A conversation during which I try (and fail) to discover the meaning of the phrase "The brain accesses intelligence" - a phrase used by an apologist who seems unable to explain what it means...
JimC (25 Sep at 3:35PM):
Hello again!! Good luck again!!
An apologist (27 Sep at 4:32AM):
Likewise!
An apologist (20 Dec at 2:13AM):
Hmm...
JimC (20 Jan at 1:00PM):
At the risk of having multiple conversations, I hope you don't mind me asking something here which I asked on the discussion board but you might not see it before it falls off. When you refer to the brain "accessing intelligence" do you mean in the sense of accessing information telepathically? That would help me understand what you mean because intelligence is not something that is accessed, but information is.
So maybe what you're saying about the brain being a "receptor" is that the brain receives information from a spiritual source, rather than intelligence.
Does that make sense?
An apologist (25 Jan at 1:07AM):
I don't necessarily dismiss "telepathic" communication nor do I necessarily endorse all accounts that would claim such. That said, there is much in your false dichotomy between the so-called "mental" and the so called "material" aspects of reality that is incompatible with the latest discoveries on the matter. Refer to my posits on the RB and quote and respond to such in context if you wish to engage in further discussions on the matter--thanks!
JimC (25 Jan at 1:49PM):
I did ask on the discussion board whether your reference to "accessing intelligence" was actually a reference to telepathy, but it resulted in one of your indignant outbursts. Not to worry!
An apologist (31 Jan at 3:44AM):
That was a misdirect which I ignore along with your other misdirects when you don't have a convenient response to on topic posits. Present this issue in a new thread and I will happily respond to such on topic as long as you actually demonstrate a willingness to actually engage in on topic dialog to whatever I offer in any counter posits to your perspective--thanks for understanding!
JimC (31 Jan at 11:08AM):
It seems a simple question - is your reference to "accessing intelligence" a reference to telepathy? I asked it on the discussion board already within the topic of intelligence and you reacted badly - why does it need a new thread? Why can't you answer the question here?
An apologist (2 Feb at 5:29AM):
Who said anything about telepathy? I don't have an answer as to how that may or may not work and neither do you! Intelligence itself is the subject--an aspect of reality that interrupts your presumption that the overall workings of our extremely unlikely universe operate without such, even in the face of the fact that intelligence is a reality that we experience no less than the other physical/biochemical matters of reality that you focus your complete faith upon!
JimC (2 Feb at 9:08AM):
In trying to understand your use of the word "accessing" - I asked you if your concept of the brain "accessing intelligence" was the same as telepathy. In other words, what is the difference between telepathy and "accessing" intelligence? I thought it was a simple question!
An apologist (6 Feb at 2:57AM):
You brought up the subject of telepathy which was totally off topic in the first place! I have no idea how the mechanics of telepathy--if indeed it is a valid premise--might or might not operate in our human experience, limited by our particular senses developed on our particular speck in the universe. The bigger question revolves around the very presence of intelligence on our speck and how such provides further evidence of its macro manifestation. Please address this issue and stop trying to straitjacket "intelligence" to physical processes as we experience such on earth!
JimC (6 Feb at 8:11AM):
It wasn't off topic because it's a question that might help me understand your concept of the brain "accessing intelligence" (which was the topic). I am unable to find any reference or citation or definition to this concept in biology, neurology, psychology or theology, so my only option in trying to explore the idea is to ask you questions about it.
Your response above suggests that your concept is not the same as telepathy. Is there perhaps some real life example of the brain "accessing intelligence" that you can give which will explain what this concept means? Or maybe you can provide a citation to some source which explains it?
An apologist (8 Feb at 3:17AM):
I already have. You continue to pretend that intelligence per se is defined by the specific processes that lead to such on our particular planet, even though you have acknowledged that intelligence would be expected to be manifest elsewhere under entirely different circumstances. Your personal agenda and the misdirects and prejudice behind such from a rational perspective are showing.
JimC (8 Feb at 3:01PM):
I've been through all of our conversations on the discussion board and off it, and I can find no reference or citation or definition for the concept of the brain "accessing intelligence" in biology, neurology, psychology or theology, and you have not provided any examples of the brain "accessing intelligence". Could you provide something? Maybe a link to a source online which explains it?
As for your latest point on intelligence, indeed I think it's likely that there is intelligent life on other planets in our universe and in other universes. But that's not evidence for the existence of God.
An apologist (12 Feb at 4:19AM):
I'm unsure of your claims. Are you now claiming that the very perspective that ignores the reality of intelligence as a manifestation of reality--that being the "scientific" perspective--ought to be the basis that I ought to refer to in support of my posit? Do you not recognize your appeal to what amounts to circular reasoning on the matter?
Furthermore--you who attempt to dismiss my own reference to links that happen to support my perspective on an Ad Hominem basis--why would you now suggest that it is necessary for me to justify my posit through such links?
You fool no one--perhaps better said you fool very few--with your avoidance of on topic responses to posits of those whom you disagree with. So--how about responding to my claims on topic on their own merit instead of resorting to every tactic in your playbook to avoid doing so?
*Again you are ignoring the real issue--that being that "intelligence"
An apologist (12 Feb at 4:24AM):
Sorry--to continue: The real issue of intelligence is that it is part and parcel of our experience of objective reality here on earth. Given the fact that all of "reality" ought to consist at least of that which we recognize regarding such even with our own limited senses as they evolved here in response to specific circumstances. I still await your acknowledgement that such "intelligence" is a part of reality which cannot be accounted for from your mindless mechanistic perspective.
JimC (12 Feb at 7:38AM):
I'm sorry but you haven't answered my question. I am referring specifically to your statement that the brain "accesses intelligence". Can you provide a reference or citation or definition for the concept of the brain "accessing intelligence"- or - can you provide a specific example which illustrates the brain "accessing intelligence".
Could you perhaps provide a link to a source online which explains it? I'm happy to discuss the wider topic of intelligence, but before then, can you answer my question please?
An apologist (16 Feb at 2:51AM):
Is that all you choose to offer to my specific challenges to your perspective that you refuse to quote in their entirety and further refuse to respond to on topic? I would LOVE for this conversation to be carried to the Religion Discussion Board and addressed there for all to witness and respond to--thanks!
JimC (16 Feb at 11:19AM):
OK - I've created a blog entry which displays this conversation and I will provide a link to it on the religion DB. But I'm not sure how that will help. I still don't know what you mean when you say the brain "accesses" intelligence. All I'm after is a specific example which illustrates the concept, or perhaps a link to a source online which explains it. I can't find anything!
An apologist (19 Feb at 3:50AM):
But of course you redefine the issue. I'm tired of your re-definitions of such as a way of avoiding your on topic response to the subject at hand, presumably because there is no logical basis for your position. Of course I'm open to on topic responses on your part or anyone else's but given your misdirects and your extreme unwillingness to quote perspectives opposed to yours in their entirety, on topic, I can only conclude that when all is said and done, you really have no answer to such.
JimC (19 Feb at 8:10AM):
All I asked for was a clue to what you mean when you say the brain "accesses" intelligence. The word "access" in that context doesn't make sense to me. All I ask for is an illustrative example, a citation, a link to a website... anything. I don't think that's an unreasonable request!
An apologist (21 Feb at 1:12AM):
Note how I actually defined "access to intelligence" in current discussions on the RB. The only reason that you claim to put the onus on me to "define" matters of your endless demands only demonstrates your lack of ability to actually address posited issues on topic and your complete inability to respond to such on topic. I treasure your continued examples of such at this point, all of which I recognize and record.
JimC (21 Feb at 1:08PM):
You didn't define how the brain "accesses intelligence" on the discussion board. This is what you said... "Accessing intelligence speaks for itself and doesn't need to be defined". So I still don't know what you mean when you say the brain "accesses intelligence". intelligence is a set of mental abilities. I can see how those mental abilities can be produced - but how can mental abilities be accessed by the brain?
An apologist (23 Feb at 2:48AM):
Why do you still pretend that intelligence itself can only be defined through how we access such on earth, as if such was representative of the universe and the greater manifestation of reality that such would indicate?
Furthermore, why not present your posits for critical on topic review rather than to engage me in private conversation regarding such?
Unless you feel that there is a specific reason to engage me privately in our game conversations here, why not take ALL questions and assertions to the religion DB in a way that would provide greater overall input on the particular matter?
JimC (23 Feb at 9:17AM):
I can't begin to discuss your ideas about intelligence until I know what you mean when you say the brain "accesses intelligence" or "The brain is our receptor." I don't see how mental abilities can be "received" or "accessed" - I did ask you on the db but you said "Accessing intelligence speaks for itself and doesn't need to be defined". Can you find an explanation on the internet somewhere for me to read? Please? Once I understand what you mean then I can debate about it!
An apologist (1 Mar at 12:16AM):
I have presented again and again the fact that intelligence itself is part and parcel of our overall experience of reality.You are only offering your perspective which would limit such to the specific physical and biochemical processes processes through which we access and experience such on earth. Actually at one point you denied such, admitting that intelligence might be accessed elsewhere in the universe under entirely different circumstances. Such undermines your claim that "intelligence" is to be defined through the limited mindless processes whereby we access such on earth in the first place. Obviously intelligence and its manifestations are a separate reality that you cannot rationally account for from your limited view of "reality" which ignores all questions and evidence regarding the greater reality of intelligence as part and parcel of reality.
All that said, why do you continue to repeat these same issues in our private conversations that have already been addressed publicly on the GT religion board--ad nauseum? Why--given your resolve NOT to respond to such issues on topic on your part--would you think that I would choose to indulge your personal prejudices in private conversation in our games any further than I have already done?
JimC (1 Mar at 12:25AM):
I know what you keep saying about intelligence but I can't discuss those ideas until I know what you mean when you say the brain "accesses intelligence" or "The brain is our receptor." I don't see how mental abilities can be "received" or "accessed" - Data can be accessed yes but intelligence?? I did ask you on the db but you said "Accessing intelligence speaks for itself and doesn't need to be defined". Can you find an explanation on the internet somewhere for me to read? Pretty Please?! Once I understand what you mean then I can debate about it!
An apologist (1 Mar at 1:19AM):
I've explained my perspective on topic over and over. Our brains on planet earth access intelligence through specific biochemical processes. By your own admission, intelligence elsewhere might be accessed through entirely different processes. Such manifests the obvious: that "intelligence" per se is a matter of reality which transcends specific biochemical processes as we experience such on earth and is not to be defined by such.
All such reasoning has been posited on the GT Religion board over and over again. I'm more than tired of your continued ignoring of such.
JimC(1 Mar at 7:14AM):
All you're doing is repeating the phrase that our brains access intelligence. You're not explaining what that means. I understand how data can be accessed. I don't understand how intelligence can be accessed. How can mental abilities be accessed? That's what I'm stuck on - the word "accessed" in this context. Is there nothing on the internet you can link to which might explain it?
An apologist (5 Mar at 5:27AM):
We've really gone over all this before, Jim--look up my posits on intelligence. If you have a problem with how intelligence can be accessed, I would suggest you look beyond your continuing attempts to define intelligence itself through mindless mechanistic processes.
JimC (5 Mar at 8:19AM):
I've read your posits but they don't explain your use of the word "accessed". This has nothing to do with "mindless mechanistic processes" - it's your logic I don't understand. We agree that intelligence means a range of mental abilities. So let's take the ability to plan. I can understand how the brain can provide the mental ability to plan, how it can develop that ability, how one brain can be better at planning than another brain, and so on. But I don't see how the brain can accessplanning. That doesn't seem logical to me. I see how the brain can access data and information - but I don't see how the brain can access a mental ability such as planning. Can you explain the logic?
An apologist (8 Mar at 11:56PM):
Well, as a counter challenge, how would you explain how "intelligence"--obviously a fact apart from how you would straitjacket such to be accounted for through mindless mechanistic processes--is nevertheless part and parcel of what we experience even on our tiny rock as "reality"? You are the one that chooses to straitjacket the understanding of such within the artificial parameters of the limited human discipline that YOU would claim defines "reality." So--objectively speaking--isn't the ball in your court to justify how your limited perspective provides answers to such?
JimC (9 Mar at 8:16AM):
Counter-challenge? I wasn't challenging you - I'm just asking you to explain the sense in which you are using the word "access". I'm just trying to understand what you mean by the word "access".
An apologist (10 Mar at 11:51PM):
Of course that is a counter challenge, Jim--which betrays your own inability to defend your own position! All you offer are "challenges." Let's begin with your own perspective on the matter of "intelligence" and your own ability to define and defend your perspective--please proceed.
JimC (11 Mar at 12:11AM):
I don't see how my "position" helps me to understand your logic. To repeat... can you explain the sense in which you are using the word "access". I'm just trying to understand what you mean by the word "access" when you say the brain "accesses" intelligence. We've agreed Intelligence is a range of mental abilitities. I can see how a brain can possess mental abilitities or develop mental abilities. I can see how a brain can access data and information. But I don't know what you mean when you say the brain can "access" intelligence. Can you explain? Or maybe give an example if the brain accessing a mental ability? I'm just trying to understand what you mean. I'm not trying to argue against it - just trying to understand the sense in which you use the word "access". Please?
An apologist (11 Mar at 1:37AM):
Jim--to explain the larger context--YOU are the one who ignores greater manifestations of "reality."
The ball isn't in my court. YOU are the one who fails to acknowledge the greater manifestation of "reality" and the honest basis for such.
JimC (11 Mar at 8:36AM):
Imagine you were teaching some students and one of them puts up a hand and asks you... "Please sir, can you explain the sense in which you are using the word "access" when you say the brain "accesses" intelligence? We've agreed Intelligence is a range of mental abilities and I can see how a brain can possess mental abilities, or develop mental abilities. I can also see how a brain can access data and information. But I don't know what you mean when you say the brain can "access" intelligence. Can you explain please? Or maybe give an example of the brain accessing a mental ability?"
How would you answer that student?
An apologist (14 Mar at 4:47AM):
My answer to such a question would be to challenge the student as to why s/he chose to define the manifestation of "intelligence" as we access such only as defined by the processes of our human brains, and to explore the narrow assumptions behind such. I would challenge your own narrow perspective on the matter on that same basis.
JimC (14 Mar at 11:15AM):
I think you've made assumptions about the student's point of view, so to clarify... imagine the student is 12 years old and has no knowledge of neuroscience or the brain and no perspective on the matter other than the agreed definition that intelligence is defined as a range of mental abilities. How would you answer the "access" question in that case?
An apologist (18 Mar at 9:37PM):
To a twelve year old, I would explain that the biochemical processes in our brains lead us to both thought processes and emotions. The more advanced the "animal", the greater it relies on thought processes and the less it relies on emotions. However, we are still emotional creatures as well, and our emotions can interfere with our accessing of our intelligence--that is, it is extremely difficult to make "rational" decisions when we are experiencing strong emotions.
That would be for starters--I'm sure a whole lesson plan or even a study course could be derived from that basis.
Intelligence IS something we access--and, as previously explained, even here in our very specific terrestrial environment we see multiple manifestations of "intelligence" occurring--or, rather, being accessed.
Intelligence is something "other" and we have to access it to make it work.
JimC (18 Mar at 9:46PM):
But you haven't explained what you mean when you say the brain "accesses" intelligence. You simply state "Intelligence IS something we access" with no explanation. If intelligence is defined as the ability to solve problems, how does the brain "access" the ability to solve problems? How is it logically possible to "access" an ability? Where is the ability accessed from?
An apologist (18 Mar at 9:56PM):
Let's back up to your own assumptions on the matter. Our brains act in certain biochemical ways. How would you describe how "intelligence" results from that process?
JimC (18 Mar at 10:09PM):
xRemember you're speaking to a 12 year old student who has no assumptions to "back up to". So let's try again... You simply state "Intelligence IS something we access" with no explanation. If intelligence is defined as the ability to solve problems, how does the brain "access" the ability to solve problems? How is it logically possible to "access" an ability? Where is the ability accessed from?
An apologist (21 Mar at 12:53AM):
Perhaps this might explain better what I'm referring to:
http://www.becomeselfaware.com/articles/39-are-you-accessing-all-your-intelligence.html
JimC (21 Mar at 1:19PM):
That didn't help directly because I'm having to make a few assumptions about what Osiris means when he uses the word "access". He appears use it to mean efficiency - so for example our problem solving part of the brain is affected by the part of the brain that produces emotions. Anyway I've emailed him with my questions so I will let you know what he says. But it is a very interesting blog, and I particularly like his essay on the brain's role in our systems of belief, and his attitude to life seems very close to mine and his - so thanks for that! The only disappointment is that I suspect I will never know what you meant about the brain accessing intelligence or the brain being a "receptor" - but not to worry.
An apologist (27 Mar at 4:53AM):
I'm sorry you don't recognize that the brain accesses intelligence--it's not automatic. Think of someone in a coma. The brain may tell the body what to do in order to keep basic functions going, but it is still a separate process from accessing intelligence.
JimC (27 Mar at 1:25PM):
A coma (i.e. unconsciousness) is a good example of how the brain produces intelligence rather than accessing it. Intelligence is defined as a range of mental abilities, and when we are unconscious, the parts of the brain that produce those abilities are knocked out of action. Hence, an unconscious person does not have those mental abilities.
If those unfunctioning parts of the brain can be restored, and are not damaged, the patient's mental abilities (intelligence) come back online. It's similar to a computer that has damaged processors but the power supply is still working. It has lost its "intelligence" - it can't solve problems - but it still has some circuits online - which can keep the cooling fan going and memory intact for example.
I emailed Osiris who owns the website you linked to, and he explained that what he means is that the "intelligence" part of the brain accesses the "consciousness" part of the brain. He told me that he considers the brain to be a "bio-computer". Do I assume that his explanation is the same as yours, given that you provided his website as a reference?
An apologist 27 Mar 2014 6:18PM
Perhaps I should have specified "brain dead" coma--that is when one's mental abilities flat line yet the brain continues to provide basic life support to the body. As you point out yourself, access to intelligence is a different issue from other processes of the human brain.
Again, just because I refer to a certain link in support of a specific issue, it doesn't mean that I endorse everything the author has to say concerning all matters. Referring to the human brain as a "bio-computer" would need further definition of terms to make sense in any case. I did like the way that the author understood that "access" to intelligence was not necessarily automatic and required effort. Once again, intelligence itself is not defined by the specific processes that lead to access of such.
I responded as a matter of courtesy to your posit that couldn't be responded to as our game ended. I consider this conversation closed unless you wish to bring it up and/or continue it on the religion board--thanks for understanding!
JimC 27 Mar 2014 6:31PM
xI don't think I'm ever going to know what you mean by "accessing intelligence" but I will have to live with the disappointment.
It's a shame that the Osiris website doesn't match your understanding of intelligence. What he's saying is that the brain is a bio- computer which does produce intelligence using biological processes but that this computer is designed and programmed by something supernatural (he didn't say god but maybe that's what he meant)
Just to correct a factual error in your latest message: there is no such thing as a "brain dead" coma. If you are in a coma you are not brain dead. If you are brain dead you have no brain stem activity and no potential for consciousness or for the brain to resume its production of intelligence.
An apologist 29 Mar 2014 1:35AM
I chose not to be drawn back into conversation here because I feel that anything we discuss here ought to be discussed publicly. I don't see what can be accomplished by not making these conversations publicly accessible--do you?
You present good points worthy of on topic discussion should you actually choose to do so honestly. Again, bring your points up on the board and we'll (hopefully) proceed with honest and on topic discussions there. If you choose to proceed with your misrepresentations of counter posits to yours though, and/or deploy other disingenuous tactics, why bother?
JimC 29 Mar 2014 1:44AM
You asked me to make the conversation publicly accessible weeks ago, and I did...
http://tinyurl.com/RGFSMCL-036
An apologist 29 Mar 2014 1:49AM
Make it accessible on the religion DB subject to response and correction, thanks! I'm again losing patience with your misrepresentations and misdirects and I've already encountered how you've blocked my responses to your disingenuous posits on your blog!
JimC 29 Mar 2014 1:54AM
I did make it accessible on the db on the very day you asked me to.
I don't know what you mean about me blocking your responses.
An apologist 29 Mar 2014 3:48AM
I have tried before to respond to posits in your personal blog, only to have my responses blocked. Nothing new here in your refusal to respond honestly and on topic to counter perspectives to yours.
JimC 29 Mar 2014 9:41AM
Well they certainly shouldn't be blocked! I'd be grateful if you could try again - if it's blocked for you then it might be blocked for everyone.
Here's a random blog entry
http://jimcgoldtoken.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/do-atheists-raise-atheist-chidlren.html
See if you can add a comment (if you want to).
An apologist 31 Mar 2014 2:09AM
This is off topic to our other conversation--I would have been happy had you taken such to the religion DB, but you again did not do so. I can only assume you could offer no honest, on topic response to such. Now you bring up an entirely different matter. Of course I have a response to such, but again I don't see why you frame such in a personal conversation. Bring it up on the religion DB and I will be happy to comment there.
JimC 31 Mar 2014 7:52AM
You said that comments on my blog might be blocked, so I gave you a link in order for you to test whether comments are blocked. I don't see how that can be classified as dishonest and off topic.
An apologist 2 Apr 2014 2:18AM
Bring your case in its entirety to the religion board and should you do so dishonestly, prepare for my exposing such dishonesty--thanks!
JimC 2 Apr 2014 1:24PM
Sorry I'm not with you. You said that comments on my blog might be blocked, so I gave you a link in order for you to test whether comments are blocked. And you want me to repeat that request on the religion discussion board?
No comments:
Post a Comment