Does the Mandelbrot Set prove the Mind of God behind what we see.

[stevevw]

Spirits and stuff.

Well you get diferent definitions like for example from the Royal College of Psychiatrists
Spirituality involves the recognition of a feeling or sense or belief that there is something greater than myself, something more to being human than sensory experience, and that the greater whole of which we are part is cosmic or divine in nature.

That covers more than religion.

Its actually recognised as part of being human as a human higher need.
Maslow describes a hierarchy of ascending needs: from the physiological to the transcendent. He suggests that those who are ultimately fulfilled move beyond their personal needs for significance, security, and self-esteem towards transcendence.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0732118X22000642

These are called emotions.

Spirituality is more than emotions. Emotions are more related to the temporal world, our senses but spirituality or a spiritual experience or awakeness transcends the temporal. It takes you out of yourself and into the bigger picture of reality where we feel a part of something beyond us.

Its a destinct difference to temporal emotions and people have been using this for millenia for experiencing serenity, healing and also in psychology. Its the source of great inspiration, wisedom, knowledge and discovery of new ways to see things. Whereas emotions tend to tie you to the physical world, the senses and the immediate surroundings relating to yourself and others.

How Spirituality Can Benefit Your Health and Well-Being

Spirituality is the broad concept of a belief in something beyond the self. Learn more about the many ways spirituality can lead to less stress and better health.

www.verywellmind.com

Speak for yourself. This ain't me.

No we are all born with this spiritual sense and belief in divine concepts. People can gradually lose that, well at least the recognition and awareness of it due to cultural and social conditioning. But spirituality is every bit a part of someone as breathing air.

Born believers: How your brain creates God

Born believers: How your brain creates God

Michelangelo's painting The Creation of the First Man is in the Sistine Chapel in Vatican City. Human beings have a natural inclination for religious belief, especially during hard times Read our related editorial: The credit crunch could be a boon for irrational belief WHILE many institutions...

www.newscientist.com

Out of the mouths of babes

Justin L Barrett: Do children believe because they're told to by adults? The evidence suggests otherwise

Justin L Barrett: Do children believe because they're told to by adults? The evidence suggests otherwise

www.theguardian.com

Humans 'predisposed' to believe in gods and the afterlife

Humans 'predisposed' to believe in gods and the afterlife

New research finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife. Research suggests that people across many different cultures instinctively believe that some part of their mind, soul or spirit lives on after-death. The studies demonstrate that people are natural...

www.sciencedaily.com

Religion is natural

Religion is natural - PubMed

Despite its considerable intellectual interest and great social relevance, religion has been neglected by contemporary developmental psychologists. But in the last few years, there has been an emerging body of research exploring children's grasp of certain universal religious ideas. Some recent...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Bleep, blorp.

lol, their more smarter than that now with Ai.

On what basis do you think you have free will?

I knew it. It seems disbelief in free will and agency goes hand in hand with scientific materialism or reductionism. I think its based on the basis of our conscious experience, the only thing we can measure free will and agency. How else can we determine this.

Of course a materialist will say any sense you think you have of free will is unreal based on the same limited measure of reductionism. But in reality we are more than the physical processes of our bodies.

I prefer evidence. Arguments are for the dinner table.

But some things cannot be proven by empiricle evidence. Like love. How do you do a test to prove that you love a partner or child. The actions are not love themselves and could be motivated by other reasons. So we reason why we love and its a matter of faith. But love and hate are every bit as real, they can change the world.

Consciousness is another. As you would have seen from the video I linked it is completely impossible for a physical measure to verify consciousness. Yet we know its real. We argue its realness by the fact we have conscious experiences.

They are real brain states. Why do they need to be anything more?

Because real brain states are not the experience. They are two completely different things. Neurons, snapes, the electrical chemical signals are in a completely different category for measurements. It would be like using a tape measure to measure the experience of beauty.

As with Frank Jackson's thought experiment of Mary's Room. Mary is colour blind but knows everything there is to know about how the eye works, the cones, rods, how light and the colour spectrum work. Just like we could know everything there is to know about the correlates or consciousness and the brain.

So when Mary experiences the colour red fror the first time from her black and white world she has learn new knowledge about the world through her new experience of the colour Red that she never knew before. Yet nothing in her experience was real in the physical sense. Nothing in the neurons, rods, cones or light colour spectrum had or could explain the experience of red.

Frank Jackson's famous 'Mary's Room' Thought Experiment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhTRbXpfKw8&ab_channel=JeffreyKaplan

 

[stevevw]

There is nothing "between" science and philosophy.

Not if you know the difference between the two.

I mean when discussing some scientific ideas like how the universe began or something from nothing they naturally fall into philosophy. Even evolution. I mean what is a debate on evolution and creation but both science and philosophy.

When you are any defender of the science method make claims "the only way we can tell what reality is (ontologically) is through empiricle science" that is a metaphysical claim which steps into philosophy.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I mean when discussing some scientific ideas like how the universe began or something from nothing they naturally fall into philosophy.

"From nothing" is quite the claim. What evidence exists that the Universe began "from nothing"? What ever describes the formation of the Universe will be physics, though it many never be discovered.

Even evolution. I mean what is a debate on evolution and creation but both science and philosophy.

Evolution v. creation is a category error. One is science, the other religion.

When you are any defender of the science method make claims "the only way we can tell what reality is (ontologically) is through empiricle science" that is a metaphysical claim which steps into philosophy.

The "scientific method" is whatever I choose to do.

 

[stevevw]

Instant communication isn't real. No information travels faster than light. (It's been tested in delay lines with entangled photons.)

Ok well it seems the arguements for faster than light travel is on shaky ground.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I knew it. It seems disbelief in free will and agency goes hand in hand with scientific materialism or reductionism. I think its based on the basis of our conscious experience, the only thing we can measure free will and agency. How else can we determine this.

Of course a materialist will say any sense you think you have of free will is unreal based on the same limited measure of reductionism. But in reality we are more than the physical processes of our bodies.

No you didn't "know it". I didn't express disbelief in "free will", I just wasn't going to let you assume it without evidence. (And stop calling me a "materialist" -- a term I associate with the greedy. I find it offensive.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

But some things cannot be proven by empiricle evidence. Like love. How do you do a test to prove that you love a partner or child. The actions are not love themselves and could be motivated by other reasons. So we reason why we love and its a matter of faith. But love and hate are every bit as real, they can change the world.

Consciousness is another. As you would have seen from the video I linked it is completely impossible for a physical measure to verify consciousness. Yet we know its real. We argue its realness by the fact we have conscious experiences.

Science absolutely has studied both love and consciousness. These are not some sort of ethereal majik.

Because real brain states are not the experience. They are two completely different things. Neurons, snapes, the electrical chemical signals are in a completely different category for measurements. It would be like using a tape measure to measure the experience of beauty.

How do you know that? A fully natural view of the brain and consciousness would very much equate any experience as a "brain state".

As with Frank Jackson's thought experiment of Mary's Room. Mary is colour blind but knows everything there is to know about how the eye works, the cones, rods, how light and the colour spectrum work. Just like we could know everything there is to know about the correlates or consciousness and the brain.

So when Mary experiences the colour red fror the first time from her black and white world she has learn new knowledge about the world through her new experience of the colour Red that she never knew before. Yet nothing in her experience was real in the physical sense. Nothing in the neurons, rods, cones or light colour spectrum had or could explain the experience of red.

Frank Jackson's famous 'Mary's Room' Thought Experiment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhTRbXpfKw8&ab_channel=JeffreyKaplan

The study of perception is part of psychology and neurobiology. There is nothing unnatural about perception.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well you get diferent definitions like for example from the Royal College of Psychiatrists
Spirituality involves the recognition of a feeling or sense or belief that there is something greater than myself, something more to being human than sensory experience, and that the greater whole of which we are part is cosmic or divine in nature.

Royalists? I don't think I can trust royalists. But, even so, that definition is about a "feeling" or "sense" or "belief" and not an actual encounter with spirits.

That covers more than religion.

Since when is "spirituality" required for religion or spirits?

Its actually recognised as part of being human as a human higher need.
Maslow describes a hierarchy of ascending needs: from the physiological to the transcendent. He suggests that those who are ultimately fulfilled move beyond their personal needs for significance, security, and self-esteem towards transcendence.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0732118X22000642

More psychological needs.

Spirituality is more than emotions. Emotions are more related to the temporal world, our senses but spirituality or a spiritual experience or awakeness transcends the temporal. It takes you out of yourself and into the bigger picture of reality where we feel a part of something beyond us.

"feel" sounds like emotion to me.

Its a destinct difference to temporal emotions and people have been using this for millenia for experiencing serenity, healing and also in psychology. Its the source of great inspiration, wisedom, knowledge and discovery of new ways to see things. Whereas emotions tend to tie you to the physical world, the senses and the immediate surroundings relating to yourself and others.

Distinction without difference.

How Spirituality Can Benefit Your Health and Well-Being

Spirituality is the broad concept of a belief in something beyond the self. Learn more about the many ways spirituality can lead to less stress and better health.

www.verywellmind.com

No we are all born with this spiritual sense and belief in divine concepts. People can gradually lose that, well at least the recognition and awareness of it due to cultural and social conditioning. But spirituality is every bit a part of someone as breathing air.

Born believers: How your brain creates God

Born believers: How your brain creates God

Michelangelo's painting The Creation of the First Man is in the Sistine Chapel in Vatican City. Human beings have a natural inclination for religious belief, especially during hard times Read our related editorial: The credit crunch could be a boon for irrational belief WHILE many institutions...

www.newscientist.com

Out of the mouths of babes

Justin L Barrett: Do children believe because they're told to by adults? The evidence suggests otherwise

Justin L Barrett: Do children believe because they're told to by adults? The evidence suggests otherwise

www.theguardian.com

Humans 'predisposed' to believe in gods and the afterlife

Humans 'predisposed' to believe in gods and the afterlife

New research finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife. Research suggests that people across many different cultures instinctively believe that some part of their mind, soul or spirit lives on after-death. The studies demonstrate that people are natural...

www.sciencedaily.com

Religion is natural

This sounds like a design flaw.

 

[stevevw]

No you didn't "know it". I didn't express disbelief in "free will", I just wasn't going to let you assume it without evidence. (And stop calling me a "materialist" -- a term I associate with the greedy. I find it offensive.)

Materialism by definition is someone who not only doesn't believe in God but also anything supernatural or beyond the physical cause.

Materialism definition
relating to or denoting the theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.

 

[stevevw]

Royalists? I don't think I can trust royalists. But, even so, that definition is about a "feeling" or "sense" or "belief" and not an actual encounter with spirits.

The Royal Acadamy is one of the oldest associations like the Royal Acadamy of Physicians or Surgeons so they are not some pseudoscience organisation.

Spirituality is destinct from emotions or belief. It is a destinct state of being and experience that transcends feelings. Usually associated with the big picture questions like 'are we alone in the universe', 'is there a God', and 'what happens after death' ? So they are destinct states and experiences rather than feelings.

Spirituality could be like what we call 'team spirit' or the 'spirit of the game or event' where individuals become part of something greater than themselves and theres a common connection thats greater than the sum of individuals. More than a feeling because it can drive individuals beyond their feelings.

Humans have a physical, mental, emotional and spiritual dimension to their lives. This is well known and basic human health and wellbeing. Spirituality is seen as a key component of human wellbeing and research shows those with such a connection have better psychological and physical health.

The Relationship Between Spirituality, Health-Related Behavior, and Psychological Well-Being
Spirituality therefore forms a multidimensional theoretical construct. In essence, it constitutes transcendence understood as going beyond or above “the real I.” In this context, spirituality is defined as experiencing transcendence through inner peace, harmony, or connectedness to others (Boswell et al., 2006). Transcendence can take place both within the person (self-realization, self-improvement, and personal development) and outside the person. “External” transcendence may be directed to a higher entity or energy; to another person, claimed to be of particular value, whose good is more important than one’s own good; or to the universe (Heszen-Niejodek and Gruszyńska, 2004).

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01997/full

Since when is "spirituality" required for religion or spirits?

Spirituality is not required for religion but is often closely associated with religion obviously. I am not sure what you mean by 'spirits'. Do you mean ghosts lol.

More psychological needs.

Spirituality or transcendence is beyond psychological needs or dimension. The psychological will be more a personal mental state, like anxiety or self esteem and comes under 'Cognitive Needs on Maslows Hierarchy of Needs. Its just before 'Self Actualization Needs' which is about realising personal growth and fullfillment.

Whereas spirituality comes under the higher needs the 'Transcendent Needs' and goes beyond the individuals mind and self to something out there beyond whatever that may be which can actually bring psychological wellbeing and meaning to ones life.

Transcendence needs – A person is motivated by values that transcend beyond the personal self. Beyond self-actualization, they represent the human desire to connect with a higher reality, purpose, or the universe.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is a motivational theory in psychology proposed by Abraham Maslow. It organizes human needs into five levels: physiological, safety, love and belonging, esteem, and self-actualization. Often visualized as a pyramid, this hierarchy suggests that human motivation...

www.simplypsychology.org

"feel" sounds like emotion to me.

Emotions are associated but spirituality then transcends those emotions. Feel is probably not quite right, probably more an experience, but often with some clarity about whatever it is your contemplating about life, the meaning of things, whats the bigger picture of things ect.

Distinction without difference.

If thats how you see it. But for the majority its not the same, much more to it. I notice skeptics keep knocking down all these experiences as unreal. Like, its not different, its just feelings, its a delusion your telling yourself. All the negative attacks on what the majority of humans believe and experience as something real that can make a difference and actually is proven to make a difference. But then the skeptics knock down this as well saying its just your subjective mind playing tricks.

This sounds like a design flaw.

Actually the introduction explains spirituality in very simple terms

Spirituality is the broad concept of a belief in something beyond the self. It strives to answer questions about the meaning of life, how people are connected to each other, truths about the universe, and other mysteries of human existence.

Spirituality offers a worldview that suggests there is more to life than just what people experience on a sensory and physical level. Instead, it suggests that there is something greater that connects all beings to each other and to the universe itself.

 

[stevevw]

Science absolutely has studied both love and consciousness. These are not some sort of ethereal majik.

No I don't know what they are but they are not something that can be reduced to the mechanical behaviuours of brains and bodies or the objective world. Science has studied both but all they can do is explain the behaviour of the brain or body when these things are experienced. But this cannot explain the experience itself, why we should have such experiences and how these experiences can transcend the physical world even influencing it.

How do you know that? A fully natural view of the brain and consciousness would very much equate any experience as a "brain state".

Did you watch the video or read the paper "What is it like to be a Bat". This explains how it is impossible for the science method or in the case of conscious experiences using scientific measures of the correlations of brain activity with certain experiences to explain the experience itself. Or to explain the nature of consciousness.

Thats because theres a category difference in what is trying to be explained. The mechanical processes of the brain explain the behaviour. Like 'time' its a quantifried measure. Its explaining the framework or pipework if you like.

But consciousness or the experience or love, colours and pain are subjective and quality phenomena so a quantified measure cannot be used to explain a qualititative and subjective experience ie no amount of understanding or explanation about the mechanical and physical processes about seeing the colour red could help Mary who was colour blind to know what the experience of Red would be like.

It wasn't until Mary regained the ability to see red again that see gained new knowledge of experiencing the colour red. So all her technical knowledge about eyes, brain connections to eyes and how the light colour spectrum works could not explain or account for the experience of red. Just like it cannot account for any conscious experience.

The study of perception is part of psychology and neurobiology. There is nothing unnatural about perception.

Not so much neurology but certainly psychology is revealing how the human mind can influence the physical world and outcomes. Like Mind over matter which is such a broad field and often just thought to be a silent player in behaviour but now seen as the driver. Which is related to agency in evolution, rather than being passive creatures subject to the forces of nature such as environments, NS and mutations acting as an outsiude force it seems the other way around where a creature can control their own evolution through their agency.

But also generally Mind over matter is bring up the role of the subjects, the observers place in the overall equation of what is real or not. The power of the mind to overcome or change the physical world. This has been known for a long time but never really been given real attention into how this all works so I think its the next big paradigm change in thinking.

Another area is Ai. This is probably the closest to the study of consciousness and whether its based on the physical brain or beyond. If the naturalists assumption is correct and consciousness is just an epiphenomena from physical and mechanical process then theorectically we should be able to build a robot with consciousness if we can map out all the correlates in the brain. Or maybe come close with specific replicas of parts of the brain associated with specific emotions and experiences.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The Royal Acadamy is one of the oldest associations like the Royal Acadamy of Physicians or Surgeons so they are not some pseudoscience organisation.

I didn't say they were "pseudoscience". I said they weren't claiming what you want me to think they were. They were saying that these things were believed or felt.

(And why should I trust your argument from an authority I've never heard of with who knows what reputation and a very generic, non-specific name. Where are they even from?)

 

[Hans Blaster]

Spirituality is not required for religion but is often closely associated with religion obviously. I am not sure what you mean by 'spirits'. Do you mean ghosts lol.

Ghosts, holy spirits, souls, what ever of those ethereal non-nonphysical notions you're planning to invoke. I have no experience with those.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Spirituality is destinct from emotions or belief. It is a destinct state of being and experience that transcends feelings. Usually associated with the big picture questions like 'are we alone in the universe', 'is there a God', and 'what happens after death' ? So they are destinct states and experiences rather than feelings.

Spirituality could be like what we call 'team spirit' or the 'spirit of the game or event' where individuals become part of something greater than themselves and theres a common connection thats greater than the sum of individuals. More than a feeling because it can drive individuals beyond their feelings.

Humans have a physical, mental, emotional and spiritual dimension to their lives. This is well known and basic human health and wellbeing. Spirituality is seen as a key component of human wellbeing and research shows those with such a connection have better psychological and physical health.

The Relationship Between Spirituality, Health-Related Behavior, and Psychological Well-Being
Spirituality therefore forms a multidimensional theoretical construct. In essence, it constitutes transcendence understood as going beyond or above “the real I.” In this context, spirituality is defined as experiencing transcendence through inner peace, harmony, or connectedness to others (Boswell et al., 2006). Transcendence can take place both within the person (self-realization, self-improvement, and personal development) and outside the person. “External” transcendence may be directed to a higher entity or energy; to another person, claimed to be of particular value, whose good is more important than one’s own good; or to the universe (Heszen-Niejodek and Gruszyńska, 2004).
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01997/full Spirituality is not required for religion but is often closely associated with religion obviously. I am not sure what you mean by 'spirits'. Do you mean ghosts lol.
Spirituality or transcendence is beyond psychological needs or dimension. The psychological will be more a personal mental state, like anxiety or self esteem and comes under 'Cognitive Needs on Maslows Hierarchy of Needs. Its just before 'Self Actualization Needs' which is about realising personal growth and fullfillment.

Whereas spirituality comes under the higher needs the 'Transcendent Needs' and goes beyond the individuals mind and self to something out there beyond whatever that may be which can actually bring psychological wellbeing and meaning to ones life.

Transcendence needs – A person is motivated by values that transcend beyond the personal self. Beyond self-actualization, they represent the human desire to connect with a higher reality, purpose, or the universe.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is a motivational theory in psychology proposed by Abraham Maslow. It organizes human needs into five levels: physiological, safety, love and belonging, esteem, and self-actualization. Often visualized as a pyramid, this hierarchy suggests that human motivation...

www.simplypsychology.org

Emotions are associated but spirituality then transcends those emotions. Feel is probably not quite right, probably more an experience, but often with some clarity about whatever it is your contemplating about life, the meaning of things, whats the bigger picture of things ect.
If thats how you see it. But for the majority its not the same, much more to it. I notice skeptics keep knocking down all these experiences as unreal. Like, its not different, its just feelings, its a delusion your telling yourself. All the negative attacks on what the majority of humans believe and experience as something real that can make a difference and actually is proven to make a difference. But then the skeptics knock down this as well saying its just your subjective mind playing tricks.

None of these quotes counters anything I wrote. This is about perception of those feelings and beliefs. I see no reason to think they are anything more than a psychological brain state and these studies certainly do no disprove that. (It certainly isn't proven that they are *not* some sort of actual sprit-thing, but lack of disproof of existence and proof of existence are two far separate things.

Actually the introduction explains spirituality in very simple terms

Spirituality is the broad concept of a belief in something beyond the self. It strives to answer questions about the meaning of life, how people are connected to each other, truths about the universe, and other mysteries of human existence.

Spirituality offers a worldview that suggests there is more to life than just what people experience on a sensory and physical level. Instead, it suggests that there is something greater that connects all beings to each other and to the universe itself.

And your source again agrees with me. (And I have no need for either kind of spirituality.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

Did you watch the video or read the paper "What is it like to be a Bat". This explains how it is impossible for the science method or in the case of conscious experiences using scientific measures of the correlations of brain activity with certain experiences to explain the experience itself. Or to explain the nature of consciousness.

Thats because theres a category difference in what is trying to be explained. The mechanical processes of the brain explain the behaviour. Like 'time' its a quantifried measure. Its explaining the framework or pipework if you like.

But consciousness or the experience or love, colours and pain are subjective and quality phenomena so a quantified measure cannot be used to explain a qualititative and subjective experience ie no amount of understanding or explanation about the mechanical and physical processes about seeing the colour red could help Mary who was colour blind to know what the experience of Red would be like.

It wasn't until Mary regained the ability to see red again that see gained new knowledge of experiencing the colour red. So all her technical knowledge about eyes, brain connections to eyes and how the light colour spectrum works could not explain or account for the experience of red. Just like it cannot account for any conscious experience.

I've heard of this, but I don't know if I've looked into it. Your habit of spamming threads with reference materials make it unlike that I will read all of them, most of them, or quite often -- any of them. Bats have different brain structures, so it is not unreasonable that bats have different experiences that we can not contemplate the experiences of bats.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Now we get to the really weird claims...

Not so much neurology but certainly psychology is revealing how the human mind can influence the physical world and outcomes. Like Mind over matter which is such a broad field and often just thought to be a silent player in behaviour but now seen as the driver. Which is related to agency in evolution, rather than being passive creatures subject to the forces of nature such as environments, NS and mutations acting as an outsiude force it seems the other way around where a creature can control their own evolution through their agency.

But also generally Mind over matter is bring up the role of the subjects, the observers place in the overall equation of what is real or not. The power of the mind to overcome or change the physical world. This has been known for a long time but never really been given real attention into how this all works so I think its the next big paradigm change in thinking.

What is this notion of "mind over matter" being proposed here. It is not clear. Are we merely talking about the decisions made in the mind that translate to the outside world? (For example, I decide to cut down a tree.) Are we talking about some sort of direct mental projection? What are you talking about?

Another area is Ai. This is probably the closest to the study of consciousness and whether its based on the physical brain or beyond. If the naturalists assumption is correct and consciousness is just an epiphenomena from physical and mechanical process then theorectically we should be able to build a robot with consciousness if we can map out all the correlates in the brain. Or maybe come close with specific replicas of parts of the brain associated with specific emotions and experiences.

AI isn't close to consciousness, at all. There are some interesting machine learning models, but no general intelligence. The connections in the brain are way more complex than any electronic computer.

 

[sjastro]

Since information has been thrown around in this thread the humorous Science Asylum videos provides an answer as to what information means from a science perspective.

 

[stevevw]

I didn't say they were "pseudoscience". I said they weren't claiming what you want me to think they were. They were saying that these things were believed or felt.

It actually says its more than a belief or feeling but a knowing ie knowing that our lives have significance in a context beyond a mundane everyday existence at the level of biological needs and involves universal ideas like love, altruism, life after death, wisdom and truth. So though feelings and beliefs are involved its much more than just feelings and belief.

(And why should I trust your argument from an authority I've never heard of with who knows what reputation and a very generic, non-specific name. Where are they even from?)

Ok well I would imagine you trust certain sources more than others like maybe American Academy of Pediatrics or the the American Psychiatric Association (APA). Well the Royal Academies and Associations are the English version. So they are the authority on whatever area they cover. The least likely source to be dabbling in faulty or fake science.

But I have linked a few articles now about spirituality and they all more or less say the same thing. So its good science that we have several independent sources saying the same thing, adding credibility to each source.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ok well I would imagine you trust certain sources more than others like maybe American Academy of Pediatrics or the the American Psychiatric Association (APA). Well the Royal Academies and Associations are the English version. So they are the authority on whatever area they cover. The least likely source to be dabbling in faulty or fake science.

How like the english to just write "royal" and assume it means them.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It actually says its more than a belief or feeling but a knowing ie knowing that our lives have significance in a context beyond a mundane everyday existence at the level of biological needs and involves universal ideas like love, altruism, life after death, wisdom and truth. So though feelings and beliefs are involved its much more than just feelings and belief.

This is different then your quote from the "royal" institute of somesuch:

Spirituality involves the recognition of a feeling or sense or belief that there is something greater than myself, something more to being human than sensory experience, and that the greater whole of which we are part is cosmic or divine in nature.

I'm going to assume that the "knowing" is from the down-under academy of you.

[BTW, this post was much better than so many of your previous ones. It goes so much better when the whole post fits on the screen of a laptop. Thanks.]

 

[stevevw]

I've heard of this, but I don't know if I've looked into it. Your habit of spamming threads with reference materials make it unlike that I will read all of them, most of them, or quite often -- any of them. Bats have different brain structures, so it is not unreasonable that bats have different experiences that we can not contemplate the experiences of bats.

Thats why I linked the video, it was just one link and it explains Nagals paper in simple terms. Its the idea that Bats onl;y know what its like to be bats, like humans only know what its like to experience human experiences.

So therefore as Nagal says 'physicalism' or the science method of redductionism (reducing things down to their basic pohysical components) can never explain consciousness. Just like we can never know what its like to be a bat because its the bats subjective experience science cannot explain human consciousness because its subjective and science is all about the objective that is outside any particular subjective point of view.

So theres a category difference where the science method is useless is explaining consciousness because it cannot be reduced to neurons, snapes and chemicals. Yet consciousness, what something seems to be can reveal facts about reality that science can't.