Can You Trust Your Brain?

Can You Trust Your Brain? | John Lennox

Рет қаралды 8,262

John Anderson Media

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 23

@jeannietapner5016 Ай бұрын

Nice loop ❤

@bradleyjames2464 Ай бұрын

Awesome cut

@rphrph167 Ай бұрын

I trust the process of evolution to make a brain that’s fit for purpose. Science is independent of the brain!!…

@AnderBRO2 Ай бұрын

something of the sorts. microtubules in the brain. Aries = Autocracy = Change = Cortisol Taurus = Presidential = Guidance = Vasopressin Gemini = Bicameral = Conversation = Acetylcholine Cancer = Dictatorship = Feelings = Oxytocin Leo = Oligarchy = Familiarity = Endorphins Virgo = Socialism = Order = Gamma-Aminobutyric Acid Libra = Democracy = Balance = Homeostasis Scorpio = Anarchy = Patience = Serotonin Sagittarius = Theocracy = Drive = Norepinephrine Capricorn = Technocracy = Focus = Dopamine Aquarius = Communism = Creative = Endocannabinoids Pisces = Republic = Social = Mirror Neurons

@carolfleetwood2419 Ай бұрын

The brain is not a "mindless unguided process". Because science doesn't have all the answers doesn't mean they aren't there. Is the belief in a god mindless? And what is guiding that belief? The mind.

@tobberfutooagain2628 Ай бұрын

Delusional apologetics at work…..

@oliverjamito9902 Ай бұрын

Hello, Pops!

@EatRawGarlic Ай бұрын

Why wouldn't you trust a computer if it would be the result of such an "unguided process"? Scientists would care for the correctness and reproducibility of the answers it produces and the way by which it produces them. How many scientists did Lennox even ask this question to, and in which field? Lennox is positing a problem where there doesn't appear to be one.

@mofayer Ай бұрын

"where there doesn't appear to be one" doesn't appear to who? To your mindless unguided mind?

@EatRawGarlic Ай бұрын

@@mofayer If you see the problem, please enlighten us who don't see it. Why wouldn't these scientists trust this computer?

@vigneshwaranm1989 Ай бұрын

That is precisely the point. If the computer was purely unguided then the result of getting correct result will only be based on chance. But of course you want it to produce reliable results, which means the computer was built to behave systematically.

@EatRawGarlic Ай бұрын

@@vigneshwaranm1989 Firstly, I think Lennox is misrepresenting how pro-evolutionists assume the brain came about, as evolution does provide a form of guidance. Namely: organisms with the most poorly adapted brains to their environment, are less likely to pass on the genes that caused it to be that way, thus selecting for more adapted examples. Furthermore, even if the computer was the result of an "unguided process", how would it follow that getting the correct results would be based on chance? But regardless of all of the above, his anecdote fails to explain why a computer resulting from such an "unguided process" should deserve less trust. It's not a black box. We could still observe it, we could learn its inner workings in detail, and when it consistently yields answers conforming to our logic, what grounds are there to distrust it?

@EatRawGarlic Ай бұрын

Firstly, I think Lennox is misrepresenting how pro-evolutionists assume the brain came about, as evolution does provide a form of guidance. Namely: organisms with the most poorly adapted brains to their environment, are less likely to pass on the genes that caused it to be that way, thus selecting for more adapted examples. Furthermore, even if the computer was the result of an "unguided process", how would it follow that getting the correct results would be based on chance? But regardless of all of the above, his anecdote fails to explain why a computer resulting from such an "unguided process" should deserve less trust. It's not a black box. We can still observe it, we could learn its inner workings in detail, and when it consistently yields answers conforming to our logic, what grounds are there to distrust it?