Viruses: Created, Evolved, or Both?

[Data]

I'm somewhat more conversant on the subject than evolution and I thought this was an interesting question from an atheist vs theist perspective. Did God create viruses or did they evolve. My position is both. God created them and in the microevolutionary sense they evolved.

[Clownboat]

mgb: I gave you the example of 'round' concerning a coin. The property 'round' is perfectly identified with the atomic substance of the coin.

There is nothing to respond to here.

Where did I say coins are round? For my analogy to be relevant - and logical - it is only necessary for there to be one coin with the property 'round'. If you read what I said it referred to a coin.

Neato! I acknowledge that coins come in all sorts of shapes.
What are your thoughts on our minds emerging from a brain that is functioning correctly?

I never said you don't understand your own position. I said your concept of how the mind can be an 'emergent property' is vague. It cannot be otherwise because the whole concept, even in science, is highly conjectural.

Phew! Glad that is cleared up!
What are your thoughts on our minds emerging from a brain that is functioning correctly?

[mgb]

mgb: I gave you the example of 'round' concerning a coin. The property 'round' is perfectly identified with the atomic substance of the coin.

There is nothing to respond to here.

There is plenty to respond to. I put it to you that a property (specifically mind as an emergent property) must be identified with its supporting substance. This means that the mind, because it has permanent/stable attributes, like the ability to reason, would have to be identified with the brain itself. That is, the mind's attributes, like the ability to reason, would have to be hard wired into the brain. My objection is that I don't believe this could be achieved with the mechanisms of evolution that science has thus far presented. As I said, the ability to reason is a profound attribute of the mind and I don't believe it can be constructed by willy-nilly by mutations, adaptation, etc. as presented in science.

[Clownboat]

Ok, it is the power...
This power is quite general in terms of the mind's abilities. It is not an ephemeral thing, it is general and applies to many particular situations. As such it has a degree of permanency. That is, it endures from one day to the next. From one year to the next. Logic is always logic so the ability to be logical would have to be a more or less permanent fixture in the mind. So, how can this ability be fixed in the mind? How can it be carried forward through time? The only way I could understand this - in your scheme of things - is that it is 'permanently' built into the physical structure of the brain. I don't see how it could be preserved in the 'chemical reactions' which you mentioned. These reactions would be too volatile and transient to preserve something as complex and general as the power of reason. So, where in the brain/mind is this power situated? You already answered this with-

Thank you for displaying your ignorance on the matter. I don't see anything worthy of a response, but if I missed something impactful, please ask.

So, I can't see how the power of reason could be permanently embedded in mind if this is how you define mind.
Nor do I see how an emerging mind could acquire the power of reason.

More of the same...

The ability to reason is an awesome power.

Reason is defined, therefore please don't use the word 'power' if what you mean to convey to the rest of us 'to reason'. So much ignorance is on display here that it makes having a discussion really hard. You 'don't know', you 'can't understand', 'how can'... is just ignorance, but what's worse is that you then use improper words on top of the ignorance you are bringing. In this post, you bring up 'power'. What word do you really mean and why are you not using the correct word?

By what means is it conferred upon the mind, as you define mind?

You need to define 'it' for me. What is this 'it' (what word should you have used) that you now claim is being bestowed upon our minds?
My position is that we confer the word 'mind' as a concept onto what we see emerges from our functioning brains. I wonder if you have a better explanation, but you don't seem to.
If you don't have your own position, just say so, but I don't need to know about all the things you don't understand or can't comprehend to be honest with you. If your position is just one of ignorance, that is not interesting. If however, you have a what seems to be valid position about where our minds come from, that would be interesting to hear.

You said the mind is a concept so how is a concept imbued with the power of reason?

I hope you are beginning to see that all you are offering and informing us is that there is much about this topic you are ignorant of. I acknowledge this and am not here to supply you with an education. I had hoped you might offer something else valid for us to consider, but sadly, you seem to have only ignorance to offer as demonstrated in the last two posts.

You said the mind is chemical reactions so how are they given the power of reason?

More of the same.

Feel free to investigate though. Here is somewhere for you to start if you really care:
our thoughts, feelings, and actions are determined by the complex, long-distance integration of localised processes, which are created by specialised populations of cells connected to other regions that each perform different functions.
https://researchoutreach.org/articles/e ... ew-theory/

My explanation, which is the only one supplied so far is the default winning explanation. Even if there are things you can't fathom or are ignorant about. If you have a mechanism to propose that you feel better explains where the 'mind' comes from, I'm happy to hear it and compare.

[Clownboat]

There is plenty to respond to. I put it to you that a property (specifically mind as an emergent property) must be identified with its supporting substance. This means that the mind, because it has permanent/stable attributes, like the ability to reason, would have to be identified with the brain itself.

What you say is false.
Our minds are NOT permanent and I have already explained this and why. Again, drugs and damage to our brains DOES affect our minds. Therefore, our minds are not permanent nor are they stable. Our ability to reason does take place in our brains though.

That is, the mind's attributes, like the ability to reason, would have to be hard wired into the brain.

I don't see why this claim would be true. What attributes do you claim are hard wired into the brain and what do YOU MEAN when you say they are hard wired?

My objection is that I don't believe

Now we can add 'I don't believe' on top of the 'how can' and 'where from' and all the other ignorance's supplied so far.

As I said, the ability to reason is a profound attribute of the mind and I don't believe it can be constructed by willy-nilly by mutations, adaptation, etc. as presented in science.

I acknowledge that you don't believe what is currently the best explanation. This is not interesting.

[mgb]

Reason is defined, therefore please don't use the word 'power' if what you mean to convey to the rest of us 'to reason'. So much ignorance is on display here that it makes having a discussion really hard.

You also said:

It [reason] is the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic. This seems to take place in our minds that seem to be an emergent property of functioning brains. Even in animals I note. (Emphasis mine)

You contradict yourself. Is it a power or not? Methinks you are playing semantics.

Our minds are NOT permanent and I have already explained this and why. Again, drugs and damage to our brains DOES affect our minds. Therefore, our minds are not permanent nor are they stable. Our ability to reason does take place in our brains though.

I have explained twice what I mean by 'permanent' in the context of the discussion.

Meaning of permanent in English

permanent
adjective

uk /ˈpɜː.mə.nənt/ us /ˈpɝː.mə.nənt/

lasting for a long time or for ever:
She is looking for a permanent place to stay.
Are you looking for a temporary or a permanent job?
The disease can cause permanent damage to the brain.
A semi-permanent hair dye will wash out after about three months.
He entered the United States in 1988 as a permanent resident because of his marriage to a U.S. citizen.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... /permanent

Something that lasts 'for a long time' But you would rather split hairs over semantics than make an effort to engage with the simplest explanations.
For the third time; the point I am making is that a mental power, or ability, such as reason or logic, must be stable or permanent or semi permanent if it is to last for the guts of a lifetime. I ask you, how is this ability preserved over time? You are so distracted with calling me ignorant you can't pay attention long enough to understand simple questions.

I don't see why this claim would be true. What attributes do you claim are hard wired into the brain and what do YOU MEAN when you say they are hard wired?

I am saying that I don't see how any ability can be consistent over time unless there is some kind of physical permanency in its constitution.
If, in your scheme of things, this is not a permanent physical coding/hard wiring what is it?

My position is that we confer the word 'mind' as a concept onto what we see emerges from our functioning brains. I wonder if you have a better explanation, but you don't seem to.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Science has not provided extraordinary evidence that a person can be an emergent property of matter.

I had hoped you might offer something else valid for us to consider, but sadly, you seem to have only ignorance to offer as demonstrated in the last two posts.

Science has little to offer that is convincing. There are observations and correlations that can be interpreted in all kinds of ways. If by 'valid for us to consider' you mean a scientific explanation then no, there is none. It is not my ignorance, it is the ignorance of science. I have asked you for evidence that a person can emerge from material reality and you have not provided it. Science only has basic observations and hypothesis that are dependent on the most extreme and biased interpretations of evidence. I respect any scientific evidence that is provided but I do not accept dogmatism and unrestrained speculation.

Here is somewhere for you to start if you really care:
our thoughts, feelings, and actions are determined by the complex, long-distance integration of localised processes, which are created by specialised populations of cells connected to other regions that each perform different functions.
https://researchoutreach.org/articles/e ... ew-theory/

Well, the title is Explaining how the mind works: A new theory. So this is a theory, not established science. It is a wall of words that largely says that when we think our brains are animated. So? When I am thinking, my computer is animated. But I don't believe my computer is thinking. It is processing information like a brain does. Information processing is largely a mechanical procedure. But again, we are dealing here with an outbreak of correlation = causation.

One final point - It said 'A new theory'. How often do these new theories come out? What happened to the old one? Or was there an old one? Will there be a new one by the we/end? The fact that the theories are flying underlines the fact that they just don't know. I've been telling you this for pages at this stage.

[Clownboat]

You also said:

It [reason] is the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic. This seems to take place in our minds that seem to be an emergent property of functioning brains. Even in animals I note. (Emphasis mine)

You contradict yourself. Is it a power or not? Methinks you are playing semantics.

Let's go with it being the power of the mind to think. Therefore, our ability to reason comes from the mind. It seems we are done here.

For the third time; the point I am making is that a mental power, or ability, such as reason or logic, must be stable or permanent or semi permanent if it is to last for the guts of a lifetime.

The ability for our brains to reason is not permanent, nor do our brains have permanence (see damage and drugs to the brain and how that in fact does affect our minds). You can state the above 4 times and you'll be wrong 4 times.

I ask you, how is this ability preserved over time?

It isn't. See drugs, damage and for another example, see Anencephaly. A person born without a brain lacks the ability to reason. This suggest a lack of what we call our minds. This suggests a relationship between our brains and mind, which is what I'm arguing for.

You are so distracted with calling me ignorant you can't pay attention long enough to understand simple questions.

I demonstrated that your replies are ignorant and even bolded it for you to examine for yourself.

I am saying that I don't see how any ability can be consistent over time unless there is some kind of physical permanency in its constitution.

I acknowledge the supplied ignorance (bolded for you again).
Can you see how our minds, meaning our ability to think/reason emerge from a functioning brain though? If not, please inform us as to where you happen to think our minds originate from.

My position is that we confer the word 'mind' as a concept onto what we see emerges from our functioning brains. I wonder if you have a better explanation, but you don't seem to.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

At least I'm supplying a claim and providing justification for them. I'm also open to being shown a better explanation, but don't pretend that you are providing anything. What you are doing is responding with how you don't or how you can't....

Science has not provided extraordinary evidence that a person can be an emergent property of matter.

And therefore I'm open to a better explanation if there is one. Do you have one?

Science has little to offer that is convincing.

Just leaving this one here for all to see. I acknowledge that our best method for determining truths is not convincing to you.

I have asked you for evidence that a person can emerge from material reality and you have not provided it.

You are demonstrably mistaken. Here is just one piece of evidence that I had supplied:
Your brain is a complex organ that regulates everything you do, like your senses, emotions, thoughts, memories, movement and behavior. It even controls body processes you don’t have to think about, like your breathing, body temperature and your heart rate. Everything that makes you uniquely individual comes from your brain.
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/22638-brain

Science only has basic observations and hypothesis that are dependent on the most extreme and biased interpretations of evidence.

You don't seem to like the method we call science. Is this just more complaining about the best we have (like the explanation that our minds emerge from our brains) or do you actually have a better method for arriving at truths?

Well, the title is Explaining how the mind works: A new theory. So this is a theory, not established science.

Tell me you don't understand the scientific method without telling me you don't understand the scientific method!
The theory of gravity is just a theory.
Germ theory is just a theory.
Plate tectonic theory is just a theory.

In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence. (See mgb's use)
But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts.

It is a wall of words that largely says that when we think our brains are animated. So? When I am thinking, my computer is animated. But I don't believe my computer is thinking. It is processing information like a brain does. Information processing is largely a mechanical procedure.

Yes, our brains do process information. Did you have a point though?

One final point - It said 'A new theory'. How often do these new theories come out? What happened to the old one? Or was there an old one? Will there be a new one by the we/end? The fact that the theories are flying underlines the fact that they just don't know. I've been telling you this for pages at this stage.

I have been embarrassed on your behalf for pages now. You display your ignorance for all to see (as demonstrated), you complain about theories as if they are just guesses and what's worst of all, you offer nothing to compare my claim to.

I acknowledge where you have claimed ignorance.
I acknowledge that you don't have anything else to offer up as an explanation to then be compared to my claim.
I acknowledge your seeming confusion about what a scientific theory is and what that actually means.

Do you acknowledge, even if you don't fully understand it, that our minds seem to emerge from our brains? If you do not acknowledge this, then you need to supply what you find to be a better explanation. If you don't, you are literally just complaining about the best explanation we have to date.