I am baffled, please explain

[PRmerger]

I’m not trying to change your belief, just trying to illustrate mine.

That doesn’t seem consonant with reality.

Rather, what’s more consistent with dialogue on a forum is that each poster believes his position to be true, and is attempting to get the other to change his belief.

Otherwise, what everyone is doing here is as otiose as someone saying, “I like turnips better than bananas!”

“Interesting. I like red onions better than pears!”

That’s a colossal waste of time, don’t you think?

 

[PRmerger]

A person can believe that pornography is inherently sinful, yet they can fall and take pleasure in the very thing they are against.

Yes–what you are describing is either hypocrisy or human weakness.

But it is certainly not an example of a belief being non-volitional.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Please note that mind is a noun.

Legs > walking
Mind > thinking

So what? The word “jump” can also be a noun, but it does not refer to an object.

That you believe that your mind springs somehow magically from your brain is not proof of the existence of your mind, which I see precisely no proof of, therefore why should I believe that you have anything like a mind?

What you believe is your business. Ah, the good old “magic” comes up again. When one uses a mild electric current to stimulate certain parts of the brain, an intense feeling of pleasure (or pain) will ensue. Repeatable experiment in science - not “magic”. That is not “evidence” for you. There is a phrase “mind-altering drugs”… taking those substances will alter the chemical balance (workings) of the brain, and cause hallucinations. That is also repeatable scientific experiment, but it is not evidence for you. Have it your way.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

In other words chose to change your mind or not. I agree.

Not exactly. You choose to ignore the irrefutable evidence. Which is a form of insanity. (But fortunately, the evidence for God is not irrefutable… or it is irrefutable… depending on the person you ask.)

 

[DCNBILL]

So what? The word “jump” can also be a noun, but it does not refer to an object.

What you believe is your business. Ah, the good old “magic” comes up again. When one uses a mild electric current to stimulate certain parts of the brain, an intense feeling of pleasure (or pain) will ensue. Repeatable experiment in science - not “magic”. That is not “evidence” for you. There is a phrase “mind-altering drugs”… taking those substances will alter the chemical balance (workings) of the brain, and cause hallucinations. That is also repeatable scientific experiment, but it is not evidence for you. Have it your way.

So you do not have any evidence to show me concerning your mind, That is very telling because many theologians maintain that God is best described as “something like a mind.”

Note that electrical currents and feelings have nothing to do with the mind. When you demonstrate that an electrical current stimulates someone to come up with a mathematical formula let me know. As for drugs interfering with brain function once again these are physical effects, I could do the same thing with a hammer. Note that I do not believe in beating people over the head with heavy tools.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

So you do not have any evidence to show me concerning your mind, That is very telling because many theologians maintain that God is best described as “something like a mind.”

Note that electrical currents and feelings have nothing to do with the mind. When you demonstrate that an electrical current stimulates someone to come up with a mathematical formula let me know. As for drugs interfering with brain function once again these are physical effects, I could do the same thing with a hammer. Note that I do not believe in beating people over the head with heavy tools.

Sorry, the opinions of the theologians do not constitute evidence for scientific questions.

But here is a true story for you. There was a world-famous mathematician, Paul Erdos. He lived his whole life pondering problems of mathematics. He also lived on mild mind-altering drugs, stimulants. Once a friend of his told him that he is an addict. Erdos said that he can prove that he is not an addict, and stopped taking the stimulants for a whole month. And he was unable to concentrate and carry on his research. After the month expired he said to his friend: “all you managed to achieve was to waste a month of my life, and deprived the world of the results of what I could have done”. Yes, the usage of those drugs contributed to the efforts of mind.

Certain drugs will induce violent behavior, others will make the person docile and harmless. Yet others will provide clarity of the mind, produce crystal clear thinking, increase the insight. The result of drugs are well known in medical science, and even Catholic doctors use them.

As for using a hammer, yes, that would do the same. Disrupting the brain which disrupts the mind. A simple experiment called “lobotomy” will have a drastic and permanent result for the person’s personality.

I have no idea what your definition of “mind” could be. What kind of repeatable, physical evidence can you offer for your definition - whatever it might turn out be?

 

[DCNBILL]

Sorry, the opinions of the theologians do not constitute evidence for scientific questions.

But here is a true story for you. There was a world-famous mathematician, Paul Erdos. He lived his whole life pondering problems of mathematics. He also lived on mild mind-altering drugs, stimulants. Once a friend of his told him that he is an addict. Erdos said that he can prove that he is not an addict, and stopped taking the stimulants for a whole month. And he was unable to concentrate and carry on his research. After the month expired he said to his friend: “all you managed to achieve was to waste a month of my life, and deprived the world of the results of what I could have done”. Yes, the usage of those drugs contributed to the efforts of mind.

Certain drugs will induce violent behavior, others will make the person docile and harmless. Yet others will provide clarity of the mind, produce crystal clear thinking, increase the insight. The result of drugs are well known in medical science, and even Catholic doctors use them.

As for using a hammer, yes, that would do the same. Disrupting the brain which disrupts the mind. A simple experiment called “lobotomy” will have a drastic and permanent result for the person’s personality.

I have no idea what your definition of “mind” could be. What kind of repeatable, physical evidence can you offer for your definition - whatever it might turn out be?

And science is unequipped for discussing theological matters, by the very fact that God exists outside of their physical universe.

I know very well the effects of chemicals on the brain, and I understand what Dr. Edros must have gone through having some similar dependency on medications.

The mind however is “other” than the brain I completely agree that affect on the brain effects its ability to “communicate with the mind,” but I believe that the mind is a part of a person that survives this physical life. Once again I have as little proof of this as you have of proving you have a mind, so other than anecdotal cases of “out of the body experiences,” I believe this by faith.

My point here is that there are things that we experience, or science believes exists including our minds that we can not explain or prove, yet we know them or of them.

 

[DCNBILL]

Not exactly. You choose to ignore the irrefutable evidence. Which is a form of insanity. (But fortunately, the evidence for God is not irrefutable… or it is irrefutable… depending on the person you ask.)

Careful, I believe you have been warned about charity in your posting before, please try to relax and have a discussion without insults. And I am not insane, I have been tested.

 

[SonOfMan]

Rather, what’s more consistent with dialogue on a forum is that each poster believes his position to be true, and is attempting to get the other to change his belief.

That certainly isnt my motivation for being here. Actually Im here to present my doubts and perhaps learn something new or try to see things a different way so that I perhaps may be able to believe.

But if you see chatting about important topics such as life and religion as a colossal waste of time, then you’re in for a shock once you realize this very conversation has been going on for thousands of years.

 

[PRmerger]

That certainly isnt my motivation for being here. Actually Im here to present my doubts and perhaps learn something new or try to see things a different way so that I perhaps may be able to believe.

So you *can *change the way you believe, eh?

But if you see chatting about important topics such as life and religion as a colossal waste of time, then you’re in for a shock once you realize this very conversation has been going on for thousands of years.

Let’s just make this clear: there was a big “OTHERWISE” in my premise.

That is, it’s an IF/THEN assertion.

IF…THEN.

You can’t go to the THEN, if you don’t accept the IF.

Right now, what you’ve done is akin to this:

SonofMan says to his wife: if you keep eating that pie, you’re going to get fat.

Wife says: how dare you call me fat!

She skipped right to the “fat” part, ignoring the great big IF.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

And science is unequipped for discussing theological matters, by the very fact that God exists outside of their physical universe.

Not so fast. God is also “omnipresent”, meaning he is everywhere, even in the physical universe. Also God allegedly maintains the physical universe, acting on it, acting in it, so he is definitely a subject to a scientific study. And so far there was no positive experiment to substantiate God’s existence. Any experiment comes back as a negative.

Now, it is true that the “absence of proof is not a proof of absence”, but the “absence of evidence is a very strong evidence of absence”.

I know very well the effects of chemicals on the brain, and I understand what Dr. Edros must have gone through having some similar dependency on medications.

Well, it was you who insisted on an example where the different stimulants on the brain will produce new mathematical results. Erdos’s usage of those stimulants produced a clearer awareness, clearer thinking, resulting in truly awesome results. I gave you the evidence you wanted. What now?

The mind however is “other” than the brain I completely agree that affect on the brain effects its ability to “communicate with the mind,” but I believe that the mind is a part of a person that survives this physical life.

That is what you believe. What kind of evidence can you provide for it? Objective, repeatable evidence?

Once again I have as little proof of this as you have of proving you have a mind, so other than anecdotal cases of “out of the body experiences,” I believe this by faith.

I have not said a word about out-of-body experiences. I am simply talking about memory, emotions, feeling of pleasure and pain, thoughts, personality, all of which are influenced by electro-chemical means. You say that the “mind” survives the physical life. But you did not actually say just what this “mind” would be?

My point here is that there are things that we experience, or science believes exists including our minds that we can not explain or prove, yet we know them or of them.

Actually the repeatable experiments are sufficient evidence for those scientists, whose job is to explore the neural activities. They set up hypotheses, conduct experiments, read the results and draw their conclusions.

But you have a different view, which is fine. You believe that the mind exists, whatever it may be. Can you explain and prove the veracity of your assertions, starting with a definition of the “mind”?

Careful, I believe you have been warned about charity in your posting before, please try to relax and have a discussion without insults. And I am not insane, I have been tested.

If quoting actual but contradictory posts from different posters is a violation of charity, then I am in deep trouble. As for the “insanity”, I used a very narrow example of a mother, who is unable to accept the irrefutable proof of his son’s guilt. Of course it is “only” irrefutable for the police and forensic scientists. For the mother there is no “irrefutable” evidence of her son’s actions. How would you classify this kind of behavior - in a charitable way, of course? (By the way, I am surprised that supposedly personal conversations with moderators might be available to the general public.)

 

[SonOfMan]

So you *can *change the way you believe, eh?

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m41a8wsSoE1r7z57y.gif

Nope, I cant change it. If the evidence is there, then I would be made able to believe, but I cant choose my belief.

IOW I want to believe, but I am unable.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Now if a person indulges in pornography so much they begin to rationalize that it isn’t wrong, then I would contend that they’ve always felt that way deep inside and tried to delude themselves that they believed it was wrong, which is may be why they continually fell for it numerous times. Still, we don’t see belief changing, only actions.

In other words, your claim is unfalsifiable since no matter how much anyone insists that they changed their belief intentionally, you are going to override their claim by the mere insistence that “deeper” down they just “always” felt that way. You don’t see the fallacy in your “argument?”

This is a sub-species of the fallacy of retrospective determinism.

 

[Peter_Plato]

…I used a very narrow example of a mother, who is unable to accept the irrefutable proof of his son’s guilt.

Is this a charming little anecdote promoting transgenderism?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Nope, I cant change it. If the evidence is there, then I would be made able to believe, but I cant choose my belief.

IOW I want to believe, but I am unable.

Assuming that the ability to believe or not is binary.

It could be that you kinda, sorta wanted to believe and kinda, sorta didn’t want to believe which puts you in the position of having to make a choice one way or the other, determining which way by a choice - a fork in the volitional path, so to speak.

In other words, it could just as likely be that you “want” to believe, but choose not to.

The only reason you conclude “unable” is because you didn’t end up believing. But that simply begs the question by insisting that whatever the outcome, it was merely a determined one before hand - you were “unable” to do otherwise, i.e., retrospective determinism. “I couldn’t BECAUSE I didn’t.” Thereby begging the question entirely.

 

[Aloysium]

Nope, I cant change it. If the evidence is there, then I would be made able to believe, but I cant choose my belief.

IOW I want to believe, but I am unable.

That’s why you are here.
Once exposed to revealed truth, it is up to you to accept the challenge and pursue it or continue arguing for proof which only you can discover.
What is it we are all asking?:
“What is this amazing thing that is happening here called thought?”
“Who is thinking?”
“How is it that I am?”
Clearly you have to find it in yourself and the Ground from which you spring.
It isn’t only a collection of ideas, but Reality Itself.

 

[tonyrey]

Having no choice implies that our beliefs are caused by factors beyond our control = determinism. Your reference to “assumption” indicates an element of doubt which is wise in view of the implications of not having free will. Computers are logical but not reasonable. I have yet to hear of one that hasn’t been programmed whereas we don’t usually treat people as if they can **never **think for themselves…

**If we can’t think for ourselves how can we be sure we can’t think for ourselves? **
**I am quite sure **that question will not be answered satisfactorily!

 

[tonyrey]

Nope, I cant change it. If the evidence is there, then I would be made able to believe, but I cant choose my belief.

IOW I want to believe, but I am unable.

If you can’t choose your belief then your belief that you can’t choose your belief is worthless! It could depend on what you had for breakfast - or, more likely, what you have been reading… Whatever the cause you’re not entitled to say “my belief”. It’s the result of factors beyond your control and you’re just a helpless spectator not responsible for anything you think, say or do - an insignificant cog in the machine of nature…

 

[Bradski]

I’ve nothing else to do waiting for my pizza dough to rise and the footy to start, so here’s some random thoughts on choice and belief.

Is it conceivable that you believe something without knowing any facts about it at all? Hardly. You cannot say you believe that the Blues will win tonight if you don’t know who the Blues are, what game they are playing and the relative merits of the opposition. So…no facts, no belief. And in this context, I am using facts as being indistinguishable from information that may or may not be acceptable as being true. In other words, as a snippet of information that you could accept or reject. For whatever reason.

Is it possible that you can declare that you don’t believe something under the same conditions? Obviously not. You cannot say: ‘I believe the Blues will win tonight’ if you have no information/facts about the matter.

So. No facts, no possibility of belief. Now let’s look at facts that you do have.

The Blues are a rugby league team representing my state. We are playing our deadliest rivals, Queensland. I won’t go into any more details, but imagine that I gave you all the facts and figures for the game. Which player was playing in which position, past results etc.

You may accept the fact that home advantage in this game is indeed an advantage. You might reject the fact that our coach is a deciding factor. And so on. And having all these facts at your disposal, and using reasoned internal debate, having accepted some facts and rejected others, you will be in a position to answer the following question: ‘Who do you believe will win the game tonight?’

So with facts, you are in a position to make a decision. To accept them or not. And to therefore say that, from the information/facts I have been given, I BELIEVE X.

Now let’s look at trying to make a conscious decision to believe something.

Let’s any that I tell you that my team is comprised of children who have never played the game. Let’s say that Queensland are putting up their biggest, best and toughest players. Is it at all conceivable that you can say that you believe that Q’land will lose? Obviously not. Similarly, even if you were the most fanatical, one-eyed NSW supporter, you could not consciously decide to believe that they will win. The facts of the matter, as you have accepted or rejected them, force you to admit your belief.

It is impossible to hold a belief without any facts. It is impossible to accept facts for a situation and believe it not to be true. It is impossible to reject facts for any given situation and believe it to be true. The result of trying to do so is cognitive dissonance.

Anyway, pizzas need my attention…

 

[Aloysium]

When I was a teenager, I heard an interview with CG Jung in which he was asked if he believed in God. He responded by saying that rather than believing, he knew that God existed. I had known by that point that neither math nor the sciences, subjects at which I was adept, could ever provide answers to my questions, so I figured I would give this religion thing a go. Let’s pretend it is all true; where will it take me. Actually, it led me to my own form of a Zen sort of Buddhism, for some four decades. This until a soul asked me what is a soul, and all my formulations became so much smoke in the face of the reality before me. You have been exposed to the truth, which way will you go?