Can God ACTUALLY judge everyone?

[DetectiveNiko]

My main problem is as one person put it nicely on youtube :
" we can already tell from brain scans the basics of what a person is thinking given certain stimulus, and that technology and library of knowledge will build to a point where one day, if we have enough information about the history of that person, then we will also know within a statistical certainty what they are thinking in almost any given situation because the brain’s responses to specific stimulus will always travel through the same physical path (except in cases involving brain damage or disease). "

 

[AIPM1615]

" we can already tell from brain scans the basics of what a person is thinking given certain stimulus, and that technology and library of knowledge will build to a point where one day, if we have enough information about the history of that person, then we will also know within a statistical certainty what they are thinking in almost any given situation because the brain’s responses to specific stimulus will always travel through the same physical path (except in cases involving brain damage or disease). "

I think that’s a very biased and manipulative statement.

Brain scans will not tell someone that I’m currently thinking about the 2018 Corvette Grand Sport, or that I’m pondering the quadratic formula. The mind is not a computer that can be read—quite the opposite. The imposition of stimulus will, as one might expect, have an outcome on neural behavior. But that is hardly an explanation of consciousness, abstraction, and our ability to reason.

I said it once and I’ll say it again. There is no consensus among neurologists or philosophers of mind. Anyone who triumphantly says so, in either direction, is lying.

Aquinas thought you could prove it, but I don’t see any way of doing that.

It might be time to engage his arguments and develop a basis of understanding

Consciousness alone does not guarantee that its the soul controlling the body.

The “ghost in the machine” sort of dualism to which Descartes adhered is NOT what the Church teaches. It would be wrong to say our consciousness and soul are synonymous. They are not. Nor are we just a fleshy robot controlled by some ectoplasm that oozes out on our deathbed. That’s a folkish myth.

you should still be concious within your soul right ?

Uhh… no.

 

[DetectiveNiko]

I think that’s a very biased and manipulative statement.

Brain scans will not tell someone that I’m currently thinking about the 2018 Corvette Grand Sport, or that I’m pondering the quadratic formula. The mind is not a computer that can be read—quite the opposite. The imposition of stimulus will, as one might expect, have an outcome on neural behavior. But that is hardly an explanation of consciousness, abstraction, and our ability to reason.

I said it once and I’ll say it again. There is no consensus among neurologists or philosophers of mind. Anyone who triumphantly says so, in either direction, is lying.

I guess thats true, but I always fear what if he is right ? Psychology has been going in that direction so it scares me.

The “ghost in the machine” sort of dualism to which Descartes adhered is NOT what the Church teaches. It would be wrong to say our consciousness and soul are synonymous. They are not. Nor are we just a fleshy robot controlled by some ectoplasm that oozes out on our deathbed. That’s a folkish myth.

Isn’t this what Aquinas thought though ? That the we are a mind soul composite and that our soul is dependant upon the body, and that the soul is what forms conciousness and mental imagery ?

 

[AIPM1615]

I guess thats true, but I always fear what if he is right ?

The implications would go far beyond that of religion. Things like human rights, civil justice, and the value of human life are ultimately at stake. Take a vending machine. If it doesn’t give you what you want, you kick it until the bag of chips falls to the bottom. And if people are just organic vending machines, you kick them too. The extreme example might be Nazi Germany — a state that used Nietzschian pessimism, social darwinism, and genetic theory to slaughter entire demographics. If people aren’t really people, there is no reason at all to oppose that sort of thinking.

Isn’t this what Aquinas thought though ? That the we are a mind soul composite and that our soul is dependant upon the body, and that the soul is what forms conciousness and mental imagery ?

You’re presenting the mind-body problem, which is as old as humanity itself.

No, that is what Descartes said. He’s mostly responsible for the absolute “ghost in the machine” theory, which has some merits but is ultimately incompatible with Aristotelian thought and natural science. The Church teaches that we are a body-soul composite. Taken at face value, one might say “Isn’t that just a restatement of Descartes’ dualism?” It’s not true. The mistake is assuming our soul and mind are synonymous. They aren’t. I’d elaborate, but entire books have been written on the subject by a lot of people. My suggestion is to start reading beyond the forums and pop YouTube videos.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Thats why we leave it to God, who sees to the heart.

And I agree with you, we will find the commandments a very poor external guide for judging people.

But then we know this because Jesus already said so himself…prostitutes and thieves getting to heaven before the children of Abraham and all.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Like that. Whats pretzel logic?

 

[DetectiveNiko]

The mistake is assuming our soul and mind are synonymous

I wasn’t implying that they were dependant on each other, not that they were the same.

The implications would go far beyond that of religion. Things like human rights, civil justice, and the value of human life are ultimately at stake. Take a vending machine. If it doesn’t give you what you want, you kick it until the bag of chips falls to the bottom. And if people are just organic vending machines, you kick them too. The extreme example might be Nazi Germany — a state that used Nietzschian pessimism, social darwinism, and genetic theory to slaughter entire demographics. If people aren’t really people, there is no reason at all to oppose that sort of thinking.

Well I would say, that even though reality is harsh we would have to deal with it if its the truth. Also, if we are not persons that think on our own but are affected by outside factors, you can still form a normal society , especially when we know that humans are social animals and need others to live on. That is why I believe in social evolution, the notion that society just like an organism, evolves and changes over time.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The body provides the imagery actually, the soul the concept.