of the process. There is far more to it than that, and hypotheses only become theories when analysis of the evidence is exhaustive and repeatable observations and experiments confirm the hypothesis.

Interpretation of evidence isn't a subjective process in real science. We have no theory of dark matter yet because although observations imply its existence, the jury is still out as to what it actually is. The observational evidence is still being assessed by the detectives, and there are different hypotheses floating around. But this doesn't imply that "what the evidence means" is subjective ... it just means there is an open scientific problem that is not yet understood, and more evidence must be gathered before the crime can be solved.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 86 by mgb]

How do you know that? It is no longer connected to the physical world, that is all.

But there is no evidence that a destroyed brain can exhibit consciousness, or any other reason to believe that this is the case. Has there ever been a case where any aspect of a conscious person has survived beyond their death (or destruction of their brain)? I understand that many people believe that this is possible (eg. the concept of afterlives for humans but apparently no other animals). But how can this be shown to actually occur? It is only something that is believed on faith or superstition.

All science has shown is that thoughts are correlated with brain activity, no scientist has been able to show that the brain is the source of thought.

Are you sure of this? A great deal is now known about how the brain works and how memory and thought is managed. But ignoring all of that, a preponderance of the evidence argument would support the conclusion that the brain is the source of consciousness and thought as these have never been shown to exist separate from a functioning brain. Even if we can't write down every mechanistic detail in terms of the chemistry and electrical signaling etc., it is an observational fact that consciousness and thought for any single individual ceases to exist when that individual dies (or their brain is destroyed).

Postulating that there is some supernatural dimension is fine, but this has no support in terms of observation or evidence and so should be weighed far less than the hypothesis that consciousness is simply an emergent property of the brain, which is consistent with what can be observed in the real world.

[mgb]

Certainly some aspects of this experience could not be appreciated without actually jumping out of a flying plane at altitude, such as the apprehension one might feel, fear of the parachute not opening (assuming this wasn't a suicide event), etc. But science could certainly accurately describe the physics involved and some of the physical effects that would be experienced related to free falling, wind effects, etc. So for science to weigh in on this you'd have to more precisely define the phrase "what it is like."

The point I'm making is that abstract, intellectual knowledge is only one kind of knowledge. There are other means to knowledge and understanding. In the natural world animals have a keen sense of smell and they live in a world of smell that humans can't access. Theists argue that understanding can come directly from another mind; it can literally alight on the mind fully formed. One can know by consciousness. It is possible for the mind to see. You don't believe this, but it is true.

This is only a description of a possible first impression. In a real scenario the detectives would gather additional evidence, look at timelines, interview potential witnesses, etc. to see if they could resolve the case to a positive conclusion.

Yes, but in science and philosophy knowledge is far from complete. All the evidence is not in yet, far from it. That is why theories exist and many theories are based on incomplete evidence, so the jury is still out on many of them. That is the point I'm making.

but this has no support in terms of observation or evidence and so should be weighed far less than the hypothesis that consciousness is simply an emergent property of the brain

That depends on what you mean by 'evidence'. Some people will only accept concrete physical evidence. Others will accept philosophical arguments. What is evidence for one person is not evidence for another.

[Divine Insight]

Yes, but in science and philosophy knowledge is far from complete. All the evidence is not in yet, far from it. That is why theories exist and many theories are based on incomplete evidence, so the jury is still out on many of them. That is the point I'm making.

This is the age-old God-of-the-Gaps argument.

This is no different from saying that science can't rule out the existence of Fairies therefore it's rational to believe that Fairies exist.

It's not.

Moreover, science has already demonstrated that many beliefs of religious superstitions have been totally false.

Surely you aren't going to be arguing for Christianity?

Even Christianity had Jesus believing that diseases were caused by demonic possession. The religious fables even have Jesus casting demons out of the bodies of humans and into a herd of pigs.

We know that these ancient tales are false nonsense based entirely on ignorant superstitions.

Yet here you are trying to argue that because science hasn't yet answered every possible question you can ask that means that it's reasonable to believe in ancient fables that are clearly false.

Sorry, but these kinds of arguments are a waste of everyone's time.

[mgb]

Moreover, science has already demonstrated that many beliefs of religious superstitions have been totally false.

You are picking the most trivial and feeble-minded accretions that religion has picked up along the way and trying to dismiss all religion on this basis. That's like dismissing all science because of phlogiston.

Even Christianity had Jesus believing that diseases were caused by demonic possession...We know that these ancient tales are false nonsense based entirely on ignorant superstitions.

How do we know there are no spirits that can possess human minds?

Yet here you are trying to argue that because science hasn't yet answered every possible question you can ask that means that it's reasonable to believe in ancient fables that are clearly false.

Clearly false? Opinion and clarity are not always the same thing. You are relying too much on heavy rhetoric. I am not saying theism is right because science has not answered everything. I am saying-

1. Theism is right on its own terms.
2. Established scientific fact should not be confused with theory. Theory and theorem are not the same.

[Divine Insight]

1. Theism is right on its own terms.

Christian theology has proven itself to be false without any room for doubt.

That's a dead theology to be certain. The fact that people refuse to let go of it doesn't change a thing.

They are simply making utterly absurd empty arguments in an effort to defend the indefensible.

2. Established scientific fact should not be confused with theory. Theory and theorem are not the same.

A theory is simply an explanation for something. A theory could be true or false.

Many theories (explanations) in science have been verified to be true.

Also science hasn't yet verified that mind is a property of the brain. But what it has verified with complete certainty, is that there is absolutely no evidence (or need) whatsoever to speculate otherwise.

So in order to proclaim that mind is some sort of invisible non-material "spirit" you need to introduce totally uncalled for and utterly absurd postulates that simply aren't remotely required.

And if your reason for doing this is to try to support Hebrew or Christian theology then you're clearly barking up an empty tree because Christian theology has already proven itself to be false as well as having proclaimed obvious lies?

Christian theology has Jesus proclaiming that if you believe in him you will be able to heal sick people by simply laying your hands on them? Can you do that? No, of course you can't.

So the fallacy of this theism is self-exposed.

There is nothing there to appeal to. For you to say that theism is right on its own terms is clearly a false claim.

[Swami]

If the brain is destroyed then so is consciousness / mind. A great deal is known now about how different physical parts of the brain relate to specific cognitive functions. The conclusion that the brain is the source of "mind" is based on a tremendous amount of observation and research into how the brain actually works.

This is one reason why I distinguish Western (materialist) thinking from Eastern thinking. In the West mind and consciousness are conflated but this is not the reality and there is evidence for this point. The mind has to do with cognitive functions and consciousness involves awareness. Therefore, destroying brain or parts of it only affects mind but the person is still alert or aware.

If there were any evidence whatsoever that "mind" is not an emergent property of the brain then this type of argument could be debated along with the obvious conclusion (from observations) that it is. But lacking any such evidence, why venture into such arbitrary and unsupported explanations? They are not necessary to explain observations, and don't seem to have any basis in reality.

This is a clear fundamental difference our views. You claim that to show that the mind is not emergent or material would take showing this "from observations". By that, I assume you mean objective or third-person observations. I believe this can only be shown when you experience it for yourself (trained or critical first-person observations) just like MGB brought up in post #91 regarding sky diving.

What you're not getting DrNoGod is that the evidence you are looking for is YOU. You are consciousness inhabiting a body. When not bound to a body, you are boundless and formless, just like your imagination. Only YOU can experience this. To bring in a Christian element we are without excuse since everyone, including great scientists, have acknowledged that consciousness is the great mystery. No one denies this!

Romans 1:19-21
19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and [g]Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God

"Manifest in them" to me means you are the evidence. The evidence in you is consciousness. God is your consciousness or pure consciousness that pervades all of the Universe.