Man created God? [edited]

  • Thread starter Thread starter nancy_dalrymple
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I mean how do you answer the objection of Hume to your supposition that you are describing “reality?” You want to be sceptical about certain categories of the unseen but to believe in others. Hume was an equal opportinity skeptic. He was skeptical about
the claims of religion AND those of positive science.
Hume’s conclusions about the rational justification for belief in extramental reality are forceful in the context of abstract reasoning. But practical and pragmatic imperatives make the objection irrelevant. I must necessarily except the reality of reality if I’m to survive in order to continue doubting it. It’s an existential necessity that obtains from our biology and wiring; we are innately disposed to survive and thrive, as a matter of brute physiology, and this compels belief in the reality of reality. We do this instinctively as newborns, and even as we grow old enough to consider that commitment, we obeserve that, rationally justified or not, belief in extamental reality is necessary if we want to live. Those who truly reject the idea die, and often quickly and violently.

I think Hume said much the same thing – we embrace the reality of reality not because it’s a logically sound conclusion, but due to “custom” and “instinct”.

-Touchstone
 
How would you describe truth naturally, tangibly or materially? Truth is the correspondence of a belief or proposition to a fact.
“Correspondence”, "belief, “proposition” and “fact” are all intangible.
How would you describe justice naturally, tangibly or materially? Justice entails respect for a person’s rights. “Respect”, “entails” and “rights” are all intangible.
How would you describe love naturally, tangibly or materially? Love entails concern for a person’s well-being and happiness.
“Concern”, “person”, “well-being” and “happiness” are all intangible.
This paragraph reiterates the need for some expansion on what is meant by “intangible”. A “belief”, to pick out one of your terms, I take to be a state of the brain, an activity of the mind. I can’t “touch” belief, if that’s your definition of ‘tangible’ because it’s a distributed electro-chemical pattern in the brain. But I don’t see any need for supernatural or immatierialist explanations for concepts, any of them. Material accounts seem quite adequate – the mind supervenes on the brain, and as such it forms and maintains physical patterns and configurations that represent concepts, all kinds of concepts, concrete and abstract.
You contradict yourself by saying “natural explanations build our understanding of reality outward from a state of ignorance and non-description”. In other words you believe our starting point is the mind and its activity, not atoms or neurons or any other tangible or material phenomenon. By using the phrase “our understanding of reality” you presuppose that we are intangible, rational entities. 🙂
No, because I don’t suppose the mind is intangible (assuming for the moment that you mean “non-physical” by "intangible). The mind is natural, physical phenomenon. When I think about my own thoughts as a proof of existence, the implication of that existence is… existence. It’s because I am conscious, because I am aware of extramental objects that I have reason to suppose the “self” is existent – natural, physical, extended in space-time, just like the tree I am walking past and conscious of through my perceptual faculties.

That amounts to a realization that any sense of the “disembodiment” of the mind is illusory, and that the objective existence of things outside the mind is a basis for the objective existence of the “self”.

-TS
 
Leela
*
1 Strong theist. 100% possibility of God.
2 Very high probability 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God."
3 Higher than 50 per cent but not very high.
4 Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial.
5 Lower than 50 per cent but not very low.
6 Very low probability, but short of zero.
7 Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God"*

Is this an arbitrary scale of your own invention?
It is arbitrary. I don’t know who decided that 7-points would be interesting, but if there were 11 points, 2-10 wold all qualify as agnostics.
You put yourself at 6? Well then, you are going to call yourself a “soft” atheist?
I don’t go out of my way to call myself any of these these terms. I don’t think we shoudl need words to categorize people based on whether or not they believe various things about God any more than I think we should have words to categorize people based on various positions on astrology.
Isn’t that rather self-serving? You leave yourself an escape hatch without obviously any intent ever to use it. I would call you a 7.
Call me whatever you like. If you think that there is no good word for someone who doesn’t believe in God but thinks that it is imposible to rule out the possibility, that’s even better.

I don’t know what you mean by “an escape hatch.” Maybe you can explain what you think I’m trying to escape from?
But even if you call yourself a 6, why is there a very low probability, but short of zero, that God exists? What persuades you that even the God of Newton, Darwin, and Einstein has a near zero probability of existing when they regarded the Deity as real?

Because he has not manifested Himself to you in His full Personhood?
When you talk about personhood, you’ve taken Einstein out of the picture. Newton believed in all sorts of crazy stuff like alchemy and astrology. And Darwin…why are we suppsoed to care, again?

If your question is about what I think about deism or pantheism, I think these are pretty much brands of atheism. Neither of these philosophies involve making claims about having a special revellation of the mind of God.
 
Do I get this right?! Touchstone, you just think we are one big computer that came from nowhere and will just go nowhere?
No. I don’t recognize that as a description of what I believe, if you are talking about people when you say “we”. If you are talking about the universe, then it’s not too far off as a synopsis. The universe started as a “nowhere”, or maybe we should say “everywhere at once”, in any case a infinitesimally small point. There’s some debate as to whether the universe will eventually collapse back on itself, or just keep inflating, but assuming here that the universe is headed toward a “Big Crunch”, that has everything for the universe ending up in a similar kind of “nowhere”.

Happily, there’s lot’s of cool stuff to do in the meantime. That middle part between the nowheres is a “target rich environment” for experience, learning, joy, suffering, achievement, failure, etc.
All the “babble” aside. You do not think that the there is a God, who created everything? I have read throught the postings in this site. I am amazed at how you want to be held unaccountable for your life.
I think I am accountable for my actions, for my life. The actions I take have consequences, and I’m responsible for those consequences insofar as I have chosen them or had influence over them. If I harm another through my choices, I’m accountable, both morally, and legally, if the harm is such that the law demands recourse. Man is a social animal, and lives by social contracts. These are strong and abiding forms of accountability.
I mean this by reason of: If you don’t believe in God, then you don’t have to follow any rules except your own. The 10 commandments have no meaning to you, unless they further your life in some fashion?
It’s no different if I do believe in God. Even then, I don’t have to follow any rules except my own – I just have to face the consequences of whatever decisions I make.
The Golden rule-Love thy neighbor as thy self. Do you follow this? Would you give up your life to save another? Why?
Sure – the Golden rule is the Christian name for a ubiquitous bit of human reasoning and psychology – the understanding of social reciprocity: I cannot expect you to treat me well or fairly if I don’t treat you well or fairly. This is a principle I follow and consider fundamental to maintaining perosnal relationships and living in community with other humans, both of which are essential to my goals in life.

Would I give my life to save another? I believe I would. I certainly would be willing to “take a bullet” for my children or my wife, and probably others. Even in cases where a stranger is mortal distress, and their rescue demands risking my life and probably losing it, I can say that I would be inclined to it. It’s a goal of mine to live and, and to help bring about a world where altruism is an integral part of the social fabric. If that is the goal, I understand that I can’t expect to bring that about if I’m not willing myself to sacrifice when the situation demands. Thus, in order to further my goals of a sacrificing, altruistic community, I must be willing to do my part in taking risks and making sacrifices that help realize this goal.
If you don’t believe in God, what is your purpose for existing?
My purpose is to lead a long, productive, creative and virtuous life, filled with the gratifications of strong, affectionate personal relationships, professional achievement, acquisition of as much real knowledge about the world as practically possible, and the passing on of wisdom, knowledge and a tradition of love and virtuous living to my children.

Those are my goals, briefly described. That’s what I want, and that is what I pursue. My purpose is identify my goals and pursue them.
If you chose to answer thes questions-please put them in simple plain English. It makes more sense that way.
Thank you for your time.
God Bless!
These are very broad questions, many of which can each fill up books with their discussion. We’re a ways of the thread topic, so I’ve tried to be brief, but responsive on the merits. We can always spin up a new thread for separate discussion at length on one or more of your questions.

-TS
 
Hello!, I do believe what( thevicinator16) is trying to say is:
The fish trap exists because of the fish. Once you’ve gotten the fish you can forget the trap.
The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit. Once you have gotten the rabbit, you can
forget the snare.
Words exist because of meaning. Once you’ve gotten the meaning, you can forget the words.
Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him?-Chuang Tzu
" Knock on the sky and listen to the sound." Love of Christ Nancy
 
Leela

*If your question is about what I think about deism or pantheism, I think these are pretty much brands of atheism. *

No, you can’t claim Deism as a form of atheism. I know atheists like to do that, but it’s not so. The Deists repudiate atheism … Voltaire, Jefferson, Einstein. Why would they repudiate atheism if they are atheists?
*
I don’t know what you mean by “an escape hatch.” Maybe you can explain what you think I’m trying to escape from? *

Maybe atheism? Maybe that’s why you’re here at CA?

*When you talk about personhood, you’ve taken Einstein out of the picture.
*

But we haven’t taken Supreme Intelligence out of the picture. Einstein talked about wanting to “know God’s thoughts.”

Newton believed in all sorts of crazy stuff like alchemy and astrology. And was deeply interested in de-coding Bible prophecies. After no doubt some deep thinking, guess what; he decided the laws governing the universe were impossible without some supreme creator.

And Darwin…why are we suppsoed to care, again?

Hmm, I guess we shouldn’t care what anybody with great intelligence thinks? Not even your hero, Bertrand Russell?

There it is again … that tedious argument of yours and Touchstone’s. Theists are not supposed to cite great thinkers on their side, but atheists can cite great thinkers on their side … you know, those towering intellects like Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, etc.
 
Touchtone. In a few posts back you mentioned you (so to speak) have values and do believe in doing what is right and living up to the laws, Right? But where do think those laws 1st originated from? AND IF THERE WERE NO LAWS WOULD YOU STILL DO WHAT IS RIGHT? And how would you know what is right to do? You do believe there is a system to things I know you do or you would not be doing right at all! You would proberly be in jail or dead. All our laws stem from the old testament and they still are part of us today! Why do we have laws? who first made the laws? Why do you keep the laws? Just because you know it’s right? How do you know it is? I tell you everything that is realy nothing, and nothing of what is everything, do not be fooled by what i am saying. Please listen carefully and try to hear what i am not saying- Charles C. Finn. Love of Christ Nancy
 
*If your question is about what I think about deism or pantheism, I think these are pretty much brands of atheism. *

No, you can’t claim Deism as a form of atheism. I know atheists like to do that, but it’s not so. The Deists repudiate atheism … Voltaire, Jefferson, Einstein. Why would they repudiate atheism if they are atheists?
I understand that they denied being atheists. But the difference between what they said and atheism as I understand it is not anything that I think is important.
*When you talk about personhood, you’ve taken Einstein out of the picture.
*

But we haven’t taken Supreme Intelligence out of the picture. Einstein talked about wanting to “know God’s thoughts.”

Newton believed in all sorts of crazy stuff like alchemy and astrology. And was deeply interested in de-coding Bible prophecies. After no doubt some deep thinking, guess what; he decided the laws governing the universe were impossible without some supreme creator.

And Darwin…why are we suppsoed to care, again?

Hmm, I guess we shouldn’t care what anybody with great intelligence thinks? Not even your hero, Bertrand Russell?

There it is again … that tedious argument of yours and Touchstone’s. Theists are not supposed to cite great thinkers on their side, but atheists can cite great thinkers on their side … you know, those towering intellects like Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, etc.
The mere fact that “so and so the great” believed such and such is not of much interest to me. I’m interested in the arguments that people make and the truth-value of their claims, which has nothing to do with their celebrity or other personal characteristics, even their intelligence. It is not what great minds think that is important to our discussion in this forum by why they thought what they did. The question is whether or not their arguments hold up.

Bertrand Russell is not a hero of mine, by the way. His philosophical projects were very different from mine.
 
Touchstone

New scientific discoveries add layer on layer of knowledge about the natural world that accounts for natural phenomena in natural, materialistic terms.

New scientific discoveries? Whose discoveries? Ah, but you don’t want me to name the originators of those discoveries on the grounds that they might be too popular or too well known for their genius?
The names aren’t important. The discoveries are.
The more we know about nature, the more superfluous God and supernatural explanations are.
Well, that’s just your opinion. Why should we believe that this is so. You make a declaration without proof. The general trend of science today is away from atheism, not toward it.
What does this mean? Do you mean scientists are moving away from atheism? Science doesn’t, and cant’, trend toward, or away from atheism, as it doesn’t understand terms like ‘supernatural’. It’s outside of its epistemological perimeter, and as such science can’t say anything one way or another. Science does continue to provide natural explanations for natural phenomena, however, and in many cases, those natural explanations supplant non-scientific, supernatural explanations with law-based, natural ones. Evolution is the poster child for this, supplanting special creation of the species with descent + variation. One can posit God as the “designer” for the world, etc., but the creationist idea of God poofing species and kinds into existence by miraculous means is now unncessary. We have non-miraculous explanations that are more efficient, more parsimonious available, thanks to the development of that part of biology.
The idea of an infinite and eternal universe, which made atheism reputable in the 19th century has been blown to smithereens by modern science and you know it.
I think it definitely was a setback, or at least demanded a revision to the common atheist narrative of the time. Maybe check out Peter Lynds’ “cyclic universe” proposal for a current version of the same idea, an infinite and eternal universe. The Big Bang is just an other cycle in the chain, according to this view.
Since you hate to hear me cite the authorities on the subject, I guess I shouldn’t note that even Einstein, with some help from other scientists, had to correct himself on that one by the time the Big Bang theorists got through with him.
I think Einstein is someone you are well-advised to cite in terms of physics. He’s proven his expertise there, unlike anything he’s said about God or theology. And as a man of science, Einstein is corrigible in light of new evidence. Einstein went on to regret his earlier positing of the cosmological constant, based on new evidence. Curiously, even newer evidence accumulates in support of the idea that Einstein was right, or very nearly right about the cosmological constant, and his lasting error was thinking that he was in error. Heh. That’s science for ya.

Einstein was a proponent of an eternal, static universe – which is what prompted him to include his (in)famouse cosmological constant – and Hubble’s discoveries were surely trouble for that as soon as they came in. Einstein died somewhere in the 1950s, some ten years or so prior to the real shift toward BBT due to CMBR. That is, I’m not aware that Einstein ever abandoned an infinite, borderless, static universe in favor of BBT. He did change his mind on things, but I’m not aware that that was one of them. The tipping point for BBT came some time after Einstein died when Gamow’s predictions started coming through with CMBR (1967 or so?).
So I think that if every time I cite any scientist’s work you yell “Foul!” because that scientist has an eminent reputation as a thinker, there isn’t any point in continuing a dialogue with you. Until you stop doing that, I have nothing more to say to you. You’re not the only or the best thinker in the world, and you need to let other minds better than your own into the discussion.
Ideas and evidence are always welcome, with a keen eye toward their performance and validation in real-world testing. Doesn’t matter what name gets attached to it. We don’t praise the ideas because of the man (or woman), we praise the man (or woman) because of the ideas, ideas which perform and succeed as models for reality. I’ll continue to resist fallacious appeals to authority – I repeat that if you can’t make your case with the individuals being anonymous, and their ideas standing on their own merits, proven by experiment and observation, it really isn’t much of an argument to consider. I’m not saying you need to leave the names out, just rely on the ideas instead of the names and their fame to make your point. If you are unable or unwilling to do that, and see that as a reason we cannot discuss things further, so be it.

-TS
 
I understand that they denied being atheists. But the difference between what they said and atheism as I understand it is not anything that I think is important.
It’s important to remember and account for the intense social stigma attached to identifying oneself as an atheist, in the times and cultures of those people. Colonial Virginia, for example, Jefferson’s home, had blasphemy laws that indicated the death penalty for atheist expression:
No man should speak impiously or maliciously
against “the holy and blessed Trinitie, or any of the three per-
sons … or against the knowne Articles of the Christian faith,
vpon paine of death.”
archive.org/stream/churchofenglandi01penn/churchofenglandi01penn_djvu.txt

That kind of cultural context provides some insight into why an atheist would profess some nominal Deism or theism, even after such laws had lost some of their teeth. Atheism was a cultural taboo. For all the denials of Paine and Jefferson and Franklin, an atheist typically finds their words, reasons and dispositions immediately familiar.

-TS
 
What do you mean by “intangibles”?

Having gone through umpteen posts trying to describe spiritual, non-physical, supernatural, non-material to non-theists, I’ve settled on intangible to describe something that is beyond the realm of sensory experience. In other words, you are right–things we can’t touch.

Personally, when I hit my atheist crisis in high school, I used an intangible in the most irrational way possible to prove to myself that God did exist. As an adult in Alaska, I used the intangible and indescribable beauty of the mountains as further evidence of God’s existence. To me, everyone knows that there are intangibles; but how they use that knowledge is up to them.
By understanding the “self” as a many-layered “strange loop”, to use Douglas Hofstadter’s term, a complex emergent phenomenon that supervenes on the brain, we provide case for the self as real, substantial, rather than just magical or supernatural.
 
Touchtone. In a few posts back you mentioned you (so to speak) have values and do believe in doing what is right and living up to the laws, Right?
Sure. Laws aren’t inherently legitimate, and sometimes a moral actor is obliged to resist immoral laws, but I understand your point – I have a goal of abiding by social contracts as a predicate for others abiding by theirs.
But where do think those laws 1st originated from?
Laws are codified social contracts. Even before we had written laws, the principles of reciprocity and social contract were enforced. If you are a hunter in the tribe, and the tribal arrangement is that the kills are shared equally among all hunters and their families, no matter which hunter(s) actually made the kill(s), those expectations are forceful, forceful unto death, perhaps, even if there is no written code. The hunter that keeps the kill for himself and his own family without sharing with the tribe per the social agreement is liable to be killed outright for cheating on such an important matter, or expelled from the tribe, which often enough was just a delayed death sentence.

Man is a social animal. He has survived and thrived by relying on the strength of community, cooperation, and social contracts in addition to individual prowess. Chimps and lions, for example, have social arrangements for things like feeding rights/order, and mating.
AND IF THERE WERE NO LAWS WOULD YOU STILL DO WHAT IS RIGHT?
Sure. Absence of laws do not free me from moral obligations or the pursuit of virtue.
And how would you know what is right to do?
Trying to be adequate here in response, but brief, as I’m doing a lot of ‘off-topic’ answers lately on this thread. I determine what is right through reasoning based on my experience. I have empathy, sympathy, and innate sense of fairness and justice as part of my nature, part of my physiology. I want to live and be free, so I understand that other humans like me similarly want to live and be free. I don’t like to be made to suffer gratuitously, so I understand that others like me resist and avoid that as well. This is the foundation of moral thinking.
You do believe there is a system to things I know you do or you would not be doing right at all! You would proberly be in jail or dead. All our laws stem from the old testament and they still are part of us today!
Commandments 1-3 are basically immoral in nature. Servitude to tyranny.

4 is the understanding that the sacrifice and commitment in caring and providing for you by your parents deserves acknowledgement and respect.

5 & 7 are expressions of the principles of liberty, that man has a right to his life, his property and his freedom to act, so long as those actions don’t deprive others of their freedoms.

6 & 8 reflect the importance of trust and honesty as the fabric of social contracts.

9-10 warn against the harm threatened by coveting and vice to social cohesion and healthy relationships.

There’s definitely wisdom in there, the first three aside. Principles like the Golden Rule occur in cultures near and far, though, and the value in Commandments 4-10 are nicely encapsulated in that principle: treat others as you would like to be treated. Think of them as a kind of “midrash” on the Golden Rule, perhaps.
Why do we have laws? who first made the laws? Why do you keep the laws? Just because you know it’s right? How do you know it is? I tell you everything that is realy nothing, and nothing of what is everything, do not be fooled by what i am saying. Please listen carefully and try to hear what i am not saying- Charles C. Finn. Love of Christ Nancy
As above, laws are formalizations of social contracts. That looks highly egalitarian in some modern societies, but historically that has been more of a euphemism, where the social contract was something like “we the people agreed to be ruled in whatever way those with the power and resources to kill us or make us suffer see fit, and the rulers agree to wield their power however they choose”. There’s lots of points in between the totalitarian despot and the free society, but the laws in any case give shape and expression to the power arrangements and social contracts that exist in that society.

-TS
 
Having gone through umpteen posts trying to describe spiritual, non-physical, supernatural, non-material to non-theists, I’ve settled on intangible to describe something that is beyond the realm of sensory experience. In other words, you are right–things we can’t touch.

Personally, when I hit my atheist crisis in high school, I used an intangible in the most irrational way possible to prove to myself that God did exist. As an adult in Alaska, I used the intangible and indescribable beauty of the mountains as further evidence of God’s existence. To me, everyone knows that there are intangibles; but how they use that knowledge is up to them.
 
This paragraph reiterates the need for some expansion on what is meant by “intangible”. A “belief”, to pick out one of your terms, I take to be a state of the brain, an activity of the mind. I can’t “touch” belief, if that’s your definition of ‘tangible’ because it’s a distributed electro-chemical pattern in the brain. But I don’t see any need for supernatural or immatierialist explanations for concepts, any of them. Material accounts seem quite adequate – the mind supervenes on the brain, and as such it forms and maintains physical patterns and configurations that represent concepts, all kinds of concepts, concrete and abstract.
-TS
If a belief is a distributed electro-chemical pattern in the brain how can the brain be held responsible for that belief? If not the brain, what else? “Distributed electro-chemical patterns” is a grossly inadequate explanation of the mind. Your very reference to abstract concepts implies that reality is not restricted to physical phenomena.

To say “the mind supervenes on the brain” simply means that “the mind is produced by the brain”. If, as you believe, the state of the brain causes mental activity how can the mind possibly be an autonomous, conscious, rational entity? Do you regard the brain as responsible for its activity, aware of itself and directing itself? If so, where is its control-centre? Where is consciousness located?

You believe your mind is “a natural, physical phenomenon” but the existence of a natural, physical phenomenon is inferred whereas you are directly aware of your mental activity. Your thoughts are a proof of the existence of mental activity, not of extramental objects. We are all in the “egocentric predicament” and our only direct knowledge is by introspection. It’s because you are conscious you have reason to suppose the “self” exists. It has nothing to do with extramental objects. The tree you are walking past may be an illusion but you cannot deny the reality of your thoughts without self-contradiction. So it does not follow that the objective existence of things outside the mind is a basis for the objective existence of the “self”. The reverse is true. It is only because you have a rational mind you infer the objective existence of things outside the mind.

It is highly significant you have not attempted to explain truth, justice, correspondence, proposition, fact, person, rights, well-being and happiness in natural, physical terms, i.e. distributed electro-chemical patterns. Inability to do so obviously wrecks your explanation.
 
Scientific Evidence Grows that Mind and Brain Are Seperate

But, firstly, let us just briefly ‘recap’ how we got here.

Ideas and explanations for the inter-reaction between brain and mind, or mind on brain, are very old indeed. From an early time some insisted that only Dualism could properly explain this relationship; What is Dualism? Well Dualism stated that while brain is a physical component, the mind itself appears to belong to the metaphysical/spiritual realm. While Indian philosophy had a strong early school of dualism, in the western world it was Plato and Aristotle who insisted (though for somewhat different reasons), that people’s “intelligence” (a faculty of the mind or soul) could not be wholly identified with, or explained, in terms of their physical body.

The Influence of Descartes

But the best-known and most influential form of dualism was that which became clearly outlined by René Descartes (1596-1650). Descartes held that the mind is a nonphysical substance. Descartes was the first to clearly ‘wade in’ with quite positive propositions concerning the mind, consciousness and self-awareness. He distinguished these components from the brain, which, according to his theory, was merely the seat of intelligence. Descartes would have a great influence on enlightenment thinking on the human mind and on human consciousness - even though much of this thinking and many of the later theories sought to overturn Descartes’ mind/brain dualism.

The mind, according to Descartes, was a “thinking thing”, and an immaterial substance. This “thing” was the essence of himself, that which doubts, believes, hopes, and thinks. He argues this distinction between mind and body in his Meditation VI in the following manner,

“I have a clear and distinct idea of myself as a thinking, non-extended thing, and a clear and distinct idea of body as an extended and non-thinking thing. Whatever I can conceive clearly and distinctly, God can so create.”
So, Descartes argues, the mind, as a thinking thing, can certainly exist apart from its extended body. And therefore, the mind is a substance distinct from the body
It is well beyond the scope of this article to outline the various forms of dualism which have since come along or, indeed, the many objections to them. (Here is some information which goes very deeply into Dualism for those who want more information). Truthfully, many of the objections to Dualism may be easily overturned, but a few remain a serious problem for those who insist that mind and consciousness are not physical properties. Perhaps foremost of these is the following quite simple argument:
New Amazing Evidence Which Science Cannot Refute
Cardiologist Dr Michael Sabom has described a near-death experience that occurred while its experiencer - a woman who was having an unusual surgical procedure for the safe excision and repair of a large basilar artery aneurysm - met all of the accepted criteria for brain death. Neither is this is an isolated instance for there are now a growing number of people who have testified that they experienced consciousness - indeed, frequently consciousness on a very high and vivid plane, while they were - for a short period - technically “brain-dead.” The University of Southampton, England, has also conducted some research which is quite compelling,
“…University of Southampton researchers have just published a paper detailing their pioneering study into near death experiences (or near-death experiences) that suggests consciousness and the mind may continue to exist after the brain has ceased to function and the body is clinically dead.
Independent EEG studies have confirmed that the brain’s electrical activity, and hence brain function, ceases at that time. But seven out of 63 (11 per cent) of the Southampton patients who survived their cardiac arrest recalled emotions and visions during unconsciousness.” (more information here: mikepettigrew.com/afterlife/html/u_k__study.htm
In the Southampton study none of the four patients who had near-death experiences had low levels of oxygen or received any unusual combination of drugs during their resuscitation.
Dr Bruce Greyson has given some attention to near-death and after-death experiences.
Some might be shocked here at the reference to “deceased relatives” but we must accept that it seems well-established from many cultures that those on the point of death do indeed often appear to see their deceased relatives who come to them to escort them away from this physical life to 'beyond the river.
After-Death Consciousness and Children
Some of the most interesting information on verifiable after-death consciousness experiences has been gathered by Dr Melvin Morse who is Associate Professor of Pediatrics at The University of Washington. Dr Morse has studied near-death experiences in children for 15 years and is the author of several books on the subject. In 1982, while a Fellow for the National Cancer Institute, Dr. Morse was working in a clinic in Pocatello, Idaho. He was called to revive a young girl who nearly died in a community swimming pool. She had had no heart beat for 19 minutes, yet completely recovered. She was able to recount many details of her own resuscitation, and then said that she was taken down a brick lined tunnel to a heavenly place. When Dr. Morse showed his obvious skepticism, she patted him shyly on the hand and said: “Don’t worry, Dr. Morse, heaven is fun!.” She told the doctor that she had met Jesus and that, “He is nice!” (More information on the work of Dr Morse can be found here: near-death.com/experiences/experts06.html. Again, we do not necessarily support everything on any other website). Love of Christ Nancy-TO TOUCHTONE:)
 
If a belief is a distributed electro-chemical pattern in the brain how can the brain be held responsible for that belief? If not the brain, what else? “Distributed electro-chemical patterns” is a grossly inadequate explanation of the mind. Your very reference to abstract concepts implies that reality is not restricted to physical phenomena.
How so? “abstract” just means “apart from its object”, or “detached from any specific instance”. The human brain has cognitive faculties that allow it develop concepts (brain states) that signify relationships between a subject and objects where the subject and objects are not reified. A hypothetical problem, for example, contemplates abstract objects – an imagined pair of people having a particular conversation or interaction, perhaps. Why is that a problem for brains and the minds that supervene upon them being natural, physical?
To say “the mind supervenes on the brain” simply means that “the mind is produced by the brain”. If, as you believe, the state of the brain causes mental activity how can the mind possibly be an autonomous, conscious, rational entity?
Why, through being integrated with an autonomous physical body, and being aware, and capable of reasoning, of course? This sounds like a rhetorical question, but if so, I missed the point. If we suppose the mind is supernatural, immaterial, how does that improve things at all? All I can think is that it makes things much more problematic – now you’ve got to describe some kind of ‘supernatural → natural interface’, and you’re on the same ground as the materialist in explaining free will. What determines the freedom of free will in either case?
Do you regard the brain as responsible for its activity, aware of itself and directing itself? If so, where is its control-centre? Where is consciousness located?
Consciousness is a “whole-brain” phenomenon. Consciousness integrates sensory (name removed by moderator)ut from our senses, and as such involves a number of parts of the brain, as well as the whole body – the “entry points” for sense data for the brain. We’ve identified different regions of the brain that specialize in different cognitive tasks – language processing, visual pattern recognition, etc. – but the ongoing “thought life” of the mind relies on activity that happens all over the brain, and invludes many other parts of the body.
You believe your mind is “a natural, physical phenomenon” but the existence of a natural, physical phenomenon is inferred whereas you are directly aware of your mental activity. Your thoughts are a proof of the existence of mental activity, not of extramental objects.
OK, that’s right. We don’t sense our thoughts as extramental phenomena, because they are *intramental *phenomena. They are internal to the mind. That doesn’t make them immaterial, though, just internal.
We are all in the “egocentric predicament” and our only direct knowledge is by introspection. It’s because you are conscious you have reason to suppose the “self” exists. It has nothing to do with extramental objects.
Consciousness is impossible without extramental objects. Conscious is the awareness of objects outside the mind.
The tree you are walking past may be an illusion but you cannot deny the reality of your thoughts without self-contradiction. So it does not follow that the objective existence of things outside the mind is a basis for the objective existence of the “self”. The reverse is true. It is only because you have a rational mind you infer the objective existence of things outside the mind.
But that’s not “the reverse”, but just a restatement of the same situation. You’re apparently operating on the understanding that rational=immaterial, but why that would be completely escapes me. A rational mind apprehending the reality of extramental objects has warrant for his own existence, as objective as the tree. It’s because of that rational mind, which objectively exists, that we may perceive and form concepts about other objects outside the mind that also objectively exist.
It is highly significant you have not attempted to explain truth, justice, correspondence, proposition, fact, person, rights, well-being and happiness in natural, physical terms, i.e. distributed electro-chemical patterns. Inability to do so obviously wrecks your explanation.
I’m all over the place on this thread as it is, based on the questions I’m fielding. I think it’s kinda-sorta-nominally related to defending the idea that man has created God in his own image, but a full defense of all the subjects you listed as natural phenomenon would be quite a lot of work here, and would bring us way far afield. If you want to pull one or more of those off for hashing out in a separate thread that would be fine. As it is, I don’t see how any of the items in your list are problematic in materialist terms. Truth, just to take the first, I understand to be a concept (brain-state) in my mind that associates a subject proposition with a corresponding relationship to the extramental world, or, linguistically, “truth is that which corresponds to the actual state of objective, extramental reality”. That seems to be no problem at all as a concept in my mind, all natural.

-Touchstone
 
And I don’t want to be too contrary, here, as we’re getting on well, but I cannot understate on this forum the value and utility of doubt. Doubt is the basis for all knowledge. As you can tell, I’m not one to end up in “washy-washy-I-can’t-decide” on a lot of questions, but the disciplined, fearless application of doubt is the means to seeing the world as clear as a human can, in my view. It’s not the end goal (!), but a tool that is uniquely able to separate the wheat from the chaff, knowledge-wise.

Thanks for the comments.

-Touchstone
I don’t consider you to be contrary even though you are contrary. 🙂

The worst mistake anyone can make is that of blind belief. Nowhere in Scripture or in the practicality of life is such a belief validated. If blind belief were acceptable or considered the norm, than fools would not exist. 😉

Doubt is useful (or should I say essential) in all aspects of our lives. The only trap is when doubt becomes undoubtable. I’m not necessarily ascribing you to that belief, but I do have more or less a concern that it could be a possibility.

In the end, I realize we agree to disagree. I think the world would stop turning if there weren’t opposing forces working against and with each other - this is just one of those instances. 😃
 
Hume’s conclusions about the rational justification for belief in extramental reality are forceful in the context of abstract reasoning. But practical and pragmatic imperatives make the objection irrelevant. I must necessarily except the reality of reality if I’m to survive in order to continue doubting it. It’s an existential necessity that obtains from our biology and wiring; we are innately disposed to survive and thrive, as a matter of brute physiology, and this compels belief in the reality of reality. We do this instinctively as newborns, and even as we grow old enough to consider that commitment, we obeserve that, rationally justified or not, belief in extamental reality is necessary if we want to live. Those who truly reject the idea die, and often quickly and violently.

I think Hume said much the same thing – we embrace the reality of reality not because it’s a logically sound conclusion, but due to “custom” and “instinct”.

-Touchstone
I wish you wouldn’t use the term" wiring." It reminds me of the comparsion of the CNS with a computer, without the provisio that a computer is no more than the product
of something called human intelligence, a great simplification ofthe CNS and constructed of totally different materials. The convention of cience fiction allow us to pretend that we might in near future build a being like “Data.” My guess is that that is as fanciful as Victor Frankenstein’s monster. But if we ever do “build” one he will be more like that monster than Data. Physically, we are indescribably complex, carrying around as we do more viruses than human cells. How much all these “parts” contribute to our “individuality,” is perhaps we need to determine,
 
I don’t consider you to be contrary even though you are contrary. 🙂

The worst mistake anyone can make is that of blind belief. Nowhere in Scripture or in the practicality of life is such a belief validated. If blind belief were acceptable or considered the norm, than fools would not exist. 😉

Doubt is useful (or should I say essential) in all aspects of our lives. The only trap is when doubt becomes undoubtable. I’m not necessarily ascribing you to that belief, but I do have more or less a concern that it could be a possibility.
It may be… but I doubt it! ;-0
In the end, I realize we agree to disagree. I think the world would stop turning if there weren’t opposing forces working against and with each other - this is just one of those instances. 😃
Well, I’m happy to be ‘yin’ to your ‘yang’ – or is it the other way 'round? In any case, thanks for the exchange.

-TS
 
Dear Jesus please open the eyes of the blind! Thank You Lord!

It requires a great deal of faith for a man to be cured by his own placebos. Love of Christ Nancy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top