Mind

[Kylie]

You betcha!

That's me trump card.

(Along with: "God works in mysterious ways.")

That'll shut any scientific methodist up and make them immediately go to ridicule mode.

Claiming "God did it" hardens hearts.

Your trump card hardens hearts against God? So why do you use it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Your trump card hardens hearts against God? So why do you use it?

In the same way Jannes and Jambres hardened Pharaoh's heart.

Exodus 8:19 Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

Notice when they [basically] said, "God did it," Pharaoh's heart was hardened.

The truth of the matter is, his heart was already hardened; and referencing God has a way of bringing that out in people.

 

[Kylie]

Actually, that was God hardening Pharaoh's heart so God could continue his display of might makes right.


Exodus 4:21
And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

Exodus 7:3-13
And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. (v.3)

And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said. (v.13)

Exodus 9:12
And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had spoken unto Moses.

Exodus 10:1-27
And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him. (v.1)

But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go. (v.20)

But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let them go. (v.27)

Exodus 11:10
And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh: and the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go out of his land.

Exodus 14:4-17
And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, that he shall follow after them; and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I am the LORD. (v.4)

And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel (v.8)

I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them: and I will get me honour. (v.18)

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, that was God hardening Pharaoh's heart so God could continue his display of might makes right.


Exodus 4:21
And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

Exodus 7:3-13
And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. (v.3)

And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said. (v.13)

Exodus 9:12
And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had spoken unto Moses.

Exodus 10:1-27
And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him. (v.1)

But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go. (v.20)

But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let them go. (v.27)

Exodus 11:10
And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh: and the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go out of his land.

Exodus 14:4-17
And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, that he shall follow after them; and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I am the LORD. (v.4)

And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel (v.8)

I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them: and I will get me honour. (v.18)

You missed one:

Exodus 8:32 And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also, neither would he let the people go.

Invoking God and the Bible on unbelievers hardens their hearts, because their hearts are hardened already.

As my pastor put it, it's like wringing water out of a washcloth. You force the water out.

That's exactly what God did -- he forced Pharaoh to declare his intentions.

 

[Strathos]

It's my fault that I chose not to to accept your unevidenced, untestable, unfalsifiable assumptions?

True. Call me sceptical.

You asked for my definition and my understanding of the subject. I gave you that.

Then why offer them as evidence to others? Again, if you feel that what you experience is more than an illusion, then you will need to do more than just say so.

I did no such thing. I merely used them as a source of why I believe what I believe.

If there is one "religious experience" that is not consistent with another, they are all suspect.

Unless some people are interpreting them incorrectly, or there are certain negative forces attempting to confuse them.

Still irrelevant. Even if I were to experience what you are describing, and I found it to be convincing, it would still fail to establish it as not being an illusion.

If you found it convincing, you wouldn't think it was an illusion. Someone else might think so, though. That's exactly my point: these experiences serve as proof to the individual, not anyone else. And I'm not trying to use them to prove anything to you. Besides, for someone with a "seeker" icon, you don't seem all that interested in seeking the spiritual.

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

What is your interpretation, then? A bunch of typical atheist strawmen, like "the Bible says pi = 3"?

 

[Davian]

Deepak Chopra: Can Science Explain the Soul?

Deepak Chopra? Seriously? I mean, seriously?

The theory put forth by Penrose looks the most promising to me.

""YES we have a soul but it's made of lots of tiny robots" and I thought that's exactly right. Yes we have a soul, but it's mechanical. But it's still a soul, it still does the work that the soul was supposed to do. It is the seat of reason. It is the seat of moral responsibility. It's why we are appropriate objects of punishment when we do evil things, why we deserve the praise when we do good things. It's just not a mysterious lump of wonder stuff... that will out live us." - Dan Dennet

Why would you need to ride a bicycle to understand how it feels and what it's like?

How do you know that I have not "ridden this bicycle"? Perhaps I have (although not with any deities).

I won't go there, as it could be turned back as a strawman (MY experiences are not like that). I am trying to deal with just the data on hand.

The basic flaw in your argument is if it were an "illusion", it wouldn't necessarily be likely to be experienced by others. If you check your history books however, you'll find that humans throughout the whole of recorded human history have reported such experiences.

And I ask, name one that can demonstrate that this experience is anything other than an internal experience, that of the imagination.

In the sense that we're all going to leave these forms sooner or later, they absolutely *will be* independently verified over time.

On what other subjects are we expected to die before being provided with even basic evidence (not proof) that there exists something of significance? (an "afterlife" in this case)

The question is, are we clever enough from this side of the process (living in form) to figure out some sort of empirical connection between "soul" and chemical forms. I've looked a bit at Penrose's proposal, but I've yet to think of any logical way to fully test the idea using today's current technologies. You'd ultimately need some type of real time MRI gear that could look at the subatomic spectrum, to see individual EM field connections throughout any entire room, and even then, you'd still need God's "permission".

Too many presuppositions in there for me to sort that out.

In my experience, that term "parsimony" is a buzzword to hide all of your own personal subjective slants and interpretations.

In my experience, that objection is typical from those whose arguments are cut off at the knees by parsimony.

 

[Michael]

Deepak Chopra? Seriously? I mean, seriously?

Actually no. Apparently you missed the "Penrose" reference. I simply cited Deepak's article for you since he discussed it, as well as the spiritual implications. Got a problem with Penrose or his theory?

I don't really see the point of your quote, I was simply pointing out to you that there are mathematical models for 'soul'. Your friend's opinions are a dime a dozen if they don't include any maths, or any mathematical or physical criticisms of Penrose's theory, at least from the standpoint of physics.

How do you know that I have not "ridden this bicycle"? Perhaps I have (although not with any deities).

Perhaps you tried a couple of times, and fell down a few times, gave up, and then starting claiming: Nobody can ride a bike! How would I know?

And I ask, name one that can demonstrate that this experience is anything other than an internal experience, that of the imagination.

You missed the point of Penrose's theory. Even if he's *right*, the "experience" of communication between form and soul would take place inside the brain. Jesus also said that the Kindgom of heaven is found within. Both "science' and "religion' suggest that our connection to the universe occurs *internally*, not externally.

On what other subjects are we expected to die before being provided with even basic evidence (not proof) that there exists something of significance? (an "afterlife" in this case)

Penrose's theory might suggest we could create an experiment that was based on something like a high resolution functional MRI type of equipment to look for tiny tubular like subatomic shapes at the subatomic level. Nothing on the market I'm aware of would work, much like no technology on the the market can demonstrate gravitons, or exotic matter at the moment. That doesn't mean you give up looking instantly.

In my experience, that objection is typical from those whose arguments are cut off at the knees by parsimony.

Like I said, that term simply hides all your internal biases in all probability.

 

[Davian]

You asked for my definition and my understanding of the subject. I gave you that.

You provided some assumptions.

I did no such thing. I merely used them as a source of why I believe what I believe.

I do recall you saying that the spiritual was demonstrable to you via spiritual experiences, back when we were discussing circular reasoning. That does leave me out.

Unless some people are interpreting them incorrectly, or there are certain negative forces attempting to confuse them.

And by that also, they are all suspect. I am reluctant to ask what you mean by "negative forces".

If you found it convincing, you wouldn't think it was an illusion.

Again, if I found it to be convincing, it would still fail to establish it as not being an illusion.

Even if everyone on the planet believed it to be true; the first alien visitor that lands, and asks for a demonstration for the existence of deities, we would all be stumped. A somewhat comical first contact.

Someone else might think so, though. That's exactly my point: these experiences serve as proof to the individual, not anyone else.

Then you have missed my point: You do not have "proof", you have opinion.

That you have decided, (consciously or not) to consider it proof, is the curiosity at hand.

And I'm not trying to use them to prove anything to you.

Then refrain from saying things like "If you found it convincing, you wouldn't think it was an illusion."

Besides, for someone with a "seeker" icon, you don't seem all that interested in seeking the spiritual.

I still do not know what you mean by "spiritual", other than as a handwaving placemark for that which you cannot define or explain.

As for what I seek, I seek to explore reality.

What is your interpretation, then? A bunch of typical atheist strawmen, like "the Bible says pi = 3"?

I do not recall ever using that one. 3 is good enough for quick off-the-cuff area calculations and such. And, I credit the writers of those times with probably being of the more intelligent and educated of their peers. But, the bible stories are, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, just stories written by men.

 

[Davian]

...
Why would you need to ride a bicycle to understand how it feels and what it's like?

Interesting, but failed analogy, but applicable to the subject of mind.

That you can ride a bicycle does not mean you can explain how the physics - the reality - behind what keeps you from falling over, and allows you to turn left and right.

For example, to turn to the left while riding, which way do you turn the handlebars? Ask yourself, and the next few people you meet, and post your and their initial responses here. No cheating by looking it up.

 

[Michael]

Interesting, but failed analogy, but applicable to the subject of mind.

That you can ride a bicycle does not mean you can explain how the physics - the reality - behind what keeps you from falling over, and allows you to turn left and right.

For example, to turn to the left while riding, which way do you turn the handlebars? Ask yourself, and the next few people you meet, and post your and their initial responses here. No cheating by looking it up.

IMO that analogy sort of works against you. Just like you noted, even children learn to ride a bicycle without being about to express the process mathematically and without understanding it from the place of physics. That doesn't mean there isn't a way to express the process of riding a bicycle in mathematics, but nobody needs to know such stuff to be able to enjoy the "experience" of riding a bicycle. The physics is separate from the experience.

Likewise people can experience their connection to soul (as described mathematically by Penrose) without understanding any of it from the perspective of math and physics. Their *experience* however is just as valid as anyone who does understand the physics, including Penrose. The fact they don't understand the physics in no way diminishes the value or fun of the experience.

 

[Davian]

Interesting, but failed analogy, but applicable to the subject of mind.

That you can ride a bicycle does not mean you can explain how the physics - the reality - behind what keeps you from falling over, and allows you to turn left and right.

For example, to turn to the left while riding, which way do you turn the handlebars? Ask yourself, and the next few people you meet, and post your and their initial responses here. No cheating by looking it up.

IMO that analogy sort of works against you. Just like you noted, even children learn to ride a bicycle without being about to express the process mathematically and without understanding it from the place of physics. That doesn't mean there isn't a way to express the process of riding a bicycle in mathematics, but nobody needs to know such stuff to be able to enjoy the "experience" of riding a bicycle. The physics is separate from the experience.

Likewise people can experience their connection to soul (as described mathematically by Penrose) without understanding any of it from the perspective of math and physics. Their *experience* however is just as valid as anyone who does understand the physics, including Penrose. The fact they don't understand the physics in no way diminishes the value or fun of the experience.

Post your answers.

 

[Michael]

I'm not likely to meet anyone today for awhile, but my own answer is that I wouldn't turn my handle bars to start with at all, I'd simply lean the way I want to go to move my center of balance in that direction, and steer as appropriate.

 

[Davian]

I'm not likely to meet anyone today for awhile, but my own answer is that I wouldn't turn my handle bars to start with at all, I'd simply lean the way I want to go to move my center of balance in that direction, and steer as appropriate.

No hurry.

 

[Davian]

I'm not likely to meet anyone today for awhile, but my own answer is that I wouldn't turn my handle bars to start with at all, I'd simply lean the way I want to go to move my center of balance in that direction, and steer as appropriate.

Which way do you turn the handlebars to initiate a left turn?

 

[Kylie]

As my pastor put it, it's like wringing water out of a washcloth. You force the water out.

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.

That's exactly what God did -- he forced Pharaoh to declare his intentions.

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

 

[Strathos]

You provided some assumptions.

You call them assumptions because you expect me to prove them? Even though I have repeatedly stated they are only my personal understanding of the subject? You need to pay closer attention to what I am saying.

I do recall you saying that the spiritual was demonstrable to you via spiritual experiences, back when we were discussing circular reasoning. That does leave me out.

Well yes, that is kind of the point of a "personal" spiritual experience.

And by that also, they are all suspect. I am reluctant to ask what you mean by "negative forces".

The thing is I admit I could be wrong. But I don't believe I am.

Again, if I found it to be convincing, it would still fail to establish it as not being an illusion.

Even if everyone on the planet believed it to be true; the first alien visitor that lands, and asks for a demonstration for the existence of deities, we would all be stumped. A somewhat comical first contact

Like I said, personal experiences are only valid to the person who has them.

Then you have missed my point: You do not have "proof", you have opinion.

That you have decided, (consciously or not) to consider it proof, is the curiosity at hand.

I don't have proof that can be demonstrated to you. I had proof that was demonstrated to me.

If a caveman saw a fire, then tried to go back and tell other cavemen about it, but they had never seen a fire before, and this cavemen had no idea how to make fire or where to find it again, how could he prove it? He would have to wait for the other cavemen to see a fire for themselves.

Then refrain from saying things like "If you found it convincing, you wouldn't think it was an illusion."

Why? That's a non-sequitur. I only said that to point out a contradiction in your statement, namely that it wouldn't make sense for someone to be convinced by something they believed to be an illusion.

I still do not know what you mean by "spiritual", other than as a handwaving placemark for that which you cannot define or explain.

As for what I seek, I seek to explore reality.

Hardly, if you deny the possibility of reality having facets you don't want to accept. And playing games like that with icons is dishonest, you should rather just pick atheist, humanist, agnostic, etc.

I do not recall ever using that one. 3 is good enough for quick off-the-cuff area calculations and such. And, I credit the writers of those times with probably being of the more intelligent and educated of their peers. But, the bible stories are, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, just stories written by men.

So then what is your interpretation of them that is supposedly so infallible?

 

[Davian]

You call them assumptions because you expect me to prove them? Even though I have repeatedly stated they are only my personal understanding of the subject? You need to pay closer attention to what I am saying.

Likewise - I asked for definitions, something testable. I am not asking you to prove them, but to offer something of significance, something testable. Rather than admitting that you could not define the words in question, you substituted assumptions, or told me what it wasn't.

Well yes, that is kind of the point of a "personal" spiritual experience.

I was referring to the use of circular reasoning. I try not to use that stuff.

The thing is I admit I could be wrong. But I don't believe I am.

How could you be wrong? What would falsify these experiences of yours?

Like I said, personal experiences are only valid to the person who has them.

I don't have proof that can be demonstrated to you. I had proof that was demonstrated to me.

If a caveman saw a fire, then tried to go back and tell other cavemen about it, but they had never seen a fire before, and this cavemen had no idea how to make fire or where to find it again, how could he prove it? He would have to wait for the other cavemen to see a fire for themselves.

Exactly. Their personal testimony would be dismissed until backed up by empirical evidence. Why should your own religious experiences be exempted from this?

Why? That's a non-sequitur. I only said that to point out a contradiction in your statement, namely that it wouldn't make sense for someone to be convinced by something they believed to be an illusion.

That is not what I meant. As I mentioned to Michael, lets deal with the data at hand, and leave personal experience to the side. You telling me that I might find an experience such as yours convincing would not establish it as not being an illusion.

Personal experience is demonstrably unreliable. Try that bicycle challenge I threw at Michael. If your (and those around you) personal experience cannot be relied upon for something as simple as riding a bike, where else is it faulty? There are many other demonstrations like this.

Hardly, if you deny the possibility of reality having facets you don't want to accept.

Where have I done that?

And what you you mean, that I don't want to accept?

And playing games like that with icons is dishonest, you should rather just pick atheist, humanist, agnostic, etc.

I do not self-identify with those labels. It would not feel right to use them.

So then what is your interpretation of them that is supposedly so infallible?

It is not infallible. It is tentative, and subject to revision with new information. And yours?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Each one of talk about 'Mind' which is not any form physically visible yet is most contemporary phenomenon. ...

Actually, the mind is physical, and thinking is a series of physical processes.

Hope that helps.

 

[Strathos]

Likewise - I asked for definitions, something testable. I am not asking you to prove them, but to offer something of significance, something testable. Rather than admitting that you could not define the words in question, you substituted assumptions, or told me what it wasn't.

I don't have anything you can test. You either have to experience it or not.

I was referring to the use of circular reasoning. I try not to use that stuff.

Except I'm not trying to use it to prove anything to you.

How could you be wrong? What would falsify these experiences of yours?

If I die and find out that the afterlife is run by Vishnu or Zeus would be a fairly good indicator. But I don't believe that will happen.

Exactly. Their personal testimony would be dismissed until backed up by empirical evidence. Why should your own religious experiences be exempted from this?

You are free to dismiss it, but if you ask why I believe, I have given you my answer.

That is not what I meant. As I mentioned to Michael, lets deal with the data at hand, and leave personal experience to the side. You telling me that I might find an experience such as yours convincing would not establish it as not being an illusion.

Personal experience is demonstrably unreliable. Try that bicycle challenge I threw at Michael. If your (and those around you) personal experience cannot be relied upon for something as simple as riding a bike, where else is it faulty? There are many other demonstrations like this.

If you considered something to be an illusion, then, by definition, you would not find it convincing.

Where have I done that?

And what you you mean, that I don't want to accept?

Well the typical way you denigrate the concept of religious faith says to me that you are not willing to seriously consider the existence of the spiritual.

I do not self-identify with those labels. It would not feel right to use them.

Do you believe a God or gods exist?

It is not infallible. It is tentative, and subject to revision with new information. And yours?

You keep dancing around the issue. What, exactly, is this interpretation?

 

[Davian]

I don't have anything you can test.

Then how can I tell if you have anything at all, other than your assumptions?

You either have to experience it or not.

Again, If I were to experience it, and found it convincing, it would still not establish it as not being an illusion.

Except I'm not trying to use it to prove anything to you.

Then tell me what I am to do with your opinion of these experiences you claim to have had.

If I die and find out that the afterlife is run by Vishnu or Zeus would be a fairly good indicator. But I don't believe that will happen.

You have to die? You cannot do better than that? Seriously?

You are free to dismiss it, but if you ask why I believe, I have given you my answer.

And if you have no objections to them being dismissed, they are dismissed.

If you considered something to be an illusion, then, by definition, you would not find it convincing.

That does not address my point. That which is found convincing is not necessarily real. Do you agree with that?

I take you decline to take the bicycle challenge. Is there a reason why, other than it might demonstrate that your personal experiences might prove to be unreliable? Oh, wait...

Well the typical way you denigrate the concept of religious faith says to me that you are not willing to seriously consider the existence of the spiritual.

Again, I still do not know what you mean by "spiritual", other than as a handwaving placemark for that which you cannot define or explain.

By denigrate, do you mean to criticize unfairly? That is not so. I do try to apply similar levels of scepticism to all untestable, unfalsifiable, and unevidenced claims. Do you not do the same (exempting your particular religious beliefs, of course)?

Do you believe a God or gods exist?

I am ignostic regarding those terms. Also, I do not collect stamps.

You keep dancing around the issue. What, exactly, is this interpretation?

What dancing? In post #168 I said "...I credit the writers of those times with probably being of the more intelligent and educated of their peers. But, the bible stories are, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, just stories written by men." Post #113, "religious texts are simply the work of men."

This interpretation is based on observation, evidence, and parsimony, but it is still tentative, and subject to revision with new information.

Speaking of dancing, I will ask again: and yours? Without your personal experiences, which you claim are not intended to convince anyone else, on what do you base your interpretation of the bible?