Reason and God

Post Reply New Topic

Well major problem in your belief is because you try to define 'self' that is something subjective and part of internal experience,with something that is objective (brain,cells) and part of external experience.
Little children don't even know that there is such thing as brain,but they have concept of 'me'.
Brain is organ that is part of objective reality,and children when they grow up,through research of objective reality will discover existence of brain.
However there is no discovering of 'self',since 'self' is first thing we know,and we know it by direct knowledge,and without need of senses.
Yes,there is correlation between brain and 'self',but there is also correlation between 'self' and rest of our body.
Yet,on other hand there is also correlation between cars that we driving and us.But this does not imply that car is us.
Correlation does not imply causation.

So in terms of phenomena 'self' is something totally different in its basis from brain,since 'self; is subjectivity,while brain is objectivity.There is connection between them,since brain is necessary to 'self' so that 'self' can express itself in objective reality.



Something like that yes....

Time and its moments are all part of existence as such.

not over-humble, are you?



The fact that someone does not understand the cause of a subjective experience does not mean that that experience has no material cause. You could equally argue that what people 'see' has no relationship to the mechanics of lenses or light because children understand neither.



speak for yourself, I suppose. I surprise and learn about myself on an ongoing basis. The Buddhists made an entire science out of the discovery of self, over thousands of years (they don't believe in a permanent 'self,' either, though the origin of their conclusion is different than mine).



Actually, in that case it does: just in the reverse of the order that you are thinking. The self chooses (causes) the car it drives. Mid-life-crisis-men and the teen children of rich parents drive sports cars; poor people drive econo-boxes; outdoors people (and those who wish to be perceived as outdoors people) drive SUVs.
More importantly, in the larger sense the self IS the body and the vehicle, as well as the road and the view and the other passengers and the dog in the back seat.



the problem with this is that 'self' can be objective as well. Brain surgery is often performed under local anesthesia only, so that the patient can tell the surgeon what they are experiencing. The surgeon can tell exactly where he or she is within the brain by the reactions of the patient; they can objectively predict what the patient will feel when certian areas are stimulated, and what will happen to the 'self' when certian areas are removed.
Traumatic head injuries can destroy parts of the self totally; intelligent people can become morons, kind people can become vicious, and thoughtful people can become impulsive. Psychoactive chemicals alter the functioning of the brain, and in so doing cause the 'self' to undergo quite predictable alterations until the chemicals have been metabolized from the body.

There is no dichotomy between material and spirit. They are two words for the same thing.

Isn't this basically the philosophy of Spinoza? I.e. Everything that is, is in God?


edit: I think you already answered that...! D'oh!

We don't know that subjective experience have material cause.We only know about correlation between subjectivity and objectivity.And between matter and mind.
'Seeing' is also subjective experience of objective things.However to see something,there must exist something that is able to see.Eyes are only instruments of sight.
But when we think,or imagine things,we don't use our physical senses.



True,there are many layers of personality.
However layers of personality is not same thing as 'self' as whole.
You don't need to discover that you is you.



You're confusing sense data with internal experience of self.Experiences in brain surgery are simply result of stimulations on one organ.
We can cut a leg of man without anesthesia and I assure you that he will also 'experience' things.
But people can live without legs,and even without parts of their brain,but they are still 'selfs'.



Emotions and intelligence are reaction of self towards outside world.These reactions depends of our senses and structure of our brains.
However no matter how these reactions may be changed,this person is still 'self',although with different perception of outside (objective) world.



These alterations are just reactions of 'self' towards outside world.

If you cease to drive car,and start to drive bicycle,then your way of driving of bicycle would became 'predictable'.But does this said anything about the driver?
Bicycle driver and his vehicle are not same thing,although vehicle has been used by driver for some purpose (transportation).



Yes there is- on categorial level of existence.In same way as time and space are two different things,like mass and force field,as quantity and quality are two different things.
However they are all necessary to each other.

On the level of pure existence (being) they are indeed the same thing.



Spinoza actually said that everything is Substance and that this Substance is basically 'God'.
Problem is that 'Substance' (Substantia) means something like 'basis' when it translated from Latin.
Or Sub-state...that is more precise.
Spinoza,however never really defined what this 'Substance' actually is,what is foundation of it.

And when he said that Substance is everything,he actually didn't say anything,he just made abstract logical construction.

So I'm saying something that Spinoza said,plus something that Spinoza didn't said.

P.S

When someone say: "We are our brains" he actually makes logical contradiction and fallacy.

For example "I am my brain" is sentence in which subject is same thing as predicate.
But that's not possible since subject,by definition is not predicate.

But when I'm saying that we are united in being,I don't make a logical error.

Since being (and derivations of that word) is copula or something that connects subject and predicate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula

sometimes I think so.



If clever.

Witt,
If the 'self' is not what thinks, not what reacts, and not what experiences, then what is it? It has no physical presence and no physical effects. It might as well not exist; there is as much evidence for it as for the flying spaghetti monster (to borrow a popular skeptic's phrase).

I have never said that 'self' does not experience.
'Self' always have experience of itself,and even without existence of senses it would still be able to experience itself and darkness instead of objectivity.

Self must always exist,since it's already exists.

And since that experience can be altered by alterations in the physical and chemical structure and makeup of the brain... ?

Even if you don't believe in the Biblical timescale, intelligent design can be seen throughout living systems, Earth's atmosphere, resources, and orbit parameters, male-female bodies, etc. Also extraBiblical history such as:

"Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome..."
Tacitus: "Annals" 15.44.2-8 Circa 115 AD

And,

"They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."
Pliny the Younger: Letter of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan Circa A.D. 112

Also, here is an interesting article on the grandsons of Noah

If a person does not believe in the Bible or in God why would intelligent design or the Biblical timescale mean anything at all to that person much less as "evidence"? Such things are only "evidence" for people who are already believe in God.

The quoted historical texts don't prove that God exists only that there was a historical figure who people worshiped as a god.

All I'm trying to say is that everything you've proposed here as evidence is only evidence to you because you already believe.

Only thing that can be altered is your perception of outside world.
But you can never alter your perception of yourself (that you is you).You can only alter your identity towards outside world.

People with different worldviews see things differently, that's for certain.

What a tautological thing for you to say! Who could disagree with that?

*looks around*...

*raises hand*


I'd say that NOTHING is that certain. Not even the foundations
of logic, which make tautologies self evident - which this is NOT.