You actually asked for evidence that would demonstrate or suggest this. That’s far more reasonable than evidence to prove it, which is impossible.
Now, if you would be so kind as to list all aspects of the personality in detail, I’m sure that we could show that many of them are controlled by biochemistry, and define a research program to work on the rest. Since I doubt you or anyone else can do that, all we have is a sort of induction, which says that the fact that every aspect we’ve looked at so far is physically determined suggests that all of them are. This is easily falsified by finding one that isn’t, so it is scientific. The strength of this hypothesis has grown over the years as we’ve examined more and more aspects of the brain. We don’t know that there isn’t an antenna with exactly the same functionality as the brain, but the data certainly suggests there isn’t. What evidence do you consider to be good enough to suggest or demonstrate this?
We have lots of evidence that the mind is affected by biochemical interactions. We have no evidence that the mind is affected by any kind of soul or anything like that. Of course that doesn’t prove that there is no soul. But it is implied by Occam’s razor.
And if I had asked for absolute proof, your objection would be reasonable. I did not though. I asked for this supposedly abundant evidence, and I think you know it.
See? This is what happens when you ask for evidence for the grandiose claim that we have plenty of evidence that our personalities can be completely reduced to the chemical processes within our brains. Instead of providing this evidence, we get little responses like “Well, we know that our memory can be affected…” Or worse, you get retorts like “Show me that it isn’t!” or “Proof would be impossible!” or “Where is your evidence that a soul actually exists?”
An honest person would admit that the claim was overly broad… that it oversteps the bounds of the evidence we actually have. A less honest person foists the burden of disproof onto the other side.
“Affected by” is not the same as “completely determined by.”
The fact that it is affected by biochemistry is not under dispute. I have emphasized this distinction over and over again… yet as I predicted, people continue to ignore it. Is this because they fail to grasp the distinction, or is it because they want to ignore it? I’m tempted to say that it’s the former, but I would rather believe that it’s the latter.
Of course there is no proof of the lack of a soul. So, maybe CurtC misspoke. Maybe instead of “We have a large amount of evidence that your personality, who you are, is simply a result of biochemical process in the physical brain.”, he meant “We have a large amount of evidence that your personality, who you are, is a result of biochemical process in the physical brain, and we have no evidence to suggest otherwise.”
Although “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”, something should not be assumed to exist until such evidence is found.
Try reading what I wrote again. I specifically said that you did not ask for absolute proof, just for evidence that suggests it, and that was reasonable.
So why don’t you address the part of my post that you didn’t quote? Do you think the claim that all life is related and descended from a common ancestor through evolution is different in principle from the claim being discussed here? We can’t examine every single species, now or in the past, but the more we find that meet this criterion the stronger it is. I’d say that at the moment the case for evolution is a bit stronger, because we’ve been looking for evidence for a longer time, but the cases are not fundamentally different.
Actually it is if there is a valid expectation that the evidence should be there. If you claim that a person was gorily stabbed to death an hour ago in a living room with a plush carpet, the lack of bloodstains is evidence that no such thing happened.
Just how much evidence would convince you JThunder ? The evidence presently on the “It’s all in the brain” side is . . . ALL of neuroscience. All science that impinges in any way on the brain or mind in fact. And there’s no evidence for anything else. That’s my “cite”; all of brain-related science. You are essentially doing the same thing as demanding a cite for rocks being heavier than air, and then acting like there’s serious doubt on the matter because not every rock in the world has been weighed.
As those attempting to defend religion and superstition often do, you are attempting to assert a standard of evidence that is impossible outside of pure mathematics to meet, and at the same time refusing to provide any evidence at all for an alternate position. Or in your case, even provide an alternate position, although we all know what you are really arguing for even if you refuse to admit it.
The evidence is that there isn’t anything else in your head. We’ve looked around in there. It’s all bio, chemical, or electrical. That is powerful evidence that if anything is happening in there, it’s due to biochemical/electrical activity - there’s nothing else there to cause the effect!
(I laugh sardonically every time I hear somebody say “God is inside you” or the equivalent - what, does that put him somewhere to the left of my spleen?)
The claim is not overly broad, it’s not even broad enough!
The only things we are aware of, whether in your brain or anywhere else, follow the rules of physics as we have been able to deduce them so far. We are aware of 2 types of physical interactions: those that are determined by the prior state of the system, and those that are random.
Nonsense as always. ALL the evidence is that that gray jelly is indeed what our minds are. That, and nothing else. No souls, no spirits, no mystic forces, nothing else. AND, there’s no evidence for gods, none for an afterlife, none for such things even being possible. It’s all made up. And all the faith of the believers, all their empty, baseless assertions, all their determination that what they want to believe must be true won’t change a thing. They’ll still be utterly wrong.
If there was any proof that god exists we would not have any debates. It would be presented and we would all agree. But in thousands of years ,we have had none.Zero,Zip.
For some reason a lot of people choose to believe in god. Good for them. I just wish I saw evidence that it makes them better people. Unfortunately the evidence does not show that.We fight and hate for religions. That does not make me think highly of it. When Bush,McCain or Palin spoke, the nasty remarks from the supposedly religious audience was frightening ,aggressive and mean spirited. You can keep it.
There is proof (high degrees of certainty) that macro evolution occurs and we’re still having debates. I doubt any degree of evidence for God/gods would stop the debating regarding His/Her/their existence.
:rolleyes: If you want to avoid surprise, assuming that religion is wrong is the way to go. There’s nothing so relentlessly, obsessively wrong about anything remotely factual as religion.
Evolution <> God, so your analogy doesn’t hold. As a counterexample, I will note that we do not have any debates about the existence of George Bush, or the existence of trees, so apparently some things are fairly obvious and do not inspire debate within the more credulous among us.
No, the reason there are debates about creationism and God despite the lack of evidence is that both concepts appeal to the same human self-centered egotistic tendency to believe that we are special snowflakes. Therefore we couldn’t have evolved from mere animals, and there must be an all powerful being looking out for me to ensure my unique specialness doesn’t melt and cease to exist forever.
So what? That macro evolution is not a load of hooey is fairly obvious to reasonable people. Did you read all the posts in this thread? It’s been said by at least one poster that nothing would convince him that God existed, so I think that pretty much means we’d still be having these debates even if a strong amount of evidence pointed to His existence.