Purposeful from purposeless?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
inocente said:
Why isn’t everything physical when God created a material world?

Your OP question gives an opportunity to trot out Richard Feynman’s fine poem:

There are the rushing waves…
mountains of molecules,
each stupidly minding its own business…
trillions apart
…yet forming white surf in unison.

Ages on ages…
before any eyes could see…
year after year…
thunderously pounding the shore as now.
For whom, for what?
…on a dead planet
with no life to entertain.

Never at rest…
tortured by energy…
wasted prodigiously by the Sun…
poured into space.
A mite makes the sea roar.

Deep in the sea,
all molecules repeat
the patterns of another
till complex new ones are formed.
They make others like themselves…
and a new dance starts.

Growing in size and complexity…
living things,
masses of atoms,
DNA, protein…
dancing a pattern ever more intricate.

Out of the cradle
onto dry land…
here it is standing…
atoms with consciousness
…matter with curiosity.

Stands at the sea…
wonders at wondering… I…
a universe of atoms…
an atom in the universe.

The Value of Science, address to the National Academy of Sciences 1955
Click to expand...
This being the first time I saw this very fine poem, at the ending verse I recognized the value of the human being.

To answer the question “Why isn’t everything physical when God created a material world?” The answer is found in the Catholic teaching regarding the purpose of human nature. Or one could say that God being God, He had His choice as to what to create and what colors to use so He chose.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
That is a picture of a 3 dimensional organic construct which we know to have a functional association with the psychological activity of the mind. This is all that physical reality can tell us.
Click to expand...
It’s a bit scarey/amazing where it’s going though, e.g.:

Scientists can accurately predict which of a thousand pictures a person is looking at by analyzing brain activity using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). The approach should shed light on how the brain processes visual information, and it might one day be used to reconstruct dreams. - technologyreview.com/biomedicine/20380/
 
JDaniel said:
Was that a mind or a brain? Is there a difference?
Click to expand...
Looking around at different dictionaries, no - the mind is the part of us that thinks, and we know that the organ doing it is the brain. Some definitions of mind limit it to certain kinds of thinking, like consciousness, but it’s still the brain that does it unless we also want to include the rest of the nervous system.
 
It is fascinating that both religion and science take place through the agency of the same physiological means, whatever their source. Given the origins of the Abrahamic religions in bronze/iron age times and the relatively closed canons of the Church from the third century, despite its adaptations, and the general dismissal of things spiritual by science even by mainstream psyche-ology, one has to wonder if the entire question can be framed in a different more inclusive way.

The idea of dimensions comes to mind in that what seems unresolvable by science in three or four dimensions can be far better grasped by postulating eleven. There must be as well yet commonly ungrasped dimensions of what at this current level of debate shows to be nearly impossible of resolution. It is hard to imagine in current parameters any solution acceptable in its entirety either by science or religion.

And yet both proceed from data gathered, albeit selectively, from the same field which is contained in the plenum of the unknown. It is my conviction that what seem to be at at odds and even antithetical as science and religion are currently framed, that since they stem from the same plenum there must be an over arching and completely inclusive way of framing both seemingly different perspectives. Neither of these, science nor religion, can sufficiently by themselves be completely explanatory as they stand.

I will propose, without completely agreeing with it, Ken Wilbur’s idea of four quadrants of experience as an interim tool for such considerations as it appears more inclusive in some ways than either science or religion taken apart. Short of reading his “A Brief History of Everything,” a sparse intro to that idea and diagrams may be found at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wilber or better: kenwilber.com/blog/show/505

So my basic stance in this is that one universe doesn’t have two explanations, and that an actual 1/1 descriptive paradigm is possible that would sufficiently fulfill the requirements of both science and religion when framed in more inclusive terms than we currently entertain. The only difficulty I see is that while science works with teleology and moves mostly as a body, religion tends not to, as evidenced by the huge diversity in Christian sects which seem to work by schism, as might other religious paradigms I’m not familiar with. That dynamic is not so simply overcome by protestations of ours being the One and True. And neither is the stance of science in that it dismisses as premise what for religion is its core fact.
 
inocente said:
Looking around at different dictionaries, no - the mind is the part of us that thinks, and we know that the organ doing it is the brain. Some definitions of mind limit it to certain kinds of thinking, like consciousness, but it’s still the brain that does it unless we also want to include the rest of the nervous system.
Click to expand...
Hello inocente.🙂 Here’s an excerpt from “The Human Consciousness Project” that is interesting. It’s from The Nour Foundation:

*Today, most scientists have adopted a traditionally monist view of the mind-brain problem, arguing that the human mind, consciousness, and self are no more than by-products of electrochemical activity within the brain, notwithstanding the lack of any scientific evidence or even a plausible biological explanation as to how the brain would lead to the development of mind and consciousness. This has led some prominent researchers, such as the late Nobel-winning neuroscientist Sir John Eccles, to propose a dualist view of the problem, arguing that the human mind and consciousness may in fact constitute a separate, undiscovered entity apart from the brain.

Contrary to popular perception, death is not a specific moment, but a well-defined process. From a biological viewpoint, cardiac arrest is synonymous with clinical death. During a cardiac arrest, all three criteria of clinical death are present: the heart stops beating, the lungs stop working, and the brain ceases functioning. Subsequently, there is a period of time—which may last from a few seconds up to an hour or longer—in which emergency medical efforts may succeed in resuscitating the heart and reversing the dying process. The experiences that individuals undergo during this period of cardiac arrest provide a unique window of understanding into what we are all likely to experience during the dying process.

In recent years, a number of scientific studies conducted by independent researchers have found that as many as 10-20 percent of individuals who undergo cardiac arrest report lucid, well-structured thought processes, reasoning, memories, and sometimes detailed recall of their cardiac arrest. What makes these experiences remarkable is that while studies of the brain during cardiac arrest have consistently that there is no brain activity during this period, these individuals have reported detailed perceptions that appear to indicate the presence of a high-level of consciousness in the absence of measurable brain activity.

These studies appear to suggest that the human mind and consciousness may in fact function at a time when the clinical criteria of death are fully present and the brain has ceased functioning. If these smaller studies can be replicated and verified through the definitive, large-scale studies of the Human Consciousness Project, they may not only revolutionize the medical care of critically ill patients and the scientific study of the mind and brain, but may also bear profound universal implications for our social understanding of death and the dying process.*nourfoundation.com/events/Beyond-the-Mind-Body-Problem/The-Human-Consciousness-Project.html

Also, “Founded in 1985, the** Nour Foundation **is a public charitable and nongovernmental organization in special consultative status to the United Nations Economic and Social Council. Through a multidisciplinary and integrative approach that blends the sciences and the humanities, the Foundation seeks to study and explore core principles and values that universally promote a greater spirit of mutual understanding, tolerance, and unity among human beings.”
nourfoundation.com/foundation.html

Now, as far as the previous topic I was on, I wish the person who asked me questions would read from the reputable link I provided. 😃 Learning is such great fun! 🙂
 
inocente said:
Looking around at different dictionaries, no - the mind is the part of us that thinks, and we know that the organ doing it is the brain. Some definitions of mind limit it to certain kinds of thinking, like consciousness, but it’s still the brain that does it unless we also want to include the rest of the nervous system.
LogisticsBranch;7495374:
Hello inocente.🙂 Here’s an excerpt from “The Human Consciousness Project” that is interesting. It’s from The Nour Foundation:

*Today, most scientists have adopted a traditionally monist view of the mind-brain problem, arguing that the human mind, consciousness, and self are no more than by-products of electrochemical activity within the brain, notwithstanding the lack of any scientific evidence or even a plausible biological explanation as to how the brain would lead to the development of mind and consciousness. This has led some prominent researchers, such as the late Nobel-winning neuroscientist Sir John Eccles, to propose a dualist view of the problem, arguing that the human mind and consciousness may in fact constitute a separate, undiscovered entity apart from the brain.

Contrary to popular perception, death is not a specific moment, but a well-defined process. From a biological viewpoint, cardiac arrest is synonymous with clinical death. During a cardiac arrest, all three criteria of clinical death are present: the heart stops beating, the lungs stop working, and the brain ceases functioning. Subsequently, there is a period of time—which may last from a few seconds up to an hour or longer—in which emergency medical efforts may succeed in resuscitating the heart and reversing the dying process. The experiences that individuals undergo during this period of cardiac arrest provide a unique window of understanding into what we are all likely to experience during the dying process.

In recent years, a number of scientific studies conducted by independent researchers have found that as many as 10-20 percent of individuals who undergo cardiac arrest report lucid, well-structured thought processes, reasoning, memories, and sometimes detailed recall of their cardiac arrest. What makes these experiences remarkable is that while studies of the brain during cardiac arrest have consistently that there is no brain activity during this period, these individuals have reported detailed perceptions that appear to indicate the presence of a high-level of consciousness in the absence of measurable brain activity.

These studies appear to suggest that the human mind and consciousness may in fact function at a time when the clinical criteria of death are fully present and the brain has ceased functioning. If these smaller studies can be replicated and verified through the definitive, large-scale studies of the Human Consciousness Project, they may not only revolutionize the medical care of critically ill patients and the scientific study of the mind and brain, but may also bear profound universal implications for our social understanding of death and the dying process.*
Click to expand...
nourfoundation.com/events/Beyond-the-Mind-Body-Problem/The-Human-Consciousness-Project.html

Also, “Founded in 1985, the** Nour Foundation **is a public charitable and nongovernmental organization in special consultative status to the United Nations Economic and Social Council. Through a multidisciplinary and integrative approach that blends the sciences and the humanities, the Foundation seeks to study and explore core principles and values that universally promote a greater spirit of mutual understanding, tolerance, and unity among human beings.”
nourfoundation.com/foundation.html

Now, as far as the previous topic I was on (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=527636&page=2), I wish the person who asked me questions would read from the reputable link I provided. 😃 Learning is such great fun! 🙂
Tonitz said:
Thanks for the link! Very interesting.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
My pleasure.🙂
 
inocente said:
Looking around at different dictionaries, no - the mind is the part of us that thinks, and we know that the organ doing it is the brain. Some definitions of mind limit it to certain kinds of thinking, like consciousness, but it’s still the brain that does it unless we also want to include the rest of the nervous system.
Click to expand...
My dictionary has nearly a half page devoted to “mind”. As far as I can tell, the dictionary only relates mind to humans and not to animals. :hmmm: (I do wish they would put some gray hair on that smilie.)

The next thing which catches my attention is that the output of the mind is described as thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination. Accordingly these are the manifestations of the human consciousness that originates in the brain.:confused: (What is with bald smilies!)

Being fair to all, my dictionary describes the “brain” as the portion of the vertebrate central nervous system etc. and then speaks about “2a Intellectual ability; mind: a dull brain.” :eek:

As long as I am in a cranky mood, in regard to your link “Mind Reading with Functional MRI” I prefer to read the original study. However, I do admit that this article, minus the title, is above the average media splash.

In any discussion regarding the spiritual mind and the physical brain, these kind of studies are produced to show that the mind is not spiritual and is part of the physical brain. The trick to demonstrating that humans have a mind which is spiritual is to examine the particular study for what is not included. Simply look for the missing information. Determining the side effects of the mechanical equipment used often helps locate the missing information.

I am not sure how to phrase this hint beyond saying that one should examine the realistic utility or the functional aspects of individual stimuli. “For example, when a person looks at a picture of a skier on a mountain, he can focus either on the skier in the foreground or on the mountain scenery in the background.” 8th paragraph, “Mind Reading with Functional MRI.” Obviously, knowing where and how the brain processes this visual information is extremely valuable during delicate brain surgery.
But this is different than looking through want ads to find a second hand pair of skies.
Does a person have to go back and have another MRI to verify that being unemployed is not the time to consider going to a ski resort for three weeks no matter how inviting was the picture of a skier on a mountain?

The difficulty with looking for missing information in a brain study, is knowing in general what one is looking for plus knowing what the indicators are. Bipolar electrodes in a brain mapping study would indicate missing information such as what happens when the bipolar electrode is not available for use as described in the study.

Again, obviously, knowing how and where the brain works is extremely valuable during delicate brain surgery. If the experiments involving MRI or bipolar electrodes provide needed information for medical applications, then the study is successful because of its accuracy. However, the same studies do not demonstrate that the spiritual mind is unnecessary for other kinds of living situations because the evidence/information needed for these other kinds of living situations is missing.

Blessings,
granny
:winter:
 
lemondiesel said:
It’s purpose is to run on algorithmic survival instincts, controlling our physical bodies to adapt to changes.
Click to expand...
That is a minute part of the “purpose” of the brain… Tell me something… Was it an “algorhythmic survival instict” (whatever that means) to type this response? Is it necessary to wonder about the heavens? Is it necessary to wonder about the brain? If yes, you gots some explaining to do. If not, then this is something inexplicable outside the Christian view. In defense of atheists, there are worthy attempts at explanations that fall short. They are clear, objective and rational but as an explanation, they miss most of the picture. Maybe one day there will be a satisfactory explanation. But it will leave out the “why” question. This is what anybody ultimatel cares about. Otherwise, there would be no “philosophy” section to any forum (if there were any forums at all, or even computers).
 
inocente said:
It’s a bit scarey/amazing where it’s going though, e.g.:

Scientists can accurately predict which of a thousand pictures a person is looking at by analyzing brain activity using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). The approach should shed light on how the brain processes visual information, and it might one day be used to reconstruct dreams. - technologyreview.com/biomedicine/20380/
Click to expand...
Thanks inocente. 🙂 An article from 2008 with some very notable scientists within the article. I’ll name a few.
  1. Ken Norman and his publications are located here:
    compmem.princeton.edu/?n=Main.Publications
    compmem.princeton.edu/publications/SFN07_eln_final.pdf
  2. Jack Gallant
    neuroscience.berkeley.edu/users/users_profile.php?id=12
Also the lastest that came out about fMRI:

Title: Compressive neural activity detection with fMR images using Graphical Model Inference
Author: Chuan Li, Qi Hao, Weihong Guo, Fei Hu

Address: Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA. ’ Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA. ’ Department of Mathematics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA. ’ Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA

Journal: International Journal of Computational Biology and Drug Design 2010 - Vol. 3, No.3 pp. 187 - 200

Abstract: In this paper, a neural activity detection framework using fMRI data is proposed. The framework consists of three stages: Prediction: Predicting regions of interest associated with an extraordinary amount of neural activities through Temporal Clustering Analysis (TCA). Modelling: Categorising fMRI signals related to neural activities into event prototypes through Linear Predictive Coding (LPC). Inference: Determining the types of neural activities in terms of activation, deactivation and normality through graphical model based Bayesian inference. The experiment results demonstrate the advantages of this approach in terms of computational cost and robustness against artefacts.
inderscience.com/search/index.php?action=record&rec_id=38024&prevQuery=&ps=10&m=or
 
GreggAlvarez said:
That is a minute part of the “purpose” of the brain… Tell me something… Was it an “algorhythmic survival instict” (whatever that means) to type this response? Is it necessary to wonder about the heavens? Is it necessary to wonder about the brain? If yes, you gots some explaining to do. If not, then this is something inexplicable outside the Christian view. In defense of atheists, there are worthy attempts at explanations that fall short. They are clear, objective and rational but as an explanation, they miss most of the picture. Maybe one day there will be a satisfactory explanation. But it will leave out the “why” question. This is what anybody ultimatel cares about. Otherwise, there would be no “philosophy” section to any forum (if there were any forums at all, or even computers).
Click to expand...
Satisfactory explanation? Why? Think Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
 
tonyrey said:
The remarkable success of science has led many people to believe it is the highest - or even the sole - form of knowledge. This implies that only material objects exist and our thoughts are produced by our brain. But our brain doesn’t know what it is doing or what is going to happen… So can it possibly be purposeful?
Click to expand...
The Pope has his Scientific Advisory Committee.😃 vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/index.htm

I think I’ve already explained the brain in previous messages.🙂 Hope it helps. Thank you.
tonyrey said:
How can anyone genuinely believe purposeful activity is produced by material objects?
They lack insight let alone foresight!
Click to expand...
Dear OP and considerate readers, I think I’ve already answered the question. Also, scientists have jobs, homes, cars, etc. The only thing I see is that over and over again there are members on the forum that wish to dominate many threads and wish to have the last say in the matter. Maybe this time I will have the honor.
 
grannymh said:
That is a minute part of the “purpose” of the brain… Tell me something… Was it an “algorhythmic survival instict” (whatever that means) to type this response? Is it necessary to wonder about the heavens? Is it necessary to wonder about the brain? If yes, you gots some explaining to do. If not, then this is something inexplicable outside the Christian view. In defense of atheists, there are worthy attempts at explanations that fall short. They are clear, objective and rational but as an explanation, they miss most of the picture. Maybe one day there will be a satisfactory explanation.
Click to expand...
I was talking about the atheist position. The godless position of the purpose of the brain. That perhaps there will be an atheistic explanation in the future that is satisfactory to us about the brain. Context is a wonderful thing. Notice the bold.
Click to expand...
 
GreggAlvarez said:
I was talking about the atheist position. The godless position of the purpose of the brain. That perhaps there will be an atheistic explanation in the future that is satisfactory to us about the brain. Context is a wonderful thing. Notice the bold.
Click to expand...
Yes. Context is very important. To me, the “activity” of the “mind” is physical; that is to say that when you “think” your brain physically processes what you are thinking and functionally arranges data in a manner that presupposes a rational viewer that has “knowledge” or can receive knowledge in a manner that is meaningful in terms of personal and social activity. But the “thoughts” and the “mind” itself are non-physical entities. The “activity of the mind” must be differentiated from the question of “what the mind is”. Thus the “self” cannot have activity, that is to think, without the functionality of the brain, and neither can the brain meaningfully think without the mind. Functionality and activity - without that which perceives - is not thinking and visa versa.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
Yes. Context is very important. To me, the “activity” of the “mind” is physical; that is to say that when you “think” your brain physically processes what you are thinking and functionally arranges data in a manner that presupposes a rational viewer that has “knowledge” or can receive knowledge in a manner that is meaningful in terms of personal and social activity. But the “thoughts” and the “mind” itself are non-physical entities. The “activity of the mind” must be differentiated from the question of “what the mind is”. Thus the “self” cannot have activity, that is to think, without the functionality of the brain, and neither can the brain meaningfully think without the mind. Functionality and activity - without that which perceives - is not thinking and visa versa.
Click to expand...
That is way to deep for me to even comprehend. I am not that smart. Heck, I am not even smart. I now have a headache.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top