[marcobiagini]

In the following site I analyse the incongruencies of the materialistic conception of the mind, on the basis of our present scientific knowledges about brain and matter.
This analysis points out how Quantum Electrodynamics proves that the brain cannot generate consciousness, which existence implies the presence in man of a unbiological/unmaterial element. The problem of consciousness is then strictly connected to the one of the existence of the soul and, consequently, the existence of God.

http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/fede...englishnf.html


Marco Biagini

Ph.D in Solid State Physics

[Freethinker]

OK, I do not claim a PHD in Physics, But I DO know that...

"Every biological process is due only to the chemical reactions, which in their turn, are due only to the electromagnetic interaction among the electrons and the protons of the atoms forming our organism. " (From the site)

...ignores the strong and weak forces.

Perhaps you can supplement your PHD in physics by taking some basic physics courses? You might visit:

Elementary Physics Michigan State University
Strong, weak and Electromagnetic forces
http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/1997sp...ar/forces.html

University of Tennessee
ASTRONOMY 161 LECTURES
The FundamentalForces of Nature
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/l...gy/forces.html

The Nobel Prize in Physics 1988
The four forces
http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureate...pres/four.html

If you can't even get basic physics correct, I see no reason to give you any further credibility.

[marcobiagini]

>>>...ignores the strong and weak forces.

Weak and srtong interactions play no role in chemical and biological processes: Please read my section enttled "Let's disover matter!" in my site to learn more about strong and weak interactions.

Marco

[Tormod]

"Weak and srtong interactions play no role in chemical and biological processes"

This is a rather extraordinary claim. Without the weak and strong interactions there would be no atoms, so there would be no biology.

The "Let's discover matter" section is a rather hypothetical discussion which actually concludes that there is no scientific way to prove what the "soul" is.

My interpretation of your dialogue is that a) there is no scientific evidence for a soul and b) by saying that science cannot prove the existence of a soul, the dialogue is non-scientific, because in essence it says "the scientific method cannot be applied".

So it may be a philosophical exercise but the point of it escapes me completely.

Tormod

[marcobiagini]

>>>Without the weak and strong interactions there would be no atoms, so there would be no biology.

There is no doubt that the strong nuclear interaction is necessary to keep nucleons together inside the nuclea, but since no nuclear reactions occur in biological processes, nuclear interactions play no role in chemical and biological processes. This is a well known scientific result.

>>>The "Let's discover matter" section is a rather hypothetical discussion which actually concludes that there is no scientific way to prove what the "soul" is.

But the point is that the laws of physics prove that the soul (defined as the cause of the existence of our consciousness) is an unphysical/unbiological element. This is the failure of materialism; science proves that consciousness is not originated by matter.

marco.

[geko]

Originally posted by: marcobiagini
>>> ....science proves that consciousness is not originated by matter.

That's a fantastic claim i think; can you post some source material please? ...cos it's a big err with me at the moment

[Freethinker]

Perhaps in the near future, we will have a REAL PHD. I won't expose his name should he decide to log in under a nic. He received his Doctorate in Genetics at the University of Ferrara in Italy and his PhD in Botany from the University of Connecticut. a PhD in Philosophy at the University of Tennessee. He has published 72 technical papers and two books on evolutionary biology. He has recently completed an edited book entitled The Evolution of Complex Phenotypes. has been awarded several times the Oak Ridge National Labs award for excellence in research and has won the prestigious Dobzhansky Prize from the Society for the Study of Evolution, of which he is now (a prominent member...).

I've known him for a while. When I saw the original post here, esp since marcobiagini seems to be from Italy, like my friend, I couldn;t help but let him know about it. Here is is first reply:

gosh, these people never cease to amaze me with the degree of nonsense they come up with!

I may drop into the discussion list, but I'm about to move house and lab to xxxxxxxxxx, so my mind is currently elsewhere... (I wonder, does that prove dualism? :-)

BTW, an excellent, serious, critique of the computational theory of mind is: Fodor, J. (2000). The Mind Doesn't Work That Way. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.

If he joins us here I can assure you the discussion will change dramatically. As indicated above, he will absolutely destroy any claims against Evolution from Creationists. It's one of his favorite activities! :-)

[GAHD]

he will absolutely destroy any claims against Evolution from Creationists. It's one of his favorite activities!'

hmmm.... mine too.
I gotta talk with this man, and I must hear more of how he cust thease creationists to ribbons.

[rileyj]

your friend sounds educated more than most of us. however, better men than him have tried to disprove god and ailed. besides evolution is most likely the effect casued by god. you and your friend have no idea weather this is or is not a god.

[rileyj]

all you have is a theory. a theory based mainly on evolution being true. evolution is not the topic,it seems that it is your most valid point and the strongest evidence to you that god does not exists. i believe in evolution and god. i can see how both are possible. please try and come up with another reason besides this, its boring to only talk about evolution when there are other paths you can take