Refractor

I never disputed the fact that we use 100% of our brains, nor do I see how that has any bearing on what I suggested. Also, you'd be wise to acknowledge the fact that there is much we do not know regarding all the intricacies of how the human brain functions. So making sweeping statements about this idea being "bunk" is premature - to say the least.

Refractor

Mageth

There are other possibilities......but I only suggested that the biological hardware is *there* for communication to be possible. In other words, the lobe might represent the infamous "6th Sense".

Communication with what? God, the spirit? Does he send spirit signals that are somehow detectable by our "biological hardware"? If such signals are detectable by biological hardware, could we not construct a machine to detect/receive the spirit signals? If we require a biological receiver to detect "spirit signals", what does that say about the alleged existence of a spiritual component to humans which I would suppose would be somewhat in tune with "spirit signals"? Why would it require a biological receiver?

Hawkingfan

We certainly know enough to conclude that the "6th sense" is pure goobledygook and quackery.

Mageth

Also, you'd be wise to acknowledge the fact that there is much we do not know regarding all the intricacies of how the human brain functions. So making sweeping statements about this idea being "bunk" is premature - to say the least.

Well, we do know that the brain works via electrochemical processes, not spiritual processes. You're the one making fantastical, unsupported, and wildly speculative claims that the brain has some kind of a "biological hardware" receiver for spiritual signals, not hawkingfan. And such weird pseudoscientific claims should be debunked.

Refractor

No, the facts do not prove any such conclusion. You choose to believe its "pure goobledlygook and quackery" because doing so gives your brain an emotional high.


Refractor

Hawkingfan

Typical rebuttal of a crackpot. Since you're such an expert on the facts of the human brain, show me in a science book or textbook where it says that the lobe might represent the 6th sense. Show me any reputable neurologist who says that the hardware is there for such communication to be possible.

Refractor

I never said anything was a "spiritual process". LOL All I said was if God create humans in order to have a relationship WITH humans, the frontal lobe *might* be a biological mechanism through which that relationship is realized. I never said it was a "spiritual process". It is a biological organ that performs a biological function on behalf of a biological creature.

Do you know how to read? I never said that IS what the frontal lobe does. I simply suggested thats what it MIGHT do. You see, all I was doing was suggesting it was possible, but of course, since you and Hawkingsfan are anti-supernaturalists, you will jump to the conclusion that it is not a possiblity, and automatically assume it is a "fantastical, wild" claim. LOL.


Oh of course! I almost forgot that any ideas that don't fall in line with your naturalistic philosophies are automatically written off as "pseudoscientific". You naturalist idealogues crack me up.


Refractor

Refractor

"Reputable scholars" throughout the history of science have been wrong before. No one is infallible, no matter how many courses they may have taken at some University. Getting a degree in neurology does not graduate you into some elite class of omniscience and ideological infallibility.

Even if I was proposing this idea as a FACT, or making some formal argument for the spiritual orientation of the frontal lobe, (which I'm not!)...quoting a couple scholars in an attempt to validate my claim would be the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy. (Which is not something I intend to commit).

Go here for more info so you don't commit these fallacies yourself:

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm


Refractor

Hawkingfan

But they must be *proven* wrong. So until you prove them wrong, I'll tend to believe with a high degree of certainty (as any reasonable person should) current scientific theories.
I'll believe a neurologist over you any day of the week. Thanks.
If you are going to spew nonsense, and have anyone take it seriously around here, you need to at least try and validate it. You are not above and beyond the rules of debating. They apply to you too. (I know, I know. Crackpots don't need validation. It's part of the "mystery" behind their superior theories and devices).

Mageth

I never said anything was a "spiritual process". LOL All I said was if God create humans in order to have a relationship WITH humans, the frontal lobe *might* be a biological mechanism through which that relationship is realized. I never said it was a "spiritual process". It is a biological organ that performs a biological function on behalf of a biological creature.

How is receiving a spiritual signal a "biological" function? How does that work, "biological hardware" receiving a spiritual signal? You can't even venture a guess, right? No evidence, no theory to support the "idea"?

My point is, we know the brain is a biological organ, working on biological principles. You're proposing that one function of one part of the brain is to serve as some sort of a receiver or interface to what I would assume you would refer to as the "spiritual" side of existence. How would such "biological hardware" work to interface with the spiritual, and why would it need to?

Do you know how to read?

Not really necessary for you to go there, now, is it?

I never said that IS what the frontal lobe does.

Yes, I understand that you're not saying that is what the frontal lobe does, but you are posing that as a possibility. And that is a fantastical, unsupported, and wildly speculative claim. As such, it is bunk.

I simply suggested thats what it MIGHT do. You see, all I was doing was suggesting it was possible, but of course, since you and Hawkingsfan are anti-supernaturalists, you will jump to the conclusion that it is not a possiblity, and automatically assume it is a "fantastical, wild" claim. LOL.

It is a fantastical, unsupported, and wildly speculative claim, until you provide very strong evidence to support the claim, particulary evidence that what you think is "spiritual", whatever you think the 6th sense is sensing, actually exists, and at least come up on a theory on how "biological hardware" is supposed to interface with it. Until then, it's pseudoscientific bunk.

I'm not "anti-supernaturalist", BTW. I'm a naturalist. I have yet to see one iota of evidence in support of any supernatural claim that stands up in the face of reasonable examination.

Oh of course! I almost forgot that any ideas that don't fall in line with your naturalistic philosophies are automatically written off as "pseudoscientific".

Indeed, supernatural "scientific" claims that are made with absolutely no supporting evidence are pseudoscientific.

Spiritual "scientific" claims are pseudoscientific. Supernatural "scientific" claims of any sort are pseudoscientific. A "scientific" claim that proposes a part of the brain as an interface to the spiritual/supernatural is pseudoscientific. For your claims to become truly "scientific", you're going to have to present scientific evidence to support the claims. That's a fact you're just going to have to accept.

You naturalist idealogues crack me up.

Instead of laughing at us naturalists, perhaps you should be working on finding evidence to support your pseudoscientific claims, to scientifically support the existence of "spirit", "god", or "the supernatural" as anything but ideas, and then working on a theory on how "biological hardware" is supposed to interface with the "spiritual", "god", or the "supernatural". Lotsa luck on that. We'll be the ones chuckling from the sidelines.