we do not know the hour or time, and that should not be own major concern, rather we should work to be found worthy when He comes
I was actually referring to Cain as the farmer, banished from where Adam/Eve and the rest of the family are. This is the one I associate with Enki, though this is not a concrete association that the rest hinges on. But to be clear, this doesn't impact original sin. In this view, all of us born of 'civilized' cultures are of both bloodlines, naturally evolved humans, and Adam/Eve.
Yes, basically. Except that I think of Enoch, written around 300BC, more as insight into the minds of the people in that age in regards to Genesis. Genesis, especially to post-exile Jewish people, was just as much ancient and mysterious to them as it is to us. Enoch seems to have been an attempt to fill out the story inspired by some of the more intriguing bits of Genesis. But you're right, traditionally angels do not have free will, yet there are many who still consider these angels. Angels capable of impregnating flesh and blood humans, for whatever reason.
It's entirely possible they were. The Nephilim, or descendants of the Nephilim, the Anakites, are described throughout the rest of the books of Moses as quite large. And, interestingly, in carved depictions of the gods of Sumerian mythology, they're depicted as roughly 1/3 larger than humans.
Nowhere in the story does it say God is afraid they would walk into heaven. It says, based on His observation of what the 'children of men' were doing, he decided to scatter them and confuse their language. It clearly wasn't the tower in particular. It was the ingenuity. The firing of mud-bricks, the construction, the deciding together to make a name for themselves and build a city/tower as a solution. And nowhere does it say this was in any way a punishment.
But clearly they had a power. Because right after being scattered this same thing happened, only in multiple places, each with their own unique language. It would have been quite a different place if this all started with one unified language and one unified city to kick it all off. When there's multiple languages and multiple civilizations it greatly changes the dynamic. I think that was the reason.
You're right, looking at God scattering them to stop them doesn't make any sense at all. It makes the whole thing sound uneven and inconsistent. Kind of like angels who don't have free will, except in that one part.
Actually, this one does reflect reality quite strongly. It closely resembles what actually happened due to a dramatic climate change when the Sahara transformed back into a desert for the last time. This really did cause the people of this region to scatter, where they headed to lands along river banks. In the centuries following this event (3900BC), we see the emergence of Sumer(3500), Egypt(3400), the Indus Valley(3300), Akkad(before 3000), all of which had their own unique language.
"Thus, it also triggered worldwide migration to river valleys, such as from central North Africa to the Nile valley, which eventually led to the emergence of the first complex, highly organised, state-level societies in the 4th millennium BC." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.9_kiloyear_event
It's not just those events. It's a series of events that all line up exactly with the timeline of Genesis.
Preflood Genesis - 1656 years from Adam to flood, or roughly 1500 years from Cain's banishment to flood. This is the same length of time as the Ubaid culture (5500-4000BC) where the first in dramatic changes, both in human behavior as well as social living norms, appeared. It's when the first city was built, actually classed as a city because of it's class structure. This culture ended abruptly, and this was at least partially due to a flood as evidence in Ur where a silt deposit literally caps Ubaid artifacts. Then, about a century later, that climate change mentioned above.
The Sumerian King's list. It says the first city-state where the 'kingship' descended from heaven was Eridu. Eridu IS in the middle east. Uruk is one of the first post-flood city-states according to that list, it's the first known post-Ubaid city-state in the region. According to the King's List, according to Genesis, and according to evidence in Ur, a flood happened between these two periods. And a 1500 year old culture, that was thriving up to that point, ended abruptly.
Yet none of this is unique to this particular time and place. Multiple cultures with high populations existed in what some call 'Old Europe' long before any of this. Yet there's no signs of violence or defensive walls around their settlements.
Other explanations don't quite fit. Not as well as this one written by those actually from that time and place. And this one isn't really that complex. It's just different. Because it deals with so many already familiar, and sometimes seemingly unrelated aspects, it seems complicated at first.
Right, they're all originally Sumerian because that's where this would have happened and they would have been the humans that experienced these events. If you recall, all the cultures around during Abraham's time believed in multiple gods too. It could be that the Sumerians just invented them, invented a soap opera to try to explain their history. Stories they believed to be real history. Or it could be they're not just made up, but inspired by real beings.
Not exactly. There's no reason to think Noah was part-human. It just says he was a direct descendant, and given the age he lived to, probably an undiluted one.
I think the flood did accomplish something. God chose Noah for a reason, because of the favorable traits he showed. This would work much the same way if you were say trying to breed specific traits in a plant or type of animal. You'd choose those who show the desired traits and breed from them. It actually makes a lot of sense in the way we now understand the natural world. It's controlled evolution, in a sense.
Noah had a wife. So did his sons. And because it was a regional flood, the rest of the world was still fully populated. But yes, in a sense it can start over, only this time from this particularly chosen line.
This portion, what I'm talking about (Gen2-11), comes before the bit about the Jewish people being the chosen ones. That comes later, post Abraham. And again, these "city life" conditions were not at all unique. Not in the sense you're speaking of where a change towards city/society life brings about change. The city/society life was around long before the changes. And considering the fact tha agricultural practices were adopted all throughout the world, you'd expect this to happen elsehwhere if it's as you say. Yet, it started and spread from here.
Besides, you don't find it even a little difficult to think the Hebrews could write a version of the story that conforms down to the number of centuries with the real history of the region over a 2000+ year span that ended 2000 years before they started writing them down (based on the kingdom of David timeline)? Could they have maintained that kind of accuracy through purely oral traditions? Do you think they could have had that well of a grasp on that kind of passage of time? Especially if the Sumerian versions don't maintain a timeline like that?
When this behavioral change first started, early in the Ubaid, Eridu was nowhere near the size of some of these other cultures. Like in Catal Huyuk (7,500 to 5,700 BC) in Turkey and the Lepenski Vir settlement (dating back to 7,000 BC) located in the central portion of the Balkan peninsula. The Lepenski Vir culture gave way to the Vinča-Turdaș culture (5,000-4,500 BC), which at one point had populations estimated at 2,500 or more in some of the larger sites. Yet never changed the way Eridu did practically right from the start. The way you're talking, large farming population living can and did maintain the same culture and same mentality, yet couldn't in these other cases?
But in the industrial revolution you have an already established culture that was then changed by technological developments. It's perfectly understandable how the invention of machinery could catch on and spread as it did in that kind of environment. But the environment that brought on these changes back in the ancient world was nowhere near the same. It would seem the behavioral changes came first, in the first and only city-state, then came the technological advances, as well as laws, schools, mathematics, astronomy, writing, etc. Or, to put it another way ...
"The thousand years or so immediately preceding 3000 BC were perhaps more fertile in inventions and discoveries than any period in human history prior to the sixteenth century AD" - V. Gordon Childe, Archaeologist and Philologist
"a tremendous explosion of knowledge took place as writing, mathematics, and astronomy were discovered. It was as if the human mind had suddenly revealed a new dimension of itself." - Anne Baring and Jules Cashford, The Myth of the Goddess
It simply doesn't line up that changes in how people lived in that day brought all of this about when you drill down to the finer details. What it would seem to suggest at the very least is an evolutionary leap forward in the brain. That might explain it, and would be a much more plausible explanation given how it started and how it spread from there. It spread in much the same way an evolutionary change that made one group dominant over another would spread.
I didn’t know this. I did some research on Eridu.
“A proto-Genesis tale of the Garden has been found at Eridu in which Tagtug the Weaver (or gardener) is cursed by the great god Enki for eating of the fruit of the forbidden tree in the garden after being told not to.”
Seems even this story is Sumerian, and not Hebrew. And we may have even fund Abraham’s original god: Enki. Fitting since he is the water god and the Hebrew god created heaven and earth from the waters of the universe.
Eridu does have evidence in the geology of a flood happening around 2800 BCE. In fact it has evidence of several. But unlike what I understood you to say, the city was rebuilt and abandoned several times, and the last time was around 600 BCE, so not permanently abandoned after the great flood.
And the prehistoric Ubaid didn’t disappear either. They spread, with evidence of them found all the way to Turkey.
So I have a question, where is the evidence that they changed drastically after the flood or just before the flood?
Exactly. Just because the Sumerians wrote a story like that first doesn't mean the Genesis version is a fake. They could very well just be writing a story about something that really happened in their ancient past, 2000 or so years, or 100 some odd generations, before writing. If the stories of Genesis are actually what happened, then it would make sense that the predominant oral traditions throughout the region would definitely share many common themes.
When you say evidence found all the way to turkey shows the people of the Ubaid spread, what specifically are you referring to? Because in what I've read it ended. Now, in either case it would seem the culture has come to an end because the people are gone. But evidence of them up north through to Turkey could also be evidence of trade, which did occur....
Ubaid 3/4, sometimes called Ubaid I and Ubaid II — In the period from 4500–4000 BC saw a period of intense and rapid urbanisation with the Ubaid culture spread into northern Mesopotamia replacing (after a hiatus) the Halaf culture. Ubaid artifacts spread also all along the Arabian littoral, showing the growth of a trading system that stretched from the Mediterranean coast through to Oman.
But the Ubaid culture is generally agreed to have come to an abrupt end, and that portion of far-south Mesopotamia shows no evidence of occupation for roughly 1000 years. Uruk formed to the north of it, and is generally designated as a distinct culture, though the two share a lot of commonalities....
"The archaeological record shows that Arabian Bifacial/Ubaid period came to an abrupt end in eastern Arabia and the Oman peninsula at 3800 BC, just after the phase of lake lowering and onset of dune reactivation. At this time, increased aridity led to an end in semi-desert nomadism, and there is no evidence of human presence in the area for approximately 1000 years, the so-called "Dark Millennium". This might be due to the 5.9 kiloyear event at the end of the Older Peron.
The flood evidence I'm talking about in particular was found in Ur....
"Archaeologists have discovered evidence of an early occupation at Ur during the Ubaid period. These early levels were sealed off with a sterile deposit of soil that was interpreted by excavators of the 1920s as evidence for the Great Flood of the book of Genesis and Epic of Gilgamesh.
The tricky thing about that part of the world is that it hasn't really been widely available to archaeological investigation for many years, being in modern day Iraq. That's changed recently. But most flood information about the region often dates back to digs done in the '20's.
"So I have a question, where is the evidence that they changed drastically after the flood or just before the flood?"
Are you referring to the behavioral change or the distinction between Ubaid and Uruk?
"You see the mind is observable, detectable, measurable, predictable and testable."
You're confusing the mind with brain function. Brain function is observable/detectable/measurable. The mind in some regards can be predictable/testable. The whole approach and methodology of neuroscience is to establish the correlation between neural events and mental phenomena. Some of these mental functions can be more directly traced and understood, like for instance in how the brain processes images. The image is an external stimulus, the eye processes physical light waves, and the neural correlates can be observed. But for stimuli that's not external, it gets much murkier. Like in regards to consciousness ...
"The neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) constitute the minimal set of neuronal events and mechanisms sufficient for a specific conscious percept. Neuroscientists use empirical approaches to discover neural correlates of subjective phenomena."
"A science of consciousness must explain the exact relationship between subjective mental states and brain states, the nature of the relationship between the conscious mind and the electro-chemical interactions in the body." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_cor … sciousness
All of the examples you provided have to do with establishing and associating neural behavioral patterns to targeted mental phenomena. They're by no means conclusive in any case because half of the association is subjective. There's a lot to gain in better understanding what part of the brain is involved in various tasks, for certain. But this by no means makes the mind observable. The fact that it's not observable is actually what most complicates the process.
Does the mind you are proposing actually exist? Can you show that it exists?
Or is what you are calling "mind" merely one of the many functions of the brain?
"Does the mind you are proposing actually exist?"
"Can you show that it exists?"
"Theory of mind is a theory insofar as the mind is not directly observable. The presumption that others have a mind is termed a theory of mind because each human can only intuit the existence of his/her own mind through introspection, and no one has direct access to the mind of another. It is typically assumed that others have minds by analogy with one's own, and based on the reciprocal nature of social interaction, as observed in joint attention, the functional use of language, and understanding of others' emotions and actions." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind
"Or is what you are calling 'mind' merely one of the many functions of the brain?"
I mean "the set of cognitive faculties that enables consciousness, perception, thinking, judgement, and memory" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
Actually what you are doing is attempting to separate the mind and the brain. What the link showed was that they were reconstructing images of imaginary people that people held in their consciousness from fMRI's and now you seem to suggest that consciousness is not part of the mind.
No, I'm not. I'm not separating the mind and the brain. That's how it's spoken of in general, including by those in neuroscience. That is the two sides they're working with, associating physical brain activities with mental phenomena and states. Of course consciousness is part of the mind because that's where we all experience consciousness.
What they were doing in that link was they were showing them pictures of four people, attributing particular stories to them, scanning their brain as each subject took in this information, tracking the neural activity that occurs with each subject as they do, then later when they recall these people they can tell by what pathways are retreaded which person they were thinking about. This is not mind-reading. This is watching the brain first create new information, then retread that same information to recall it.
Can the mind be materially observed?
This whole discussion isn't really a debate at all. I am truly amazed by those that seem to have the patience of saints, to take the time to show how the mind isn't materially observable. It obviously isn't. We all have first hand access to our mind, right this minute, and science can't observe it.
My mind is kind of overwhelmed at what has transpired here over the last few days with this discussion. If it is mind boggling, consider this mind boggled. You will have to trust me on that, as science can't observe my boggled mind, lol.
Haha... I can only assume that the boggled-ness you express and the flabbergasted-ness I feel are very similar sensations created by the same region of the brain and would look nearly identical in an fMRI image.
I'm going to be honest, the chummy "We are flabbergasted" stuff comes off as quite condescending and superior. Essentially, you are saying that it is surprising and confusing that everyone doesn't automatically agree with you. Could you try and tone that down a bit? If you are trying to have a conversation, it interferes with communication. If you are trying to impress others or shaming them by insinuating that your intelligence is clearly superior because two of you agree, then you have failed. Such tactics are only used by those seeking validation by public opinion. Personally, that tends to make me think less of that supposed intelligence for seeking confirmation from an outside source.
Now with that said, what I see is an effort to make something mystical that isn't. The "mind" is simply thought. Thought can be observed by actions and interactions. No MRI needed. Consciousness is awareness. That's all.
I'm just not seeing what else you are trying to infer that it is. Nor do I understand what your ultimate point is. It seems pretty simple to me. There are abstract concepts and concrete concepts.
If you are trying to prove God, or soul, or whatever as an abstract concept. I don't think anyone disagrees. However, if you are trying to prove either as a concrete concept, then it needs to be observable.
Now, you are saying that the mind as an abstract concept -which you clearly are creating an abstract concept of such- is unobservable. Yes, your concept of what a mind is truly is unobservable... I'll grant you that. There is also no proof whatsoever of that abstract concept being true or accurate. There is no proof of what you define as "mind" existing and never will be. It likely doesn't.
Now, if you are defining "mind" as consciousness, thinking, rationality, understanding, reasoning etc. then that is completely observable and concrete by interaction. We can see the effects of those things. We can see the interactions in progress. We can recreate and explain those things.
Please don't assume that because the second definition of "mind" (the concrete one) exists, that the first (the abstract) does as well. Also, don't assume that lack of observability for an abstract concept of mind indicates that the concrete definition is also unobservable.
It's bait and switch.
"Essentially, you are saying that it is surprising and confusing that everyone doesn't automatically agree with you."
If we were talking about belief in God or something along those lines, then yeah, I can see what you're saying. But we're talking about a simple fundamental truth that is almost universally accepted elsewhere. So yes, this discussion is surprising because it is beyond ridiculous, so my comment is my genuine reaction to this whole back and forth. It's like arguing with a group of people that the sky is blue. As far as interference with communication, that broke down a long time ago when people started redefining words and declaring references 'false' rather than conceding to the simplest of points.
I'm not trying to fool you here, or bait and switch you. What good would it do to make a point through deception? There's nobody keeping score here. I'm not interested in winning anything. I don't get what it is you think I'm motivated by to try to trick everyone into thinking something if it isn't true. The mental experience that we all have in common, is not observable. You can't see another person's thoughts. You can't see their consciousness. You can't see what they're thinking. You can, however, hear what they're thinking when they tell you. You can see the physical activity in the brain that creates this experience for them, but you can't see what they're experiencing in their mind. Everything else you're talking about isn't "observing the mind". It's observing the physical results of what's happening in the mind. I get the impression you see our physical actions and activities as a direct reflection of the mind, and in a sense it is, but that doesn't mean seeing a person's physical actions and activities is 'seeing' the mind.
Doctors test for consciousness all the time. They can observe wether one is conscious or not. Ever take an IQ test?
"Detecting behavioral signs of consciousness is currently the main way to distinguish conscious from unconscious patients. The diagnosis of consciousness level is nevertheless really difficult to make in patients with limited behavioral repertoires and often complicated by inconsistent or easily exhausted motor responses. Misdiagnosis has consequently been reported as being really frequent (Childs et al., 1993; Andrews et al., 1996; Schnakers et al., 2009)." - http://cirrie.buffalo.edu/encyclopedia/en/article/133/
You'd think, if the mind were observable, diagnosis wouldn't be so hit and miss. But not being directly observable, that makes a lot more sense.
As I was explaining to some last night, testing for consciousness and observing it, as when a doctor does this on a patient, is not being disputed in the forum. This argument isn't about observing a person's STATE OF consciousness. This is why I posted the definition of consciousness.
One definition was being used, to MAKE a case that the other definition of consciousness can be observed. Purposeful or not, I can't know for sure.
Consciousness can't be observed. Consciousness is what does the observing.
Of course consciousness can be observed. Medical personnel do it every day.
You are both right I think. (But I could be wrong, of course.) Both of you seem to be using different definitions for Consciousness. One is using it in the context of what we have been talking about. The other seems to be using it to explain what hospital staff can observe in a patient (Like as in 1b, or 4, below.). One can be observed, the other cannot be
Now I am posting for the first time, a definition of consciousness, one that came up in a search, and copy pasted here. From: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consciousness
: the condition of being conscious : the normal state of being awake and able to understand what is happening around you
: a person's mind and thoughts
: knowledge that is shared by a group of people
Full Definition of CONSCIOUSNESS
1a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself
b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact
c : awareness; especially : concern for some social or political cause
2: the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : mind
3: the totality of conscious states of an individual
4: the normal state of conscious life <regained consciousness>
5: the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes
Or the opinion of every medical practitioner in the world. There is even a scale for it. It is posted on the wall in most Trauma Centers. But yes, it must be only my opinion.
Still only an opinion.
Consensus opinions are prone to change as more information becomes available.
So it is just an opinion that if one does not open one's eyes, respond to painful stimuli or move, they they are unconscious? Yet if they open their eyes, have a conversation with you and listen to what you tell them to do they are conscious?
That is an opinion?
Yes. It's an assumption based on lack of information.
Please point out what you think of as my error in thinking.
I am saying we don't have enough information to know what consciousness is. Do you think we do?
Yes, we have enough information to accurately judge the normal, non-mystical, non-philosophical, concrete definition of consciousness.
Those who want to make it all mysterious and mystical may not. They must instill some abstract theatrical, melodramatic spiritual meaning into every conversation about it.
But is an organism awake and aware? Yep, that's pretty damn easy to determine. No lack of information except for those who go out of their way to make it mysterious just so they can say we don't understand it.
I believe you may be speaking of a STATE of consciousness, correct? Like weather a new patient brought into a trauma unit is conscious or not?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF54xqYhIGA - Boundaries of the Knowable: Consciousness and the limits of Science
He agrees with us who are saying, "the physical activities of the brain" - consciousness. Thanks for sharing.
Wow, dude. The topic of the conversation is 'is the mind/consciousness observable'. He just went through a whole explanation about our inability to establish what things are conscious and to what extent. If consciousness were observable, this would not be an issue.
Sometimes I think the fact that there are kind people willing to be very patient with some that aren't getting it, makes it appear like there is something to actually debate about the mind, and thoughts being material or not.
The fact that some people's chosen worldview doesn't allow for something that is immaterial to be immaterial, is not anyone else's problem but their own. That some try and spend vast amounts of time and effort into trying to get them to see what is plain as day, appears to be wasted. Perhaps it is me being naive, but I hope it hasn't been a waste.
There is no debate here. It appears to be a debate, but it actually isn't. Now that I think about it, the person that says a thought is material, how could you EVER convince them it isn't, if they truly believe it, and are AS committed to it as we see here in this last week.
It isn't a debate because all you do is complain about the debaters. Show us how in the world the immaterial is even possible?
When two sides are discussing something that they disagree on, and one side keeps on using fallacies, its good to point that out. I am not complaining so much, as showing you how certain points don't logically follow, or where the faulty logic is, or how something is being used in place of an argument, etc.
In pointing these things out, it shows how one view is faulty and how one view is not. I have always asked the same to be done with me. I could be wrong, but it sure seems some people would rather hold on to views that are somewhat failing them, than consider a more logical and reasonable approach. I honestly don't know how to do it any kinder than this, but it is TRULY remarkable to me, the level of denial going on. One can only speculate as to why.
A thought, we all have it, is immaterial. Some are arguing against that, I am amazed.
No, it is the problem of the person who refuses to understand the immaterial and the non-existent are one and the same. And, since it has been explained to you over and over and you continue to make the same false statements over and over doesn't deserve patience.
One more time, you can't conceive of anything that is non-material because it IS non-material, which means it isn't there, it is invisible and cannot be detected in any way, therefore it can only come from your imagination.
Does this make sense at all to you?
You have an immaterial thought at least every day, right? It exists. To argue against it, is to argue that you have no thoughts, no mind, no consciousness in the way we are discussing it.
You don't seem to understand, that if you keep arguing for what you are, much of your own experience isn't really happening at all. That is amazing to me. Your own thoughts and mind, are not your imagination, yet you argue for it. The effortless and casual dismissal of all arguments made against the idea is not just amazing, but borderline alarming. To so clearly argue against something that is, that we experience every day, as nothing.
And EXACTLY the same thing can be said for people who are arguing that something exists that doesn't and that things that are clearly observable, aren't.
They are being very patient with those who obviously aren't able to understand... and their efforts are wasted.
If someone wants to believe that they can't understand or observe something that they made up, how could they ever convince them that they should at least make up things they can understand?
What have we been discussing as existing, that doesn't? No one is "making up" your thoughts or mind, are they? That would have to be true if what you just said is true.
There is no argument here, we all have thoughts, and we are right now. They are not material. This is actually debatable to some. It is true, that this is a very small fragment of the population, I have never seen nor heard of this anywhere else, ever.
Maybe getting out more? Taking a class? Meeting new friends with different view points?
It might stop that constant feeling of confused and amazed that you keep talking about. Until then, you might want to realize that just because something is obvious to you, doesn't mean it's correct. Mull that over, take as much time as you need. Maybe then you will stop accusing people of doing what you yourself are doing.
Essentially, again, you are saying how shocked you are that everyone doesn't believe you are correct. You would think that would have worn off by now... all things considered.
Do you agree, that thoughts are material then?
By the way, its not shocking at all, that you guys disagree with me. That is not what I am talking about. You haven't been here like the others, with all the excellent reasons, facts and arguments, in fairness. So unless you are read up on the hundreds of posts you missed, you can't know the point of view of what has gone on here that I have. My amazement is absolutely warranted after all that has been discussed. I wasn't the first to make the observation either, of what is being observed here in these threads. Even if they came to this discussion with the idea that thoughts are material and can be observed, it is amazing that the view is still held to at this point, after all that has gone on for a week or more. We have hammered out just about all points that could possibly be considered, and tons of "evidences."
Eventually, you will lose that feeling of amazement, and just come to expect continual blindness as par for the course;)
We have accepted that from people who don't know a thing about science. It;s amazing that you can keep hanging on to the notion that there is something immaterial going on your brain. Now that is astounding.
That's because I understand that EVERYTHING is "immaterial". Our world is made of matter that is formed by the interaction of unmeasurable forces. You can only start measuring things once they come into being. The laws of physics are the laws of the universe after it comes into being. The laws that underly that are not even close to being understood, and most people don't even realize that there even are underlying forces. These laws are NOT cause and effect type laws, or physical laws, because those things only come into being after the universe has been created. These are relational laws between the aspects of different forces. These are laws of relation between numbers (not mathematical laws). There ARE hints of these laws around the world, can be studied, and have been used in the past. The more your consciousness is expanded, through either personal effort or nature (or both), the more you will be able to understand and follow the laws, instead of fighting against them, which only creates disharmony and suffering for everyone involved.
Yes, perhaps. It doesn't make it any easier to accept though, but it seems I must accept it. It is hard, because it seems an "insisted upon" version of it, that I don't get. What is lost in the process, doesn't leave me much if any benefit to observe, so high cost, low pay out, so to speak. If the ideas are won over in the mind at least, is it satisfying?
I believe that thoughts are as concrete and electrical as the spark from spark plugs in an engine and they work in essentially the same way. Yes, they ARE concrete. Unless you try to make them more than that, then no, they don't exist. Nothing mystical or inexplicable. Chemical reactions, anatomy and a touch of electrical energy.
It's amazing that anyone would think otherwise and I'm glad that medical science doesn't... or there would be no psychiatric drugs on the market... but lots of candles, incense, crazy people and philosophy books. Those would be there in spades.
If a thought is essentially just like a spark in a spark plug, what makes our thoughts any different from the spark that accompanies a spark plug? The spark alone or electrical impulse isn't what defines what a thought is. When we look into our own minds in a way we know what we are aware of, you don't think of neurons and brain tissue or electrical impulses usually. That isn't what comes to mind. You are instantly aware of your own thoughts at that moment. The fact that there are electric impulses that happen when we think, isn't what defines the thought. It just accompanies them.
One way to look at it is how are we aware of our own thoughts? How you know your own thoughts matters in this discussion of mind, thoughts and consciousness. Our brains chemistry is governed by certain things that our thoughts are not. Thoughts are different. They have propositional qualities. When you say, "Chemical reactions, anatomy and a touch of electrical energy,", that is describing the brain, and/or its relation to the body. This is part of what we have all been over and over the last several days. No one that I am aware of arguing that the brain is materially observable. If thoughts are observable as you are saying they are concrete, then it has to be shown.
What has been offered up has not been sufficient to prove the mind and consciousness are materially observable. One has to really tweak the word material to make a thought material, and I mean actually material.
Yes, thoughts are mystical and immaterial, unobservable and unable to interact with the world...Oooh spectral...
That's why lithium changes them. That's why SRIs and SSRI change them. That's why the list of thousands of mind-altering substances change them.
Things that are unobservable are always able to be altered by physical substances. Doctors just randomly prescribe chemicals hoping that something works... you know since they are shooting at an invisible target.
You don't think that engine is experiencing thought, do you? If not, then you agree a firing neuron and a spark from a spark plug do not "work in essentially the same way", right?. That's what I keep trying to get at. I understand the physical happenings in the brain are material/observable. I'm not arguing that. And I agree those neurological happenings are what cause the mental experience. However, there is a difference between observable neurological activity and non-observable psychological activity. Thoughts cannot be seen in their psychological form. Though there are many physical sparks in various regions of the brain, the mind is a seamless construct made up of multiple mental processes contributed from different parts of the brain into one cohesive non-material/abstract experience that cannot be observed.
There's no way one can look at the electrical/neurological happenings of an active brain and see the thoughts that are happening in the psyche. One can only make an educated guess using statistical information gathered through neuroscience, but cannot actually 'observe' to confirm concretely. The only reason anyone knows any of that psychological activity is even happening is because we each experience it. It's never been objectively observed and cannot even be proven to exist. It's totally undetectable, yet undoubtedly happening.
I've read through the thread, intermittently. Didn't comment on the topic because this discussion appeared pointless. Primarily because this one post you've made encapsulates what I would think to be the obvious. I can't say that I completely understand the reasoning behind the opposing view, although I doubt if there is fundamental disagreement on this point. It appears that there is some discomfort with how the opposing side views what the ramifications of this could be.
I can see how this discussion could appear to be totally pointless. I agree with you, the point itself, as in that post, does sum things up pretty well, and that I can't say I understand the reasoning given for the opposing view either. It certainly, at this point, isn't for lack of trying, and I do "get" the other point of view, in the sense I understand what is being argued. I the ramifications could very well be the key here, nothing else makes sense of it to me.
Yes. The ramifications appear to be the sticking point. Unfortunately, I don't know of anything we know which, when carried to a logical conclusion, can't point either way (depending on the data accepted and one's definition of either way).
We learn so much of the material world by beginning with the assumption that the only data acceptable is that which is currently fairly universally agreed upon. But, it's like anything else. Attempting to limit thought to what is universally agreed upon limits discovery.
Also, attempting to limit philosophical thought to the stark parameters of scientific thought is incompatible with the idea of philosophical thought, to the one arguing the side of their perception of scientific discovery. Similar terms are used, but since each began their train of thought from a different perspective and is pondering the same legitimate information from a different angle they really start the conversation from a position of talking past one another. Without some semblance of an open mind the angles will remain at odds. Constructive dialogue will elude them.
I like your points, and wonder if you could share more about the first sentence there?
I suppose you're asking about data accepted and what either way means. I see the primary problem as being unable to bridge the gap past preconceived notions. Every time a point is brought up that evidence exists which points to the fact that it is possible to assume a consciousness, or intelligence, that preceded us it is met with some form of a 'goddunit' derisive response. Why? It isn't necessarily in response to comments made.
Most posters in this particular exchange have been well spoken and haven't strayed horribly from accepted research. (imo). So, from what I've read (and I'll admit i haven't read all exchanges) it appears that opposing views object primarily to their assumptions of what the ramifications of that conclusion would entail. Their inability to look past their preconceived notions prohibits them from entertaining any thoughts which might follow the acceptance of a point from the opposing view. It's arrogant, in some ways. Because, since they can't look past they assume the other party has gone down some previous train of thought they traveled. Never pondering the possibility that they missed a step, or misjudged a pertinent piece of information or; simply never approached the question from the same angle.
The reverse holds true, of course. Most here are simply attempting to convince others of the validity of their view. Most are written in stone and only give lip service to open mindedness. They cheer on those they agree with and attack any opposing view they feel may have slighted someone they are prone to cheer on.
But, in my opinion, all opposition begins with an intractable stance that there is some point where a toggle switch exists. On or off. Yes, or no. Which makes all conclusions past that point unacceptable and at odds with any preceding information. Which is, realistically, untrue; if one is open minded and doesn't dismiss, out of hand, any information which does not support their already formed conclusions. Or doesn't feel the need to make premature conclusions concerning limited bits of information. Because all information available can't move the toggle switch into either position.
I share a lot of your same observations and ideas. It is difficult, especially if you have really researched this stuff and think you are on a right track for the most part. All people hold the views they do because they do think they are the correct or most correct view.
So often it is two ideas (or more)being batted back and forth, and this makes me think of one more thing. While not all of the views are necessarily true, one of them could be reflective of truth. (Lets say your view is TRULY the correct one, when all was said and done, for example.) I would expect your view, or particular ideas, to fare well in debates because truth is on the side of the true view (so to speak), and needs little help from tactics, or even defending. That view will seem to hold its own, and seem impossible to defeat. When I say defeat there, I mean defeat legitimately. The actual truth, the view that most correctly lines up with actual reality will have the best arguments defending it, inherently. You might disagree, but I thought it was worth mentioning, as I was agreeing with what you said there too.
As for that on/off switch, that is a good thing for us to keep an eye out for. Thanks for your answer.
Last response here.
Just felt compelled to point out that truth is always subjective, when discussing the cosmic ramifications of the observable. There is no perception of cosmic truth which can legitimately invalidate the perception of another. Simply because you are sharing a microcosm of the thoughts and experiences which led you to this juncture and, when in this particular type of conversation, the lion's share of those thoughts are simply conjecture. What leads one to a vehement denial of the legitimacy of the thought processes of others is, at times, the more interesting question; although, it appears to lead back to ego; more often than not.
Wish i knew what your views are, but know that was last post. So you basically think both sides are wasting their time, and that we cant really know the truth anyway? Having coffee and not awake fully yet. I appreciated you sharing your thoughts.
Ok. You sucked me back in, for a moment. I don't think anyone wastes their time. Communication is always beneficial. Sometimes though, not so much to the primary parties who are failing in their show of an attempt at communication.
I just think cosmic truth eludes us because we exist within this reality for more close to home reasons. We can't access that truth because we find ourselves sidetracked in attempting to come to a consensus. Focusing on our reasons for attempting to force a consensus would be more productive...to the individual.
Not meaning to suck you back in, sorry. You bring up points that might be happening and they are fair. Do you think all are trying to force or come to a consensus to push onto others? Some surely are not, and just after truth for themselves, especially considering how hard it would be to try and change anyone anyway. Or that is how I see it anyway. If people are ever forcing anything on anyone, that is then manipulation I think. If someone has found a neat truth to share, and kept it quiet, that might not be the best thing either. (Not defending forcing or sharing views there, to be clear.) Anyway, I can read into your responses, that you have many more thoughts on all of this than you are sharing. So I appreciate what you did share.
As for cosmic truth, why do you think it has to be so elusive? This can be for anyone, so asking in general, not trying to force you back in here. Whatever is the cause, don't you think it left little signatures of itself possibly, little calling cards for those that want to know more about it? Sounding kind of cheesy there, but I am serious. All of this is an effect, and I truly think it makes sense there is a cause for it. Whatever it is, allows for the seeming total disregard of it, at least for a time. Ok, going in all kinds of directions there, lol
"As for cosmic truth, why do you think it has to be so elusive? This can be for anyone, so asking in general, not trying to force you back in here. smile Whatever is the cause, don't you think it left little signatures of itself possibly, little calling cards for those that want to know more about it? Sounding kind of cheesy there, but I am serious. All of this is an effect, and I truly think it makes sense there is a cause for it. Whatever it is, allows for the seeming total disregard ..."
I see the signatures everywhere.
I personally think the reason it is so elusive is that we are God (or the Universe) here in disguise, wanting to experience life from a different perspective, learning about itself/himself. The clues are here for those who've had enough maybe, so it's a means to get home.
If we are god or gods how come we are so cut off from the knowledge of it, power of it, etc? If we are god, who gets us back to be a god that knows it? Thanks for answering, and I thin you are not alone here in this idea, very interesting! While I have questions about the idea, it makes more sense to than materialistic or physicalistic view, being able to achieve what we see and experience in our universe.
If we are god or gods how come we are so cut off from the knowledge of it, power of it, etc? We are locked out of progressively higher states of consciousness(by higher, I mean closer to the mind of God/the Universe) I assume God did this in order to experience being "someone else". Seperateness.
If we are god, who gets us back to be a god that knows it? We do, maybe with God's help. There is a built in biological mechanism for this (kundalini awakening) Through untying the bonds (through meditation/prayer/getting into the right state of mind)
Sorry, I'm sure my assessment came off as harsh. No, I don't think all are pushing for consensus. Some are genuinely curious. Some seek validation. But, some are definitely insistent that all agree with them or suffer the consequences.
I don't know about calling cards. Every thought you have is built on a pyramid of previous thoughts. All interwoven to help determine how you view and catalog current experience. You may see a calling card due to how you processed information from previous experiences, where I may see a pointless scrap of paper. The more we chalk experience up to one thing, the less likely we become to see the opposite. So, who knows?
Anyway, I think cosmic truth may be elusive because none exists which could be recognized on this level. Not one that all could agree on. We see infinite variety on all levels of existence. I view the human brain as one of those levels. We, collectively, through our ability to think and imagine represent another level of infinite variety. To collectively view the rest of reality with a singular eye would negate the possibility of infinite variety.
Emile, oh I didn't take it as harsh, I was just curious. Thank you.
Well, even if cosmic truth is elusive, then we could maybe know THAT about it, it would be a truth still. That it is elusive, if it is. It would seem strange to me almost though, that the cause for whatever all of this is, would make it look so opposite of itself, or be totally elusive, as if to hide. I know that is not what you said, but it could be what it might turn out to be if you are right though in some of what you said there. Do you think whatever caused all of this, is so different, other than greater than and infinite? (I say that because it would seem to have to be?)
Except, again, that you CAN see. I actually had the pleasure of watching specific thoughts on my son's MRI. Same thing repeated, same area lit up. Therefore, I could have-without him speaking or communicating in any way- been able to recognize the same thought when the same area lit up. That's why I asked the above about neuroplasticity and the formation of new neural pathways.
Maybe you can explain how something unobservable and abstract could actually restructure the human brain? The abstract cannot physically change something.
Yes, that's a good example. The only way you could reach the conclusion that this thought was the same or similar to the one previous is because you had data from when he thought the same thing previously. You couldn't deduce from the MRI scan alone what that thought was. Therefore, you couldn't SEE it.
"The mind–body problem in philosophy examines the relationship between mind and matter, and in particular the relationship between consciousness and the brain. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind-body_problem
"In neuroscience, much has been learned about correlations between brain activity and subjective, conscious experiences. Many suggest that neuroscience will ultimately explain consciousness: "...consciousness is a biological process that will eventually be explained in terms of molecular signaling pathways used by interacting populations of nerve cells..." However, this view has been criticized because consciousness has yet to be shown to be a process, and the "hard problem" of relating consciousness directly to brain activity remains elusive."
No, I can't explain it. You're now speaking of one of the biggest philosophical conundrums there is. How does a non-material mind have an impact on a material body/brain? And vise versa? See, everywhere in the world apart from this forum, it is universally recognized that the mind is not a material thing, but a non-material abstract construct. The mental experience isn't dictated by pure causation, but rather is steered by the content of immaterial thoughts. And those immaterial thoughts have an impact on our material actions, just as material actions have an impact on our immaterial thoughts.
The conclusion I would draw from that is that an abstract notion cannot affect the body, therefore it is either not abstract or it is not affecting the body. As we know it does affect the body, the obvious conclusion is that it is not abstract. Neuroplastisity is fairly well understood. Everything about it, no, but enough that the formation of new neural pathways is observable and more importantly, repeatable.
In addition, we are aware of the process by which thoughts affect the body. That is, again, why meds such as SRIs work.
Again, I think that you are expecting the real, physical observable concrete definition of mind and thoughts to explain the mystical, abstract, and non-real ideas of persons as unique spiritual beings. It's not going to happen because the later doesn't exist as anything but a philosophical construct. It's a understandable philosophical construct, like honour and love (the non-scientific version) are understandable philosophical abstract notions. Your version is what humans made up to explain individuality or perhaps to make ourselves feel better.
This is another example of why philosophy and science are very tense bedfellows.
"Again, I think that you are expecting the real, physical observable concrete definition of mind and thoughts to explain the mystical, abstract, and non-real ideas of persons as unique spiritual beings."
And I think this right here is why something that should be really simple has turned into a week long back and forth. You and others seem to think that when Oceans and I are speaking of the mind as non-material, that you think we're suggesting its spiritual or mystical. That's not at all what we're saying.
Take your spark plug example, for example. We know what that spark accomplishes. It ignites a fuel mixture compressed by a piston in a cylinder that then forces that piston down, continuing the running of that engine. There is an intended affect that this spark plug causes. But what about the 'spark' of neurons? Is there some physical cause that we just don't understand yet? We conclude, based on observations, that those 'sparks' are associated with the corresponding mental experiences, but as of yet do not understand how exactly that mechanism works.
Meds work because we have enough statistical data to understand that specific physical happenings correlate with a targeted symptom or set of symptoms. So we can chemically alter whether or not specific receptors allow specific chemicals access or not. But this does not mean that we are "aware of the process by which thoughts affect the body".
This is how neurons work: http://io9.com/5877531/how-exactly-do-n … us-system. That's the "spark"
This is how serotonin works: http://www.webmd.com/depression/features/serotonin and why SRRIs work: http://www.webmd.com/depression/how-dif … sants-work
And I used spiritual beings as a label for the abstract concept that seems to be boxing everyone in. Use any label you like.
What makes you think I don't understand this? What have I said that contradicts any of this, or has given you the impression I don't understand? Why is it that the assumption is that a lack of knowledge or education on my part is the cause for the disconnect?
The fact that you see these as interchangeable 'labels' is exactly what I'm talking about. That 'abstract concept' you speak of is how EVERYONE outside of this one forum speaks of it, including psychologists, neurologists, biologists, etc. This isn't just something God believers invented. Outside of this forum I have never heard anyone claim the mind/thoughts/psyche is observable, and I have never heard anyone refer to neurological activity itself as being observable mind/thoughts/psyche. And before you leap to the conclusion that this means I'm somehow sheltered or don't get out enough, understand that the whole concept of neuroscience in general is associating observable neurological activity with non-observable psychological activity. This is the language of neuroscience. This is why neuroscience is such a statistically driven practice, because everything that has to do with psychological activity cannot be objectively observed.
Then you didn't read any of the links that were provided?
Really? That's funny because I actually did. I read through them and confirmed they're not saying anything I didn't know already. I wanted to see if something I said specifically was somehow contradictory to what those links described, so I could better understand why they were being given to me.
Explain your conclusion. Help me understand how you reached your conclusion based on what I said.
Well, I thought you didn't understand it because you said that we don't understand how the mechanism works. I was providing links that prove that we do.
In addition, the abstract concepts that you are throwing around are widely recognized abstract concepts. That's why the terminology is used. However, the fact that they are abstract concepts is also widely recognized. Everybody I know takes them as abstract concepts. THIS is the only place that I've seen where anyone has tried to prove that the abstract is real yet somehow not real.
Again, bait and switch. I'm sorry.
Let's try love as a replacement. Love also has a scientific side and an abstract side. One is real, the other is not. One is a series of completely observable chemical reactions, the other is an abstract with no ability to affect the physical world. One exists in reality. One is merely a concept. One can be clearly explained (because it is real) the other cannot (because it is not real) Yet both are given the same name and talked about with equal validity, even though it is realized that one is valid and the other is not. SOOOOOO when you try to "prove" something citing love as the proof, the definitions then have to be separated. One definition can be used as proof (because it's real) the other cannot (because it's a concept).
We do have a much better idea of the 'mechanics' of it, but we do not yet understand how that physical 'spark' somehow becomes a psychological event. That's the 'mechanism' I'm speaking of. How the 'psyche' is actually generated by these neurological happenings.
"In addition, the abstract concepts that you are throwing around are widely recognized abstract concepts. That's why the terminology is used. However, the fact that they are abstract concepts is also widely recognized. Everybody I know takes them as abstract concepts. THIS is the only place that I've seen where anyone has tried to prove that the abstract is real yet somehow not real."
Yes, exactly! That's all I've been trying to say this whole time, and I think the same is the case for Oceans. And neither of us could understand how anyone could say otherwise. But to be clear, nobody is trying to say that they're somehow "not real". We're saying they ARE real. They do exist, but not in a material/observable way. Non-material does not equate to "not real". I think that's where the 'bait/switch' is happening. We're speaking of an abstract concept, and keep getting told that it's not abstract but "real". We're not trying to say something non-material is any less "real".
"Let's try love as a replacement. Love also has a scientific side and an abstract side. One is real, the other is not. One is a series of completely observable chemical reactions, the other is an abstract with no ability to affect the physical world."
How can you say the abstract side has no affect on the physical world? Whether it be love or anything else. Religion is actually an abstract concept, right? Yet it definitely has an impact. Philosophy in general is an abstract concept. We all know love can make you do otherwise irrational things. I'm not sure what you mean about it having "no ability to affect the physical world".
Actually, that's the gist. We are saying that it's NOT real. Love (concept) does NOT affect the world. It can't, it's not real. Organized religion (as an institution) is real. Faith is not real. Things that are immaterial are not real.
What I mean is love (concept) cannot do a damn thing. People claiming love as a reason do all sorts of things. Love does nothing. People claiming faith as a reason do all sorts of things. Faith does not.
THAT'S the bait and switch.
Intelligence, thought, that is unobservable is not real. It can't DO anything. It does not exist. Thought that is observable (chemical reactions, electric impulses etc) can do things... however it only affects what creates it.
Organized religion is built atop an ideology that is not a material thing, but rather an abstract concept. Yet the people that make up that institution base their actions and decisions on that ideology, meaning that abstract ideology does in fact have an effect on the material world.
So, help me understand this from your perspective. You're saying only what's real (material) can have an actual impact on the world. You say that people who 'claim' to do something for love or whatever else are actually doing what they do because of their material brain-state. Are you saying they're lying or don't understand when they claim it's 'love' or 'faith'? That it's actually something else that made them do what they did? Something not determined by abstract ideas, but by their biological/chemical/physiological mechanics and make-up? If that's true, would that not also make their 'claim' the same thing? A determined action?
Once again, organized religion is a group of people (real) that affect the world. The ideology (not real) is what they claim drives them to do it. The ideology does nothing on it's own.
Yes, I am saying that only real things can affect the world. Things that are not real don't. Yes, people who claim love or whatever are reacting to chemicals and biological processes. The processes are real, their interpretations are not real. Things cannot be subjectively real. They either are or they aren't.
They are not lying, they either lack an understanding or refuse to acknowledge biology in preference to ideology. They prefer to believe illusions.
Fortunately, no it's not predetermined as the real physical thoughts can be retrained (neuroplasticity) or abnormal physical thought patterns can be changed with medication.
Why does all of that bother you so much?
As far as there being a force that is unobservable that is capable of interacting, in this case a mind, as far as your progression goes, that's been thoroughly disproved. Whether a mind is observable or not aside, I think we can all agree that it couldn't exist without a brain. Which would mean a body. Which would be an observable being. Sorry, you can't get around that.
The ideology influences people's decisions. It can't, on its own, affect the real world, but the people who have direct access to it in their minds, (mind-body problem), can be affected, and vise versa, as each can impact the other. This interaction between mind and body has by no means been proved to be such a direct and determined interaction. You are way over-reaching as far as what's actually known and confirmed.
Just because we see corresponding chemicals and biological processes does not mean that all anyone does for 'love' or 'faith' has been objectively confirmed to be 'caused' by this. All we know for sure is that there is corresponding neurological activity. We don't yet see what initiates this process, whether it's the 'cause' or the 'result'. We just know that when this happens in the mind this region lights up. That's it. That just tells us what region of the brain is involved.
I'm sorry, did you say "thoroughly disproved"? You do realize none of this has been proven, right? How can anything have been "thoroughly disproved" when we still don't understand the mind? The only minds we know to exist are the ones created by our brains because that's the only mind we experience. But we still don't know how, or even if that's the only form of 'mind'/intelligence.
It's this kind of over-reaching right here that causes so much confusion. It's a faith in this materialism philosophy that causes people to speak beyond the actual facts and evidence and make claims sheathed in 'science' to make it seem legitimate, when in actuality it's grossly twisting and distorting the actual facts.
Ideology-THAT WAS MADE UP BY HUMANS- exists only by agreement of humans that it exists. It's not real. The same humans that have made it up or choose to go along with it are what affects the world. It's humans deciding what their group is going to do. It can do nothing on it's own. It doesn't exist outside of group imagination. It's not real.
Yes, thoroughly disproved. A mind cannot exist without a brain unless you want to find a supernatural explanation with absolutely no basis in reality.
If that's where you're going, I'm fine with that. I just thought you were discussing facts.
Please understand that stating that a mind must be connected to a brain is not really overreaching... however claiming special circumstances that there is a mind that exists that isn't connected to a brain, has no physical substance, yet can affect physical substance is a bit more than over-reaching.
So we're back to proving that an invisible pink unicorn doesn't exist. That's sad, I had high hopes for this conversation.
"Yes, thoroughly disproved. A mind cannot exist without a brain"
Explain to me how this has been "thoroughly disproved"?
Yes, I agree with your explanation of an ideology only being carried out by the humans who agree to uphold it. You're right that an abstract concept in and of itself cannot affect change in the real world. The actual actions must be carried out by physical people. We agree there. But that still means there's an interaction between abstract concepts and humans, and that affect has to happen in there somewhere. These people agreeing to the construct of an ideology still means this abstract concept has an impact, though not directly. It still influences actions.
But by your reasoning it cannot because that would be physically impossible. People would not be able to adopt and then adhere to this abstract concept because their actions are determined and they don't actually have a choice in the matter. So, the only way this could work in your viewpoint is if that abstract concept could actually impact their behavior, because if it's purely material there isn't actually a choice in the matter. The two ideas conflict when you put them together. It can't be both.
The mind having to be in a brain is not the overreaching I'm speaking of. The over-reaching has to do with this whole conversation and people siting different ways the mind is 'observed', though it's actually not. I'm talking about this general faith-based concept of neuroscience being way more advanced than it actually is. I read up on the latest in neuroscience on a regular basis and recognize just how many times people have spoken well beyond what's actually known or understood.
The whole point is that if the psychological mind is not observable, then there are obviously traits of matter that can be happening all around us that we can't see. If a set of firing neurons can really be a complex thought, then whose to say there's not way more going on that we're completely unable to observe? We don't understand enough about the mind to say what is or isn't required. And certainly not enough to deem something "thoroughly disproved".
Once again, every interpretation of the physcial/chemical reaction is different. Problem solved.
Now lets discuss thouroghly disproved... A mind is unobservable... no, but let's pretend it is. It still cannot exist without a brain. A brain is observable.
Are you saying that a mind can exist without a brain... or that a brain is unobservable?
Edit: Your last paragraph is entirely invisible pink unicorn.
Not exactly "problem solved". You say on one hand an abstract concept, like an ideology, cannot affect physical change, but can only be through the people who choose to adhere. Which I agree with. But then your whole viewpoint says its all material, which means the brain can only do what it's brain-state/chemistry/physiological make-up can dictate. Yet in this same scenario you say these people can adopt this ideology and choose to conform to it. It can't be both ways. How can it be material/deterministic in one sense, yet not in the other?
"A mind is unobservable... no"
"It still cannot exist without a brain."
Probably, but you can't know that since we can't even detect the mind to know whether or not it can exist elsewhere.
"Are you saying that a mind can exist without a brain..."
I'm saying we can't say for certain either way given we can't even observe the mind.
or that a brain is unobservable?"
Of course the brain is observable. It's the psychological construct created by the brain that cannot be observed.
"Your last paragraph is entirely invisible pink unicorn."
Oh come on now. I'm not making an argument for God or a pink unicorn. I'm arguing against materialism. The mind is something that does indeed exist, but that cannot be observed because it does not exist in a material sense. Therefore, not all that exists is material.
Does not the mind depend on the material? Does the damaged brain result in a damaged mind? Boy I'd have to say you'd have something if it were discovered that the mind is not affected by the brain. If the mind exist and can be studied by both the study of the brain and behavior why would you conclude that the mind is abstract?
Anytime you say that something can exist because it can't be proven that it doesn't is an invisible pink unicorn, regardless of whether you are talking about God or not.
So, now you are even disputing that thought is a product of the brain? Not just that is unobservable but that it isn't created by the brain... because you believe that science hasn't proven that?
Could you clarify that for me?
And no, ideology can not affect the world. Can you provide one instance where an idea-all by itself, independent of human action- has affected the world?
How do you define "real", in that post? I am behind of course, and this may have been answered. I think it matters to understand where you are coming from though, so it could help.
1. actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
In my experience, the presence of God contradicts almost every scientific notion in a few fields (not every one of them). I figure, given the definition of the God of my religion, he could do that. Goddunnit is a perfectly acceptable answer for why that is. In that vein, arguing that science would have somehow allowed him to do it seems like he lacks that power. Arguing specifically HOW generally just makes it embarrassing.
So I go on faith. There is no logic... and that's fine.
As far as prayer and the power to change things, there's quite a bit of scientific research that also explains how that biologically happens. Lots of chemical reaction and neuroplasticity again.
What do you think of materialism? The view. Wanted to know these couple of things, before responding to a couple of posts. That way, I am not assuming anything.
When you say there is no logic, do you mean in the sense that you believe in God, there is no logic for you behind your reasoning?
To be honest, and expose my ignorance, I have never heard of materialism as a philosophy until a few pages ago. I don't know enough about it to agree with or disagree with as a whole, that being I know nothing about it since I haven't even Googled it yet.
There really isn't even reasoning behind my reasoning, let alone logic. It's a purely emotional choice. Like I said, I'm cool with that. I mean there's a story. There are events that led to my conversion... but I never sat done and reasoned it out. It felt right, there was an inner click, badda bing badda bang.
Edit: Oh, okay... basically physicalism with some extra crap.
Yeah, I never really fit into any real "ism" as far as philosophy goes. I tend to be more situational... so I guess I don't have a "worldview" I just have opinions on stuff.
Ok, and thanks for sharing, and answering the questions.
There is no such thing as "materialism." It is actually called "reality."
This is just a religionists attempt to suggest that there are multiple worldviews all with the same weight of logic and reason, and one of them is simply rejected by those following the "materialist," dogma because they are close minded.
There is no such thing as "materialism." It is actually called "reality."
That could be the "credo" for a materialist or physicalist, ironically!
Physicalism or being a physicalist, is not that different from being a materialist that believes in materialism. The very short definition is that nothing above and beyond exists for the physicalist, that isn't physical. Apply material for the materialist.
It COULD be as you say, just a religionists attempt to be closed minded and work out from that, but I truly don't think it is. (Besides it not being illogical and no intent established.)
No matter what we think and believe, we ARE subject to whatever actual reality turns out to be. We all actually DO have a view or not of our world. Not all views can be correct, Reality is really the thing in question here, what it actually IS. If any of us esteems a worldview that turns out to be not as reflective of reality as we even experience, the problem isn't with reality. What jumps out to me maybe the most, is that some think the world does, or ought to line up with their chosen ideas, or their view.
No one ever needs to say, "I am a materialist or a physicalist", to be one. It is simply observable and inherent in their communication of those very ideas. One works outward from those ideas, and can "sift" every idea through the sieve of materialism, to get their truth. Then they express it as if it is the only reality for all.
This might be ok ,but it is only as ok or good as the view is truly reflective of our world. It MIGHT be a true and accurate worldview, but it fails at times to me. I try to be fair to it though, and I hope others are fair with my views and will give a semblance of reasonable response and consideration.
I see you sneaking that materialist definition in, in almost every post about this topic! You do see it too, right?
Its not reality that "fails", nor could it, it wins as we see in life all the time. What CAN fail is our views, opinions and beliefs about it.(And other things) This is equally true for me, as it could be for you. This is why the better views with better arguments and reasoning and facts, matter. Oh, and NEVER, just for the saying you have better ones. We need to show how.
Sorry - no. Please don't twist what I said. Unless you can show me that something exists outside of reality or the "material," Universe - reality is a far better word t use. I mean - your god does exist outside of reality - correct? And this is what we are talking about rather than attacking some one for holding a limited "materialist" worldview.
Lets call a spade a spade shall we?
This is just an aside
I think that's kind of limiting, the whole concept of a "worldview" (as a label) is kind of limiting. It's sort of a short-hand way of wrapping up the whole of a person's opinion pool in one word. The only people I know who are that simple and two-dimensional have chosen to essentially wiggle themselves in a box to fit a label. IOW, they have conformed to the label instead of the label actually describing them.
I'm not doing a great job describing this (haven't had coffee). It would be like someone saying "I don't believe in abortion" and from that sentence, assuming that they are a conservative Christian Republican (because that is simply observable and inherent in their communication of those very ideas). The next step, of course, is to assume in the next conversation -let's say on gun control- that they will have the "Conservative Christian Republican" opinion.
So while you may say someone's opinion on a specific topic is from a materialistic (or whatever) point of view, that is really about as far as you can get. Most people's "worldview" can't really be described by a series of check marks on a list somewhere.
I'm a heretic, being I'm an x Catholic. I'm a philosopher of science, a materialist, a physicalist, a Pantheist, an atheist, a Zen Buddhist, a trouble shooter, a musician, and I can probably name several more labels I'm only too happy to admit to including but not limited to:human, male, father, son, grandfather, husband, cat lover and perpetual student.
What is: What's your sign? Oh, this isn't Jeopardy? Ok.. I'm a crab. Pleased to meet you.
I'm a cancer... but most people knew that already.
I don't know that I would disagree with any of that. I do take things point by point. In this case, in these last several days in particular, phrases that fit the materialist worldview like a glove, have been spoken of again and again. Responses have been given that could be a textbook definition of the view. In those cases, it seems very fair. What concerns me is if/when it might be limiting, in light of our experience and what we know as facts, which I know some disagree with me on. This is why the details matter, the arguments given from the different views, are good or not so good when they are fleshed out. I don't disagree with you I don't think, in principle there. It only fits when it does, and in particular cases but the thinking is used like a sieve, and pulls out the "undesirable" stuff, or so it seems, to have a result that is more pleasing. I am sure I have done it also, and that is why I ask others to look for it in myself and call me on it if/when I do. I try not to do that though.
No, check your history. Materialism actually IS the name of the philosophical worldview that is often summed up as "If I can't see it and touch it, I don't believe it exists." It is most often religious people who still cite it by name, but at one time there were people who called themselves Materialists.
In the 1970's, a lot of semi-intellectual commentators started slinging around the word 'materialism' and it got reinterpreted to mean what could basically be called 'consumerism' or just plain acquisitiveness, but that fell out of fashion in the 90's.
Whether or not you think it's the only 'reality' is beside the point of this post. The name Materialism is a legitimate one.
Show me that it is not reality please. If you can't touch it, see it, smell it, experience it, measure it, demonstrate it then it does not exist. It must be a concept rather than a thing. As I said - there is no such thing as "materialism." This is a word made up by a religious zealot to attack people who don't believe their ridiculous claims.
Now show me.
Like I said, totally beside the point. You said, "There is no Materialism, that's only what religionists say." Yes, I'm paraphrasing, but that's basically what you said. I said, "Yes, there is Materialism."
Either accept that or don't, but don't go someplace that I very clearly said I wasn't going.
True, that is what religionists say, they use that term in a derogatory way. But, we don't really talk that way when discussing the world around us. Certainly, you won't hear scientists using that term, they use the terms, matter, mass and energy, instead.
The discussion now has gone in the direction of talking about the brain, the mind and creationism/intelligent design. It helps immensely if we use the terms, matter, mass and energy because contained in the brain is mass and matter as well as energy and they serve separate functions. This could be causing a lot of the confusion here, as well.
Materialism need not be used in a derogatory way, but if it is a view that is held to so tightly that people stick to an idea when evidence and revelation (I mean experience there, how a thing shows itself, like our minds do with us) show the opposite to be true, then someone is esteeming a view over reality. In those cases. It is either true or not, that only material things exist, only the physical exists. It seems like it would be more fair to say that we maybe don't know that for sure, especially in light of these fleshed out discussions on the mind/thoughts/consciousness.
However, since a fight is NOT, NOT, NOT what I'm looking for, here:
Seriously, do you and ED take a class on "Whatever is actually said, for God's sake act like Bill O'Reilly and turn it into what you want instead of what it is?"
I'm pretty sure you do.
How is materialism not reality exactly? In the context used - you are claiming that there is something that exists outside of reality - yes? And "materialism," is a world view that rejects that claim - yes?
So - not the wikipedia definition you linked to.
You said there is no such thing as Materialism - yes?
And I showed that there is - yes?
I provided a definition for something that you said didn't exist - yes?
And are you not the one turning what was a simple explanation into a browbeating? Yes!
Okay, I know the mature thing to do would have been to simply leave it alone, so I've said what I've said. If you want to initiate a philosophical conversation from here, say so. If you don't specifically state it, then also leave it alone.
Yes - there is no such thing as materialism as being used in this discussion. You linked to a different definition that is not the same as the term is being used here. Changing the meanings of words seems to be a favorite pastime of the religious. The definition of materialism as you linked to is not the same as the word being used here. I should have been more clear. Allow me to try again.
The word "materialism," as it is being used here in this discussion does not exist. That better?
I still disagree with you but yes, that's better.
Now show me how the word "materialism," being used here is not simply "reality."
And now it's worse again.
Can we please, Dad? Huh? Can we please Dad? Huh?
Can we please, Dad? Huh? Can we please Dad? Huh?
Can we please, Dad? Huh? Can we please Dad? Huh?
Can we please, Dad? Huh? Can we please Dad? Huh?
Can we please, Dad? Huh? Can we please Dad? Huh?
Can we please, Dad? Huh? Can we please Dad? Huh?
Can we please, Dad? Huh? Can we please Dad? Huh?
Can we please, Dad? Huh? Can we please Dad? Huh?
Can we please, Dad? Huh? Can we please Dad? Huh?
That article showed how people view reality, and you and many here fit within it. at least in this regard. It isn't agreeing with the materialist view, its showing that it is a view and is real. So we aren't making it up to support religion or whatever.
You might notice from the link you provided that they do connect materialism to reality, but they use it in a philosophical context.
"In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that all things are composed of material, and that all emergent phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material properties and interactions. In other words, the theory claims that our reality consists entirely of physical matter that is the sole cause of every possible occurrence, including human thought, feeling, and action."
Please notice the words bolded.
A good explanation of the view in that link, it is what we have been talking about and observing some here in the forums. Part reads (For those not as familiar with it):
"Materialism - In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that all things are composed of material, and that all emergent phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material properties and interactions. In other words, the theory claims that our reality consists entirely of physical matter that is the sole cause of every possible occurrence, including human thought, feeling, and action.
Materialism is typically considered to be closely related to physicalism; although, to some philosophers, materialism is synonymous with physicalism.
Contrasting philosophies include idealism and other forms of monism, dualism, and pluralism."
Your wording is tricky in part, because the five senses and what they can observe IS very often reality. So your personally held view of reality isn't lacking in the sense that material things aren't real, its that you may be limiting reality (as if you or anyone could), because of insisted upon definitions, etc.. Reality is what it is, regardless of those that define it. If it begins to look more and more like something so near and dear to us that we rely on daily, is indeed immaterial itself, I think it is meant to be a clue from reality to us.
Neuroplastisity is a fact. I've seen it's results first hand. When the mind is asked to focus on certain tasks that tax a particular part of the brain (damaged or not) the physical brain changes. Deceases of the mind affect the brain. I've unfortunately seen this first hand as well. These things are directly observable. So while you and I understand that when read someones thoughts using an fMRI we first need to learn the language (what does dog look like for example) Headly doesn't understand that because he is trying to find something that has intelligence that can't be seen so he can make the case for a God. But it seems he doesn't want to say God any more as he wants us to call it something else.
Why not use the proper terms? Immaterial is not used in this regard, instead, we use the terms mass, matter or energy. Thoughts are comprised of these things.
It wasn't even me that used the words initially, that thoughts are immaterial. Maybe you can see part of the problem, since you say that right there. That wasn't initially being suggested though, that terminology, or I may not have had my "wow" factor responses. It wasn't my terminology.
What would you say if not immaterial then? Choose a better word or phrase.
You mean that for ED, he was the one having issue with the word material all of a sudden. Some are defending the idea that thoughts are material, and he didn't like it when I responded to the responses, saying to use different terminology.
What makes mass, matter and energy out in the world, in nature or space, different than what it can do in your head? Do you see there is a difference? Mass, matter and energy don't come up with excellent or really poor ideas, inventions, etc. Humans do that. This is what this discussion is hinging on in part. It is why it can't just be mass, matter and energy. Or there would a minds everywhere, having nothing to do with humanity.....
Absolutely nothing other than the order and composition of matter and energy.
Humans are made of matter and energy just like everything else in the universe.
And you thought what I said was condescending?
Yeah, but I believe you have hope for holding conversations, so I just mentioned it instead of responding in kind. For those who obviously have no desire to have a conversation but just wish to argue and insult, I occasionally provide a barb or two to keep them happy.
I can tell.
Are you and Motown the only two logical Christian females on this board?
Oh dear, I'm far from logical. A quick look at my facebook statuses would disabuse you of that notion almost immediately. I am, however, from a rural state and know all too well what large brown clods in a field are even when I see them electronically
Will you point out my lack of logic then the next time I am illogical? Here I was thinking you would do that if I was, and you were just being easy on me!?
what, exactly, do you think this conversation has been between the two sides that disagree? Just fluff? I see people pointing out things that they think are illogical on BOTH SIDES. Headly moves forward with the new input and works that in to his response. You just continually say the same thing over and over and over again, despite what anyone says to you. THAT is illogical.
If you don't have an example (though it sounds like there should be numerous ones), would you kindly, please, point it out when I do it? This doesn't really count, sorry. I DO see people using subtle insults, and not so subtle insults with me at times, particular people, but some others just do things like assume about what I believe, and say things I didn't say, and we can figure it out and move on.
I was having fine discussions, though I can appreciate when I point out illogic or something that doesn't "follow", or when a straw man is being used, etc. I don't think this is a place for me to hold back, when/if they are the bread and butter of some people's arguments. Those that care about truth, care that they would be using these things. Why come out of the woodwork, backing each other up with no examples to prove what is being said? I am not perfect, and I may HAVE indeed done the things being charged.... But honestly, today was one of the more frustrating points, and the words used were wow, and amazed? Be upset with that, if that is what it is, but to say this other stuff happened, and all were just silent and let me slide then, doesn't make a lot of sense. I kind of know better than that, come on.
I WILL take your comment there, under advisement, to be better, as there is always room for improvement. With no examples, it is hard to see what you mean exactly. Also, I am very busy and was much as I was trying to follow all week, even I couldn't read all the posts, If you notice, I do ask people to take issue with what I say, if there are issues. Often, it seems its just an opposing "side" thing, met with denials and simple dismissals, etc.
I wasn't sure before, but now I am pretty confident you have not been following this conversation for the last week. I suspected it, but how you describe the behavior there, has not been what has occurred. You mention those that have no desire to have a conversation, and just wish to argue and insult. You won't find me doing that. Today, me saying "wow" isn't doing that either. I was just truly amazed after the amount of time spent. If you do wish to find some posts that would truly reflect the description you give there, you can go back and find some, but they won't be from me. I can think of a few off the top of my head, and will let the evidence be for those that want to know. I am speaking of us hammering out this conversation for what seems days on end. Not just today. The amazed and wow comments, are genuine, and makes sense in light of it all.
Yeah actually I have been following it. I'm giving my assessment... I know you think that if someone disagrees with you that they must not understand the situation... I assure you that is not the case.
It is not like me to say that if you disagree with me, that you just don't understand the situation. The person in question then has to be actually doing the behavior you accused them of, if it is true. Were you not talking about me when you said that? If you have been truly following this conversation, then you know what you said, isn't true about me. Perhaps it was about someone else?
again, just complaining about some of the people participating, and making assumptions about them.
Okay, it's not really fallacious - but it is just as fallacious as the things that you've said are fallacious, and if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander, right? Otherwise, it's just plain hypocritical, and I know you wouldn't want to be that. Right?
I have not seen you point out a single logical fallacy. I've seen you use a couple. Appeal to authority, appeal to popularity, straw man - need I go on?
I did allude to the assumption, then waited for the confirmation, which I was thought was fair, as the behavior she was describing was not indicative of ME in this conversation. If you have been truly following it, you too would know this. It was a different way of me saying, "oh, you weren't here to see my discussions all week, and only saw me say wow today, etc." THAT would have explained these responses, but would would NOT have explained the responses would be that she had actually been following the discussion all week. It also didn't seem likely that people would follow a thread that contained so many hundreds of new posts in just a week, and not respond, or next to never in it in that time frame. (I may have missed that however.) There has been several that have been the common ones to be debating this thread with this lastest topic. A lot fell out, or some have been silenced for a month, etc.
Can you back up your points above, like when I did an appeal to authority, straw man, hypocritical, etc? I am first to say what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and I am not seeing it here. If you have been following the posts quietly all week, then you would know this. It also strikes me that everyone lets me make the fallacies I do, and just is quiet about it? Then now the piling on, with no examples? That is a little suspect. Proof matters way more. When I point out problems with logic, I am actually one to go way overboard in how it is illogical. I don't ask anything of anyone I am not prepared to do or already doing myself.
That's the problem, though, Ocean. I have pointed them out to you before. So have numerous other people. And you ignore it. Or dismiss it. Or run around in circles trying to prove that you were right in your initial post and we either ignored it, misunderstood it or clearly weren't following the conversation. I watch this thread multiple times every single day. If you don't think that's true, that's your prerogative, but it doesn't make you right.
Here's the thing: I find it incredibly annoying to see posts after posts quoting other people and trying to use that to justify how YOUR point was valid and there's was not. We can all read. We can all multitask and keep track of things differently. Could I go back and find examples? Sure. Do I want to waste my time doing that only for you to tell me I was wrong in my assessment, and then start quoting ME to try to prove that YOU'RE in the right? No. No, I don't. I would assume that you are capable of reviewing the forum the same as I am. Yet you only seem to think your points are valid, and others who disagree are automatically in the wrong. You pat people who agree with you on the back, and criticize those who disagree, regardless of what they're saying. That's not productive to the conversation, in my opinion. You are, of course, free to disagree.
Pages and pages of posts going back and forth, each trying to quote the other into submission is not what makes a good conversation. What's going on between Slarty and Headly specifically IS. And they don't really need the interjections of amazement and amusement. They are both behaving relatively respectfully to each other, even though they disagree - and I doubt either of them needs to hear "hey good job, you" or "you're debating/arguing wrong" from those who disagree. It impedes the conversation from moving forward, which I find important. That's all I'm saying about your interjections. I don't see you stopping any time soon, regardless of how disruptive it may seem to me or others. It's a free forum. You can post whatever you like. But if you're intent on pointing out everything wrong that the opposition is doing, complaining about the style of those that disagree with you, you can be damned sure that you're going to get it back. Do I expect you to listen and take a page from your own book? No. But the blatant hypocrisy is laughable and amusing, and was worth a mention for me. Now I'm content to go back and watch what else develops. If doing that means that I have to skip over your posts, then so be it.
I agree, I have been tuning in to watch those two specifically. They both have made valid points and the conversation has been interesting as hell. They are both very intelligent and well spoken and HAVE been having a debate in an almost classical sense. I might even have grown to respect them a little... which is actually quite rare for me.
People say a lot of "stuff" in these forums, that when looked into further turn out to not be true at all. If that is the case when I point those things out, then that is not my fault the other person chose to do that. If it turns out as you seem to say there, that I just ignore what is said, or dismiss it, why not point THAT out then. I am fair. I try very hard to be as fair as I can, especially here, because the bar is raised very high for some in particular, and if you fall below it.......
So IF I have an argument, and it is a good one, and people dislike me for that then I can't stop doing that. I don't think you would really want me to either.
People in these forums very often make unsound arguments. What would you have me do in those cases? If I am right, and you were actually in the wrong, what do I do in THOSE cases? I could be wrong, and probably often am, but it has to be shown in these kinds of discussions. It is just the nature of these discussions... If you are wrong, do you want to know, and if I am, do I? Yes. Is it fun, no. Is it annoying, yes. Many people just leave. I don't ever blame them, this is a very tough place to be in the minority. As for people thinking their points are valid, every single person here does. They would never propose or believe in a point that wasn't valid in their eyes, would they?
As for automatically thinking they are wrong, I don't do that, its not part of how I think. I at the very least try very hard to not do that. I might fail at times. If I criticize those that disagree regardless of what they are saying, do point that out too please. That is a bit unbelievable to me.
If you do observe the blatant hypocrisy you say I exhibit, I hope you will show it to me, rather than just say I do it. I will do the same should the need arise, if you like, and thank you in advance.
If it is true that my bad behavior here has been ignored or handled with kid gloves, then so be it. Now, I have asked yet again, that I be treated like anyone else, and if and when I make statements that don't carry through, or am not logical or reasonable, or show blatant hypocrisy as you stated, that I be called out on it when I do it. As it stands, I get why some didn't like what I said today.... It came off in a way that didn't intend, about it not being a debate, and wow, and im amazed, etc. I will have to be more careful when I express how I am thinking and feeling.
The scientific illiterate have not heard of a great deal of things. That is why our societies are in such a mess.
"There is no argument here, we all have thoughts, and we are right now. They are not material."
No. That's the argument. You can't show that something non material exists and yet you persist in saying your mind/thoughts is/are not material. How can you keep saying that? Just because you believe in the supernatural and a soul you can't prove exists either?
You're argument is not on very steady ground there, Ocean.
Call me strange, but it really is pretty simple. To those that think the mind, consciousness or thoughts are material, they should be able to show how. I mean actually, how. Not in a way that is showing the material of something other than those three things, which has been done some here a fair amount this week. (No one has argued electric impulses or brains can be observed for instance) Not by changing what material means, or by changing up anything else.
It is as if suddenly, when this claim is made, that the world material has to almost morph to accommodate the claim, or the things in question have to morph from their usual states, or become something else entirely.
Really? Show me something that is not material. Anything. You can't even prove something non-material exists, that's how simple it is.
"Show me something that is not material."
That's like saying, "Show me something blue that's red."
If the mind is material, then you should be able to show us evidence of it. Not evidence of brain activity, but of the actual mental experience. Because it is not material, there is no physical evidence it's there. No evidence to prove we each experience a mind. No evidence to support that a mental experience is what all of that brain activity is creating.
I can't show you the mind, but maybe the lack of an ability to prove it exists will make obvious that it is not material.
I suspect what you are not understanding is that while we may not know specifically how the brain's chemicals and electricity create the mind we know it does so we know it's a product of the material brain or brain matter. I most certainly can show you that the mind is a product of brain matter, I don't don't think you will disagree with that, and yet you claim the mind is not material. It's rather like saying electricity is not material or gravity for that matter.
I'm simply pointing out that it is not in any way observable. It doesn't exist in a 'material' sense. Yes, the biological mechanism (the brain) that creates the mental experience can be observed, but not the mental experience it creates.
Electricity always goes somewhere. Even if the machine that uses electricity is switched off or unplugged, the electricity that powered it still exists, somewhere. The mind doesn't exist if the brain isn't functioning. It doesn't goes somewhere else. It disappears. It ceases to exist. Why? Because it's not material. It's no longer being generated by that lump of matter, because that lump of matter is no longer functioning, so the mind is just 'gone'. That wouldn't be the case if it were material.
"I suspect what you are not understanding..."
In all of this suspecting about my level of understanding, that seems to be the default when we disagree, is your own level of understanding ever even considered? Or is it always going to be me? I question myself all the time. A primary reason why I lay my thoughts and beliefs out on the table as I do is to check myself. To make sure I can explain and defend what I think. I reassess what I think constantly. Critically analyze it. Do you do that as well? Do you re-think anything we've discussed here? Or is it always only the assumption that this Headly guy STILL doesn't get it?
Wait... what? I mean I agree that electricity continues to exist (as energy)... why would the electrical impulses created by the brain still not continue to exist in the same way? They do the same thing as any other electricity (energy) when the power is "unplugged".
Edit: At the risk of going all "philosophical" I believe the fact that the energy the brain uses CANT be destroyed is one of the very best evidences that some part of what is "me" will continue to exist in some form after I die. Altered, yes, but it will keep going.
The energy your brain and body does in fact live on, but not in a manner that one hopes for as far as I can tell. Our bodies energy are either burned durning cremation or used to push daisy up. Either way the energy gets used up.
Nope it get's dissipated. It can't be "used up". It still remains energy and will continue to live on forever.
In that way, we are all cosmic and eternal. The thoughts we think existed as energy from the moment of the big bang. They were part of it
That's way more interesting, in some ways and way more eternal than any biblical concept of heaven and hell. What I'm typing, right now, once existed billions of years ago, billions of miles away....
Sorry... once again, going philosophical.
Right, we get eaten by bugs and the bugs get eaten by other bugs and we and the bugs turn into compost and grow flowers and the flowers help the bees and get eaten or die and return to compost.
I've always wanted to be a flower And my name does mean honey bee.
(You know, just as an aside, that not seeing beauty in God for an atheist is completely understandable... not seeing it in science and the world is just a damn waste.)
I agree, the fact that I can see beauty in nature has helped me understand the world. While I won't live on with mind I will continue on in other ways, even if it's just pushing up flowers. Humans must consume a lot of energy in the way of calories to maintain a functioning brain. A lot of chickens have been sacrificed for that thought. And yes that bothers me, but it's the chickens fault for being so darn yummy.
Yes, your name means honey bee, but it also means bull:)
Ooooh, I've never seen that one. I've seen it mean "servant of Jesus" but not bull... please link
Apis means honey bee and bull, but I'm not actually sure if they have the same symbolic meaning. I know they are related (mythologically). I know the bee priestesses were called melissas, but I'm not sure if there was bull worship there as well. I don't have any links, just going on memory of what I researched about a year or so ago.
Julie means youthful spirit. I therefore blame my name for my eternal peter pan complex. Although, it was not my birth name, so I don't know if it counts
Of course it does!
It's funny how names work... I named my son Aiden Connor (you know this) and he has the curly bright red hair and pale skin.
Still not sure how a German and an Italian produced an Irish baby, so I'm going with the name causing it *nods*
My birth name was Jordyn, which means promised land.... not too sure about that one.
Yeah, the physical/material energy does continue on. And, unlike the mind, we know this because it's observable. But that's not the mind. The mind ceases to exist as soon as the material brain ceases to generate it. Why? Because it never actually existed in any material sense.
Because the mind is just a word used to describe of a bunch of chemical/electrical reactions. When you die, those don't happen any more.
It's more than just a word. It represents an actual experience that we all share, that can't be seen by observing the chemical/electrical actions/reactions.
How do you know we all share it then? Dear me. Tell us about the floating ark built to the exact bible specifications again - I like that one best.
"Theory of mind is a theory insofar as the mind is not directly observable. The presumption that others have a mind is termed a theory of mind because each human can only intuit the existence of his/her own mind through introspection, and no one has direct access to the mind of another. It is typically assumed that others have minds by analogy with one's own, and based on the reciprocal nature of social interaction, as observed in joint attention, the functional use of language, and understanding of others' emotions and actions." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind
Dear me, indeed. How about this. You believe you experience a mind. I don't believe you. Prove it. If you can do that, I'll tell you the floating boat story again.
If you have a mind that you experience, then you are sharing in an experience with other humans. Each has a mind they experience, and we all experience that. Is it really so outrageous an idea for you? How do you disagree with that?
Clearly your mind is very different from mine. Not sure what your point is - is it that because I can't show you my internal subjective experiences therefore goddunit?
Tell me the story about the impossible boat being true again. That is my favorite.
It was a small disagreement, but the bigger point is Not that goddunnit. It is to see and acknowledge that we experience something very real, every day, that isnt materially observable. That is really it.
Yet we are almost more familiar with that thing, our mind than anything else, as we navigate life.
But it is materially observable. This has been explained to you ad infinitum. The mind is not a "thing," it is a "concept," that does not exist in physical reality. It also dies when the brain dies, but the physical aspects that create the "mind" are observable. Basically - you are saying that thoughts, emotions, moods etc are not materially observable. And - yes - I agree with that. That is why we make the distinction between "concepts," and "things." Thoughts and emotions and moods, do not exist outside the of the mind, which does not exist outside the physical reality of the brain.
Why the need to lie though? This is all so you can argue goddunit. Isn't it? Aren't you trying to get me to agree that something exists in reality which is not materially observeable so you can argue that is where god exists?
We can also observe mood and emotions physiologically. Anxiety can be measured by heart rate, excessive sweating, etc. Mood can be determined by change in actions. Emotions in general tend to be associated with certain types of faces that are actually fairly universal (certain ones), and face tests show that we inherently seem to be able to recognize others emotions by their faces, especially women. Thoughts are a little bit different, although in one way or another we tend to act them out.
Of course. But these are not direct observations. That is why god is like the wind as well. You can't see it but it is there.
Did you just say that god is like the wind, you can't see it but it is there? Am I missing something, like sarcasm? I am very tired, so its possible.
Just a joke. I have seen many, many believers argue this - admittedly mostly Muslimists nowadays, because they are a bit behind the Christians with their apologetics. The Christianists tend to move on to the mind. Look - the mind is real, but not materially observable - right?
I did agree with what Sir Dent said, and shared why, but if you recall, I showed how the wind is observable with another sense. Of touch, (which he kind of said also.) The key there is that the effects of the wind are no more the actual wind, than the effects of the mind ARE the actual mind.
So in the sense we are talking, the mind is not a good example to "just move on to" for religionists as you call them. The wind is a great example for the cause (the thing) and the effect (a part of the thing). This thing though, the mind, cannot be apprehended with the senses, and a LOT is going on there. Its part of how we survive.
"But it is materially observable. This has been explained to you ad infinitum."
No, it's not. And this has been explained to you ad infinitum. To say observing brain activity, or even observing behaviors, are one and the same as observing the mind is not accurate.
"The headlong rush in recent decades to construe a host of psychological events as being biological events or being reducible to them is, at best, premature. This construal is rampant in scholarly and public spheres, it is indefensible based on available theory and data, and it is at least very suspect on logical grounds. That is, the scientific basis for it is far from adequate, and it can be argued that it could never be adequate."
"We tend to believe that we have strong presumptive evidence that such causal relationships exist....But the evidence for these being causal relationships is only circumstantial. Perhaps we should not be so certain about the fact or direction of causation without the mechanisms having been fully identified. Intellectual modesty is in order."
-"It was also noted that psychological phenomena do not have a spatial location in the brain and that explanations of brain phenomena are not explanations of psychological phenomena." - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3177535/
Observing brain function and observing behaviors can give you insights into the mind, but they're not direct observances of the mind.
The mind is a concept not a thing. The thing that produces the concept that is the mind is materially observable. Sorry you don't understand the difference between concepts and things. Stick to telling me the story of the impossible boat that floats.
Tell me - what is it exactly that you think makes the "mind."?
I'm just correcting your inaccurate statement from a previous post. Why you think this means I don't understand the difference between a concept and a thing I'm not sure. You're the one saying the mind is materially observable, yet now you're just saying it's a concept, but that the material thing that creates it (the brain) is observable. Nobody is arguing the brain isn't observable.
As for the boat story, you might just want to wait for the movie. No spoilers!
The mind is materially observable much like other abstracts that we can detect, like love and beauty, but because it's an abstract we can't experience it in others.
To say the mind is materially observable because the material thing that creates it is observable is to assume there is a direct, known, connection/mechanism that justifies this one to one pairing of these two entities where conclusions reached through observations of one equate directly to conclusions about the other is not at all known. Psychological phenomena in no way even resemble anything known in regards to biological behaviors, so to assume one can directly reduce to the other is to place certainty where there is none.
"Again, such statements that psychological events are nothing more than brain events, for all their recent popularity, are logical errors.
Psychological pathology is not neural pathology. Redefining terms to avoid fundamental conceptual problems does not advance science."
Yes, I know you have confirmed not to salvage any credibility, you don't need to keep repeating that.
Must be just his opinion. Sorry, but I can directly observe minds at work. I can observe written and verbal thoughts just like I can observe the love of another. But because these things are abstracts I can't experience another's mind or love. Doctors can determine a functioning mind in an awake person, it's a little more difficult in an unconscious person but not impossible.
You are confusing observation and experience. Remember the Doctor said he can determine if someone is experiencing delusions through his observations of what the patient says and does. He just can't experience those delusions himself.
No, I'm not. Observing behaviors and observing the mind are not the same. Again, behaviors can give insights into the mind, but it's not a direct observation of the mind. It's an observation of behaviors caused by the mind.
And your claim that you can 'observe love' isn't exactly true either. Love, at least at this point in the beginnings of the 21st Century, is still a trust thing. Entering into marriage, for instance, you can't observe their mind and know they're committed for life, or know they fully intend to keep their vows. You kind of have to take their word for it. We think we see things in the eyes of our partners that assures us there's love, and there very well may be, but what we observe in facial ticks and body language is only really an association we then make to our own mental experience. It's not a direct observation of theirs. This is why it's referred to as 'subjective'. Because, no matter what, you're still associating your own mental experience to fill in the blanks.
As for doctors determining 'a functioning mind' in an unconscious person, it's very hit and miss and very often misdiagnosed. Things you'd expect to be much more accurate if the mind were actually observable.
Observe - notice or perceive (something) and register it as being significant:
• watch (someone or something) carefully and attentively:
• take note of or detect (something) in the course of a scientific study:
See, once again it's a language problem. We can observe the mind, we just can only experience our own. I can watch, notice, perceive and detect a mind in many ways.
You can "watch, notice, perceive and detect" behaviors that you subjectively associate with your own mind, and then attribute to theirs. It's not a language problem. Observe is observe. If you were able to actually observe the mind, and not just physiological/biological behaviors that are attributed to the mind, then that would be different.
You're speaking of body language and facial expressions and such. It's long been considered an absolute truth in psychology and philosophy that the mind of others is not directly observable, and these truths were established even in light of being able to observe those same kinds of things. Advances in science have in no way redefined this either. It's still the same as it has always been, and that's exactly how I'm speaking of it.
So I'm not observing your thoughts right now? I can't observe that my wife is aware of me talking to her and I can't observe her feelings? I can't observe and understand when she is angry with me? I can't observe her thoughts as she explains them to me?
Sorry, I can do those things, I just can't experience them.
Well - he has a point. You are not observing the mind, you are observing the product of the mind. The mind is just a word - it doesn't actually exist at all. What exist are a bunch of electrical impulses and neurons that physically exist in the brain - we need a word to translate all these thoughts feelings and emotions in order to convey meaning so we call this concept of collective thoughts, feelings, impulses etc a "mind."
As it is an abstract concept that exists only for that person we cannot directly observe it any more than we can directly observe any other emotion. we can measure the impulses and observe the end products. The mind exist the way love exists. And god apparently. Interesting that these guys seem to be arguing that god does not exist in reality and is merely an abstract concept with no basis in reality. I agree with them.
Another thing the mind often does. It projects its own stuff into what it perceives of others, creating a particular image of someone that might not actually be a very accurate reflection. Like your statements here. Without my having said anything even resembling what you claim, you somehow have this whole 'concept' built up, like a straw man, that in your mind represents my arguments and viewpoints. Not objectively true, but it sure seems true to you. The mind can be tricky that way.
You can't have it both ways Mr Noggin. Sorry. Some minds are trickier than others it seems.
That does seem to be the case. Like in the way it seems your mind keeps telling you that everyone else has it wrong, is fooling themselves, don't really understand, is delusional, yada yada. It's never you, of course, it's always "them".
I didn't say my observations had to be accurate. All I need to do is observe someone has had a thought. All I need to is observe that someone is conscously responding.
Yes, and through those observations you can deduce that they are most likely experiencing thoughts as you do and you can relate in that way. But if it were possible to 'directly observe' then your observations would be accurate because it would then be possible to reach 'objective' conclusions. But because it is always only subjectively that we glean a sense of the other's mind, objective certainty is out the window.
If I said that the mind is a concrete thing and is not observable (which is not true, but anyway) would you just get on to whatever point is next in your progression to prove that God exists and made everything?
It is almost worth giving in to the relentlessness isn't it?
Pretty sure that is why Christianity is so prevalent.
'Never take "no," for an answer.' - Jesus.
This is the thing... If you are going to believe in God, you are going to reach a point where you have to admit that he is not possible scientifically. Trying to bend science to prove he can exist misses the point.
'Never take "no," for an answer.' - Jesus
That's not Christ, that's individual followers. Christ cannot be held responsible for what everyone does in his name. Christianity? Possibly. But not Christ. Christians are so unlike him... to paraphrase Gandhi.
Like when he asked "Father, all things are possible for You. Take this cup away from Me"?
You know Christ was not an actual person - right?
If you say so dear. Even if he wasn't, it wouldn't matter for my faith.
Imagine a world where opinions and beliefs equated to actual facts! We would have chaos at best,aye yai yai!
After a trillion words back and forth for what seems as many days, what is it that y'all are actually arguing about?
Brains exist. They can be poked, prodded, and manipulated because they are made of matter that we can see, touch, and feel. They work in such a way that they create thoughts, feelings, and other such-which, while they cannot be seen, can be observed in the behaviors and words of the person experiencing them.
End of argument, right? Both exist. One we can see with our eyes. The other we cannot.
What on earth is the argument, and for pity's sake, can someone either win it, or can you all just agree to disagree and move on?
LoL. You crack me up.
But the discussion is on whether or not the mind is a function of the brain or exists as a separate entity. Also, are thoughts considered to be immaterial? If so, the argument is that not everything that we know exists is material in nature. But we "materialists" disagree because we know that thoughts occur in the mind, which is a function of the brain. Even thoughts themselves can be influenced by the health of the brain. And we don't consider the mind to be immaterial or separate at all.
Anyway, LoL, this is the argument. And yea, it's pretty much been going on forever and ever and ever...
To be fair, on one hand, I get it.
On the other, good grief, the damn horse is dead! Let it rest in peace...or at least an uneasy truce!
And just my two cents. Can't have a mind without a brain. Can't have thoughts (that you can't touch) without a working brain (that you can).
Concrete? Not to be a stickler or anything, but that doesn't sound right. By that do you mean in the way it can and does have an impact on the material world (through human action of course, not directly)?
That's kind of a large request. I certainly can go through the progression with you, but given the struggle it's been just to find common ground on the whole 'mind' aspect, it makes me leery.
But I do want to make it clear that's not my motivation or intention here. It's simply to try to offer my pro-science Christian viewpoint. To show how/where God fits if He does indeed exist. To show that science and God are not incompatible. To show that belief in God doesn't automatically equate to ignorance in science or being delusional in general, and that science has by no means proven the whole God concept to be antiquated mythology.
My progression is what I've reached through my own experience. The whole mention of a progression is to make clear that, unlike what's most often assumed, I don't just say 'no' and inject 'goddunit'. it's not that I've never considered a god-less existence, never pondered the possibility. I have. It's a progression in that it wasn't a default assumption from the start that I then bend things to make fit. It's simply the most likely explanation, given what's observed, in my eyes.
Well, there's a couple things that I see there that are going to be troubling for you, but the very first question I would ask is why would you want to show that a belief in God doesn't equate to ignorance?
Because that is becoming a more and more common assumption. It's something I find I deal with in simply stating I'm a "Christian". Many equate that to mean I think the world is 6000 years old and that science is bunk. Others think that means I was just indoctrinated early, set my beliefs in stone, and no amount of facts or evidence will change what I already "know" to be true. Just in these discussions I usually have to first go through the process of actually showing that this is a heavily thought out view, and not some 'default' view that I'm refusing to let go of. It's the result of assessment, not the lack of.
1. So? And that wasn't meant to be a smart-ass answer. I mean seriously, why do you care about their assumptions?
2. Do you really think you are going to change those assumptions? Really?
3. Do you think you are going to change those assumptions by arguing against accepted science? Which is what you are doing here. Anytime you go into abstract, there is zero scientific proof. Zero.
Assumptions matter in these forums because they are so often being relied upon AS the reasons people are using to counter others ideas or help their own. As we see they are so often actually wrong, as in error filled, at a time when they need truth to make points and counter them.
It's better to just stuck with the points being made, but we are choosing a much harder path than is necessary to get what turns out to be only a few steps forward. ( or backward, depending)
It's a tactic used often here, but that no one wants done to them. It may not be as thought out as all that, but to request it to stop is a good thing, regardless of intention. This is what I think anyway.
Well I would assume that those assumptions are made because that IS the reason people are using arguments to counter other posts. Headly has an agenda, that is to prove that it rational to believe in God. The reason WHY someone is using an argument is just as important as the argument they are using. It speaks to the before mentioned using facts to support an argument and how I could prove a pink unicorn.
The reason why HE isn't budging on the fact presented to him is that agenda. That agenda is why this argument has gone on for so long.
Everyone was presented the facts pages and pages ago. The debate is continuing because of that agenda. The points and counter points are long over. So since that is done yet everything keeps going on it appears we're not going any further without that "Why" that you object to.
Woah, woah, seriously?! I have no 'agenda' here. As I posted earlier, a big reason I engage in these discussions is to check myself. To have my own views critically analyzed and challenged by others. I also try to offer a pro-science viewpoint for others. Another take, that takes a logical approach. I'm not here to PROVE anything or convince anyone. The reason I'm not letting go is because the arguments being presented as if in conflict to my view are wrong. Not just wrong from my perspective, but completely backwards from how the rest of the community even speaks of these kinds of topics.
Did you read the article I referred to? What I've observed in this forum is exactly what he's talking about. A logical fallacy that's becoming an epidemic. It's this misconception in regards to the brain, the mind, and recent advances in neuroscience, that have many fooled into thinking the mind is just some mechanism that we're on the verge of mapping out and understanding.
My continuing to buck back has nothing to do with some religious agenda. This conversation doesn't even have anything to do with God/religion at this point. I'm just trying to correct this gross misrepresentation of what is currently known/understood about the mind. I've all but decided to just abandon this a few times now, as this isn't exactly how I prefer to spend hours and hours of my free time, only to be drawn back in by comments much like the one you just made here, making some ridiculous claim about me or what I was saying, or some gross misrepresentation of the argument I was attempting to make. I don't care about being "right". I care about the truth. And people just talking out their collective rears, no matter what perspective they're coming from, holds everybody back and only confuses things further.
The whole reason I'm sure you've reached the conclusion you have, the whole reason you can't simply see the simple truth I'm trying to point out, is because this whole time I'm sure you've been 'assuming' I have some agenda. I'm trying to convince people, or win souls, or justify to myself that I'm right, or whatever. So you're not actually open to anything I'm saying as being the truth, but rather it just being the latest manifestation, or tactic, of a "Christian argument".
Wow, that was way more defensive than it needed to be.
1. Yes I read the article. It didn't impress me. Like I said, you can always find someone who agrees with you. Most of the time you can find someone with letters after their names. The debate with Ham and Nye proved that.
2. You must be a different community than I that believes such things (And that's an appeal to popularity btw). See point one.
3. I am a Christian too. I don't have a problem with a Christian viewpoint, I'm not going to reject a viewpoint just because it comes from a Christian perspective. I will reject a viewpoint that is presented as science when it's not. You are into philosophical waters. You are speaking abstract concepts. You cannot hope to ever, ever, make a valid scientific point about an abstract concept. Science doesn't work that way.
4. Yes, you do have an agenda. A plan. A progressive argument directed towards a certain viewpoint. That's what an agenda is. We all know the viewpoint that you are progressing towards.
We all have thoughts blah blah blah... you can see the process which those thoughts are created, you can map out fairly reasonably what they mean, you can tell by interaction whether someone is having them and generally what they are, they can be communicated, that is observable.
You can't tell exactly what they are because they are abstract.
The brain causes the thoughts. It is observable.
The mind as defined as "the collection of thoughts" is unique to each person, and can be observed the same way as thoughts but also has a uniqueness that makes it individual and we can't see every specific thought a person has.
SO WHAT? Seriously, SO WHAT? I mean that as an honest question.
I mean really, okay we all have an invisible indistinguishable set of thoughts that no one can detect. It's magical and mystical and all that crap. It can move mountains, exist without a brain, affect the world just by thinking and floats above the clouds on a unicorns butt...
You're right for the love of God... Without presenting evidence than anyone who didn't already agree with you accepts as valid and going just on your word, everything you've said in this thread is 100 percent true and we're all completely wrong
SO WHAT? What's your next bloody step in the progression? So you can tell us that is also 100 percent correct and EVERYBODY but us believes it. Continue the process until you irrevocably and completely prove that God exists, he made everything, and everyone is stupid for doubting it.
Screw it... could one of the atheists tell me how to join their club?
It's not a club. Everyone is welcome. Just drop any irrational or unprovable beliefs on the way, and consider skepticism. That's it.
Oh. And some of us curse a lot, but that's hardly exclusive to atheists.
You know I love you, and I'm just teasing.
LMAO, you know me well enough to know all the places that I would have dropped the f-bomb in the above rant had we been in private. So the cursing thing doesn't bother me.
I'm not sure I can drop all irrational and unprovable beliefs... is it okay if I agree not to try to convince anyone else of them through a long convoluted series of intellectual backflips?
I love you too honey.
Repeat after me:
How do you know?
I'm fine with believers who have irrational or unprovable beliefs as long as they don't try to insist that they're facts, or that they're correct, or that they're special, or that they have special revelation, or that I should just accept it because they say so. I also have little (if any) respect for people who have not studied their beliefs for themselves and are blatantly ignorant of its history or origins. I despise people who quote Scriptures only to say that their interpretations are correct and any one else is wrong - or that I have to believe prior to comprehending or be given evidence, and I really loathe those who are eager to point out logical fallacies while simultaneously ignoring their own.
But I love you regardless of your beliefs, because you're an intelligent, beautiful person. Thats all.
Maybe you haven't noticed, but a large part of my involvement in this discussion has been in addressing statements and claims made by others that are not supported by science, or anything else for that matter. I don't have an agenda. No matter how much you insist I do. I'm just participating in a discussion. I'm not making any specific claims. I do share what I believe and why, and when I do I generally try to make sure I frame them as such. Beliefs. Here I've for the most part been addressing fallacies and inaccuracies. Opinions and beliefs that are presented as factual or logical are just as damaging no matter which side of the discussion they're coming from. I have addressed inaccuracies made by believers and non-believers alike, and will continue to do so.
There's no plan. No agenda. No argument "directed towards a certain viewpoint" that I'm 'progressing' towards. My even speaking of this logical progression was, again, in reaction to false statements made about me. All I want is truth. Whether it's what I currently believe or something totally different. And in an attempt to find that truth I speak to others who don't see things as I do. But just as I ask of others, I will challenge logic and I will challenge claims and statements that aren't consistent with what I've read or learned. And if in doing so it can be shown that I held something as truth in error, then that right there is what it's all about. That brings me closer to the truth.
"I will reject a viewpoint that is presented as science when it's not. You are into philosophical waters. You are speaking abstract concepts. You cannot hope to ever, ever, make a valid scientific point about an abstract concept. Science doesn't work that way."
Science doesn't work that way? Didn't you just say thoughts are abstract? Do you see the problem here? You're speaking of something that definitely exists, that we all agree exists, that is PART of reality, and you're saying science doesn't deal with that. What do you think neuroscience is? What do you think psychology is? Are you saying neither REALLY offers any valid scientific points about that particular abstract concept?
I have not ever presented my viewpoint AS science. I refer to science, often and religiously, but am not a scientist and am not making any scientific claims. I'm simply relying on information gained through science to establish truth where possible. I trust scientifically gathered information way more than I trust any human. Even the bible I pick apart, and treat as a man-made, thus flawed, document. I'm simply trying to be as realistic and honest as I know how to be. About everything. I thought that's what everyone wanted, ultimately. That's the conversation I want to have. Instead I keep running into beliefs clothed as 'science' or 'factual' or 'truth'. Beliefs that aren't even recognized as such, but that are instead projected onto me as if I'm in here trying to force my views on people. Most times I'm just trying to point out where they're wrong, why I think that, and, where I can, site references in support of it.
All the time I'm seeing near parallels between science and certain Eastern concepts. Those I accept to a degree because it seems they were wayyyyyy ahead of their time, and what science/behavioral science is saying backs them up quite effortlessly.
Yeah, I agree. Most of those eastern concepts got past the idea of a God early on though. Those that didn't it was understood that God was a concept, not a concrete. Those who did think God was a concrete had so many of them that it didn't really matter, there was no "one force" driving anything. It's the monotheistic all powerful God concept that slows us down.
Yet, your posts here would support that statement.
Your mind projects stuff. We covered this. You should learn to discern. It's a key component to critical thinking and deductive reasoning. To question and critically analyze all assumptions and all the "givens". Including recognizing and critically assessing your own assumptions and "givens".
I disagree. So i just refuted your point. I mean If just saying things counts for so much. I'm of a different opinion, I win. The reason, is because I say so. Trying your approach, that you might see what some have been trying to share with you.
Yup, I get that, I've stated many times that the mind is an abstract. But we can observe consciousness for example which is something we associate with the mind. If we describe the mind as an element of a person that thinks, feels and is conscious and if we observe (notice) these things then we have observed the what we describe as the mind. If we can't observe the mind in others then we can't notice consciousness.
We can't experience another's mind, but we can notice that others think, feel and are conscious.
Again, you can observe behaviors, facial expressions, body language, "that look" that every married man is familiar with, yes you can observe all of these things, and because you've lived a lifetime interacting with other humans with minds, and because you yourself have a mind, then you can deduce what these things mean through experience. But these are not observations of the mind. What you're reading right now are not you directly observing my thoughts. What I type is the result of my thoughts, but not my thoughts themselves.
I would have been banned long ago if what I type was a direct reflection of my thoughts. An ugly truth, but true.
Ha, I here you there.
Detecting that you have a thought is an observation.
That part of you is the part where God exists; or you; or money; or power; or fame; or pride. And I can go on and on. That part, is what God wants you to allow his spirit to rule.
People could get hurt bad from that part...
What? Your admittance that you cannot directly observe the thoughts of another (and let me add, won't) But may observe the result of the thought. And the thought (not directly observable) is the result of firing neutrons and crashing demons...I mean electrons, that can be directly observed with your picture thingy are directly related to something PROGRAMMED from birth?
THEN admittance that your thoughts are a result of your experiences and how you process them???
Uh...you dont see how tossed and driven???
Okay, you make sense of this then…
"I mean electrons, that can be directly observed with your picture thingy are directly related to something PROGRAMMED from birth?
THEN admittance that your thoughts are a result of your experiences and how you process them???
Uh...you dont see how tossed and driven???"
That is your sense to make. Im just parroting. You seem to not connect the fact that your thoughts are missing a piece. Wait!!! What is your argument?
If it is, our brains are predone and our experiences are predestined by our chemicals and God, how then are you shaped by experience?
And if it is mind is brain, and your static brain is then altered by experience it seems off, right.
Maybe I have your views misprogrammed. Can you please tell me if I am close?
You will need to take a course in Gibberish first, Cgenaea!
Really? People can and do fake emotions every day. Someone could be smiling at you and want to punch you in the face at the same time. You have no idea what anyone else's thoughts are.
I don't need to know what their thoughts are, I just need to know they have thoughts to observe them.
You're still not observing thought. You don't even have to be having any thoughts to be conscious. I'm actually not even sure what anyone's even discussing at this point though. You have to have consciousness to be alive. If you what "state" of consciousness, then I do agree that that can be detected reasonably through electrical activity of the brain.
The mind is the element of a person that enables them to aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel and to have consciousness and thought.
All I need to do is observe (detect) any of those things to know someone has a mind.
You don't have to have consciousness to be alive, one can be brain dead and still be alive. One can be in a comma and still be alive.
Actually I have to agree with that for the moment, because there is no way for me to tell whether or not someone in a coma could be aware. And I've never been dead that I know of, so I can't claim there is awareness beyond death.
What I said was that the thing that produces the mind is materially observable and that the mind is not a "thing." Feel free to cherry pick what I said in order to make it appear as though I said something else. Oh wait.
So - now you agree that the mind is simply a collection of abstract thoughts that do not exist in reality?
Let me guess - everybody dies?
That would mean the mind it is just an idea itself, something to conceive of. I am not sure ideas can accomplish what our minds can, in fact, sure of it.
We don't have to know exactly what it IS fully, to admit the parts it has shown to us. We can know what it "isn't", because it shares that with us through its makeup, or lack of.
That is correct - the mind is a collection of emotions and other concepts that do not exist in reality. It is just a word and we do fully understand what it IS. And why it is not "materially observable."
"the mind is a collection of emotions and other concepts that do not exist in reality"
That's just silly.
"It is just a word and we do fully understand what it IS"
This statement is factually inaccurate.
Sorry you don't understand. Perhaps you would care t define it for us in that case.?
Righteous Atheist, I am not lying to you. I have no need to lie to you. If you will bear with me, I am not gonna try to pull a fast one on you. I don't think it is where God exists, and a god need not be a part of this whatsoever. You have to believe people though, so that you can maybe get past a *possible* hangup. It isn't a trick to get you to see something you don't want to see. I am just trusting that people care about reality, whatever it turns out to be in THIS case. If I am wrong, then I want to know too. We actually, hopefully have that in common at the very least, I would think. Just like some christians can get tripped up by their views at times if they do, likewise non christians can also, right? That isn't a crazy thought or anything, its a human "thing" we have to deal with. That is all.
Ah - so you are spending all this time and nothing to do with trying to argue there is a god? Glad you now care about reality. Reality is pretty clear = no god involved. Now you can stop believing on faith.
Yes, all this time is spent on trying to prove a reality, that we experience and use daily. We use this more than any of our five senses. This is an argument that you can't materially observe the mind, not that it is a place where God is. It is why I think so much time has been dedicated to it.
No one is arguing that. The mind is not a thing - it is a concept that does not exist in reality. So - now you know that - so what if the mind cannot be materially observed - that is because it does not exist in reality. I mean - you do understand what a concept is - right?
No it doesn't. We don't all share a "mind" or the experience of a "mind" We individually have a collection of interpretations caused by physical processes.
Are not experiences abstract? What's more these experiences can be confirmed by chemical/electrical actions/reactions. What we have here is the brain producing abstract experiences that can be directly traced to chemical/electrical and blood flow in the brain. But you claim these abstract experiences are tangible and represent something that exists but is unobservable. Like love and beauty the abstract mind can be measured and observed but not in the same way as something concrete can.
Beauty can be measured. Love can't though. It might be all there really is.
Plenty of studies have been done on beauty. The results are, the closer a form is to golden ratio measurements, the more people describe it as beautiful.
Did someone already ask what a golden ratio measurement is?
Well, can you share what the golden ratio thing is? Or I could google it I suppose....
Sure it can... by the amounts of oxytocin released into the body. You really can test if someone loves someone else.
If love can be measured, it probably has a measurement of 1.
I didn't say I was sure of anything. That's why I like to use words like, "Probably".
Beauty can be actually measured? Accurately? Whose measuring stick is used? Maybe people are meaning in general? Like as in overall package, beautiful? Don't mind me, just seems such a strange thing! I just never thought about it. Can ugliness be measured?
http://www.realscience.us/2012/04/30/be … he-number/
Scientists think so.
The brain uses a lot of energy to maintain consciousness. This can be measured.
True, but just because consciousness is generated by the brain and requires energy doesn't mean the mind is material. That energy and the matter the brain is made of never actually cease to exist. It always exists in some form. The mind, however, does cease to exist once the brain can no longer generate it.
You don't think it goes on in any way? (Being behind, I may have missed an answer to that.) Or ceases to exist for a time, or some other thing?
Of course I rethink it. That's why I'm here. The difference between the two of is that you are attempting to reinforce what you want while I'm attempting to objectively see if anyone can prove what I want. I'd rather think a loving caring God exists and that an afterlife of some kind exists that is worth eternity. I'd love to think I will revisit loved ones, who wouldn't?
Your insistence that consciousness and the mind can't in anyway be observed seems like an example of you trying to prove that something intelligent exists that we know exists but can't be observed. The fact that we know it exists in an observation. If humans survive long enough we will have a better understanding of the mind, but as it stands we know it's a material process and one that can be observed and tested and tested for.
"The difference between the two of is that you are attempting to reinforce what you want while I'm attempting to objectively see if anyone can prove what I want."
You're assuming I'm trying to reinforce what I want. I'm just trying to keep the conversation on track by reinforcing what is actually true. This isn't something I made up. This isn't new.
Anything that can be objectively proven means it's material in nature. If something can't be proven objectively doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it means it's not material. The fact is reality is more than just what our senses can observe. The mind is proof of that. It just happens to be the only non-material thing we know of for sure because we each experience it.
"Your insistence that consciousness and the mind can't in anyway be observed seems like an example of you trying to prove that something intelligent exists that we know exists but can't be observed."
That's you and what you're projecting onto me. That's not me. That's your own assumption. That's you being so certain of your view, and so certain I'm wrong, that you're looking to rationalize why/how. While in actuality it's the assumptions you're working from that are the problem.
I'm insisting consciousness and the mind can't be observed because they can't. This is a fundamental truth that advances in science and knowledge gained through neuroscience has in no way changed.
Again, the mind is generated by a material mechanism, but is not in itself material. It's an abstract construct that we each experience, but that cannot be directly observed.
We can observe functions of the brain? I personally can observe your thoughts in your written words. I can observe creativity in architecture. The extra calories burned by an active brain can be measured. That's an observation. What you are doing is saying that the abstract can't be proven to exist. It takes a functioning mind to understand the abstract which is again an observation that you have a functioning mind. Is the mind abstract? Is love abstract? Is beauty abstract? Can we detect and measure beauty? We certainly do. Can we detect and measure the mind? We certainly do. Like a beauty contest and IQ test measure the minds abilities.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. You keep juxtaposing multiple things into one thing and saying, "See, you can see it." You can't pretend psychological activity and neurological activity are the exact same thing and then claim that because you can see one you can see the other. Detecting and measuring neuron activity, or brain chemistry, or oxygen-rich blood flow is not detecting and measuring the mind. It's detecting and measuring brain activity.
"I personally can observe your thoughts in your written words"
These words are not my thoughts. Creating these words required thought, and these words are a close representation of my thoughts, though language is a clunky thing that can make conveying thoughts and ideas difficult at times (see this forum as an example), but these words in themselves are not the same as the thoughts themselves.
Generally speaking, the effects of something, are not the thing itself. Not the thing that caused the effect. The cause is its own thing. You can learn about the thing in question though. That would be like saying that you can observe leaves blowing on a tree in the wind, means the wind IS the leaves in the tree. That would be illogical. (And not saying the wind, is like the mind here, just to be clear.)
Electricity always goes somewhere. Even if the machine that uses electricity is switched off or unplugged, the electricity that powered it still exists, somewhere. The mind doesn't exist if the brain isn't functioning."
Which proves it is the brain itself and nothing more.
A radio. A TV. The computer you're on right now. If it stopped functioning, and the "entertainment" you were previously enjoying no longer appears to "exist", does that "prove" it was that component and that component alone that made up everything you were just listening to/watching/reading? Was not a good deal of that information actually from elsewhere?
The information in the brain is from many places, but not from no where. Your analogy doesn't really work.
You keep saying you agree that the mind is the result of the brain, but then you claim the mind is not material. That means you think a mind can exist without a brain? You already said you understand that it doesn't, So what part of a tv set is the mind? The stuff that decodes the signal? Certainly not the information it gets.
Brain dead mind dead. Simple.
You know, I actually started that comment off with a disclaimer that said I was not making a claim about how the mind/brain works, but was only using this analogy as an example to argue against your statement as being anything that can be stated as certain. Then I erased it thinking it would come off as presumptuous or snarky.
The point is, you're speaking as if "Brain dead mind dead. Simple" is a certainty, when in actuality we have no idea.
Okay, so what you are now attempting to communicate is that despite all of our knowledge of what happens to the mind (the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel) when the brain is shut down by either an injury or by medicine we shouldn't rule out that we may in fact be connected to some mainframe somewhere else that controls our thoughts. Even thought we can no longer see evidence of the mind it may be elsewhere and our bodies where just puppets.
Got any evidence for that? Should we start looking for another unknown communication system other than wifi, bluetooth, or radio?
If you look at the comment I made after that one, I made it clear that I was not making a claim, but that I was giving an example to show statements Slarty made cannot be made with certainty as if we already know that's all it is.
How did that help. Why not give another real explanation that we can all investigate? Why not focus on what we know rather than what we can't know?
I could claim that there is really an invisible, undetectable alien in our brains that moves onto the next host when we die? We could just make up anything.
"Why not focus on what we know rather than what we can't know?"
Because both are just as important.
Using your imagination is important if you are writing a fictitious story, but imagining different way that the mind can work that can't be detected or proven rather than studying what can be detected or proven will get you no where.
"“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” - Albert Einstein
But, to be clear, my example was not a claim as if saying I think that's how the brain works. It was just an example to argue against Slarty's statements. Slarty was making a concrete statement that said if we observe this, it means that. I was just showing that's not necessarily the case. Anytime we declare something certain prematurely, we're likely only getting in our own way of making real progress.
Interesting. So you reject your belief in god now. Well done. Now - maybe that faith in god is what has been getting in your way of understanding?
Tell me the one about the impossible boat that has been proven to float again. I like that one the best.
This post of yours sounds like you are ridiculing and in the process regarding anything but full atheism as fallacy.
Conversely, I have always regarded Headly's attitude as inquiring and expansive. He has his scientific background; a "what if" curiosity; a healthy imagination that allows for a possible "creator." I don't think he stretches as far as a disciplining, judgmental god that threatens us with eternity in Hell. Am I right in this Headly?
So this discussion can go on indefinitely, provided we don't expect absolute conformity and agreement.
Well - I am making fun of him since he claimed the ark had actually been built to exact bible specs and it floated. When I showed him this was false he ignored the facts. He now claims not to be certain of anything so I assume he now rejects his certainty that a god exists. Far as I Know he believes in the Christian god and claims that the flood was real and the boat was proven possible. That is the bible god that burns homosexuals and unbelievers is it not?
I could be wrong of course and the bible god is loving and forgiving of sins like that but - last time I checked that was not the case.
He has no scientific background and has faith ion god according to his profile.
What was your point again?
Awwww. Go on - tell me the one about the impossible boat that really floats.
No, first he is going to convince us that the mind is a real thing that we can't detect or observe. Then he will explain that God made dinosaurs because he wanted birds so we can eat chicken and he made those birds at the same time as fish. Then perhaps he will explain why a God would ask a man to build a boat at cruise ship size in an area with few trees by himself for a local flood rather than just telling the guy to go for a walk while he kills all these innocent people that he will regret later and how a guy could in that boat float for a year without seeing any land.
Can you give me a link to the Post where Headly said that? I would like to read for myself. 5000+ posts is a lot to search through.
Here you go, Jonny, I believe the 'Ark' part of the conversation started here ...
Seems like a year ago.
Ok, thanks. I did look back at that and only saw Headly in his usual explanatory self, giving a detailed view of his ideas. They were there for you to consider, simply that I think. As usual, he was displaying the patience of Job.
You say Headly is not scientific. You think he talks a load of nonsense? You can't consider anything without saying, "Ok, I hear you, willing to consider that, although I might not agree with you." Is that it?
Anyway, it's now 7.40am here, and it's going to be a beautiful sunny day, so I MUST get out and enjoy it. Will catch up with the arguments this evening.
Yet you expect me to search through them to find it for you? But - as I am such a nice guy:
I don't want to spoil the movie. It comes out March 28th.
Can you tell me why it's impossible for the boat to have floated?
Oh! I did already.
...says the boat floated a long time...
Before you get to that you need to imagine one guy building a cruise ship sized wooden boat on dry land in an area with few trees. First he would have to find the trees, find enough copper, flatten the copper and cut the saw teeth himself. Cut a whole forest down, build the boat frame and then cut more trees into perfectly rectangular planks with that copper hand saw. How is he going bend the planks and fasten the blanks to the frame?
Well, considering he had no clock to punch, no WWF to watch, and God's assistance...
Probably was really easy.
Would have been easier of God made the boat for him. The guys can make an entire universe but won't make a boat. He also could have simply killed all those people he wanted dead himself, but no he had to make Noah feel guilty. Well I guess at least this time he didn't tell Noah to commit genocide.
Well where were you with all those great ideas when God was running his show his way???
You probably could have given some tips on how the bible should have been laid out "correctly" and by that, I mean according to these lofty standards you utilize.
Oh wow! We will be judged by the standard with which we judge another. To judge GOD...??? I don't know...
God didn't lay out the Bible, the Council of Nicaea did, and they as no more or less human than we are. I can't think of any sect holds that the Council of Nicaea is directly inspired by God and thus infallible? But I guess some of the probably do. I don't see a strong argument for it though.
It was one of the councils (actually several) but I don't think the Canon was discussed in Nicea. I could be wrong, though.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developm … ical_canon
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Co … ical_canon
I am pretty sure that the bible is something you believe, as is; or don't.
No man is without flaw. But either the bible is or it isn't. There is so much that can be said about the men. But God is different. He has ways of convincing. Ask Peter. He has ways of getting his message out, ask Joseph, and his virginal wife.
No man may fool God. He knew what he wanted the message to sound like. My faith says that they mirrored his ideas, word-for-word. And God protected it till the copy machine was invented.
I believe the bible to be spiritually in tune with the will of God for his people.
That's indoctrination working against you. But I don't have to judge him, he tells us all about himself in the bible. He admits to being jealous of other Gods and have temper tantrums.
LOL. And yet, you and most other believers have absolute faith that something blue is red. Another beautiful contradiction. Well done.
No that doesn't make it non-material. It makes it non-existent as a thing. It isn't a thing, it is the constant end result of many processes, mostly subconscious. The mind is the brain and nothing more as I outlined in my previous post.
Still, just your opinion. Billions of people think otherwise. It can't be proven either way.
It is not a fact.
Wrong. Billions of people don't have an opinion and couldn't be arsed to find one.
I am joining their ranks in 3...2...
Billions? How many billions? Does that make them right? No. It's an appeal to popularity.
How do I "show" you something immaterial? Which of your senses would you observe it with?
So in this case, One way is to simply ask you to acknowledge what you experience everyday, your mind. It's immaterial, so you can ignore and deny it, OR experience it firsthand like noone else can, and acknowledge it. Regardless, it's a gift we had nothing to do with, and the best of the best scientists and doctors can only see "effects" and the little glimmers of its life that shows up as energy and "sparks",etc. Only hinting at the greater part that is unseen, yet experienced like almost nothing else.
On a total "side" note...(Hmmm, makes me think of a lightning storm, somehow...)
i'm sorry, but I HAVE been watching the whole conversation, even though I haven't participated in it much, and to assume that because someone has not been constantly posting that they aren't reading is a tad bit arrogant of an assumption.
I'm sorry, but I don't see you adding much of value. All you do is repeat what other people have said, quote things and talk about your continual sense of amazement that people who disagree with something are discussing the matter and bringing different ideas to the table. This conversation would be perfect without all of the "I'm so amazed" and "I'm just going to repeat what other people have said, say that I'm amazed by it and it's unbelievable how wrong the people who disagree with me are" going on here. Those kinds of comments are condescending, in my opinion, to the people who are actually interested in having the conversation and exchanging ideas.
Not everyone is going to agree. That's part of what makes the conversation fun, and it's the hallmark of forum discussions. I don't see you pointing out any fallacies, by the way. You just say that certain posts are fallacious, but you don't really even explain how. You just say that they're fallacious, and repeat yourself, regardless of how many times someone tries to correct the statement that you said was fallacious.
I don't see anything wrong with disagreeing - even when the conversation gets heated. That's why I'm content to watch the conversation, and I'm learning a lot about both sides. I'm never going to agree with all of what some people say. I may not even agree with most. But the conversation is still worth having, and little speedbumps in the road just repeating "that's fallacious" and criticizing the methods and statements of people that disagree is a hindrance to that discussion.
Only my opinion, and i'm sure that you'll disagree. Thankfully, that doesn't bother me at all. But if one is willing to dish out criticism, one should also be able to take it, examine it, learn from it, and try to do better - don't you think?
Can you explain your first sentence and last question there? What are you referring to exactly, so I can answer or respond. Thanks.
As I know our communication styles differ and obviously you have trouble grasping the subtleties, I have prepared this visual aid to illustrate what I think the gist of your argument is....
and my response, in words that you might more easily understand:
When I asked you to simply back up your statements, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you could support your statements. So I ask again, this will be the third time, who is arguing that something exists that doesn't, and that things that are clearly observable aren't? You said that, and
"If someone wants to believe that they can't understand or observe something that they made up, how could they ever convince them that they should at least make up things they can understand?"
Here is the whole post I am inquiring about:
"And EXACTLY the same thing can be said for people who are arguing that something exists that doesn't and that things that are clearly observable, aren't.
They are being very patient with those who obviously aren't able to understand... and their efforts are wasted.
If someone wants to believe that they can't understand or observe something that they made up, how could they ever convince them that they should at least make up things they can understand?"
I am sincerely wanting to understand your points, though I understand you would rather respond with further condescension. I have not done that with you, and would prefer to keep to the discussion. If you don't want to, that is fine, but I am asking all the same.
She says you are projecting your own failings on everyone else. Pretty much what most of us have said at one time or other.
Projecting is a term used in psychology.
"Psychological projection was conceptualized by Sigmund Freud (6 May 1856 – 23 September 1939) in the 1900s as a defense mechanism in which a person unconsciously rejects his or her own unacceptable attributes by ascribing them to objects or persons in the outside world. For example, a person who is rude may accuse other people of being rude"
Where did I fail, and why didn't someone point it out, or show how my claims or arguments broke down? Just saying I have, doesn't mean I have. When my arguments fail, I am first to ask you guys to show it to me. I am not in need of ego stroking..... I can take it. I assume since we are continually sharing our own arguments, we all want that. Just saying it though, doesn't mean it is true. It has to be shown. This would explain the Pee Wee Herman response and pot calling the kettle black pictures.
My point AGAIN was that you were accusing people of doing the same thing you are (with the exception that no one else seems to have the extra added benefit of believing that their ideas are the only correct ideas in the world) That was the first part of the sentence. You still following? If not, I refer you to the previous visual aid.
Then, the last part of the first sentence... where it says "arguing that something exists that doesn't and that things that are clearly observable, aren't." refers to your definition as thoughts as anything other than the normal biological functions of a brain. Perfectly observable functions of the human brain... as has been shown by the pages of examples of why they are observable.
The middle sentence is flawless mirror of your own attitude and demeanor using words similar to your own. It's what's called a literary device but was mainly just sarcasm.
My last sentence reflects my opinion on why someone would want to take a simple, solid, scientifically proven premise and inject the ineffible into it. I see those people as just sitting around making s*** up so that they can say "God is the answer to all this unanswerable questions (that we created, over-complicated, misrepresented and otherwise bent, spindled and mutilated)
I would assume that's because the religious community is running out uneducated people with every simple answer that science provides and assumes (somewhat insultingly) that only people who don't understand the world would believe in a God. So they make up new s*** not to understand.
I, personally, thought the visual aids pretty much explained that... apparently you needed more information.
What was I accusing people of doing, that I was doing, then?
I don't believe that things exist, that do not. So that is a false assumption. I think thoughts, the mind, and consciousness do exist, and that we experience them sometimes more directly than we can the things we do with our five senses sometimes.
The struggle to prove them materially when they don't seem to be material in their nature, is a problem for some, but not for me. My worldview doesn't dictate to me that only material things are even allowed to exist.
No one on the Christian side of things was even talking about God much this week, or arguing for his existence. The atheists brought that up more than anyone. I think there is plenty of things to continue to study and learn about and discuss the nature of. No need to make up new stuff "not to understand." That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, and I imagine these debates are not really new anyway.
This is what you were doing...You have some skill at it, but not as much as others here, so we really do recognize it. Your text is in between the quotes.. the parenthesis are what you really said. I don't care really, since I know you are wrong about pretty much every opinion you've given here... just wanted you to know that the Shirley Temple mode of communicating superiority (false superiority in this case) is relatively transparent.
"Sometimes I think the fact that there are kind people willing to be very patient with some that aren't getting it, makes it appear like there is something to actually debate about the mind, and thoughts being material or not. "
(Oh those stupid people, the people who believe as I do are saints. There is obviously nothing to disagree with here, they just wont admit it or see it.)
"The fact that some people's chosen worldview doesn't allow for something that is immaterial to be immaterial, is not anyone else's problem but their own. That some try and spend vast amounts of time and effort into trying to get them to see what is plain as day, appears to be wasted. Perhaps it is me being naive, but I hope it hasn't been a waste. "
(People who don't think like me obviously have a problem. They are all wasting their efforts trying to prove that my opinions are wrong... how silly. I hope something got into their poor simple heads, then all my efforts to educate them won't have been wasted. *LeSigh*)
"There is no debate here. It appears to be a debate, but it actually isn't. Now that I think about it, the person that says a thought is material, how could you EVER convince them it isn't, if they truly believe it, and are AS committed to it as we see here in this last week. sad"
(There is obviously no question here that I am right. But, if they are so stubborn not to see it, there's nothing I can do. Their failure to see my obviously superior reasoning makes me so sad I made an emoticon to express my feelings)
Ahhh, I *once* alluded to what I thought you were really saying, and I really was told how it was...... I know you don't like it when people do this to you. Today, after a long week, I did say all of that (not what you said I said, but the parts I actually said.) I did say wow, and amazed, and I really don't think there is a debate here. I said this today, because it dawned on me, that we are treating it like one, and I truly think that the things in question are so very obviously not material, that I am still not sure there really is a debate on this topic. If you go back all week, you won't find posts supporting what you said, or even the one you did find, today. You can't judge hundreds of posts by one post...well you could but it wouldn't be technically accurate to do so. To make the points you just did, you had to do to me, what you hate being done to you.
As for me, there has been a new thought that has been slow to be confirmed in my mind, and that is still true too. I might have worded it poorly, but it is amazing what the commitment to a materialist worldview does look like when it is played out in these discussions. It can't be reasoned with, when the level of commitment is SO strong. Do you all have to agree with me, and do I have to agree with all of you? Anyway, today was the day it really started sinking in, the level of commitment to a view that dictates how things are allowed to even exist. I would rather things be allowed to exist however they do, as they appear to, and to be what it looks like. As for the sad face, it IS sad to me. This all seems to have really upset some people ,which was not an intention. Making notes to self for the future.
Like I said, I'm done with the oceansnsunsets show. Maybe you can find someone else to watch it. I've got a short attention span and I've grown bored.
Yippee. Does that mean the Mellisa show is over?
Serious answer: I really hope so, I was enjoying the conversation between the big people and hate to see it ruined/thrown off course by anyone (myself included).
Smartass answer: Why, is it time for the Emilie show?
Answer to smartass question: Nah. Not interested in playing your little 'I know you are, but what am I' games.
And, so you know....your little tirade proves you aren't in the category of 'the big people'. Heck, your using that term as a back handed insult to os seals that.
It wasn't a back handed insult. I took that ***** with a full Sabitweeni.
And no, I'm not in the same league with the big people. Neither are most of the people I've spoken with today on this thread. (See that was a back-handed insult, everyone I've spoken to now has to guess whether I mean them or not.)
Nice speaking to you Emily.
I don't even get to respond to all that is addressed to me now? Alright then.
Okay, moving away from the oceansnsunsets show and onto something vaguely related to something besides her..
Could a member of the non-material, not observable, not really there crowd explain neuroplasticity to me? Specifically, how something that doesn't exist "materially" or "observably" could cause it?
*edit: for those who are going fervently searching through wiki... I am interested in definition that encompasses the formation of new neural pathways in response to new thought processes.
Take a dead brain and one that is alive in someones head, which one has a mind? Which one has activity that can be observed?
According to HeadlyvonNoggin logic, neither.
Activity that can be observed? I can give you half a dozen examples where I said directly that brain function, or neurological functions, can be observed. So, this is a demonstrably false statement, as well as a testament to your inability, or unwillingness, to comprehend what I write.
Who's 'us'? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? You're one of the few that can't differentiate between the mind/thoughts/consciousness/psyche and brain/neurological function. And that, I do not agree with.
Headly, I'm curious, would you not agree what we can observe through multiple ways when a though is occurring even thought we may not be able to count every neurone firing and account for the thought? Are you claiming that the mind is an abstract thought and not real?
It's my understand that for us to get a complete understanding of the mind-brain we need to both study the the physical brain with it's firing neurones, chemical retains and blood flow as well as direct observation. Studying the mind from different levels gives a better understanding of what is happening to the brain that gives rise to thought and behaviour.
I agree that the mind is an emergent property of the brain. Much like a run-time environment on a computer, I think of the mind as an abstract construct that's created by physical components, but that is not in itself physical. The neural activity we observe I agree plays a role in creating this environment and providing the various components that make it what it is, and this activity in itself can be observed/manipulated. But the abstract 'run-time' environment it creates, the mind, cannot be directly observed.
Because particular regions of the brain handle specific functions, it is possible to map these functions, which at least to some extent allows us to determine what is happening in the mind of an individual, even without being able to directly observe it. But the information needed to make these kinds of associations, because the mind is not directly observable, often depends on interactions with the subject. I do think it will one day be possible to actually reconstruct an observable 'image' of the mind using neurological data, to in effect 'read' the mind, but even this is not a direct observation.
Of course we need to both study the brain and the thoughts to see and understand the mind. If you can just point to how it not material when you admit that it's dependant on a healthy functioning material brain. Just because we don't understand it now doesn't mean we won't eventually. That being said, if we acknowledge that the mind as we know it is dependant on the brain, why use it to attempt to show that a mind can exist without a brain?
I'm not attempting to show that a mind can exist without a brain. I'm simply pointing to the mind, the abstract non-material construct that is a product of a material brain, is in itself not material. It is something that most definitely exists, yet does not conform to the materialism definition. It is something that we cannot observe or detect. Our knowing it exists is wholly dependent on our first-hand experience of it. If we did not each experience it personally, we'd have no way of knowing it's there. It can't be objectively proven or confirmed to exist. So, it's something that does indeed exists, yet is invisible to material scientific inquiry. All that can be observed are the brain functions that make it possible, but not the mind itself.
I guess I'm going to need your definition of the mind then.
The set of cognitive faculties that enables consciousness, perception, thinking, judgement, and memory. Cognition being the mental processing that includes the attention of working memory, comprehending and producing language, calculating, reasoning, problem solving, and decision making.
The mind is the mental experience you and I experience life through. While we can establish objective truths about the physical world around us, including our own bodies, that both of our minds can objectively agree on, we cannot do the same for the internal experience. We can, through correlating these mental functions with physical neuron activity, get a vague idea as to what is happening in the mind of another, but we cannot 'observe' it.
What happens in a computer? A program is run and processed buy the CPU, and rendered on the screen. Memory is involved. It could be a game or anything else.
What is going on behind the scenes on the screen? Sure you can have the cpu log everything it does, but nothing it does on its own tells you what is on the screen. It’s all of what is going on in combination that produces the final product.
Every program is written in a specific language which makes it easy to write programs. But at their root they are using 1s and 0s. On or off. The simple creating the complex using simple rules.
The brain works in the same way. Not exactly the same way, but it’s the same pattern. It isn’t one thing going on that produces the thought, it’s the combination of inputs and outputs that results in the thought. The combination of what is on and what is off at that particular time that results in one actuality.
Consciousness seems to be something “other” because it is the result of many processes, not one.
The story of Moses illustrates humanities issue with it’s own consciousness. Moses tells god he is unable to talk to Pharaoh because he isn’t good with words. God tells him he will put the words in his mouth.
Humans have in the past thought that good ideas came from out there somewhere. Not from them. And this is something every writer and every musician can relate to. When you are a good musician the music flows as if from somewhere else. That somewhere else is the subconscious.
Let’s do a test. Answer the first thing that comes to mind.
A ball and bat are a dollar ten. The bat is exactly one dollar more than the ball. How much is the ball?
Did you answer? Cool. This test was given to several physics classes in the university level and the vast majority of the students initial first thought was wrong. The funny part is that the ones who gave the wrong answer all gave the same answer.
Why? Because consciousness is lazy, and the subconscious throws up answers automatically. Most of the time they are close, which is all that is required in many situations, but often they are wrong.
However, the subconscious can be trained to be right. A person’s subconscious trained in problem solving of this kind will throw the right answer out without the need to think about it.
The subconscious is much more interesting than the conscious because that’s where we live most of the time. That’s where emotions come from and where from the hip answers come from sometimes before we know there’s a question.
MRIs have shown that the brain often knows what action we are going to take next full seconds before the conscious part of the brain decides to act.
All the behind the scenes processing going on is going on in the subconscious.
The consciousness has one main purpose: to facilitate the education of the subconscious. It does this though logical and rational thinking, as well as not so rational or logical thinking.
In other words, it is a different level of processing, a kind of feedback to the subconscious. It is the seat of the ego and the “I”. It is self perception. It is the seat of language, which means it can gather a lot of information for processing.
Now of course there is no real separation between the subconscious and the conscious. The mind is just a word that encompasses all these processes. In that sense it is not a thing in and of itself. It is a concept which is a packet of information.
That packet can be transmitted to others. It is a packet of symbols that tell a story. They are physical patterns. We write them down as definitions of words, or write entire books on the meaning of one word like “religion” or “Science”.
The brain creates connections to these and other patterns within it.
The patterns, of course, are coded and if you look at them you are not going to see then for what they represent, in the same way you can’t look at magnetic tape and see the movie or hear the music those patterns produce when played back and decoded.
So I am not sure where the objection comes from that we can’t observe the mind. We can observe it by the patterns we see in MRIs and by other means. We can see the physical effects but we can’t yet see the movie. And why should we be able to in order to show that they are physical processes and not non-physical?
Again, the non-physical being something no one can show exists.
"Again, the non-physical being something no one can show exists."
That's the whole point. ^Right there^. We can't actually SHOW the mind exists. Clearly it does. It's something we experience. Something that has particular behaviors and characteristics and methods that are completely 'unseeable' by anyone other than the individual.
The mind, much like a computer's 'run-time' environment, doesn't exist in any material sense. Those thoughts that we see and hear in our minds, are a part of our reality. They're behaviors and characteristics that nobody outside of us can see or hear, yet by all appearances, seem to be generated by material matter. Behaviors and characteristics of matter that we still can't see. A piece of reality that we are completely blind to, yet a piece that has proven to be capable of intelligence, reason, awareness, imagination, creativity.
If we're only allowed to talk about material science and what can be "shown" to exist, then we're not talking about the entirety of reality.
Until you can prove the non-material exists that's all we can talk about. A computer run time environment is very physical, by the way.
Things we simply imagine do not exist except as patterns in our brain, sets of information. Pink squirrels. They are physical patterns and exist as such, but they do not exist as things outside the brain.
For mind to be a thing in and of itself it has to exist as a thing in and of itself. If it does not then it is not a thing and does not exist. Ir is not that it is simply a thing that is not material. No thing exists that is not material.
You can prove the mind exists to yourself by simply looking. It's right there. To say "things we simply imagine do not exist except as patterns in our brain" is to conclude without any evidence to support it that the mechanism or process through which biological events and psychological events intersect is understood. This is the kind of overreaching I'm often trying to point out. Many are speaking in certainties about something as if it's already known that psychological events can be reduced down to biological cause. Yes, that's a general assumption made by many, but it's far from certain. And please don't take this to mean that my pointing this out means I'm now claiming something other than this IS the answer. I'm simply pointing out where the facts end and the speculation begins.
It's often addressed here how 'religion' often speaks as if things are certain when they are not known to be, and how such thinking limits progress. How is this any different?
"You can prove the mind exists to yourself by simply looking. It's right there. To say "things we simply imagine do not exist except as patterns in our brain" is to conclude without any evidence to support it that the mechanism or process through which biological events and psychological events intersect is understood. This is the kind of overreaching I'm often trying to point out. "
Over reach? But you want us to buy the idea that something immaterial can exist. That's not over reach, no. That's outright fantasy.
Of course we know the brain makes neural connections to places where information is stored. It is called memory. Again, the magnetic tape that stores information about a movie or song has the content encoded in it. We can encode information on a rock if we want to. It is encoded as patterns. There is no doubt that the brain does the same thing.
So while it is not completely understood it is not over reach to conclude that the brain stores memory and that memory is information. I haven't said anything any scientist wouldn't say. Are they all over reaching?
We can assume that cognitive reasoning is the result of processes in our brain. No flighty non-material undefinable, unprovable nothing is required.
You can't make something out of nothing which is what you are trying to do by trying to make something without the material required to make it.
Only real things exist. Real things are objects, hence objective reality. Objects are made of material. No material, no object.
A thought is not the thing thought about. IT is a collection of symbols, often with emotions attached.
The thought is information. Information encoded in the brain. You can replay that thought. Things may remind you of that thought. It is always there but if there are few or no connections to it it fades or gets buried.
No physical process = no process at all. The experience of self is physical. That is how we identify ourselves, feelings and pain and pleasure. Physical feelings brought on by chemical stimulation. Electro-chemical processes creating electro-chemical stimulation which produces images of information that are stored and processed.
There is no tree in your head, there is an image of a tree. It is not the thing itself, it is an image of a thing real or imagined. It’s existence is as a pattern in physical memory, in a physical brain.
Again, thoughts and feelings are the realm of the subconscious, not the conscious or what you call mind. Yet you attribute mind with feeling. Feeling comes first involuntarily. Conscious deliberation tries to decode the feeling in to thoughts and concepts so it can be resolved. Emotions force us to do. They are needs that require resolution. They help produce consciousness, they are not a result of it.
Memory is not a product of mind, it is physical and it helps produce self awareness by giving the system a history. Without it there is no “I”.
If this debate were about defending the idea that effects and evidences of some "thing", ARE the thing itself, this this and many other posts would have carried the day.
What has been offered up is valuable still to me and I hope to others. Posts like this, show me that we see effects and evidences of the mind. So they are proofs of the existence of this mind in question. They also prove that if there was observable material for the mind, OTHER than effects or evidences of it, then those would have been shown long before now. It can't seem to be done, and this is where the paths diverge so intensely. One group says, it can't be done because the mind is indeed not materially observable. The other group says that its not materially observable because material things can't be observed, but that is the very thing in question, and not established as true yet.
It would be like saying the SMELL of bacon cooking, IS the bacon. This doesn't logically follow and no one would ever even suggest such a thing usually. In this case we experience the mind in many ways, sometimes more real then the smell of cooking bacon. Yet we are saying that something with less (to none, comparatively) physical properties than bacon has, can be shown to be materially observable. The proofs offered are proofs for things not being disputed, like proof of firing neurons, a brain, ideas how processes might work, etc.
What we have seen overall and in general in this debate, is reducing the mind to the physical state. Mental states and brain states have some correlation, but that is all that shows, correlation. This doesn't prove the mind can be materially observed. (Reductionism) I suppose this may not be getting through still, but its my last ditch effort before packing up and heading home, lol. Not sure I have seen a debate play out quite like this one.
"They also prove that if there was observable material for the mind, OTHER than effects or evidences of it, then those would have been shown long before now. "
Really? Gee. By the same rationale I suppose if there was a unified field theory we would have found it by now. No use looking anymore.
That's not a convincing argument. If there is an effect there is a cause and that cause is material. It isn't nothing.,
If there was any evidence that it can be materially observed , you guys here would have shown something but what is offered up is evidence for other things. Taking the faith out we can only go with what is seen, or else it's a different argent. It changes to, "one day we might be able to show the mind can be materually observed."
My point at that party argent was that we do learn a few things by what was offered up. Besides what I said, it also shows how some think and believe about life, depending on what is being talked about.
"If there is an effect there is a cause and that cause is material. It isn't nothing"
We agree an wffect it isn't nothing, but the not so hidden worldview of materialism is slipped in there is seeming to dictate to you what the mind can ONLY be. I think the mind here ought to be allowed to exist as it seems to keep showing us it exists. The restating if opinions and assertions is just that, not proof the mind is material.
We agree an wffect it isn't nothing, but the not so hidden worldview of materialism is slipped in there is seeming to dictate to you what the mind can ONLY be.
That's not materialism, it's logic. There is something or there is nothing. Things are made of matter/energy. The illogical is jumping to irrational conclusions that there is something that is made of nothing. (not energy/matter.)
Now you say it isn't nothing, it is the "immaterial". Well that's nothing. You can't even show it exists. You can't show it is even possible.
Saying what logic is and isn't though, in this discussion, is using materialism. That IS materialism, and ED had been restating it a lot as well and Radman It is one side of the view here also, it is ONE side of this debate, not just a point in it. It is a restating of the side of the debate one is on, AS reason why the view is right. It is just in a greater over arching sense.
SOME things are for sure made of matter and energy. That ALL that exists is ONLY matter and energy is what is up for debate in part. We just don't know that for sure, and especially not when you have firm faith that only material things exist in the first place. The view dictates and is limiting to other possibilities. You wouldn't ever see, experience or observe an immaterial thing since it "can't exist." You won't even look for them unless they fit rigid critiera, or maybe ignore them when you use them more than anything else, like the mind. Since we agree on the mind existing, the poor mind gets a severe working over to get incorrectly shoved into its correct position to fit the world view, not letting it be what it seems to be.
When you say that something immaterial is nothing, you may be right, but you may be wrong, and it has not been established at all. The mind matters a great deal in this, as do thoughts and consciousness (not their effects so much that are observable), because its not me offering it up, IT is offering itself up to you as its own evidence. Its a huge part of you and me! It is definitely not NOTHING, and it is definitely in existence in a way that is undeniable. What needs to give in this case? My view isn't insisting anything like yours is, it is just asking for an existent thing be allowed to exist in the way it does if it does. This seems to be the case here.
When I say "even allowed to exist", I am not suggesting someone's denial, or adamant and limited definitions and assertions can affect the existence of anything, I mean in one's mind it will be as if it doesn't exist. The minds existence in no way depends on anything else to exist in the way it seems to. It is greater than the evidences for it, or its effects. If we dig in our heels then the progression stops. If a "held to" view is part of the digging in of heels, is it a good view that accurately reflects our world and universe? I mean truly, accurately, represents our universe?
According to science, all things are made of matter and energy.
You would be speaking for yourself there.
Other possibilities, if they actually existed would have been discovered or observed, especially if so many believers like yourself proclaim they did. You certainly can't assert a possibility unless you had good reason to do so.
You wouldn't be able to assert they exist in the first place unless they met certain criteria.
Uh, yeah, it has been established, by definition.
That is why there have a number of examples and sources provided, to show you that the mind is based on the material, the brain.
Other than the brain.
Yes we know that for sure. Show me something that is not matter/energy. That's a fantasy, not reality. We know very well what all things are made of and so far nothing is not one of them.
If you insist that it is the materialists position then the materialist position agrees with logic and science. Yours does not agree with ether.
You seemed to have switched gears to stating that I have a view that I don't actually have. It is not my view that nothing, is matter and energy. I would never say that. Saying that I am in support of an idea that says nothing is part of reality, is not true.
This is what happens or can happen, when someone holds to a view that breaks down in one way or another. To make it be true, you have to distort things, squish pry and prod them into place. Notice, that it can be ANYTHING, other than the view's fault. Even saying that I would say what you suggest above. Aye yai yai.
"you seemed to have switched gears to stating that I have a view that I don't actually have. It is not my view that nothing, is matter and energy. I would never say that."
I didn't suggest you had. I said you think the immaterial exists. Immaterial means it is not made of matter/energy. So what is it made of? If it is made of something but you don't what then it is made of some sort of material. If not it does not exist.
So what you may be looking for is some other type of material besides energy/matter and then you can't say it is immaterial. Or you think the mind, the immaterial, souls and spirits do not exist.
"Saying that I am in support of an idea that says nothing is part of reality, is not true."
I agree. So stop saying it.
Slarty O'Brian wrote:
"Yes we know that for sure. Show me something that is not matter/energy. That's a fantasy, not reality. We know very well what all things are made of and so far nothing is not one of them.
If you insist that it is the materialists position then the materialist position agrees with logic and science. Yours does not agree with ether."
Stop putting words in my mouth, with this and the last post, please. I will continue to not do that to you. Then saying you didn't say what you said...... sigh
If you truly can't see how the materialist view you hold dear is dominating the whole debate, then I am pretty convinced I won't be able to show it to you now. Free will in action, observed. The whole terminology gets distorted, and strong rhetoric with the view firmly in place, AS fact. Reality will never have to conform, thankfully. I have to stick with a view that allows for all reality to be just that, whatever it is. Even if I don't prefer it.
You couldn't show something that is not matter/energy if your life depended on it, and you know it.
Ok, a couple of things. I would be the first to say that, as you can't SHOW something that isn't able to be shown to your senses. That, is my view also.
However, I don't need to show you something immaterial, for you to acknowledge you have an immaterial mind. Are we getting any closer yet?
Amidst all the rationalising; the conjecture; the physical experience; the explanation; the "proof" of "things;" ...... let's just allow that little space for the sense of awe. The awareness that a work of art excites in a way we cannot describe. The music that sends a shiver down the spine for no explicable reason. The realisation of a truth about yourself that has suddenly made itself known to you, for no apparent reason, no apparent trigger that you can put your finger on.
All these are obviously something about the mind, but do we need to know what, and how and why? Just, in the words of The Beetles and their Guru....Let It Be.
As far as we know, this ability to have deep awareness is purely human. Yet can we ever be sure? Maybe the other animals, plants even, might have an awareness of which we are not aware!
Very well said. Being an artist and a musician myself, and constantly striving to somehow convey the formless through artistic endeavors, to create a kind of connection between minds and a form of communication that transcends mere language, the idea that this can all be reduced down to mechanics and biology borders on insulting. To think the music I love and strive to make only really appeals to us because the beats and tones are just invoking some unintended evolutionary bi-products of the brain is dehumanizing and I ultimately find it to be simplistic and illogical reasoning. Especially given the absence of supporting evidence. It's pure conjecture in an attempt to flesh out what is ultimately a very hollow concept.
So you don't accept accepted biology because it hurts your feelings?
Once again, understanding a process doesn't make it any less beautiful... things don't have to be mysterious to be awe-inspiring.
That is true too, Melissa. Thanks.
I can find beauty when I walk through the Science Museum and see how a piece of machinery has been so perfectly balanced by the engineers, that you can stand a penny piece on edge, on a moving part of the machine, and it stays there interminably, without being shaken off.
The other day I opened up a hard-drive out of an obsolete laptop and looked at the innards. Beautiful!
Machinery is not my thing, but I see what you mean.
Natural beauty overawes me... yet I know every process that created it.
My children overawe me... yet I know the process that created them... and trust me, it wasn't beautiful and it dang sure wasn't mysterious
Being over-eager to accept a reductionist theory that assumes being human can be reduced to pure mechanics, with no evidential reason to think it actually can be, isn't being more reasonable or realistic.
Then, all scientists are not reasonable or realistic when it comes to biology, but you are.
IF a scientist sticks to science that is one thing, when he or she begins to veer off from it and inserts philosophy, then all philosophy gets to weigh in. I mean in the sense that if we are still going after accuracy and trying to get a grasp on reality. It is inevitable that philosophy and science intersect. Some philosophy or ideas more accurately line up with science than others. A good scientist will bravely go wherever the science leads, no matter possible ramifications.
What isn't scientific, is when philosophy is brought in to weigh in on things, but certain philosophies have to "wait outside", or not even be allowed on the table of ideas. This happens. By people that truly ought to know better. Then others mimic it, and trust blindly that they could never be wrong. It is why I say to never just take anyone's word for anything. Test all things, hard. When it becomes SO practiced, people get so used to not thinking it through, and then get upset with those that dare question it.
Yes, we know you don't accept facts because you feel they somehow jeopardize your religious beliefs.
Too bad. Deal with it.
The facts don't actually say what you're saying. And they don't contradict anything I've said. Is the real issue maybe that what I'm pointing out jeopardizes your beliefs?
No, the facts don't support your assertions, that is the bottom line.
But you can't just keep on saying that, you have to prove or show it to be true.
The asking for it to be shown has been done ad nauseum, not the showing.
What has been shown almost as much, are evidences or effects of other things not even in question. So no, I disagree it has been shown ad nauseum.
You're in denial. No one can help you until you stop denying.
If you are speaking the truth, then show what I am denying. Just one thing.
This proves the other point I was making. That you seem to think that you saying something, makes it actually "so." This is not logical, nor how our world works. It is also not reality. I have seen others like Headly ask you to please show them such things. I never see the proof. For someone that is supposed to be about proofs and logic and reality, don't you ever wonder why the need arises for you to have to dip into those things?
ED, what did I deny, what am I in denial about? I nor anyone else MAKES you make these and other baseless kinds of claims yet you do. So you get to back them also. This is when the other person's point continues to stand, as baseless claims don't counter other ones. This is a small thing compared to the other debate, but I wanted to point it out as an example.
Of course, you are blinded by your beliefs.
That the brain is based on the material.
Here's how it works, you believers are taught by your holy book that the immaterial exists, because you believe your god and other such entities exist.
So, you believe there must be all kinds of things that are immaterial that exist and you make up nonsense about how science can't detect everything, that there are other possibilities, yadda, yadda, yadda.
None of it is based on any evidence, logic or reason, but entirely on your beliefs that the immaterial exists.
The universe is made of material things consisting of matter and energy. There is nothing else that has ever been discovered other than what is comprised of matter and energy. That appears to be irrelevant to you believers as you beleaguer the point that the immaterial must exist, because the bible told you so.
A couple of believers here are not letting the bible get in the way of facts and evidence, and they too are trying to break through the rest of you believers blinders, but you remain in denial and go round and round and round in circles.
Elaborate. Illustrate your point. Your general statement alone carries no weight and adds no value. Why participate in the discussion if you're not going to actually 'discuss'?
Jonny, I have no problem with that, and hear you. I like what you said about being in awe in a way that words can't really describe.
No, we don't have to know all of this stuff, its not life and death critical. To some it can be when they are pondering life and why we are here, etc. Then if a claim is made of some kind, that seems against experience or logic, some feel the need to talk about it. A lot of people don't like it, or see it as almost fighting, etc. (I know you don't, or am pretty sure you don't from what I have seen.)
Being "sure" is one thing, and some desire it. When some seem sure, but others view it as opposite, then discussions like this can come up. I know I don't mind it, though at times it gets frustrating when cloudiness comes in for whatever reasons.
Back to what you said though, there is so much beauty and joy in life to enjoy and experience, its good to get back to those things sometimes, and "let it be." A good idea, especially when there isn't a lot we can sometimes do about "what the 'it', is." If plants do have self awareness, they are playing it cool, not letting anyone in on it, but what do I know?! Good points.
Do you think plants have self awareness? How about any living thing? Animals? Babies? When do you think babies/children start to have self awareness?
I've been pondering these things lately. I think every living thing has consciousness, but not necessarily self-awareness.
I try to think back to my earliest memories, and I'm not sure if I was really self aware when I was around one. It seems I have a few memories around three or four when I have memories of self awareness.
What do you think?
It depends on the definition of self awareness for me, then comes an answer or idea. Good questions!
Here is one definition i found quickly.
: knowledge and awareness of your own personality or character"
That doesnt seem a best kind of definition, but its a partial one. Good memory, by the way, wow
I don't think my memory is that good, I don't have that many from early childhood, and only one memory from when I was a year old. I remember the first day we moved into our new house. Just a little snippet of seeing a couch and a painting, and everything looked overwhelming and big.
Yes, that plus: being able look at myself honestly; without ignoring all the faults, blemishes, quirks of nature, beautiful parts, etc. That's on the physical, reality, living life side of things.
Then there is my temperament. What I like, dislike, what I feel is bad (not so much what I think is bad. What I cry for/about; the actions/reactions I am known for in response to various situations. What inspires me, and keeps me looking out towards the horizon.
Much of these characteristics that are peculiar to me are often seen by others much sooner than I can see them myself. Why? Because the person I deceive most is myself.
So, the achievement of Self-Awareness is really quite a milestone in life but, like all journeys, once you reach one milestone, you can bet your boots there are more milestones - and more big hills to climb.
I'd say that is quite a definition of self awareness, and I would totally agree. That it includes the sincere honesty and taking responsibility for self is all the more to be respected. I want to always be like that and not struggle when or if its hard at times. I imagine the cost of not doing so isn't worth it.
Self Aware -
Aware of oneself, including one's traits, feelings, and behaviors.
That is another definition, that may be a little better. Generally speaking, we need to look for signs of self awareness in things that it is being suggested might have it. What does it look like? Could plants have it? I doubt it, but the reason I say it in part is that we have no real reason to think they would. Self awareness benefits us as humans, for survival, and more. l Its a tough thing to pin down, without knowing what is going on in the brain, or minds of living things. What do you think?
"One group says, it can't be done because the mind is indeed not materially observable. The other group says that its not materially observable because material things can't be observed, but that is the very thing in question, and not established as true yet. "
I don't care if the mind is not observable. That was never my debate. My problem is and has always been the idea of saying it is immaterial. That's just not rational. Immaterial=nothing at all.
"I don't care if the mind is not observable."
You should, because that's a relevant clue.
"Immaterial=nothing at all"
Which is exactly how much evidence we have that the mind exists... nothing at all. For a reason. We've got correlating brain activity, but correlated to the unseen, unobservable mind. Correlations that can only be made subjectively. Again, the only reason anyone knows the mind exists, the only reason we can associate particular behaviors to a conscious mind, is because we each experience it. There's nothing about the outward appearance of brain activity alone that gives any indication of the mind it creates. It's completely invisible. Can't be detected or measured. It's something that definitely exists, yet with no evidence to show it exists. Because it is not material. Caused by the material, yes, but not material itself. Hence, no evidence. Yet when you peer within, there it is. You can't prove it, but it's there.
That's because the mind is not a thing. It does not exist on it's own. It is the combination of all the processes going on in the brain and body, not one. It's not a lump in the brain somewhere and it isn't an immaterial thing. It is the result of the entire system.
Your just not seeing the forest for all the trees.
A few pages back you admitted that one can discern the mind in others, but you are now back to saying it that one can't observe that someone has a mind. Discern, observe? As I've said before the mind is simply a collection of processes of the brain that we have labeled the mind (aware, think and feel). Discern, observe those things in another you have have established that person has the abstract mind.
"Discern, observe those things in another you have have established that person has the abstract mind.
Right, and the only way you ever really do that is by relating your own mental experience. Hence, subjective. There's no 'objective' empirical 'proof' that they experience a mind as you do. Discerning another has a mind, or is conscious, 'observing' the mind or consciousness in the way you and Rad are speaking of, is not empirical proof that they have a mind. It does not establish objective certainty. It can only subjectively be 'discerned', or 'observed', indirectly.
I'll try this another way.
The mind is a word we called a group of things the brain does. We describe someone having a mind as someone who thinks, feels and is aware of the world. Now I don't need to know that their mind is like mine to know that those three things are present in another. I just need to know they are present. So if someone is aware (responsive) feels, (says ouch) thinks (can maintain a conversation) it can be observed that they have a mind whether or not it's like mine. Imagine Star treks Data.
It's much like those that claim others are not real Christians. We look up the definition of Christian and we find (of, relating to, or professing Christianity). If someone professing Christianity then they are a Christian. They may not be displaying qualities associated with Christians, but because they be different doesn't change the definition.
Christianity is also an abstract isn't it. We can't touch it, but we can observe that there are Christians. Do you proclaim that because you can't touch Christianity it's something that doesn't exist but is real?
It can only be subjectively and indirectly 'observed'. If you didn't experience a mind yourself you'd have no concept or way of knowing that those observable behaviors and characteristics are the output of a dynamic mental experience capable of all that it is. Take Data from Star Trek. In the distant future I'm sure it'll be possible to create a simulated human with all the behaviors and characteristics of a 'mind-ful' human. But does that mean this mechanistic marvel actually has a mind, or does that just mean it's been so well programmed to mimic human behavior that it's able to fool the 'subjective observations' of a human?
It's often said it's not what's on the outside, but what's on the inside that matters. Love someone for who they are on the inside. But you can never really know another person. And another person can never really know you. Not entirely. It's a social dynamic that defines human society and human relationships. It's an absolute truth. The mind cannot be directly observed.
Christianity is a 'faith' thing. Which is also of the mind, along with everything else in the human domain. Some people say there are real / not real Christians, artists, philosophers, poets, etc. It's all subjective. Unlike the natural/material world, the human experience, human interaction, since the dawn of reason, has been defined by the dynamic of subjective interactions with other minds much like your own, yet different than your own. Whether or not to trust someone, whether or not someone is deceiving you, whether or not one will keep their word, whether or not someone who says they love you really does.
We're not going to get the same level of objective certainty in the human realm that we're so used to getting in the 'natural/material' realm. This is why psychology and sociology are not in the 'material science' category. Because there's a subjective layer that overlaps anything and everything that has to do with the mind.
I can understand why you might want to bring this whole thing back to the concept/idea itself, and getting away from the mind. It does matter a very great deal though, because the mind either IS or ISN'T material, and its observable and very close to us, closer than anything else almost. I thin that statement there is part of what is getting in the way. It is an idea held to SO firmly, that when evidence is shown for the opposite, the view remains and not the evidence. The evidence has to take a back seat to an idea that isn't necessarily shown to be true at all, it is just held to very tightly, and very popular at the moment even in scientific circles. I don't think THAT is rational. I hope you don't mind, but I am trying to get to the crux of this whole thing, what it is hinging on. This seems to be it in a nutshell.
If we claim to be open to new ideas and evidences and reasoning as it arises, we have to actually be doing that, all of us. The very reason people esteem that idea is because it IS so hard at times to do. We would rather others do it when they are wrong, than imagine we might need to, IF that is ever happening. This is to all of us.
You have yet to show any evidence of nothing existing as something. Please try another tactic because this is just childish prattle.
I don't have to show that. Showing nothing, existing as something is quite impossible anyway. You have had something offered up, the mind. The thing you have first person access too. I don't have to prove the extraordinary claim that the mind can be materially observed, or anything related to it. I am already on the side of what the mind seems to be showing of itself. If you think IT, the mind, is material, then you have to show that. Currently, how the mind shows us its existence, stands on its own. No one has been able to refute it yet. I have explained literally dozens of times at least, why.
I have to go with the evidences the mind is giving us in this case, and if that means I am childish by some that just disagree with me, that is what it is.
The mind is simply a term we use to describe a collection of functions of the mind. If those functions exist then it's said the mind exists.
Then, how do you know it exists? What would lead you to conclude something that is non-material exists if showing it is impossible?
Can you not see that contradiction?
No. The extraordinary claim is that something immaterial exists. So it's up to you to prove that.
Sorry, it isn't. Have you been following the posts between me and Headly? The mind is a reflection of the many processes that go on in the brain. Part of it is a self image. That image is not the thing it is an image of, it is a pattern in the brain, in memory.
In short the mind does not exist as a thing, it is a reflection of many processes at once. So it is not an immaterial object, which would be an oxymoron.
Prove it? Prove that we have minds, and that they are immaterial?
My view is that our minds are not observable materially, and I will add (as it has become necessary in these last couple of weeks), that they (minds) are allowed to exist however they do. That is the side of this debate I have been on consistently from the beginning. This is why I have been on that "side." Immaterial, can't be proven materially. It goes against logic.
"One might propose that there is a one-to-one relationship between the psychological phenomenon known as schizophrenia and a particular biological phenomenon. The evidence suggests that such a strong relationship is unlikely, but even such a tight correspondence would not suffice to permit an equation of the psychological and biological, as will be developed below. In the computer world, there is a tight relationship between a series of states of a specific CPU and the algorithm it is pursuing, but neither is reducible to the other. A parallel could be drawn regarding social networking carried out via a network of computers. One’s (social) network is not one’s computer nor its connections to other computers. “A map is not the territory it represents…” (Korzybski, 1958, p. 58, emphasis in original). - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3177535/
"Over reach? But you want us to buy the idea that something immaterial can exist. That's not over reach, no. That's outright fantasy."
It seems to me, what appears to be happening here is the mere fact that I believe in God alone leads many to the conclusion that anything I say is somehow in service of injecting some sort of magical or spiritual element. I, like Darwin before me, believe God created a causal existence that does not require His constant attention or any need to in any way override and manipulate His design. So when I speak of concepts like this or of science in general, this is how and why pure causal science does not conflict.
I'm not suggesting the mind is some separate entity that is not generated by the brain. What I am saying is that the psychological construct created by the brain cannot simply be reduced down in a 1 to 1 correlation where mere understanding of the mechanics of the brain alone can explain fully the 'mechanics' of the psyche. The way you're describing it, it can be.
I am speaking of the mind as a non-material 'entity', something that does exist, because it is more than just the product of physical mechanics. The psyche in and of itself is an abstract construct that exhibits its own unique behaviors and characteristics. Unlike in the way you're speaking, where the mechanical can only be the 'cause', the actual relationship between the psychological (non-material) and the biological (material) is a mutual relationship where both cause behaviors in the other.
For example, say you deliberately decide, consciously, to recall the memory of your first date. The 'cause' in this instance is the conscious mind, yet the result is the biological/neurological retrieving of these memories. How, if the brain is the entirety of the mind, can the brain alone be the 'cause' in this example?
That is a contradiction. Non-material = non-existent.
That's great. Now you have to define "material". Made of matter? Can things that aren't matter exist? Is energy material? A photon? The Higgs field? What is material?
No, I don't. If you look in a dictionary, you'll find that word is already defined.
You just finished claiming you want to learn how everything works. Why are now contradicting that claim?
I am asking YOU to explain these things. I already know the definition of material.
You are skirting and avoiding the real questions I'm asking. Is it because you don't know? Don't want to think deeply on the subject?
Then, why did you ask? Are you incapable of learning these things on your own, even after you claimed that is exactly what you're trying to do? Why be a living, breathing contradiction?
I said I know the DEFINITION of material.
the matter from which a thing is or can be made.
synonyms: matter, substance, stuff, medium
This doesn't EXPLAIN what the SUBSTANCE of a Higgs field, a photon, energy, mass.
YOU say that YOU know what this is. So, what is it? What is this "substance" or "stuff" that these "things" (that aren't really things)?
You either know or you don't.
Do you know?
Do you NOT know? If not, then admit you don't know.
Otherwise, you are being deliberately obtuse, and avoiding the ACTUAL questions that I am asking.
That information is readily available to anyone who wishes to find it, no problem. Of course, you can't just dive into complex physics if you haven't even prepared yourself with the basics, you'll never understand it.
Here is a common 4 year course curriculum from Stanford, what you're asking isn't even covered until the third year. Seriously. Get a grip on reality.
Classical Mechanics Lab
Electricity and Magnetism
Electricity and Magnetism Lab
Light and Heat
Light and Heat Lab
Current Research Topics
Mechanics and Special Relativity
Classical Mechanics Lab
Electricity, Magnetism & Waves
Electricity, Magnetism & Optics Lab
Quantum and Thermal Physics
Intro to Lab. Physics
Foundations of Modern Physics
Intro to Observational and Laboratory Astronomy
Intermediate Physics Lab I
Intermediate Physics Lab II
Intermediate Physics Lab III
Math Methods of Physics
Intermediate E&M I
Intermediate E&M II
Quantum Mechanics I
Quantum Mechanics II
Advanced Quantum Mechanics
Intro to Particle Physics I
Intro to Particle Physics II
Intro to Stellar and Galactic Astrophysics
Intro to Extragalactic Astrophysics and Cosmology
Thermodynamics, Kinetic Theory, and Statistical Mec
Thermodynamics, Kinetic Theory, and Statistical Mec
Solid State Physics
Seminar in Theoretical Physics
Seminar in Theoretical Physics
Introduction to Gravitation
Linear Algebra/Multi-Variable Calculus
Intro to MATLAB for Multivariable Mathematics
Linear Algebra Ordinary Differential Equations
Partial Differential Equations
Theory of Partial Differential Equations
Theory of Probability
The Fourier Transform and Its Applications
After all that material brain shift, ED, you might need a glass of the Holy Spirit to help you wind down!
This only suggest to me that you don't know. Which is fine, not many people (if any)do.
You're problem is you won't admit it.
I actually kind of ran into the same problem with our other conversation... it was hard to discuss higher-level things because we didn't share the same core knowledge.
It's not that he doesn't know, it's that without that core knowledge he would have to educate you on everything up to his point.
That's not trying to be offensive, it's just pointing out a problem in communication.
Thank you for explaining that to her, I hope she gets it.
I am not a scientist. All I can go by is what they say.
As far as I know, MOST claim that they don't understand how these things work, at a fundamental level of understanding. THAT'S what I'm getting at.
That they don't know exactly what energy is, light is, what is "material" and what is not, what exactly the nature of a field is, how a Higgs field "imparts" mass to form a particle. I am saying, THEY say they don't know these things.
Can you show me a link where scientists say they know these things? Can you give me quotes from scientific literature that says scientist have figured these things out? A video of a conference where this information is discussed?
I read THEM saying they don't "really", fundamentally understand. If there is new literature in the past few years that I've missed, I would be EXSTATIC to learn of it. I would LOVE to find out that they've figured these fundamental things out.
Do YOU think these things are known, the fundamentals of the things I have been going over and over with?
I will even promise you, that if you can prove to me that they know, with links, quotes, videos etc., That I will shut up about it, admit my ignorance, and apologize to you, Ehead, and everyone else who I have disagreed with on this matter.
Working on it. It might take a while though, I'm making sure my sources are all physicists etc.
"It is common that, when reading about the universe or about particle physics, one will come across a phrase that somehow refers to “matter and energy”, as though they are opposites, or partners, or two sides of a coin, or the two classes out of which everything is made. This comes up in many contexts. Sometimes one sees poetic language describing the Big Bang as the creation of all the “matter and energy” in the universe. One reads of “matter and anti-matter annihilating into `pure’ energy.” And of course two of the great mysteries of astronomy are “dark matter” and “dark energy”.
As a scientist and science writer, this phraseology makes me cringe a bit, not because it is deeply wrong, but because such loose talk is misleading to non-scientists. It doesn’t matter much for physicists; these poetic phrases are just referring to something sharply defined in the math or in experiments, and the ambiguous wording is shorthand for longer, unambiguous phrases. But it’s dreadfully confusing for the non-expert, because in each of these contexts a different definition for `matter’ is being used, and a different meaning — in some cases an archaic or even incorrect meaning of `energy’ — is employed. And each of these ways of speaking implies that either things are matter or they are energy — which is false. In reality, matter and energy don’t even belong to the same categories; it is like referring to apples and orangutans, or to heaven and earthworms, or to birds and beach balls."
"Today, if one wants to talk about the world in the context of our modern viewpoint, one can speak first and foremost of the “fields and their particles.” It is the fields that are the basic ingredients of the world, in today’s widely dominant paradigm. We view fields as more fundamental than particles because you can’t have an elementary particle without a field, but you can have a field without any particles. [I still owe you a proper article about fields and particles; it's high on the list of needed contributions to this website.] However, it happens that every known field has a known particle, except possibly the Higgs field (whose particle is not yet certain to exist, though [as of the time of writing, spring 2012] there are significant experimental hints.)
What do “fields and particles” have to do with “matter and energy”? Not much. Some fields and particles are what you would call “matter”, but which ones are matter, and which ones aren’t, depends on which definition of “matter” you are using. Meanwhile, all fields and particles can have energy; but none of them are energy."
"If, as in all the examples I’ve given above, and in all the others I could give you that would make intuitive sense to you, a field describes a property of a medium, then how can one have a field without a medium? Yet somehow fields are also independent of their media, because many different fields can behave in the same way, despite describing many different properties of vastly differing media. So perhaps it is possible to abstract the field away from its medium.
Well, not only is it possible, it is apparently mandatory. At least, it is mandatory either to have no medium at all, or to have a medium which can’t be made from ordinary matter, and is vastly different from all the media we’ve considered up to now — in that it acts as though (for all experiments anyone has ever done) it isn’t there."
http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-a … th/fields/
"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas for calculating some numerical quantity, and when we add it all together it gives “28 ”—always the same number. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanism or the reasons for the various formulas" Richard Feynman (1963)
Here's one to get you started .Have some patience.
"Physicists speak of the world as being made of particles and force fields, but it is not at all clear what particles and force fields actually are in the quantum realm. The world may instead consist of bundles of properties, such as color and shape "
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic … hing-else/
For all the excitement the award has already generated, finding the Higgs — arguably the most important discovery in more than a generation — has left physicists without a clear roadmap of where to go next. While popular articles often describe how the Higgs might help theorists investigating the weird worlds of string theory, multiple universes, or supersymmetry, the truth is that evidence for these ideas is scant to nonexistent.
No one is sure which of these models, if any, will eventually describe reality. The current picture of the universe, the Standard Model, is supposed to account for all known particles and their interactions. But scientists know that it’s incomplete. Its problems need fixing, and researchers could use some help figuring out how. Some of them look at the data and say that we need to throw out speculative ideas such as supersymmetry and the multiverse, models that look elegant mathematically but are unprovable from an experimental perspective. Others look at the exact same data and come to the opposite conclusion.
“Physics is at a crossroads,” said cosmologist Neil Turok, speaking to a class of young scientists in September at the Perimeter Institute, which he directs. “In a sense we’ve entered a very deep crisis.”
The word “crisis” is a charged one within the physics community, invoking eras such as the early 20th century, when new observations were overturning long-held beliefs about how the universe works. Eventually, a group of young researchers showed that quantum mechanics was the best way to describe reality. Now, as then, many troubling observations leave physicists scratching their heads. Chief among them is the “Hierarchy Problem,” which in its simplest form asks why gravity is approximately 10 quadrillion times weaker than the three other fundamental forces in the universe. Another issue is the existence of dark matter, the unseen, mysterious mass thought to be responsible for strange observations in the rotation of galaxies
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/ … l-physics/
Steven Weinberg teaches at the University of Texas at Austin. He has been awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics and the National Medal of Science. His latest book for general readers is Lake Views: This World and the Universe.
"So now we have a standard model of elementary particles. Its ingredients are quantum fields, and the various elementary particles that are the quanta of those fields: the photon, W+, W-, and Z0 particles, eight gluons, six types of quarks, the electron and two types of similar particles, and three kinds of nearly massless particles called neutrinos. The equations of this theory are not arbitrary; they are tightly constrained by various symmetry principles and by the condition of cancellation of infinities.
Even so, the standard model is clearly not the final theory. Its equations involve a score of numbers, like the masses of quarks, that have to be taken from experiment without our understanding why they are what they are. If the standard model were the whole story, it would require neutrinos to have zero mass, while in fact their masses are merely very small, less than a millionth the mass of an electron. Further, the standard model does not include the longest-known and most familiar force, the force of gravitation. We commonly describe gravitation using a field theory, the general theory of relativity, but this is not a quantum field theory in which infinities cancel as they do in the standard model."
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive … tion=false
Mind isn't material, and you say non material can't exist, so what happens to your mind then?
If the thing in question in this forum lately is whether immaterial things are allowed to exist or not, the reasserting of your view AS your argument doesn't apply. We could go back and forth all day, "does too, does not, does too, does not...." You see? Its not even a discussion then. Restating immaterial doesn't exist, doesn't help to prove the point.
Invisible Pink Unicorn.
Those are the accepted facts of science. It is those who disagree that must prove that the mind is an exception.
I appreciate that you hold your views and share them.
It is true what i was saying, that restating views is just that. If someone struggles to show the thing in question Is material, there could be a reason for that, that is simple. I'm not making that claim.
The mind is based on the material, so there is no problem.
Restating the mind is immaterial doesn't help you understand anything.
I think we all agree that there is some correlation of mind to materially based things like a brain, etc. THAT there is correlation of mind to material brain, doesn't mean the makeup of the mind equates to the brain's physical makeup. The mind has causal power, it can do things. And while it is so closely experienced by each of us, we can't show it materially.
Can it be that it could be, just as it looks? If not, then WHY not? If the reason is that someone's view won't allow it, well why is that reason given so much power in such cases? We are speaking of reality here.
If we are just esteeming one view over another, then we would (could) be discussing different favorite philosophies, etc. I like to do that by the way, lol. In this case, not all philosophies are created equal when assessing reality. I mean in the sense that when they butt up against each other, the philosophy has to give, not the reality.
What is the causal power if the mind? What can it do without the brian? Only a functioning brain in a functioning body can do things.
Right the philosophy should give if it is found to not be in line with reality. But we have young earther's proclaiming that the earth is only a few thousand years old when reality tells us otherwise. There are some that think reality should give way to there personal philosophy.
Btw, you have grossly misrepresented that one, single article you keep referring. It doesn't support your "non-material entities"
Give examples. Your statement alone that just generally refers to the article gives me nothing.
You keep going around in circles, making the same assertions and rejecting or denying anything that is given to you. I understand that article and it does not in any way support your assertions.
If any of us make a good argument that stands after it is critiqued, it continues to stand until it is shown to not be a good argument. (Critiqued legitimately, shown to have flaws or not.)
That has yet to be accomplished by you believers, who happen to be the ones in denial.
Because you say so?
See ED, all these smaller exchanges are the path to the bigger claims, they support or not, each of our own individual claims. This isn't about who can root the hardest or shout the loudest, or put people down till the leave that MAKES a side win, or an argument win.
In these smaller exchanges when we are talking all day it seems about this and that regarding the bigger argument, lean towards one of the sides. You can't just claim a win and win.
No, because you believers have failed to produce an argument for anything non-material.
The failure to show the mind itself is material, is one proof. That is a great example offered up. I think some true denial may be going on.
The mind doesn't show itself to our senses but it shows itself to us. It is undeniable. No amount of trying to make it material has worked, nor could it. That is because something that is immaterial can't be shown to be material. The denying we have a mind hasn't worked either, though less are inclined to suggest that, because it seems so inherent we do have minds, no matter its makeup.
"I think some true denial may be going on. "
On your part, yes. I agree.
How, where? In fairness to ED, I have been asking him too, to back up his claims. Where have I been in denial, and of what? People just saying things has got to stop being an option, to put in the place of truth. Reality doesn't work like that. Call me whatever you want, but please let it be true. While on that note, how was I being childish? Or are we just at the belittling point? It could be, that the mind is just not material, and that I am just the messenger.
You are the best projector I've seen for a long time.
Do show how. How does it follow, that my asking you to back your put downs is projecting? Or is it that I really am not being childish, in denial, etc.
When people start resorting to just more and more to just saying stuff, its a sign. In total fairness, I actually kind of can imagine this isn't that fun at this point. (and maybe hasn't been..... its not for me either if it is any consolation.)
"I think some true denial may be going on. "
"Or are we just at the belittling point? "
We're not sure. Are you? When you said it to him were you being belittling?
Not when actual denial can be shown. See the post where I said that. When you said all your things, they were not shown, AND the point I did make were ignored, probably coincidental I'm sure.
So we could say the same about you because it does seem like you ignore our points and like you are in denial.
So does that help? Or should we just forget about people's motives or whether they are arguing properly? All you seem to do is argue about the way people argue. Why bother? I don't get it.
If you truly don't understand why I show how a point doesn't work against another, then maybe that question you ask at the end is a good one, "why do I bother?"
I could not have tried harder to not ignore points.
If you truly don't understand why I show how a point doesn't work against another, then maybe that question you ask at the end is a good one, "why do I bother?"
I could not have tried harder to not ignore points.
It is stunning you can't even see your own contradictions.
I continually point out illogical things as I see them, or contradictions, how things don't follow if they don't, etc. In this case you say its amazing I can't see my own contradictions, and didn't show ONE.
I know why you don't show it either. I haven't done that. You have to show it. No more just saying stuff.
Even if (or when) a bunch of people come in and say the same, it doesn't count for a hill of beans either, unless they show it. Several people making the same error is just that. No scientist is immune from it either.
That is exactly what you are doing, trying to weigh in your religious philosophies, which don't intersect with science in any way, they are just irrational beliefs.
Explain. Elaborate on how you read this article and explain how it contradicts my assertions. Again, just saying you 'understand that article' means nothing on its own. How do I know you understand? Because you say so?
See, you don't understand "How, if the brain is the entirety of the mind" so you proclaim God done it. I'll stop saying that when you stop doing it. I could be simply software and you wouldn't know it. I could simply be 1s and 0s on a hard drive somewhere. If we can now build software that simulates a functioning mind, what makes you think it's impossible for nature to do it over the course of a few billion years? 14 billion.
I never said there was a one to one relationship. I specifically said that there are many processes involved in creating the sense of individuality, it is not one thing, it is the combination of many, as is the body.
The only objection I have to your entire argument is that the mind is immaterial. If it were immaterial it wouldn't be anything at all. And when I ask you how you can prove the immaterial exists you say I want you to show me green that's red.
Don't you see how silly that sounds? You can't prove it so that means it must be there? And I'm being silly asking you to prove it because it is not material. Well yes, I am silly for even entertaining an idea like that. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. You are trying to make a square circle.
The immaterial must exist because it's just too hard to explain the mind. Wow. What a bit of logic that is.
And yes, probably if you were not religious and did not believe in immaterial spirits in the first place it would all sound pretty silly to you too, which is why people accuse you of: God dun it ism. lol...
Until you can show that nothing is something you're as much as pissing on my leg.
So is that you are trying to redefine the word immaterial? If so, concentrate on that.
I'll give you some help. Lawrence Kraws says the universe came from nothing. But his nothing is something: Quantum fluctuation.. That's where empty space, empty of particles atoms and every thing, spontaneously creates pairs of particles which just as quickly annihilate themselves.
Looks like nothing creating something. But it is actually the potential in the fabric of space itself.
Jesus (and Paul, and others) seemed to esteem faith quite a bit, and love.
See the gospels, and see I Corinthians 13.
They seem to make all the difference in the world. (Not just those two things, but they can't be measured in a cup, or served on a platter, found in a test tube, etc.)
What is happening, is people are forcing definitions on, and its working out just about as well as making square circles. This is real, that isn't real, and its because someone says so. It works if it works. That is just it....
I'm fairly fond of love and faith too. I just know they don't exist anywhere but in my brain.
That is exactly what I thought too.
To be so certain they only exist in brains, who knows for sure! Where did they originate? We choose them, or not, faith and love.
As far as I know the emotion (love) exists in all mammals and perhaps all birds for evolutionary purposes. There is no need to ask who put it there as there is no need to assume it was put there by anything other than evolution.
My husband will be glad to know that. I'm sure he loves you too! I guess I'll be seeing you at church too
Well I don't mind your husband knowing that I can feel love for those that I care about, if he knew me he would know that, but that being said if you see a tall dark devastatingly handsome young man at church than it may just be me.
I'll keep an eye out... and a check on my posterior pituitary gland.
The point of course being that my love and faith exists only in my brain as a interpretation of the feelings caused by the release and re-uptake of oxytocin Well, love anyway. Faith is likely cause by dopamine
People's actions, as they carry out ideas to make a great difference in the world (for good or bad, as we see), all start in the mind first.
The actions in these cases, are first dependent upon the ideas to be able to become a reality. Not the other way around. The idea didn't need a person to do the action to be allowed to be the idea first. The idea existed as an idea in the mind. So it was one thing on its own. The great change we see from inventions to Gandhi would not exist without the ideas and where and how they were formed. You could never experience any of it, apart from the mind.
Speaking here of things like men making space travel a reality. That was totally dependent upon the ideas from inside human minds. It worked outward from there.
How nice, I "chemical hormone" you.
Sorry, this struck me as very funny, so I had to. Hey, whatever works, right?
Faith, to me, is much tougher a topic, and exercise depending on what is meant. Faith as I understand it to bring change. I have seen its effects though, and certainly don't think its anything to shake a stick at.
Knowing what causes something it in no way diminishes the beauty of it. Things don't have to be mysterious to be amazing.
As far as faith goes... I think it is actually weakened by trying to find ways that science could "allow" God.
As for faith, and the evidences in the world and science, it seems God made them to coexist together. Even though I firmly think that following science to where it would naturally and ultimately lead, is God as the most reasonable option known or heard of, still doesn't stop the need for faith.
When I was speaking of it in the prior post, I was meaning more prayer, when praying for something difficult. Its not a cozy "feeling", not to me. (At times like that.) Hard to explain. Of the worldview options, I think Christianity is a tougher one than not.
"Essay:Why the "fine-tuned universe" argument is bogus"
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Why_ … t_is_bogus
The Fine-Tuned Universe -- the insignificance of very small numbers
"This is not a big deal and is not in any way evidence of a creator."
I know this may seem like an argument of semantics, but there really is a difference between 'evidence of' and 'evidence that supports'. It doesn't prove anything. I don't claim it proves anything. As I've said many times, this is what I believe and why I believe it. If you have a good reason why something I believe can't be true, I'd love to hear it. I don't want to just be wrong about something. I'm just laying what I think out on the table for all to see. Warts and all.
When I look at what's known about the universe I find it makes more sense that intelligence isn't unique to us than it does to think it's just this way because it's this way and there's nothing significant about that. Clearly you lean the other way. I have no problem with that. But for you to just say "No, it doesn't", when I say this same evidence supports my view just tells me you don't understand my view. But, maybe if you can actually show me in some way, I'd be eternally grateful for you showing me the error of my ways.
"In other words, life conforms to the properties and laws of the universe, not the other way round."
Yes, I agree. I find that significant that the same set of laws that formed stars and planets also formed oceans and land and complex life and intelligence and on and on, just being as they are. I realize you find this in no way significant. That's where you and I differ.
"That is a possible theory, but there is no evidence to support intention in the same way that if the values of the laws were different and there was a different universe, there would be no evidence to support that an intention there, as well.
The evidence does support. Or, it is 'consistent'. It doesn't prove, but it doesn't conflict.
"It may be mind boggling to some, but it isn't mind boggling to those who really understand it."
I don't get this. Your go-to is this level of understanding thing. When you disagree it's because I don't understand. Not 'really'. So I point to cell biologists like Ken Miller, who does 'really' understand, yet believes much the same as I, and then of course you find that insignificant as well. He's probably just indoctrinated or something. And no, my mind isn't boggled. I get the high number of chemicals, the enormous span of time, the billions and trillions of chances. I get it. But even with all of that, I find these key elements existing together as they did, having the behaviors they did, that just 'naturally' becomes/results in life, and not just once, or even billions of times without perpetuating, but living and replicating, even given the numbers, I find that much more indicative of intelligently intended results than something that was just bound to happen.
Yes, we understand you have faith, but it is very disingenuous to pretend science or reality has anything to do with your faith. A couple of other self-professed Christians here at the very least have the honesty to understand and accept that, you don't, however.
Yours in an argument from faith and ignorance, that is why science doesn't support it. If you had a shred of dignity, you too would admit it is all about your faith and nothing more. But, you never do.
I may be stupid, I may be wrong, I may be totally delusional, but what I am not is disingenuous or dishonest. Whatever you think of me, just know that I am not knowingly lying or trying to trick or mislead you or anyone else.
I don't know on what basis anyone could think that. It is unfortunate that you would have to say it though. I think some would rather that be true, than that you might have a coherent, reasonable and logical argument about some of the matters being discussed. The only ones that might even suggest it, also haven't been able to refute any of the points, not successfully or actually. That should matter, I hope it does.
Except I have not observed any arguments from faith and ignorance, and I have seen ideas supported by science, logic, and reason. No one can admit honestly, something that would be a lie. You create a lose lose scenario for him, where he doesn't have a shred of dignity by not doing what you say he is, or else admitting something false, which would then make him a liar?
I suppose it's about optimism. If you were to think the world is going to end, that's guessing. If you see a giant meteor about to strike the earth, then optimism gets thrown out on it's butt.
So, it's more 'Do I want to see Armageddon?' To which the answer is your own.
I would like to see a partial one, and watch as stupid people attempt to survive.