fishbulb

For a start, perhaps you could indicate whether a mind is a physical thing (and if so, where it can be found), a state or process (and of what sort), or some kind of non-material entity or force (in which case, you would need to elaborate on exactly what that entails, what it does, and why it matters).

When you say that a mind is aware, of what is it aware?

You can also explain what you mean when you say that a mind is subjective. I know what it means to say that good and evil are subjective; is a mind subjective in the same sense? Or do you maybe mean self-aware? It is really not at all clear. Perhaps an example would help.

Saying a mind is mental is like saying a gas is gaseous or an emotion is emotional; it isn't particularly helpful.

BadBadBad

Sure it does. Why do you think that's such a common topic here? Because there is a conflict between what the Bible says about salvation. We are saved by grace, ie predestination as in Romans 9, or we are saved by our free will choice to choose to believe in God like it says all throughout the Bible. The conflict is though that if we are predestined to damnation by our clay potter creator like it says in Romans 9 and elsewhere, then we don't get to choose. Our hearts are hardened against God by God, and we don't have a choice in changing that. Who are we mere pot to question our potter, like it says in Romans 9.


Well like I said. If God chooses, then it's his choice not mine. So how can I receive salvation only through making a choice that I don't get to make? God makes it for me. That's the question. How is that free will?

So if grace is benevolence, what is damnation? Is God's love for me as a damned soul illusory as well? Is that what I should say to the freaks at my door when they tell me Jesus loves me and all I need to do is open my heart and receive his salvation. Should I just tell them this is all illusory and that I'm actually damned to hell with a hardened heart with no hope or mercy from God?

"Faith is the action of the believer to trust God to fulfill His promise?" What if his promise is damnation? What should I have faith in then?

I think you're glossing over the main point here. Why does the Bible ask the reader to take action? Yes. That's the question, and you haven't answered it. God chooses salvation and damnation for each soul at the beginning of time. It's a done deal. If that's the case, then why all the talk in the Bible about needing to decide with this illusory free will choice to believe in God. God has decided who will be saved. If believing in God is a requirement, then he's given the elect the God gene, and because of his choices they will believe. So, what's the point? What difference does belief in God make? Why do christians run around spending so much time trying to convince non-christians to believe in God?


Now we're getting to the silliness of the whole concept of christianity. What is the point of this illusory world? What is the point of the Bible? Basically, you're saying that we're just characters in this immense 3-d movie that God has been playing since the beginning of time. The way you describe it, we're just meaningless characters in a illusory world, and then we die and go off to the nothingness of Heaven. Kind of like the characters in a Star Trek holograph program playing out in the holodeck. We think we're real, but we're not. Sorry, but I don't buy it.

paul30

In theory I am skeptical about the "laws" of physics.

They are always based on a limited number of observations, however large. They may prove false in future.

In practice I think they are pretty good.

So in view of their practical helpfulness, and in view of the fact that everything (including our brain chemistry) seems to abide by them, I must conclude free will is an illusion.

But that does not make free will false. If we believe we have free will, then for all practical purposes we do. Free will is subjective, like love. If we believe we are in love, we are.

Free will is simply a testament to our inability to see all the connections between things.

Milton

Because there is no other thing to talk about?

Now, grace and predestination are not the same. As I said, grace is only referring to God's act of forgiving our sins, through Jesus Christ. That is what is referred to as grace. That we were predestined to receive God's grace is a different thing. Predestination can lead either way (grace or damnation), however. So, as I said, they are not conflicting, but merely part of the same process.

Right. But at the same time, there are rules that were set in order in this world, that will guide us to our destiny. There is no way we will ever do anything different from what God has chosen for us. And when we look at the Bible, the rules prescribed in there, are part of the guide. When you read a Scripture, whatever your reaction to it is, that is what it was supposed to do. If you read the Bible and think it is a bunch of fairy tales, that is exactly what it was intended to do. At the same time, if you believe the Bible, that is also what it was supposed to do. The laws and rules are in there to cause a reaction, whether it is a reaction in favor or against it, they are supposed to happen.

Again, what we see, touch, feel, smell, etc. is all part of this world, and whatever rules exist, they are supposed to be a part of it. Everything that is, was set in place to create the illusion of this world. For example, when the people in Old Testament times were punished, when would their punishment had been decided? It was all decided before they were created. But thir deeds were also predetermined, before their creation. Yet, their deeds, looking at it from our point of view, would be the cause of their punishment. That is what we are supposed to see, and believe. However, the fact is that, both their deeds and their punishemnt were created at the same time. It just happens that time, as well as the other things of this world, is an illusion. So, when we look at the cause (deeds), we see it as coming before the effect (punishment).

Yes, you can't change that, if that is truly what God has chosen for you. But do you know what it is that God has chosen for you? See, not-knowing is part of the story, and we are to play it all out until the end. The Bible tells us of two (perhaps, more) ways in which we can (? or will) play out our roles. That is what the Bible communicates to us. If you notice, the Bible begins with what is believed to be the "beginning", and then we have an end to the whole story. We already know that a particular group will be the "winning" group (if I may put it that way), while there will also be a losing group. But what we don't have are the names of those who will be on either side. So, our choices are only revealing our destiny, and where we will stand at the end. If we believe in God, then we may consider ourselves to be part of the lucky group. If we don't, then we can consider ourselves part of the not-so-lucky group.

So, when we look at the Bible, and we see that those who are said to be the 'saved ones', did the same things that we are doing, (in regards to belief, faith, and obedience) then we can safely assume that we are also predestined to be saved.

If the Bible did not tell us about these things, then once we get to the end, it would be a total suprise to us whatever our end may be.

This would be so unexpected. To have lived a whole life, without knowing what the Bible says, that would be like waking up one day in a different planet, where nothing of what you know to exist exists. Something so unimaginable, you would be so lost that you could not even know who or what you are. The Bible is supposed to prepare you for that end.

Exactly. We can't question Him.

Well, as far as you know, you are the one making the decision, no one else.

The wrath of God.

Love, hate, indifference--they are all part of this world. They do not exist outside of it.

Not necessary. You can just tell them that you don't believe.

You can, but why? You can cite the example of Pharaoh, for the Bible says that God told Moses that He would hardened Pharaoh's heart. And then it says that Pharaoh did not listen to Moses. In Pharaoh's mind, he was the one who chose not to, and to him it seemed clear what were his reasons for not doing it. Yet, the fact was that God created both the reasons and his (Pharaoh's) reaction.

Well, promise, in the Biblical sense, is actually only for good, never for wrath. So, that is the only way Faith can be applied, to the promises that are for good. When it speaks of God's wrath, it is referred as His warning. Of course, it is a promise that He will judge the world according to each person's own deeds. But you don't need faith in judgment day, for God to deliver His judgment.

I have given you some more explanation a few passages above. But here is some more. Yes, God has given each person the ability to believe and to not-believe. You most likely don't have the ability to believe; although, you might have it, just that the time for it to show has not yet come. So, you don't believe it. In a way, you can see "believing in God" as a sign, as opposed to a requirement. If you believe in God, then you can know that you have one of the most important aspects of a chosen one/an elect.

Why do Christians spend so much time talking about Salvation? Because that is the role they are supposed to live out. By them doing that, they are following the path of those who end up being the winners. It gives them assurance of their salvation. When they don't follow the path, they can see that, if the prescribed path is right, then they are ultimately going to end up on the losing group. If they don't believe the path at all, then they can't know for sure where they will end, eventhough they will not be surprised once they get there.

I would not say silly. I think it is just too complex for humans. What is the point? I do not know. Only God knows why He would create such world. Many like to claim that God created humans because He wanted people to worship Him. I don't believe this. I just don't think we can answer the question of why God created everything. But we know that everything has a purpose in this world.

I don't know if we can say meaningless. Within this world, we are supposed to learn the value of things--good and bad, right and wrong. We are placed as the center peice of it all. Everything is given to us, to do as we like. We are told that we are of great value, as long as we are here. Once we die, that's a whole different ball park.

Actually, that is pretty close.

I see. But that is your choice.

In reality, what I have said is pretty much like what an atheist (not a buddhist or an atheist of any other religion that is atheistic in nature) would say. We are like an nothing in comparison to the infinite space in which the universe exists. If we compare our existence, the longevity of our lives, compared to the logevity of "space", we last nothing. We would be meaningless.

If you look on either ends, you end up being like an illusion, something that never existed.

Nowhere357

Brains are sentient or aware. We call this aspect of a brain "the mind". Minds exist. The question is whether minds have will.

I think the point is that you agree with the statement:

"People are aware and self-aware, people have minds, although the exact nature of minds is in dispute."

It was not lost. You seem to be ignoring the response.

All actions of the mind are physics. Your are incorrect to imply that a given action can have only one reaction, and you have not shown that mind has to have a cause outside of physics.

Neither of them prohibit it - my point. Here is the response again:

"This claim might have value if you provided support. If you have a reason for claiming my position contradicts known and accepted science in any way, please share it."

True. What makes it so is a collection of items, including that your objections are repeating, while not addressing the responses. And that your position requires that you misstate my position.

There are auxillary facts also, such as your inappropriate charges of logical fallacy, and your condescension as you miss points.

The party has already started. If I had a dancing banana, I would use it.

More emotional appeal, even as you misstate my position.

"There is nothing unusual in the claim that the mind arises from brain through natural means, and there is nothing unusual in the claim that people make decisions."

Why take into account something that has nothing to do with my position? The decisions ARE caused. Hello, hello, is this thing working?

No one has identified how my position contradicts physical science. This satisfies the burden of proof, which was never mine anyway. It is NOT POSSIBLE for me to prove that no possible contradiction exists - it's YOUR burden to find one. Pretty good for a strawman, I think.

No, it hasn't.

No, it's "simpler" because it explains all observed phenomenae with no extraneous details.

Yes, and it includes an entity which exists yet cannot interact with reality.

False again, and again you misstate my position. Direct experience, remember?

And then some more condescension, as you make incorrect assumptions.

Not my stance. Perhaps when I'm through exploring the issues here, I'll assemble the points into formal argument.

Until then, nice job of misstating my position in a way that amuses you.

Not a red herring. One of your objections to will is it's ethereal quality. Another objection is the lack of known physics to explain it. The existence of "awareness" has those objections also, yet awareness exists nonetheless.

Will simply describes another property of the known-to-exist yet unknown-by-physics ethereal mind. This property is observed directly, and in the behavior of others.

Yes, I know that you can not explain the physics involved in the existence of awareness. That was my point. My inability to explain the physics involved in the property of will exhibited by minds in no way indicates that the property does not exist.

(My understanding is that 0 K can be approached but not reached.) It refers to the subatomic movement - where the movement is in relation to the rest of the atom.

We have different amounts of kinetic energy, depending on what we compare our movement to. We have no kinetic energy in relation to the chair we sit in, while we have a lot of kinetic energy compared to the sun around which we travel at thousands of miles an hour. Kinetic energy is not inherant to an object. I think. Maybe we should take this question to the science forum.

"Abstract" means expressing a quality apart from an object.

Nowhere357

I have thoughts on all your options. But I don't know what the mind is. I would say it's a quality or property of the living brain.

Perceptions of sensations, memories, and thoughts. If we could freeze one moment of awareness and disect it, we would see of mix of these all at once, in a field or matrix of some kind so to speak, and not just one "mental object" at a time. An analogy is the visual field. We can see all of it at once, look around within it, and focus within it. The first one is awareness. I claim the last two can be mental effort - the application of will.

Good and evil are subjective because they are held in a mind. The mind is not a physical object, and means someone is there experiencing things - a subjective awareness. A mind.

Self-awareness arises through feedback between mind (awareness) and brain. It involves memory.

It definitely is not clear. If we examine the world - including other people - but do not examine ourselves, no evidence of subjective awareness exists. Poke a person with a stick and we detect the reactions - but how can we detect whether someone actually felt something?

I think that thought experiment validates introspection as a necessary tool to explore the mind.

Some definitions of "mind" would have it including the "sub-concious mind" - my definition doesn't, because we are not aware of the subconscious mind. "Mental" implies awareness. I'm trying to show that my concept of mind is based on the quality of awareness - that ethereal quality fundamentally different from anything else anywhere.

I think the original question was : "The possibility exists that the mind affects the brain. Does this seem controversial to you?"

Of course based on my definitions, the mind affects the brain. The question then becomes, if you disagree, why? This is to avoid the problem I had with Amaranth, peace upon him.

Amaranth

Solid enough.

Again, I don't think you've honestly thought through your idea. While a given action can have more than one reaction, it is still a reaction - A cause and effect. Not a choice.

This becomes quite simple at this point

Flatly put, again: You have stated a mechanism inside the mind that allows man to direct physics instead of being directed by it. You have yet to address it, and the fact that it would be unique in this ability - Every decision would, with such a mechanism, be a "first cause."

You've adressed this issue in two fashions: declaring it unknown but existant (magical hand waving), and attempting to burden me with proving basic phyiscs. Is it not self-evident that cause and effect (with a dash of randomness) is the way of things? Does this really require proof?

*chuckle* Does this actually work on some people?

So the stimuli is caused. The decision is caused. The effect is obviously caused. Where's choice again? You seem to be avoiding that little bit.

Since you haven't noticed - You don't have a hypothesis. You have an unknown mechanism that does something with the brain, then allows decisions to be made. While it's an excellent island fortress, it is completely untestable and unobservable. It's scientifically worthless.

As for it being contradictory to science...we'll try this again - You are claiming that at some point the mind goes away from cause and effect. In nature, when something is acted upon, it reacts. Even accepting that the mind could have multiple reactions for the same action, it is still just reacting - It is still being acted upon by physics and merely following the course that sets it on. In order for there to be will, that action that causes decision would have to have an effect that allows mind to choose a reaction instead of merely reacting as physical factors dictate, something we see no where in nature.

If your details are limited to "a natural, physics based, unknown mechanism", it's going to be pretty simple.

That should be enjoyable. Can I count on some unknown mechanisms?


And as for amusing myself - I haven't even begun to have fun. Fun would be to parody your position, such as:

Humans experience perceptions of having been in situations before, to the point of exact details seeming oddly familiar. People call this deja vu. It is not a trick of the mind - rather it is something unknown (natural, mind you) in the mind that allows it to garner information of the future. How else can you explain its existance?

*grin* See - That was amusing myself


Amaranth

Your explination of kinetic energy seems reasonable enough. However, I still don't see how a wave is abstract. *shrug*

fishbulb

If you cannot confidently define the mind as being either one of the three (a physical thing, a process, or a non-physical entity of some kind) or none of the above, then I will be unable to answer your question or any other question that hinges on understanding the definition of "mind."

You seem to be fond of figurative speech, but it doesn't help form a basis for rational debate. Of course, if the mind is not a physical object, it cannot hold anything.

But what is it?

I define self-awareness as a being's recognition that it exists as a distinct individual. A being is self-aware to the degree that it can differentiate between itself and the things it does and between other things/beings and the things they do. I am not really certain how you define self-awareness, though you have given me some vague characteristics of it.



Okay. I tend to work with the common definition of mental, as found in most dictionaries: of or pertaining to the mind. Mental gymnastics, metnal illness, mental capacity, etc. Using mental to define mind is circular. Since you don't appear to be using this definition of mental, I can't be sure what you mean.

But then, I also see the term "mind" as a black box abstraction of a very complex physiological (or perhaps mechanical or electronic) process, and not a real entity in its own right. It would seem that you disagree with this notion, but I really am not sure.

I think you lost me after using "ethereal." I have very little confidence that ethereal things can be discussed in a meaningful way.

Maybe. It depends on what you mean by "mind."

I suspect that the best answer is this: your whole concept of "mind" would itself seem to be controversial and highly speculative. It is hard to tell because the definitions you have provided are quite vague. I am inclined to assume that you think of the mind as some sort of nonphysical or spiritual entity, in which case I would respond that I am not interested in discussing the supernatural; if you want to talk about such a thing as though it existed, first provide some good empirical evidence that it does, in fact, exist--or at least that it is reasonable to suspect that it does. I don't want to assume that's what you mean because I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I am finding it very hard to untangle the words that you are providing.

BadBadBad

OK, so I'm talking about predestined grace/salvation as compared to a free will choice to believe in God and salvation through faith.

Milton, do you consider yourself a Calvinist? This is interesting. I've read a debate between Calvinist and more typical protestants on the subject of predestination and free will, and yours matches up to a fair extent witht he Calvinists. Frankly, I thought the Calvanists won the debate. However, I'm still not buying it. You said that was my choice, but please, be consistent. If you're right, that's not my choice at all, and in my mind there's not even an illusion of a choice to believe in something just as non-sensical as 2+2=5.

Let's look at your overall position for a moment. First, the only basis for any of it is the Bible. So for the purposes of this discussion, I have to give you the benefit of the doubt that at least there is some truth to what it says. If you were debating Christians, we could at least play on the same field. As an atheist, the bottom really falls out of your argument when we begin to question the authority of the Bible itself. So for the purposes of this discussion on an atheist board, I think you have a much bigger burden than to just talk from the authority of the bible. This is even more important given that your position, even among Christians, is the minority position.

Second, let's talk a little more about what the Bible says about salvation through faith. Let's look at one of the many examples in the Bible that say if you believe, you will be saved. In Mark 16, "15 He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues"

This illustrates what I see as several holes in your arguments. First, it says if you believe, you'll be saved. It doesn't say if God has predestined you, you will believe. It doesn't say that your belief in God is a sign that you have been predestined to be saved. You're reading that in. You're speculating that as an explanation for an apparent contradiction in doctrine. If not, then simply provide me with some verses that relate the doctrine of predestined salvation to the doctrine of salvation through faith.

As far as signs, true belief, we are assured, is accompanied by the ability to drive out demons and speak in tongues. Can you drive out demons or speak in tongues? I'm sorry, but based upon the Bible, I don't see any signs in your claimed belief that indicate you are predestined by God for eternal salvation. Perhaps you've missed the point altogether. In fact, perhaps you believe in the wrong things and the wrong God, hence your lack of ability to drive out demons and speak in tongues. Perhaps you too are predestined to damnation. What a surprise Hell will be for you!

Why does it command these people to go out and spread the good news to all creation? What's the point of that? You haven't really answered that, and at best your answers are absolutely pure speculation. If we are predestined to salvation, and all our choices between good and evil, faith and disbelief are illusory, what's the point of the Bible? What's the point of Jesus? God could have just as well chosen ants to play out his little 3-d holographic movie. We're all just some daydream of God? Now, you can't possibly answer that. The Bible/God perhaps could, but it/He doesn't/hasn't. So what can your answer be besides pure speculation, and what value is that?

There's no explanation given in the only source you can proclaim to provide any "authoritative" information about God. There is no link between what it says about predestination and what it says about salvation through faith. In context, the explanation is clear. Go out and preach the gospel, and those that choose to believe will be saved. Those that choose to reject God will receive their punishment. In context, the meaning is clear. You are saved by your choice to believe in God. You are in the minority of christians for not taking this clear doctrine of the Bible at face value.

So, my problem with the salvation through free will/predestination issue is that the Bible clearly says both. Intuitively, you can't have both. We as atheists point that out in our arguments, and both Christians and Calvanists provide these non-sensical rationalizations that are just simply absent in the only "authoritative" source of information about God. The Bible says you are predestined to God's mercy by God from the beginning of time. The Bible says the only way to salvation is through belief in God. It gives no explanation as to how those two different concepts can be true at the same time.

Your rationalization is that salvation is by God's will, and your belief is only a sign of God's choices. All of what is in the Bible with respect to salvation through faith is simply referring to the elect who have been predestined to salvation. Forgive me if I've mischaracterized that, but that's the general line of thinking for this Calvanist type viewpoint. Like I said, that's your explanation, but unfortunately, the Bible never says that.

The saved by faith bunch argues that you are predestined only as far as God's foreknowledge of your free will choices. You have a free choice. God knows what it will be, but you are still accountable for making the right choice. Nice try, but it's just not in the Bible. Therefore, it's just pure speculation, and frankly, I think it's speculation that is fairly easy to tear down.

I believe that the Bible is contradictory on something as important as eternal salvation. It's contradictory doctrine as defined by the inspired God Breathed word of God. As such, I believe it's one of the strongest arguments against christianity. I believe it's a clear indication that the early christian leaders and authors of the Bible were preaching the "Gospel" in what ever way was most convincing to their immediate audience. I believe it's a clear sign that they didn't have a clue about God or eternal salvation.

Now we have three different speculations about what the Bible says on salvation. How do we go about establishing which speculation is in fact true?

Amaranth

All right, you drove me to it, Nowhere - I've gone ahead and researched what people who actually know a thing or two about neurology and quantum have to say on the subject.

http://scbe.stanford.edu/hallett.pdf

This first paper, written by a MD at the National Institute or Nuerological Disorders and Stroke. There are three arguments for the existance of free will only as a perception within, all correlated with scientific experimentation.

The arguments are :


The Brain Initiates a Movement Before Awareness of Volition

"cerebral initiation of a spontaneous, freely voluntary act can begin unconsciously, that is, before there is any (at least recallable) subjective awareness that a 'decision' to act has already been initiated cerebrally.”


Voluntary Movements Can Be Triggered with Stimuli that are Not Percieved

“this result implies that appropriate programs for two separate movements can be simultaneously held ready for use, and that either one can be executed when triggered by specific stimuli without subjective awareness of such stimuli and so without further voluntary elaboration in response to such awareness.”


Freely Chosen Movements Can Be Externally Biased Without Perception of Influence

"For the purposes here, it is critical to note that although the response bias was clear and predictable, the subjects were unaware of its existence. Each movement was believed to be freely chosen. It is therefore possible to influence endogenous processes of movement preparation externally without disrupting the conscious perception of volition."

References provided, studies cited, and a full appendix included.


This next paper specifically deals with QM and why it is not the modern wild card for free will proponents.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0208104

This paper is a bit harder to paraphrase, so let me offer up its conclusions as a summary.


All told, only 20 pages between the two of them, and that's in large font PDF, with full appendices.