Are you religious or spiritual?

Post Reply New Topic

I really tend to doubt it is "just the result", as our very mental processes are impacted by what impacts the neurons. Have you ever gotten drunk? Have you ever taken a hit to the head? I doubt that alcohol and blunt objects are really attacking your soul. Heck the fact that lesions in the brain impact brain functioning significantly is another bad sign for the "soul" idea.

Look, a thinker that I continually recommend on the matter is Dan Dennett, who is a real thinker, unlike Marx.
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on ... sness.html

As Dennett points out, we aren't as conscious of reality as we think we are, and frankly, we aren't actually aware of the mental processes our brain is going through as we'd need to be for dualism to make much sense. This can be seen in Benjamin Libet's experiments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_L ... xperiments

As it stands, there is really no reason to invoke mysticism in the brain, just as there is no reason to invoke mysticism on car engines. Or let's look at it this way: do you invoke supernatural hypotheses for the functioning of ants? Why then for a process that simply evolved and is a bit more complex than theirs?

Based on what you make such assertions? Given that the brain is just ordinary matter, how your non-material thought translate into physical movements? We have not found any such soul-matter interaction in any experiments.



Based on what you make such assertion?



Where did you leran this? Your magic book again?

Define what is thought and what is mean by thought exists.

Consciousness is an epiphenomena of ions transported through a semipermiable membrane by electrostatic forces. It is all electrochemical. Consciousness is one of many kinds of physical-chemical processes that take place in living things.

Eventually you will learn that EVERYTHING is physical. There is only matter and energy transforming in space-time.

ruveyn

Oh, ruveyn, you show so much hope for the believers. How can I ever learn to be as hopeful as you?

What does 'consciousness' mean in this context?

Neurons discharging in a coordinated fashion.

ruveyn

That's not what it means though. There is a lot of that that we are unconscious of, but that is still neural. Rather, "consciousness" really must refer what mental processes a living being can speak of happening with themselves without the use of a more advanced psychological theory or diagnostic equipment.

You mean that is not how theologians and philosophers use the word. But in fact it is neurological process. We are dealing with what we ARE, to wit, a variety of animal. Our consciousness is the consequence of neurological functioning. We are physical right down to the molecular level.

It is only god-freaks and philosophers who want to make consciousness supernatural and mysterious. Look at what we really are. We are made of the same stuff as trees and cows.

ruveyn

No, I mean, that your definition was very incomplete. Your definition is like calling a steak to be "cooked animal flesh". Now, while it is true, it misses what identifies steak against other bits of animal flesh.

I agree with your basic ideas though, but a flawed definition is a flawed definition.

I don't believe in spirits or gods or the supernatural in any way,
I believe.. in SCIENCE!

Though I won't completely shut out the concept of a soul (some form of concious energy..?!) or god-type being (perhaps god-like extra-terrestrials), my beliefs are mainly grounded in what we can know for certain and scientific theories with credibility - and I don't view either spiritual or godly beliefs as having any credible basis...

I think that the physical and spiritual are linked. There's no doubt about that. However, most (if not all) religions operate on the assumption that the soul/sense of self/consciousness/spirit/ghost/identity/whatever is able to survive physical death.

Sure, one's perspective is affected by natural physical effects, such as drugs, physical trauma, and so on. But that doesn't change the underlying PERSON responsible for the physical body.

My wife's grandmother recently suffered a nasty stroke, which was only discovered after an infection left her severely dehydrated. The drugs used to treat the infection took some time to be effective, and in discovering the recent stroke, a scan showed that over a long period of time she'd actually had several strokes.

The end result was some temporary short-term memory loss and confusion. For about two weeks, she thought it was Monday when she woke up every morning. Over those two weeks and when she went in for physical therapy to try to recover her strength and get her brain functions back up to a level where she could return to assisted living, she came to understand what had happened and understand why it seemed the world doesn't make sense anymore. It's a difficult adjustment.

One of the biggest obstacles she faced in the days after admittance to the hospital was that her sister and certain insensitive nurses and other hospital workers kept pestering her and not allowing her time to figure out a proper response. It was really stressful for her. My wife panicked. I pulled her aside in the hallway outside the hospital room and explained to her that her grandmother was fine, but her responses that seemed to indicate she was uncomfortable or in pain were not due to actual pain; it was an emotional response after her granddaughter (the only family she has left and really trusts) told her that she'd had a stroke.

After explaining that it was emotional, not physical (in the strictest sense), my wife handled the situation differently, and we began to see that her grandmother was more "with us" than we gave her credit for. Her sister was already talking to hospital staff about making nursing home arrangements.

Within a few short weeks, she's made amazing strides in recovering a lot of her brain function, though occasionally (usually in the morning) she still suffers from a lot of confusion. However, she is perfectly aware WHY she's confused and understands that things are less what they seemed than before.

If there is no underlying CAUSE for consciousness, if the brain, peripheral nervous system, and physical body are the sole governing forces of our existence, then we might just as well start digging the grandmother's grave NOW and get it over with. But if there IS a cause beyond the physical, there's no reason to give up yet.

Right, and this is a reason to reject a lot of them.


The problem is that if those don't, then what counts? We can suppress violent urges with the right chemicals, or right incision. We can deny a person themselves if we hurt their brain enough. It is possible to divide the brain in two and have one side be a theist and the other side be atheist. Cancer in the right part of the brain can remove all will to do anything. As it stands, neurologists hold that human behavior emerges from the brain with good reason, and if human behavior emerges from that, then how *can* we point to the "underlying PERSON" at ALL!


Your line of reasoning makes no sense. Even further, given that the major way to recover from a stroke is to refigure out how to exploit existing neural connections to attain the previous level of functioning, I see no reason why something that stimulates a different part couldn't have even significantly different responses. Human beings stimulate themselves much of the time, such as by talking to themselves. When we talk to ourselves we think better, but y'know, this doesn't prove there is a spirit, but it does make sense if stimulating different parts of the brain improves our thinking.

It makes perfect sense. I see the neural network as an interface, a physical bridge between the natural world and the spiritual. If something is wrong at the perceptual level, then it makes our view of reality unreliable and untrustworthy. We have to figure out, perhaps arbitrarily, what IS right or not. Likewise, if the output or feedback functions are affected, it's difficult to interact with the outside world. The "person" is still there, and one need not merely be a mindless slave to physical existence. The body, including the nervous system, is the servant of the will, not the other way around.

As to whether there is such thing as awareness, sense of self, spirit/soul, and so on, one need only consult common sense for evidence.

Well, no it actually doesn't make sense. Your own explanation doesn't help. The "person" themselves is likely a mental fiction. Psychologist Paul Bloom in this essay: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... ural/7055/ talks about how alterable even the psychology can be, such that a such thing as a "person" makes very little sense of the brain. Bloom also relates this to conditions such as multiple personality disorder, which I would kind of think that your "spiritual person" idea would have a lot of difficulty explaining. In fact, I don't even think that "spiritual persons" are even reasonably credible at this point given the degree to which human activity can be altered by the brain. To say that there is a little man talking to our heads just sounds like an absurdity at this point.

I see. So since you are a mental fiction, your response is absurd.