May 9, 2012 -- 5:56PM, steven_guy wrote:

May 9, 2012 -- 5:53PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

I've not been impolite. 

Isn't it more evident to conclude the brain facilitates sapience, in much the same way the legs facilitate the will to run? I think so.

Define sapience in this context.

Transcending mere knowledge, or basic intelligence.

 Wisdom, understanding, insight, the ability to create, or invent. 

May 9, 2012 -- 5:53PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

I've not been impolite.

Yes, you have. You have been rude and condescending.

Isn't it more evident to conclude the brain facilitates sapience, in much the same way the legs facilitate the will to run? I think so.

No, it is not, and you have not proved that it is.

mytmouse

The mechansim isn't the cause.

Describe the cause.

There's no good reason to conclude the brain causes sapient thought.

No brain, no thought, isn't a bad reason.  The question is why you think the brain alone is inadequate for "sapient thought" when humans (and very arguably chimps and dolphins and more) are capable of reasoning and sophisticated communication.

There is good reason to conclude it facilitates it.

Fine.  Present the evidence and we can discuss it.

May 9, 2012 -- 4:41PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

So, basically, you have a huge axe to grinds with Christianity....

No, as I explained, and you ignored, fundamentalist Christianity poses a threat to America, and reasonable people have legitimate complaints.

...which you see as a moral fraud and failure, and you think it's the atheists who are going to save the rest of us from frothing-at-the mouth religious zealots. Of which, you apparently think I am one.

I address your views for what they are.  You are ignoring my comments about them.  Are you unable to properly defend them?

May 9, 2012 -- 5:31PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

 

I wasn't making a direct analogy. More of a metaphor.

It doesn't matter.  Your point fails since you are not trying to explain a real phenomenon, but trying to PROVE your claim through word games.  Notice you are using word games, not evidence. You need evidence to show your idea is true.

Be that as it may, iPods did "evolve" so to speak, from ealier forms that were less efficent in their ability to facilitate/manifest pre-existing music.

But then all humans would think the same thoughts, as programmed.  That doesn't happen.  If you want to look at brains as hardware, fine.  But understand that dog brains function in a way they are capable, just as human brains.  Dog can't create complex thoughts, like humans can.  But even most humans are not as capable as the most intelligent, and can't understand bery complex ideas.  That we can problem solve at a higher capacity than dolphins, and dolphins at a higher capacity than dogs, doesn not tell us something about animals reasoning in your view.  You are trying to make human ability special and divine, for some personal motive, not because it is where the evidence points.  The fact is you have no evidence.  At least admit that.  The rest of us know already, why don't you?