Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Iacchus · 06-21-2007, 06:53 PM

Awhile ago, in another thread, I was asked to get my ideas together and attempt to present a more concise view of God. And, while I attempted to start such a thread, it has since fallen by the wayside, as certain unforeseen things came up and caused me to lose sight of it. However, what I am referring to here in this thread (as posted below), pretty much explains the extent and nature of the things I understand and have worked with, regarding the "spiritual realm." While it is here that I draw any inferences to God (also in accord with the Bible, as they both seem to relate), and mine is merely an attempt reconcile these views with God (Who, I firmly believe in), as well as attempt to explain how it works in accord with the natural world, so that others may understand as well.

And, while what I'm saying may be a bit scant, it does get very close to what I would like to say, I believe, and at least gives folks some idea of where I'm coming from. The bottom line being yes, I do believe that a spiritual world/continuum exists -- by which the natural world came about and is thus sustained -- and, that spirits do exist and dwell there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by untermensche

What do you think causes mind?

To establish a correlation with some entity and the mind requires seeing how the mind reacts when the entity in question is effected.

There is significant evidence that effecting the brain has immediate and observable effects on the mind. I deal with this daily.

What other entity has this correlation?

Please be specific.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iacchus

A radio, since it too, like the brain, processes "signals." Whereas with a radio, all you need do is damage one of its circuits, and it too will affect the output of the signal. So, in what way does this compare to the brain which, processes "the mind" internally? We are in fact speaking of an alternative source for the mind, are we not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by untermensche

Speculating on it, yes.

A radio is like a brain in that it recieves a signal of energy from the external world and then converts this signal into something else. It has an antenna to recieve the signal.

The nervous system has been studied extensively and we know all the receptor cells (antenna) that recieve energy of some kind and then transmit a signal about that energy to the brain.

To specualte that there is something besides energy that can excite a receptor cell and bring a signal about it to the brain would require finding this receptor cell.

There is no such receptor cell known. No known "antenna" of this kind. Unless you want to speculate that the entire brain is an "antenna" of some kind, which then makes the analogy to the radio innacurate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iacchus

These external signals which the brain receives and the mind interprets (and/or interacts with), are not a part of the conscious mind, however. But, they must be on par with (or, of a similar quailty) with the signals that constitute and generate the mind. Otherwise the world that we see and hear around us would not feel as if it were "woven" into our conscious experience. So, the question is, what generates consciousness, and generates the sense of "self" (awareness) that these other signals seem to mingle with and/or interact with?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Well, being the dualist that I am, I believe that there is a spiritual world (or continuum), that is just as vast and extensive as the physical world, if not more so. Also, I believe that the spiritual world is responsible for the creation of the physical world, and is tied to it in every single last aspect, and so works in concert with it in that respect. So, might I suggest these "receptor cells" serve a dual purpose, in that they both receive and transmit signals on "both sides" of the barrier here? Whereas since they exist extensively throughout the body and so comprise the nervous system, which also contains "the mind," that this may in fact be what gives rise to our spirit or soul which passes on when the body dies?

Perhaps I can attempt to elaborate more on this, if you like?

Here are a few brief things I would like to add:

If such a spiritual continuum does exist, then perhaps we can begin to understand what gave rise to the Big Bang, and sustain Creation as it is allowed to "unfold" ... which, is not altogether different than what we currently understand on the matter, except perhaps for a few exceptions.
We now have an alternative source for certain aspects of consciousness, or "the mind," and so gives rise to the notion that free will does exist, and has some effect over the "physical world." Otherwise, I don't see how any other conclusion can be drawn, except that the entire process is deterministic.
If, as it is said, God does not dwell within the parameters of time and space (although He most certainly has an effect upon it), then clearly we have a place for Him to reside.
It also provides a better understanding of the "spiritual things" which are articulated throughout the Bible, and thus provides a more informative reading.

And, while I'm sure there are many things that can be added here, this is enough to get things started.

Thanks!

RareBird · 06-21-2007, 06:57 PM

It's all a big nothing.

JGL53 · 06-21-2007, 06:59 PM

Modern science - the past three hundred years - have passed with a lot of progress in understanding the universe, yet no indication that any idealism offers the best understanding of anything. The lines of evidence all seem to lead to materialism.

That's good enough for me to be a provisional materialist. If those who make extraordinary claims continue to fail to produce the needed extraordinary evidence, then I shall remain a materialist.

I realize that dreams can come true, and it could happen to you, but why hold your breath in the meantime?

(That's all I have to say - considering what there apparently is to work with.)

Iacchus · 06-21-2007, 07:05 PM

The only thing that Science has clearly established, is that the material world exists. So what?

What about the notion of free will? Does Science believe that free will doesn't exist?

GenesisNemesis · 06-21-2007, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iacchus

The only thing that Science has clearly established, is that the material world exists. So what?

It has not established that the "spiritual world" exists. There is no way to establish that it does.

GenesisNemesis · 06-21-2007, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iacchus

What about the notion of free will? Does Science believe that free will doesn't exist?

Science, as far as I know, says nothing about theological concepts such as "free will".

JGL53 · 06-21-2007, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iacchus

...What about the notion of free will? Does Science believe that free will doesn't exist?

Is "free will" some sort of extra-scientific reality? No, it is a phrase describing one of the functions of the brain, i.e, it makes choices. And recent cognitive or neurological research indicates the "choice" is made sub-consciously. So, conscious free will choice may be a phantom. I think V.S. Ramachandran mentions this is his book "A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness". This book explain a lot about the operations of the brain of which you may not be aware.

Smullyan-esque · 06-21-2007, 09:54 PM

Iacchus, this is all just a bunch of pure speculation, based on no real evidence. We can all come up with all sorts of cool speculations, but unless there is some reason to think they are real, then it is ultimately just entertainment, not reality.

RAFH · 06-21-2007, 10:40 PM

Once again, a speculation to see if you can somehow rationalize your god(s) and spirit(s). Its bogus, there's no indication whatsoever of any such receptors for any such signals, there's no indication whatsoever of any such medium for such signals, there's no indication whatsoever of any such signals. I mean, its an interesting idea, but there's nothing in reality which supports these notions in any way. Nothing at all.

If you think you have something, present it. But this is always the stumbling block, loads of suggestions and concepts and ideas about something 'supernatural' but never any support for it. Nothing at all.

It's the big IF. IF only this and IF only that or IF these or IF those. That's all you have, IFs. Nothing to support them.

For there to be a signal, there has to be a medium for that signal to travel in. There is nothing of that. Its been looked for over and over, for years and years by lots of people but there's not even a hint of something. Just IFs.

"1. If such a spiritual continuum does exist, then perhaps we can begin to understand what gave rise to the Big Bang, and sustain Creation as it is allowed to "unfold" ... which, is not altogether different than what we currently understand on the matter, except perhaps for a few exceptions."

And is there any indication of such a continuum? Enough already with the IFs, we have IFs enough to last an eternity, but nothing in the real world arena. Nothing at all. Just IFs. Yeah, except for a few exceptions.

"2. We now have an alternative source for certain aspects of consciousness, or "the mind," and so gives rise to the notion that free will does exist, and has some effect over the "physical world." Otherwise, I don't see how any other conclusion can be drawn, except that the entire process is deterministic."

No, we don't have anything other than another IF, actually just the same as the other IFs. Why do you keep thinking there is an alternate source? What certain aspects of consciousness? List them and explain how naturalism doesn't support them. Why does free will have to exist? Or not exist? What 'effects' over the physical world are you referring to? List them and explain why naturalism does not support them.

Why can't any other conclusion be drawn? Frankly I don't see any conclusion, I see only an assertion seeking something to support it, desperately seeking support.

Why can't the process be deterministic, with the odd bit of probability thrown in? What observations of reality prompt this need for an explaination? Other than your need to prop up a belief in god(s)?

"3. If, as it is said, God does not dwell within the parameters of time and space (although He most certainly has an effect upon it), then clearly we have a place for Him to reside."

Where/what/how is this "not within the parameters of time and space" other than some notion to allow your god(s) concept a place to hide where it can't be found (because the where doesn't exist)?

What observations of reality prompt this notion, other than (again) your need to prop up your notion of god(s)?

Yep, clearly a non-place to hide non-something.

"4. It also provides a better understanding of the "spiritual things" which are articulated throughout the Bible, and thus provides a more informative reading."

What 'spiritual things'? The bible is an ancient book of mythology relating the struggle of a minor Middle Eastern ethnic group to survive up until the saga got hijacked by a more modern Romanized group to support their own goals and which then got hi-jacked by a Roman emperor and a group influential with him. The bible is not a reliable incator or record of much, many of its 'facts' that can be checked are false, indeed, the closer you get to the 'spiritual' aspects of the bible the less accurate and reliable it is.

As with all theologic work, this is apologetic. Trying desperately to find some way imaginary friends can be real.

I've made clear my needs for some sort of theory for your supernatural scenarios: provide a coherent model based on your god(s) which accurately and reliably describes reality and which makes predictions which are reliable and accurate.

This is just another "IF", another "IF ONLY". Yeah, if only your god(s) would show up. Then there'd be something to talk about. 2000 years of assertions and nothing to show for it, nothing but 2000 years of assertions.

Iacchus · 06-21-2007, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JGL53

Is "free will" some sort of extra-scientific reality? No, it is a phrase describing one of the functions of the brain, i.e, it makes choices. And recent cognitive or neurological research indicates the "choice" is made sub-consciously. So, conscious free will choice may be a phantom. I think V.S. Ramachandran mentions this is his book "A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness". This book explain a lot about the operations of the brain of which you may not be aware.

Oh, so the choice is made sub-consciously but, we are fully well aware while we are making that choice? No, I don't think so. What would be the point in being aware then? Not to say that our sub-conscious "memories" don't have an effect on the choices that we make, for I'm sure that they do. But, these are merely etched into our brains due to the prior choices we have made and, rather continue to make, simply because it suits our circumstances the most, and we have in fact become comfortable with it. This is "the territory" we are most familiar with ... and, when something new and unfamiliar comes along, naturally we're going to feel reluctant to "choose" in that direction -- even strongly perhaps -- simply because we are now "out of our element" and no longer feel like we're at home. So, what does this telll us, aside from the fact that humans are creatures of comfort? And, how can this be construed as not having any "free will?"

Of course, like I said, if the material world is all that exists, then I can't help but agree, that no such thing is possible. So, it only stands to reason that the proponents of "physicalism" would try to establish such a thing as a known fact ... albeit it doesn't explain anything why the notion of free will is so conspicuously apparent. Most people would at least have to "behave" as if they had free will, otherwise suffer the consequences.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-21-2007, 06:57 PM	#2
RareBird Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Virginia Beach Posts: 4,607	It's all a big nothing.

06-21-2007, 06:59 PM	#3
JGL53 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Outer Mongolia Posts: 4,091	Modern science - the past three hundred years - have passed with a lot of progress in understanding the universe, yet no indication that any idealism offers the best understanding of anything. The lines of evidence all seem to lead to materialism. That's good enough for me to be a provisional materialist. If those who make extraordinary claims continue to fail to produce the needed extraordinary evidence, then I shall remain a materialist. I realize that dreams can come true, and it could happen to you, but why hold your breath in the meantime? (That's all I have to say - considering what there apparently is to work with.)

06-21-2007, 07:05 PM	#4
Iacchus Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 3,414	The only thing that Science has clearly established, is that the material world exists. So what? What about the notion of free will? Does Science believe that free will doesn't exist?

06-21-2007, 09:54 PM	#8
Smullyan-esque Contributor Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: California Posts: 18,543	Iacchus, this is all just a bunch of pure speculation, based on no real evidence. We can all come up with all sorts of cool speculations, but unless there is some reason to think they are real, then it is ultimately just entertainment, not reality.

06-21-2007, 10:40 PM	#9
RAFH Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Kahaluu, Hawaii Posts: 6,400	Once again, a speculation to see if you can somehow rationalize your god(s) and spirit(s). Its bogus, there's no indication whatsoever of any such receptors for any such signals, there's no indication whatsoever of any such medium for such signals, there's no indication whatsoever of any such signals. I mean, its an interesting idea, but there's nothing in reality which supports these notions in any way. Nothing at all. If you think you have something, present it. But this is always the stumbling block, loads of suggestions and concepts and ideas about something 'supernatural' but never any support for it. Nothing at all. It's the big IF. IF only this and IF only that or IF these or IF those. That's all you have, IFs. Nothing to support them. For there to be a signal, there has to be a medium for that signal to travel in. There is nothing of that. Its been looked for over and over, for years and years by lots of people but there's not even a hint of something. Just IFs. "1. If such a spiritual continuum does exist, then perhaps we can begin to understand what gave rise to the Big Bang, and sustain Creation as it is allowed to "unfold" ... which, is not altogether different than what we currently understand on the matter, except perhaps for a few exceptions." And is there any indication of such a continuum? Enough already with the IFs, we have IFs enough to last an eternity, but nothing in the real world arena. Nothing at all. Just IFs. Yeah, except for a few exceptions. "2. We now have an alternative source for certain aspects of consciousness, or "the mind," and so gives rise to the notion that free will does exist, and has some effect over the "physical world." Otherwise, I don't see how any other conclusion can be drawn, except that the entire process is deterministic." No, we don't have anything other than another IF, actually just the same as the other IFs. Why do you keep thinking there is an alternate source? What certain aspects of consciousness? List them and explain how naturalism doesn't support them. Why does free will have to exist? Or not exist? What 'effects' over the physical world are you referring to? List them and explain why naturalism does not support them. Why can't any other conclusion be drawn? Frankly I don't see any conclusion, I see only an assertion seeking something to support it, desperately seeking support. Why can't the process be deterministic, with the odd bit of probability thrown in? What observations of reality prompt this need for an explaination? Other than your need to prop up a belief in god(s)? "3. If, as it is said, God does not dwell within the parameters of time and space (although He most certainly has an effect upon it), then clearly we have a place for Him to reside." Where/what/how is this "not within the parameters of time and space" other than some notion to allow your god(s) concept a place to hide where it can't be found (because the where doesn't exist)? What observations of reality prompt this notion, other than (again) your need to prop up your notion of god(s)? Yep, clearly a non-place to hide non-something. "4. It also provides a better understanding of the "spiritual things" which are articulated throughout the Bible, and thus provides a more informative reading." What 'spiritual things'? The bible is an ancient book of mythology relating the struggle of a minor Middle Eastern ethnic group to survive up until the saga got hijacked by a more modern Romanized group to support their own goals and which then got hi-jacked by a Roman emperor and a group influential with him. The bible is not a reliable incator or record of much, many of its 'facts' that can be checked are false, indeed, the closer you get to the 'spiritual' aspects of the bible the less accurate and reliable it is. As with all theologic work, this is apologetic. Trying desperately to find some way imaginary friends can be real. I've made clear my needs for some sort of theory for your supernatural scenarios: provide a coherent model based on your god(s) which accurately and reliably describes reality and which makes predictions which are reliable and accurate. This is just another "IF", another "IF ONLY". Yeah, if only your god(s) would show up. Then there'd be something to talk about. 2000 years of assertions and nothing to show for it, nothing but 2000 years of assertions.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.