How does one come to believe something?

[Cearbhall]

But I am not attempting to be persuasive. I am probing to see if you have in you the seed of the spirit of God. If you do, I am here for you. If not, I will indeed pass you by. If, then, your assessment or poll, is a representation of you and those like you - then you are correct, but that just means it speaks of you not being receptive, rather than me being unconvincing.

What an extraordinary cop-out and egotistical bunch of mumbo jumbo.

 

[ScottA]

What an extraordinary cop-out and egotistical bunch of mumbo jumbo.

I have been blunt, only when likewise confronted - and so, for you I will do the same:

Do you not know that the world was [only] created for the purpose of dividing the wheat from the chaff, which I have so described?

It is not a cop out - those are the terms: "I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;" Deuteronomy 30:19

 

[ToddNotTodd]

On the contrary, as you and those like you entertain opinions, there is indeed a time when we cut to the bottom line - which you seem to need, but do not take seriously. Such philosophy is self-defined. So, then, if I go there and you do not, it is perhaps a waste, but it is all on you for not taking any of the matter serious from one end to the other. I, on the other hand, for your sake, have taken what I know to be serious, seriously.

But I am not attempting to be persuasive. I am probing to see if you have in you the seed of the spirit of God. If you do, I am here for you. If not, I will indeed pass you by. If, then, your assessment or poll, is a representation of you and those like you - then you are correct, but that just means it speaks of you not being receptive, rather than me being unconvincing. Those who are drawn by God, do not need convincing. So your poll would simply identify whom God has chosen, and whom He has not - which I leave to Him.

Do you believe that you could say any nonsense at all and if your god has "chosen" someone, they'll believe no matter what?

For example, if you said "The Christian God exists because square circles smell like purple.", would someone who's "receptive" hear that and convert? Or do you need to at least present a coherent argument for the message to get through?

 

[ScottA]

Do you believe that you could say any nonsense at all and if your god has "chosen" someone, they'll believe no matter what?

For example, if you said "The Christian God exists because square circles smell like purple.", would someone who's "receptive" hear that and convert? Or do you need to at least present a coherent argument for the message to get through?

Good question.

There is "coherent", and then there is coherent. The words spoken from God throughout all of history (His story) come in two forms, one natural, and one spiritual ("all things come in parables").

So, the natural person hearing "In that day the lion shall lay down with the lamb", will likely consider it feel good nonsense. But the person born again of the spirit of God, will hear the same thing and feel good, but also hear something the natural person will not (and will hear: "God will abide with His people").

 

[Freodin]

That's just great!
"Good question. And because it is a good question, and it is about coherency, I will not answer it, but talk in an incoherent way about something else instead."

I just love the First Rule of Holes.

 

[Arsenios]

Yes, the mind is real.

Same page #1: The mind is real...

No, the mind is an emergent phenomenon that is not reducible to the mere sum of its parts.

Thank-you...

Same page #2: The mind is not reducible to matter...
Same page #3: Mind emerges from material reality...

Now take a breath and answer this question:

HOW does MIND EMERGE from MATERIALITY independently from it: eg "Is not reducible to..."

Where does it COME FROM that it CAN EMERGE?

Materiality cannot account for mind by your account, and I agree...

And I have said that the mind is a part of reality more than once, right?

Right...

Of course, but that doesn't contradict anything I've written. The nature of my mind isn't dependent on any beliefs or understanding I might have about my mind.

Absolutely true...

I have no idea why you think I was trying to articulate the nature of mind.
I was articulating the non-dependence of the nature of reality on mind.

Well, that is a statement about the nature of mind, stating that the nature of reality is not dependent on it, because the nature of mind being a part of the nature of reality is dependent upon itself, in your view...

If mind is real, and is not reducible to materiality, and both are a part of reality, then what is the connection? And what is the disconnection?

I am just pointing to the big issues that saturate these two concepts, mind and matter... I did so because you were dismissing them as philosophically easy to resolve, and my point is that they do not philosophically resolve at all...

I'm not a reductive materialist. I take an emergent and dual-aspect view of mind.

This merely back up the logic a step and then looks down to see that one's feet are still stuck in the dilemma...

NOT MY POINT!

I'm talking about the non-dependence on the nature of reality on mind. When you shut your eyes, the universe does not cease to exist. The universe exists anyway. Doesn't that make sense?

Of course it makes sense! The existence of existence is not dependent on any one particular form of that existence... And you posit that mind is a materially emergent form of existence, whose existence is contingent on the coherent and functioning and existing materiality of the brain... Brain malfunctions are mind malfunctions, when mind is understood as thinking about material attributes, and mental health is understood as the functionability of the person in dealing with material reality... And probably social reality as well, a derivative...

You are arguing that material dependence of mind on matter makes materiality to be existentially non-dependent on the mind which emerges from it... And what this view then encounters is the nature of the emergence which it attributes as being a dependence upon materiality of the existence of emergent mind...

So then are we, in this emergent view, understanding two categories of reality, mind and matter, that are fundamentally different from one another, even though the one cannot exist without the other, but the other without the one? Is the one subject to existence and non-existence while the other is not? And is this contingency of existence of mind a feature of its topography of being that gives value to existence, and valuelessness to non-existence?

I assume that by "thing" you mean sense data. Yes.
That is perfect human functioning.

Good. And will you then acknowledge that this "perfect human functioning" results in death in all cases?

I agree, in the sense that the motion of a baseball is not a material thing, but rather a property of a material thing. It is something that the baseball is doing. You can't separate the motion of the baseball from the baseball.

This analogy, of course, fails when you attribute independence of motion from the thing possessing it, as you are doing with the independence of mental functioning from its material basis, the brain...

Mind is something that the brain is doing. It is not a material reality, but isn't something separate or separable from material reality either.

Same page #4... Mind is not material...

We part in your reduction of mind to a brain activity, which makes it a function of the brain...

You can't have it both ways - If mind is a function of the brain, then it is materially determined...

If mind is an emergent feature of the brain, you can argue that it is not materially determined...

Your tendencies seem to be very materialistic...

Mind (in your view) being an immaterial activity, that a brain is doing yet somehow is independent of the brain doing it, is a hard argument to sustain...

That's a good thing, or else how would material reality interact with the mind?

Constantly through the senses, especially vision and hearing - Which makes Helen Keller so interesting as a person...

Yet mind also can engage non-material reality...

Do you think it should or should not do so?

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

If mind is but a brain function, then knowledge is impossible...
And life ends in death [nihilism]...

Arsenios

 

[ScottA]

That's just great!
"Good question. And because it is a good question, and it is about coherency, I will not answer it, but talk in an incoherent way about something else instead."

I just love the First Rule of Holes.

So, I lost you at the definition of coherency as it applies to the word of God. Perhaps this will help:

co·her·ent
ˌkōˈhirənt/
adjective

1. 1.
   (of an argument, theory, or policy) logical and consistent.
   "they failed to develop a coherent economic strategy"
   synonyms: logical, reasoned, reasonable, rational, sound, cogent, consistent, consilient; More
2. 2.
   united as or forming a whole.
   "divided into a number of geographically coherent kingdoms"

...As I said, there is coherent and there is coherent (2). I was referring to #2: the uniting of two different meanings forming a whole...i.e., "all things come in parables" (Mark 4:11).

 

[ToddNotTodd]

That's just great!
"Good question. And because it is a good question, and it is about coherency, I will not answer it, but talk in an incoherent way about something else instead."

I just love the First Rule of Holes.

Yeah, I don't know why I even bothered.

I guess I'm still expecting a direct answer to a yes or no question without the "my logic is something you cant understand" type of response when I bring up the fact that the response doesn't address what I've asked at all.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

If mind is but a brain function, then knowledge is impossible...
And life ends in death [nihilism]...

Arsenios

Non sequitur. And a continued misunderstanding of Nihilism.

 

[Freodin]

So, I lost you at the definition of coherency as it applies to the word of God. Perhaps this will help:

co·her·ent
ˌkōˈhirənt/
adjective

1. 1.
   (of an argument, theory, or policy) logical and consistent.
   "they failed to develop a coherent economic strategy"
   synonyms: logical, reasoned, reasonable, rational, sound, cogent, consistent, consilient; More
2. 2.
   united as or forming a whole.
   "divided into a number of geographically coherent kingdoms"

...As I said, there is coherent and there is coherent (2). I was referring to #2: the uniting of two different meanings forming a whole...i.e., "all things come in parables" (Mark 4:11).

Which has nothing to do with the question asked. Nor does it form a whole.

So your post is still not coherent, regardless of what definition you use.

 

[ScottA]

Yeah, I don't know why I even bothered.

I guess I'm still expecting a direct answer to a yes or no question without the "my logic is something you cant understand" type of response when I bring up the fact that the response doesn't address what I've asked at all.

Which has nothing to do with the question asked. Nor does it form a whole.

So your post is still not coherent, regardless of what definition you use.

So...we're having communication problem.

Let me remind you, that if you are going to attempt to understand the answers to the questions you ask me - that scenario calls for you to attempt also to come around to my perspective. Which, granted, is foreign to you - but that is the situation. But, if I say to "Walk this way" or "look at something this way instead of that way", you can either follow along or stay home. And I am speaking english, and you do seem relatively intelligent, so...either you are just being ridiculous or you're not trying.

Also...I am not soliciting. You don't have to ask. But I do have the answers, and it you want to understand them, retreating to the security of you not knowing what I am talking about, will accomplish nothing.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

So...we're having communication problem.

Let me remind you, that if you are going to attempt to understand the answers to the questions you ask me - that scenario calls for you to attempt also to come around to my perspective. Which, granted, is foreign to you - but that is the situation. But, if I say to "Walk this way" or "look at something this way instead of that way", you can either follow along or stay home. And I am speaking english, and you do seem relatively intelligent, so...either you are just being ridiculous or you're not trying.

Also...I am not soliciting. You don't have to ask. But I do have the answers, and it you want to understand them, retreating to the security of you not knowing what I am talking about, will accomplish nothing.

I've become wise enough in my old age that I understand that if I think one thing, but everyone else thinks something different, there's a good chance that it's not them, it's me.

All of the non-theists I've seen respond to you (and some of the theists as well) seem to be saying that you're not even attempting to engage in a coherent manner.

 

[ScottA]

I've become wise enough in my old age that I understand that if I think one thing, but everyone else thinks something different, there's a good chance that it's not them, it's me.

All of the non-theists I've seen respond to you (and some of the theists as well) seem to be saying that you're not even attempting to engage in a coherent manner.

And that is your approach to finding a needle in a haystack and to resolving the greatest mystery of all time?

Best of luck!

 

[Ana the Ist]

I would say the point is rather that some will press into advancement, while others will retreat. So be it.

Well some certainly think they "press into advancement"...but thinking and doing are not the same.

What I think is most obvious in those who do believe such things is a desire to feel superior, special, or "blessed" if you will. It's a desire that many have in their life that's typically related to the realization that there's nothing much "superior" or special about them at all.

So then when they find a person or book selling easy solutions for fulfilling that desire....they gobble it right up and do whatever they can to defend it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That is your claim which you have not shown, just as you said of me...

Here's what you said...

You CANNOT wrap your mind around your self...

So by your own admission, you've got difficulty wrapping your mind around the concept of "self". I think I'm also starting to understand your troubles with memory as well...

I read it fairly slowly the first time, and it is still self-contradictory...

Please explain it to me differentiating self, you, your mind, and a concept...

Your mind is the function of your brain, your body is basically an organic machine made to keep your brain (another organic machine) alive. The mind is what the brain creates....a series of processes that involves the processing of thoughts, feelings, concepts, ideas, and emotions. So when we talk about your mind...we're talking about you.

The "self" on the other hand, is an ever-changing concept that we hold regarding our minds. We can't ever perceive our minds exactly as they are...biases. insecurities, emotions, desires....all these things keep us from accurately creating a concept of self. Not only is it impossible to do with our own concepts of self...but others as well.

YOU must be primary, and this means YOU the PERSON...

This person POSSESSES a mind...

This mind possesses a CONCEPT...

One concept is that of the SELF...

Most self-concepts are false...

Yet you are your self... ??

But now the self is a concept held by the self...

YOU are NOT a concept...



The soul is greater than the mind which is greater than the body, and the person is the director of the soul...

The departure of the soul from the body results in your living corpse kept going by machines...

But not forever - That life does not last long...

Yet we have people who have come back from vegetative states...

Man is body and soul.

Removing the mind from the body is called death...

There are a lot of subcategories of mind...

Think the primal category - Pure activity without content...

That is where Aristotle ended up in his metaphysics...

Being as Act...

We [Christians] go well beyond that...

We encounter the Person of God...

And take our being in Him...

Arsenios

This all proves my point about you struggling with the concept of self.

 

[Freodin]

So...we're having communication problem.

You could say that. I think the main problem is that communication is a two way system, while people like you see it as a one way street.

Let me remind you, that if you are going to attempt to understand the answers to the questions you ask me - that scenario calls for you to attempt also to come around to my perspective. Which, granted, is foreign to you - but that is the situation.

Communication being a two way system also mean that you would have to come around to my perspective... understanding what a statement or a question means in the mind of the speaker, and thus responsing respectively. Coherently, if you will.

But here's the problem with your one way approach: it doesn't assume a mutal understanding, but a one sided acceptance, without even the option of questioning.

In this case here, you gave an "answer". You didn't even consider how that answer would fit the question... you just presented your "perspective". And you cannot allow for not accepting your "answer"... everyone who does that just doesn't "understand".

That's false though. I understand your perspective here quite well, and I am willing to use it for the sake of the argument. But that doesn't change the fact that your "answer" doesn't do anything to indeed answer the question. It missed the point completely.

And as you are not willing or able to "come around to my perspective"... you keep failing at communication.

But, if I say to "Walk this way" or "look at something this way instead of that way", you can either follow along or stay home. And I am speaking english, and you do seem relatively intelligent, so...either you are just being ridiculous or you're not trying.

Considering that you deliberately chose to adress a post using an english term under a different meaning than the poster did... I'd say that you simply do not understand the whole point of communication. You are not talking with others - you are indeed "not trying". You are talking at people.

"Look at something this way instead of that way"... this is a good way to start a communication. A means to exchange views, to find common ground and understanding.

But it is a start. You use it as the ends. "Look at something my way instead of your way. Accept that my way is correct, and yours is false."

You might be convinced that this is true, that you "know". This is fine for you... but as long as you cannot understand why people do not accept that, you will fail at communication. And by "understand why" I do not mean "because I know that they are all ridiculous or not trying"... but understand the reason that they present. Look at it my way instead of your way.

Also...I am not soliciting. You don't have to ask. But I do have the answers, and it you want to understand them, retreating to the security of you not knowing what I am talking about, will accomplish nothing.

I know what you are talking about. You are (mostly) just not talking about what we are talking about. That is the problem.

 

[Freodin]

If mind is but a brain function, then knowledge is impossible...

Arsenios

That might even be correct. So what?

The more interesting question is on the opposite of your statement... why would the mind not being a brain function change anything about "knowledge [being] impossible"... and how does the mind not being a brain function explain all the existing situations where "knowledge" obviously fails?

 

[Ana the Ist]

If mind is but a brain function, then knowledge is impossible...
And life ends in death [nihilism]...

Arsenios

Again, you seem to be struggling with what a mind is and how it relates to your brain. Think of it like this....

Your legs can run. Running is a thing (specifically an action, but that's not the important part). Running is a non material thing (your legs are material...but running is a process that your legs do).

So material things, like legs, are capable of doing non-material things....like running. Your brain is capable of creating a mind...through the combination of thoughts, ideas, memories, concepts, emotions, etc.

I know that's not a perfect analogy, since the processes of the mind are much more complex than the process of running...but hopefully it's something you can grasp.

 

[ScottA]

Well some certainly think they "press into advancement"...but thinking and doing are not the same.

What I think is most obvious in those who do believe such things is a desire to feel superior, special, or "blessed" if you will. It's a desire that many have in their life that's typically related to the realization that there's nothing much "superior" or special about them at all.

So then when they find a person or book selling easy solutions for fulfilling that desire....they gobble it right up and do whatever they can to defend it.

And you are doing the same: believing there is nothing to it, because for you there is nothing to it. You simply are pessimistic, while they are hopeful. But neither of those approaches knows the truth - only those such as myself, who have not merely "believed" what they heard, read, or hoped for, but actually have first hand confirmation of what is true and therefore "know."

But you, nor they, can speak to that end. So, if you are going to accuse them - leave me out of it - but do include yourself among those who only have their own opinion and reckless conjecture. You are their counterpart, no different, but simply opposing. They, on the other hand, have considered the truth as possible, while you dismiss it, simply because you do not know it. Bravo.