Are we rational or irrational?

[inocente]

Surely the soul is just the result of jiggling atoms. The “soul” lives just as long as the jiggling continues. What is there to rescue when the jiggling stops only the philosophical dying echos of a final half-formed abstract thought, a thought which has no reality apart from its jiggling atoms.-

The level to think about is neurons, not atoms. Don’t know how many atoms there are in a neuron but the best guess on the Internet for atoms in an average cell is 100 trillion, so jiggling doesn’t come into it.

Earlier on we talked about the rather ambitious project of replacing carbon neurons with silicon versions while retaining all the state data, and then replacing the discrete silicon components with large scale integrated chips. In other words, swapping the hardware.

So by analogy God takes the state of the mind and transports it to some unknown “hardware” (soulware? eternalware? spiritware?).

 

[You]

Even if the soul/mind is no more than a process fuelled by the thermal movement of atoms, GOD can retrieve that process, for our pneumatikon soma.

I mean, human technology can capture the vibrations of someone’s voice to play again and again. A voice is just moving atoms. Wouldn’t you expect GOD to do even better?

God bless and ICXC NIKA.

I suppose He could record the process as it goes along, sort of like Joyce’s ‘stream of consciousness’ writings. But is that all all I am, just a record of past ideas, some out of date, some unfinished, some completed. Where is the ‘me’ if all of me is just thoughts expressed and created by jiggling atoms. I see the atoms, I see the thoughts expressed by their jiggling, but where is the ‘me’?

 

[inocente]

I suppose He could record the process as it goes along, sort of like Joyce’s ‘stream of consciousness’ writings. But is that all all I am, just a record of past ideas, some out of date, some unfinished, some completed. Where is the ‘me’ if all of me is just thoughts expressed and created by jiggling atoms. I see the atoms, I see the thoughts expressed by their jiggling, but where is the ‘me’?

You posted just after me - see my answer in post #300.

 

[You]

The level to think about is neurons, not atoms. Don’t know how many atoms there are in a neuron but the best guess on the Internet for atoms in an average cell is 100 trillion, so jiggling doesn’t come into it.

Earlier on we talked about the rather ambitious project of replacing carbon neurons with silicon versions while retaining all the state data, and then replacing the discrete silicon components with large scale integrated chips. In other words, swapping the hardware.

So by analogy God takes the state of the mind and transports it to some unknown “hardware” (soulware? eternalware? spiritware?).

Tupperware?
But am I not more than data recorded. He could record everything I did and thought today and store it in a divine tupperware box in heaven but my thoughts and actions are something ‘I’ ‘do’ they are not me in themselves.
I am having a problem locating ‘me’ in all of this recorded data and jiggling atom hardware.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Point of information: Some Saints of India have thoroughly discussed all the permutations of these ideas which you as religious folks are arguing about in terms of Christianity and science, two disciplines, neither of which can accommodate the other because they deal with different aspects of the totality of Creation. The integration of those two is nicely handled by everyone of the ilk of Shankara all the way to today. In fact, there is a contemporary philosopher who prefaces all his books by a discussion about the radical difference between “I” and “me/you.” You guys are all re-inventing the wheel.

And then, of course, there is this: youtube.com/watch?v=iTZftPWbWj8&feature=player_embedded I’m not sure that link will work directly, but try either re-typing or a cut and paste to your search box. Or try Googling *The Spirit Molecule (DMT Ayahuasca Documentary) *

But I have to add a big note of congratulations and thanks: this is easily so far the most interesting and useful thread I’ve found on here! Good going, all of you!

 

[inocente]

Tupperware?
But am I not more than data recorded. He could record everything I did and thought today and store it in a divine tupperware box in heaven but my thoughts and actions are something ‘I’ ‘do’ they are not me in themselves.
I am having a problem locating ‘me’ in all of this recorded data and jiggling atom hardware.

Unless you’re posting from the beyond , you are your natural body.

No need to continuously record. Rather than body/soul dualism with its continuous and rather inexplicably high-integrity updating between material and immaterial, it relies only on God reaching into time once to rescue you.

You could even be rescued “before” getting Alzheimer’s.

 

[jonfawkes]

In a word, yes.

Eternity sees all beings and times. It is only those of us still travelling in the spiral of time whose sight is barricaded from the rest of being.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA

kind of throws a wrench into free will and bolsters predestination - or it’s all illusion and are all already in eternity.

Luke 17:21

 

[Ranklyfrank]

One man said “This is always already the “other” world.”

 

[tonyrey]

            *The question is whether your opinions are **determined ***

You could prove anything by saying “Things like identity, and non-contradiction are analytic truths”! What does that have to do with the **causation **of opinions?

Physics, chemistry, biology and all other natural sciences are best described by way of mathematics, which at its base is essentially logical. Physical laws are only properly expressed in those languages, (math, logic). Therefore, if anything were to exist outside matter, (or outside physical laws), it would be inexpressible at that level.

Opinions expressed in **words **do not exist outside matter. Moreover the fact that we cannot completely understand the nature of the mind does not imply that we know nothing about it.

 

[tonyrey]

  	 			 				*You probably don't realise I believe in Creation through evolution.*

To me, the second sentence there reduces to “Matter is not purposeful in itself but is purposeful in itself”.
To** serve** a purpose is not to implement a purpose.

Yes, if God created the laws of nature

If minds are derived from thoughts how can they control themselves and physical objects?

Physical minds have no problem controlling the physical because they’re … physical.

If minds are physical why don’t we just say “brains”?

Non-physical minds would have a lot of trouble controlling the physical unless we want to believe in telekinesis.

Do you understand** how** and why matter exists? Please explain **how **you make a decision.

The same problem arises. How can a collection have** self**

-control?
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Please explain how.

:

What evidence is there that atomic “vibration” can achieve anything deliberately

*?

The Bible.

?
[/QUOTE]

 

[tonyrey]

Surely the soul is just the result of jiggling atoms. The “soul” lives just as long as the jiggling continues. What is there to rescue when the jiggling stops only the philosophical dying echos of a final half-formed abstract thought, a thought which has no reality apart from its jiggling atoms.-

How did atoms originate, how are they conscious and how did consciousness originate?

 

[GEddie]

kind of throws a wrench into free will and bolsters predestination - or it’s all illusion and are all already in eternity.

Luke 17:21

No, to the extent you have a “free will”, it remains free as long as you are in time.
Eternity sees the results of the choices you will make, because they will be made, either way. But you still have (limited) freedom.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[tonyrey]

Unless you’re posting from the beyond , you are your natural body.

Is God natural? Are God’s thoughts and actions natural?

 

[tonyrey]

One man said “This is always already the “other” world.”

Welcome, Frank!

Another man could say "“The ‘other’ world is always already this world.”

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Welcome, Frank!

Thanks!

Another man could say "“The ‘other’ world is always already this world.”

Yep. It works both ways. The wonderful thing about equations is that they work both ways; all are permutations of 1=1.

But math as a rational and accurate expression about dynamics yet doesn’t allow us to descend into scientism. That vision is soul-less, a premise disprovable by the injunction aspect of science itself.

 

[jonfawkes]

No, to the extent you have a “free will”, it remains free as long as you are in time.
Eternity sees the results of the choices you will make, because they will be made, either way. But you still have (limited) freedom.

ICXC NIKA.

If you are in eternity you are so for…eternity. So while your consciousness is experiencing time you are also in eternity. To be in eternity ( in line with Catholic beliefs) you have to be aligned with the will of God. So if you need to be in line will the will of God, and you are, evidenced by your presence in eternity, you must have always been in line with the will of God. Free Will doesn’t come into play.

Also if you are beyond time (in eternity) you must be there before your “birth” which means you are predestined to be in line with the will of God. Also negates a free will . The “decision” has already been made, outside of time that you choose to be outside of time, proven by you being outside of time, etc etc etc spiraling into infinity.

 

[jonfawkes]

Seems a convoluted way of saying “everything is one”

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Seems a convoluted way of saying “everything is one”

Yes, it is. And of course that is a statement that is an intellectual assertion until “one” does the work, and thus is rendered meaningless in it’s most important respect, lol! But it is fascinating that many have said, almost conversely, that “God is in the details.” One Saint, I believe, even said “God is in the marmites.”* But I think the point of it all is that we tend to look at arguments and logic as being superior to a scientific and experiential look into ourselves both in contents and in nature. Often it looks to me like two people are arguing that “No, MY side of the equation is the only true side!” and the other is saying “NO!!! MINE is!!” What we experience as life is a dynamic in a much larger context than our thoughts about it. And maybe there are both scientific and religious aspects to our contentions. And maybe there is a way of seeing both sides of that equation at once as a dynamic. Is that convoluted? Again, perspective is important. Knowledge in both “spirit” and “matter” yet includes a)Do this and see; if you don’t do you won’t see. b) Use the data; experience, or you won’t see c) This can be confirmed/falsified by repeated trials. Those can be applied to interior experience as well as rocks.

• I believe that that is one of those old three legged cooking pots.

 

[You]

Tonyrey:

You:

Surely the soul is just the result of jiggling atoms. The “soul” lives just as long as the jiggling continues. What is there to rescue when the jiggling stops only the philosophical dying echos of a final half-formed abstract thought, a thought which has no reality apart from its jiggling atoms.-

How did atoms originate, how are they conscious and how did consciousness originate?

Ah… My post, I’m afraid that was me being ironic.

Q. How are they [atoms] conscious?

-Of course atoms do not have consciousness or else the snail who eats my brains will take over the world, unsuccessfully.

Q. How did atoms originate?

-I will say, to clear away that irony, that our creator made the atoms. Atoms are strange yokes insofar as they are made from eternity not matter. Their quarks are the result of separating eternity :hammering: and creating a ‘direction’ of sorts within eternity, direction creates ‘time’ because there is a distance to travel in ‘direction’, and ‘time’ and ‘direction’ create miniscule ‘loops’ of potential difference which is called energy or potential energy. Atoms therefore originated when God ‘stretched’ eternity.

How did consciousness originate?

Atoms are not conscious and do not cause our consciousness.They are ‘made’ from God insofar as God is eternal and eternity itself, but the matter he created is not gods nor has it any of his consciousness, it is simply power, creative power.
Consciousness is the human soul, a spiritual creation unique to every human individual. Its powers are the will and the intellect. It is created not evolved.
The only alternative view to created souls eventually contains within itself the hideous spectre of a soul created with atoms by man not after the image of God his creator.

 

[jonfawkes]

Yes, it is. And of course that is a statement that is an intellectual assertion until “one” does the work, and thus is rendered meaningless in it’s most important respect, lol! But it is fascinating that many have said, almost conversely, that “God is in the details.” One Saint, I believe, even said “God is in the marmites.”* But I think the point of it all is that we tend to look at arguments and logic as being superior to a scientific and experiential look into ourselves both in contents and in nature. Often it looks to me like two people are arguing that “No, MY side of the equation is the only true side!” and the other is saying “NO!!! MINE is!!” What we experience as life is a dynamic in a much larger context than our thoughts about it. And maybe there are both scientific and religious aspects to our contentions. And maybe there is a way of seeing both sides of that equation at once as a dynamic. Is that convoluted? Again, perspective is important. Knowledge in both “spirit” and “matter” yet includes a)Do this and see; if you don’t do you won’t see. b) Use the data; experience, or you won’t see c) This can be confirmed/falsified by repeated trials. Those can be applied to interior experience as well as rocks.

• I believe that that is one of those old three legged cooking pots.

It’s the blind men and the elephant - each claiming that their view is the totality of the truth.

You can’t have a light without a dark to stick it in. We experience things by the things that they are not. You can’t have a front with out a back, yet front and back are one thing. We know what is rational by the irrational. ( and vise versa).

Are we rational or irrational? both