Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Believe in god, not religion


Dirty

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I cannot imagine some of these people on cocaine......

 

artworks-000096039272-nmxwla-t200x200.jp

Cocaine just releases what people can do with thought.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
15 hours ago, Horta said:

Well, there goes another theory (the one where you don't resort to ad hominems).

I assumed your post was in response to one I made (underlined below). If it wasn't (and it doesn't specifically quote anything) then the  misunderstanding is mine and I apologise.

If it was, say so and I will happily explain.

"Quite a problem for you there then. What science is consistently finding (though already obvious to many) is that consciousness and the mind are effects caused by brain activity. The mystical/spiritual experiences also already have plausible explanations via psychology and neuroscience. It's going in the opposite direction than you seem to think."

lol.

You have a lot of nerve talking to me about ad hominems after what you posted.  

I only point out that there is a serious problem for reductionism and similar ways of thinking here.  No doubt my Buddhist background makes it easier for me to see this, as it seems you don't.  I am, however, also aware that we must never dismiss the always-present third alternative that our ignorance comes only from lack of anyone having had the appropriate insight, and as science progresses this may come along.  Still, at the present time, I find bald assertions that things like sentience and consciousness are "brain activity" unsupportable and, indeed, naive, and culturally bound.  Yes there are brain associations, no one has ever questioned that (except before Descartes), but there is no mechanism how experience is produced nor even any understanding in the physical sense of what experience is.  We all know what it is experientially, but not scientifically or descriptively.  At the moment I see neither an answer nor even a possible approach to an answer.

Nevertheless, the various "exotic" answers around don't help much, as they all suffer from the same problem.  Say it is a "soul" that provides consciousness -- how does the brain (physical) move the soul (spiritual)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I think you have misinterpreted this idea  The IDEA of a conscious self is not illusory but the construct of self might be illusory  in the following sense 

I think you assume too much. I got the general notion from Buddhists originally, long before Harris finished school, and changed it to reflect personal observations. It's nice that he feels similar. Though this is understood by many Psychologists and Neuroscientists.

The "sense" of self is a fluid process generated in the brain, it's always changing. It can even disappear entirely, leading to the most wonderful feeling of freedom and beauty. In reality, it is an illusion. In fact, most of the illusions and delusions we have, revolve around it.

Quote

Sometimes a rock is just a rock, no matter what a philosopher claims. 

It seems that it always is simply that. Yet it is made of atoms, as is your entire nervous system that allows you to think and be conscious. You don't have to be a philosopher to realise that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

You have a lot of nerve talking to me about ad hominems after what you posted.  

I only point out that there is a serious problem for reductionism and similar ways of thinking here.  No doubt my Buddhist background makes it easier for me to see this, as it seems you don't.  I am, however, also aware that we must never dismiss the always-present third alternative that our ignorance comes only from lack of anyone having had the appropriate insight, and as science progresses this may come along.  Still, at the present time, I find bald assertions that things like sentience and consciousness are "brain activity" unsupportable and, indeed, naive, and culturally bound.  Yes there are brain associations, no one has ever questioned that (except before Descartes), but there is no mechanism how experience is produced nor even any understanding in the physical sense of what experience is.  We all know what it is experientially, but not scientifically or descriptively.  At the moment I see neither an answer nor even a possible approach to an answer.

Nevertheless, the various "exotic" answers around don't help much, as they all suffer from the same problem.  Say it is a "soul" that provides consciousness -- how does the brain (physical) move the soul (spiritual)?

It appears I was wrong to assume. For that I apologise.

I doubt that reductionism is the only idea with problems. In fact, it has less to overcome, as we know the physical exists. It isn't that other options such as a separate substance (soul, consciousness, whatever) or one we haven't thought of yet, are not possible. They are (at least logically). The problem I have is the insistence that they have to exist, or it has to be a certain way. It most definitely doesn't. This itself seems quite narrow minded. Not only doesn't it have to be that way, but all of the evidence we have seems to indicate that it isn't.

The research into how this all works is overturning many of our "intuitions" and things we take for granted. This is also true for those who think there is some other cause beyond the nervous system. Experiments have indicated that in certain situations at least, what we think is our conscious volition and will themselves arise from unconscious areas of the brain. There doesn't seem to be any experiments that clearly show the consciousness acts first and the brain follows. There are plenty to indicate the opposite, that the whole thing arises from the processes of the brain. The most basic observations would be as follows.

Healthy brain function = conscious with mental faculties.

Impaired brain function = impaired consciousness, impaired faculties.

No brain function = no consciousness, no mental faculties.

That we don't understand how, as yet, doesn't mean there must be some extraneous substance or process. There might be, but claiming it must be so without evidence to indicate there is, is simply inventing an unknown to explain the mysterious. There is no direct evidence for "something extra" going on. It is replacing ignorance with a belief, the "soul of the gaps".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Only in one sense. In another, modern science is making intriguing findings about the brain which might be linked to what we see as paranormal  abilities eg darpa has found that humans can see a brief distance into the future.  Both words and images have been directly transferred from one human mind to another  via direct and wireless links, and then via machines onto  hard copies.  In what would once have been considered mind reading   scientists in some fields are already talking about being able to link minds and converse mentally across long distances using technology and being able to record and store visual thoughts with video like quality, so that, for example, you might record your dreams onto a machine,and post them online as a part of a blog.  In other words the paranormal becomes normalised But that is what we should expect as it has been happening for centuries as human knowledge and science improves.  How long ago would it have been considered paranormal for a human being to control a machine remotely via thought commands  transmitted through the air invisibly ? 

 

 

Do you have a link on the bolded? The DARPA Website seems to come up empty. 

The communications you are speaking are based on EEG technology. A Novel use of the tech, but hardly inconceivable. More of a gimmick. LINK - Those 'mind-reading' EEG headsets definitely can't read your thoughts

The controls work like this, according to Emotiv: users can "train" Epoc by thinking of certain objects or motions over and over; this allows the EEG to pick up the patterns associated with each thought. "You can think 'fly' or think about something that you can recall with clarity," says Kim Du, a spokesperson for Emotiv. "You can think about pushing, think about the color blue. The software program is looking for that specific pattern."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Psyche ( my dear young man :st my companion to my morning coffee!!! :D  ): 

:st

Young and dear! Now this day is picking up!!!! Big time!!!!

14 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I often wonder, or maybe just now white reading your post, if it's a generalized pattern of kids coming to their reasoning that Santa doesn't exist, ( I let my kids come to their own conclusions as my parents did ) that the same ends up about their religious upbringing. Maybe I'm not sure of this, because of my secular upbringing, but I would think that after finding out Santa, The tooth fairy, the Easter bunny, etch, don't exist by their reasoning of lack of conclusive proof, ( like knowing the tooth fairy doesn't exist by not telling your parents you have lost a tooth, and put it under your pillow anyways and finding it's still there and no money the next morning: ((Trust me, a friend of my daughter's did this))) Well, the kids would then go one to finding out their particular religion their parents taught them doesn't exist by the same notion. 

I have often read and heard examples of those who stopped believing as kids or teenagers. And I have often read and hear of a lot of those examples. To me, very telling. ;) 

I expect so, my kids had a religious avenue with schooling, I was surprised when my son laughed Santa off to his little sister, I had to let him know that was a bit rough and that "Kids who do not believe in Santa do not get presents from Santa" with a wink. He left it alone after that, but I still do not know what gave him that revelation. 

14 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Yeah, I do have the feeling, now because of the numerous paranormal shows, that it seems to be a variety of what they get and what they conclude. ( I think I have mentioned many times before, that I still watch them with extreme interest no matter of how conclusive they are ) Anyways, I think there is just no thought process being objectively defined, because I don't think it still can be shown objectively shown as proof. Kind of how I view religion, it's ambiguity will always be there, because I feel of how it cannot be defined as objective. If there is proof, then does it stop being paranormal? Like religion cannot be defined as science or what else similar, because religion is pretty much summed up as more of a subjective belief. If provable, does it stop being a religion? ;) 

And on that note of the numerous paranormal, ghost chasing or hunting, shows, I think I have found it to be still a subjective outlook, because of the different procedures, mindsets, and where (channels) they are being scheduled and shown. 

I do feel, that Ghost Hunters are pretty much those who started the ball rolling. I do like this show and the guys within them. I feel that they definitely put a more grounded look on it, as opposed to shows I have seen presented like 'Most Haunted' in which I find it very dramatic or pulling for the dramatic flair. I have read in some message boards, that the channel that "Ghost Hunters" is on, is that the production and channel is trying to get that flair pushed into the show, but it is not with agreement to the founders of the show. ( And I think I read just recently, this season is the last that GH is going to be on Syfy, but not the last of the show itself and will be finding another network. I think that is what is happened to Josh Gates's Destination Truth. I now find him on the Travel Channel and the show Exhibition Unknown which I have noticed ( and I feel I read Josh stating in something or someplace ) is the same format as DT, but with less or no paranormal aspects ( and less of a crew, I MISS RYDER!! ) More on the investigating myths and urban legends and such. 

Ghost Adventures  I have always found to be more journalistic in precedure, as I have seen GH as more client like and more kind of a documentary. ( Or shall I think the two shows in the opposite thinking? ) Anyways, I have found that they have a different outlook on what they do. ( I do get a :w00t: outlook, when Zac says they debunk things as not natural, while Jason claims that they debunk it as not paranormal. ) 

So, in the end when shows like Ghost Lab Ghost Brothers and other shows that have popped up recently, I do see various aspects not necessarily used in other shows. ( I don't know if it's just me, but sometimes when one show comes up with a new technique, it gets used in other shows. :blink: ) 

In the end, what can anyone conclude? Well, I don't think one can objectively conclude, it's just up to them and their subjective thinking. Ghost Brothers, I have found, tend to go through their investigations like GH, althought they tend to go to places that GA tend to go. *shrugs* 

So, I don't think I can really say how one can conclude anything, psyche, but it will be my subjective thinking that comes as my answer. In which, I hoped I help answered your question. :) 

 

:D You sure fulfill a request! What a wonderful wife you must be!!!!!

If something "paranormal" can be confirmed by science, then yes, it becomes fact, and no longer "Paranormal" Same with things like homeopathy and alternative medicine, if they could pass a test and prove their worth, then they would be qualified as medicine, and not alternatives. These things then become fact, which is open to all claims that can provide evidence of the accompanying claim. Everything become "mainstream" with proof. 

Do you find these shows condescending, or supportive of your views of the phenomena? I rather respect you, you are probably the only person I would seriously ask that question of knowing it is one of your interests. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2016-07-26 at 1:57 AM, Horta said:

Quite a problem for you there then. What science is consistently finding (though already obvious to many) is that consciousness and the mind are effects caused by brain activity. The mystical/spiritual experiences also already have plausible explanations via psychology and neuroscience. It's going in the opposite direction than you seem to think.

There is no evidence that the brain creates consciousness. It's a materialist assumption.

As for mystical/spiritual experiences, scholars who have really studied the subject all say that they have the power to transform somebody's life for the best and broaden one's perspective on reality, which seems to point to a lot more than a malfunctionning brain.

Edited by TruthSeeker_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

There is no evidence that the brain creates consciousness. It's a materialist assumption.

Like so many things you post, that is simply not true.

 

 

LINK - The attention schema theory: a mechanistic account of subjective awareness

In the attention schema theory, attaching the construct of awareness to a specific item – whether an apple, or a thought, or anything else – requires some method of integrating information across disparate brain areas into a single, larger, brain-spanning representation (the S+A+V of Figure 1B). In this sense, the attention schema theory resembles many previous proposals in which consciousness depends on an integration of information, a binding of information, a brain-wide global workspace, or a settling of networks into a single coherent state (Baars, 1983; Crick and Koch, 1990; Tononi, 2008; Schurger et al., 2012). The attention schema theory is consistent with these previous proposals, but also goes beyond them. In the attention schema theory, awareness does not arise just because the brain integrates information or settles into a network state, any more than the perceptual model of color arises just because information in the visual system becomes integrated or settles into a state. Specific information about color must be constructed by the visual system and integrated with other visual information. Just so, in the case of awareness, the construct of awareness must be computed. Then it can be integrated with other information. Then the brain has sufficient information to conclude and report not only, “thing X is red,” or, “thing X is round,” but also, “I am aware of thing X.”

 

LINK - A New Theory Explains How Consciousness Evolved

When I think about evolution, I’m reminded of Teddy Roosevelt’s famous quote, “Do what you can with what you have where you are.” Evolution is the master of that kind of opportunism. Fins become feet. Gill arches become jaws. And self-models become models of others. In the AST, the attention schema first evolved as a model of one’s own covert attention. But once the basic mechanism was in place, according to the theory, it was further adapted to model the attentional states of others, to allow for social prediction. Not only could the brain attribute consciousness to itself, it began to attribute consciousness to others.

 

They are formulated theories based on evidence we have gathered. As such, that is theory, which is beyond opinion. 

They are not paperbacks from a newsstand, that sort of thing is opinion.

15 minutes ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

As for mystical/spiritual experiences, scholars who have really studied the subject all say that they have the power to transform somebody's life for the best and broaden one's perspective on reality, which seems to point to a lot more than a malfunctionning brain.

 

 

How do they explain lobotomies then? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

pysche: 

:st

Young and dear! Now this day is picking up!!!! Big time!!!!

;)        :w00t:    

I expect so, my kids had a religious avenue with schooling, I was surprised when my son laughed Santa off to his little sister, I had to let him know that was a bit rough and that "Kids who do not believe in Santa do not get presents from Santa" with a wink. He left it alone after that, but I still do not know what gave him that revelation. 

I find that very curious myself. As for public schools, and schools within military housing, ( in which my kids first went to at that time) religion and such, was not allowed to be professed or communicated, so there isn't any preference or any forms of prosetylizing going on. ( there is even a situation that school's officials sent a note home to me to inform me of a time when they had to talk to a fellow student and their parents about that student talking about God to my daughter. We all do see, it wasn't any form of prosetylizing, and that kid was just mentioning how things are and it's referencing things in a way that child was raised, and it wasn't saying anything negative or such to my daughter at the time, but it had to be discussed that it wasn't allowed and my daughter's parents, had to be informed of it, because she was a recipient of it, just the same. if this shows anything) Anyways, the 'tooth discussion' occurred during these times, and it is understandable that children that age come to these conclusions. 

Although, I guess you can look at it a little funny, because growing up secular and raising my kids secular, we allowed them the ideas of Santa, the Easter bunny, the tooth fairy, etc. because we felt it was part of the 'magic' of childhood'. :D And that instead of us finding a certain time to tell them the truth about said 'figures' allow them to come to that conclusion themselves. But in the end, I think we all want to encourage that magic that is part of childhood, and want to see how they come to their own conclusions themselves. ( be assured, if they hadn't figured it out by teenage hood, we would have 'put things right' ;) ) 

:D You sure fulfill a request! What a wonderful wife you must be!!!!!

:blush: 

If something "paranormal" can be confirmed by science, then yes, it becomes fact, and no longer "Paranormal" Same with things like homeopathy and alternative medicine, if they could pass a test and prove their worth, then they would be qualified as medicine, and not alternatives. These things then become fact, which is open to all claims that can provide evidence of the accompanying claim. Everything become "mainstream" with proof. 

And I would probably not get an interest after awhile, because I guess I'm some form of a rebel, and wouldn't back off. ;)  :lol:  

Well, seriously, not really. My point, I like the idea of paranormal things, mysteries, and such. I think it helps us learn more about our surroundings. 

Remember, I said, I think it helps us learn more about our surroundings. I didn't say it does help us learn more about our surroundings. So, I conclude it as a subjective sub-use, and not objective sub-use. If I would use an example, with watching the paranormal shows, reading the books, when a place and such is being investigated for reported hauntings, there is usually a backstory to the place and then I get a cultural and historic education of it. I guess, I like history too, ( I guess?!?! I know I do ) and cultural differences. And seeing it, if I believe the results and experiences and what I see as 'caught' and see how that responds to today's updated point of view and reality. 

IN the end, it would stop being what it is, which is attractive to me. I wonder, if religion stops being a certain thing to those who depend on religion, if it becomes provable truth? Wouldn't it stop being a religion, for religion is something that is there by faith, and not truth? ( which is why I don't get why some religious prosetylizers claim it's truth they're pushing when it cannot be proven as such ) 

I would think, if that becomes the case, then it is what our laws are today. That it's something that proves to be true by evidence and that is for our protection. And that these laws are passed by actual individuals present or were living and recorded. 

Do you find these shows condescending, or supportive of your views of the phenomena? I rather respect you, you are probably the only person I would seriously ask that question of knowing it is one of your interests. 

Thank you. :)  And I think that is a wonderful question to ask. Be it to me, or to anyone. 

And I would probably answer, that it depends on the show. As I have explained how I see how the different paranormal shows have different techniques and point of views and behaviors to each of them in my previous post, my answer as to whether I find them condescending or supportive for my views, would also vary. Like I have said about GH, I find them the leaders in paving the way for others in the field to bring more attention to it. But even then, I still feel there should always be an open mind to it, and the multi-tasking of seeing it for what it is and for entertainment and possible informing at the same time. I will always consider what my daughter has said about things on tv, in books, in pictures, and such, ( and she use to watch and get a fascinated look to them too ) no matter what, there will always be that possibility for fakery, because they're not there for me to really know. So, one part of my answer is, I don't let it be condescending, or let it really support my views, because that thought my daughter gave me doesn't allow it. 

There are shows, that I have found where it depends on the behavior and the thinking, can vary too. I like the no nonsense way GH does their stuff, ( and I have found GB, and GL and some other shows too ) and there really isn't any room for me to think they are condescending to me. They're doing it for their way of helping others, and coming to a conclusion for themselves. Despite I love to watch GA, and I think Zac Baggins is definitely a character in my book. ;) He and GA, sometimes get a bit too dramatic in their approach. Not necessarily too much, that I have found 'Most Haunted', but sometimes, one cannot jump at everything and say, "GHOST!". :o ................... ;)  I still love to watch them, because it is entertaining to watch, and it has things that match my love of the paranormal. I do sometimes like to catch things, that I don't think anyone on GA notices, and I wonder if that supports my views on the paranormal. But in the end, I watch GA despite the dramatics. It's like being a fan of a particular celebrity and even watching them act in a dud of a movie. 

But I will admit, there are alot of varyin paranormal shows, and sometimes the repetition of it, or that it's agenda goes way beyond in what I want to see, does not get me watching it. Kind of how I feel about 'Most Haunted" :devil: 

Kind of like, when I search on the net, Google etc. for sites that talk about paranormal happenings in my area and beyond, there are some sites that say they have reports of the usual stereotyped ghosts, and I don't believe it for one second. Then yeah, that is something I find to be condescending to anyone reading that site. 

So, in essence, it varies, and it depends on the presentation. So, that is why I worship Josh Gates like a god!!!!  <-- did I just type that?!?! :devil: 

If I go back to the point of this thread, I would think it's the same thing with me. Things would vary in how one perceives their faith. Being told to believe in God, not religion. Well, one, I can see it on one level, for religion differs and it depends on what religion is condescending and what one supports one's faith. But even God can be ambiguous, so you can't depend on feeling the objectiveness on that. 

You know, in the end, if I'm going to sum up my post on this, it would be that we should respect each other's faith or Atheism, because it's all subjective in the end, and it is is what drives us. ( if we all have a sense of common sense thinking, that is ) 

Man, ....................... psyche..................... did I say too much?!?!?! :o 

 

Edited by Stubbly_Dooright
wrong word
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I believe there is a God but not the way religion says "he" is.

 

I believe in mother nature and what we take we must give back, nature works in strange ways.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.