Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre  The computer analogy for brains is useful to an extent, but as with all analogies, it breaks down, and in this case fairly quickly. It is useful for comparing functions (short-term vs. long-term memory, processing of information), but not at all useful for comparing physical components. So there the fact that computers are designed doesn't suggest that brains are designed as well.
Secondly, there is nothing 'blind' about scientists' approaches to understanding the brain. Read any research paper and you will see a careful, systematic, thorough approach.
I think the people contributing to the many psychology and neuroscience journals around the world would have a different opinion...
Come back when I've got my PhD in Neuroscience 
But it does suggest that perhaps, like ourselves, the existence of the universe can be explained without resorting to appeal to a higher power. |
Another brick in the wall. You accept, in fact advocate, that they have identifiable similar functions, and that one is obviously the result of intentional design, yet fervently dismiss the relevance to the other. Bottles hold fluids, so do tetra packs. Just because they differ dramatically physically has nothing to do with one not being designed to perform similar tasks. They both are. Some people go as far as asserting that cells are in fact robots. Robots obviously have a designer and creator, but then the same people frantically assert that cells can't have, that they were just random accidents or mutations.
I can sit my dog in front of a computer and she will carefully and systematically destroy it. That is the mode of science in looking for life and the creative source by dismantling and destroying the creation.
Books and journals are just that. The actual experience is they know next to nothing about the mind and life and sources.
When computers and robots evolved to what they are today, was it the result of random mutation, or conscious design and intent? Again many people parade the fact of computers and robots evolution, and even lay claim to it. Then many of the same people fervently dismiss the possibility of a designer in the evolution of minds and life and cells.
As far as coming back when you are qualified, I'd prefer to see the examples and results the qualification produces, to assess their usefullness to me.