This is a thread for asking big questions.

[More Than A Feeling]

Why is the world so messed up that some people think that it takes the unlimited power of an almighty god to set things right?

Why must we simultaneously need and fear other people, especially if they are different from us in some way?

Why are some people allowed to temporarily enrich their own lives by causing others to suffer?

Why are we committing collective suicide via global warming?

Your turn.

(This is in the R/T forum because I view religion as the practice of asking the biggest questions one can ask about life, the universe, and everything.)

[Radio_Lady]

1. My turn. Great questions. I wish I had answers. We are a tiny grain of sand in the universe.

Too bad we don't act as if we are. But the universe can exist very well even if we blow ourselves up with nuclear power. If God made Man as an experiment, I think He fluffed it.

And so I let others rattle our small cage with bluff and bluster. I am trying to remain calm in a sea of problems, listening to Taoist music, and thinking beautiful thoughts. A good Sunday evening to you all. Thanks for listening.

Next, please.

http://hubblesite.org/

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. My answers

I think the "messed up" is a part of the evolution of consciousness--every permutation, every possibility, must be tried out, created, so that consciousness grows. No judgement, no "good" no "evil" involved.

We do not need to fear others. With the tools at our disposal, it is easier than at any other time in history to learn about others. But with this has to come a respect for differences.

The people who are trying to enrich their lives at the expense of others are truly the poor ones, because for them, nothing is ever enough. They have not learned contentment, which, I believe, comes from within. Pir Zia Inyat Khan in a recent podcast stated that the two greatest threats to the world today are fundamentalism and materialism.

We are not doing anything about global warming because I really think that the big corporations are short sighted and really think they can wait until the last moment and then - bingo! - technology will somehow save them. But don't start doing anything now, not when there is soooo much money to be made from the old ways.

[cyborg_jim]

3. Consciousness grows?

What the hell does that even mean?

We are not doing anything about global warming because I really think that the big corporations are short sighted and really think they can wait until the last moment and then - bingo! - technology will somehow save them.

Of course corporations are short sighted! They are legally obliged to be profit orientated in order to serve their shareholders. It's nothing to do with thinking technology will solve things - the very nature of the system is short-sighted.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. If you do not understand my concept on the nature

of consciousness, you are very likely on a different path than I am. The opening post asked for our opinions and insights, and I gave mine. I will be very interested in reading yours.

[cyborg_jim]

7. Consciousness is the epiphenomial result of the functioning of our brains

So what do you mean by 'growth'?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. Consciousness is more than a brain function

in my concept of reality. There is consciousness in everything, and it is evolving, changing, in every moment.

I respect your concept of consciousness; mine is just different.

[cyborg_jim]

9. What does it mean to say a rock has consciousness?

I fail to see how your concept is helpful.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

16. Never been in a sweatlodge, have you?

If you had, you would know the answer.

Obviously, our experiences are very different from one another. As I said before, I believe this forum is merely for putting out different concepts and our individual answers to the questions raised. And once again I ask for your answers to the questions in the OP. I have no wish to debate you nor any desire to try and explain my position more than I have. I wish merely to hear your opinons and concepts about the OP.

[cyborg_jim]

17. How helpful.

You know we can't actually hope to discuss anything if you're going to make up new meanings for the words I'm using.

[Tormenta]

38. Defining terms

That's why it's better to start a discussion in these areas with an agreement on the definition of terms, to make sure everyone is on the same page. It's also better to accept the limitations of our understanding and to appreciate the possibility of insight happening in the dynamic of multiple participants.

[Evoman]

36. I have been is a sweatlodge. Several times in fact, and once after a pipe ceremony.

And I still don't know what the heck your talking about.

[Tormenta]

21. Did you mean "epiphenomenal"?

Although I see it more as consciousness using the brain as a tool.

[cyborg_jim]

22. Yes, goddamn spell checked that and still copied it wrong

That is a rather back to front approach - it seems to assume that consciousness would have substance if the brain wasn't there. Nothing we know about the functioning of the brain suggests that conclusion.

[Tormenta]

23. But...

...why would you use brain function to prove the existence of consciousness that is independent of it?

[cyborg_jim]

24. Eh?

The point is that one cannot conclude consciousness is a 'thing' with fundamental independent existence. Therefore one does not 'prove' or 'disprove' the existences of consciousness - it is more a description of a system that has certain properties than anything else, so it would be as meaningful to 'prove' it as it would be to 'prove' English.

[Tormenta]

25. This subject line thing is annoying.

So when you said, "Nothing we know about the functioning of the brain suggests that conclusion.", you weren't taking about "proving" the independent existence of consciousness? If not, then I apologize for my misinterpretation. I agree that it's pointless to try to prove it. There are many things we can't know or understand yet. It's quite enough to try to understand human consciousness, which we already know exists.

[cyborg_jim]

26. I don't think you are getting the point

Consciousness has the same amount of existence as English. Trying to understand it as a whole thing that has some fundamental existence is just ignoring the fact that it is really just a property of a system, just like English is a reciprocally defined communication system, not a thing you can pin down.

[Tormenta]

29. Reciprocal to what?

You can certainly study English...its origins, its history, its evolution, its rules. You can compare it to other languages. Perhaps you could explain your analogy a little more clearly, so that we mere mortals can understand you. Your claim that consciousness is "just a property of a system" is nothing more than your belief, since neither you nor I really know at this point in human evolution. I can respect your view, but mine is different (though maybe not so much as you think) and deserves equal respect.

[cyborg_jim]

31. Sigh

You can certainly study English...its origins, its history, its evolution, its rules. You can compare it to other languages. Perhaps you could explain your analogy a little more clearly, so that we mere mortals can understand you.

In what sense does English exist beyond those who use it and define it? It doesn't right?

English is reciprocally defined between its users.

In the same way it is a nonsense to say consciousness is something that exists and 'uses' the brain. That's like saying English uses us to express itself!

Your claim that consciousness is "just a property of a system" is nothing more than your belief, since neither you nor I really know at this point in human evolution.

Eh? It's not a belief - it's a fact. Consciousness is that which we ascribe as a property of a system displaying that quality. It is those who then give it a life and existence of its own separate from the brain that are presenting nothing more than their own beliefs.

We really do know an awful lot you know - one should not attempt to hide their own beliefs in the gaps and ignore what they are filling.

I can respect your view, but mine is different (though maybe not so much as you think) and deserves equal respect.

No, your view deserves as much respect as it merits as does any view.

I am not one for giving all views equal respect merely so no-one's feelings get hurt (mine included). This is a debate forum after all. If all views are equal then we might as well go home and give up.

[Tormenta]

33. Ah, the old condescending sigh...

In what sense does English exist beyond those who use it and define it? It doesn't right?

That's impossible to know. It's kind of a one dimensional question though. Wouldn't you have to get into the influence of higher intelligence, local planetary radiation, and all kinds of as yet unexplained phenomena?

In the same way it is a nonsense to say consciousness is something that exists and 'uses' the brain. That's like saying English uses us to express itself!

That's not exactly what I meant. These areas are difficult to articulate. I'm using "consciousness" in the sense of awareness and perception, the part of us that connects and interacts on a non-physical level. You can see it depicted in ancient Egyptian art and religious art, in some form or another, around the head. I don't believe that consciousness dies along with the brain.

Eh? It's not a belief - it's a fact. Consciousness is that which we ascribe as a property of a system displaying that quality. It is those who then give it a life and existence of its own separate from the brain that are presenting nothing more than their own beliefs.

Again, an individual's consciousness is not separate from the brain, but neither is it epiphenomenal. The brain is just an elaborate, computer-like electromagnetic processor. Human consciousness is still evolving. It's kind of the frontier of human evolution. We can't pretend to understand it, but we can try.

[cyborg_jim]

34. Sigh again then

That's impossible to know.

I think it is rather more sensible to assume English would cease to have any existence if no one knew of, or used, it. That is how languages - and gods - die. They are forgotten.

I'm using "consciousness" in the sense of awareness and perception, the part of us that connects and interacts on a non-physical level.

So am I, except the inescapable conclusion about consciousness is that it does not connect and interact, it is the product of such things already having occurred.

In what sense is there anything non-physical?

I don't believe that consciousness dies along with the brain.

Why not? You can totally alter conscious perception by manipulating the brain. What possible mechanism could there be for transplanting this ethereal thing? In what sense is it alive in the first place?

Again, an individual's consciousness is not separate from the brain, but neither is it epiphenomenal.

Care to give me a good reason to believe that?

Human consciousness is still evolving. It's kind of the frontier of human evolution. We can't pretend to understand it, but we can try.

I fail to see how one can parse 'consciousness' and 'evolving' in the same sentence. That doesn't really mean anything. What the hell does it mean to be at the 'frontier' of it? As far as I can tell we understand enough to make all those sentences gobbledegook.

[Tormenta]

37. What if?

I think it is rather more sensible to assume English would cease to have any existence if no one knew of, or used, it. That is how languages - and gods - die. They are forgotten.

Very true. My point was that there's so much we don't know about the factors involved in the origin of language, or of any human intelligence or creativity. For all we know there's a database in the Earth's electromagnetic field.

So am I, except the inescapable conclusion about consciousness is that it does not connect and interact, it is the product of such things already having occurred.

Would you prefer the word "mentality"? If it doesn't connect and interact, how are we even discussing this topic?

In what sense is there anything non-physical?

What color is consciousness? What does it smell like or feel like? I will agree that even light is fine matter, though.

Why not? You can totally alter conscious perception by manipulating the brain. What possible mechanism could there be for transplanting this ethereal thing? In what sense is it alive in the first place?

Certainly you can with hallucinogens, which I've never tried. They seem to prematurely unlock gateways to perception that the human isn't ready for yet. You can also do it with electrical stimulation. Everything works through electromagnetics, so there are other forms of electrical stimulation. Who said anything about transplanting it, though? And who says human consciousness is the only form of consciousness?

I fail to see how one can parse 'consciousness' and 'evolving' in the same sentence. That doesn't really mean anything. What the hell does it mean to be at the 'frontier' of it? As far as I can tell we understand enough to make all those sentences gobbledegook.

Do you think that the human is "finished", that we are no longer evolving? What about the abilities of autistic savants, for instance? Do you not think that there are abilities programmed into the human that we're not aware of yet?

[cyborg_jim]

45. We know enough

Very true. My point was that there's so much we don't know about the factors involved in the origin of language, or of any human intelligence or creativity. For all we know there's a database in the Earth's electromagnetic field.

We enough to know that is not the case.

Would you prefer the word "mentality"? If it doesn't connect and interact, how are we even discussing this topic?

Because although there is a persistent illusion that you and I are making a conscious choice to type on our keyboards, by the time we have 'decided' to strike the keys our hands were already receiving the motor signals necessary to carry out the 'decision'.

What color is consciousness? What does it smell like or feel like? I will agree that even light is fine matter, though.

No, light is not fine matter - I fail to see why you consider only matter physical but there we go. Most people have an utterly wrong conceptualisation of reality as far as physics goes.

The question was in what sense is there anything non-physical about consciousness - it's an entirely non-physical concept - the question I asked is in what sense is there a non-physical connection and interaction with the world. That demands physicality.

Certainly you can with hallucinogens, which I've never tried.

Ever been drunk?

They seem to prematurely unlock gateways to perception that the human isn't ready for yet.

If you want to get all mystical about it.

I prefer 'they mess up the brain chemistry and make it go haywire'. There's no perceptive gateways humans 'aren't ready for' there. I don't understand why people think it makes evolutionary sense for there to be hidden facets lying about waiting to be triggered when the far more likely explanation sits right there.

Everything works through electromagnetics, so there are other forms of electrical stimulation.

Not really. The brain is an electrochemical system, not an electromagnetic one.

Who said anything about transplanting it, though?

Well you seemed quite adamant that it would persist without a physical substrate.

And who says human consciousness is the only form of consciousness?

Not I, so I wonder why you bring it up.

Do you think that the human is "finished", that we are no longer evolving?

No and no.

What about the abilities of autistic savants, for instance? Do you not think that there are abilities programmed into the human that we're not aware of yet?

No, I think they give us insights into underlying brain mechanisms that we are otherwise unaware of. One must remember that the abilities of an autistic savant come at the price of a normal functioning human. Evolutionarily that's not a good thing.

We all have fantastic computational abilities locked up in that spongy brain but that doesn't mean that having conscious access to it is desirable, hidden or awaiting unlocking.

[Tormenta]

47. There's a whole lot we don't know.

We enough to know that is not the case.

Are you a flat-Earther?

Because although there is a persistent illusion that you and I are making a conscious choice to type on our keyboards, by the time we have 'decided' to strike the keys our hands were already receiving the motor signals necessary to carry out the 'decision'.

Who decided we wanted to type? Who put in the order for the motor signals? Or do you believe that humans are robots, receiving the signal for the order to type from something else that controls us? You can't separate consciousness from action.

No, light is not fine matter - I fail to see why you consider only matter physical but there we go. Most people have an utterly wrong conceptualisation of reality as far as physics goes.

It is in my definition of terms. So what is your definition of matter? What is physical without being matter? Isn't matter condensed energy, with varying degrees of density? I've never studied physics.

Ever been drunk?

Yes, but I thought we were talking about altering brain function to increase abilities in some areas, not diminish them.

I prefer 'they mess up the brain chemistry and make it go haywire'.

I can agree with that somewhat. But some people have incredible spiritual experiences. That doesn't sound like just the random result of scrambled brain chemistry.

There's no perceptive gateways humans 'aren't ready for' there. I don't understand why people think it makes evolutionary sense for there to be hidden facets lying about waiting to be triggered when the far more likely explanation sits right there.

While it's true that we can't say for sure that they exist, we also can't say for sure that they don't. Ever heard of Kundalini? That's just one example of an earlier culture describing evolving awareness.

We all have fantastic computational abilities locked up in that spongy brain but that doesn't mean that having conscious access to it is desirable, hidden or awaiting unlocking.

Why not? What is it there for then? Recently, one of the news programs (Primetime, I think) did a segment on people who are able to see colors with music. One girl is a pianist. They were otherwise normal people. Their brains function normally in every other way, but they have this one ability that is paranormal. They didn't find it disturbing. There is a lady in Australia who has an acute sensitivity to sound. She can tell by a person's voice whether they've had breakfast or not, whether they are ill, etc. She studied the sounds that newborn infants make and discovered five sounds that are universal. All infants make them, no matter what part of the world they're from. She wrote a book about it and has helped researchers who have spent years studying the cries of infants to no avail. There really are many examples of hidden abilities that could be desirable, once they are "unlocked". Maybe we'll see more and more of that.

[cyborg_jim]

48. No

Are you a flat-Earther?

No. The ironic thing of course that you are comparing me to people who believe in nonsense inspite of a lack of evidence for it and indeed evidence against it.

There is no sense in which the Earth's magnetic field can store information like a database and then impart that information into human minds - which seemed to be the implication. There's no mechanism I know of that would allow for such a scenario and certainly no information content to the Earth's magnetic field beyond that of orientation.

You can't just say, "oh well, we don't know everything so you have to admit it's possible," and expect me to accept that. That sort of reasoning is unhelpful - the whole point of science is the ability to predict and extrapolate. Making any old sort of extrapolation valid removes a very useful tool.

Who decided we wanted to type? Who put in the order for the motor signals?

There is no 'who'. That is the point - ego is an illusion that arises AFTER the decision has already been made.

No, an ego is not required for a decision making system.

Or do you believe that humans are robots, receiving the signal for the order to type from something else that controls us?

No. The 'belief' - or rather best available hypothesis - is that the idea that there is a central decision making ego is false. That is simply not how decisions are made in the mind - it is a parallel aggregation, not a central propagation.

You can't separate consciousness from action.

The point is we can and we have found that it is more accurate to say that action forms consciousness than the other way around.

It is in my definition of terms.

Damn it people what is wrong with using words to mean what they mean?

So what is your definition of matter? What is physical without being matter? Isn't matter condensed energy, with varying degrees of density? I've never studied physics.

Okay. You've never studied physics. That is fine. But would you please not tell the man who has he is wrong if you would have to readily admit you are ignorant on the matter?

The physical is simply all that is - energy, matter and the like are all physical things, hence physics to describe them. Your concept of matter as condensed energy probably comes from E=mc^2 but it is not really true. The problem is that when you start getting to the micro level you have to stop conceptualising these things in macro terms because it's just not like that, electrons aren't little balls orbiting nuclei, light has momentum but no mass, energy is in quanta etc... but this is all for another topic really.

Yes, but I thought we were talking about altering brain function to increase abilities in some areas, not diminish them.

I think the point was that consciousness is a product of brain function - clearly various levels of inebriation can demonstrate this.

I can agree with that somewhat. But some people have incredible spiritual experiences. That doesn't sound like just the random result of scrambled brain chemistry.

Well it is. Just because people choose to assign it a spiritual value doesn't mean there is any objective spirituality to it.

Cripes man! People find spirituality in toast! It's hardly surprising that people would find spiritual experiences from drugs that mess with the mind.

While it's true that we can't say for sure that they exist, we also can't say for sure that they don't.

I can say it's pretty bloody unlikely and that my hypothesis doesn't require some magical thinking about the human mind.

Ever heard of Kundalini? That's just one example of an earlier culture describing evolving awareness.

No. I fail to see the relevance though. If you agree that a flat-earth is a silly thing to believe then shouldn't we be working on evidence based on the mind rather than on people's opinions of it?

Why not? What is it there for then?

Do you have any idea just how much computation you are performing every waking second?

Most people don't. Most people think the math they do in school is hard computation. That's why AI researchers were so optimistic early on - computers do the math so well! - and then it started to become abundantly clear how much work there is behind the scenes to do tasks we consider mundane.

Recently, one of the news programs (Primetime, I think) did a segment on people who are able to see colors with music.

So? I mean really so what? Music doesn't actually have a colour to it.

Their brains function normally in every other way, but they have this one ability that is paranormal.

I fail to see how it is a paranormal ability - the brain is interpreting sound as colour. Weird but not in any sense impossible.

There is a lady in Australia who has an acute sensitivity to sound. She can tell by a person's voice whether they've had breakfast or not, whether they are ill, etc.

I am skeptical of the claims. Detecting illness in a voice is one thing but detecting whether or not someone has had breakfast? I see no reason for a causal relationship between breakfast and sound.

There really are many examples of hidden abilities that could be desirable, once they are "unlocked". Maybe we'll see more and more of that.

Since I am skeptical of these claims - and they are the sort of things I have seen debunked before - I will remain skeptical of the idea that there are abilities to unlock that are hidden. Weird things can happen when the mind is messed with. That is all.

[Tormenta]

49. Mental ping pong

There is no sense in which the Earth's magnetic field can store information like a database and then impart that information into human minds - which seemed to be the implication. There's no mechanism I know of that would allow for such a scenario and certainly no information content to the Earth's magnetic field beyond that of orientation.

Maybe we're using old tools.

There is no 'who'. That is the point - ego is an illusion that arises AFTER the decision has already been made. No, an ego is not required for a decision making system.

This is the first time that ego has been mentioned in the discussion. Can we go back to mentality and consciousness? You say that there is no "who". Then how? How is a decision made to send the signals to the brain to trigger the action? Are you saying that no consciousness of the situation is involved? That no assessment of the details is involved? That no memory of previous learning experience is called upon? That no thought is involved? Are you suggesting that everything is preprogrammed, but we just don't realize it?

Okay. You've never studied physics. That is fine. But would you please not tell the man who has he is wrong if you would have to readily admit you are ignorant on the matter?

I didn't. I just gave you my view. I'm also not trying to convince you of anything, and you should be suspicious of everything I say. I would consider you weak-minded if you weren't. So far you're doing well.

Physics seems fascinating, but I know nothing about it. If what is known so far in physics proves something, fine. If it doesn't, maybe it will someday.

We don't know a millionth of one percent about anything.
— Thomas Edison

I think the point was that consciousness is a product of brain function - clearly various levels of inebriation can demonstrate this.

It demonstrates that they are interactive. It doesn't prove that consciousness is a product of brain function, IMHV.

Well it is. Just because people choose to assign it a spiritual value doesn't mean there is any objective spirituality to it.

Well that begs the question, "What is objective spirituality?"

If you agree that a flat-earth is a silly thing to believe then shouldn't we be working on evidence based on the mind rather than on people's opinions of it?

You can't observe the mind from a satellite to prove its configuration. All we have about the mind is people's opinion of it, yours included. We know plenty about the brain on a physical level, and we have the conjecture of psychiatrists on the workings of the mind. That's about it.

Do you have any idea just how much computation you are performing every waking second?

No, I don't. No one does. I get your point, though, about not wanting to be conscious of everything the brain does. We'd be overwhelmed. That's where the automatic systems come in. I imagine that if we begin to be able to use more abilities of increased perception and sensitivity, the design will have a built in balance. If not, its a flawed design.

So? I mean really so what? Music doesn't actually have a colour to it.

You mean you can't see it. Music definitely does have related color frequencies. I knew that before I ever even heard about these people and their ability.

I fail to see how it is a paranormal ability - the brain is interpreting sound as colour. Weird but not in any sense impossible.

Their brains are interpreting sound as sound and color. Paranormal in the sense that it isn't normal for most people. I prefer it to abnormal in this case.

I am skeptical of the claims. Detecting illness in a voice is one thing but detecting whether or not someone has had breakfast? I see no reason for a causal relationship between breakfast and sound.

In all fairness, my few sentences are not a fair summary of her story. She's a pianist and former opera singer, who discovered as a child that she could hear a piece once and play it back note for note. She has a photographic memory for sound, an acute sensitivity to it. She hears nuances in it that most of us miss.

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. ---Bertrand Russell

[cyborg_jim]

53. Eh?

Maybe we're using old tools.

What?

This is the first time that ego has been mentioned in the discussion. Can we go back to mentality and consciousness?

We're not going back anywhere - this is the discussion.

You say that there is no "who". Then how? How is a decision made to send the signals to the brain to trigger the action? Are you saying that no consciousness of the situation is involved? That no assessment of the details is involved? That no memory of previous learning experience is called upon? That no thought is involved? Are you suggesting that everything is preprogrammed, but we just don't realize it?

No, I am not saying everything is 'pre' programmed - I have no idea how you got that. I am saying that the experience of a central decision making ego doesn't map to what we know of how the brain actually works. I'm saying that consciousness is a secondary and not a primary artefact. None of what you suggest follows from what I've said.

I didn't. I just gave you my view.

Why? Seriously.

You could have a view that the ocean's are made of treacle - why should I care that that is your view? It's pretty damn obvious. The point is that you are wrong - your view is irrelevant. It does not jive with reality.

Physics seems fascinating, but I know nothing about it. If what is known so far in physics proves something, fine. If it doesn't, maybe it will someday.

Ignorance is not a place to hide fantasy. One cannot argue knowledge from ignorance. You cannot demand that I entertain fantasy on the grounds that our collective ignorance may leave it a place to hide.

So when you propose ludicrous things that cannot happen I don't really care if you think they're 'possible'. I'm just telling you as plainly as possible why they sure as hell aren't going to get any more possible any time soon barring something monumentally upsetting to physics being discovered.

So no, the Earth's magnetic field doesn't contain a database. There are just so many ways in which that is wrong - only a universe of magic could allow it.

It demonstrates that they are interactive. It doesn't prove that consciousness is a product of brain function, IMHV.

Silly. Now you want to tell me there's a material-immaterial interaction based on...? Nothing suggests anything other than purely material.

Well that begs the question, "What is objective spirituality?"

Well that would be essentially what the 'spiritual' actually is. Personally I don't see it being anything more than what people want it to be making it non-existent.

All we have about the mind is people's opinion of it, yours included.

Wrong. So basically wrong it's not even funny.

We know plenty about the brain on a physical level, and we have the conjecture of psychiatrists on the workings of the mind. That's about it.

Again I must sigh.

You really don't know how much we do know. I really wish you'd stop revelling in ignorance. We have observational data for all sorts of aspects of the workings of the brain and how they affect us. All this data points towards the conclusion I've outlined. Why you like your own view so much that you want to pretend this isn't the case is beyond me.

No, I don't. No one does.

And again. We DO have an idea. I just outlined it! Why do you keep on insisting we don't know anything if you don't know what we know?

You mean you can't see it. Music definitely does have related color frequencies.

No, it really doesn't. One can map the perception of musical frequencies to the frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum but this doesn't mean music has a colour any more than because colour affects our moods colour HAS those moods. A -> B doesn't mean B -> A.

Their brains are interpreting sound as sound and color. Paranormal in the sense that it isn't normal for most people.

It's not paranormal - the word doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. Paranormal refers to psychic abilities and the like. This is clearly not normal but it is certainly not much of an ability either - it's just another case of the weird things that happen when the brain is wired up differently.

In all fairness, my few sentences are not a fair summary of her story. She's a pianist and former opera singer, who discovered as a child that she could hear a piece once and play it back note for note. She has a photographic memory for sound, an acute sensitivity to it. She hears nuances in it that most of us miss.

I still don't doubt that there are exaggerated claims even if she has good ears. That is not uncommon either.

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. ---Bertrand Russell

I see. I am stupid.

Well you try to teach people something about reality and they just don't like it.

[redqueen]

55. "Nothing suggests anything other than purely material."

I don't have the patience to read through all that back and forth, so I apologize if you have gone over this already... but I wanted to know if you were familiar with the scientific delineation of the terms "mind" and "brain".

I would also like to share the following quote with you, which I thought addressed your assertion which I quoted in my subject line above. What you think about it, and how it might relate to your views on this issue?

“It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive.”

[cyborg_jim]

57. Hell, you tell me what you understand

but I wanted to know if you were familiar with the scientific delineation of the terms "mind" and "brain".

That is easier.

The problem I have is when people start thinking that the mind is anything but an abstraction for a functioning brain. Show me a mind without a brain and I'll entertain the idea.

I would also like to share the following quote with you, which I thought addressed your assertion which I quoted in my subject line above. What you think about it, and how it might relate to your views on this issue?

It is no more valid to hide fantasy in ignorance than it is to hide fantasy in inability.

I suggest people who enjoy such exercises put their efforts into writing fantasy books and those of us who want to explain the world continue to do so based on what we know, rather than what we do not.

To tormenta:

Do you not think it is a little problematic that you have been spending your time disagreeing with me by appealing to ignorance rather than knowledge? Do you understand why what you are doing is unhelpful?

[redqueen]

60. Do you not agree, that looking back through history

that some things that were once considered "fantasy" are now reality? Medicine, psychological disorders, etc. And that these things were considered "fantasy" because they were not understood?

Do you really see human beings as analogous to robots, controlled by chemical interactions?

[cyborg_jim]

63. Can you give me a reason why we are not?

Do you really see human beings as analogous to robots, controlled by chemical interactions?

If that's what we are that is what we are. No use getting upset about it.

that some things that were once considered "fantasy" are now reality? Medicine, psychological disorders, etc. And that these things were considered "fantasy" because they were not understood?

Medicine has been considered fantasy? I think you could find some better examples - General Relativity for example. Of course it just reinforces my point about arguing from knowledge since nobody accepted General Relativity on someone's say so.

Either way what is the point? I have to entertain every possible fantasy based on ignorance? I doubt either you or Tormenta would seriously do so - or I don't know, maybe you do seriously entertain every bit of crank nonsense out there.

[redqueen]

70. Are you upset? I'm not upset... I'm only asking...

The point is that IMO it's counterproductive to start off with the attitude or mindset that you already understand things completely.

[cyborg_jim]

74. It is equally unhelpful to pretend we know nothing and argue from ignorance

I am not engaging in either fallacy.

[redqueen]

77. I didn't imply we know nothing.

Where did you get that from?

[cyborg_jim]

80. It is the only argument I have seen

[redqueen]

83. We don't know everything = we know nothing?

Seriously?

[cyborg_jim]

86. That is the general gist

[redqueen]

89. Are you referring to something someone else said? N/t

[cyborg_jim]

91. Possibly

But I have not really seen a difference in modus operandi between you and Tormenta.

[redqueen]

93. "Modus operandi"?

Okay...

[Evoman]

64. The irony is killing me.

The reason people didn't believe in medecine and physchological disorders is because they did not understand the brain. I.e. they attributed disease to demons or problems with the soul, instead of those "chemical interactions". Instead of medicine, they has exorcisms. Understanding chemical interactions and the brain, lead to the idea of psychological disorders.

In fact, I think psych disorders are the BIGGEST argument against souls.

[redqueen]

68. So would you say that nobody is responsible for their actions?

Because we're all controlled by our chemical makeup?

[cyborg_jim]

69. I am not going down this route

Because it's irrelevant.

Look, I've just stated the known facts. I am not going to make any further philosophical conclusions about it especially not when I see a big ass fallacy coming my way.

[redqueen]

71. That is a matter of opinion. n/t

[cyborg_jim]

73. No, it is not

Look, if you've got nothing why not just do the honourable thing and say, "well I understand what you are saying but I don't agree but I don't actually have any evidence for my viewpoint so now I've presented it I know I don't have to keep repeating it because you understood it the first time but won't find any merit to it until I can come back and support it with something rather than an insistance you entertain it based on ignorance". Damn, at what point do you think I'm going to be convinced by nothing?

Otherwise you are just weasling behind that nonsense of, "well, it's just your opinion," as if reality could give a crap.

[redqueen]

76. So it's irrelevant, because you say so?

Okay.

[cyborg_jim]

78. Okay, you tell me why it is relevant

If I answer 'yes, we're still responsible', did the way our brains work change?

If I answer 'no, we're not', did the way our brains work change?

[redqueen]

81. You're asking that

as if the exploration of an idea is meant to prove or disprove something.

If you're only here for scientific-type discussion, why choose this forum?

[cyborg_jim]

85. If you are actually interested in an answer

I will give it. However such a question is usually followed later by stating that the person finds the answer distasteful and would rather believe otherwise. It wouldn't be the first time.

[redqueen]

88. Yes, I am curious.

I think you can probably already tell we are going to disagree... but there is no reason I would take that as a personal affront. Is that what you expect?

[cyborg_jim]

90. No, it's more the case that

If you want to argue about decision making and such in the brains then the philosophical consequences one might impose about any particular conclusion don't have any bearing on the observation.

Yes, we are still responsible - by definition. We just understand HOW we are responsible better.

[Tormenta]

95. Excellent quote!

“It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive.”

Thanks for sharing it. Do you know whose it is?

[redqueen]

96. C. W. Leadbeater

My pleasure! :)

[Tormenta]

92. Oh dear

I appear to have upset you and provoked you to use ad hominem attacks. Just a few questions and observations, though.

1. If you don't care about my view, why are you still reading my posts?
2. Why did you bring ego into the equation, when what we were talking about was consciousness?
3. I'm still left wondering how you think a decision is made to send the signals to the brain to trigger an action if conscious choice isn't involved.

4. You said, "You really don't know how much we do know. I really wish you'd stop revelling in ignorance. We have observational data for all sorts of aspects of the workings of the brain and how they affect us." That's exactly what I said, that we know a lot about brain function.

5. If you look more closely at what I wrote about music and color frequencies, it doesn't conflict with your reply at all.

6. I'm using the dictionary definition of "paranormal", which is Beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation.

7. The Bertrand Russell quote was not an attempt to call you stupid. I certainly would never do that, and you are far from stupid (unlike me). I saw it as a reminder to us to not be so damned sure of anything.

[cyborg_jim]

94. Point out an ad hominem

Because I don't think you know what it means.

1. You didn't understand the point. I know you have a view. You don't have to keep repeating this as if I'll go, "oh, it's your VIEW, I didn't realise before, sorry".
2. You don't see the relationship here?
3. As I said, parallel aggregation, not central propagation. That is to say decisions arise to from across the brain and the aggregate of this is action, they do not start in some 'center' and then fan-out.
4. Then why are you arguing from ignorance?
5. No it does. You seem to see some sort of fundamental relationship here. I can create any mapping I want from musical frequency to em frequency - colour sure as hell doesn't operate in the frequencies we hear at.
6. Then as I said it's not paranormal. It's sure not beyond the explanation of science.
7. Again I must ask why you have to argue from ignorance? Why do you have your view if there's nothing to support it? Do you or do you not understand the basic fallacy you are engaging in?

[Tormenta]

99. Last try

Ok, I won't argue about whether calling my ponderings ludicrous and silly is a personal attack. Maybe that's your modus operandi. You did seem very angry in your last post, though.

1. Let's drop that one.
2. No
3. I assume those are terms from physics that you already know I'm not familiar with. I'm still trying to figure out exactly how you think it works without conscious choice. I always hope to learn something new and fine tune my understanding from these kinds of discussions. But I will modify my statement to say that the brain and the mentality/consciousness work as a whole. I still do not see how the brain can generate consciousness, and I still think that consciousness continues after the death of the brain. I'm still looking for a better way to express the way I understand it at this point, in my pitifully small way.
4. Agreeing with you is arguing from ignorance? Well, yes it is. Whether we agree or disagree, we're both arguing from a little knowledge and a lot of ignorance.
5. I guess it boils down to why and how music and color affect our moods. You see no relationship between music and color. That doesn't mean there isn't one. I keep coming back to that point and wondering about the arrogance of science sometimes. Why is it so difficult to imagine that more will be learned about the relationships of electrical frequencies?
6. I put the word "or" in bold for a reason. But if science can explain it, perhaps you'd like to tell us exactly how that anomaly in the brain works that permits a person to see colors with music.
7. See #4. And unlike you, I'm not claiming to be right about anything. This is the point where I am at the moment. I modify each time I learn something or have an insight (where does that come from, by the way?). I don't think anything I've said is beyond the realm of possibility, even if it doesn't fit with your criteria for informed argument.

[cyborg_jim]

102. Ad hominem is not a personal attack

It is to attack the man and declare his arguments void based on that. I have not done so.

2. Okay, then what the hell do you actually think consciousness is?
3. No, those are not physics terms. They are just my attempt at trying to explain the fundamental difference in the role of consciousness in decision making from what you understand. The point is that what you perceive as a conscious decision is, in effect, the end result of a battle in your mind by various brain regions to reach a decision and by the time you perceive making a decision you are already carrying it out. That is why it is such a problem to say you make a 'conscious' choice because the 'conscious' part appears to be occurring after the choice is made.
And your belief that consciousness has some sort of post-death persistence confuses me as to what you actually think consciousness is.
Why is the brain insufficient?
4. Your whole objection to my argument is that I am not allowing for possibilities that are simply not warranted based on what we currently know and are not even plausible without some major upset in what we do understand. I don't see why I should.
5. I see no intrinsic relationship and indeed I can visualise constructing myriad relationships. Why is it so difficult to wait until you have information that says otherwise before criticising my argument? Again I must point out we know enough to know that music and em are quite different beasts.
6. Pretty much the same way the brain permits a person to see colour with electromagnetic radiation I would guess.
7. Again, this is argument from ignorance. I am basing my arguments on knowledge. Therefore there is no way you are going to get me to change my mind based on the objection that I am not allowing for other possibilities. The things you have said are certainly beyond the realm of possibility - based on what we know, not on what we do not. How the hell am I supposed to base anything on what we don't know? Would you be happier if I threw out wild conjecture at you?

Where do you think insight comes from? My answer is obvious: the brain.

[Tormenta]

105. Ok, I lied.

Why is it so difficult to wait until you have information that says otherwise before criticising my argument?

I could ask you the same question. Although I'm not criticizing your argument, just your refusal to accept that new understanding may prove it to be otherwise.

6. Pretty much the same way the brain permits a person to see colour with electromagnetic radiation I would guess.

You would guess? I thought science could explain it. I agree with that, although there's more than the brain involved, IMHV. So you have no problem with people claiming to see auras? What if there are finer color frequencies, undetectable by current instruments?

Therefore there is no way you are going to get me to change my mind based on the objection that I am not allowing for other possibilities.

I'm not trying to get you to change your mind about how you perceive things. I'm just suggesting that you can't be so sure, in spite of what science says now.

Where do you think insight comes from? My answer is obvious: the brain.

That can't be proven.

[cyborg_jim]

108. New understanding could

About what?

I could ask you the same question.

You could but then you haven't provided any explanations for your conclusions whatsoever.

Although I'm not criticizing your argument, just your refusal to accept that new understanding may prove it to be otherwise.

But it is unlikely based on everything we know. New explanations have to explain what we've already know too - they can't just ignore it.

You would guess? I thought science could explain it.

I don't understand why you would think it would be vastly different to perceive sound as colour from perceiving em radiation as colour. Neither of these things are really like our perceptions of them.

I agree with that, although there's more than the brain involved, IMHV.

Like what?

So you have no problem with people claiming to see auras?

You mean besides the fact that what they claim to see doesn't have any objective evidence for existence?

What if there are finer color frequencies, undetectable by current instruments?

Eh? There's an infinite amount of frequencies but we're only sensitive to three. I don't really see what you're saying here.

I'm just suggesting that you can't be so sure, in spite of what science says now.

I can be entirely sure of the observed facts - that is why they are facts. The alternative conclusion you present is not viable because the facts cannot fit it. Science tends to smooth out understanding rather than jar it about the place.

That can't be proven.

Oh, and why exactly do you say that?

[Tormenta]

122. Can you?

You could but then you haven't provided any explanations for your conclusions whatsoever.

No, I haven't. They're more speculations than conclusions, though, which I've come to because of life experiences that I can't explain away. But then you haven't provided any either, other than to say that science proves or disproves this or that. If asked, you would not be able to explain how the mind works. It's still one of the mysteries.

I don't understand why you would think it would be vastly different to perceive sound as colour from perceiving em radiation as colour.

I'm not completely sure what you're saying here. I don't think it's vastly different. It seems perfectly logical to me. But it's extremely unusual for humans to perceive it that way now. How do we know, though, whether it's the result of abnormal brain function or human ability that is built into the design, but not used? We don't know.

Like what?

Intelligence

You mean besides the fact that what they claim to see doesn't have any objective evidence for existence? (auras)

What are auras but the em radiations that result from all the physical, emotional, psychological and spiritual processes going on in the human complex?

There's an infinite amount of frequencies but we're only sensitive to three. I don't really see what you're saying here.

Maybe, through evolution, we'll be sensitive to more.

Oh, and why exactly do you say that?

Can you?

[cyborg_jim]

124. That's what I've been doing

No, I haven't. They're more speculations than conclusions, though, which I've come to because of life experiences that I can't explain away. But then you haven't provided any either, other than to say that science proves or disproves this or that. If asked, you would not be able to explain how the mind works. It's still one of the mysteries.

I've been explaining how the damn mind works! It is a chemical computer!

Again I just cannot fathom why you keep on insisting we don't know what we do know.

I'm not completely sure what you're saying here. I don't think it's vastly different. It seems perfectly logical to me. But it's extremely unusual for humans to perceive it that way now. How do we know, though, whether it's the result of abnormal brain function or human ability that is built into the design, but not used? We don't know.

How is perceiving music as colour an 'ability'? That would imply some utility.

We are not designed. There are not hidden facets waiting to be uncovered - I still cannot fathom why you think things would work that way. What we instead get is an insight into how the brain works based on the incidents where odd things happen. We have learnt a lot about consciousness from the victims of strokes and such.

Intelligence

Intelligence is something beyond the brain? Eh? Do you think intelligence is some floating thing that gets captured by brains or what? I must again ask why you think matter is insufficient.

What are auras but the em radiations that result from all the physical, emotional, psychological and spiritual processes going on in the human complex?

Erm, if such em radiation was being really detected by people we would be able to build machines to detect and confirm that also - we have about a bazillon different types of machines that do that. The fact that the claims of people who say they can see auras do not fit with such a hypothesis leads me to conclude something rather more mundane:

They are making it up. You know, like horoscopes.

Maybe, through evolution, we'll be sensitive to more.

Yes, that is certainly possible and other organisms have better eyesight than we do. But that doesn't make any of the other claims more valid because we could certainly know for certain if anyone was actually sensitive to more than red, green and blue because - guess what? - we already know how people see that radiation! Such a claim could be investigated! Science eh?

Can you?

Certainly, once you get past the idea that insight comes from some far off place and you start to understand that the way the brain work is association insight becomes nothing more than the end result of the brain doing its job and attempting to formulate associations.

I don't think it's odd in any way that insight tends to follow from experience.

[Tormenta]

128. The last wheeze

I've been explaining how the damn mind works! It is a chemical computer!

The brain is a chemical computer. But even if you equate the mind with the brain, what you've given is a description, not an explanation of how it works.

Again I just cannot fathom why you keep on insisting we don't know what we do know.

I just cannot fathom why you think I do.

We have learnt a lot about consciousness from the victims of strokes and such.

From what I understand, consciousness is usually the same, but the ability to communicate is impaired because of the brain damage. The required electrical signals are short circuited.

We are not designed.

If atheism is your belief system.

Erm, if such em radiation was being really detected by people we would be able to build machines to detect and confirm that also - we have about a bazillon different types of machines that do that.

"640K is all you'll ever need in a personal computer."

Yes, that is certainly possible and other organisms have better eyesight than we do. But that doesn't make any of the other claims more valid because we could certainly know for certain if anyone was actually sensitive to more than red, green and blue because - guess what? - we already know how people see that radiation! Such a claim could be investigated! Science eh?

Do you seriously believe I'm knocking science? I'm not. What if there are coarse and fine ends of the bar of em frequencies? What if the machines that exist aren't sensitive enough to detect the finer ends?

I don't think it's odd in any way that insight tends to follow from experience.

I don't either. And I don't think insight comes from "a far off place".

Please see #127.

I wish you well.

[cyborg_jim]

130. I hate it when people respond with no intention of continuing

Why not just go away and leave me and huff and puff about me not 'getting it' or whatever? What does it accomplish to answer and then leave?

The brain is a chemical computer. But even if you equate the mind with the brain, what you've given is a description, not an explanation of how it works.

The explanation is that at the most basic level chemistry controls the firing of neurons in the brain that interact with each other and control each other's firings.

From what I understand, consciousness is usually the same, but the ability to communicate is impaired because of the brain damage. The required electrical signals are short circuited.

Then you have not seen the most interesting cases:

People who lack the ability to distinguish faces.
People who lack the ability to distinguish animals.
People who lack the ability to conceptualise mirrors.

And so on. There is no sense in which consciousness has remained the same here. People have had their cognition radically affected.

So again I go back to my original point is that your hypothesis requires we disregard what we know and assume something we don't know makes it more likely than mine. I could play that game as well, and I bet I could come up with far more imaginative and whacked out ideas than the best nutter.

If atheism is your belief system.

If atheism is my belief 'system' it means I don't believe in gods.

The fact that we are not designed stems from the scientific knowledge of evolution and my engineering experience - not from an opinion on deities. It is an engineering opinion.

"640K is all you'll ever need in a personal computer."

Misquote, misunderstanding and irrelevant.

You may have a spooky conceptualisation of em if you want. The facts are we know the mechanisms by which we can experience em radiation - the idea that auras are similar radiation is debunked because they do not express themselves like we'd expect.

I don't know why you think the universe is trying to trick us by providing tricksy em radiation that is poorly behaved and can only be detected by people with spooky abilities to detect it. Do you really think that's plausible?

Do you seriously believe I'm knocking science? I'm not. What if there are coarse and fine ends of the bar of em frequencies? What if the machines that exist aren't sensitive enough to detect the finer ends?

This is not the case. Lay your what ifs to rest - frequency detection is bandwidth, not notch. It is just not possible for frequencies to hide in that manner. Why do you persist in insisting I entertain otherwise? It is not an explanation for auras! It is debunked! Try something else! You've already said you don't know physics!

I don't either. And I don't think insight comes from "a far off place".

But you seem to be insisting that it cannot be explained by physical phenomena.

[TRYPHO]

5. OK, here's a couple of big one's..

Why can't people be happy <NOW>, when they have <nearly> everything, just not quite everything?

Why can't people find happiness in their lives <NOW>, and not think happiness is something that will come tomorrow when they have x?

Why do people think that THINGS will make them content and not understand that contentment comes from within not without?

By the way I'm talking about my wife here :-)

TRYPHO

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. Because striving for happiness gives some room in case of accident, perhaps?

Maybe being happy is a bit like being well-fed: we could be content with a life that gives us the basics - health, children - but there's the possibility that something might go wrong, beyond our control, so we have to strive for a little bit more comfort, to give us leeway for when a storm hits us. Evolutionarily, that could be a good way to be - to 'keep yourself on your toes', so to speak. The similarity I see is with how much a lot of people eat - we have a tendency to eat a bit more that strictly required to keep us healthy, so that it we hit some hard times, we have some reserves of fat to fall back on. The trouble is that a sedentary lifestyle can mean that excess just builds up. And our natural condition of wanting a little bit more of material goods is having consequences for the environment, when there's so many of us at that state.

[cyborg_jim]

20. Law of unintended consequences

The fact is that the same pleasure mechanisms that lead us to perform actions that are 'good' can fail to prevent us going into excesses. Evolution builds mechanisms that are 'good enough' not 'perfect'. The masses being able to eat to excess is, after all, a pretty recent phenomena - one would have to assume that if it were detrimental enough to those people whose genetics make them susceptible to such obsessive behaviours for a long enough time such that evolution could take its course then that would be self-rectifying. The basic problem of course being that these changes have happened in such a short space of time and are having such a profound effect that that it is unlikely any such self-correction will occur in a time frame short enough to rectify the damage.

[cyborg_jim]

6. Meh

Why is the world so messed up that some people think that it takes the unlimited power of an almighty god to set things right?

Well it's an easy answer for one thing.

Why must we simultaneously need and fear other people, especially if they are different from us in some way?

Because we simultaneously need to construct social groups for survival and compete with other social groups for supremacy. We have a tribalistic nature. Differences are easy markers to identify those who are not part of the tribe.

Why are some people allowed to temporarily enrich their own lives by causing others to suffer?

Allowed?

Why are we committing collective suicide via global warming?

One might make an analogy and ask why someone would commit suicide by smoking cigarettes. Clearly one does not smoke to commit suicide: it is slow and ineffective.

[toddaa]

10. Is nihilism really such an awful thing?

The universe is huge. Incomprehensibly huge. From where we are, we can see that the known universe is 96 billion light years in diameter. And that's just the visible part. It may be even larger and its still not certain if it is even finite or even if its the only one. And its expanding. If it keeps expanding all sources of energy will soon be so distant that the universe will finally reach a state of maximum entropy. A state of absolute zero.

The universe is also old. Incomprehensibly old. 14 billion years old. The average human lives less than one hundred years. 100/1.4x10^10 ~= 7.14x10^-9 in historical significance. Think of all the major names of human history and in a million years, it is highly probable that no one will remember anything about them, and even more likely there will be no one around to even try to remember. You and I will have even less significance. Just fossils on a tiny planet that no one cares about.

Before we were born, we did not exist. For billions of years, you and I were nothing. When we die, our bodies will decompose and we will go back to nothing. In a billion years, it will be as if we never existed. Life is nothing more than a momentary flash of electrochemical reactions that produce an illusion of consciousness and then we go back to nonexistence.




Just wrapping my mind around all of that and how completely insignificant I am, you would think I would be totally depressed. But I am not.

I am liberated.

Death is liberation. Nihilism is freedom.

[TRYPHO]

11. Hold on a second...

The universe is huge. Incomprehensibly huge. From where we are, we can see that the known universe is 96 billion light years in diameter . And that's just the visible part.
....cut....The universe is also old. Incomprehensibly old. 14 billion years old.

From my limited understanding that Stephen Hawkins and Bill Bryson have given me, I thought if the universe was 14 Billion years old (I wouldn't argue much about that), then the maximum size of the Universe from any point would be 28 billion light years.

Correct me if I'm wrong please.

TRYPHO

[trotsky]

12. Here's an article.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html

They actually estimate the diameter of the universe to be even larger - 156 billion light-years. But then they explain why.

[TRYPHO]

32. Fantastic!!

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_04...

They actually estimate the diameter of the universe to be even larger - 156 billion light-years. But then they explain why.

I understand! And now I have to sleep for three months to let my brain expand to the required capacity to cope :-)

TRYPHO

[toddaa]

13. Relativity is a bitch to comprehend

Space is curved and expanding. The light may have traveled some 14 billion light years to get to us, but as it traveled, the universe kept expanding. Wrap your brain around that.

[redqueen]

56. Nihilism comes in different flavors...

some aren't so bad, some are downright toxic.

:hi:

[varkam]

14. Q & A

Why is the world so messed up that some people think that it takes the unlimited power of an almighty god to set things right?

I think the fact that the world is so messed up is one of the stronger arguments that there is no god or, at least, not a loving one.

Why must we simultaneously need and fear other people, especially if they are different from us in some way?

The way I see it, the emotion of fear and the state of being afraid are two different things. We all experience fear, but the state of being afraid (e.g. fearing others) is a choice. I think many people choose to be afraid because it is easier than to go forward with serenity. I think many people choose to give into the fear that comes from the unknown because that is easier than to try and understand things that are alien to us. In short, we like to take the easy way out.

Why are some people allowed to temporarily enrich their own lives by causing others to suffer?

Good question. I wish I had an answer.

Why are we committing collective suicide via global warming?

I think many of us, myself included, assume that "someone else will do it". Someone else will take the bus instead of drive to work. Someone else will change their light bulbs. Someone else will buy a hybrid car - when none of us who are saying someone else will actually are. It's essentially the bystander effect, but on a massive scale. At least that's part of the problem as I see it.

Now, I have some questions.

Is there a god?

Is there an objective meaning to life?

Why don't people see that the only thing violence produces is more violence?

Why is the notion of separation of church and state so hard for some people to understand?

Why hasn't President Bush been impeached yet?

Why is god so bad with money?

[redqueen]

58. My take on yours:

Is there a god?

I say yes... however, defining or understanding such a thing is beyond our capacity.


Is there an objective meaning to life?

Yes... to survive. (That seemed too easy... perhaps I misread?)


Why don't people see that the only thing violence produces is more violence?

Tradition. They have been taught to expect that it solves problems, and they enjoy the status quo, or don't want to admit that they were wrong.


Why is the notion of separation of church and state so hard for some people to understand?

Because a group of people with ulterior motives have worked very hard to muddy those waters, and have made much progress these past couple decades.


Why hasn't President Bush been impeached yet?

God only knows! ;)


Why is god so bad with money?

Huh? :shrug:

[cyborg_jim]

61. Then how can you say you believe it exists

I say yes... however, defining or understanding such a thing is beyond our capacity.

I don't get it. Inherently paradoxical BTW: you have defined god.

[redqueen]

67. Semantics?

I meant define as in to spell out clearly and neatly where such a thing would come from, how it might be organized, what it's intentions are, etc.

I cay say that I belive it exists because I can look at a creature like a portugese man o war and conceive that the different parts of such a creature may not be conscious of the existence of the other parts of it's colony... so I can imagine that such a thing might be possible with other creatures as well.

[cyborg_jim]

72. Right

I cay say that I belive it exists because I can look at a creature like a portugese man o war and conceive that the different parts of such a creature may not be conscious of the existence of the other parts of it's colony... so I can imagine that such a thing might be possible with other creatures as well.

So you are defining god to be a colony creature?

[redqueen]

75. No...

Only theorizing on how organisms in a complex sysstem might be completely unaware of the 'big picture' system that they themselves are a part of, if you will.

[cyborg_jim]

82. So

You conceive god as a big organism that doesn't know what it is.

[redqueen]

84. No...

I conceive us as parts of something larger that do not understand what that larger thing is.

[cyborg_jim]

87. Then you seem to be making god synonymous for 'everything'

Can't really argue that doesn't exist I suppose.

[redqueen]

98. Not saying it's synonymous...

only that such things are surely possible... and we don't know one way or the other.

[Random_Australian]

15. Random_Australian! A & Q!

1) Why is the world so messed up that some people think that it takes the unlimited power of an almighty god to set things right?

These are two seperate things.

1A) Why is the world so messed up?

Well, just thinking about this in terms of something I intend to bomb R/T with, it's because we simply haven't managed to work out and transmit the solution.

The reason why we were set on that course in the first place, I think, is because of attributes that were helpful to us as we came to be as a species, but react with our current social structures in an unfavourable manner.

The short, short answer is that we have not yet taught the world that other people are, in fact, people. (By we, I mean humankind)

1B) Why do people think there needs to be some higher power to fix it?

Simple - they trialed a number of hypothetical solutions and they did not work. All of them. This was inducted to mean that no solution could work. The end.

2) Why must we simultaneously need and fear other people, especially if they are different from us in some way?

The thing about differences is that they can be accepted as triggers for heuristics. In other words, people for 'implicit associations', that is, automatic assumptions, about people who are different from them.

Also, note that this is much the same as the answer to 1), that is, we have not yet taught the world that people who appear different to us are fundamentally the same.

3) Why are some people allowed to temporarily enrich their own lives by causing others to suffer?

Because we want to be able to do the same thing..... well, at least enough of us to keep the status quo. It's quite seductive, I hear, the promise of riches.

Also, sometimes it is simply an extension of a process which is for the common good. (ie. sometimes there are processes which we think will do more good than harm, yet there is still some harm... ie. some people will suffer)

4) Why are we committing collective suicide via global warming?

There are a couple of main reasons.

A) Acknowledging that this is happening is scary. People would like to keep it at arms length.

B) Large groups of people associate some modicum of care for the environment with something contrary to their identity.... for instance, people with the attitudes "buying a small car is for tree-hugging hippies"

C) Misinformation campaigns.


*********************************************************

My question: Which is more important - (in the hypothetical case that a religion claims to be the one true religion) - letting people of that religion have their religion as is, or teaching people that practically all religious views are equal?

[bryant69]

19. Is understanding others even possible?

Or worthwhile?

Bryant

[toddaa]

27. Solipsist

;)

[Zhade]

28. Why are humans so arrogant that they think omnipotent gods would care one whit about them?

NT!

[toddaa]

30. Same reason they think aliens want to study our anuses

[TallahasseeGrannie]

35. My question is what is in in humans

that encourages...even demands...we examine these issues? And I wonder if any animals do at all, but do not have the language to talk about it?

[Tormenta]

39. That's a very good question.

Why have we pondered these questions throughout our existence on the planet? I think we would have seen the evidence, if animals did the same thing. Does this mean that some aspect of us is beyond planetary level? Are we transponders for something else?

A transponder is a wireless communications, monitoring, or control device that picks up and automatically responds to an incoming signal.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

40. If you watch as much Star Trek as I do

(I live with a Trekkie) it raises all SORTS of possibilities!

[Tormenta]

41. Interesting

I wasn't thinking along those lines at all. B-) I've never seen a single episode of Star Trek. I was really referring to the Unseen World, which is equally open for ridicule from many people.

[TRYPHO]

42. Never seen a single episode of Star Trek?

I've never seen a single episode of Star Trek

Forget everything you think you know, and just pray the Borg never get here :-)

And a BIG hello and welcome to you in the DU and R/T

TRYPHO

[TallahasseeGrannie]

44. Ah, the Borg

is, I think, the most compelling concept ST has come up with.

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!

But my husband is WAY too fond of Seven of Nine.

[Tormenta]

46. Thank you

You're very kind. :)

I don't know what the Borg is, though.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

43. I love Deep Space and Voyager

not so much the other ones. There are many similarities, I think.

But then I am also a firm believer in things unseen, and cheerfully endure the ridicule. If people can't laugh at you for something, that's rather sad!

[Evoman]

50. Is it really a human need to examine issues and gain knowledge?

Or is it just some of us. Everytime I hear somebody remark about the human need to explore and understand and expand knowledge, I always think to myself...uh no. I find that most people (maybe some 70 or 80 percent) are neither intellectually nor spiritually curious. Human beings, contrary to popular belief, are not curious...not even much more curious that animals. Everytime I make some noise by my hamsters cage, he does one of two things

1)If its my voice or a soft noise, he gets curious and he comes and investigates the noise. He will sniff through his bars until I put my finger close, or until he sees me. Then he no longer seems curious

2)If its a loud, sudden noise, he runs and hides. He doesn't care what it is, he is just scared.

But is a human being much different? Most people I come across could care less when I explain scientific studies. Many people accept what their church tells them, and don't REALLY question anything. And when they do, its usually about control...even the new age people are like this. Why do they want to see Aura's or heal with crystals...control. Control over the scarier aspects of life. Control over other people. Control of their environment. Not curiosity, control. Even science, to a large degree, is more about control over nature than exploration or curiousity..which is why its a whole lot easier to get funding for practical research, than it is for "just exploration" science.

I think anti-intellectualism and lack of curiosity are aspects of humanity MORE than exploration and the expansion of knowledge. Every now and then you get somebody who is actually curious, and learns for learning sake. But look around you...its not very many people, thats for sure.

[Tormenta]

51. Humans have done it throughout history.

Even science, to a large degree, is more about control over nature than exploration or curiousity..which is why its a whole lot easier to get funding for practical research, than it is for "just exploration" science.

I think funding for research is based more upon what money that research might bring in the long run.

Children are naturally curious. Maybe the culture we grow up in manages to squash our natural tendencies. And many people around the world are just struggling to survive and don't have time to ponder the bigger questions of life. I compare the urge to know to a weed growing in a crack in the sidewalk. It will find a place to show up, somehow, somewhere, despite the adverse conditions.

[cyborg_jim]

54. I doubt it

Children are naturally curious. Maybe the culture we grow up in manages to squash our natural tendencies.

It seems more likely that childhood curiosity is a natural function of the requirement for the brain to obtain as much stimulus as it can in order to figure out how to function in the world it finds itself in. Once settled in the need for such curiosity is out-grown.

[Evoman]

59. Human INDIVIDUALS and GROUPS have done it through out history.

When Columbus set sail (and it was more about finding a quick route than explanation), thousands of people sat around picking their noses ignorantly. For every Galileo, there were a hundred clergymen. For every Lewis and Clark, for every Alan Shepard, there are thousands of George Bushes, Paris Hiltons, and Osama bin Ladens.

"I think funding for research is based more upon what money that research might bring in the long run."

Point accepted. But have you ever seen public reactions to studies that they deem "not useful" that they are paying for with "their taxes". Money is huge, but perceieved praciticality is too.

"Children are naturally curious. Maybe the culture we grow up in manages to squash our natural tendencies"

No, I don't think so. I think children are curious because it is a evolutionary/genetic way of ensuring that they get the knowledge they need to survive. In natural selection terms, a child who asks questions would survive longer than a child who doesn't. And children aren't THAT curious...most of them are content with any dumb answer, and rarely look deep into things. I don't know about culture "squashing" our natural tendecies...I think its just a matter of learning what you need to live and thrive, and then not caring about anything more after that.

"And many people around the world are just struggling to survive and don't have time to ponder the bigger questions of life"

Fair enough. But what about people not struggling. I used to go to the library (even before the internet), and there was never anybody there in the non-fiction sections. Instead of reading a book, and expanding knowledge, or using their time to explore other places and cultures, most people sit around and watch mindless tv programs, or visit resorts.

I look around, and I don't see that many people who are "curious" or "asking the big questions". I'm sorry...I wish it were different. I try to imagine my fellow human beings on the Enterpise or Voyager, and I can't. I can only see them replicating shit they don't need, and entertaining themselves in the holodecks.

On edit: A story.

This one time at work we had a staff meeting. One of those stupid, touchy feeling, "inspire yourself", meetings. Anyhow, they asked us "If you could have one wish, anything at all, what would wish for". Then they went around the table. Almost every single person in that place said "a new car" or "millions of dollars". One person said "a time machine". I said, " A spaceship that could travel warp speed so that I could explore the universe...I want to "see" the black hole at the center of the galaxy". Everybody looked at me like I was a moron, and the next person said, I kid you not, "a new truck".

*shoots himself*

[Tormenta]

100. Hilarious!

This one time at work we had a staff meeting. One of those stupid, touchy feeling, "inspire yourself", meetings. Anyhow, they asked us "If you could have one wish, anything at all, what would wish for". Then they went around the table. Almost every single person in that place said "a new car" or "millions of dollars". One person said "a time machine". I said, " A spaceship that could travel warp speed so that I could explore the universe...I want to "see" the black hole at the center of the galaxy". Everybody looked at me like I was a moron, and the next person said, I kid you not, "a new truck".

B-) I know exactly what you mean.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

120. Excellent point

We may be mutants. These are definitely not discussions I have at the lunch table with other teachers. Mostly we talk about what a little shit-head Joey was today.

Tg

[redqueen]

52. Why isn't the following just innately understood?

"We're all one thing, like cells in a body. 'Cept we can't see the body. The way fish can't see the ocean. And so we envy each other. Hurt each other. Hate each other. How silly is that? A heart cell hating a lung cell."



oops, and my take on yours:

Why is the world so messed up that some people think that it takes the unlimited power of an almighty god to set things right?

Because many are taught from birth to believe that that is the case... that we're meant to suffer here, and only be rewarded after we die.


Why must we simultaneously need and fear other people, especially if they are different from us in some way?

Primitive mode of thinking. Used to be helpful, now it's counterproductive. (This applies to so many things...)


Why are some people allowed to temporarily enrich their own lives by causing others to suffer?

Because those are the types of people who 'get ahead' and end up making the rules, or bribing those who make the rules.


Why are we committing collective suicide via global warming?

The frogs in warming water phenomenon... many don't realize the danger, or are actively deluding themselves about it because they like the way things are or are afraid of change or just view political issues as a team sport, so they just mindlessly cheer on 'their side'. That or they're making a profit off the destructive behaviors, and in that case, it's simple greed & selfishness. (Yet more primitive traits that have outlasted their usefulness.)

[Az]

62. The big question I pursue

What is the mind? How does it arise from the brain? The evidence overwhelmingly points to the mind arising from the activities in the brain. But how it makes the leap from physical to experential is still just beyond our reach. But that is what makes it interesting. And we are wired to notice things that are interesting.

[PreacherCasey]

65. Ever read anything by Jiddu Krishnamurti?

He dealt with this question extensively in his talks and books. Very interesting stuff, I agree. By "mind" I assume you mean consciousness. I wonder about this as well.

[cyborg_jim]

66. Hmm...

And we are wired to notice things that are interesting.

Surely we define what is interesting by how we are wired...

[Az]

79. Initially

An interesting comment I heard the other day was that infants seem prewired to understand basic concepts of physics. That is they understand that objects cannot pass through one another or that things don't just disappear. But as we learn we develope increasinglyh complex notions about the universe around us. It is the things we learn that begin to feed into what we find interesting. The mind as it develops seems to be more about tendencies than about prewired fixed paths. So what may be interesting to one person would be dullsville to another. It all depends on a combination of natural proclivity and learned experience. Someone watching Shakespeare for the first time might be bored out of their mind. But someone exposed to the intracacies of such work may find it utterly fascinating.

[TRYPHO]

97. I'm no expert on child psychology....

but I have three kids and I swear their personalities should not be blamed on me or my wife, who are both sane and normal, unlike our kids. So whatever the hell it is that makes children, and I'll accept my part for the genes I happily donated the old fashioned way, but as far as I am concerned, once they are out, they're far less to do with the parents than the law should allow blame for :-)

Az writes: An interesting comment I heard the other day was that infants seem prewired to understand basic concepts of physics

They explore their universe from the basics and move from there, but they are, as you say, pre-wired for a variety of assetts including language, human face recognition and self-preservation.

To give an example I know of the physics awareness, if you took 100 crawling children to a slide that was above a certain steepness, all 100 would either go or not go, depending on the angle of incline. Thus they know about gravity, friction, angles, and, probably, fear!

TRYPHO
They also have big eyes because thats appealing, cry at a pitch that affects mothers in a special way (a new born cry is different to a one year old screaming for milk) and they have bendy chitinous bones in the appendages for about 2 years to lower the risk of breaking them. Oh, there's loads more if I thought about it...

[Tormenta]

101. Just wondering

If the mind arises from brain activity, what causes the activity in the brain in the first place?

[cyborg_jim]

103. It's basically a collection of chemically controlled gates

Activity is therefore the movement of chemicals around the brain.

[Tormenta]

106. So what causes the activity?

That's the question. What is the animating force?

[Az]

107. It is matter obeying the laws of physics

Its that simple. Its just that in the particular arraingement of the brain such a structure seems to give rise to a mind when in action. It is the same force at work in an apple. The same force at work in a waterfall. It is matter and nature behaving according to the laws that govern the properties of matter and nature.

[Tormenta]

112. So do apples and waterfalls have a mind?

Are they conscious of their own existence? Can they compose music and poetry?

[cyborg_jim]

116. No - does that somehow prove that there is something magical going on inside our heads?

[Az]

119. No but they operate by the same laws of physics that our brain does

And that is the point. You don't need a sentient creator to set a brain in motion. They seem to do quite well without any intervention on their own.

[cyborg_jim]

109. Would you ask the same question if I dropped a stone?

Where does the magic begin when we start talking about carbon based machines as opposed to any other physical mechanism?

[Tormenta]

113. I don't understand your question.

[cyborg_jim]

117. I can't make it any simpler

Why do you insist a physical mechanism is insufficient when you are admittedly ignorant of physics?

[Az]

104. Laws of physics

Operating on the structure provided by genetic code giving rise to the structure of the brain.

[TRYPHO]

110. Plus a little "magic"

Add the same ingredients to a bowl and warm to boiling and I'd probably say it tasted a bit salty but generally quite nice. Not only is it a bloody marvel (it can't be made, but it can make itself) you've just GOT to add in the mystery or you've just got brain soup.

TRYPHO
(wish I could work out how to a picture of brain soup here!)

[Az]

111. Magic is a presumption

And that bowl of soup could give rise to sentience if it were arrainged in a rather special structure. The brain is not some pile of chemicals mixed together. Its not just the components. Its the particular structure in action.

Its the action. Like a dance the mind is the result of the brain in action. The dance is not the dancers. It is not the music. It is not the ballroom. It is all the features in action. When the music and dancers stop so to does the dance. Just as with the mind it is the brain in action.

[Tormenta]

114. Who choreographed the dance?

[cyborg_jim]

115. Who cares?

You don't need the choreographer once the dance is invented, you just need to know the steps.

[Az]

118. Who said there had to be a who

That way leads to infinite recurssion. Who taught the choreographer? All the evidence indicates that it is perfectly acceptable to say that it all is the result of the laws of nature.

[Tormenta]

121. Absolutely

But your original question was about the brain/mind connection. Yes, it functions according to Natural Laws, but that doesn't explain how it works. Magic? Depends upon your definition. Mystery? Yes. I'm curious about the human design too. Others are content with religious beliefs or the limits of scientific knowledge.

I'd also like to know why American beer tastes so bad.

[cyborg_jim]

123. Erm, the point is that it does

Yes, it functions according to Natural Laws, but that doesn't explain how it works

The only alternative you seem to have presented seems to consist of:

"Well, even though you say you are explaining how it works you aren't and since I can conceive of the possibility of some sort of dualist material/immaterial interaction going on here, even though I have no evidence for it and am in fact basing that conjecture on a lack of evidence, I am going to persistently ask 'why' and then when you give up go straight back to declaring that my original premise of an immaterial spooky consciousness valid."

Others are content with religious beliefs or the limits of scientific knowledge.

Ah ha! There we go! Limits of scientific knowledge eh? So when you conclude that science "can't" answer something then it must become valid to make up an answer and run with it! Yep!

[Tormenta]

125. Nope

Ah ha! There we go! Limits of scientific knowledge eh? So when you conclude that science "can't" answer something then it must become valid to make up an answer and run with it! Yep!

Come on. You can do better than that. You're a smart guy.

[cyborg_jim]

126. Eh?

Tormenta I'm just pointing out that all you have is arguments based on ignorance. Whilst you are convinced that any old conclusion you have about whatever subjective experiences it is that you've had that you think justifies them is valid the point is that they are not. If one argues from a position where it is forever about opinion then what is the point? You have a view, I have a view - they're all bullshit.

I appeal to science because science appeals to how things are, not how we guess they are. Do you get the fundamental point here? Why do you think it is valid to interject some random 'possibility' when you see a gap in the knowledge obtained from science? Why do you persist on doing so even when I've pointed out the gap you think there is isn't there? What the hell is your point?

[Tormenta]

127. Going around in circles

isn't productive. Perhaps sometime in the future we can continue the discussion with more agreement on the definition of terms and less assumptions about the meaning and motives of the other person.

[cyborg_jim]

129. Then could you choose a definition and stick with it?

[Az]

131. Science takes time

We start out ignorant. Science tells us not to assume we know. It teaches us to pull from the world what knowledge we can and build from there. To date we do not know how mind arises from matter (brain). But the evidence we do have strongly indicates that it does. We can alter the mind in every conceivable way by altering the brain. We can remove memories and add memories. We can change personalities and we can erase personalities. We can make someone feel as though they were in love and we can remove love. All through manipulation of the brain.

We can measure how and when the mind becomes aware of things and determine that it is the result of actions in the brain. We can slow this down, halt it, and speed it up. The activity in the brain can be seen to precede the actual thoughts it gives rise to.

The evidence strongly supports the idea that the mind is the result of the activities in the brain. We don't yet know how this occurs and that is why we continue to research the brain.

[Tormenta]

132. Question

The activity in the brain can be seen to precede the actual thoughts it gives rise to.

Does this not seem to suggest a third vector?

[cyborg_jim]

133. Vector?

Look, if you're going to propose some spooky spirit stuff could you at least note the time ordering going on here?

[Az]

134. No, not really

The evidence seems to suggest that activity in the brain gives rise to mental thought. Activity occurs in the brain and then you have a thought.

[Tormenta]

135. What evidence?

The evidence seems to suggest that activity in the brain gives rise to mental thought. Activity occurs in the brain and then you have a thought.

That's what I understood you to say in the previous post. What I'm wondering is, what stimulates the activity in the brain? Isn't there always activity in the brain? How do they know that activity precedes thought? There would be activity in the brain just from visual input, instinct, impressions, memory, etc., that the brain and mind draw upon in the process. I just don't see how they could determine what comes first. Do they say that because the thought is expressed verbally? If so, wouldn't it make sense that activity shows in the brain before the thought is expressed? All of the electrical firings have to go on in order to be able to verbalize the thought. That doesn't prove that the thought itself didn't come first. Isn't it more likely that the mentality is a complex that includes the brain?

[Az]

136. Tests

After studying the brain we learn what areas respond to what sort of stimuli. We learn what areas of the brain become active when certain thoughts are being formed. We can actually determine who a person is thinking of just by examining the brain. From this it becomes a matter of conducting tests to see which comes first. Activity or thought. Simply set an environment up where we can time the impetus to a thought versus when the thought occurs to the person. Measure any lag and this determines whether thought precedes activity or not.

Even reality is time delayed. There is a measurable delay between when something happens and when we consciously experience it. It takes time for the senses to collect the data, transfer it to the brain. Then the brain has to convert the raw information to a form it can use. Then it has to pass it all through filters in the subconscious and finally it is passed to the waking mind.

It is tests like these that enable us to tell which way the flow of thought occurs in the brain.

[Tormenta]

138. Thank you

I appreciate your efforts to answer my questions and the non-condescending tone that you use. I'm still left wondering, though, about the same questions I asked in the last post.

Simply set an environment up where we can time the impetus to a thought versus when the thought occurs to the person. Measure any lag and this determines whether thought precedes activity or not.

What provides the impetus to a thought? The mentality in the process of retrieving past information from the brain in combination with the automatic systems of the senses? You didn't mention whether or not the subject verbally indicates the final thought. If so, it stands to reason that the thought had to pass through the physical systems of the brain in order to be verbalized, thus requiring brain activity in order to carry out the order. That would not prove that activity precedes thought. Only that it precedes expression of thought.

[cyborg_jim]

139. Cycles much?

What provides the impetus to a thought?

External and internal stimuli. There is a cycle of activity.

That would not prove that activity precedes thought. Only that it precedes expression of thought.

Then you are going to have to much more carefully explain what it is you understand as 'thought' - because you seem to be missing that you are showing very well that 'thought' doesn't mean very much until you've got something to interpret, in your case the verbalisation.

[Tormenta]

140. That's what I said.

External and internal stimuli. There is a cycle of activity.

In different words. Please pay attention.


Whether or not it's useful to have a thought before it's verbalized is another issue. Many thoughts remain unexpressed, but lead to others. The question was whether or not activity precedes thought, not whether it's useful.

[cyborg_jim]

141. The point is that how do you classify what a thought is without any activity?

[Tormenta]

142. What do you mean by "classifying a thought"?

Brain activity is physical evidence of the synergy.

[cyborg_jim]

143. What synergy?

From my perspective thought is not some 'thing' married with another 'thing' - brain activity - that results in the totality of the physical and metaphysical manifestations we see. Thought is an abstraction for the phenomenal results we see arising from brain activity.

For example - no brain activity -> no thought. Modify physical brain -> modify thought. In each case we see physical -> metaphysical. You want to tell us metaphysical <-> physical. I see no basis for this reasoning - hence my assertion that this is back-to-front thinking. One way or the other way is sufficient - both is overkill.

[Tormenta]

144. Because

The dictionary defines it as The interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects.

I can see why you would object to my use of the word, considering your perspective. I see thought as an energy, rather than a "thing". And usually, the mind is reacting to the thoughts of others, stimulated by the thought energy from other humans. Even if it's just reacting to Nature or its environment, it's taking in and processing all manner of stimuli before coming up with the "baby" from the marriage.

There are two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a
miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.
-- Albert Einstein

[cyborg_jim]

149. Energy is a specific thing

And usually, the mind is reacting to the thoughts of others, stimulated by the thought energy from other humans.

Now you've completely lost me.

Either way saying 'thought is energy' means it would be detectable. First Law of Thermodynanmics. You cannot escape it.

Even if it's just reacting to Nature or its environment, it's taking in and processing all manner of stimuli before coming up with the "baby" from the marriage.

Yes, and the end process of that chain of physical events is the phenemena we call thought - whose total existence is dependent on the physical. There is nothing that indicates the physical has any dependence on 'thought energy' - not least of which because if there is such a thing then clearly it doesn't want to be discovered or behave consistently like everything else does.

And please don't quote Einstein at me. He'd not be in concordance with your ideas. Besides, am I supposed to defer to him because he's a well known physicist? He's no more infallible than the rest of us.

[Tormenta]

156. Einstein

Either way saying 'thought is energy' means it would be detectable. First Law of Thermodynanmics. You cannot escape it.

So before solar wind was detectable, it didn't exist?

There is nothing that indicates the physical has any dependence on 'thought energy'

It's the other way around. A thought needs the physical body in order to be expressed. But don't you consider energy to be physical too?

And please don't quote Einstein at me. He'd not be in concordance with your ideas.

I'm impressed that you've been able to get inside his head to such a degree.

Besides, am I supposed to defer to him because he's a well known physicist?

Did someone say you were? I'll look again.

He's no more infallible than the rest of us.

No one would dispute that.

The quote seems to have struck a nerve. Here's another one for you:

The intellect has little to do on the road to discovery. There comes a leap in consciousness, call it intuition or what you will, and the solution comes to you and you don't know how or why.
-- Albert Einstein

[cyborg_jim]

158. Sigh

So before solar wind was detectable, it didn't exist?

No.

You do not get my point - IF thought is energy we DO NOT need to detect the 'thought energy' itself because we know energy cannot just spontaneously appear out of nowhere. Otherwise you are either proposing some sort of 'free energy' or are just misappropriating the term 'energy'.

It's the other way around. A thought needs the physical body in order to be expressed.

So then the obvious question becomes how and where do these thoughts originate, what the basic unit of thought is etc...

But don't you consider energy to be physical too?

Yes but what you are describing is something totally alien to the concept of energy.

I'm impressed that you've been able to get inside his head to such a degree.

Strange. Then why are you quoting him as if YOU can do the same?

The quote seems to have struck a nerve.

Yes, it's the nerve I get when anyone thinks that any scientist of any merit would support the ideas of those who cannot, or refuse to, gather evidence for their position.

Why don't you drop the silly quote game and just get to the business at hand - if you can't support your ideas why do you actually have them in the first place?

The intellect has little to do on the road to discovery. There comes a leap in consciousness, call it intuition or what you will, and the solution comes to you and you don't know how or why.
-- Albert Einstein

And what does this prove exactly? Next you'll be quoting something he said about God and telling me he's a Christian.

[Tormenta]

161. You seem a little paranoid.

Strange. Then why are you quoting him as if YOU can do the same?

Where did I make any statement about what Einstein would think of you?

Next you'll be quoting something he said about God and telling me he's a Christian.

Why would I do that? I'm not a Christian myself, btw.

[cyborg_jim]

163. Now I'm paranoid? Just how weak are your ideas that discussing THEM is such an issue?

Where did I make any statement about what Einstein would think of you?

Ugh. You expressed dismay at the idea I could get inside Einstein's head to support my position. I express dismay at the fact your quoting of him is clearly done in order to support your position implying you are engaged in the same thing.

Why would I do that? I'm not a Christian myself, btw.

Have you ever heard of a rhetorical device?

Paranoid indeed.

Could you actually try responding to the things I have actually said without these endless tangential and unimportant side issues of whether or not you like me, I like you, I am nasty, closed minded or whatever. None of that shit impresses me one bit. Either you can substantiate what you claim or you can't. Simple.

[Tormenta]

165. yeah, it did seem so

Could you actually try responding to the things I have actually said without these endless tangential and unimportant side issues of whether or not you like me, I like you, I am nasty, closed minded or whatever. None of that shit impresses me one bit. Either you can substantiate what you claim or you can't. Simple.

Where have I said any of that? That's all in your own mind. I don't even know you. You're nothing more than words on a monitor. Like or dislike is totally irrelevant.

I have no "claim" to substantiate, and you have not "substantiated" yours. You've only claimed that it's accurate according to what is known.

Your reaction to the quote did seem paranoid. If I had expressed my intention along with it, you would have a case. I didn't though, so you just assumed what my motive was. The quote seemed apropos to the conversation. You take from a quote what you will. I often use quotes in that way, just to add a perspective to the discussion. I don't use them as ammunition. You claim that you base all of your thinking in this area on the work of science, so I assume that you have some respect for their intellect.

[cyborg_jim]

166. Right whatever

Where have I said any of that? That's all in your own mind. I don't even know you. You're nothing more than words on a monitor. Like or dislike is totally irrelevant.

Then why don't you drop all the rest of this metaphysical 'possibility' shit and concentrate on what matters?

Your reaction to the quote did seem paranoid.

Whatever. If you think quote games are legitimate then go ahead.

You claim that you base all of your thinking in this area on the work of science, so I assume that you have some respect for their intellect.

Indeed - but as I have already pointed out many times ideas must be taken on their own merit - not the merit of the person presenting them. Intelligent people can say remarkably stupid things. Dumb people can be right. It is the idea, not the person, that needs to be analysed.

You've spent on inordinate amount of time on style, not substance. This is what I object to.

[Az]

145. There are different portions of the brain

Each responsible for different aspects of each of our activities. The verbalization center is quite well documented as are motor control centers. Thus scientists can differentiate between the time it takes for a thought to form, awareness of that thought proceeding through the brain, and finally being expressed as action through speach or action.

[Tormenta]

146. More questions

How do they detect the thought before it passes through the brain? And how do they know where the thought came from? What part of the brain indicates that a thought has formed?

[TRYPHO]

147. There are neurologists who spend their lives trying to understand...

The usual method of learning has been to look at the brains of severely disturbed, ill, cancerous, gun shot or otherwise abnormal brain structures, and compare the behaviour patterns to the norm. Nowadays this can be done on live patients with various neuroimaging sensor equipment, such as MRI and CT scans. Thus information on epilepsy and cluster migraines and multiple sclerosis and many other diseases has vastly increased over recent years. This new information includes lost about how brain waves, electrical impulses, start, expand, move around the brain and finally disperse. We know the chemical neurotransmitters involved, (and what problems arise when these are not present in the correct quantities), we know how the pulses of electricity move, and cross neural endings (in habituated pathways) and how they find new pathways if the original pathway/s become damaged - shove a knife in your "speech centre" and your speech centre moves around a bit. You can't make new nerves, but the body knows how to work best with what it was given.

The sight or sound or touch or taste or smell stimuli ALL result in (generally) standard nerve responses in the brain. A given stimulus will produce a "common" neural response. An autistic child or an aspbergers adult may not, but an "average" human brain would produce a common neuroelectrical response.

My knowledge is based on the effect of drugs on the brain, and this thread is more ethereal, about the who and the why of it all. But (as a G-d fearing) scientist, I can happily say that it is all understandable and logical science, apart from the highest level of self-aware consiousness, that little Id and Ego, that humans possess over and above the instinct-responses of the animal kingdom as a whole. The internal dialogues do not occur in other creatures without language, and the big debate of BIG BRAIN before or after LANGUAGE is yet to be resolved. Either way, as I've said before, the wonder of humanity (and our brains) is that they are moe than the sum of the parts - even though ALL the parts can be seen and understood, the "soul" the "self" the "inner dialogue" the "thinking part" is clearly there, in the brain, but not recordable or seen or understood.

Yet.

TRYPHO

[Tormenta]

148. Ah, now there's a beautiful post!

Thank you so much for writing it! That is the best, most complete, and most honest answer, from someone who really knows what they're talking about. I actually applauded when I read it. I'm aware that these kinds of studies have been done over the years, but have never read or studied anything in those fields, so your post made some random thoughts and bits of information congeal into a more understandable whole. I learned something from your post. With my feeling that every communication of this type should be either informative, healing or progressive, or a combination of the three, this was perfect!

Yes, my questions involved the not yet understood elements that you mention in the last paragraph. I still imagine the mind/mentality/consciousness as a complex that utilizes the brain's computer, but maybe some day in our lifetime we'll know more.

[cyborg_jim]

150. Computers are sufficient for computing

I still do not understand what role you expect these mystical agents to play.

[Tormenta]

152. What "mystical agents" are you talking about?

[cyborg_jim]

154. "thought" "consciousness"

You give them reality but you don't explain why they are necessary to explain anything or even what their nature actually is. The whole point I've been trying to get across here is that it is not necessary to consider these things as immaterial existents when the material existents are sufficient to explain all the phenomena we see and the things we label as 'thought' or 'consciousness.

In short your position is no more clear than it ever was - other than there is something extra-physical that is really responsible.

[Tormenta]

160. So...

Since they are still mysteries, how do you propose that I explain them? It's all just speculation at this point. If you don't want to ponder the not yet explainable, fine. But at least give those of us who do the courtesy of allowing the exploration. Consciousness, thought, creativity, and insight exist. Language has words for them. If you're happy with your belief that they are already understood, that's fine too, but don't pretend that you can explain how it works. You can't. You only claim that it does, but you don't care how. And your position ridicules the scientists who spend their lives studying this very thing.

[cyborg_jim]

162. This is the point

Since they are still mysteries, how do you propose that I explain them? It's all just speculation at this point.

You speculation requires a substantial upheaval of what we ALREADY know.

If you don't want to ponder the not yet explainable, fine.

On the contrary, I've already pointed out that I have more than sufficient imagination to ponder a pltheora of hypotheses. I have simply reduced the choice to the most likely one based on - wait for it - WHAT WE KNOW, NOT WHAT WE DON'T!

But at least give those of us who do the courtesy of allowing the exploration.

This is exactly what we have been doing - that you do not like my reductionism is not my issue.

Consciousness, thought, creativity, and insight exist. Language has words for them.

Ereuhfkvh exists. I have just invented a word for it.

Not convinced? Well nor am I - which is why the, 'we have a word for it!' argument isn't exactly persuasive when the idea is to get to the bottom of what is, not what we call things.

If you're happy with your belief that they are already understood, that's fine too, but don't pretend that you can explain how it works.

I am pretending that I can explain how it works? Then what the hell are you doing!?

You can't. You only claim that it does, but you don't care how.

Puzzling assertion. I guess you think I am engaged in all this merely to be nasty to you.

Why do I think that if I was talking about gravity you'd not be arguing along the same lines? Probably because you don't have some contrary pet theory you really like.

And your position ridicules the scientists who spend their lives studying this very thing.

I find this statement bemusing. Care to explain how I am ridiculing scientists - unless you have a far looser definition of scientist than I. (Namely I'm thinking the sort of paranormal 'scientists' who in all the years of work at Universities good and bad have failed to add one iota to human knowledge).

Because I am basing all this on what we know from neurobiology and the like - the people who spend their lives studying this very thing.

[Tormenta]

164. What the hell I'm doing.

I am pretending that I can explain how it works? Then what the hell are you doing!?

I'm arguing that the mechanism may be more complex than what is currently thought, if the current understanding is that the mind "arises" from the brain. I would never pretend to explain HOW it works.

Ereuhfkvh exists. I have just invented a word for it.

Its not an accepted word until it comes into popular usage and gets included in the dictionary. The point is that these concepts have existed for thousands of years, and there are words for them in many languages. That means that many people, philosophers, holy men, scientists, psychiatrists and the rest of us, have legitimately considered their existence. Why do I even need to remind you of this?

I guess you think I am engaged in all this merely to be nasty to you.

I'm 100% sure that that's a part of your reason for even being on a religious forum.

Why do I think that if I was talking about gravity you'd not be arguing along the same lines?

Probably because you're wrong about almost everything else in your assessment of my thinking. Especially since I've already stated that everything works according to Natural Laws.

Because I am basing all this on what we know from neurobiology and the like - the people who spend their lives studying this very thing.

Those are exactly the scientists I was talking about. Paranormal research never even crossed my mind. I have no interest in it whatsoever.

[cyborg_jim]

167. No you're not

I'm arguing that the mechanism may be more complex than what is currently thought, if the current understanding is that the mind "arises" from the brain. I would never pretend to explain HOW it works.

That is not your argument. If that were your argument it would boil down to:

"Well, there's probably more complexities to it than that."

I could agree with that - it is early days after all. You are actually proposing something quite different - you have posited an explanation and that posit can be analysed. Your hypothesis is not simply proposing something more complex, it is proposing something far more complex than is necessary without there being any reason whatsoever to presume that the immaterial entities you propose have merit.

In short it not only lacks explicative ability it simply raises far more questions than what it seeks to answer. It flies in the face of everything we know.

Just WHY do you like it so damn much?

Its not an accepted word until it comes into popular usage and gets included in the dictionary.

So since email has come into dictionary it has begun to exist?

Or would you perhaps say email could be decomposed into some more fundamental things - like character sets, electronic communications and storage devices?

Because what you are arguing is that 'thought exists' as some fundamental existent because we can come up with a word for 'thought'. Surely you can see that the nature of reality remains constant no matter how we analyse and conceptualise it? Creating a new word to describe an aspect of it didn't create a new aspect that now exists.

Does Heaven exist because there is a word for it? Does Babylon 5? Does Middle Earth? Superman? If you cannot see that it is possible to come up with words for concepts that don't have any actual existential qualities we cannot go any further.

The point is that these concepts have existed for thousands of years, and there are words for them in many languages.

It really doesn't matter how many people have had these concepts for how many thousands of years if they are WRONG does it? Neither age, nor popularity increase the truth of the idea.

Would the word I created to describe the thing it is have more reality if more people accepted the word over a long period of time or would the existent property of the thing the word describes remain constant irrespective of this?

I'm 100% sure that that's a part of your reason for even being on a religious forum.

Then fuck you.

I wouldn't want to upset your expectations now would I? I'm here to piss you off - by demanding you actually talk about the ideas you originally presented. HOW DARE I! I should just shut up and lick your ass right?

I seriously fail to understand what you hope to achieve with this tit-for-tat shit. Can you or can you not concentrate on the flaws I am pointing out with the ideas you are presenting? If not then simply say nothing, end this tiresome shit analysing my motivations, my style or anything else that has nothing to do with the 'big questions' in hand.

Probably because you're wrong about almost everything else in your assessment of my thinking. Especially since I've already stated that everything works according to Natural Laws.

I'm wrong then. Great. You'll stop arguing nonsense about these Natural Laws that isn't warranted by anything whatsoever or you'll provide something that can explain why you have these ideas in the first place and are so adamant that I should accept as a plausible hypothesis.

Is it really too much that I demand a little precision of thought from you? Is it simply easier to spend hours on this tiresome meta-topic analysis?

Those are exactly the scientists I was talking about.

And so you're telling me I'm insulting these scientists by criticising the idea of 'thought energy' and 'consciousness after death'? I fail to see how.

[cyborg_jim]

151. I find that rather arrogant

apart from the highest level of self-aware consiousness, that little Id and Ego, that humans possess over and above the instinct-responses of the animal kingdom as a whole.

I know from your perspective you want to see humans as intrinstically special but this statement is just not supported by your previous argument.

Language took a long time to reach the sophistication it has. We're talking about a long interative process.

I wonder too at these things but it is always a mistake to get so enamoured with some conceptualisation of one's self that one is unwilling to examine things honestly lest the 'romance' is lost.

[Tormenta]

153. I find your subject line rather ironic.

[cyborg_jim]

155. I am arrogant now am I?

I'm not the one placing humans on a pedestal.

[Tormenta]

157. Who is doing that?

In what way?

A human being is a part of the whole that we call the universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest -- a kind of optical illusion of his consciousness. This illusion is a prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for only the few people nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living beings and all of nature.
-- Albert Einstein

[cyborg_jim]

159. I already explained that

What ARE you trying to prove by quoting Einstein? That you don't understand what he is saying and that particular quote isn't exactly in favour of your position?

If you are so unable to think for yourself that you need to borrow other's thoughts then we are done here. Either that or do you want me to start trouncing you with my own set of quotes? It's a silly and childish game - I didn't think you were that sort of person.

[TRYPHO]

168. Hmmm...lets take this slowly...

I know from your perspective you want to see humans as intrinstically special but this statement is just not supported by your previous argument.

Humans ARE intrinsically special. They may not be the only intelligent species on this planet, they almost certainly aren't the only intelligent beings in the universe (IMHO), but they are the only SENTIENT one on this planet - they are the only self-aware, cognizant, big thinking, life form HERE; and that, if I may be so bold to say, is scientifically accepted as fact.

Language took a long time to reach the sophistication it has. We're talking about a long interative process.

Yes, and when dogs, monkeys or locusts choose to join in the discussion I'll be the first to welcome them to the debate. Until they happen to evolve, I am left accepting that currently the do not have brains sufficient for language, and therefore the discussion has to be put on hold for a while.

I wonder too at these things but it is always a mistake to get so enamoured with some conceptualisation of one's self that one is unwilling to examine things honestly lest the 'romance' is lost.

I am of the opinion that I am not overly categorical in my opinions. I have had my opinion changed by others knowledge even here on DU. But I really don't think i am saying anything too extreme when I say that the cognitive/sentient/consious/self-aware part of the brain (beyond saying it is probably/generally/presumed to be in the frontal lobe region) (though it can move if needed by injury etc) it is not placeable in the same way as the vision centre or the smell centre of the brain can be.

I am not saying it wont be. I am not saying it is "ethereal" in nature, I am saying it exists, and I am saying it is scientifically appreciated and scientifically still considered an unknown/mystery without that meaning it is religous/voodoo/hocus-pocus.

TRYPHO

[cyborg_jim]

137. I have already answered this

How do they know that activity precedes thought? ... All of the electrical firings have to go on in order to be able to verbalize the thought. That doesn't prove that the thought itself didn't come first.

In your view of things then the immaterial mind is doubly redundant.

We know that when we perform conscious activities such as deciding which keys to type that the messages sent to our hands are already on their way by the time our consciousness 'catches-up' to this decision.

What you are now telling us is that the brain experiences the experience of thought, with the thought preceding both the experience of thought and the thought influencing the necessary mechanisms in the brain that lead to the experience of the experience of the thought without directly doing so. You sure do want to complicate matters with your insistence there's some weird immaterial mind doing all this stuff!

[NMMNG]

169. Why,

when we have the knowledge, resources and power to do so much good and create so many useful and beneficial things do we instead use our knowledge/resources/power to harm, kill and destroy?