Blind

[Coelo]

I wouldn´t have guessed that you were a pragmatist.

I was raised by a secular humanist. We tended to be more pragmatic then idealistic. It really all comes down to what works and what does not work. Explaining why something does or does not work is secondary. That is why medical science accepts religion as having a positive function, even if that function is little more then the placebo effect or the power of suggestion or the power of positive thinking.

 

[BarryDesborough]

That's an irrationally flippant attitude IMO. You're just ridiculing something you really don't fully appreciate IMO.

You clearly have no answer to my counter-point.

That's more or less my point as well. It's pretty easy to understand how an electric universe might interact with human thoughts.

Bashing your head against a wall can alter your perception of reality, but does that actually change reality?

In terms of providing evidence of the existence of an empirical form of "God", there's an appropriate thread for that topic already.

Is there?

Meditation and prayer routines are typically the "tool of choice" in terms of generating/demonstrating internal "spiritual experiences". I'd suggest you start with meditation. Asking for "concrete" examples of spirituality is a bit like asking for "concrete" examples of awareness. It's not "solid" to begin with.

Thank you for agreeing with my point. Light and vision are fundamentally different to spirituality. The term "spiritually blind" is meaningless. Mind you, I would differ with you over awareness. I think it is possible to demonstrate that every normal person has an equivalent sense of awareness of the external world, and of their own subjective internal life.

I did try to offer you an example of someone who *was physically blind*, cut off from even a concept of a language, and still experienced something she associated with 'God'. That is one 'example' of someone *not* having any religious ideas to start with, yet someone still capable of experiencing the presence of God.

Yes, you did.

 

[quatona]

I was raised by a secular humanist. We tended to be more pragmatic then idealistic. It really all comes down to what works and what does not work. Explaining why something does or does not work is secondary. That is why medical science accepts religion as having a positive function, even if that function is little more then the placebo effect or the power of suggestion or the power of positive thinking.

I have always found the question "Does belief work?" the better question than "Does God exist?".

 

[quatona]

I did try to offer you an example of someone who *was physically blind*, cut off from even a concept of a language, and still experienced something she associated with 'God'. That is one 'example' of someone *not* having any religious ideas to start with, yet someone still capable of experiencing the presence of God.

I am wondering what conclusions you suggest can be drawn from the fact that pretty much everyone can tell us about how they once experienced the presence of Pain (conclusions regarding the nature of Pain, that is).

 

[Michael]

You clearly have no answer to my counter-point.

That's not true. I can provide you with evidence of a living electromagnetic universe which you flippantly handwave away at.

Bashing your head against a wall can alter your perception of reality, but does that actually change reality?

EM fields however are a lot more subtle. No heads have to be bashed in to change human perception with external EM fields.

Is there?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7440288/
http://www.christianforums.com/t7584137/

Thank you for agreeing with my point.

Me thinks your thanks is premature.

Light and vision are fundamentally different to spirituality.

Hmm. Light is fundamentally different from 'awareness'. "Vision" is an an input to awareness. Spiritual experiences are an input to awareness. Vision and spiritual experiences are experiences of awareness, and data sources of awareness. If you're going to describe what's fundamentally 'different', it's "awareness', not vision or spiritual experiences (or any other other input).

The term "spiritually blind" is meaningless.

I'd grant you that spirituality seems more a matter of 'degrees' to me not black and white. The term is probably an oversimplification fallacy to start with.

Mind you, I would differ with you over awareness. I think it is possible to demonstrate that every normal person has an equivalent sense of awareness of the external world, and of their own subjective internal life.

How about when we start talking about single celled animals? Are they 'aware' in your opinion? If so, to what degree? Plants?

 

[Michael]

I am wondering what conclusions you suggest can be drawn from the fact that pretty much everyone can tell us about how they once experienced the presence of Pain (conclusions regarding the nature of Pain, that is).

I would "presume" from most accounts of the experience that it's an "unpleasant" experience for *most* people. I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure what you're fishing for exactly.

 

[Coelo]

I have always found the question "Does belief work?" the better question than "Does God exist?".

The problem is to go beyond the placebo effect. Even drug companies have a problem to show that their cure is better then a sugar pill. Everyone fully expects that faith in God is going to work at least as good as a sugar pill.

 

[quatona]

I would "presume" from most accounts of the experience that it's an "unpleasant" experience for *most* people. I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure what you're fishing for exactly.

I´m wondering whether your conclusions would go as far as your conclusions you were happy to draw from similar experiences called "God".

 

[Michael]

I´m wondering whether your conclusions would go as far as your conclusions you were happy to draw from similar experiences called "God".

Why would they?

 

[quatona]

Why would they?

Why would you apply a double standard?
You argued from something that is common to "God" and "Pain". Both are what we observe as names which people give to their experiences.
The question is: Is the fact that people label their experiences an indication that these are experiences of something?
With pain, for example, it is just a term with which they label the experience itself.

 

[Michael]

Why would you apply a double standard?

I'm not.

You argued from something that is common to "God" and "Pain". Both are what we observe as names which people give to their experiences.
The question is: Is the fact that people label their experiences an indication that these are experiences of something?

I assume they actually do experience something they associate with pain, potentially as a result of an *external* influence as well.

With pain, for example, it is just a term with which they label the experience itself.

Water and love are also terms that humans associate with an experience too. I'm still unclear why you expect me to believe that their pain is "not real", or that it's just 'imagined'. I'm simply assuming that sometimes what they are telling me is true. By your logic, I'd have to assume that everyone that complains about experiencing something called "pain" is necessarily a hypochondriac.

 

[quatona]

I'm not.

I assume they actually do experience something they associate with pain,

So Pain - just like God - is an entity that people´s experience point to?
Personally, I think it makes way more sense to say that pain is the experience, and that it´s not an entity that people´s experience point to.

Water and love are also terms that humans associate with an experience too. I'm still unclear why you expect me to believe that their pain is "not real", or that it's just 'imagined'.

Well, that´s not what I said, was it?

I'm simply assuming that sometimes what they are telling me is true. By your logic, I'd have to assume that everyone that complains about experiencing something called "pain" is necessarily a hypochondriac.

No, that´s neither what I said nor implied nor meant. I said that pain is a word for the experience itself. I don´t doubt the experience. I just don´t know that there is an entity which it is an experience of.
So when people feel pained (even though there is no entity "Pain" of which this is an experience) doesn´t mean it´s an illusion - I don´t doubt that the experience is real.

 

[Michael]

So Pain - just like God - is an entity that people´s experience point to?

The experience of pain is *often* linked to, and caused by *external* influences like a hot stove or a sharp object.

Personally, I think it makes way more sense to say that pain is the experience, and that it´s not an entity that people´s experience point to.

Would you take your hand off of a hot stove if you felt pain from the heat, or would you just leave it on the hot stove and claim that the experience of pain is all in your head?

 

[BarryDesborough]

The experience of pain is *often* linked to, and caused by *external* influences like a hot stove or a sharp object.

Would you take your hand off of a hot stove if you felt pain from the heat, or would you just leave it on the hot stove and claim that the experience of pain is all in your head?

Heat, an external phenomenon, causes the experience of pain, which is internal. Pain is indeed all in your head (or rather, all in your nervous system). Pain is highly adaptive. Those who cannot feel pain accumulate awful injuries.

What is the analogue of heat, that causes god-experiences?

 

[quatona]

The experience of pain is *often* linked to, and caused by *external* influences like a hot stove or a sharp object.

Michael, may I ask you kindly to reread my post again?
What you say here doesn´t address it. I wasn´t disputing that pain may be caused by something external, I argued that pain itself is the way we experience, not something external which we have an experience of (i.e. for your example: pain is our experience of the heat - as opposed to pain being an external entity that we experience).

Would you take your hand off of a hot stove if you felt pain from the heat, or would you just leave it on the hot stove and claim that the experience of pain is all in your head?

Both, of course.

 

[Michael]

Michael, may I ask you kindly to reread my post again?
What you say here doesn´t address it. I wasn´t disputing that pain may be caused by something external, I argued that pain itself is the way we experience, not something external which we have an experience of (i.e. for your example: pain is our experience of the heat - as opposed to pain being an external entity that we experience).

Both, of course.

We keep talking past each other apparently. All 'experiences' of awareness (sight, sound, smell, pain, feelings, etc) all take place *inside* of the human brain/form. That rarely if ever necessarily means that the source of the experience is *caused internally*.

Like the pain example, yes, the *experience of pain* takes place inside the cranial cavity, and nerve cells in the body, but the *cause* is external to the form. Likewise, just because people experience the presence of God within the confines of their cranial cavity and physical form, it doesn't mean that the *source* of the experience is necessarily located *internally*.

As with your experience of pain example, the experience of God takes place inside the form, but the source of the experience is reported to be external to the form. You're *assuming* something *different* than what the people themselves actually report.

 

[Michael]

Heat, an external phenomenon, causes the experience of pain, which is internal. Pain is indeed all in your head (or rather, all in your nervous system). Pain is highly adaptive. Those who cannot feel pain accumulate awful injuries.

The source of the experience of pain however is *external* to the physical form. That's my point.

What is the analogue of heat, that causes god-experiences?

Ordinary EM fields in all likelihood. They're certainly the logical first choice in terms of setting up real lab experiments to look for such inputs.

 

[BarryDesborough]

The source of the experience of pain however is *external* to the physical form. That's my point.



Ordinary EM fields in all likelihood. They're certainly the logical first choice in terms of setting up real lab experiments to look for such inputs.

The causes of pain are a natural part of the environment. Experiencing and reacting to pain are adaptive.

Not so much deliberately induced hallucinations.

 

[Michael]

The causes of pain are a natural part of the environment. Experiencing and reacting to pain are adaptive.

Likewise IMO the causes of God experiences are a natural part of the environment (God is the environment). Experiencing and reacting to God experiences are adaptive.

Not so much deliberately induced hallucinations.

You can't simply *assume* they are hallucinations if you have no evidence to support it. Even if *some* people do hallucinate various experiences, including God experiences or pain experiences, that doesn't mean that *all* people always hallucinate *all* experiences. You're drawing your own conclusions apparently.

 

[BarryDesborough]

Likewise IMO the causes of God experiences are a natural part of the environment (God is the environment). Experiencing and reacting to God experiences are adaptive.

You can't simply *assume* they are hallucinations if you have no evidence to support it. Even if *some* people do hallucinate various experiences, including God experiences or pain experiences, that doesn't mean that *all* people always hallucinate *all* experiences. You're drawing your own conclusions apparently.

You missed my point. The causes of pain are a natural part of the environment, and produce a natural response. Deliberately contrived insults to the workings of the brain produce unnatural responses.