stevestory
Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote | 14
Bornagain77
April 29, 2021 at 8:25 am
Seversky in response to the fact that Darwinian processes are grossly inadequate to explain the origin of even a single neuron, states
The topic is not the origins of the physical brain but whether conscious intellect has been observed to exist apart from it.
I guess Seversky has no option but to try to dodge the huge elephant in the living room question for Darwinists, of “where exactly did the brain come from?”, since the brain, in over the top fashion, gives us abundant evidence that it was Intelligently Designed.
“The brain is not a supercomputer in which the neurons are transistors; rather it is as if each individual neuron is itself a computer, and the brain a vast community of microscopic computers. But even this model is probably too simplistic since the neuron processes data flexibly and on disparate levels, and is therefore far superior to any digital system. If I am right, the human brain may be a trillion times more capable than we imagine, and “artificial intelligence” a grandiose misnomer.”
Brian Ford research biologist – 2009 – The Secret Power of a Single Cell
The Human Brain Is ‘Beyond Belief’ by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. * – 2017
Excerpt: The human brain,, is an engineering marvel that evokes comments from researchers like “beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief”1 and “a world we had never imagined.”2,,,
Perfect Optimization
The scientists found that at multiple hierarchical levels in the whole brain, nerve cell clusters (ganglion), and even at the individual cell level, the positioning of neural units achieved a goal that human engineers strive for but find difficult to achieve—the perfect minimizing of connection costs among all the system’s components.,,,
Vast Computational Power
Researchers discovered that a single synapse is like a computer’s microprocessor containing both memory-storage and information-processing features.,,, Just one synapse alone can contain about 1,000 molecular-scale microprocessor units acting in a quantum computing environment. An average healthy human brain contains some 200 billion nerve cells connected to one another through hundreds of trillions of synapses. To put this in perspective, one of the researchers revealed that the study’s results showed a single human brain has more information processing units than all the computers, routers, and Internet connections on Earth.1,,,
Phenomenal Processing Speed
the processing speed of the brain had been greatly underrated. In a new research study, scientists found the brain is 10 times more active than previously believed.6,7,,,
The large number of dendritic spikes also means the brain has more than 100 times the computational capabilities than was previously believed.,,,
Petabyte-Level Memory Capacity
Our new measurements of the brain’s memory capacity increase conservative estimates by a factor of 10 to at least a petabyte, in the same ballpark as the World Wide Web.9,,,
Optimal Energy Efficiency
Stanford scientist who is helping develop computer brains for robots calculated that a computer processor functioning with the computational capacity of the human brain would require at least 10 megawatts to operate properly. This is comparable to the output of a small hydroelectric power plant. As amazing as it may seem, the human brain requires only about 10 watts to function.11 ,,,
Multidimensional Processing
It is as if the brain reacts to a stimulus by building then razing a tower of multi-dimensional blocks, starting with rods (1D), then planks (2D), then cubes (3D), and then more complex geometries with 4D, 5D, etc. The progression of activity through the brain resembles a multi-dimensional sandcastle that materializes out of the sand and then disintegrates.13
He also said:
We found a world that we had never imagined. There are tens of millions of these objects even in a small speck of the brain, up through seven dimensions. In some networks, we even found structures with up to eleven dimensions.13,,,
Biophoton Brain Communication
Neurons contain many light-sensitive molecules such as porphyrin rings, flavinic, pyridinic rings, lipid chromophores, and aromatic amino acids. Even the mitochondria machines that produce energy inside cells contain several different light-responsive molecules called chromophores. This research suggests that light channeled by filamentous cellular structures called microtubules plays an important role in helping to coordinate activities in different regions of the brain.,,,
https://www.icr.org/article....86
Sev then states,
Egnor’s standard for evidence of disembodied intellect sets a low bar for acceptance. The evidence for evolution is stronger and far more compelling than a collection of NDE’s.
That is pure BS. You have ZERO evidence that Darwinian processes can produce even a single protein. Whereas, we have millions of testimonies of life changing experiences of people who have died for a short while and told us what happened to them on ‘the other side’ of death.
Protein evolution
Excerpt: evolution predicts that proteins evolved when life first appeared, or not long after. But despite enormous research efforts the science clearly shows that such protein evolution is astronomically unlikely.
One reason the evolution of proteins is so difficult is that most proteins are extremely specific designs in an otherwise rugged fitness landscape. This means it is difficult for natural selection to guide mutations toward the needed proteins. In fact, four different studies, done by different groups and using different methods, all report that roughly 10^70 evolutionary experiments would be needed to get close enough to a workable protein before natural selection could take over to refine the protein design. For instance, one study concluded that 10^63 attempts would be required for a relatively short protein. (Reidhaar-Olson) And a similar result (10^65 attempts required) was obtained by comparing protein sequences. (Yockey) Another study found that from 10^64 to 10^77 attempts are required (Axe) and another study concluded that 10^70 attempts would be required. (Hayashi) In that case the protein was only a part of a larger protein which otherwise was intact, thus making for an easier search. Furthermore these estimates are optimistic because the experiments searched only for single-function proteins whereas real proteins perform many functions.
This conservative estimate of 10^70 attempts required to evolve a simple protein is astronomically larger than the number of attempts that are feasible. And explanations of how evolution could achieve a large number of searches, or somehow obviate this requirement, require the preexistence of proteins and so are circular. For example, one paper estimated that evolution could have made 10^43 such attempts. But the study assumed the entire history of the Earth is available, rather than the limited time window that evolution actually would have had.
https://sites.google.com/site....olution
Dan S. Tawfik Group – The New View of Proteins – Tyler Hampton – 2016
Excerpt: one of the most favorable and liberal estimates is by Jack Szostak: 1 in 10^11. 42 He ascertained this figure by looking to see how random sequences—about eighty amino acids in length, long enough to fold—could cling to the biologically crucial molecule adenosine triphosphate, or ATP.
At first glance, this is an improvement over Salisbury’s calculations by 489 powers of ten. But while an issue has been addressed, the problem has only been deferred. ,,,
,,, nucleotide synthesis, requires several steps. If five enzyme functions were needed (ten are needed in modern adenine synthesis), 43 then the probability would be 1 in (10^11)5, or 1 in 10^55. If all the operations needed for a small autonomous biology were ten functions—this is before evolution can even start to help—the probability is 1 in (10^11)10, or 1 in 10^110. This is more than the number of seconds since the Big Bang, more protons than there are in the universe. In considering a similar figure derived in a different context, Tawfik concedes that if true, this would make “the emergence of sequences with function a highly improbable event, despite considerable redundancy (many sequences giving the same structure and function).”44 In other words, these odds are impossible.,,,
Tawfik soberly recognizes the problem. The appearance of early protein families, he has remarked, is “something like close to a miracle.”45,,,
“In fact, to our knowledge,” Tawfik and Tóth-Petróczy write, “no macromutations … that gave birth to novel proteins have yet been identified.”69
The emerging picture, once luminous, has settled to gray. It is not clear how natural selection can operate in the origin of folds or active site architecture (of proteins). It is equally unclear how either micromutations or macromutations could repeatedly and reliably lead to large evolutionary transitions. What remains is a deep, tantalizing, perhaps immovable mystery.
http://inference-review.com/ar.........roteins
Seversky, despite what you may desperately want to believe to the contrary, that scientific evidence is simply crushing evidence against your Darwinian worldview being feasible, much less your worldview being true!
Seversky then claims,
You have no explanation of how an immaterial mind could have any effect on the physical brain but if the mind is conceived of as a manifestation of the electrochemical activity of the physical brain the it is easier to consider that physical activity having physical effects on other parts of the physical brain.
And you have no materialistic explanation of the non-locality of quantum entanglement! Whereas I, as a Christian, do. Go figure!
Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
http://www.quantumlah.org/high.......ces.php
Colossians 1:17
He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Moreover, the denial of free will of the immaterial mind, i.e. agent causality, is simply insane.
To deny free will is to deny what we each have direct first hand experience of.
In fact, since methodological naturalism rules agent causality, (i.e. free will and the immaterial mind), out of ‘scientific’ bounds, then demonstrating a miracle becomes as easy as falling off a log.
Dr. Craig Hazen, in the following video at the 12:26 minute mark, relates how he performed, for an audience full of academics at a college no less, a ‘miracle’ simply by raising his arm via his free will,,
The Intersection of Science and Religion – Craig Hazen, PhD – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?f....#t=746s
Of related note, Every time Seversky writes a post, he himself is demonstrating the reality of his own immaterial mind to bring about real effects in the material world
Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let’s Dump Methodological Naturalism – Paul Nelson – September 24, 2014
Excerpt: “Epistemology — how we know — and ontology — what exists — are both affected by methodological naturalism (MN). If we say, “We cannot know that a mind caused x,” laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won’t include minds.
MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed (the illusion of) you of that event after the fact.
“That’s crazy,” you reply, “I certainly did write my email.” Okay, then — to what does the pronoun “I” in that sentence refer?
Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,,
You are certainly an intelligent cause, however, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse — i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss — we haven’t the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world — such as your email, a real pattern — we must refer to you as a unique agent.,,,
some feature of “intelligence” must be irreducible to physics, because otherwise we’re back to physics versus physics, and there’s nothing for SETI to look for.”,,,
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....9....71.html
Seversky then states,
Damage the visual cortex or block electrical signals passing along the optic nerve and we are blind. If there is an immaterial mind not dependent in the least on the physical brain why should that be so?
And yet many people who were blind from birth have reported that, during their Near Death Experiences, they could see for the first time in their lives.
Blind Woman Can See During Near Death Experience (NDE) – Pim von Lommel – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....JDZuMHE
Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper (1997) conducted a study of 31 blind people, many of who reported vision during their Near Death Experiences (NDEs). 21 of these people had had an NDE while the remaining 10 had had an out-of-body experience (OBE), but no NDE. It was found that in the NDE sample, about half had been blind from birth. (of note: This ‘anomaly’ is also found for deaf people who can hear sound during their Near Death Experiences(NDEs).)
http://www.newdualism.org/nde-.......7-1.pdf
So Seversky, to turn your own question against you, if the immaterial mind were solely the product of the material brain, why should that be so?
Thus in conclusion Seversky, you have ZERO evidence that Darwinian processes can produce even a single neuron of the brain.
And even if you did, you would still have no evidence that it is remotely feasible for material objects to ever become conscious, (i.e. the hard problem of consciousness).
And to top it all off, even your evidence from own blindness has turned around and betrayed you in that blind people who have NDEs overwhelming report that they could see during their NDE while they were apart from their physical bodies.
As should be needles to say, and to put it mildly, this is not good for you and your Darwinian worldview Seversky. |
Why even link to this? It’s the same obsessive disordered gibberish on every page. 
|
