ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

The Science delusion.

Updated on May 3, 2017
Source

For some years now I’ve been hearing about the science delusion. Is it true? Or is it just a ploy by the religious to counter what Dawkins calls militant atheism?

There are several points the proponents of the science delusion sight as proof that science has become a religion:

The assertion is: Science claims to already know the nature of reality in principal, leaving only the details to be filled in.

Science is a religion. People say: I don’t believe in god, I believe in science. In other words it’s a world view. A materialist world view.

Rupert Sheldrake tells us there are 10 dogmas of science which have limited it, and in fact tainted it.

1 Nature is mechanical and machine like. Humans are machine like, as are brains

2 Matter is unconscious. Animals aren’t conscious and we shouldn’t be either and probably aren’t.

3 The laws of nature are fixed. They can’t change.

4 The total amount of energy and matter is always the same. It sprang from nowhere at the instant of the big bang.

5 There is no purpose in nature.

6 Heredity is material. It’s all about genes.

7 Memories are stored in the brain as material traces.

8 Your mind is in your head.

9 Telepathy and psychic powers can’t exist because the mind is just the brain and it can’t affect the outside world.

10 Mechanistic medicine is the only real medicine.

So, let me start by saying I do agree that scientists can be dogmatic, so can people who think they know science and that is a bit of a danger. So what is it about science that allows it to become dogmatic? Scientists. Human beings. Media, Public understanding. In other words: science isn’t dogmatic, people are.

The scientific method is anything but dogmatic. And so what makes some scientists fall to dogma? Answer in a nut shell: Belief.

Belief is the enemy of science. There’s also convention, tenure , ego’s, old boys clubs etc. But belief is the main problem. People want certainty, desperately. For centuries we had absolute certainty. God or the gods, did their thing and who were we to even wonder about how it all works? We could never figure it out ourselves.

But we did wonder anyway, as is evidenced by books like Genesis and many other creation myths. So much so that early scientists and observers challenged religious ideas of nature and were proven right.

Then things became less certain. And as science grew and evolution reared it’s head, even god was in question.

For a while, after Newton, we thought we had certainty again.

The world ran like a clock work. It was mechanistic. Soon we’d know everything. And then two things happened that turned it all on it’s head. I say two, but it’s more like five. First, Einstein shocked the scientific world with relativity. Heisenberg and co gave us QM, and Hubble told us the universe isn’t static, it’s expanding. And then came Big Bang. That’s one.

Two is Lorenz, Mandelbrot, and perhaps a dozen others and their observations taken together suddenly formed a new science called chaos theory. That’s five.

Now we’re really uncertain as to what’s really going on so people hang on to the small certainties they think they have.

In debates and general conversations, you can see the belief some people have in such ideas as the many worlds theory, string theory, the Big Bang, etc.

Yet these theories are often not provable or more to the point, not falsifiable, and aren’t science fact.

A theory is a model created from facts. It’s an interpretation of observed or collected data from experiment. But it’s not a fact until it’s been proven by experiment. If it’s good it will usually predict something about reality. If it can’t be falsified even in principal, it’s just a guess.

So before I look at the so called ten dogma’s, let me say that there is nothing wrong with letting science form our world view. That is to say, to adopt the scientific method as a method for thinking about the world. It's the best tool we have to date. Part of that method being not having a stake in what the truth is.

Faith is the end of logic. Belief is never a requirement. Either something is a fact, or it’s a lie or guess. Believing a fact is redundant. We accept facts. But they have to be true facts. In fact, we can only accept them conditionally unless they are indisputable, like: I either ate an apple today or I didn’t. That’s an absolute fact. Or a tautology like: all black birds are black.

A lie certainly should not be believed, and speculation isn’t to be believed either. It is true or not, and requires evidence to back it up.

So, does science claim to have the basis or framework for reality? No. Scientists, not science, claim to have pieces of the puzzle, but few if any would tell us we have all the answers, or even close. We’ve known that isn’t true since Einstein. There are way too many competing interpretations for the facts we have.

Is science a religion? No. But that doesn’t stop people from using its findings to help them understand the universe and help form their world view. And there are religions like scientific pantheism that do exactly that. But science is a method, a tool. It can’t be a religion.

So to dogma number one: Nature is mechanical and machine like. Humans are machine like, as are brains.

I do hear that from some scientists and philosophers, but it’s not exactly true. Biology is decidedly dynamic. Not what we think of when we say machine like. A car is a bunch of metal and glass etc, with no idea what it is or does. We put it together in such a way that we can fill it with gas and drive around. A car doesn’t do anything without an operator. Neither does any other mechanical machine.

Biology is complex and dynamic. It’s the operator, not the machine. But that doesn’t imply a supernatural element to nature, which is what most scientists are saying when they say mechanical.

Nature, which we are part of, is endlessly creative and complex. Anything but machine-like.

Yes, everything follows the laws of physics, which aren’t laws at all, but rather the nature of nature. But that nature facilitates all we see including biology. Without limits/order nothing can function at all.

So the problem is the idea of a supernatural. Surely it too would have order/limits or it couldn’t function. So in light of the supernatural not being falsifiable even in principal, we can’t factor it into scientific inquiry and have to keep looking to the natural for information.

What scientists and philosophers should do is: stop saying mechanical when we mean natural.


“Matter is unconscious. Animals aren’t conscious and we shouldn’t be either and probably aren’t.”

I’ve never heard scientists say any such thing. But again, semantics get in the way here.

Consciousness is self evident. No one needs to prove it exists, just how it works in detail. But what is consciousness? Being awake? Being able to reason? Self awareness? So many definitions, so many aspects. Yet at its root, its complex awareness.

All biology is aware. Were a bacteria not to have even rudimentary awareness, it would keep bumping its head on the same obstacle and never get to its food, or take care of its needs. So to say animals aren’t aware is absurd.

Is matter aware in any way? Why should it be? It doesn’t need to be. And what is meant by matter? An atom? It has a nature. Auto response.

I do think auto response is the precursor to awareness. But that’s a model that still needs to be researched properly. But a precursor is not awareness itself, any more than rudimentary awareness is the same as human awareness/consciousness; and even though it’s all just a matter of degrees of complexity.

To say there is something other than energy and matter is to allude to a supernatural, and as there is no evidence a supernatural and some claim there can’t be, it can’t be added to our knowledge base in any meaningful way. So that objection is futile.

Are the laws of nature unchanging? Yes and no. Yes because experiment proves it. No, only in the sense that conditions can change and thereby change values. Water boils at 100 degrees C. Everyone knows that. But it’s not exactly that simple. It depends on altitude and purity. Additives may make water boil slower or faster. Altitude alters boiling point as well.

But if you replicate your conditions exactly, it will always give the same results. Speed of light is constant. Right? Only in a vacuum. Light moves slower through water, for instance. It bounces off things.

So yes, the nature of nature is constant. But it can be different in different conditions. Yet be constant in those conditions.

Is the total amount of energy in the universe always the same? Conservation of energy says yes. But it’s state alters. This is the basis of thermodynamics, which is a well tested and proven set of laws or natures of nature/physics.

Did it spring from nowhere at the start of the big bang? Hardly. The big bang is the most widely accepted theories of our origins. But it’s not alone. There are at least three other good competitors these days. And no tests have yet been done to prove it. Only mathematics.

Is it likely to be the answer? It’s a good theory, but unless it’s proven we can’t give it better than a good chance. Evolution is a fact. Big Bang isn’t.

So let’s say it is true. What does it say about energy? Well, it says the singularity was in an almost infinitely compressed state. What was? Some say all the matter in the universe. I’ve heard all the mater and energy in the universe. But I’ve never seen a version of the theory that says energy appeared from nothing.

I have heard recent claims from Hawking and Kraus that the universe came from nothing, but they are redefining nothing to be something. To be precise: quantum fluctuation. This supposed nothing spontaneously creates particle pairs which usually annihilate each other almost instantly. It’s well known that empty space is teaming with quantum activity.

It’s a kind of potential energy in the vacuum./ or fabric of space as Einstein said. Hardly nothing. Just apparently nothing. Not nothing at all. You can’t get something from nothing at all.

Einstein showed that matter has vast amounts of energy in it. He also said that matter was created not by mass, but by energy tensor density and momentum. That translates to dense energy below light speed creates matter. He also said:

“The mass of a body is a measure of its energy content.” Annalen der Physik 18, 639-641 (1905).

"It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing — a somewhat unfamiliar conception for the average mind. Furthermore, the equation E = mc², in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa. The mass and energy were in fact equivalent, according to the formula mentioned before." Albert Einstein.

This was shown to be true experimentally by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932,.

And then there's: "We have been all wrong! What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been lowered as to be perceptible to the senses."

So all the matter of the universe is condensed energy. So the BB would have been super dense energy. All indications are this is the case if BB happened. So it didn’t create energy, it was energy. And all the serious competition begin with energy.

Thermodynamics tell us energy can’t be created or destroyed. It transforms from state to state.

Is it fact? Yes. It’s held up under testing for almost 100 years. So I’d say it’s highly probable.


Is there purpose to the universe? Are we talking objective purpose? Is that even a rational question? Purpose is a subjective thing. I have my own purpose, that being trying to figure out the universe. But that’s my subjective purpose. My wife sees my purpose quit differently, as does my employer, my kids, the tax man. But while I fill some of those purposes gladly, I don’t think the tax man’s purpose for me is any way my purpose. Even if I am fulfilling it like it or not. Same with a god’s purpose for me were there one. It’s not my purpose, even if it’s my function.

Only subjective things have purpose. There is probably no such thing as objective purpose, and if there is, like procreation, gene imperatives etc, while it’s fun, you’re usually not thinking about spreading your genes, and actively trying to prevent it in many cases.

If we need purpose, we make it for ourselves. A god doesn’t give you a purpose. What ever purpose it has for you is it’s purpose. You may willingly fulfill it, but others may not. Purpose relative to the individual, not universal.


Is heredity about genes? Partly. It’s about DNA, which is more than just genes. A lot of code regulates how genes are copied, spliced, and expressed. Mutations there can be far more serious for better or worse than gene mutation.

I’m not sure where the speaker thinks it could or should come from.

Are memories stored in the brain? Short of having a soul I can’t see anywhere outside the body they could be stored. The brain being the most logical place. Science can’t take souls into consideration. They don’t seem to be falsifiable. Not that people haven’t tried. Scientists have to study what can be studied.

Same goes for minds.


Psychic phenomenon may or may exist. But if they do they aren’t necessarily supernatural. And this has been studied at great length both in the US and Russia for obvious reasons. So far, nothing showing it’s a fact.

Dr Persinger, of the god helmet fame, thinks if your brain were tuned to the earth’s magnetic field, telepathy would be possible. But our brains aren’t tuned to it. Who knows? So far, telepathy is still speculative.


As to medicine: a couple hundred years ago going to the doctor was a risk. They often made things worse. In those days there only was alternative medicine. We’ve come a long way in a short time. So its little wonder the focus is on modern medicine. Not that it’s perfect by any means. But it’s more effective than faith healing by a long shot. Might non standard treatments work? Sure. And if they prove themselves they become accepted.

Criticism of science is fine. But the objections to it by people who talk about the science delusion are only doing to counter Dawkins book “the god delusion”. Trying to make the point that if belief in god is a delusion, so is belief in science.

In a sense any belief is potentially delusional. To accurately talk about science you have to be up on what science actually says, what is fact, what is almost fact through experiment, and what’s just an unproven or completely un-falsifiable interpretation/guess.

Media and the public need to be far more educated about science than they are. That would help a lot. There is no science delusion; only science ignorance. Particularly, but not confined to, the religious community and its interests.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      6 hours ago from Tasmania

      "Each one of our cells has coded information that is then used to replicate a complex process over and over again. That right there, alone, shows that intelligent design is self evident."

      It appears to be intelligent design by human standards, fair enough. Yet it's dependence on human understanding is where the notion falls down. Even in your own rationale we cannot conceive of something which is totally beyond our knowledge and experience.

      Even the term "creator" is only applicable to things of a finite nature.

      The God whom you describe is infinite, therefore beyond the imaginings of a "creator." The Gospel of John refers to it as The Word, a metaphor, because there's no other way to decribe "it" in human terms.

      The mere fact that you can speak about coded information, DNA, in relation to cellular activity, is a result of human curiosity, going down that road of discovery which has informed us so greatly. There is no indication of such knowledge in the biblical texts. If we had continued in that philosophical mode of pre-observational science, our primary means of transport would still be the horse and sailing ship.

      Not so sure we can see science as enlightening, but its application by way of technology does make my life more comfortable.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      12 hours ago from Texas

      You - "Well, that’s your bias religious opinion, obviously, but in no way is it fact that we know of and doesn’t make your god self evident. It's just a wild guess."

      By the standards you stated as to why the mind qualifies as self evident, so does God in this same way. The fact that you're not applying these same standards to both means it is you that has the bias.

      You - "How would you know?"

      By this discussion.

      You - "In your religious opinion. Of course it would to you or anyone who already believes solidly that god dun it. But if you don’t already believe that it doesn’t. Wonder why? If it was true it should be self evident to everyone, like mind is."

      It is. Each one of our cells has coded information that is then used to replicate a complex process over and over again. That right there, alone, shows that intelligent design is self evident.

      You - "We develop a theory of mind by 4 years old. That's when it becomes self evident that other have minds and information of their own."

      Yeah, it was self evident to me my GI Joes had minds.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      13 hours ago from Ottawa

      "My god! The things my brain gets up to at 3 o'clock in the morning! Must become a philosopher!"

      Too late. You already are. ;)

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      13 hours ago from Ottawa

      “Yeah, God dun it. It didn't just naturally form with no design. No intent. It 'naturally' came about by design. That's intelligent design. ID isn't magic. So finding that something has a natural cause doesn't mean it wasn't intelligently designed/intended.”

      Well, that’s your bias religious opinion, obviously, but in no way is it fact that we know of and doesn’t make your god self evident. It's just a wild guess.

      You - "I know better than you. I've studied harder and longer than you. Get a clue."

      “It doesn't show. Or, maybe I should say, it isn't self-evident.”

      How would you know?

      “It IS a natural process. But the natural process in place shows intent through design. “

      In your religious opinion. Of course it would to you or anyone who already believes solidly that god dun it. But if you don’t already believe that it doesn’t. Wonder why? If it was true it should be self evident to everyone, like mind is.

      We develop a theory of mind by 4 years old. That's when it becomes self evident that other have minds and information of their own.

      Unless they are told, no child comes up with god on their own. So it's not self evident.

      “A natural world that has systems in place that create the natural world as we see it today makes it self-evident there's a deliberate creator God who designed the natural world.”

      Sorry, only to a believer. That makes it not self evident.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      41 hours ago from Tasmania

      My god! The things my brain gets up to at 3 o'clock in the morning! Must become a philosopher!

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      42 hours ago from Tasmania

      Naturally, we will ultimately never know who was right, who was wrong.

      You, I, we, will have nothing left of our previous existence.

      Interactive electrical and chemical properties will change from driving our bodies and mental processes, into driving the same sort of processes for other organisms. They will experience life, existence, feeding off the energy created by and within the decay of "dead" tissues.

      Non existence of former is-ness becomes existence for now-ness.

      No-was-ness can ever exist.

      No-was-not-ness either.

      Only Know-now-ness is factual.

      This could be a new definition of Consciousness.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      42 hours ago from Texas

      You - "That's the point of ID, twisty idiot. "God dun it. The eye and DNA are too complex for them to have evolved"; so NOT natural. Bull shit. You know it, I know it. You even admit it. It's natural. So how does it being natural mean god dun it? It doesn't. Hence your claim that your dog is self evident is also bullshit. You can't have it both ways. Nature proves nature, not a god. Try again."

      Yeah, God dun it. It didn't just naturally form with no design. No intent. It 'naturally' came about by design. That's intelligent design. ID isn't magic. So finding that something has a natural cause doesn't mean it wasn't intelligently designed/intended.

      You - "I know better than you. I've studied harder and longer than you. Get a clue."

      It doesn't show. Or, maybe I should say, it isn't self-evident.

      You - "Bull shit. Nature proves nature. Your reasoning is illogical. If you define god as that which produced all this the by definition there is a god. But it doesn't mean it's a conscious super being. It could be a natural process or, in other words nature or the nature of energy itself. So no, your god is not self evident, but nature is."

      It IS a natural process. But the natural process in place shows intent through design. A natural world that has systems in place that create the natural world as we see it today makes it self-evident there's a deliberate creator God who designed the natural world.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      42 hours ago from Ottawa

      "irrational stupidity" = stuff Ron doesn't get."

      You wish.

      Me - "Any so called evidence ID has come up with can be explained by natural causes. "

      "So ID means we should see things that just poofed into existence? It's "intelligent design". Of course there's a natural cause. How does something having a "natural cause" rule out intelligent design. Stop saying stupid things."

      That's the point of ID, twisty idiot. "God dun it. The eye and DNA are too complex for them to have evolved"; so NOT natural. Bull shit. You know it, I know it. You even admit it. It's natural. So how does it being natural mean god dun it? It doesn't. Hence your claim that your dog is self evident is also bullshit. You can't have it both ways. Nature proves nature, not a god. Try again.

      then ...

      Me "That’s a fact."

      "I said stop saying stupid things."

      I can't help it if you don't understand logic. And stop mimicing me like a 4 year old. You do it constantly. Can't think of your own? I'm charging you a dollar for every time you use my phrases or project from now on. You owe me 3 bucks so far.

      Me - "Were god self evident I’d believe in it."

      "You don't even know what you're looking for. You wouldn't know it if you saw it."

      I know better than you. I've studied harder and longer than you. Get a clue.

      Me - "Mind exists. Everyone knows it because it is self evident. You god clearly is not."

      "The universe exists because it is self evident. There is clearly a God. There's actually coded information in our cells making living creatures that adapt and improve over time possible. Clearly, there is a creator."

      Bull shit. Nature proves nature. Your reasoning is illogical. If you define god as that which produced all this the by definition there is a god. But it doesn't mean it's a conscious super being. It could be a natural process or, in other words nature or the nature of energy itself. So no, your god is not self evident, but nature is.

      Me - "It’s a bullshit argument and everyone knows it but you."

      "Everyone? Is there a mouse in your pocket? Do these 'others' exist outside of your head?"

      Yeah, and many of them, including Alan follow this hub.

      Me - "Who cares? It’s an irrelevant argument. Try another. Or admit you’re wrong."

      "It's irrelevant because Ron says. Despite being totally reasonable."

      Not true because I say so. I say so because it's true.

      "Yeah, keep the faith, Brother."

      Stop projecting, twisting and saying stupid shit, brother.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      42 hours ago from Texas

      Yeah, keep the faith, Brother.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      42 hours ago from Ottawa

      "Alexa, tell Ron you don't have a mind.

      By your definition, Alexa and Siri have minds"

      No, not yet. But they may eventually. And it's totally irrelevant to humans having minds.. But if AI does become sentient then your soul will be proven bull shit once and for all. We'll see.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 days ago from Texas

      Alexa, tell Ron you don't have a mind.

      By your definition, Alexa and Siri have minds.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 days ago from Texas

      "irrational stupidity" = stuff Ron doesn't get.

      You - "Any so called evidence ID has come up with can be explained by natural causes. "

      So ID means we should see things that just poofed into existence? It's "intelligent design". Of course there's a natural cause. How does something having a "natural cause" rule out intelligent design. Stop saying stupid things.

      then ...

      You "That’s a fact."

      I said stop saying stupid things.

      You - "Were god self evident I’d believe in it."

      You don't even know what you're looking for. You wouldn't know it if you saw it.

      You - "Mind exists. Everyone knows it because it is self evident. You god clearly is not."

      The universe exists because it is self evident. There is clearly a God. There's actually coded information in our cells making living creatures that adapt and improve over time possible. Clearly, there is a creator.

      You - "It’s a bullshit argument and everyone knows it but you."

      Everyone? Is there a mouse in your pocket? Do these 'others' exist outside of your head?

      You - "Who cares? It’s an irrelevant argument. Try another. Or admit you’re wrong."

      It's irrelevant because Ron says. Despite being totally reasonable.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      2 days ago from Ottawa

      Me - "Stop saying stupid things. Your argument here is ridiculous."

      “You not seeing this as a valid argument doesn't make it ridiculous. Just a little beyond you, apparently.”

      What’s there to get about irrational stupidity?

      Me - "No you can’t. It’s been tried and debunked a thousand times."

      “There's nothing to debunk. There's no evidence. It's self evident, remember? How can you debunk that?”

      You really are playing stupid these days, aren’t you? Any so called evidence ID has come up with can be explained by natural causes. That’s a fact. Were god self evident I’d believe in it. Mind exists. Everyone knows it because it is self evident. You god clearly is not.

      Me - "What a load of self serving bull shit. If you can’t tell the difference between a human and a bot when you’re in trouble. Is your wife a bot? Can’t you tell? Your argument is plain idiotic."

      “Your claiming the ability to respond to my comments is "proof" that you have a mind. I'm giving you an example that "proves" that wrong.”

      No you aren’t. It’s a bullshit argument and everyone knows it but you.

      “ I talked to a pretty well crafted bot on the phone a couple of months back.”

      Who cares? It’s an irrelevant argument. Try another. Or admit you’re wrong.

      Me - "Being human removes all doubt, Come on. Even you can’t believe this shit. No matter what proof is offered you wouldn’t admit it because it means your hypothesis is full of shit. Which it is clearly is."

      “This has nothing to do with my hypothesis. This is all about deconstructing the reason given for rejecting my hypothesis.”

      And it’s nonsense.

      Me- "Too bad it's all fantasy."

      “Well, if the alternative is a meaningless life with no purpose and no real reason to exist, just something more akin to a spilled bowl of potato salad. Not chance. Not deliberate or purposeful. Just happened.”

      Emotional meaningless drivel. I thought you said you wanted truth. That’s an obvious lie.

      And the stuff you’ve been saying to Alan is off the wall bullshit.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 days ago from Texas

      No, reality. Mine and yours. The same. We're all heading for the same eventual oblivion. Whether or not you spent your days being kind to your fellow man or you spent everyday killing everyone in your general vicinity, it matters not in the end. Makes no difference at all.

      Tell me from your viewpoint how any of that is inaccurate?

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      2 days ago from Tasmania

      More like the makings of your mind.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 days ago from Texas

      You're misinterpreting my intent in using that reference. You're thinking more along the lines of a political regime of some kind as being the impending threat. A new governing faction. I'm giving you an example of something more akin to the type of threat I'm speaking of.

      But specifically in those cases, yes there's a correlation. Not specific to atheism, but certainly related. An existence without a creating God is an existence without purpose or intent. Without a goal or specific destination or purpose.

      We are all headed for the eventual finite bandsaw. What's it matter if I choose to live my life taking others out with me? If nothing else I'm sparing them the struggle that this life is until the day you die.

      What's it really matter?

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      2 days ago from Tasmania

      Jeremy you are impossible! To say those mass shootings are in any way a result of atheism is utterly false.

      If you have any intelligence at all you will know this to be true.

      No wonder Ron gets frustrated with you.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 days ago from Texas

      See, Alan, this is the danger. It's not a group. It's not an indoctrination or converting a mass of followers. It'll be individual "independent thinkers" coming to the foregone conclusions that this view leads to. The very same 'type' of person that generally becomes atheist will be the most prone to this.

      Think more like the recent rash of school shootings. That's the threat. Not a group trying to control the masses. It's the masses without control.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      2 days ago from Tasmania

      You might have a group of people masquerading as The Atheists, I do not know if that is the case. But most atheist-thinking persons around the world like myself would not belong to a group. They, we, tend to be independent thinkers without any desire to change those who think otherwise. So have no fear that the majority of us are in any way corrupt or subversive. We leave that to individuals who paint themselves with deceptive Christian colours or those of other religions.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 days ago from Texas

      Yes, in the past political and religious groups have been a threat. But what I'm talking about is a different kind of threat. At least where the aforementioned groups had control there was order. I'm talking about a mindset that can destabilize the masses, not control them. Then the threat isn't some organized regime, it's your neighbors and countrymen in general.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      3 days ago from Tasmania

      So, were the worst times in history instigated from a political or a religious standpoint?

      Probably both, yes. Where religious/superstitious beliefs were used for ulterior motives to hoodwink and control the masses.

      There is a world-wide agenda focused on "divide and conquer." The freedom you have now, to hold whatever views you might have concerning God, truthful history, faith, etc., along with my freedom to have contrary views to yours....all will disappear when those with ulterior motive get a hold of us.

      It's got nothing at all to do with atheist points of view. Just the desire to control.

      Be warned, Sir Jeremy.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 days ago from Texas

      No, not for mine. For society's. Society is a relatively fragile balancing act as it is. Like the Stones song says, rape, murder, it's just a shot away. We've seen it time and again on the news. It falls apart easily. It's not an easy thing to maintain.

      If you follow along the logical trains of thought from the perspective of the viewpoint you and Ron share, it leads to some dark places. Hardly a sturdy foundation for the psychological well being of the masses. It won't be an organized dictatorship you have to worry about. It won't be political at all.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      3 days ago from Tasmania

      Do you mean it's downright dangerous for your own psyche?

      How can it every be dangerous to question popular perceptions? You do it.

      I suggest the only danger to myself or Ron here or anyone else, is the very likelyhood that some person desiring to take control of civilisation (a dictator) will bump off first those who able to think for themselves.

      This has happened whenever a dictatorship arises: Uganda, for exanle.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 days ago from Texas

      Not to mention I find yours and Ron's view to be downright dangerous for the human psyche. The fact that it's becoming as prevalent as it is is concerning.

      There's a lot of really intelligent people who have lost the ability to think. The science delusion rivals religious-based delusions on a broad scale and is blinding a lot of best and brightest.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 days ago from Texas

      Alan,

      As I've stated many times, I do not desire that you or anyone adopt my view. I'm simply arguing it's validity as being just as sound as yours and Ron's view. And in this discussion I've addressed why I reject the view you and Ron subscribe to and the flaws I see in its logic.

      More specifically what I was addressing here is your statement ....

      You - "Whatever, I cannot see either being in any way related to a book of ancient writings penned by mortal homo sapiens."

      I laid out how I see this God being related to that book of ancient writings.

      If you're feeling I'm trying to convince you, perhaps that's because it's pretty damn convincing.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      3 days ago from Tasmania

      Jeremy, you have once again demonstrated the workings of your own mind.

      In the paragraph below, beginning "It's either that or another possibility that...." you declare the starting point for all your subsequent opinions: i.e. your desired for there to be a purpose for your own and every human life. You cannot bring your self to accept there is nothing beyond the death of our physical bodies.

      So, the starting point for your desire is in your mind. It's then a matter of your own construct. It does not need to be valid or real... just and only what your OWN mind dreams up.

      As I have stated previously, what you dream up from your personal needs and perspective can be fully respected. It certainly is from me, even if it doesn't fit with my understanding.

      Yet, to continually desire that other minds do concur with the thoughts of your own mind can only lead to unending frustration. The remedy for that will also arise in your own mind.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      4 days ago from Texas

      You - "Stop saying stupid things. Your argument here is ridiculous."

      You not seeing this as a valid argument doesn't make it ridiculous. Just a little beyond you, apparently.

      You - "No you can’t. It’s been tried and debunked a thousand times."

      There's nothing to debunk. There's no evidence. It's self evident, remember? How can you debunk that?

      You - "What a load of self serving bull shit. If you can’t tell the difference between a human and a bot when you’re in trouble. Is your wife a bot? Can’t you tell? Your argument is plain idiotic."

      Your claiming the ability to respond to my comments is "proof" that you have a mind. I'm giving you an example that "proves" that wrong. I talked to a pretty well crafted bot on the phone a couple of months back. Had me fooled for a minute. The ability to talk/type and carry on a conversation is not "proof" of a mind. See? Not idiotic. Plain common sense.

      You - "Being human removes all doubt, Come on. Even you can’t believe this shit. No matter what proof is offered you wouldn’t admit it because it means your hypothesis is full of shit. Which it is clearly is."

      This has nothing to do with my hypothesis. This is all about deconstructing the reason given for rejecting my hypothesis.

      You - "Too bad it's all fantasy."

      Well, if the alternative is a meaningless life with no purpose and no real reason to exist, just something more akin to a spilled bowl of potato salad. Not chance. Not deliberate or purposeful. Just happened.

      It's either that or another possibility that lines up an ancient book originating in the same place and time as the birth of modern civilization with human history and physical science and mind and matter, and gives every life, every event, no matter how good or bad, purpose and meaning. We're not all just going through this life for nothing. It call counts for something. Is building toward something greater. Even the ugly stuff serves positive purpose and meaning. Every life matters. Every choice matters.

      If there's no proving one way or the other, if it's ultimately a choice, given my life experience and what I know, I know which one I'm going with. Yours really sucks.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      4 days ago from Ottawa

      The universe was created as an environment to create free will. It's like where they keep the lions in the zoo. Designed based on the capabilities of the animal with the large pit between them and the fence. Our pit is space.

      Free will makes us creators. In this place everything is temporary, so we can only do so much harm. Unlike anything else in the natural world our behaviors and actions are not bound by natural law.

      That judgement you speak of isn't how it's generally thought of. It too is like a natural law. God's judgement is like gravity's judgement.

      Everything else in the natural world innately adheres to God's will. We do not. We have to willingly choose Him. It's left up to us. Not forced on us like everything else. etc, etc, etc "

      Too bad it's all fantasy.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      4 days ago from Ottawa

      Me - "But you can't even prove a god exists and it's not self evident or we'd all agree it obviously exists. It's completely different."

      “It really isn't. You can't prove the mind exists either”

      Stop saying stupid things. Your argument here is ridiculous.

      “ So you say it's "self evident". Well I could make a pretty strong case that the order we see in the universe makes God's existence "self evident".

      No you can’t. It’s been tried and debunked a thousand times.

      Me - "I have a hundred times but you refuse to accept it. Only you can prove yourself wrong to your satisfaction."

      “If I was wrong, you could prove it. Problem is, I'm not wrong.”

      Yeah you are.

      Me - "Yes it does. Come test me. I'm biological. Your bot argument is irrelevant beside the point and illogical. Admit it and move on."

      “No it doesn't. My bot argument is that what you site as "proof" can be simulated. So it can't be proof. Proof means it makes it certain”

      What a load of self serving bull shit. If you can’t tell the difference between a human and a bot when you’re in trouble. Is your wife a bot? Can’t you tell? Your argument is plain idiotic.

      “You being biological means nothing. Proof means proof. Removes all doubt.”

      Being human removes all doubt, Come on. Even you can’t believe this shit. No matter what proof is offered you wouldn’t admit it because it means your hypothesis is full of shit. Which it is clearly is.

      “Do you understand?

      Yeah. I understand you don’t have a clue

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      4 days ago from Texas

      It's both, but not a quirk. The universe was created as an environment to create free will. It's like where they keep the lions in the zoo. Designed based on the capabilities of the animal with the large pit between them and the fence. Our pit is space.

      Free will makes us creators. In this place everything is temporary, so we can only do so much harm. Unlike anything else in the natural world our behaviors and actions are not bound by natural law.

      That judgement you speak of isn't how it's generally thought of. It too is like a natural law. God's judgement is like gravity's judgement.

      Everything else in the natural world innately adheres to God's will. We do not. We have to willingly choose Him. It's left up to us. Not forced on us like everything else.

      After physical death we can't be allowed to just pass through. People who don't willingly choose God and acknowledge His authority are like cancerous cells that don't adhere to the body's DNA. We have an incredibly powerful capability, so it's necessary that God's authority be established. Without God's authority, like a body without DNA, it would be chaos.

      Those ancient writings depict this God setting things in motion. Creating the environment and then creating free will. Then it depicts Him working directly with those mortal homo sapiens. It's the whole purpose of this life and this universe. It's what's necessary so that we can live with free will through eternity.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      5 days ago from Tasmania

      So, Jeremy, it really all boils down to what you perceive as "God."

      Is it the individual mind's perception of a deity that (who) is conscious of all our individual actions; and who (that) makes a judgment on us immediately following our physical death?

      Or is it some entity which gave rise to our's and the world's very existance as a physical reality?

      Or, maybe, by some quirk of natural phenomenon that deity is a combination of the two.

      Whatever, I cannot see either being in any way related to a book of ancient writings penned by mortal homo sapiens.

      Any way, that's my take on the conundrum.

      Might join Skeptics Anonymous.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      5 days ago from Texas

      You - "But you can't even prove a god exists and it's not self evident or we'd all agree it obviously exists. It's completely different."

      It really isn't. You can't prove the mind exists either. So you say it's "self evident". Well I could make a pretty strong case that the order we see in the universe makes God's existence "self evident".

      You - "I have a hundred times but you refuse to accept it. Only you can prove yourself wrong to your satisfaction."

      If I was wrong, you could prove it. Problem is, I'm not wrong.

      You - "Yes it does. Come test me. I'm biological. Your bot argument is irrelevant beside the point and illogical. Admit it and move on."

      No it doesn't. My bot argument is that what you site as "proof" can be simulated. So it can't be proof. Proof means it makes it certain.

      You being biological means nothing. Proof means proof. Removes all doubt. That for sure is what is happening because of this. It can't be proven that you are seeing/hearing/feeling a mental experience. All we would see in your head is firing neurons and chemical happenings. Nothing about those activitiees suggest they're generating a mental experience, except our own experience and assumption that you have the same.

      If electric discharges through a firing neuron can carry information, is there information in lightening? Don't know. Can't detect it. Can only see it if it's in our mind. No one else is able to observe. There's no proof that that mental experience is there. No way to decect it. No way to confirm that's what neurons are actually doing. Are they generating the 'mind' itself, or just generating the sensory input? Don't know.

      Do you understand?

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      5 days ago from Ottawa

      "Well then what word do you suggest I use to mean not purposeful or deliberate?"

      Not purposeful or deliberate is fine.

      "Nope. If you're able to deem something as "obvious fact" based on your given criteria, then I can deem God "obvious fact" by the same measure."

      But you can't even prove a god exists and it's not self evident or we'd all agree it obviously exists. It's completely different.

      "Many have said that's my motivation. And I'll tell them like I tell you. If you can show me I'm wrong I'll drop it. Immediately."

      I have a hundred times but you refuse to accept it. Only you can prove yourself wrong to your satisfaction. And I know you'll say you have tried, and I accept that. But I know from experience that Christianity has a lot of mind traps.

      "Nope. I could literally write a bot to generate responses just like you. Doesn't prove anything."

      Yes it does. Come test me. I'm biological. Your bot argument is irrelevant beside the point and illogical. Admit it and move on.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      6 days ago from Texas

      You - "I'm teaching people to use words in proper context. Hardly bullshit. Common usage is often wrong subjective and misleading."

      Well then what word do you suggest I use to mean not purposeful or deliberate?

      You - "That's a joke, right?"

      Nope. If you're able to deem something as "obvious fact" based on your given criteria, then I can deem God "obvious fact" by the same measure.

      You - "You've brainwashed yourself, and you have too much skin in the game."

      Many have said that's my motivation. And I'll tell them like I tell you. If you can show me I'm wrong I'll drop it. Immediately.

      You - "Every word I write proves it. Give it up. You lost this argument months ago."

      Nope. I could literally write a bot to generate responses just like you. Doesn't prove anything.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      6 days ago from Ottawa

      "Obviously a difference in symantics that really doesn't matter. You know what I mean by 'chance'. Don't waste our time with this bullshit."

      I'm teaching people to use words in proper context. Hardly bullshit. Common usage is often wrong subjective and misleading.

      "In the same way God is an obvious fact?"

      That's a joke, right?

      "I have two halves. Haven't been slapped yet."

      You've brainwashed yourself, and you have too much skin in the game. Much like most republicans. See Trump? like him? No? Why? He's exactly like your god in so many ways.

      "Prove your mind exists"

      Every word I write proves it. Give it up. You lost this argument months ago.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      7 days ago from Texas

      You - "There can’t be chance in a cause and effect universe."

      Obviously a difference in symantics that really doesn't matter. You know what I mean by 'chance'. Don't waste our time with this bullshit.

      You - "No, obvious fact."

      In the same way God is an obvious fact?

      You - "No, if you have half a brain it slaps you in the face."

      I have two halves. Haven't been slapped yet.

      You - "Utter speculative bullshit. Prove your god exists."

      Prove your mind exists

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      7 days ago from Ottawa

      Me - "No it wouldn’t. No accidents or haphazard chance in a cause and effect universe. Just natural consequences."

      “Semantics. Natural cause in your viewpoint is one and the same as haphazard chance.”

      If you say so. But you’re wrong.

      “”chance - the occurrence and development of events in the absence of any obvious design.

      How's that not what you're saying?”

      It’s a subjective view, not an objective one. I hate it even when scientists use it. There can’t be chance in a cause and effect universe.

      Me - "Nature isn’t intentional and neither is it haphazard chance."

      “So there's a third option. Please, enlighten me.”

      Read above. I’ve enlightened you several times. You just refuse to stay enlightened.

      Me - "Want comes from need which comes from our structural nature. It’s pretty obvious stuff."

      “All based on assumption and speculation.”

      No, obvious fact.

      Me- "Wrong. I have no choice when I see the evidence all over that idiotic bible of yours. You make excuses for it because you want everlasting life"

      “You choose to see it as you do.”

      No, if you have half a brain it slaps you in the face.

      Me- "I do fine without someone else’s purpose for, me thanks. I don’t give a damn about what your tyrant retard would have for me were it real."

      “You doing fine and being you is what God wants for you. Went through a whole lot of trouble to make it so. Doesn't force Himself on you. Gives you the choice. You've made it. He gave that capability to you.”

      Utter speculative bullshit. Prove your god exists.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      7 days ago from Ottawa

      You - "Same thing. characteristics define the thing. Without the thing the characteristics don't exist either. Simple logic that constantly alludes you."

      “No, not the same thing. This is what's constantly alluding you and why the mind confuses you so much.”

      More nascence? What else is new? Yes, same thing. Try to think logically for a change.

      “The water coming out of your faucet is a characteristic of a water system, but isn't the system iteself.”

      Obviously. But that’s not the only characteristic of the system. Pipes, pressure, valves drains, hot water tanks etc are all characteristics of the system. Without them there is no system.

      “ Yes, the system of pumps and pipes are required for water to come out of your faucet, but just the water from your faucet doesn't define the system that causes it.”

      Exactly the point. So you agree then. . Characteristics define the thing.

      Me- "Were that true it wouldn’t disappear. But it does. So no soul."

      “It does, does it? And where's your proof of that?

      Still not reading? Or just not understanding? In deep dreamless sleep or under anesthetic, no thought. Hence shut down. Hence not separate, hence no soul because you claim souls are the part that think and are conscious and so if they can be shut down, shutting you down your claim makes no sense. Again, try logic instead of emotion for a change.

      Me - "Yeah, You’d like it to be a ridiculous religion. But that’s your department not mine. Projecting again?"

      “I'm just pointing it out. You're prophecizing about how things will be in the future based on your beliefs. Like it or not, it's pretty much a relgious belief.”

      Only in your vast imagination.

      Me - "The science is young and already they have great results. But again, it proves zero. Even if/when they succeed in watching/recording you think it wouldn’t say a thing about a soul."

      “How long have we been discussing this? And you're still not getting the point. The mind is just to illustrate something that does actually exist that cannot be observed. Nothing about a soul. Just an example to show that your science-only approach is flawed. It's really just that simple.”

      And utterly wrong every time you make this false claim. It’s utterly observable.

      Me - "Stop being stupid. You’re the only one with delusions and an apparent inability to be rational about your arguments."

      “Seems that way to you for a reason. Doesn't make you right.”

      No, its fact.

      Me - "If it were there you wouldn’t stop thinking even if your body was asleep. You’d still be aware."

      “You keep making these statements as if there fact.”

      It’s logic and experience. It’s really the only logical conclusion to come to. Where is it then? No answer? Of course not.

      “Still be aware? And how do you know you weren't? Because you don't remember? Does that mean you weren't aware or does that mean the brain wasn't functioning”

      Same thing. Really….

      You - "That’s what it would be like under anesthetic if there was a soul and you were put under."

      “And you know this how?”

      Common sense.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      8 days ago from Texas

      You - "The Story that is reiterated time after time to control people along that line because they know the Story works on a large number of people."

      Not exactly. This part of the story has been misunderstood for a very long time.

      ***

      You - "But it's still only a story, constructed by the human mind."

      A story that lines up with the physical evidence chronologically and geographically. Not many imagined stories can say the same.

      ***

      You - "Not established as a fact but suitable to be treated as fact because it serves the purpose - to control."

      I'm not controlling you. I don't want to control you. In fact, the whole thing is about not being under control.

      ***

      You - "And do you know what those seeking control do when their efforts fail? Get rid of those who refuse to be controlled. Oust them or kill them."

      Yeah, that's been humanity since ... well ... since free will

      ***

      You - "Thus is the power of belief in God by the human mind."

      Don't blame God for what humans do. They have free will. It's not His will.

      ***

      You - "See how angry you get, Jeremy, when you can't gain control of Ron's or Alan's mind."

      Nope, never got angry. Rolled my eyes a few times. Palm is often on my face. I don't want control of neither of you. Would rather not have that responsibility.

      ***

      You - "I am not angry at you for having your belief - it's your free will."

      uhp, uhp ... There's no free will in your viewpoint. It's not physically possible. It's only my free will if there is a God.

      ***

      You - "But like most men, I fight any attempt to imprison (i.e. control) and restrict my freedom."

      Yeah, free will is a precious gift that should be guarded and protected. It's what you were meant to have. Why you exist.

      ***

      You - "Nothing to do with god, who does not exist so cannot care."

      All to do with humans. Period."

      Except that without God you have no freedom of will and all that is done by you or any other human is dictated by elements and events none have control over. It's just one domino falling after another. No one to blame. It's like blaming gravity for falling. No choice was made. No fault to be assigned. Just the nature of the elements and conditions involved.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      8 days ago from Tasmania

      The Story that is reiterated time after time to control people along that line because they know the Story works on a large number of people.

      But it's still only a story, constructed by the human mind.

      Not established as a fact but suitable to be treated as fact because it serves the purpose - to control.

      And do you know what those seeking control do when their efforts fail? Get rid of those who refuse to be controlled. Oust them or kill them.

      Thus is the power of belief in God by the human mind.

      See how angry you get, Jeremy, when you can't gain control of Ron's or Alan's mind.

      I am not angry at you for having your belief - it's your free will.

      But like most men, I fight any attempt to imprison (i.e. control) and restrict my freedom.

      Nothing to do with god, who does not exist so cannot care.

      All to do with humans. Period.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      8 days ago from Texas

      It comes from simply understanding the purpose of the story. Free will. That's you being you. That's the purpose. Once understood, the story simply reiterates that point time and again. Once the context is understood, the story falls right in line.

      Of course it's the stuff of human control. Humans will use whatever is at their disposal to control people. God and religion has definitely been used for that purpose.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      8 days ago from Tasmania

      "You doing fine and being you is what God wants for you."

      Where does this understanding of what God wants for us come from?

      It's the stuff of human control, nothing more, nothing less. If you can't win your fellows over to your way of thinking, just throw higher authority at them. An authority that you have plucked out of thin air.

      All the christian rhetoric in a nutshell.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      8 days ago from Texas

      Ron,

      You - "No it wouldn’t. No accidents or haphazard chance in a cause and effect universe. Just natural consequences."

      Semantics. Natural cause in your viewpoint is one and the same as haphazard chance.

      chance - the occurrence and development of events in the absence of any obvious design.

      How's that not what you're saying?

      You - "Nature isn’t intentional and neither is it haphazard chance."

      So there's a third option. Please, enlighten me.

      You - "Want comes from need which comes from our structural nature. It’s pretty obvious stuff."

      All based on assumption and speculation.

      You - "Wrong. I have no choice when I see the evidence all over that idiotic bible of yours. You make excuses for it because you want everlasting life"

      You choose to see it as you do.

      You - "I do fine without someone else’s purpose for, me thanks. I don’t give a damn about what your tyrant retard would have for me were it real."

      You doing fine and being you is what God wants for you. Went through a whole lot of trouble to make it so. Doesn't force Himself on you. Gives you the choice. You've made it. He gave that capability to you.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      8 days ago from Texas

      Ron,

      You - "Same thing. characteristics define the thing. Without the thing the characteristics don't exist either. Simple logic that constantly alludes you."

      No, not the same thing. This is what's constantly alluding you and why the mind confuses you so much. The water coming out of your faucet is a characteristic of a water system, but isn't the system iteself. Yes, the system of pumps and pipes are required for water to come out of your faucet, but just the water from your faucet doesn't define the system that causes it.

      You - "Were that true it wouldn’t disappear. But it does. So no soul."

      It does, does it? And where's your proof of that?

      You - "Yeah, You’d like it to be a ridiculous religion. But that’s your department not mine. Projecting again?"

      I'm just pointing it out. You're prophecizing about how things will be in the future based on your beliefs. Like it or not, it's pretty much a relgious belief.

      You - "The science is young and already they have great results. But again, it proves zero. Even if/when they succeed in watching/recording you think it wouldn’t say a thing about a soul."

      How long have we been discussing this? And you're still not getting the point. The mind is just to illustrate something that does actually exist that cannot be observed. Nothing about a soul. Just an example to show that your science-only approach is flawed. It's really just that simple.

      You - "Stop being stupid. You’re the only one with delusions and an apparent inability to be rational about your arguments."

      Seems that way to you for a reason. Doesn't make you right.

      You - "If it were there you wouldn’t stop thinking even if your body was asleep. You’d still be aware."

      You keep making these statements as if there fact. They aren't. Still be aware? And how do you know you weren't? Because you don't remember? Does that mean you weren't aware or does that mean the brain wasn't functioning to record memories? That's kind of important for you to know.

      You - "That’s what it would be like under anesthetic if there was a soul and you were put under."

      And you know this how?

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      8 days ago from Ottawa

      Me - "No such thing as haphazard chance. But are you really that surprised that we have concerns about how to live, what's right, all of that? Are you for real? We wouldn't be alive if we weren't."

      “Yes, I agree. No such thing as haphazard chance, but if existence is as you say it is,”

      No it wouldn’t. No accidents or haphazard chance in a cause and effect universe. Just natural consequences.

      “ then that's “exactly what it is. Lacks all intentional purpose. Just "happened". No guidance or purposeful cause. Haphazard chance.

      Bull shit common use dictionary definitions. That’s why I seldom use them in an argument. Nature isn’t intentional and neither is it haphazard chance. You’re way too subjective centric. I’m objective, And objectively those definitions don’t work.

      Me - "Everyone wants a better life, and we've discovered that morals are a good way to keep crap from falling on our heads."

      “What I'm trying to get you to acknowledge is where that "want" comes from. The motivation to live and survive. To live well.”

      Want comes from need which comes from our structural nature. It’s pretty obvious stuff.

      YMe- "Good. Your god wouldn't be worth worshiping even if it weren't just your wishful fantasy. Your god would have to be a cruel tyrant egomaniac not worth spitting on."

      “And you've been given that choice to make that determination for yourself.”

      Wrong. I have no choice when I see the evidence all over that idiotic bible of yours. You make excuses for it because you want everlasting life/ But they are transparent excuses a kin to those in the Emperors new cloths. Sorry, the Emperor was naked. So’s your despicable god monster.

      “You weren't just made a drone who must behave according to His will. You can go your own way. Be your own person. You're right, what an asshole.”

      No thanks to your imaginary asshole, And yes I am right. I’m so glad its just a myth.

      Me - "And it adds zero purpose to life despite your irrational claims that it does."

      “It's the only life can have a purpose. What purpose does life serve in your view? What does anything matter?”

      I feel sorry for you needing such a improbable crutch. . It wouldn’t matter in either case unless you give your life purpose if you need that sort of thing. I do fine without someone else’s purpose for, me thanks. I don’t give a damn about what your tyrant retard would have for me were it real.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      8 days ago from Ottawa

      Y"es, I have quote the same definition of life before. This is not an observance of life. This is only characteristics consistent with something that is alive."

      Same thing. characteristics define the thing. Without the thing the characteristics don't exist either. Simple logic that constantly alludes you.

      Me- "A physical brain is required for mind."

      Only to interact with the physical world. Not for the mind itself to exist.

      \

      Were that true it wouldn’t disappear. But it does. So no soul.

      \

      Me- "What do you think that would prove? Nothing. But no doubt that will be possible in future."

      There it is again. That certainty that your religion will reveal these answers.

      Yeah, You’d like it to be a ridiculous religion. But that’s your department not mine. Projecting again? Yup you are. My certainty is that science is the only thing that can reveal such answers. Certainly your fantasy can’t.

      me- "It’s not a picture. It’s a pattern. And again, it proves zero. Actually, there have been experiments that show that we can create images from thoughts."

      Only if we can first record the brain recording these images. Then when those same pattterns are repeated we can determine that this is what they are picturing. Again, not an observation of the image in the mind. Only an observation of the brain activity that stores the image.”

      The science is young and already they have great results. But again, it proves zero. Even if/when they succeed in watching/recording you think it wouldn’t say a thing about a soul. You could still argue a soul was somehow involved. Yet you seem to think that would be proof there is no soul. No it wouldn’t. Your argument shoot you in the foot.

      Me - "Now what? You’re argument is foiled again."

      “Come on Ron, you're smarter than this. To be so easily confused is that delusion I'm trying to help you see. This isn't beyond you. Think.”

      Stop being stupid. You’re the only one with delusions and an apparent inability to be rational about your arguments.

      Me - "We know what makes people run: internal organs and electro-chemical energy."

      “No. Again. Life runs these organs, not the other way around. These organs run when life is present.”

      Wrong. Get used to it.

      Me - "Yeah. Why don’t you read what I write? I explained it to you?"

      Do you read what you write?

      Yeah. Do you? Sometimes I wonder.

      Me- "Simple. If it were separate it would still be there. Can’t you follow that simple logic? "

      “And how would you determine it's still there or not there? Can you not follow that simple logic?”

      How many times? See, you don’t read my replies or you wouldn’t have to ask. If it were there you wouldn’t stop thinking even if your body was asleep. You’d still be aware.

      Hey, ever had an out of body experience? I have and still could almost at will. You see your body, you can move away from it. You are ultra aware. That’s what it would be like under anesthetic if there was a soul and you were put under. That’s why Hindu mystics believe in souls. But I know it’s all brain from experience. I should be the one who believes in souls, and I did, not you, I’ve had supposed proof of them. But I know better now.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      8 days ago from Texas

      Ron,

      You - "No such thing as haphazard chance. But are you really that surprised that we have concerns about how to live, what's right, all of that? Are you for real? We wouldn't be alive if we weren't."

      Yes, I agree. No such thing as haphazard chance, but if existence is as you say it is, then that's exactly what it is. Lacks all intentional purpose. Just "happened". No guidance or purposeful cause. Haphazard chance.

      You - "Everyone wants a better life, and we've discovered that morals are a good way to keep crap from falling on our heads."

      What I'm trying to get you to acknowledge is where that "want" comes from. The motivation to live and survive. To live well.

      You - "Good. Your god wouldn't be worth worshiping even if it weren't just your wishful fantasy. Your god would have to be a cruel tyrant egomaniac not worth spitting on."

      And you've been given that choice to make that determination for yourself. You weren't just made a drone who must behave according to His will. You can go your own way. Be your own person. You're right, what an asshole.

      You - "And it adds zero purpose to life despite your irrational claims that it does."

      It's the only life can have a purpose. What purpose does life serve in your view? What does anything matter?

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      8 days ago from Ottawa

      "I'm just trying to point out the insane idea that we live in an existence dominated by concerns about how to live, what's right, all of that, yet it's more and more common of people I generally consider intelligent to think this was just all brought about by 'haphazard chance"

      No such thing as haphazard chance. But are you really that surprised that we have concerns about how to live, what's right, all of that? Are you for real? We wouldn't be alive if we weren't.

      Everyone wants a better life, and we've discovered that morals are a good way to keep crap from falling on our heads. Cause shit, and you get it back ten fold. That's reason enough, but there's the next generation to think of as well as other loved ones. Morality is in no way dependent on your god. It's the most immoral thing imaginable in the first place.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      8 days ago from Ottawa

      "You've put so much time and energy into convincing yourself there's no God judging you that you've completely overlooked what you're left with without that God. Without a purposeful creator and a reason to exist."

      Good. Your god wouldn't be worth worshiping even if it weren't just your wishful fantasy. Your god would have to be a cruel tyrant egomaniac not worth spitting on.

      And it adds zero purpose to life despite your irrational claims that it does.

      I don't need such a dog or it's stupidity, nor its purpose. I'm all too happy that its a ridiculous myth. Too bad it has you by the intellectual balls.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      8 days ago from Tasmania

      No, somewhere in that mode of life which we might term "charitable," or "moral," is the need to survive. Mutual caring for one another; being unselfish; using resources wisely and fairly rationed; honesty; courage....all these and many other attributes enhance our ability to survive, grow, live and reproduce as a tribe, a herd, a family group.

      In some ways haphazard, maybe, but mostly a continuum of cause and effect, even down to what we perceive as the atomic level. Maybe that is the domain of this God Creator you speak about. Who knows for sure?

      I try to apply (in many instances imperfectly and unsuccessfully) the charity bit in my life because it serves my life to do so. It's more pleasant for me and the recipient. It makes it more likely I will get a reasonable return of charity. It helps to ensure my own survival. "What goes around, comes around."

      Some people find that putting a God up there on a plinth gives a useful focus for all that charity. When that god on the plinth takes precedence over the reality of my neighbour, then it's time for god to take a tumble.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      8 days ago from Texas

      You - "Pure haphazard chance" is not what's proposed, Jeremy.

      Please explain how what's proposed isn't haphazard chance.

      Not catholic. Grew up baptist. I think the "some times" you're referring to is when I get tired of banging my head against the wall trying to make the obvious points. When the other refuses to accept them I get a little short.

      So often the believer is spoken to as if they're some lower level of intelligence or rationality. Yet it seems obvious to me that the less thought out view is that of the non-believer. Sometimes the hypocrisy becomes a bit too much to take.

      You - "Your perception that we are all "fallen" and steeped in sin, liable to be punished in some way....THE big lie, used by church hierarchy for centuries and people are still sucked into it."

      I'm very much aware of the scare tactics used by organized religion. That's not what this is. That's the same heavy hand I feel influenced you and your mindset.

      I'm just trying to point out the insane idea that we live in an existence dominated by concerns about how to live, what's right, all of that, yet it's more and more common of people I generally consider intelligent to think this was just all brought about by 'haphazard chance".

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      8 days ago from Tasmania

      "Pure haphazard chance" is not what's proposed, Jeremy. That's a red herring and pointless in my view.

      Even if it were considered seriously it would be a better bet than some god waving a wand to create the world.

      Sometimes you speak with clarity, intelligence, good reasoning. At other times your background of religious learning shows through. I get the impression you have been strongly influenced by Roman Catholic teachings. Is that the case?

      Your perception that we are all "fallen" and steeped in sin, liable to be punished in some way....THE big lie, used by church hierarchy for centuries and people are still sucked into it.

      If you choose that road there is nothing I can do about it. Your funeral.

      We hear much talk in the media about the "end times." Fear, fear, fear. Someone is using that mind of yours Jeremy for ulterior purpose.

      Install anti-virus updates, before it's too late.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      8 days ago from Texas

      Life, a product of this universe, has an innate ambition that drives it to survive and propagate. From that came a species that has ambitions to improve life for self and others

      Where do you think that comes from? That concern you have for how your actions affect others? That want to live well? Pure haphazard chance? Is that really what made you who you are?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      9 days ago from Texas

      Alan,

      You - "But I do have concern for how my actions intentionally or accidently affect the lives of others. This for me is where I try to live my life responsibly. Not perfectly of course. Others will have to cope as best they can when I have no more ability to affect the situation.

      The parable of The Good Samaritan is ALL about living life with selfless love for my neighbour, in the present! NOTHING to do with anything beyond death."

      So you have concern for your actions affecting lives of others. That's great. What does it really matter? It makes their life a little easier/better before they disappear into nothing? 10,000 years ago one man picked up an item another man dropped and handed it to him. So, what did that matter?

      A man chooses to spend each day of his life trying to ruin the lives of others around him. In the end he just disappaits like the rest of us. One man groups up all of a specific race and begins to kill them all. He in the end just disappaits at death as well.

      You're right, I can't adide the idea. The idea that we exist and actually care and that ultimately that care and concern was just a randomly mutated trait that has no real purpose or meaning. Just maybe helped a few species of animal live a little longer. Didn't mean anything beyond that.

      You've put so much time and energy into convincing yourself there's no God judging you that you've completely overlooked what you're left with without that God. Without a purposeful creator and a reason to exist.

      Get real Alan.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      9 days ago from Tasmania

      And Jeremy you have tried to show my point of view false, because you cannot abide the idea of "there's nothing for us beyond our death."

      I am happy to dissipate like a fart.

      For me I have absolutely no concern about what's for me beyond death. Period. But I do have concern for how my actions intentionally or accidently affect the lives of others. This for me is where I try to live my life responsibly. Not perfectly of course. Others will have to cope as best they can when I have no more ability to affect the situation.

      The parable of The Good Samaritan is ALL about living life with selfless love for my neighbour, in the present! NOTHING to do with anything beyond death.

      If you or I are applying our love energetically to such love and concern, there is no time, no room, for worrying about whether or not there's a god waiting for us.

      Get real, Jeremy!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      9 days ago from Texas

      Ron,

      Yes, I have quote the same definition of life before. This is not an observance of life. This is only characteristics consistent with something that is alive. All of these things can be run by machines. These things can be seen in something that is dead. If a being can maintain these things on its own then it's considered alive. But there's nothing of life itself that can be seen or detected. Only the behaviors of the body consistent with it.

      You - "A physical brain is required for mind."

      Only to interact with the physical world. Not for the mind itself to exist.

      You - "What do you think that would prove? Nothing. But no doubt that will be possible in future."

      There it is again. That certainty that your religion will reveal these answers.

      You - "It’s not a picture. It’s a pattern. And again, it proves zero. Actually, there have been experiments that show that we can create images from thoughts."

      Only if we can first record the brain recording these images. Then when those same pattterns are repeated we can determine that this is what they are picturing. Again, not an observation of the image in the mind. Only an observation of the brain activity that stores the image.

      You - "Now what? You’re argument is foiled again."

      Come on Ron, you're smarter than this. To be so easily confused is that delusion I'm trying to help you see. This isn't beyond you. Think.

      You - "We know what makes people run: internal organs and electro-chemical energy."

      No. Again. Life runs these organs, not the other way around. These organs run when life is present.

      You - "Yeah. Why don’t you read what I write? I explained it to you?"

      Do you read what you write?

      You - "Simple. If it were separate it would still be there. Can’t you follow that simple logic? "

      And how would you determine it's still there or not there? Can you not follow that simple logic?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      9 days ago from Texas

      Alan,

      Without God there's no point ... this isn't my perspective. This is fact. If there is no God, nothing beyond this life, then nothing you or I do matters. It won't change anything. We'll dissipate like a fart and nothing we ever did will matter. This isn't a perspective or a need in me. Tell me from your perspective how it's anything but what I laid out.

      You - "Has not all your research been conducted in terms of that bias? "

      No. As I've said many times I tried to prove it incorrect. Tried to show it to be false. This isn't about seeing what I want to see. It's about seeing things for what they are.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      9 days ago from Ottawa

      Me - "Life and mind are fact."

      “Facts require physical evidence. What physical evidence do you have that either exists?”

      Are you well? What kind of question is that? I don’t often use definitions but you should have looked it up before asking.

      1. the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

      2.

      2. the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, especially metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.

      You are physical proof of life. Notice some of the physical requirements: metabolism and reproduction, adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

      A physical brain is required for mind. The ability to reach out and manipulate matter to your advantage, talking, making choices, all proof positive of mind. Stop saying shit that’

      “As you read these words you hear an audible voice in your head, right? Can you record it? Can you do anything to allow me to hear what you're hearing?”

      What do you think that would prove? Nothing. But no doubt that will be possible in future.

      ‘ if I ask you picture your mother in your mind, that picture exists, doesn't it? Can you show me? It's there. You can see it. Sorry, not bullshit. It's something you're going to have to face. Science isn't equipped to deal with everything that exists. So it can't be used to dismiss God.”

      It’s not a picture. It’s a pattern. And again, it proves zero. Actually, there have been experiments that show that we can create images from thoughts.

      “Using functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) and computational models,UC Berkeley researchers have succeeded in decoding and reconstructing people’s dynamic visual experiences – in this case, watching Hollywood movie trailers.

      As yet, the technology can only reconstruct movie clips people have already viewed. However, the breakthrough paves the way for reproducing the movies inside our heads that no one else sees, such as dreams and memories, according to researchers.”

      Now what? You’re argument is foiled again. Sorry, you’ll just have to get used to it. Mind is just part of brain. No god required.

      You - "I didn't say that. Is there a difference between a dead car and a working car?"

      “But we know what makes a car run. a combustion engine.”

      We know what makes people run: internal organs and electro-chemical energy.

      “Energy from the ignition of a gas-air mixture forces the piston back out of its cyllinder, propelling the crank. We don't know what makes life "run"

      .

      Wrong. I just told you.

      You - "Physical reasons for life, physical reasons for death."

      Physical reasons?

      Yeah. Why don’t you read what I write? I explained it to you?

      You - "Yeah it does. Mind is gone."

      “You'd have to be able to actually detect/observe the mind to make that determination. That's the part you keep skipping/glossing over.”

      Bull shit. If mind=consciousness and it’s not there under specific drugs, it’s not there. Simple. If it were separate it would still be there. Can’t you follow that simple logic? Or is it just too inconvenient to admit?

      me- "And why would a useless thing exist in a system? It's not required, so it may as well be ignored if it did."

      “You're the one that said it was useless.”

      Because if it were the way you describe it, it obviously would be.

      “I just said it doesn't have access to memories “

      Exactly. It has no memory according to you, so it’s useless.

      “f the brain isn't functioning. But the fact that you can act of your own accord, and not just live your life as a drone machine simply reacting to your environment, that requires the soul. Therefore, not at all useless.”

      Nonsense.

      Me - "Belief one way or the other is meaningless."

      “Except that belief makes it real in the mind of the believer.”

      Right. Delusion.

      “If over half the world believed in a spaghetti monster who taught that you and your kind should be enslaved and in servitude to them, that wouldn't be meaningless, would it?

      Yes it would. Delusional people acting on delusion are dangerous, but their delusions themselves are meaningless bullshit.

      Me - "When there is no way at all to prove which, it's a useless quest, and belief is just a wild guess."

      “Same goes for life and mind.”

      Wrong. Utterly wrong. Both are self evident facts. Try to get your head around that.

      Me - "That's projection. You may need to see some one about that. You do it every time you know you lost the argument. Sorry, I'm not that stupid.I see through you and your tactics."

      “And that is irony in its most quintessential form. You projecting that I'm projecting.”

      No it’s not. It’s a fact you need pointed out to you. I’m doing you a favour. Get help.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      9 days ago from Tasmania

      "Without God there's no point in it...." ok, your perspective. That need for you directs your choices. It also pre-empts all you discussion, all your argument.

      Has not all your research been conducted in terms of that bias? Even though you will most likely deny it, and think you have studied with an open mind, it is your unswerving belief in a god that influences your opinions.

      And the need for evangelism has been propogated in your mind....which has no physical form; so it can only be measured by what you say.

      True?

      (It's early morning here and I'm on a 300km drive so will not be able to reply until much later).

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      9 days ago from Texas

      I have always maintained that belief in God is a choice. It's all about free will so it's all about you willfully choosing. It's not forced on you.

      If there's evidence then it no longer requires belief.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      10 days ago from Tasmania

      Religious Imagination: A Poem

      Updated on August 3,

      © 2018 Vladimir Karas

      Vlad, here in HubPages, has just written a new poem and expressed my views better than I could. I commend you read it.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      10 days ago from Tasmania

      And just for the record, again, I have no fear of any god. There are some who feel I aught to, but that is their stuff and nonsense, not mine.

      The humans who presume to judge me - now that is something I do fear. False judgments without any knowledge of me or my person.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      10 days ago from Tasmania

      Jeremy, your statement "Without a God there's no point to any of it" shows that you choose to believe there is a god. You have previously denied it's your choice, saying your beliefs are based upon evidence.

      I have said also that I have no problem with you having those beliefs, - provided - you don't presume that those beliefs are necessarily relevant for others, including my self.

      All of your arguments with Ron get you nowhere all the time there seems to be a lack of honesty with your self.

      At least this is from my perspective - not stated as fact....

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      10 days ago from Texas

      The oppression you've been under in your life was not the doing of God. It was the doing of people under the guise of God.

      Would you rather it be that all the most evil people in human history not be held accountable for their actions? We choose the life we live. Without a God there's no point to any of it. If you live the best life you can, make the best decision in every moment of everyday, we'll still blink out of existence and none of it will have made any difference. Here we are under the illusion we're making our own choices, to the point we actually care and aspire toward what we feel is meaningful and important. All of it a crock of shit without God.

      I see the fear in you. You've said it many times. You attest the idea of a God holding judgement over you. I think if you stopped to think about it, you'd realize it's something you would prefer be true. The alternative is truly the most tragic ending to our story I can imagine.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      10 days ago from Tasmania

      "Facts require physical evidence." Thank you! Affirmative.

      "Except that belief makes it real in the mind of the believer."

      Thank you for explaining the real nature of God.

      Somewhat out of context, I know, but it's the thought that counts.....

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      10 days ago from Texas

      Ron,

      You - "Life and mind are fact."

      Facts require physical evidence. What physical evidence do you have that either exists? As you read these words you hear an audible voice in your head, right? Can you record it? Can you do anything to allow me to hear what you're hearing? if I ask you picture your mother in your mind, that picture exists, doesn't it? Can you show me? It's there. You can see it. Sorry, not bullshit. It's something you're going to have to face. Science isn't equipped to deal with everything that exists. So it can't be used to dismiss God.

      You - "I didn't say that. Is there a difference between a dead car and a working car?"

      But we know what makes a car run. a combustion engine. Energy from the ignition of a gas-air mixture forces the piston back out of its cyllinder, propelling the crank. We don't know what makes life "run". We just know what the body needs to do to hang on to it.

      You - "Physical reasons for life, physical reasons for death."

      Physical reasons?

      You - "Yeah it does. Mind is gone."

      You'd have to be able to actually detect/observe the mind to make that determination. That's the part you keep skipping/glossing over.

      You - "And why would a useless thing exist in a system? It's not required, so it may as well be ignored if it did."

      You're the one that said it was useless. I just said it doesn't have access to memories if the brain isn't functioning. But the fact that you can act of your own accord, and not just live your life as a drone machine simply reacting to your environment, that requires the soul. Therefore, not at all useless.

      You - "Belief one way or the other is meaningless."

      Except that belief makes it real in the mind of the believer. Another thing that exists only in the mind, that cannot be seen, but that does matter because it does ultimately play an influential role in your life because you live amongst believers. If over half the world believed in a spaghetti monster who taught that you and your kind should be enslaved and in servitude to them, that wouldn't be meaningless, would it?

      You - "When there is no way at all to prove which, it's a useless quest, and belief is just a wild guess."

      Same goes for life and mind.

      You - "That's projection. You may need to see some one about that. You do it every time you know you lost the argument. Sorry, I'm not that stupid.I see through you and your tactics."

      And that is irony in its most quintessential form. You projecting that I'm projecting.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      10 days ago from Ottawa

      "No you didn't, but you did say to ignore any concept of God and you cited reasons that also apply to both life and mind, so if we are to consistently apply those same standards then that is what you're left with."

      Life and mind are fact. God is a wild guess. Big difference. So no, that's not what Alan is left with, it's what you are left with.

      "God, life, and the mind are all in the same category of having no physical attributes to measure or detect."

      Bullshit. Stop lying to yourself. Stop trying to make others believe that lie. It's clearly just not true..

      " The other 'invisible' factor that's relevant here is life itself. Like you said, no physical difference can be found between a living or a dead body."

      I didn't say that. Is there a difference between a dead car and a working car? No weight difference. Nothing gone that was there before. A working car and a dead car contain the same number of particles. Structurally, there's no discernible difference.

      Except when you look closer and find out the pistons are ceased. In the case of a person you might discover the heart stopped.

      Biology is a system with parts that are essential for function. They all depend on each other They are physical parts, just like any system. One thing fails and you get a cascade effect. The brain is particularly sensitive. No oxygen for only 5 minutes and even if they can bring you back, they shouldn't.

      " Life and death are unquantifiable abstracts."

      Nonsense. No imaginary useless souls required.Physical reasons for life, physical reasons for death. I know you wish it was otherwise.

      "Yeah, no physical memories because the brain and the senses aren't operating to create them. Doesn't mean it isn't functioning."

      Yeah it does. Mind is gone. If a soul doesn't hold memory or consciousness it's utterly useless, And why would a useless thing exist in a system? It's not required, so it may as well be ignored if it did.

      "That's what you want to dismiss this as, but it isn't accurate. A majority of the world's popuation doesn't believe in a spaghetti monster. "

      Fallacious and irrelevant argument. If the entire population of the world believed the moon was green cheese, would it make it true? No.. Belief one way or the other is meaningless. Something either is or is not true regardless of belief by one or all.

      When there is no way at all to prove which, it's a useless quest, and belief is just a wild guess.

      ". .Nope, I'm calling you delusional. There's nothing wrong with science. But it's successes as of late has rendered many people, yourself included, delusional and unable to think."

      You know how stupid and utterly ridiculous you sound? I know you hate truth and live in your fairy tale delusional world, but even you know what you said above applies to you, not me.

      That's projection. You may need to see some one about that. You do it every time you know you lost the argument. Sorry, I'm not that stupid.I see through you and your tactics.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      10 days ago from Texas

      No you didn't, but you did say to ignore any concept of God and you cited reasons that also apply to both life and mind, so if we are to consistently apply those same standards then that is what you're left with.

      The fact that you only apply that reasoning to God and not equally to life/mind just reiterates my point.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      11 days ago from Tasmania

      I never said "ignore life and mind." That was your extrapolation.

      When my rational mind feels it ok to dismiss the concept of a human-designed god, that is in no way desperation. It's not a weak, fall-back position.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      11 days ago from Texas

      God, life, and the mind are all in the same category of having no physical attributes to measure or detect. As you guys say, you can't "know" anything about it, so why bother?

      Does that mean we should just ignore life and the mind? Because they're pretty relevant to our situation. As would be God if there's one of those as well. This idea of just ignoring any that the science tool box doesn't have something in it to deal with them is idiotic.

      All I see are people trying to use whatever rationality makes them feel okay to dismiss this God that's probably been used to oppress them in some way at some point. Stinks of desperation.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      12 days ago from Texas

      Ron,

      To be clear, the brain gives the soul the ability to interact with the physical world. So yes, in a sense, in this physical place, it's "useless" without it".

      The other 'invisible' factor that's relevant here is life itself. Like you said, no physical difference can be found between a living or a dead body. No weight difference. Nothing gone that was there before. A live body and a dead body contain the same number of particles. Structurally, there's no discernible difference. Life and death are unquantifiable abstracts.

      Yet something is obviously different, isn't there? Just nothing that conforms to empirical investigation. That's how you know you're dealing with a soul. When nothing can be determined as far as the mechanics of the brain and nothing can be weighed or measured where life/death are concerned, these are the tell tale signs. Physical science is not equipped to deal with non-physical things. But being non-physical doesn't mean it isn't real.

      You - "Duh! "You" Supposed soul, has no memory of anything. It glaringly obvious it's not functioning. What more proof do you need?"

      Yeah, no physical memories because the brain and the senses aren't operating to create them. Doesn't mean it isn't functioning.

      You - "That's the kind of delusional thinking you're fighting for. No thanks. Your sick tyrant ego maniacal god and divine spaghetti monsters are the same thing: nonsense.and delusion."

      That's what you want to dismiss this as, but it isn't accurate. A majority of the world's popuation doesn't believe in a spaghetti monster. As much as you want to dismiss it, you live in a world full of people who aren't. Deal with it.

      You - "And you're calling the only method mankind has found that actually produce real knowledge and facts for the first time in history delusional?"

      Nope, I'm calling you delusional. There's nothing wrong with science. But it's successes as of late has rendered many people, yourself included, delusional and unable to think.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      13 days ago from Ottawa

      "Clearly you don't. Soul makes you alive. Makes you a willful being and not a drone. It IS you. Not useless at all."

      No, clearly you know nothing about it but tell lies like it makes me alive when you can't even prove it exists. Yes, totally useless.

      "Why? It has the brain"

      So now you admit it's useless. About time..

      "Not separate from the brain. It uses the brain to recall memories and critically assess and make choices."

      So completely useless. You won't have a brain when you die, so your imaginary soul will sit there drooling like a vegetable. Admit it, it's nonsense.

      "Not a fact."

      Yes, fact. You'll just have to learn to live with it: Souls are fiction.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      13 days ago from Ottawa

      :"That's exactly what I'm saying. We don't know the mind is shut down."

      Duh! "You" Supposed soul, has no memory of anything. It glaringly obvious it's not functioning. What more proof do you need?

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      13 days ago from Ottawa

      "You, like Ron, right here, basically say that because there's no physical proof it's not worth discussing."

      Right. So gullibility, imagination, making shit up and faith is the answer? Grow up. What you advocate for is ignorance and stupidity.

      Ok, l'll tell you the truth. Divine spaghetti monsters created the universe. It's true. Just have faith. What? They aren't worth discussing? You don't believe they exist? Only a fool would think that. They obviously exist. The universe didn't create itself.

      That's the kind of delusional thinking you're fighting for. No thanks. Your sick tyrant ego maniacal god and divine spaghetti monsters are the same thing: nonsense.and delusion.

      And you're calling the only method mankind has found that actually produce real knowledge and facts for the first time in history delusional? Only a fool would say that and think anyone with half a brain would take them seriously.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      13 days ago from Texas

      Alan,

      This has nothing to do with what I desire. I hope I don't ever have to say that again.

      I'm simply trying to make a point. A point that directly relates to the topic of this hub.

      Yes, there's no definable proof, yet the mind is a real thing. That is the point. That right there illustrates the short-comings of this whole mindset.

      You, like Ron, right here, basically say that because there's no physical proof it's not worth discussing. Not true. It's being discussed because it's an illustration of what is the fundamental flaw with the science delusion, which is the topic of this hub.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      13 days ago from Tasmania

      @Jeremy "The brain has to be functioning for the bodily behaviors that indicate the mind is working to actually happen."

      "Anyone under anesthetic cannot attest to anything because their brain was not actively retaining new memories while under because the brain couldn't do so. Their mind could have been active the whole time, but can't recall."

      In both these statements you indicate again that you desire to "believe" something is or does, without any definable proof. You have done the same for anything to do with "God." Your argument goes on incessantly about things that cannot be seen, heard, felt, smelt or tasted. Where does such argument get you, apart from on-line entertainment?

      Sure, put up the idea, the theoretical possibility, even if it's a very low probability. Surely though, it's more useful to allow such to remain in the realm of conjecture. At least, from the time people didn't even know that it existed, the invisible air we breathe was ultimately measurable and determined to be a physical entity. But it had to wait a while to be defined. I guess for your infinite mind it must wait a much longer while before it will ever be defined and measured.... unless it's something to do with MENSA. How long "God" will have to wait, Heaven only knows.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      Ron,

      "So if the soul has no way to store memory it's useless. Don't you get it yet?"

      Clearly you don't. Soul makes you alive. Makes you a willful being and not a drone. It IS you. Not useless at all.

      "You said it's like a radio. So does the radio create the signal? No. Does the signal continue if the radio is turned off? Yes."

      Exactly. Does the brain create the mind? Does the mind continue if the brain is turned off?

      "Were mind separate from brain, and the body was just something mind pushed around it would have to have it's own memory separate from brain."

      Why? It has the brain.

      "You claim it makes choices separate from brain."

      Not separate from the brain. It uses the brain to recall memories and critically assess and make choices.

      "So were that true, how the hell could it be shut down with drugs? It couldn't. It's separate. If you are soul, then how could you be shut down? Impossible."

      That's exactly what I'm saying. We don't know the mind is shut down. If the actions of the body are the only way we can "see" the mind, then if the brain is shut down then the body is shut down. It's not that the mind is shut down. It's only that the body is unable to "show" the mind.

      "The fact drugs can shut down mind is substantive evidence of mind being an emergent property of brain."

      Not a fact.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      Alan,

      "Personally I cannot remember if I was aware or not because ..... because? because?"

      Because.... your brain has to be active to store new memories. The drugs disabled your brain. You can't remember because there are no memories. Whether or not the shut down brain also shut down the mind is an unknown. The brain has to be functioning for the bodily behaviors that indicate the mind is working to actually happen. The mind can't be seen. If the body can't act, it's completely invisible to us. But that doesn't mean it isn't there.

      "Others, yourself include, are continually searching for an esoteric explanation, so that is more likely what you will see in any event."

      I'm just acknowledging the truth established by the facts known. Nothing more.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      2 weeks ago from Tasmania

      @Jeremy: "A coma patient, are they actual conscience and aware of their surroundings, just unable to act in any sort of way to indicate to those around them that they're present?" Personally I cannot remember if I was aware or not because ..... because? because?

      The drugs used somehow disengaged the neuro-activity which gives me memory. They also disengaged the sensory areas of the brain and spinal chord which detect pain. There could thus be no responsive signals to motor areas which would normally react violently to pain.

      We like to speak of areas as if they are well-defined, but there is obviously inter-connectedness of which scientist have only scratched the surface, so far.

      If you Google "functions of the frontal lobe" you will find impressive accounts of such research.

      Maybe what we like to term Mind is a complex interaction of numerous bits of the brain in order to give us an awareness first, then a reasonable interpretation of what we observe; finally a choice of reactions to what is observed.

      I am happy to rest my mind in accepting such a hypothesis until newer information is forthcoming.

      Others, yourself include, are continually searching for an esoteric explanation, so that is more likely what you will see in any event.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      2 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "'m not calling the mind mechanical. You are. If it's nothing more than the product of the brain then it is mechanical.

      Under anesthetic the brain isn't storing or retaining any memories, so they couldn't recall anything about it later."

      No, you are saying its mechanical. You definition of mechanical is irrational and self serving. So if the soul has no way to store memory it's useless. Don't you get it yet? You said it's like a radio. So does the radio create the signal? No. Does the signal continue if the radio is turned off? Yes.

      Were mind separate from brain, and the body was just something mind pushed around it would have to have it's own memory separate from brain. You claim it makes choices separate from brain. So were that true, how the hell could it be shut down with drugs? It couldn't. It's separate. If you are soul, then how could you be shut down? Impossible. If you had a soul, why would you need a brain? None of it makes sense in light of a separate soul that is supposed have memory and be fully functional when you die. The fact drugs can shut down mind is substantive evidence of mind being an emergent property of brain.

      Alan.

      Yes, mind, to me, is a new layer of brain, not the entire brain. Subconscious is still aware, still learns from experience, acts much faster than consciousness can, but it is based in and communicates in emotion. Human brains have a "new" addition called a frontal lob. It's far more developed in us than in any other primate. It gives us the ability for second thought, and it let's us decide against our first course of action and to do what's right. This is all driven by language and isn't fully developed till we are 25 years old.

      It educates the subconscious and thereby changes our auto response. We also have a left and right hemisphere. Left uses language and logic, and has a heightened self awareness and self image. Right is subconscious and emotional. Together they form one personality and will. Separated they have separate personalities and often separate will. This has now been verified time after time trough experiment.

      So since that's a fact, the idea of a separate soul being will and in charge is clearly false.

      For the rest, you're doing great up against Jeremy. Keep it up.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      It's certainly not a pointless area for argument where people in a coma are concerned. It's a pretty major topic.

      Anyone under anesthetic cannot attest to anything because their brain was not actively retaining new memories while under because the brain couldn't do so. Their mind could have been active the whole time, but can't recall.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      2 weeks ago from Tasmania

      Scientifically true yes, because everyone who has ever been under anaesthetic can attest to it.

      "the mind if it is still active...." a supposition that cannot be proven one way or the other. And for me, at least, a pointless area for argument, akin to other points of argument like Is there a god? Do we have soul? Is there life after death? Each one resides in the realm of belief, fantasy.....and here we have turned turtle ..... this realm being the human itself.

      Funny, isn't it?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      Alan,

      "Can there be any valid question about that?"

      Yes.

      "If I had died while in the coma, my mind would have ceased 100%. No further consciousness. Period. No mind, no brain, no physical control. All of these are verifiable facts, scientifically true for millions of people."

      No brain, true. No physical control, true. No mind? Still undetermined. The mind cannot be observed but through physical behavior through the body. If the body/brain is shut down, the mind if it is still active is unable to interact with the physical world. But it is not in any way "scientifically true" or a "verifiable fact".

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      2 weeks ago from Tasmania

      If I take my mind as being what I think with, I am absolutely sure my mind was not active whilst under anaesthetic. I only knew that I had "been under" because I "came round" and was able to deduce the fact. If I had died while in the coma, my mind would have ceased 100%. No further consciousness. Period. No mind, no brain, no physical control. All of these are verifiable facts, scientifically true for millions of people.

      Can there be any valid question about that?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      Right, the body is your drone. You're able to move it about, steer it, point its camera at things and interact with the terrain through it. If a component is broken and not working properly, though you're still fully able to move the levers to engage that function, the drone is unable to carry it out.

      We assume under anesthetic the subject's mind is inactive, but do we know that for sure? A coma patient, are they actual conscience and aware of their surroundings, just unable to act in any sort of way to indicate to those around them that they're present?

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      2 weeks ago from Tasmania

      Mmmm....I would not see it just like that.

      If the "radio" signal was a simple, single signal being produced by something, somewhere, then piped through the radio, maybe as you suggest.

      But that radio signal is a composite one including a carrier, which has to be dealt with by the radio receiver, which is active in what we ultimately hear.

      My senses don't need any such intermediary in order for me to hear a sound, feel a slap on my back, etc. ( But if the nerves/wires carrying the signal are interrupted then I will get no sensation.)

      Interpretation of that sound or the slap is, it seems, a function of the mind/memory/imagination that occurs somehow within the brain. Perhaps the brain IS somehow like a sort of radio receiver. Maybe the interpretations of which I become aware are transmitted by the whole composite experience of living matter.

      Who knows? But it makes a very interesting mind game.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      Alan,

      I think of it more like a radio. What you hear is not a product of the radio itself. It's a signal being received and played through the radio. When the radio is broken that doesn't mean the signal is no longer there. Only that your ability to hear it is incapacitated.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      I'm not calling the mind mechanical. You are. If it's nothing more than the product of the brain then it is mechanical.

      Under anesthetic the brain isn't storing or retaining any memories, so they couldn't recall anything about it later.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      2 weeks ago from Tasmania

      Question, Gentlemen: if what we know is imagination can be attributed to the workings of our mind; then what if other things are also pure imagination yet we are not aware they are?

      Under anaesthetic coma we are aware of nothing, not even time itself. The only connection we get is by checking the clock and finding it's advanced since we last looked.

      The brain, during that coma, was still working to control the body. But the mind and consciousness were not functioning at all.

      So the anaesthetic worked on consciousness by a chemical reaction with the nerves.

      I propose therefore that consciousness is an effect of brain function, not its physical existence.

      In the same way that electo-magnetic energy emitted from an object is not the object itself.

      Does this connect with your arguments?

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      2 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "I'm not pretending I know anything about souls."

      If that were true you wouldn't make claims about them and insist those claims are true.

      "How do you know? You can't see the mind"

      Ever been under anesthetic? Many people wake up form an operation asking when it's going start. They were aware of nothing consciously or subconsciously, even time. Were the mind separate that wouldn't happen.

      "They give us exactly what a mechanical mind cannot. Freedom of choice."

      Again, making claims you can't back up because you can't prove they even exist and can do anything at all. And, you don't know anything about the mind because you're still calling it mechanical, which it obviously is not. No souls or gods are required, so the likelihood that they exist anyway approaches zero.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      I'm not pretending I know anything about souls.

      You - "What are you talking about? Where is mind under anesthetic? No where. No thoughts, no sensations. Gone. Shut down."

      How do you know? You can't see the mind. You can't ask the person under anesthetic. How do you know?

      You - "They are illogical, unworkable, and there's zero evidence for them."

      They give us exactly what a mechanical mind cannot. Freedom of choice.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      2 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "The brain would still look the same way as it does when we observe it."

      Sure, we see what we see. That's reality whether there is a soul or not.That alone proves nothing. But if there were an interaction it has to leave a trace somewhere down the line. And you know zero about souls and how they might or might not work so don't pretend you do.

      "Still the same answer. If the brain is the mechanism through which the mind operates, then shutting it down or harming it in some way renders the mind un-observable. Because we can only 'observe' the mind through bodily behavior,"

      What are you talking about? Where is mind under anesthetic? No where. No thoughts, no sensations. Gone. Shut down. Were the mind separate you couldn't do that. You'd leave your body, watch the operation and keep thinking. If soul's can't do that without a brain how can you expect them to be able to think when the body dies? If you are right, they are useless. But that's not what happens. Soul's are an absurd idea.How can they access memory with no brain? How can they think with no brain?

      They are illogical, unworkable, and there's zero evidence for them.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      For the mind to interact with the physical world/body in any way it has to work through the brain. So all the same activity you see in the brain, which you incorrectly think of as proof, would be the same if there's a mind operating through the brain, and not one and the same. The brain would still look the same way as it does when we observe it.

      This is why watching brain activity is not evidence or proof that it is one and the same with the mind. Just because it's active doesn't mean it's the source. Only that it is involved.

      You - "Well, shut off brain and your dead. I said mind; specifically consciousness can be shut down. If you aren't thinking mind's not functioning, hence not separate.."

      Still the same answer. If the brain is the mechanism through which the mind operates, then shutting it down or harming it in some way renders the mind un-observable. Because we can only 'observe' the mind through bodily behavior, then shutting down the brain shuts down it's ability to emote or act through the body. The mind could still be going strong, but with the body incapacitated there's no way to know.

      Similar to how it's difficult to determine how aware a coma patient is, if at all. Same reason. We don't know what the mind is doing because the body is incapacitated. The coma patient could be experiencing their own personal Wizard of Oz in their mind. We have no way of knowing.

      The only thing we do know is that if there is no brain activity then they are not accessing memories. So whatever is going on it's not grounded in information gained in life.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      2 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "There is absolutely no evidence of that."

      Of course there is.

      "The mind has never once been observed."

      Observe the brain, observe the mind. So far, no difference. .

      "If your car is malfunctioning it impairs your ability to drive. Doesn't mean you and your car are one and the same."

      An absurd analogy. Your car isn't involved at all in thought, and you make the point for me. Brain and car ARE separate, and thus, malfunction of car doesn't effect brain. Just as, were mind and brain separate, malfunctioning brain wouldn't effect mind. See how that works?

      " If the brain is shut off then none of those behaviors/actions can be carried out. The mind could still be fully functioning inside, "

      Well, shut off brain and your dead. I said mind; specifically consciousness can be shut down. If you aren't thinking mind's not functioning, hence not separate..

      "Has to be physical to leave a trace."

      Wrong. It's interacting with a physical thing so MUST leave a trace were it to exist. No, your excuse is not logical and can't work.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      You - "Mind is an emergent phenomenon from a physical brain."

      There is absolutely no evidence of that. The mind has never once been observed. It can only be seen by the subject. It's assumed the mind emerges from the brain, but nobody knows that for certain.

      Just because you can't observe it doesn't mean it isn't there. Example: Mind.

      You - "If the brain were not mind, mind wouldn't be impaired by malfunctioning brain."

      If your car is malfunctioning it impairs your ability to drive. Doesn't mean you and your car are one and the same.

      You - "Mind can be shut off."

      See, here's the problem. The only way you can "observe" the mind is through the actions/behaviors of the subject. If the brain is shut off then none of those behaviors/actions can be carried out. The mind could still be fully functioning inside, but the brain is required to work the body to show what the mind is doing.

      I know this is difficult for you, but understand the brain is definitely involved. Every physical sensation you experience, including the mental experience, the brain is involved. The brain is your non-physical self's connection to your physical self. If you feel it, sense it, experience it physically in some way, the brain is involved.

      You - "If it exists it interacts and leaves a trace. Otherwise it doesn't exist. And thus far, not a trace."

      Has to be physical to leave a trace. There's no evidence of thoughts you had in the past. No way to see them. No trace of them. But they still happened.

      You - "It's not my fault you can't prove it exists, but I'm not buying the idea that if it did, you couldn't. It's not a logical argument."

      Whether or not you buy it, it is logical.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      2 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "No. Brain - physical/observable .... Mind - not physical / not observable"

      Brain, observable. Mind = brain. Hence observable though as yet not fully explained. Mind is an emergent phenomenon from a physical brain.

      No evidence of anything else.

      ."Didn't say that."

      I know. you didn't include it and hence you missed the point.

      "Yes, biology is a natural science. Biology is about the brain. Psychology isn't a natural science. Because it is about the mind. "

      Biology is exactly about mind as well as brain. Stress hormones influence actions/choices. All the chemicals made by the brain have effects on the brain and the choices we make. Bacteria in the gut talks to the brain influencing the food we crave. A lump in the frontal lobe influences choices.

      If the brain were not mind, mind wouldn't be impaired by malfunctioning brain. Mind can be shut off. Another bit of convincing evidence that it's brain. Were it not, how could it be shut off with drugs? It couldn't be.

      Most violent criminals have something wrong with the brain,which has only come to light with brain scans. It's obvious that there is no separation. What role would a soul play? Zero.

      "Holy shit. And you actually say this at the end of a sentence where you're saying I haven't been listening to your arguments. Holy shit."

      Yeah, because I don't buy your excuse. It's transparently bogus. If it exists it interacts and leaves a trace. Otherwise it doesn't exist. And thus far, not a trace.

      It's not my fault you can't prove it exists, but I'm not buying the idea that if it did, you couldn't. It's not a logical argument.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      You - "Biology isn't natural science? How ridiculous."

      Didn't say that. Yes, biology is a natural science. Biology is about the brain. Psychology isn't a natural science. Because it is about the mind.

      You - " prove a soul exists"

      Holy shit. And you actually say this at the end of a sentence where you're saying I haven't been listening to your arguments. Holy shit.

      I'm not even going to say it. You should know my response to this statement by now.

      You - "Yes we do."

      No. Brain - physical/observable .... Mind - not physical / not observable

      To have actual physical proof you have to be able to see both. One is completely invisible to anyone other than the subject who's mind it is.

      Simple as that.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      2 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "Yes, through the behavioral sciences, not the natural sciences."

      Biology isn't natural science? How ridiculous.

      "You take the evidence that a specific region of the brain is active during a given condition.

      Not just that. You obviously haven't been listing to his arguments or mine. prove a soul exists. You can't because its fantasy. We've looked for evidence of it. Even tried weighing dead bodies to see if something leaves. Nothing. If there was an interaction we'd find it. Nothing. If it existed it would leave a trace. Nothing. So it's as good as fantasy.

      Brain = mind. There is no other rational conclusion. And your idea that we should be able to see experience is just stupid.

      " If we're right about the brain activity being the 'cause' then you can certainly glean knowledge from that. But we don't have that connection. "

      Yes we do. You're too blinded by your fantasy to see it or admit it if you do. There is no such thing as supernatural. Simple as that.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      You - "We can certainly know it and study it through behavior."

      Yes, through the behavioral sciences, not the natural sciences. Not empirical certainty. Therefore, no facts have been determined.

      You - "No, you don't get it. Dozens. :Check out Robert Sapulski. I gave you the links once before."

      No, no, no. I'm familiar with Sapulski. He does much the same as you. You take the evidence that a specific region of the brain is active during a given condition, then attribute that behavior to that region of the brain as the 'cause'. It's involved, certainly, but is it the cause? Don't know. Only know it's active.Have no idea what it's actually doing.

      Every physical sensation you see/hear/think/experience, the brain is involved. For you to see/hear/smell/think/experience it takes the brain. But does that mean the mental aspect of what's happening is caused by the brain? Not necessarily.

      It's easy to confuse and a lot of really intelligent people do so. But the fact remains, the mental experience cannot be observed. It can't be measured. It can't be empirically confirmed. If we're right about the brain activity being the 'cause' then you can certainly glean knowledge from that. But we don't have that connection. That's why the behavioral sciences are a separate branch. Because the mind doesn't conform to scientific inquiry. Never has.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      3 weeks ago from Ottawa

      Check this guy out. He's saying a lot of what I've been saying for years, and can explain behaviour through bioology and neurology better than I can.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7htlm3DQ_so

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWZAL64E0DI&t=...

    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)