Mind

[Strathos]

Sure it does. Why else are you here in this thread, other than to respond to those demands?

I'm honestly not sure.

This forum is, in effect, an arena of ideas. Are you declaring that your experiences should not be scrutinized by others?

There is nothing for you to scrutinize other than my word. Like I said, take it or leave it.

Perhaps - it could be that you do not have an opinion of whether or not your personal experiences should be disregarded by others. You could have said that the first time I asked.

Again: by "personal" you mean "that which should be disregarded"? Yes, no, or I don't know?

Mu. We can do this all week.

Then you were not properly responding to my statement, as I was referring to informing your opinion of how the brain works using 21st century science. Have you considered doing that?

How would that convince one that any given experience was not genuine?

And if you disagreed with how "they", based on their "personal experiences" that you disagree with, affect the government of your country, the education of your children, etc. would you accept their experiences over yours? When would you challenge them?

I don't even live in the same country as you.

My high school daughter needs a subject for a physics class presentation. I suggested the transistor effect. Accordingly, all she needs to tell the class is that the transistor effect is not any other effect. Completely logical? Do you have a suggestion for a counterexample?

She could do that and be correct, although it would be rather roundabout and inefficient, since the method of demonstrating it directly exists, which is not the case in this situation.

As for a counterexample, there is a myth that the body gets lighter by a bit after dying, due to the soul leaving. If this were true, it would invalidate my definition of spirit.

Curiosity. I still don't know what you are trying to define, so my belief in it has yet to be determined.

Do you believe that consciousness survives after the death and destruction of the physical body?

Do you believe that there exist conscious entities that exist without physical bodies?

What I declared about your "definitions" was not done randomly or on a whim. Your response, on the other hand, may have been on a whim, but was accurate.

So I was accurate in saying you are wrong? I guess that's a concession then.

You asked, "According to you they aren't even clearly defined, so how can they be assumptions?" Are you simply being argumentative?

Do you or do you not understand the definitions I have given you?

They are. Now what? Do I learn now, or wait until it escalates?

How am I being obnoxious?

 

[Davian]

Translation: <snip>

Can you not stop the dishonest tactic of putting words in my mouth?

How do I know that the "power of the mind" would work at all in the absence of God?

You don't have any real gods, do you? None that you have been able to demonstrate.

In other words, <snip>

Can you not stop the dishonest tactic of putting words in my mouth?

 

[bhsmte]

How do I know that the "power of the mind" would work at all in the absence of God?


I understand what your personal theory is Michael, but this question is quite a leap with no evidence to support, besides personal observations and wishful thinking in regards to what has not yet been discovered.

Besides what would be considered assumptive theories with no evidence to support, there is no evidence to conclude, our minds need an outside source to function as they do now.

 

[Davian]

I'm honestly not sure.

Still, it works for me.

There is nothing for you to scrutinize other than my word. Like I said, take it or leave it.

I asked, are you declaring that your experiences should not be scrutinized by others? Shall we do that here?

Mu. We can do this all week.

Or you could answer the question as asked, or explain why you cannot. What is your problem?

How would that convince one that any given experience was not genuine?

It may or may not. However, if one is to hold an informed opinion on a subject, would it not be best to use the most up-to-date information?

I don't even live in the same country as you.

Non sequitur. I asked, if you disagreed with how "they", based on their "personal experiences" that you disagree with, affect the government of your country, the education of your children, etc. would you accept their experiences over yours? When would you challenge them?

She could do that and be correct, although it would be rather roundabout and inefficient, since the method of demonstrating it directly exists, which is not the case in this situation.

A method of demonstrating the transistor effect did not exist until after it was hypothesized. How did you determine that hypothesizing and testing does not apply in your situation?

As for a counterexample, there is a myth that the body gets lighter by a bit after dying, due to the soul leaving. If this were true, it would invalidate my definition of spirit.

I do not see how this is a counterexample to the transistor effect.

Do you believe that consciousness survives after the death and destruction of the physical body?

I do not believe that consciousness survives from one day to the next. It is my understanding that, contrary to even my own personal experience, it is a process constructed by the brain on an as-needed basis. Did you watch the Metzinger video I linked to earlier in this thread?

Do you believe that there exist conscious entities that exist without physical bodies?

That sounds as plausible as the process of oxidation happening in the absence of materials.

So I was accurate in saying you are wrong? I guess that's a concession then.

Where was I wrong?

Do you or do you not understand the definitions I have given you?

I did not. They appeared to be, as you described them, assumptions.

How am I being obnoxious?

No, I said my relatives are being obnoxious. Now what? Do I learn now, or wait until it escalates?

 

[Strathos]

Still, it works for me.

So you have no idea either then.

I asked, are you declaring that your experiences should not be scrutinized by others? Shall we do that here?

Scrutinize all you want, I don't have to prove anything to you.

Or you could answer the question as asked, or explain why you cannot. What is your problem?

The question is improperly framed.

It may or may not. However, if one is to hold an informed opinion on a subject, would it not be best to use the most up-to-date information?

Such as?

Non sequitur. I asked, if you disagreed with how "they", based on their "personal experiences" that you disagree with, affect the government of your country, the education of your children, etc. would you accept their experiences over yours? When would you challenge them?

You are assuming I am somehow using my experiences to dictate the policies of your country. Which is patently ridiculous.

A method of demonstrating the transistor effect did not exist until after it was hypothesized. How did you determine that hypothesizing and testing does not apply in your situation?

If you can come up with an experiment to test the existence of a soul, I'd like to hear it.

I do not see how this is a counterexample to the transistor effect.

It's a counterexample to my definition of spirit, which is what I thought you were asking for.

I do not believe that consciousness survives from one day to the next. It is my understanding that, contrary to even my own personal experience, it is a process constructed by the brain on an as-needed basis. Did you watch the Metzinger video I linked to earlier in this thread?

So that's a no, then?

That sounds as plausible as the process of oxidation happening in the absence of materials.

So again, a no.

Where was I wrong?

When you arbitrarily dismissed my definitions as not being coherent.

I did not. They appeared to be, as you described them, assumptions.

Yet just now you declared one to be false and another to be extremely unlikely, how could you do that if you don't understand what I was suggesting?

No, I said my relatives are being obnoxious. Now what? Do I learn now, or wait until it escalates?

What do your relatives have to do with me?

 

[Davian]

So you have no idea either then.



Scrutinize all you want, I don't have to prove anything to you.



The question is improperly framed.



Such as?



You are assuming I am somehow using my experiences to dictate the policies of your country. Which is patently ridiculous.



If you can come up with an experiment to test the existence of a soul, I'd like to hear it.



It's a counterexample to my definition of spirit, which is what I thought you were asking for.



So that's a no, then?



So again, a no.



When you arbitrarily dismissed my definitions as not being coherent.



Yet just now you declared one to be false and another to be extremely unlikely, how could you do that if you don't understand what I was suggesting?



What do your relatives have to do with me?

Based on some of your answers I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse, for reasons of your own. This exchange went as I expected, but I had hoped for more. If there is something you would like to ask of me, let me know.

 

[BaconWizard]

There is nothing for you to scrutinize other than my word. Like I said, take it or leave it.

Your word is not evidence. We leave it.

 

[Michael]

I asked, are you declaring that your experiences should not be scrutinized by others? Shall we do that here?

Er, "scrutinized" or "rationalized", and for what purpose? It's not like he's *alone* as a human in describing experiences about the God/human connection. It's been going on since the dawn of recorded civilization apparently.

In my experience 'scrutiny' is often a desire to simply 'handwave' at the evidence. If Strathos were unique in describing experiences of God, your point might have merit. Since that's absolutely not the case, your so called 'scrutiny' sounds more like a rationalization. It's based on the flawed premise that if you personally haven't seen a kangaroo in real life, they must not exist at all, and everyone who attempts to describe them is crazy, and you're the only sane one.

It may or may not. However, if one is to hold an informed opinion on a subject, would it not be best to use the most up-to-date information?

That's rather an ironic comment all things considered.

A method of demonstrating the transistor effect did not exist until after it was hypothesized. How did you determine that hypothesizing and testing does not apply in your situation?

I did in fact propose the outline of some EM field experiments we might try. Your beliefs about how we got here can't even be tested in the lab.

I do not believe that consciousness survives from one day to the next. It is my understanding that, contrary to even my own personal experience, it is a process constructed by the brain on an as-needed basis.

Brain? Exactly what kind of 'brain' do single celled organisms have?

Brainless behavior: A myxomycete chooses a balanced diet

 

[Davian]

Er, "scrutinized" or "rationalized", and for what purpose? It's not like he's *alone* as a human in describing experiences about the God/human connection. It's been going on since the dawn of recorded civilization apparently.

Name one person that can demonstrate that this "experience" is anything other than an internal product of the imagination.

In my experience 'scrutiny' is often a desire to simply 'handwave' at the evidence. If Strathos were unique in describing experiences of God, your point might have merit. Since that's absolutely not the case, your so called 'scrutiny' sounds more like a rationalization. It's based on the flawed premise that if you personally haven't seen a kangaroo in real life, they must not exist at all, and everyone who attempts to describe them is crazy, and you're the only sane one.

Absolutely not the case? How do you know that he is not lying? So much for your "evidence".

That's rather an ironic comment all things considered.

I do not see anything on neuroscience in those links.

I did in fact propose the outline of some EM field experiments we might try. Your beliefs about how we got here can't even be tested in the lab.

Experiments that you cannot do?

And, you fail again at telling me what my beliefs are.

Brain? Exactly what kind of 'brain' do single celled organisms have?

Brainless behavior: A myxomycete chooses a balanced diet

What has that to do with what I said about human consciousness?

 

[Kylie]

But that's not the wash cloth wants, is it? The wash cloth wants to soak up the water. That's what it was designed to do. You are interfering in order to get the result that wouldn't have happened otherwise.



Yeah, that's not what the Bible says. Aren't supposed to be a Biblical literalist?

Miss this, AV?

 

[AV1611VET]

Miss this, AV?

No, I didn't.

It was just an analogy.

If the analogy wasn't good enough, I can't help it.

Some people can understand analogies, even when they contain flaws.

 

[Kylie]

No, I didn't.

It was just an analogy.

If the analogy wasn't good enough, I can't help it.

Some people can understand analogies, even when they contain flaws.

No, you analogy wasn't very good was it? So you withdraw your analogy?

 

[Strathos]

Based on some of your answers I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse, for reasons of your own. This exchange went as I expected, but I had hoped for more. If there is something you would like to ask of me, let me know.

TBH I knew you were losing the thread when you started blaming me for dictating the policies of your country. Personally, I believe religion and politics in a democracy should be separate.

Your word is not evidence. We leave it.

Fine.

 

[Davian]

TBH

Does that imply a lack of honesty in your preceding posts?

I knew you were losing the thread

When was this about winning or losing? This is about challenging ideas, and learning about others' viewpoints in a manner that is downright impractical in real life. Have you discovered why you are here yet, in this thread, or this site?

when you started blaming me for dictating the policies of your country. Personally, I believe religion and politics in a democracy should be separate.

Would you like a "win", for whatever it might be worth? Quote to me where I blamed you for dictating the policies of my country.

 

[Strathos]

Does that imply a lack of honesty in your preceding posts?

No, it's a figure of speech.

When was this about winning or losing? This is about challenging ideas, and learning about others' viewpoints in a manner that is downright impractical in real life. Have you discovered why you are here yet, in this thread, or this site?

You misunderstand. By "losing the thread" I mean "losing your grasp on the flow of the argument", i.e. "losing the plot".

Would you like a "win", for whatever it might be worth? Quote to me where I blamed you for dictating the policies of my country.

When explaining why you wanted to "challenge" my experiences, you mentioned people using them to dictate the policies of your nation.

 

[Davian]

No, it's a figure of speech.



You misunderstand. By "losing the thread" I mean "losing your grasp on the flow of the argument", i.e. "losing the plot".



When explaining why you wanted to "challenge" my experiences, you mentioned people using them to dictate the policies of your nation.

Quote to me where I blamed you for dictating the policies of my country.

 

[Michael]

Name one person that can demonstrate that this "experience" is anything other than an internal product of the imagination.

Ditto for your photon/inflation demonstration in the lab.

Absolutely not the case? How do you know that he is not lying? So much for your "evidence".

Wow, you really are burning those strawmen this week aren't you? I simply pointed out that human experiences of God on Earth have been described by humans since humans first started writing.

I do not see anything on neuroscience in those links.

What you should have seen was the so called "scientific" theory of the cosmos go up in flames based upon your own stated standards of evidence, including *recent* evidence.

Experiments that you cannot do?

I don't know. I haven't tried in my shoestring budget. If you're willing to toss a few billion of the uncounted billions you're currently wasting on invisible dead sky deities, I might be be able to come up with something for ya.

What has that to do with what I said about human consciousness?

It shows you that based on your entirely empirical standards, even entirely branches of "science" don't cut it in the lab. Your standards are more stringent than anything used in physics today actually.

 

[Davian]

Name one person that can demonstrate that this "experience" is anything other than an internal product of the imagination.

<snip strawman>

Not one name, Michael?

Wow, you really are burning those strawmen this week aren't you? I simply pointed out that human experiences of God on Earth have been described by humans since humans first started writing.

No strawman there. There are claims of experiences of gods, but to date nothing has been substantiated. You cannot even provide one instance where this has been done.

Even if I were using a straw-man argument, it would not excuse your use of them.

What you should have seen was the so called "scientific" theory of the cosmos go up in flames based upon your own stated standards of evidence, including *recent* evidence.

Where have I stated these standards of evidence?

I don't know. I haven't tried in my shoestring budget. If you're willing to toss a few billion of the uncounted billions you're currently wasting on invisible dead sky deities, I might be be able to come up with something for ya.

You come up with a hypothesis that has more explanatory power than the standard model, and is free of straw, and I will see what I can do.

It shows you that based on your entirely empirical standards, even entirely branches of "science" don't cut it in the lab. Your standards are more stringent than anything used in physics today actually.

What are my standards, exactly?

 

[Strathos]

Quote to me where I blamed you for dictating the policies of my country.

You strongly implied it here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7789651-26/#post64816348

And if you disagreed with how "they", based on their "personal experiences" that you disagree with, affect the government of your country, the education of your children, etc. would you accept their experiences over yours? When would you challenge them?

 

[Davian]

You strongly implied it here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7789651-26/#post64816348

Strongly implied? lol. Are you telling me what I think, like Justa and Michael?

I think you are confused about which of us is lost.