Corona688

I still don't see how the analogy works. His point as I saw it is that brains are VERY GOOD at processing sensory inputs and doing visual pattern matching, which computers suck at. I feel this is irrelevant because you can't compare the performance of a brain to the performance of a computer objectively, since they work in very different ways and do very different things. It is still a relevant point imho. How far do dreams go back? Just how 'advanced' a function are they, really? Strawman yourself. I never said a brain didn't recieve and respond to stimuli. I simply don't see much I can call a "process" about it.

If you insist. Quick google search reveals, among other things:
Dreaming and learning go together ( Regrettably, only a synopsis is available)
Tetris Dreams
Dreaming to learn, learning to dream
Not that I'm saying that this is the ONLY function dreaming has, or that dreaming is strictly equal to memory retention. It simply seems the two are quite related. Now show me your links that say dreaming is pointless please. My point is there doesn't seem to be much of a 'process' to it, not a process as I understand it. A computer directly inputs, crunches, and outputs numbers in response to strict instructions and rules. A brain a) does not do things in sequence, b) does not seem to correspond with any readily comprehensible ruleset
c) does not store information as presented, or even readily.

In short, computer "thinking" is a strictly factual process, while brain thinking is more of an emergent behavior.
Perfect was hyperbole. In any case, AM asserted that our brains are designed for high-speed pattern recognition. I interpreted this as a plea to creationism, possibly I was biased from reading his We're all a part of god thread. If AM says that he didn't mean designed as in designed, but designed as in something other than what designed means, I'll happily drop this point.
Oh goody. Can I act all offended now and respond in kind? As much as I hate to co-opt a Christian expression, remove the log from thine own eye before informing me about the speck in mine. :banghead: Why do you insist on acting so offended on everyone's behalf? Grow some skin.

Jinto

That was MY point, used to disprove his assertion that because people can dream lucidly, and since the brain can't possibly have the capability to render objects in the kind of detail that you can percieve them in in a lucid dream, thatwe must be seeing some "other dimension." In this case, I falsified his second premise, after which he admitted he was wrong. A point which was apparently lost on you.

[deleted insult]

As for your contention about neural nets and computers, AFAIAC a neural net is simply another computing archetecture. One that happens to be better at inductive pattern-recognition than deductive reasoning, whereas the revese is normally true for most of our silicon-based computers. That they use different archetecture does not mean that their performance cannot be objectively compared, especially since the two archetectures ARE capable of emulating each other.

How is it relevant to the question "can dreams be generated entirelyn the brain?" Questions of who did it first are not relevant to the question of "is it physically possible?"

And I'm not. What's your point?

Two posts above yours are two studies that neatly disprove that hypothesis. Thanks to ps418 for doing my work for me!

And we're talking about the evolution of brain functions, which are primarily influenced by what happens outside of REM sleep. So if your point is not relevant to the context in which we are discussing things, then why bring it up, except as a demonstration of the fact that you did not read the first half of this thread, and the fact that you are allowing your emotions to get in the way of rational analysis?

If you had bothered to read the thread, you will find that he was not even suggesting a creationist viewpoint. He was not suggesting that our brains had been designed at all. Granted, his diction was probably not the best, but no more of a mistake than talking about how the sun rises.

I'm not offended on everyone's behalf, I'm offended on my behalf. Not only did your post demonstrate the worst of theist qualities, such as taking things out of context and failing to read a thread before responding to it - but you also responded to a post in which he admitted he was wrong as though he was doing exactly the opposite. I thought admitting you were wrong when the evidence doesn't support your viewpoint was something we were supposed to encourage, not condemn. And because you had done these things while acting in "support" of materialism, you have just discredited me and every other atheist on this board with your idiotic rantings. Frankly, if it wasn't for the fact that you have a post count, I would have assumed that you were a theist troll trying to make us look bad. So yes I'm offended. I have every right to be.

JGL53

So far so good.


Oops! Please always speak only for yourself (unless others have given you permission to speak for them). Thank you.

Jinto

I'm not sure how you got that I was speaking on others' behalf from this. All I said is that by offering this defense from a materialist's viewpoint that it would act to discredit materialists/atheists (I'm using the terms roughly interchangably here) in general. Perhaps you inferred something else from my post? In that case, I do apologize for my imprecise language.