Mind

[Michael]

Who is this "we", Kimosabe?

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.

 

[Strathos]

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

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

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

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?

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.

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

Yet we still call it religion, and not reality.

Complete non-sequiter.

 

[Davian]

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

And back to telling me what something isn't.

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

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?

Weren't you denying the Bible was complex?

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

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

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!

Complete non-sequiter.

Just an observation.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

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?

 

[Michael]

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?

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.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

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.

 

[Michael]

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.

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.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

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

 

[Michael]

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

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.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

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

 

[Michael]

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

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

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.

 

[Strathos]

And back to telling me what something isn't.

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.

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?

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?

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

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?

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.

 

[Michael]

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

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?

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.

 

[Davian]

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

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

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

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.

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

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).

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

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?

 

[Strathos]

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

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.

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).

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?

I was talking about Biblical interpretation.

 

[Davian]

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

I do my homework.

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.

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.

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

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

 

[Kylie]

The soul resides in the heart.

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?

 

[AV1611VET]

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?

No.

The brain would reprogram the new heart.

 

[Kylie]

No.

The brain would reprogram the new heart.

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?

 

[AV1611VET]

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

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.