Progressives Continue TO TURN On Joe Biden As They Realize He's WORSE THAN TRUMP!
NEXT
What Really Happened at the Capitol Yesterday
Advertisement
LEAVE YOUR COMMENT
LATEST COMMENTS
@marcobiagini1878 Says:
I am a physicist and I will provide solid arguments that prove that consciousness cannot be generated by the brain (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Many argue that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it is possible to show that such hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledges. In fact, it is possible to show that all the examples of emergent properties consists of concepts used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is in itself, which means how the object is independently from our observation.
Let me show this with an example of emergent property, such as the function of a biological organ, like the heart that has the function of pumping blood. Actually, the function of pumping blood is just an abstract concept through which we approximately describe what is really happening, that is billions of linked chemical reactions and moving molecules. In other words, the function of the heart is only a subjective description of the organ from a macroscopic point of view, which neglect many microscopic details. Besides, the concept of pumping is directly connected to the concepts of force and movement, which are fundamental physical properties. Therefore, the function of the heart is not a new real property, but only a conceptual model through which we approximately describe the reality; this means that the function of the heart is just an idea. Emergent properties are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria and from an arbitrary point of view, certain processes or systems; emergent properties are intrinsically subjective, since they are conceptual models based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes; emergent properties consist of ideas through which we describe how the external reality appears to our conscious mind: without a conscious mind, these ideas (= emergent properties) would not exist at all.
Here comes my first argument: arbitrariness, subjectivity, classifications and approximate descriptions, imply the existence of a conscious mind, which can arbitrarily choose a specific point of view and focus on certain aspects while neglecting others. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because consciousenss is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent property. We have then a logical contradiction. Nothing which presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness.
Here comes my second argument: our scientific knowledge shows that brain processes consist of sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes; since consciousness is not a property of ordinary elementary physical processes, then a succession of such processes cannot have cosciousness as a property. In fact we can break down the process and analyze it step by step, and in every step consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes. It must be also understood that considering a group of elementary processes together as a whole is an arbitrary choice. In fact, according to the laws of physics, any number of elementary processes is totally equivalent. We could consider a group of one hundred elementary processes or ten thousand elementary processes, or any other number; this choice is arbitrary and not reducible to the laws of physics. However, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrary choices; therefore consciousness cannot be a property of a sequence of elementary processes as a whole, because such sequence as a whole is only an arbitrary and abstract concept that cannot exist independently of a conscious mind.
Here comes my third argument: It should also be considered that brain processes consist of billions of sequences of elementary processes that take place in different points of the brain; if we attributed to these processes the property of consciousness, we would have to associate with the brain billions of different consciousnesses, that is billions of minds and personalities, each with its own self-awareness and will; this contradicts our direct experience, that is, our awareness of being a single person who is able to control the voluntary movements of his own body with his own will. If cerebral processes are analyzed taking into account the laws of physics, these processes do not identify any unity; this missing unit is the necessarily non-physical element (precisely because it is missing in the brain), the element that interprets the brain processes and generates a unitary conscious state, that is the human mind.
Here comes my forth argument: Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities, does not correspond to the quantum description of brain processes, which instead consist of billions of sequences of elementary incoherent quantum processes. When someone claims that consciousness is a property of the brain, they are implicitly considering the brain as a whole, an entity with its own specific properties, other than the properties of the components. From the physical point of view, the brain is not a whole, because its quantum state is not a coherent state, as in the case of entangled systems; the very fact of speaking of "brain" rather than many cells that have different quantum states, is an arbitrary choice. This is an important aspect, because, as I have said, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness. So, if a system can be considered decomposable and considering it as a whole is an arbitrary choice, then it is inconsistent to assume that such a system can have or generate consciousness, since consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of any arbitrary choice. In other words, to regard consciousness as a property ofthe brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so we must rely only on the laws of physics, without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them; if this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore such property would be nonphysical. Since the interactions between the quantum particles that make up the brain are ordinary interactions, it is not actually possible to define the brain based solely on the laws of physics. The only way to define the brain is to arbitrarily establish that a certain number of particles belong to it and others do not belong to it, but such arbitrariness is not admissible. In fact, the brain is not physically separated from the other organs of the body, with which it interacts, nor is it physically isolated from the external environment, just as it is not isolated from other brains, since we can communicate with other people, and to do so we use physical means, for example acoustic waves or electromagnetic waves (light). The bran is actually an arbitrary set of quantum particles involved in billions of parallel sequences of linked chemical reactions. This necessary arbitrariness in defining what the brain is, is sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics. Besides, since the brain is an arbitrary concept, and consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness, consciousness cannot be a property of the brain. Based on these considerations, we can exclude that consciousness is generated by brain processes or is an emergent property of the brain. Marco Biagini
@leepettey8773 Says:
How can you get any dislikes.? I truly enjoy your chats.
@MatthewChristn Says:
This is so awesome! His words of wisdom and his words of knowledge are so refreshing. 🙂👍
@thorham1346 Says:
This fully grown man doesn't seem to understand the concept of dirty underwear.
@sampotter4455 Says:
Great stuff as usual Dennis!
@michaelanderson4849 Says:
Science doesn't deal with "truths". That's the philosophy department. Perhaps you should read up on the scientific method before lecturing others.
@dontsteponZ Says:
Thank you for all of your inspirational and courageous content!
@SgtD85 Says:
Science = reality, religion = make belive
@somethinggtwo Says:
"neither are we self conscious about animals being naked" *camera pans out to Otto's exposed genitals*😁😂😂
@lou3753 Says:
What I believe people mean when they say “ I believe in science, not God” goes deeper then believing that there is gravity or that water is composed of h20. Jehovahs witnesses refuse to get blood transplants, regardless of what science says. Many Christians completely reject theories of evolution. Loads of Christians refuse to wear masks, rejecting scientific studies. I do believe there are many Christians who are intelligent people who acknowledge these things, but so many people use their religion to justify their extreme beliefs contradicting science.
@SavvySaxy Says:
I agree with this but when I tell people "where do you get your sense of good and evil from" they say evolution. Like they say evolution makes us social beings and therefore not want to kill someone. They say evolution makes us want to be kind to others so that they're kind back. Idk what to say to that.
@tucobakunin8250 Says:
Thousands of scientist said there are health benefits to protesting racism‽
What an idiot...
@ruthhayes2942 Says:
Thank u. U r prayed 🙏4. Blessings Sir. U r correct, regarding children (some 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,) closed up in home schooling & away from other friends, go either bonkers or collapse with in...
Pray 4 the children. Pray for the parents.
"Men give birth" is a lie that us believed by nonsense!!!
From Henderson, NV 89011
@zameelvisharathodi7859 Says:
"Are there religious people who says gravity doesn't exist? Or water is not composed of H2O?"
No but there are religious people who deny evolution, deny that earth is 4.5 billion years old, say that homosexuality is a problem of choice, Prayers can cause events in the world and many such nonsense stuff.
@OjosdeGato339 Says:
Here’s how conditioning works & taking things/images out of context! Example Alien 👽 the definition being much deferent then the image popping into our minds! Definition: noun
a foreigner, especially one who is not a naturalized citizen of the country where they are living.
"an alien" not to be confused with illegal aliens which no longer exist either & perceived aliens who may or may not reside in outer space 🪐 the opposite of ones inner space where ever that is ! Perhaps where I’ll get through to you all, in inner space ! I’m hoping !!!!! Confusing it’s meant to be!
@OjosdeGato339 Says:
I believe Obama gave money to the Wu Hun Lab to produce a stronger Covid Virus 🦠! Fallow that science, Scientists, once again a cure for a creation ! ABC easy as 123 easy as doe Ray me ABC baby you & me ! Science is not good for (ALL OF US ! ) (ALL OF US ) (ALL OF US) add this to the end of your chats Dennis & watch the power grabbed from the fascist! The magic is in ALL OF US what is good & what is Bad for whom? All Of Us !
@OjosdeGato339 Says:
Many times we praise a titanium prosthetic arm or leg , as with many things in our lives , Question who uses more prosthetics then any one else ? We make solutions based on our own creations where as preventative measures would have avoided a unnecessary necessity’ ! I prefer the limbs God gave me !
@jacobdillard8508 Says:
One of the Biggest secular myths:
You can only have one, God or Science.
Let's be clear. If we believe that God created the universe, we must also believe he created science. Science, to the believer, is not an opposing force to God. It is a reflection of God.
@kaysiehesebeck Says:
I live Dennis’s voice
@gregedgerton3390 Says:
No. One enjoys the veracity of the other.
@artcst4446 Says:
I pick science, hundred times. No question about that. Science doesn't require believing, it just is or it isn't. And the beauty of it is that you can test I yourself if you are sceptical. Everything must have an explanation and to describe the phenomenons of the universe it has to be studied using the scientific method. Human behavior has an explanation and can be described scientifically.
@libertywalker680 Says:
Just to clarify, the Bible didn't say "Money is the root of evil." It says: "The LOVE OF MONEY 💰 is the root of evil" etc. An important distinction.
@Awesomeguy-lx5xr Says:
Great points, but...
Evolution
@Awesomeguy-lx5xr Says:
Yes science and religion go hand in hand, for example Charles Darwin, one of the greatest scientist of all time, was christian.
*Objective: survive*
@allieb7321 Says:
Looking through the past and advancement of scientific understanding throughout the ages, I absolutely cannot agree with those who say that faith and science are mutually exclusive. Yes, there are faithful people that reject some scientific facts, but to generalize this to mean ALL peoples of faith (or any selection(s) of faith) is ridiculous.
Even today, we have scientific understanding of space-time dilation and other quantum phenomena. If the data evidence that this can be shown as real and observable to us in our universe, why could the same or a similar effect not be real from the perspective/point of view of God?
To be clear, scientific data evidences that the earth formed over millions of years. But could it be from God’s perspective, the time was interpreted as seven days? Could it be that human understanding, cultural significance, and/or the influence of God’s will to provide understanding; all had a part to play in those written words of Genesis?
We should each be free to believe what we choose to. Belief is a human right. And personally, I believe that the view of science and faith being mutually exclusive is at best hypocritical.
@alejandrogangotena9033 Says:
The problem is not that the 20 year old will die, the problem is they will pass it to their parents and THEY will die.
I have several people I know that had their parents die cause a son or a daughter passed them the disease. In one case, she was forced to go to job otherwise she wouldbe fired, her boss passedher covid and now her dad is dead.
This disease is real, its killing a lot of people, and if you go out cause it wont kill you... you are helping spreadit around.
@naguirre7895 Says:
Science is useful for developing an atomic bomb but science doesn't tell you when to use it. I agree with this statement but religion doesn't tell you when to use it either. Might be because the atomic bomb didn't exist when the bible was written. If we are going to point out the limitations of science, let's point out the limitations of the bible/religion as well, rather then making it sound like religion can answer the question of "when can an atomic bomb can be used?".
@_Abjuranax_ Says:
I was taught to believe in both Science and Religion. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's; Render unto God what is God's.
@bdlightsaber8865 Says:
You say, people who believe in god are not denying science, but anti-vaxxers are mostly people who believe in god and denying the vacin because it is in conflict in what they are believing, so yes you do pick one and for the sake of humanity it is science and not some debunked fairy tale designed by the greedy.
@mk14ist Says:
Many flat out deny the age of the earth and evolution...
@TheCart54321 Says:
I believe god made me so I can enjoy life and have a purpose in it.
I listen to science and reason and learn what works or doesn't so I can help improve everything as a whole.
I will never criticize the man who believes or doesn't believe
But I will criticize the man who preaches out of hate or gain and the man who refuses to acknowledge the science that has allowed us to come this far from caveman
@the_feature_selector859 Says:
Follow the science...I think you’re leaving out CONTEXT.
@jerrodnewsome1495 Says:
Family is the most awarding thing as well as your relationship with Christ.
@MarkkuHanninen Says:
Clothes aren’t intrinsic to human nature, if it were, you wouldn’t different human customs all over the world. They are certainly part of the culture, but cultures change.
@nayanmipun6784 Says:
Disagreed with the nudity issue, people shouldn't go around naked because children are around
@devonmeyers8213 Says:
The argument I believe he is dancing around is concerning evolution as scientific theory. The word “theory” in academia does not mean “guess”. It is based on data collected and researched; studies are then subject to critical peer-review. Anthropology (especially bio-anth) is extremely competitive and mistakes are eagerly pointed out by peers before & after papers are published. The scientific consensus in evolution is due to overwhelming evidence. It is labeled “theory” because there is no possible way to replicate “evolution” considering time restraints.
@devonmeyers8213 Says:
He’s confusing “trust the science” in regards to Covid-19 and the various suggestions/protocols/etc put forth from the CDC & WHO and the false information, conspiracy theories, etc being shared on social media. To my knowledge, God had nothing to say on the matter.
@wardennorth7882 Says:
Yes. yes you do
@dannyturkian9083 Says:
Funny thing, I realized that atheists believe in 7 of the Ten commandments as well as the golden rule and many other thing Christians believe in.
@Deridus Says:
Should we choose? Yes. If we're talking the deity of the Bible, we should definately choose. If it's the deities of the Hindus, we should choose. If it's the "pagan" gods of Pre-Christian Europa, of course we should choose.
None of the deities are true as literally presented. God of the Gaps, indeed. The way Denis equates "Darwinism" is freaking laughable.
@Valdrex Says:
Uh, I know plenty of religious people who don't believe in evolution.
@TheOldMPClub Says:
Gotta love the so-called religious conservatives that never want to hold humanism and the Enlightenment to account for the start of most of this culture.
@PunkProfess0r Says:
Just a suggestion for you Dennis. Please consider getting a drink and keeping your mouth hydrated during your videos...it’s hard for me to listen to people with dry mouths speak. I absolutely love your content...it would help out my ears :)
@gamestv4875 Says:
I choose both. How do you know God didn't use science to create all his work.
I am agnostic by the way.
@cruizerdave Says:
I don’t know Dennis, your buddy there seems to be living his life to its fullest!
@tedbates1236 Says:
I am a certified science apologist with Reasons To Believe. We believe that we have been given two books of revelation 1. God's Word the Bible and 2. God's World creation itself. If these two revelations are from God then they should agree. If it appears that they disagree then it is not the two books of Revelation but the interpretation of one or both and not the revelations themselves. Secular naturalism teaches that life is meaningless, you are an accident. It's survival of the fittest. There is no hope in secular atheistic science. When science is understood correctly it confirms the God of the Bible. I have written a book: Science and the Bible: Evidence for the God of the Bible by Ted Bates. I haven't published it yet but it is finished and I will mail anyone a free copy. My email address is [email protected]. if you give me a mailing address I will mail you a free copy that I have printed out and bound myself. I also have a published book on endtimes Bible Prophecy and if requested I will mail you a free copy of that too.
@matthewwilson6888 Says:
I’m not saying that science completely contradicts god or that it completely rules out the possibility of one, but the same can’t be said when you measure it with a lot of what is said in religious texts, so if I have to trust the scientific method or here say that was written down over 2000 years ago, it’s going to be the former
@howardf5264 Says:
I know I am late to the game, but I need a distraction. I just saw this video and you significantly downplay the conflict between science and many religious fundamentalists. It is not just a 6 day creation, but evolution, which unites all biology; plate tectonics, which is the foundational theory of all geology; and the Big Bang, which is the foundational theory of all astronomy. And this has real world economic impact, such as in petroleum exploration.
Fundamentalists attack the very foundations of science. Each year there are about a dozen anti science bills submitted to state legislatures that attempt to water down teaching of science in public high schools, and to prevent this it takes constant vigilance and promotion of truth and the teaching of unbiased, well-accepted evidence that the universe is ancient and all life evolved from a common ancestor.
@Thundawich Says:
Can I get a citation for the thousands of individual scientists who came out and said that forming large protests wasn't a health risk?
@kgreenup2 Says:
I had followed you for quite a while, then did not. Today I was looking through my watchlist and "revisited" this weekly chat. Thank you for your work, and I see YOU have so much more power in your body and mind. Inspiring!
LATEST COMMENTS