Mind

Davian said:

Who is this "we", Kimosabe?

Click to expand...

I see you used the politically correct variation. Nice job.

The point I was trying to make is that there are mathematical models to connect the concept of 'mind' to a greater universe, and mind to a "form" (hypothetical in this case) that might survive physical death. You can't rule any idea in or out based *only* on the mathematical models, or lack thereof for that matter.

Davian said:

Back to telling me what it isn't. Have we not been down that dead end?

Click to expand...

No, as we are talking about faith now, not spirit.

If it is more than that, feel free to demonstrate.

Click to expand...

It's not something that can be demonstrated unless you experience it for yourself.

No. What has that to do with complexity? Are there not complex works of fiction?

Click to expand...

Weren't you denying the Bible was complex?

Or the deity in question intended his religion(s) to appeal to the more credulous of us. Or, religious texts are simply the work of men. Again, parsimony.

Click to expand...

They are the work of men, but inspired by God.

Yet we still call it religion, and not reality.

Click to expand...

Complete non-sequiter.

Strathos said:

No, as we are talking about faith now, not spirit.

Click to expand...

And back to telling me what something isn't.

Strathos said:

It's not something that can be demonstrated unless you experience it for yourself.

Click to expand...

Experiencing an optical illusion for myself does not make it less of an illusion.

You still have not moved past this point: Religious faith is a state of the mind in which the critical faculty (CF) of the human mind is bypassed, and selective thinking established.

If I convinced myself that I had 10 million dollars in my bank account, do you think my bank would believe me? Or would they only believe me if they could experience what I believe for themselves?

Strathos said:

Weren't you denying the Bible was complex?

Click to expand...

Yes. And I asked, why would complexity matter? And why do I have to repeat myself so often here?

Strathos said:

They are the work of men, but inspired by God.

Click to expand...

Why did you not say that at the onset of this discussion? That makes so much sense, and clears up everything. I'm a believer!

Strathos said:

Complete non-sequiter.

Click to expand...

Just an observation.

Strathos said:

No, as we are talking about faith now, not spirit.



It's not something that can be demonstrated unless you experience it for yourself.



Weren't you denying the Bible was complex?



They are the work of men, but inspired by God.



Complete non-sequiter.

Click to expand...

When you say "experience it for yourself" are you not referring to your own personal interpretations of personal experiences you have?

If so, are you claiming that your personal experiences should automatically be something others should also have?

bhsmte said:

When you say "experience it for yourself" are you not referring to your own personal interpretations of personal experiences you have?

If so, are you claiming that your personal experiences should automatically be something others should also have?

Click to expand...

It's really more of a question of what you say about it when others *do* have similar types of experiences, if perhaps not every human being. Not every human being has green eyes for instance, but some do.

Michael said:

It's really more of a question of what you say about it when others *do* have similar types of experiences, if perhaps not every human being. Not every human being has green eyes for instance, but some do.

Click to expand...

Well, when it comes to religion, people from all over the world, tend to have personal experiences that match up well with their personal beliefs in religion.

bhsmte said:

Well, when it comes to religion, people from all over the world, tend to have personal experiences that match up well with their personal beliefs in religion.

Click to expand...

My experiences actually didn't line up very well with my birth religion. I ended up giving up the religion and embracing atheism for a while. Atheism didn't jive with my experience either, so I gave that up too.

Michael said:

My experiences actually didn't line up very well with my birth religion. I ended up giving up the religion and embracing atheism for a while. Atheism didn't jive with my experience either, so I gave that up too.

Click to expand...

Birth religion has nothing to do with it. What you choose to believe does.

bhsmte said:

Birth religion has nothing to do with it. What you choose to believe does.

Click to expand...

I can't speak for Strathos, but in my case, and probably in many cases, it's the experiences themselves that caused me to 'choose to believe', as well as *what* to believe.

Michael said:

I can't speak for Strathos, but in my case, and probably in many cases, it's the experiences themselves that caused me to 'choose to believe', as well as *what* to believe.

Click to expand...

Ok, but that doesn't change the fact that people who explain their personal experiences and how they line up with their chosen belief.

This even extends to near death experiences, where the experiences line up with the person's individual beliefs.

http://www.horizonresearch.org/main_page.php?cat_id=66

bhsmte said:

Ok, but that doesn't change the fact that people who explain their personal experiences and how they line up with their chosen belief.

Click to expand...

Before we get into NDE's...

In my case, during what I'd call my most important "personal" experiences of God prior to age 15, all of them involved a strong sense of unconditional love and acceptance. Such experiences did not however "square very well" with my "religious" concepts of the time, specifically things like the concept of hell. I could not comprehend how that unconditionally loving being that I experienced within could ever torment souls for the whole of time for the sins that occurred in the relative blink of an eye. It logically and emotionally would not jive with my internal experiences of God, no matter how hard I tried to rationalize it. It wouldn't work.

That eventually caused me to 'question' everything that I believed in, including religion, God, and the whole nine yards. I ultimately ended up embracing atheism for many years.

Those internal experiences however didn't actually 'cease' with my switch over to atheism. I didn't focus on God of course, or do anything in terms of prayer or meditation, but those experiences of unconditional love still "leaked in" sometimes while I watched a magnificent sunset, or felt myself stirred internally by beautiful music.

It wasn't until I got the chip off my shoulder toward religion, and realized I didn't have an honest scientific answer as to God's existence that I could actually sit down and internally *ask* God again if he even existed from a place of honest scientific curiosity. More experiences ensued.

Even after embracing theism again, I couldn't simply "go backwards" into believing in a religion that made no sense to me. This caused me to do a whole bunch of research to see what happened to "Christianity" to find out what changes took place historically.

The religion that I embrace today is really not very 'like' some branches of 'Christianity". I love and honor Christ as my personal Lord and Savior (from selfish ego), but I don't necessarily buy a lot of the standard "Christian" dogma, even to this day. I certainly will never again believe in eternal torment for finite sin for instance.

This even extends to near death experiences, where the experiences line up with the person's individual beliefs.

Culture and Near Death Experience

Click to expand...

The interesting thing about NDE's from my perspective is not the cultural aspects (I'd expect that actually), it's the impact the experience has on the person's life over the long haul, along with the fact it results in pretty significant changes in their long term behaviors. They often put unconditional love before anything else, and their beliefs after the experience are often different than they were *before* the incident. There is typically something they have "learned" from the experience in terms of their spirituality that doesn't always jive with the preconceived ideas. These "teachings" (during the experience) cause them to make significant changes in their lives.

The other interesting aspect is that the experiences occurs as frequently to atheists as to theists, and even atheists report meeting "God'.

I should also note that there are mathematical models to describe a concept of "soul" that could, in theory at least, survive the death of a physical form. Such theories lack empirical support in much the same way that dark energy lacks empirical support or SUSY theory lacks empirical support however, so believe in soul requires an act of faith in the validity of those maths.

In terms of pure physics however, it's impossible to rule out such ideas.

Davian said:

And back to telling me what something isn't.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't have to if you wouldn't keep mischaracterizing it.

Experiencing an optical illusion for myself does not make it less of an illusion.

Click to expand...

How can you claim something is an illusion if you haven't experienced it, though?

You still have not moved past this point: Religious faith is a state of the mind in which the critical faculty (CF) of the human mind is bypassed, and selective thinking established.

If I convinced myself that I had 10 million dollars in my bank account, do you think my bank would believe me? Or would they only believe me if they could experience what I believe for themselves?

Click to expand...

That's something that can be independently verified. Personal spiritual experiences can't.

Yes. And I asked, why would complexity matter? And why do I have to repeat myself so often here?

Click to expand...

It matters because that is why not everyone interprets it the same way.

bhsmte said:

When you say "experience it for yourself" are you not referring to your own personal interpretations of personal experiences you have?

If so, are you claiming that your personal experiences should automatically be something others should also have?

Click to expand...

Not at all. I have been repeatedly saying that personal religious experiences are only convincing to the people that have them. But they are valid for me, which is the point.

Strathos said:

I wouldn't have to if you wouldn't keep mischaracterizing it.

Click to expand...

Welcome to the wonderful world of debate where burning strawmen is as common as dirt.

How can you claim something is an illusion if you haven't experienced it, though?

Click to expand...

Basing their opinions on a *lack of experience* is hardly much of argument, but alas, that's ultimately where most atheists begin. It's akin to the argument that if they personally have never seen a kangaroo, such an animal must be an illusion of every 'believers' mind.

The thing is, humans throughout the whole of recorded human history *have* been able to "replicate" this process, but it takes effort, and it takes some amount of 'faith' to begin the process.

Then again, faith in any hypothetical entity or energy is necessary to test even 'scientific' ideas, if only faith enough in the possibility to spend time and effort "testing" the concept.

Atheist however tend to treat "faith" as a dirty word, even though it's a necessary part of "science", particularly hypothetical physics.

Strathos said:

I wouldn't have to if you wouldn't keep mischaracterizing it.

Click to expand...

To substantiate that charge you would first need to provide a robust, demonstrable characterization of the thing in question.

Strathos said:

How can you claim something is an illusion if you haven't experienced it, though?

Click to expand...

Why would I need to experience it?

And, I am not claiming that you have experienced an illusion. If you feel that it is more than an illusion, then you will need to do more than just say so.

Strathos said:

That's something that can be independently verified. Personal spiritual experiences can't.

Click to expand...

I do not know what you mean by "spiritual". If these experiences cannot be independently verified, and they are not consistent with each other, they would seem to me to be of no value as a means of exploring reality (although they may give insight on how the mind works).

Strathos said:

It matters because that is why not everyone interprets it the same way.

Click to expand...

Complexity is why not everyone interprets it the same way? You have lost me there.

My interpretation is based on observation, evidence, and parsimony. Yours?

Davian said:

To substantiate that charge you would first need to provide a robust, demonstrable characterization of the thing in question.

Click to expand...

I already explained my understanding of it. It's your fault if you choose not to accept it.

Why would I need to experience it?

And, I am not claiming that you have experienced an illusion. If you feel that it is more than an illusion, then you will need to do more than just say so.

Click to expand...

I can't exactly show you my own personal religious experiences. That's why they're called "personal" religious experiences. They provide proof for me. I don't expect them to convince anyone else who has not personally experienced them.

I do not know what you mean by "spiritual". If these experiences cannot be independently verified, and they are not consistent with each other, they would seem to me to be of no value as a means of exploring reality (although they may give insight on how the mind works).

Click to expand...

The ones I have experienced are consistent with each other, as well as those of other Christians I know. Again, I don't expect them to convince you based on what happened to me. It's something you would need to experience for yourself.

Complexity is why not everyone interprets it the same way? You have lost me there.

My interpretation is based on observation, evidence, and parsimony. Yours?

Click to expand...

I was talking about Biblical interpretation.

Michael said:

I see you used the politically correct variation. Nice job.

Click to expand...

I do my homework.

Michael said:

The point I was trying to make is that there are mathematical models to connect the concept of 'mind' to a greater universe, and mind to a "form" (hypothetical in this case) that might survive physical death.

Click to expand...

I don't subscribe to a philosophy of mind that has consciousness surviving from one day to the next, other than as an illusion constructed by the brain, so you would be barking up the wrong tree there.

Michael said:

You can't rule any idea in or out based *only* on the mathematical models, or lack thereof for that matter.

Click to expand...

Then you must still be checking to see if Santa has left you presents under your tree on Christmas morning.

AV1611VET said:

The soul resides in the heart.

Click to expand...

What happens if a person has a heart transplant then? Do they get the soul of the original owner of the heart or does their own soul somehow detach itself and remain with their body?

KTS said:

What happens if a person has a heart transplant then? Do they get the soul of the original owner of the heart or does their own soul somehow detach itself and remain with their body?

Click to expand...

No.

The brain would reprogram the new heart.

AV1611VET said:

No.

The brain would reprogram the new heart.

Click to expand...

So then the new soul would come from the brain, yes?

It would be like if I had a file on a little USB thumb drive. If I lose the drive, I can buy a new one and copy that file from my laptop's harddrive onto the new USB drive, yes?

KTS said:

So then the new soul would come from the brain, yes?

Click to expand...

The soul resides in the heart.

If the heart is removed ... my guess is that the soul would migrate to the brain until a new heart is installed.

If a person dies on the operating table, then of course, the soul would be released.

I don't think tripartitism addresses the issue of heart transplants.