The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[Age]

Terminal Feedback Theory: Why Consciousness Arises Where Sensory Feedback Ends

It’s often said that the brain is “just another organ,” yet there’s a crucial asymmetry that might explain consciousness itself: unlike the rest of the body, the brain receives no sensory feedback about itself. If you injure your leg, your brain registers the location and quality of pain — but if you injure your brain, there’s no equivalent feeling of brain pain (the tissue has no nociceptors).

This absence of self-sensation could be more than an anatomical curiosity. It might mark the point where the chain of feedback terminates — where the system can no longer model itself as an object. Consciousness, then, could arise precisely because the brain has no external or higher-order feedback: it is forced to model itself as subject, not as body part.

I could not help but notice the author's use of the words "might"...

(as in "...there’s a crucial asymmetry that might explain consciousness itself...")

...and "could"...

(as in "...This absence of self-sensation could be more than an anatomical curiosity..."

In other words, the author of the above claim (Antonio Damasio) offers absolutely nothing other than the equivalent of "educated guesses" that provide not the slightest clue as to how consciousness could have emerged from the non-conscious constituents that form the structural matter of the brain.

All he is showing is how the ubiquitous network of the body's nervous system of which the nociceptors are a part of...

(a network that allows the consciousness of the "I Am-ness" to extend outward from itself and into the fabric of the body in order to take control of the body's musculature, while at the same time allowing the "I Am-ness" [not the brain] to sense the overall well-being of the body)

...simply doesn't extend into the material fabric of the brain itself.

To which I say: "so what?"

Again, none of that offers any irrefutable explanation as to how consciousness emerges from non-conscious matter.

And that, my dear Belinda, is where we cross over into the territory where looms the unresolved conjecture and mystery surrounding what is known as "strong emergence" of which consciousness seems to be a product of, as opposed to the less mysterious "weak emergence."

With another one of those "mights" included in his claim, Damasio goes on to say...

The brain might be conscious precisely because it can’t feel itself.

Well, there you go.... case closed!

By that reasoning you are conscious because your nervous system does not extend into the tree outside your window or into the core of the sun.

I realize that I too am just guessing when it comes to these mysterious matters, and I will never deny the possibility of my guesses being wrong.

Nevertheless, one of my strongest guesses is that it is the mind's "I Am-ness" that is conscious, not the brain.

Again, you and Hume...

(and now this "active clinician and psychiatrist" [Antonio Damasio] you've cited in this recent post)

...have got things backwards.
_______

No theory is 100% proved to be true. A theory supported by neuroscience is more probable than a theory supported by metaphysical suppositions.
(Seeds. you do realise in rebutting both David Hume and Antonio Damasio et al you have hard nut to crack?)

Compared with our resident evangelical whose reasoning is unhistorical, your reasoning is unscientific.

The theory I tried to explain to you is not strong or weak emergence , i.e. the mind emerging from extended matter.
The theory I tried to explain to you is one of mind and extension as aspects of the same which we call brainmind.

Once again 'we' have more examples, and thus further proof, that 'these people', 'back them', really did much prefer to 'look at' and 'focus on' theories, instead of what is actually True, and Right, in Life.

Which, again, shows and explains why 'they' took so long to 'catch up'.

[Will Bouwman]

Can you explain why you think I therefore suppose "all hypotheses explain the same evidence "?

I'll tell you what induced me to suppose that. You can't even name the evidence that you think counts for Idealism.

You don't appear to understand idealism. Here's how Wikipedia describes it:

Idealism in philosophy, also known as philosophical idealism or metaphysical idealism, is the set of metaphysical perspectives asserting that, most fundamentally, reality is equivalent to mind, spirit, or consciousness; that reality or truth is entirely a mental construct; or that ideas are the highest type of reality or have the greatest claim to being considered "real".[1][2] Because there are different types of idealism, it is difficult to define the term uniformly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

Idealism, realism, dualism, epiphenomenalism, even theism and a bunch of other isms, are all different interpretations of the same evidence of an external universe.

Therefore, it looks as if you don't think evidence is "evidence for" Idealism.

No more than any other ism that is consistent with the evidence.

You must suppose all "evidence" relevant to the case is simply ambiguous, therefore.

It is. That doesn't mean "all hypotheses explain the same evidence ".

[Immanuel Can]

Can you explain why you think I therefore suppose "all hypotheses explain the same evidence "?

I'll tell you what induced me to suppose that. You can't even name the evidence that you think counts for Idealism.

You don't appear to understand idealism.

I do. All I'm asking for is the evidence that turns it from "just another imagining" into a credible challenge to Realism. And you keep not providing even one iota of such evidence.

You say that the "evidence" is "the same" as for anything else, the whole "external universe," you say -- which means that nothing is "evidence for" Idealism. That is, you're admitting that nothing makes it preferable to any other hypothesis. And I'm saying it doesn't even have THAT much going for it, since Common Sense Realism of some kind is where everybody starts, and what everybody already assumes before speculation enters.

You can be an Idealist if you want, of course; yet you're saying that you have no basis to commend it as even a minor concern to anybody else. So again, I think we have no reason to take your objection of Idealism as serious. And it certainly constitutes no objection to the infinite regress problem, which is why, I think, you raised it in the first place.

Unless you've got specific evidence for Idealism, and evidence that counts against all alternate speculations, as well as against Realism, that's the bottom line on that.

[Will Bouwman]

You don't appear to understand idealism.

I do. All I'm asking for is the evidence that turns it from "just another imagining" into a credible challenge to Realism.

If you understood idealism then you would understand that while it is true that it offers no credible challenge to realism, realism offers no credible challenge to idealism.

You say that the "evidence" is "the same" as for anything else, the whole "external universe," you say -- which means that nothing is "evidence for" Idealism. That is, you're admitting that nothing makes it preferable to any other hypothesis.

Exactly.

And I'm saying it doesn't even have THAT much going for it, since Common Sense Realism of some kind is where everybody starts, and what everybody already assumes before speculation enters.

Right, and the alternative name for that position is naïve realism, because reality is not as simple as children take it to be.

[Immanuel Can]

You don't appear to understand idealism.

I do. All I'm asking for is the evidence that turns it from "just another imagining" into a credible challenge to Realism.

If you understood idealism

The problem's not my understanding of Idealism; it's your lack of evidence.

You say that the "evidence" is "the same" as for anything else, the whole "external universe," you say -- which means that nothing is "evidence for" Idealism. That is, you're admitting that nothing makes it preferable to any other hypothesis.

Exactly.

Then Idealism is nothing serious.

[Age]

I'll tell you what induced me to suppose that. You can't even name the evidence that you think counts for Idealism.

You don't appear to understand idealism.

I do.

But you do not. Why do you keep claiming things that are completely untrue?

All I'm asking for is the evidence that turns it from "just another imagining" into a credible challenge to Realism. And you keep not providing even one iota of such evidence.

If you are asked to provide the evidence that turns 'realism' from 'just another imagining' into a credible challenge to 'idealism', then will you?

If no, then why not, exactly?

You say that the "evidence" is "the same" as for anything else, the whole "external universe," you say -- which means that nothing is "evidence for" Idealism. That is, you're admitting that nothing makes it preferable to any other hypothesis. And I'm saying it doesn't even have THAT much going for it, since Common Sense Realism of some kind is where everybody starts, and what everybody already assumes before speculation enters.

And, it is exactly 'this type of distortism' why these people' could never 'catch up'.

You can be an Idealist if you want, of course; yet you're saying that you have no basis to commend it as even a minor concern to anybody else. So again, I think we have no reason to take your objection of Idealism as serious. And it certainly constitutes no objection to the infinite regress problem, which is why, I think, you raised it in the first place.

Unless you've got specific evidence for Idealism, and evidence that counts against all alternate speculations, as well as against Realism, that's the bottom line on that.

And, once again, as can be clearly see, here, 'these people', like "immanuel can", actually believe these 'isms' are real things.

[Age]

I do. All I'm asking for is the evidence that turns it from "just another imagining" into a credible challenge to Realism.

If you understood idealism

The problem's not my understanding of Idealism; it's your lack of evidence.

LOL Again, 'this one' believes, absolutely and 'without a shadow of a doubt', that its own personal usage and understanding of a particular word is the only true and right one in the whole world.

People like 'this one' can not get more closed, and thus not more stupid as well, and is why they say and claims things like a man with a penis created absolute every thing, all at once.

And, funnier and worse, still, they 'try to' fight and argue for those most ridiculous and absolutely nonsensical beliefs of theirs.

You say that the "evidence" is "the same" as for anything else, the whole "external universe," you say -- which means that nothing is "evidence for" Idealism. That is, you're admitting that nothing makes it preferable to any other hypothesis.

Exactly.

Then Idealism is nothing serious.

But, a thing with a penis that creates absolutely every thing is serious, right?

[Will Bouwman]

The problem's not my understanding of Idealism...

I'm afraid it is.

...it's your lack of evidence.

That's the thing you don't understand.

Then Idealism is nothing serious.

Well, it's as serious as realism.

[Belinda]

The problem's not my understanding of Idealism...

I'm afraid it is.

...it's your lack of evidence.

That's the thing you don't understand.

Then Idealism is nothing serious.

Well, it's as serious as realism.

Immanuel. Do you understand scepticism? If so you may then see that idealism is more sceptical than materialism.
From your point of view as a believer in God there may be unpleasant issues from idealism. This problem was settled by Liebnitz---pre-established harmony, and by Malebranche---occasionalism.

[Immanuel Can]

The problem's not my understanding of Idealism...

I'm afraid it is.

Fear not. Fear only that you have no evidence for Idealism.

But it's a moot point, anyway. Idealism is not capable of being an objection to the infinite regress problem, even were there any evidence for Idealism. It's a mere non-sequitur to suppose mathematical demonstrations can be refuted by a speculative epistemology. It's a category error. It's like trying to refute pythagorean theorem with reference to the availability of watermelons.

[Immanuel Can]

The problem's not my understanding of Idealism...

I'm afraid it is.

...it's your lack of evidence.

That's the thing you don't understand.

Then Idealism is nothing serious.

Well, it's as serious as realism.

Immanuel. Do you understand scepticism?

I'm seriously skeptical that you do, if that's what you mean.

idealism is more sceptical than materialism.

You've missed your own point.

"Skeptical" of what? Answer that, and you'll see why Idealism isn't a default position, and why it requires its own evidence.

[MikeNovack]

I have been keeping out of this BUT .....

What would be the best book on Christianity for an atheist?

One with the valid proof that god does not exist.

The MAIN reason why keeping out of it ........ proving the Christian God does not exist is not the same as proving "no God exists". In other word, the title of this topic ridiculous. However it is not uncommon for people to consider themselves "atheist" because they have come to disbelieve that some god claimed to be the only god does not exist << they haven't even begun to consider other conceptions of deity >>

But the response --- You can't prove that something doesn't exist. That's the whole point.
That is also nonsense. Have you never gotten far enough along in mathematics to encounter non-existence proofs? Essentially you proceed be showing assumption of existence leads to a contradiction.

In the case of "a god with properties x, y, and z does not exist" we would begin assuming presence, therefore having properties x, y, and z, and that this leads to a contradiction (x, y, and z together are inconsistent).

[seeds]

No theory is 100% proved to be true. A theory supported by neuroscience is more probable than a theory supported by metaphysical suppositions.
(Seeds. you do realise in rebutting both David Hume and Antonio Damasio et al you have hard nut to crack?)

The only nut (or shell) that is hard to crack around here is the one that surrounds minds such as yours in an opaque casing that prevents you from realizing that all of the material sciences (which includes neuroscience) only concern themselves with the "superficial veneer" of what we call "objective reality" of which science itself has pretty much revealed to be nothing more than a holographic-like ("dream-like") illusion.

In other words, even though science has been studying the fabric of this grand "illusion" until the cows have finally come home, absolutely nothing in the scientific process of dissecting matter has yielded the slightest clue as to how the illusion (and especially mind and consciousness) came into existence.

The irony in your complaint is that it is science itself (more specifically, quantum theory) that has led us to look to (or at least be open to) "metaphysical suppositions" to answer the questions that cannot be answered in the study of matter.

Compared with our resident evangelical whose reasoning is unhistorical, your reasoning is unscientific.

As I pointed out to you several months ago...

I have gone to great lengths to support my theory with scientific evidence.

Indeed, even a judge in the Writer's Digest, 16th Annual International Self-Published Book Awards contest had this to say about my book (emphasis mine)...

"...The Ultimate Seeds: An Illustrated Guide to The Secret of the Universe is, first and foremost, an astonishingly ambitious book. In this work, the author sets forth an entirely new mythology, one that is equal parts scientific and mystical..."

And as I stated back then, I simply can't help it if you are incapable of comprehending how certain scientific theories...

(again, more specifically, the theories emerging from quantum physics)

...support my claims.

The theory I tried to explain to you is not strong or weak emergence , i.e. the mind emerging from extended matter.

The theory I tried to explain to you is one of mind and extension as aspects of the same which we call brainmind.

Yes, I understand that, Belinda.

And what I tried to explain to you is how none of what you tried to explain to me truly resolves the mystery of how consciousness emerges from non-conscious matter, which, again, in modern philosophical parlance is better known as the "Hard Problem of Consciousness" as is described by Google's AI Overview (emphasis mine)...

The "Hard Problem of Consciousness" is the question of why and how physical brain processes give rise to subjective, conscious experiences, such as the feeling of seeing the color red or the pain of a stubbed toe. It's considered "hard" because even if we could completely map out all the neural activity in a brain, it wouldn't seem to logically explain the experience of what it is like to be that person.

_______

[promethean75]

"all of the material sciences (which includes neuroscience) only concern themselves with the "superficial veneer" of what we call "objective reality" of which science itself has pretty much revealed to be nothing more than a holographic-like ("dream-like") illusion."

That may be true, but your problem remains nonetheless. If you ever thought you did obtain objective truth about reality, how else would that have been done other than scientifically?

That old canard that science proceeds through a series of failed paradigms and, therefore, is illegitimate doesn't help a philosopher's case at all.

[Belinda]

I'm afraid it is.

That's the thing you don't understand.
Well, it's as serious as realism.

Immanuel. Do you understand scepticism?

I'm seriously skeptical that you do, if that's what you mean.

idealism is more sceptical than materialism.

You've missed your own point.

"Skeptical" of what? Answer that, and you'll see why Idealism isn't a default position, and why it requires its own evidence.

Scepticism about one's own perceptions. One's own perceptions can be misleading. Evidence based on one's own perceptions may mislead one.