Nowhere357

I don't know what the mind is. This prevents you from answering questions about it.

I don't know what the mind is, therefore it's irrational to debate.

And the mind is not a physical object, yet it holds mental objects all the time.

I don't know. An emergent quality or property of the brain.

Close enough. This clearly involves memory - to "recognize" requires comparison. And it requires awareness. This agrees with what I've said.

So do I. Nothing I said contradicts this. The mind is mental, the mental is mind. We agree. The mind has the fundamental property of being that which is aware. The existence of that property is why we talk about minds.

Is this thing aware? Does the idea of "mind" as a black box include the understanding that it is meant to represent something that has the quality of awareness?

Sigh. The mind exists, and is not made of matter. In what way is it not ethereal?

THAT WHICH IS AWARE. Subjective. (Mental). Awareness. That which thinks and feels and remembers. I don't know how to make this clearer for you.

I hope you understand I'll need more than just your word on that. And my definitions are all based on standard dictionary and philosophical dictionary definitions.

Isn't an abstract theoretical black box non-physical? Does that mean your theory requires a spiritual entity?

I have said this: "I don't understand the exact interface between mind and brain. I think the individual physical activities in the brain (neurons, chemicals, quantum activity) inter-relate in abstract ways - and there is not a 1-1 corespondance between the mind and brain. That is, if you stimulate a portion of the brain, the outcome is not the same each time, even though the initial conditions are."

So it looks like my understanding of the mind is exactly as spiritual as yours. Why the double standard?

The supernatural does not exist.

Up until this post, I thought you were asking very good questions, and I've been answering carefully. My definitions follow from the dictionaries. My view corresponds to your black box, although I would stress the understanding that the things that go into the box are the things that we are aware of. Things that we are not aware of do not go into the box. The box represents that which is aware.
_______________________________________

Philosophy dictionary
mind {Gk. nouV [nous]; Lat. mens}
That which thinks, reasons, perceives, wills, and feels. Philosophy of mind is concerned with explaining the characteristic features of mental events, the proper analysis of conscious experience, the relation between mind and body, and the moral status of persons.

Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: ethe·re·al
Function: adjective
1 a : of or relating to the regions beyond the earth
b : CELESTIAL, HEAVENLY c : UNWORLDLY, SPIRITUAL
2 a : lacking material substance : IMMATERIAL, INTANGIBLE
b : marked by unusual delicacy or refinement <this smallest, most ethereal, and daintiest of birds -- William Beebe>
3 : relating to, containing, or resembling a chemical ether

Milton

I have heard of them, seen some of very little of their arguments, but would not consider myself one of them, because I am not a trinitarian.

Yes, we think very much along the same lines, as far as predestination goes. But I believe that we live on two different worlds, and there are things for one world that should not be allowed to cross the other. That is why I believe we have free will in this world, despite the fact that all our actions and choices were predetermined from God's creative thought. Again, I continue to use the movie script example. When you watch the movie, you see everyone acting out their parts, and in the movie, nothing is planned. But we know that the movie is just a fantasy world, and it was created and set up by someone.

As I said, in this world, you had a choice. Even if it was easy to make, it was still a choice.

From God's point, you have no choice and you are doing exactly what He made you to do.

Well, the only reason I responded to this was because there was a mention of theist in the original question. I would not expect an atheist to accept my position, when my position is mainly based on Scripture.

You are forgetting that the Scripture does not say 'every single believer will do this', instead, it says "these signs will follow those who believe." That clearly implies plurality; Christians as a whole. I speak more than one language (tongues), and I know that there have been some healings among us. I am sure the other signs can be seen in some group, in the whole Christian world. And if not, it does not mean that the Scripture has failed, rather it could mean that it was for a time, for everything has its own time. (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8)

Now, to the part about believing. I said before, the Bible speaks to us according to this world. In other words, it speaks to us in human terms, terms that will seem understandable to us. So, when it says "if you believe", it is really asking you to believe. But looking at it from outside of this reality, we may say that it is only giving you a guide, to show you on which side you stand. If you can't believe it, then you will see yourself on the opposite side of those who believe.

You are right when you say that my explanations are speculations. The Bible does not give all the explanations that we would want. But the reason for this is obvious, there not enough room for all the explanations. Each person would probably want an explanation of its own. What may seem logical to one, may not be understandable to the other. So we would never even get past the first question, not in a lifetime. The Gospel of John make a similar comment:

John 21:25
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they *were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself *would not contain the books that *would be written.

Though the verse is not talking about explanations, it presents the same point. If we were to write down every single part of the process, or explanations, then we would never end. Just think about how long science has been studying the origins of man, and of the universe. Has anyone been able to explain every single detail to a complete, and said, "okay, that is all, there is no more to explain"? Nope. There is always more study, because there is always something missing.

Eventhough the Bible does not have all these revelations written down, we are able to conceive these answers, and even speculate some of them. We are not supposed to know everything, we have limitations. Ecclesiastes also has something to say about that:

Ecclesiastes 3:11
He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end.

Remember, I am not trying to convert you, I am only answering some of your questions.

Like I said, I speak more than one language, and the Scripture speaks of the whole body of Christ, not just one person. And these signs could have been set for a time (back then), not necessarily for then and now.

You say you don't see any signs. What signs do you require? Do you know what the signs are?

How do you know I lack these things? (Before I even told you if I do or not?)

It would be a surprise, if I eded up there. But what can I do? If my choices do lead to that, then too bad, I will join you there.

I have answered you, it just happens that you are looking for something more appealing to you, than for simply the fact. The fact is that it makes life more interesting...I mean, can you imagine how many debates, and how much time has been spent studying the Bible? Over the centuries, people have dedicated entire lives to studying the Bible; each with equal or different goals. This message board dedicates a large amount of space and time to the Bible. The entire world has been affected in one way or another, by the Bible.

There is no exact, and perfect answer for your question. But the way I see the Bible, is that it presents an image of that which I can be, or will be, or will never be.

Yes, God could have created any type of world. We could have been designed in any manner. But that does not change the fact that the role was supposed to be played out, and the reactions were also supposed to be seen as directly related to the the role of the ant.

Could I answer with certainty what it is that we are? You are right, I can't possibly answer that. But neither could the Bible answer it, because we are limited in our understanding, therefore, the Bible being a channel between us and God, is also going to be limited in its transmission. It doesn't matter how much information God has, what matters is how much information we can receive and process.

My speculations are based on the information I have.

I agree that it does not have a detailed explanation, in which all the words I have spoken could be found. But it does give enough for us to see it.

Are you sayig that predestination is not mentioned in the same message or sermon as saved by faith is mentioned?

What are you requirements to see that there is a link?

Who says I don't believe this? I can say I believe it, because I believe that I am not God, so I am bound by this world. I realize that no matter what I know, I have to live in it, so I will abide by its rules.

Yes, it does say both.

Only if they exist in the same dimension. But they don't!

I don't know what the rationalizations offered are, but just because they are not written in like manner in the Scriptures, it does not mean that they are not supported or well grounded in them.

God does not allow us to know everything, but He reveals to us in due time. As the Scripture in Ecclesiastes (3:11) says, "He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end." (Ecclesiastes 3:22) I have seen that nothing is better than that man should be happy in his activities, for that is his lot. For who will bring him to see what will occur after him?"

Does that not sound a lot like what I have concluded?

Yes, that is the way I look at it. I can have hope, by knowing that I am actually able to see that God is real, and that the Bible shows us the path to Salvation. That if I [am able to] believe in Jesus Christ, then I am part of the elect.

Not sure what this means.

No, it does not say it in the same way.

Well, I have to go now, so I will stop here. Talk later.

BadBadBad

For Amaranth, Fishbuld and Nowhere, I have a question for you. You guys have gotten off into some pretty deep conversations on the mind, but I think this is really more of a question about time. It seems to me that the basic question here, before we're off talking about humans, the mind, God, free will, etc, is whether there is a single timeline into the future (predictable or not). Is there a single timeline into the future exactly like there is a single timeline into the past?

I read the QM paper posted by Amaranth. It discussed a proton escaping from an excited atom. So let's consider an atom in an excited state. Yesterday, it emitted the proton at a precise instant of time, and that was detected and recorded. The instant of time it was emitted is fixed and permanent. Tomorrow, whether we can predict it or not, an atom will emit the proton. Is the precise instant of time that it will emit the proton fixed, whether we can predict it or not? I'd like to ask that question to the physicist that wrote the paper.

We're talking about predestination or free will or both. We have people all the time here saying that God predestines you based upon foreknowledge of your free will choices. We have Milton here claiming that God not only is omniscient into a single timeline in the future, but that his omnipotence, I suppose we have to presume, created that single timeline.

So, God at the beginning of time predicts that instant of time when your synapses will fire at an atomic level and he predicts the instant you will choose belief in God or rejection of God. He knows the precise circumstances of your decision on an atomic level, and he knows which decision you will make. Based upon that knowledge, he creates you with that inevitability permanently ingrained into your soul. Beyond that, don't we have to conclude that God created that infinite and singular timeline into the future?

Is that possible? Doesn't that also require a single timeline into the future? Doesn't that also require absolute predictability of the infinite number of events that will occur in each infinitesimal instant of time from the present out to infinity in the future? Doesn't that also require not only predictability but infinite knowledge of that single timeline into the future. Again, is that possible?

Now for free will. The bible clearly says we are predestined to salvation or damnation. Doesn't predestination in fact equate to a single timeline into the future? Is that in fact possible? If that is not only possible, but it's in fact true, where is free will? Everyone of each infinite event that occurs in each infinitesmal instant of time occurs precisely at a fixed and predictable time throughout an infinte timeline unto eternity. A timeline that was created by an omniscient omnipotent God. Who am I to change that with my infinitesimal small and limited brain?

BadBadBad

You believe that our free will is only an illusion. An illusion is kind of like the water in a mirage you see in the desert. It doesn't exist, and you can't choose to drink it.

Just a simple explanation on something as important as salvation. That's not asking too much is it? If it's just as simple as you've described it, why didn't the authors just write that? If it's just as simple as the majority of christians think it is, why didn't they write that? Well, unfortunately they didn't, and now we're left to speculate on the single most crucial issue we could ever be faced with, so you'd think according to the Bible. Your speculation is no better than the majority of christians which is no better than mine. It's speculation, not fact, and none of us can agree.

I've got a rattlesnake, a glass of poison, a scorpion, a demon possed child, and I really don't like the location of Mt Everest. Care to demonstrate?

Welcome to the world of the unsaved! Tell me again about the point of the Bible and how it prepares us for our destiny.

No, you haven't provided any answers, and certainly no facts, just pure speculation. The Bible serves the purpose of making life more interesting? That's your answer? How about this answer. The Bible is pure bunk and utter nonsense. So much for speculation.

I'll give you one. The bible is nonsense. I already have the answer.

Your speculations are based upon the same information we all have atheists, christians, muslims, hindus, etc etc etc.

Us who? The elect? The Chosen ones? The Bible could be all about the invisible pink unicorn and tell stories 1000 times more ridiculous than what we already have in the Bible. Based upon your beliefs it doesn't matter. Much more so than what God wants us to believe, what really seems to count is what our parents want us to believe. Also keep in mind that you are in a minority of one when it comes to religion. Virtually no one agrees.

I'm saying your explanation of this godly holodeck movie we call reality is not in the Bible. I'm saying it's pure speculation on your part. I'm saying you're in a severe minority even amongst christians. I'm saying that yours and the majority of christians' explanation of these two separate and distinct doctrines of salvation through faith and salvation through predestination are just popular rationalizations of what is a clear contradiction in the Bible. No where in the Bible is there any specific relation provided between saved by predestination and saved by faith. If there is, just provide the verses, and I'll stand corrected.

You can really see that God is real? Really? How neat! Is that kind of the same way that children really see that Santa Claus is real? If not, then how is it different. Like I said, you could believe in IPUs, the easter bunny, and Santa Claus if that's what your parents believed along with the culture you grew up in. I don't see that as any kind of sign that you're part of some elect group.

Milton

That is not the way it is. You would actually be part of that mirage, and not something outside of it.

If it had been just a couple pages of information, you would be denying it on the basis that it is too short. What is the difference? I actually prefer the style it has now.

I think you have misunderstood me. I do not deny what the other's claim. Predestination is a complete and independent doctrine. Salvation is, in reality, dependent on human understanding. Those who say that we are saved by faith, they are not wrong. Their understanding of predestination is what is something totally different. I will support 100% the preaching of believing in Jesus Christ, and walking by faith. I don't even think it is necessary to know that you were predestined, in order for you to reach salvation. Predestination, to me, has taught me to be more accepting of the things that happen to me, those around me, and in the world. I have developed a similar view to that of the Stoic.

I think it would be great if others could understand this concept, and take it the same way that I have. But I don't think they need to believe like I do, in regards to predestination.

Nowhere357

I thought I was done with you, then you come back with some good stuff.

I agree with his philosophical definitions and approach, with the methodology to the extent I understand it, and I accept the resulting data. His conclusion, however, does not follow.

The first two experiments shows there is brain activity before the decision, related to the decision. We already knew that! The experiment does not show that a pre-awareness stimulus leads of necessity to a given voluntary movement. Note for example that the response bias was not 100%, and that nothing indicates the bias cannot be ignored!

Peer review would help to determine the value of his experiments and to access alternative interpretations of the data.
Btw I wish I had access to the entire transcripts from the conference.

As for the qt article, that is worthless. The fact that the author defines free will to be supernatural is adequate reason to ignore his conclusions. And of course you know that I can paste counter views until my mouse wears out, but there is no need - I merely have to cite the lack of scientific evidence in the article against the involvement of qt in consciousness.

Your task was to identify how the idea that the mind affects the brain is in violation of accepted science - and you have not done that.

Nowhere357

No. Quantum randomness discredits the idea of a single timeline into the future.

My understanding is that particle decay is random not due to our failure to identify the cause, but due to indeterminism.

I agree predestination would be a single timeline into the future, and that this violates free will.

The Bible is an extremely poor guide to physical reality. To say the least. I see no reason to think my free will is illusion, just because of an ancient book full of myth and legend.

agnawstick

With infinitely sensitive instruments, and infinite wisdom on what the compiled data means, why wouldn't a infinitely powerful computer know exactly what I am doing right now, right after the moment of the big bang? What we call random, often is just a case of us not knowing what data to collect, and how to analyze it.

Weather isn't random. The last Hurricane was tracked 5 days almost exactly. Something we thought impossible years ago. Give it 50 years, and we will be predicting the weather 6 months in advance, knowing there will be .26 inches of rain, and a high of 64 that day.

We just can't grasp what all the data meant at the moment of the big bang. That, we never will, I reckon, but it doesn't make it less true. We are a computer program. Nothing we do is "random" but was predetmined 15 billion years ago. "God" can't change it, we can't change it. It's a superstition to think we can change it. Those who aren't convinced by this argument, never would have, yada, yada, yada.

Amaranth

Yeah - That "unknown mechanism" argument is a pretty tough nut to crack. God...er, the mind works in mysterious ways

Actually, the study reads that the people react before they are aware of a decision being made - They are already moving before they decide to move. And that the bias was not 100% is really not meaningful in the context of the experiment - The meaning was that "random" choice could be influenced by changes in the brain. Damning evidence for someone who believes that the mind has free will.

Sources were listed, and names dropped - This shouldn't be horribly difficult to do, if you are so inclined.

*chuckle* In other words, you didn't read beyond that point. That's too bad, because the actual thrust of the whole thing was based on science, and why QM is not your saving grace. Not that you've ever defined it as the mechanism (or defined the mechanism at all), but you did mention it earlier.

Done so twice now - One with your continued silence on how the mind could possibly affect the brain and not be the mere reaction to causality, and second with my first paper by scientists and neurologists. While I find it amusing that you believe your hand waving and alternative conclusions would be convincing, I'm going to have to ask for better than that. I'm shivering with anticipation of the no doubt massive amount of expert opinion and experiment you will present.

Amaranth

As a note: Good luck. 90% of the countering opinions I found were from xian websites, and the rest were geocities personal pages and forums.

BadBadBad

Milton,

Can you answer my question about the proton escaping the excited atom? Is the precise instant of time the proton will be released predictable and fixed, or is it inherently random and unpredictable?