Religion

[smr-nj]

The last 5 pages or so of this thread make me want to stick knitting needles in my eyes.  
 

Thank God (whether she exists, or not) that I have laundry to do …. 
 

Carry on, dudes. 

[MIguy]

3 minutes ago, smr-nj said:

The last 5 pages or so of this thread make me want to stick knitting needles in my eyes.  
 

Thank God (whether she exists, or not) that I have laundry to do …. 
 

Carry on, dudes. 

It's what happens when a militant atheist comes along and 💩 in the punch bowl.  They're truly the worst. 

Edited December 3, 2023 by MIguy

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, 1984Echoes said:

Additional rhetorical question:

Why is "god" allowed to have no beginning, or no end, but the Universe is NOT ALLOWED to have no beginning and end? Why can the universe not have no beginning or end, and instead "must" be created by "something"?

 

 

Yes - this is pretty much just the 'what's outside' the universe paradox in different guise. If the universe needed a first mover, what moved it, etc. You can add a layer to the depth of the recursion but you still end up in the same paradox.

[casimir]

Uh oh,…. Jim Harbaugh just invoked God and gave thanks to his lord and savior Jesus Christ.

[Tiger337]

16 minutes ago, smr-nj said:

The last 5 pages or so of this thread make me want to stick knitting needles in my eyes.  
 

Thank God (whether she exists, or not) that I have laundry to do …. 
 

Carry on, dudes. 

" if there is a God, I am convinced he is a he, because no woman could or would ever **** things up this badly.”

― George Carlin

[1984Echoes]

14 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Mine is a different question. ... cannot locate mind in matter and whatever the interface is eludes our understanding.

Ah, OK... so you're speaking to interface, SPECIFICALLY.

So let's concentrate on that.

But also:

14 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

You are talking about the framework around which you hang the construction of self-identity...

No, this is too limiting to what I have described. Self-identity, yes, but I gave much more than that... 

I gave an actual set of instructions as an example, couched in language skills, from my "self" to my motor functions, using biochemical processes. But... if you are asking specifically about the interface... then I was sort of "beating around the bush" and not speaking specifically to that interface. I think I described the overall process of making conscious decisions that direct my motor functions through biochemical processes, but not...

The Interface!!!

(Coming soon to a theater near you...!!!)

So... this goes back to the very definition of "self", which I will dispute and put in biochemical terms. I believe that... most people, believe that they have a "soul", or a "mind", or a "self" that is somehow separate from their biochemical processes. And that this separate entity (self/ mind/ soul, whatever you wish to call it)... is "Accepted" in all of society. In almost all definitions.

I dispute that (as a good atheist would...) 😉

So... My "mind", is a biochemical historical record of all my memories, all of my learned language skills, etc. There are different regions of the brain for these, which, if you've studied brain chemistry then you know this. There are also audio and visual regions, and also "motor" function areas, with further breakdowns to voluntary (motor movements like arms & legs) versus involuntary (lungs and heart muscles are not controllable... although I can hold my breath, under water, for a minute or two...). 😉

One other thing related: I'm sure you're aware of different memory/ brain tests in which a subject is given visual stimuli such as pictures of: A cat, a hospital, a car crash, etc...? And the resultant regions of the brain that spring to life with these stimuli? The visual "pattern" that stimulates specific neuron patterns in your brain is memorized. Different experiences per person, different stimuli, different neuron patterns. Each person is different and unique (has a unique "mind", or persona if you will) based on the above.

So... I'm stating that a person's "mind" is also biochemical. It is not a separate entity from the biochemical processes of the brain, it IS the biochemical processes of the brain. The memories. The neural patterns from stimuli. The language(s) learned by the individual. As well as the instinctual things like hunger.

Now, as for the interface... There is no interface. It appears to me (tell me if I'm wrong) that you are still trying to connect a separated "mind" TO the biochemical processes of the brain.

But... if my "mind" is simply biochemical neural patterns, no one will be able "tie" a decision I make to any specific location within my brain that could be defined as "mind" or "Interface".

To whit:

Instinct: Hunger. Location: Hypothalamus. Controllable by "mind" or "directed biochemical processes" (DBP)? No.

Decision: Wait an hour, even though Hunger Instinct says "Eat NOW!", because I want to finish the project I am working on. Controllable by "mind" or DPB? Yes. Action. DON'T stand up from my office chair and make that omelette from leftover Thanksgiving "stuff" that I've been thinking about making (and sounds REALLY good about now, and I'm starting to get really hungry!!!)

Where are you going to find that in my "mind"? In some Interface? The neural activity in my brain NEVER stops, it is always reacting to every stimuli I am currently subjected to (Lions game in the background, Hunger Instinct demanding action, memories of prior omelettes I've made and, current available omelette ingredients, and finishing my project of eBay baseball cards I want to bid on tonight). And all I did was "decide" to NOT stand up, but to wait instead.

How are you going to find an "Interface" amongst all that activity. Neurons firing everywhere and you want to identify the specific neurons that said to my motor functions; "WAIT". AND... the neural patterns firing for me for this specific stimuli and command instruction are DIFFERENT for EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING on this planet.

Your "Interface" is simply one set of firing neurons in my brain, amongst many thousands, sending instructions to my lazy ass to NOT STAND UP. 

Your search for an Interface is IMPOSSIBLE in other words. You are chasing a needle in 8 billion haystacks, and that needle changes shape and appearance in EACH and EVERY single one of those 8 billion haystacks. And you are searching for an Interface that meets your definition of a separate "Mind" that has an "Interface" connection to our "Biochemical" brain. I am saying that there is no such thing. There is no interface because our "mind" IS the biochemical processes/ memory patterns of our brain and therefore does not NEED an interface. 

Just my, ummmm... 2 cents.

 

 

 

Edited December 3, 2023 by 1984Echoes

[gehringer_2]

3 hours ago, 1984Echoes said:

But... if my "mind" is simply biochemical neural patterns, no one will be able "tie" a decision I make to any specific location within my brain that could be defined as "mind" or "Interface".

but you have just defined a machine that reacts in a programmed way. That model excludes the possibility of true volition. The next chemical state of your brain is *fully* determined by its current state, the laws of 'physics', plus the sum of the additional external stimuli that act on it. There is no place in that model for a consciousness, whatever we think that is, to affect that. The aspect of 'volition' that defines it as volition and not simple stimulus response is that it can originate separately from the simple sum of the external inputs - otherwise it is not volition - in which case we should stop putting people in jail for doing things they actually have no real control over because all a person's *will* is is the sum of their environmental experience and genetic programming. Again - I wouldn't say categorically that this may not be the true, I certainly can't prove it isn't, and 'science' would argue that it is true, but if it is, all of civilization is then based on the lie that people are responsible for what they do when they aren't.

Edited December 3, 2023 by gehringer_2

[1984Echoes]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

but you have just defined a machine that reacts in a programmed way...

NO I didn't.

I gave you a SPECIFIC example of volition.

Instinct: Hunger.

VOLITION: DON'T eat right now, DESPITE hunger signals. WAIT, for an hour, or two, or whenever I DECIDE that I want to eat, despite hunger pangs. Finish the project I am working on. And THEN go eat.

That's volition. If it was programming, at the signal of hunger I go eat. Period. Because I am programmed to do so. To DELAY eating, to a time of my own choosing, is NOT programming.

Did you miss that? I know I was too wordy above... 

Another example. There is NO programming that told me that I MUST go out and buy a gallon of milk and a case of Dr. Pepper. Or to purchase a case of Cherry Pepsi INSTEAD of Dr. Pepper. But I did that, of my own VOLITION.

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

That model excludes the possibility of true volition. 

NOT TRUE.

[MIguy]

What does any of this have to do with fairy tales about a creator?  

[1984Echoes]

4 minutes ago, MIguy said:

What does any of this have to do with fairy tales about a creator?  

Do you have a "soul"?

Do you have a "mind" or a "self"?

If you have a "mind", SEPARATE from your brain... how does your "mind" tell your brain and body to do things? Like stand up, and start exercising, for example? This is what G2 is struggling to understand; why he is searching for an interface between "mind" and brain... which does not exist.

If your "soul" is separate from your body, then how are you going to get it to ascend to "Valhalla", to join your Favorite God/ Creator... (Odin, of course)?

These are the questions (not on "soul", but on "mind", which the two are somewhat related...) that G2 is asking.

And like a good atheist, I know that there is no floating entity, separate from our bodies, called "soul" or "mind" or "self". It is all biochemical processes. G2 is having difficulty understanding how we can be a gag of bones, errr, biochemical processes, and not just function like a programmed machine. I'm trying to explain it to him... But I don't think he sees it yet...

[1984Echoes]

Just now, 1984Echoes said:

... If you have a "mind", SEPARATE from your brain... how does your "mind" tell your brain and body to do things? Like stand up, and start exercising, for example? This is what G2 ...

PS: G2... this is a PERFECT example of volition... IE: WHAT programming exists that tells us to stand up and start exercising? There is NO external stimulus that tells us, programmatically: "I MUST exercise". Or to NOT exercise... even if we are "thinking" maybe we should? That is PURE volition.

[MIguy]

So, for those keeping score at home......

Evolution - whatever gets proven true, God did it

Souls - in the bible so obviously true

Daughters drugging and raping their father - just because it's in the bible doesn't mean it actually happened

 

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, 1984Echoes said:

VOLITION: DON'T eat right now, DESPITE hunger signals. WAIT, for an hour, or two, or whenever I DECIDE that I want to eat, despite hunger pangs. Finish the project I am working on. And THEN go eat.

One more shot to get on the same wavelength here. Tell me how your *decision* to wait to eat changed the chemistry in your brain such that you didn't walk to the refrigerator. That is the missing link. For a *thought* to change what your body does, the mental process has to generate a *cause* in the physical world - i.e. it has to change a reaction in your brain chemistry. We have zero understanding of how that happens. We can see it after the fact - that you make a decision to do something and then neuronal activity appears in your brain, but how a thought causes those neurons to fire? Missing link. You hold two competing options in your mind - depending on which you pick, different neurons are going to fire, but according to the laws of physics, in the moment before you make the *decision*, your brain chemistry has only one possible path  - the one determined by its present state and the rules of chemistry. Yet you changed it, or at least you believed you changed it (that is unless conscious choice is the delusion) - how?

Edited December 4, 2023 by gehringer_2

[1984Echoes]

It's late and I'm tired so I'm going to sleep on that thought for at least tonight...

But I think I get what you are asking and am formulating a response in my head...

But I'm going to finish that thought tomorrow...

[ewsieg]

One thing I always do love to see is people that claim religion is the root of all evil and the problem with the world is that they complain how it leads to such horrible intolerance. Yet those that are so steadfast in these beliefs, tend to be some of the most intolerable people, ridiculing others regardless if it effects them in any way.

[MIguy]

2 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

One thing I always do love to see is people that claim religion is the root of all evil and the problem with the world is that they complain how it leads to such horrible intolerance. Yet those that are so steadfast in these beliefs, tend to be some of the most intolerable people, ridiculing others regardless if it effects them in any way.

What I've noticed is that religious people feel they are free to share their thoughts in whatever way they choose but are so quickly offended when someone comes along and says something they don't like.   Maybe they need to grow thicker skins if they're going to go around judging people based on their lack of belief in magic and fairy tales. 

[Jim Cowan]

The funniest thing in this forum for the entire year is the notion that G2 is "struggling to understand" something!

[ewsieg]

9 hours ago, MIguy said:

What I've noticed is that religious people feel they are free to share their thoughts in whatever way they choose but are so quickly offended when someone comes along and says something they don't like.   Maybe they need to grow thicker skins if they're going to go around judging people based on their lack of belief in magic and fairy tales. 

That certainly is the case with some people.  I don't think I know anyone like this, but I do see them on TV/Twitter.  Well, I suspect my daughters catechism director is like this but I haven't talked to her enough to know for sure.  I do know folks like you though, who can't bypass any chance to mock someone that embraces religion.  Unless I missed it, I see 5 or so pages of most folks being ambivalent to religion.  Seems like myself and Oblong are the biggest "pro-religion" posters in this thread and we both kind of said we can take it or leave it, but see it benefitting others.  

[chasfh]

20 hours ago, casimir said:

Uh oh,…. Jim Harbaugh just invoked God and gave thanks to his lord and savior Jesus Christ.

I didn’t know he was running for Congress?

[chasfh]

11 hours ago, ewsieg said:

One thing I always do love to see is people that claim religion is the root of all evil and the problem with the world is that they complain how it leads to such horrible intolerance. Yet those that are so steadfast in these beliefs, tend to be some of the most intolerable people, ridiculing others regardless if it effects them in any way.

I think you may have identified the crux of the biscuit regardless of side.

[1984Echoes]

22 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

One more shot to get on the same wavelength here. Tell me how your *decision* to wait to eat changed the chemistry in your brain such that you didn't walk to the refrigerator. That is the missing link. For a *thought* to change what your body does, the mental process has to generate a *cause* in the physical world - i.e. it has to change a reaction in your brain chemistry. We have zero understanding of how that happens. We can see it after the fact - that you make a decision to do something and then neuronal activity appears in your brain, but how a thought causes those neurons to fire? Missing link. You hold two competing options in your mind - depending on which you pick, different neurons are going to fire, but according to the laws of physics, in the moment before you make the *decision*, your brain chemistry has only one possible path  - the one determined by its present state and the rules of chemistry. Yet you changed it, or at least you believed you changed it (that is unless conscious choice is the delusion) - how?

Yes, I've already answered this. At least twice.

But yes... lets see if we can get on the same wavelength. I know what wavelength I am on and I think I can "see" what wavelength you are on... But I'd like to move to a "no doubt" understanding of this... I'm going to call it the Brain Operational Theory.

What are you looking for? I got your description above. You previously called it the "Interface between Mind and Brain". Your description is the actual biochemical reaction that signifies a decision has been made which will then direct your biomechanics to follow the directives of your decision. Do I have this correct?

So, again, what are you looking for? Do you believe there is a section of the brain where these chemical reactions should be located? And no one has been able to find them, as you've described above?

I would call this G2's Brain Operational Theory.

I know my Brain Operational Theory is different and I will see if I can get us reconciled.

I can give a clue: Neurons firing ARE chemical reactions. I know that you know this... If you know biochemistry then you know this to be true... so my next question is: Why are you not considering the Neural Patterns THEMSELVES as the chemical process that changes the physical state of stasis?

[gehringer_2]

Why are you not considering the Neural Patterns THEMSELVES as the chemical process that changes the physical state of stasis?

1 hour ago, 1984Echoes said:

Why are you not considering the Neural Patterns THEMSELVES as the chemical process that changes the physical state of stasis?

In chemistry, every reactions system obeys fixed rules. Every subsequent state of matter is the direct consequence of the prior states an the material and/or energy crossing the system boundary and the relationships are immutable. Maybe I'll reverse the thesis to approach from a different angle: According to chemistry and physics, what happens chemically in your brain simply can't be influenced by something like a thought because a thought doesn't exist in any process definition in chemistry/physics. But you can actually can draw the conundrum out even further: as far as science is concerned, there is no difference between a living chemical process and a dead one. Both are following the exact same rules, and there is nothing you can point to in a living process in terms of the physical laws that it is obeying that separate it from a dead one, which is another way of saying that chemistry and physics don't recognize what we call 'life' as being something definable or distinct in chemical or physical terms at all.

Edited December 5, 2023 by gehringer_2

[1984Echoes]

I disagree with your premise.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/living-forward/202304/how-your-thinking-affects-your-brain-chemistry#:~:text=Your thoughts can also influence,responding to a perceived threat.

KEY POINTS

• Your thoughts are transmitted via neurotransmitters and other neurochemicals.
• You can proactively release various feel-good neurotransmitters in your brain based on what you think about.
• Your brain chemistry changes physical structures in your brain and body.

 

A direct refutation of your premise.

[gehringer_2]

38 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

I disagree with your premise.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/living-forward/202304/how-your-thinking-affects-your-brain-chemistry#:~:text=Your thoughts can also influence,responding to a perceived threat.

KEY POINTS

• Your thoughts are transmitted via neurotransmitters and other neurochemicals.
• You can proactively release various feel-good neurotransmitters in your brain based on what you think about.
• Your brain chemistry changes physical structures in your brain and body.

 

A direct refutation of your premise.

no - I've already talked about this - but it's all happening after the fact so to speak. It's the 'thought' part. You can go to the lab and tell the researcher what you are thinking and they can track the result, but if you don't tell them from *your consciousness* they have no way to make that connection - there is no access to your consciousness in any of the apparatus - and at the molecular level, how the though causes the release of a neurotransmitter is not accessible. It's not inconceivable it may be figured out, but they aren't really getting much close at a fundamental level. It's all "watch and describe science". A number of years ago Douglas Hofstadter laid out the thesis that the problem is just one of the depth of complexity burying the possibility of observation of the mechanism. The example he gave is that if you track a pinball's motion over any short term, you will be very hard pressed to see that there is some intelligence controlling it or how. That is one way out of the problem. But that still doesn't give you any solution to how a thought causes a chemical reaction, only that it does. And again, you can report that you 'made a decision' but in the end how would you prove that your thoughts are independent and not just the result to stimulus response outcome. You may believe they are, but that does nothing to prove they at any objective level because there is only our subjective reporting as evidence. Your beliefs may all be part of the same stimulus response conditioning.

Edited December 5, 2023 by gehringer_2

[MIguy]

Thinking about all the tiny little minute details god had to pay attention to when creating man really makes you appreciate all that he was able to accomplish, especially when you take into consideration the whole not existing thing. 🤣