Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

People always say that your mind is extremly powerful...more powerful than what we can imagine. So if it was so powerful and if this power cannot be tapped into in life....can it in death? What I am saying is maybe when we die our mind works overtime and our imagination helps guide us through death. So if you think or believe your going to hell in life than your mind might simulate what hell would be in death. Vice versa for heaven.

Brains aren't magic.

Our minds decay soon after death, despite some cursory electrical activity after we die. What then? We also need oxygen for our brains to function on anything resembling a normal level, which we wouldn't be receiving in death. How is the brain doing anything resembling life, much less heaven or hell, in death? Actual mechanisms please, not philosophical wishing.

Also, a brain simulating hell in death (even if such a thing were possible, which is almost certainly is not) is no different than a brain simulating hell in life. Even if your premise were correct (again, dubious at best), it wouldn't validate an actual heaven or hell in any colloquial religious sense.

Truth is, people just have ideas like these, all kinds of people from all walks of life. I hate addressing them because I usually end up sounding way more scathing than I intend to be. Or rather, I do intend the logic of my rebuttals to be scathing to the initial point, but apparently my tone and approach leaves something to be desired. It's hard separating personal beliefs from personal feelings toward others, so it's easier for most to take offense to attacks on their beliefs than it is for me.

Long story short, I guess I want to absolutely lay into ideas I find absurd without having to deal with the social fallout from friends or acquaintances. It would also make discourse easier, since it would be easier to engage in debate and find those instances where I'm wrong (because they do exist for all of us, we often just aren't challenged in the right way to expose it). But alas. I suppose that's part of the appeal of internet forums. Anyway, sorry there Leonard...most of that wasn't aimed at you specifically. Your post just got me to rant a bit in general.

Originally posted by LeonardEdgar
People always say that your mind is extremly powerful...more powerful than what we can imagine. So if it was so powerful and if this power cannot be tapped into in life....can it in death? What I am saying is maybe when we die our mind works overtime and our imagination helps guide us through death. Sounds like you might wanna read The Tibetan Book of the Dead.

Who not think allready died! Use your minds taking space these area is your living room where nothing can beat you against what you think!
The actual random situation on place earth change everything and all mind. People think and act for their thoughts even they would die for it.
The opportunity about never ending artificial humanoide life gives this situation a new dimension to all armed forces if we like we change everything.

Originally posted by Digi
Our minds decay soon after death. I have a similar 'idea' as his. I think that...it is possible for this, I am not convinced of it though. I think that your "mind" is not the same as your brain, which I think you are saying decays after death. The brain is simply what communicates with the mind (or the spirit), so I can see what he is saying to be somewhat true.

That being said, I don't think it is true. I think that when we die, our "mind" (but I really mean spirit) is no longer limited by the human brain anymore, and so we will have a perfect knowledge of things we couldn't have before, and God judges us and places us in our appropriate place. And in my religion it isn't simply heaven or hell, in fact, what most people call hell, is actually part of heaven, just segregated from the rest. There are three degrees of glory in heaven, Celestial, where you will be with God, and Jesus...now I always mix these two up, but there is the telestial and terestial, and then the outer darkness, which is "hell" but different than most peoples. We believe than outer darkness is only for those who have a perfect knowledge, and still reject Christ, like a prophet, or Satan, so most people wont go to outer darkness.

My view of Heaven has little sparkes and gllistening lights....Ohh, that's Christmas.

Originally posted by menokokoro
I have a similar 'idea' as his. I think that...it is possible for this, I am not convinced of it though. I think that your "mind" is not the same as your brain, which I think you are saying decays after death. The brain is simply what communicates with the mind (or the spirit), so I can see what he is saying to be somewhat true.

That being said, I don't think it is true. I think that when we die, our "mind" (but I really mean spirit) is no longer limited by the human brain anymore, and so we will have a perfect knowledge of things we couldn't have before, and God judges us and places us in our appropriate place. And in my religion it isn't simply heaven or hell, in fact, what most people call hell, is actually part of heaven, just segregated from the rest. There are three degrees of glory in heaven, Celestial, where you will be with God, and Jesus...now I always mix these two up, but there is the telestial and terestial, and then the outer darkness, which is "hell" but different than most peoples. We believe than outer darkness is only for those who have a perfect knowledge, and still reject Christ, like a prophet, or Satan, so most people wont go to outer darkness.

If your faith tells you that, fine, but please just understand the futility of such a view from a logical perspective, or anything but an intensely-religious blind faith perspective. Because there's no rational reason to believe what you just wrote.

Anyway, the "mind" vs. "brain" debate is an interesting one, one best discussed by actual neuroscientists or philosophers of the mind. Religious concepts of a spirit are, to me, nonsensical, and everything we attribute to a soul in the cultural zeitgeist can easily be attributed to the processes of our brains.

You did say that you thought it was possible for the brain to be a conduit for the "mind" though. I'd be interested to hear why. Is it just something that seems to make sense to you, or have you heard anything else to lead you to this conclusion?

Originally posted by menokokoro
I think that your "mind" is not the same as your brain

why?

Heaven is something that we give a name to that we will never understand.

I believe that there is a verse that states something like, "Even in your mind a man cannot conceive what god has in store for those that love him." But that's the Biblical view.

Still - - - once you die, it still would be unimaginable. And everyone goes there. You go from where you came.

i am more willing to accept and believe that upon brain death one may more likely view an " after life" due to oxygen starvation before the brain starts shutting down and no longer able to generate any images or euphoria feeling or even terror and than the curtains close

Originally posted by Mindship
Sounds like you might wanna read The Tibetan Book of the Dead.
I prefer the timothy leary version.

Originally posted by Digi
If your faith tells you that, fine, but please just understand the futility of such a view from a logical perspective, or anything but an intensely-religious blind faith perspective. Because there's no rational reason to believe what you just wrote.

Anyway, the "mind" vs. "brain" debate is an interesting one, one best discussed by actual neuroscientists or philosophers of the mind. Religious concepts of a spirit are, to me, nonsensical, and everything we attribute to a soul in the cultural zeitgeist can easily be attributed to the processes of our brains.

You did say that you thought it was possible for the brain to be a conduit for the "mind" though. I'd be interested to hear why. Is it just something that seems to make sense to you, or have you heard anything else to lead you to this conclusion? Well, honestly it started with a short story I was working on, and then through conversation and observation I thought it actually might be possible.

Long story short, the short story was about a guy who realized the difference between his "mind" and brain, and used it to do amazing things. Then I was talking to my uncle about it, and he talked about something he had thought about for a while. That intelligence isn't just the storage and movement of information in the brain. Intelligence is an actual energy, that we haven't been able to "see" yet. Then there is the whole..what do they call them, mental tests? idk, pretty much you hold your arm out perpendicular to your body, and someone pushes down on it, you resist as hard as you can, and depending on your energy (or something *shrugs*) you can withstand the pressure, and hold it perpendicular, or not and your arm falls. Now, I have seen this test done where someone randomly would think incredibly positive thoughts toward the person, or really cruel thoughts about them. And every time, their arm falls when they think negative things, and stays strong when they think positive. Now this doesn't exactly prove anything for what I am thinking, and there are many possible explanations for it, but I believe that their thought did in fact effect their physical strength, and thus the mind (or brain, at this point there really is no distinguishing between them) has some sort of connection to someone else's body.

So, I just filled in the gaps with stuff I invented. But to me, it is entirely plausible. But like you said, I am not educated in such fields, so my input means very little. Just one topic I like to think about.

Originally posted by menokokoro
...That intelligence isn't just the storage and movement of information in the brain. Intelligence is an actual energy, that we haven't been able to "see" yet. Then there is the whole..what do they call them, mental tests? idk, pretty much you hold your arm out perpendicular to your body, and someone pushes down on it, you resist as hard as you can, and depending on your energy (or something *shrugs*) you can withstand the pressure, and hold it perpendicular, or not and your arm falls. Now, I have seen this test done where someone randomly would think incredibly positive thoughts toward the person, or really cruel thoughts about them. And every time, their arm falls when they think negative things, and stays strong when they think positive. Now this doesn't exactly prove anything for what I am thinking, and there are many possible explanations for it, but I believe that their thought did in fact effect their physical strength, and thus the mind (or brain, at this point there really is no distinguishing between them) has some sort of connection to someone else's body. What you're describing with the arm reminds me of the first item on a hypnotic susceptibility scale. It's a task most easily influenced by power of suggestion.

If intelligence was some 'actual energy' it would probably be electromagnetic. But 'energy', in its most basic sense, means the capacity to do work...which intelligence does (mental work, as it were). There's also what people commonly call 'chi', which tends to be regarded as some type of energy 'substance', when (IMO) it's essentially the mind and body functioning as a single, integrated unit, wherein much more 'capacity for work' can be generated than in our normal state, where mind and body are not only significantly out of synch, but often work in opposition (think of our normal state as a man on a horse, as opposed to the centaur, which would be the integrated state). Hypnosis can help generate this state, but it's certainly not the only way.

Originally posted by inimalist
why?

I don't think chemical reactions can produce trustworthy ideas.

There has to be something more than a lump of flesh guiding our thoughts and ideas.

Originally posted by menokokoro
Well, honestly it started with a short story I was working on, and then through conversation and observation I thought it actually might be possible.

Long story short, the short story was about a guy who realized the difference between his "mind" and brain, and used it to do amazing things. Then I was talking to my uncle about it, and he talked about something he had thought about for a while. That intelligence isn't just the storage and movement of information in the brain. Intelligence is an actual energy, that we haven't been able to "see" yet. Then there is the whole..what do they call them, mental tests? idk, pretty much you hold your arm out perpendicular to your body, and someone pushes down on it, you resist as hard as you can, and depending on your energy (or something *shrugs*) you can withstand the pressure, and hold it perpendicular, or not and your arm falls. Now, I have seen this test done where someone randomly would think incredibly positive thoughts toward the person, or really cruel thoughts about them. And every time, their arm falls when they think negative things, and stays strong when they think positive. Now this doesn't exactly prove anything for what I am thinking, and there are many possible explanations for it, but I believe that their thought did in fact effect their physical strength, and thus the mind (or brain, at this point there really is no distinguishing between them) has some sort of connection to someone else's body.

So, I just filled in the gaps with stuff I invented. But to me, it is entirely plausible. But like you said, I am not educated in such fields, so my input means very little. Just one topic I like to think about.

Oh dear. yeah, repeat that test numerous times under controlled and blind or double-blind conditions. You'll find it's a placebo affect. Peoples' expectations can and do affect outcomes in similar tests, but it's nothing supernatural.

Hucksters in the 80's (and I suppose even today to an extent) did the same with spoon-bending, and people flocked to watch the power of collective thought grant them enhanced strength. Most of the time it's harmless, but some of the time it's exploitive and deliberately misleading in order to swindle people out of their money.

Hell, have you seen those "natural frequency" bracelets on recent infomercials that are supposed to do the same? Different mask, same idea. And just as reprehensible for those that sell it, and unfortunate for those who believe and buy it.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't think chemical reactions can produce trustworthy ideas.

There has to be something more than a lump of flesh guiding our thoughts and ideas.

There's a lot more than a lump of flesh. There's a blindingly complex series of interconnections and processes that inform our every action. Your intuition is right, even if your rationalization of the explanation isn't.

I like that you want to anthropomorphize chemical reactions though. I got a chuckle out of that one. Can't trust those cagey bastards!

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't think chemical reactions can produce trustworthy ideas.

There has to be something more than a lump of flesh guiding our thoughts and ideas.

oh

Heaven SHOULD be..God lets you live the life you always wanted to live when you were alive. I didnt ask for this one, but ive done the best i can with what i had, as a reward for a lifetime of heart ache , stress ,misfortune and physical ailment, i think once this life is over God should born me again to the same parents and same birthday with all the knowledge id accumulated in the previous life..then a lottery win at age 22. Bliss!

Originally posted by Digi
There's a lot more than a lump of flesh. There's a blindingly complex series of interconnections and processes that inform our every action. Your intuition is right, even if your rationalization of the explanation isn't.

I like that you want to anthropomorphize chemical reactions though. I got a chuckle out of that one. Can't trust those cagey bastards!

Perhaps simplifying it to chemical reactions isn't fully representative of it's complexity, but my point still stands. If you follow it down to it's most basic functions, there isn't any true logic guiding it. It's a series of electrical bursts and chemicals. Nothing that can produce a trustworthy idea.

Why are all "spiritual vs. science" seemingly required to take place in an empirical/scientific arena?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Brains aren't magic. /thread.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Why are all "spiritual vs. science" seemingly required to take place in an empirical/scientific arena?

it doesn't have to

science is really the only side that has demonstrable evidence to back it up though...

Originally posted by TacDavey
Perhaps simplifying it to chemical reactions isn't fully representative of it's complexity, but my point still stands. If you follow it down to it's most basic functions, there isn't any true logic guiding it. It's a series of electrical bursts and chemicals. Nothing that can produce a trustworthy idea.

QFT FTW

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Why are all "spiritual vs. science" seemingly required to take place in an empirical/scientific arena? Empirical science has given us our most reliable understanding of the material world. So currently, it seems the best place to put home plate and look outward from there.

IMO though, 'empirical' and 'scientific' aren't necessarily synonymous; nor are spirit and science necessarily at odds.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Perhaps simplifying it to chemical reactions isn't fully representative of it's complexity, but my point still stands. If you follow it down to it's most basic functions, there isn't any true logic guiding it. It's a series of electrical bursts and chemicals. Nothing that can produce a trustworthy idea.

I find your use of "trustworthy" curious. And yes, obviously the idea of an idea (getting metaphysical here) is something outside of an electrical response. But those electrical/chemical responses are what cause thoughts. We can track our brains' workings, and they are indeed of sufficient complexity to perform everything we do, say, and feel on a daily basis.

Just because we don't have a 1:1 understanding of how a thought is formed, like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle (with the pieces being the billions of reactions in our brains), doesn't mean that there is something supernatural happening. It just has yet to be fully demystified because of its complexity.

Because your tact here is just hinting at a God of Gaps philosophy, with the exactities of human thought being one of the last bastions for supernaturalists that can't be immediately blown out of the water by modern science.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Why are all "spiritual vs. science" seemingly required to take place in an empirical/scientific arena?

Show me a set of standardized rules used in religion to make assessments about the world, and I'll happily play an "away game" on religion's turf. Frankly though, science is the only side that has an arena that makes any sense (if we're staying with your analogy). The fact that all but the most stringent evangelicals have to frame their religious views through the prism of our modern scientific knowledge, means that religion itself has no rebuttal for the methods or conclusions put out by scientific inquiry about the world. Science works, and we know it works. The best religion can do is work with what's left or remain outside science's scope.

Originally posted by Digi
Show me a set of standardized rules used in religion to make assessments about the world, and I'll happily play an "away game" on religion's turf. Frankly though, science is the only side that has an arena that makes any sense (if we're staying with your analogy). The fact that all but the most stringent evangelicals have to frame their religious views through the prism of our modern scientific knowledge, means that religion itself has no rebuttal for the methods or conclusions put out by scientific inquiry about the world. Science works, and we know it works. The best religion can do is work with what's left or remain outside science's scope.

My comment was really just some subtle poking fun at the idea that if something does not make sense from a scientific perspective than it is probably false, or invalid. It amuses me how each "side", per say, has its go to routine when participating in any religious discussion. Relious folks tend to toute whatever their holy book is, the non-religous immediately demand that the opposition substantiate their argument with empirical fact.

Both sides are missing the point, imo, sans certain circumstances.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
My comment was really just some subtle poking fun at the idea that if something does not make sense from a scientific perspective than it is probably false, or invalid. It amuses me how each "side", per say, has its go to routine when participating in any religious discussion. Relious folks tend to toute whatever their holy book is, the non-religous immediately demand that the opposition substantiate their argument with empirical fact.

Both sides are missing the point, imo, sans certain circumstances.

I hear you, but I think a lot of it comes to the difference between claims about what spirituality means to oneself and what it means in terms of how a person experiences the world versus how the world is in some empirical sense.

I know personally I try not to tell people their experiences or interpretations of those experiences are wrong, because I sort of agree, those aren't empirical questions, the same way as my own interpretations of the universe is not. However, a statement like "the brain produces heaven after death" isn't a matter of some personal spirituality, but an empirical statement about how the universe works

I agree completely that the sides are missing something, as personal spirituality says nothing about material reality, the same way as science has nothing to say about a person's individual sense of the spiritual (save the mechanisms that might produce it)

And so, the question is begged: what's being missed?

Originally posted by Digi
I find your use of "trustworthy" curious. And yes, obviously the idea of an idea (getting metaphysical here) is something outside of an electrical response. But those electrical/chemical responses are what cause thoughts. We can track our brains' workings, and they are indeed of sufficient complexity to perform everything we do, say, and feel on a daily basis.

Just because we don't have a 1:1 understanding of how a thought is formed, like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle (with the pieces being the billions of reactions in our brains), doesn't mean that there is something supernatural happening. It just has yet to be fully demystified because of its complexity.

Because your tact here is just hinting at a God of Gaps philosophy, with the exactities of human thought being one of the last bastions for supernaturalists that can't be immediately blown out of the water by modern science.

I'm not holding to something super natural happening because we don't have enough data. When it all comes down to it, the brain is nothing more than chemical reactions and electricity. Regardless of it's complexity, that's where it all comes from. And there is no logic behind chemical reactions and electricity. So if you traced the process of the creation of an idea back to it's earliest stages, you would find the the idea was not rooted in logical thought, but in uncontrollable bursts of natural processes.

'Emergence' is a toughie.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
My comment was really just some subtle poking fun at the idea that if something does not make sense from a scientific perspective than it is probably false, or invalid. It amuses me how each "side", per say, has its go to routine when participating in any religious discussion. Relious folks tend to toute whatever their holy book is, the non-religous immediately demand that the opposition substantiate their argument with empirical fact.

Both sides are missing the point, imo, sans certain circumstances.

So then what IS the point we're missing? You seem to be headed toward a non-overlapping magisteria (sic?) argument, but I could be wrong.

Anyway, religious discussion tends to follow certain patterns because once you understand both sides' arguments, it really boils down to a few simple ideas and tenants on either side. It shouldn't come as any surprise.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm not holding to something super natural happening because we don't have enough data. When it all comes down to it, the brain is nothing more than chemical reactions and electricity. Regardless of it's complexity, that's where it all comes from. And there is no logic behind chemical reactions and electricity. So if you traced the process of the creation of an idea back to it's earliest stages, you would find the the idea was not rooted in logical thought, but in uncontrollable bursts of natural processes.

Nor is there any logical thought in a single cell, blood vessel, etc. etc. but they all do their thing. We're products of evolution, and every action serves whatever function it evolved to accomplish (however imperfectly it might accomplish this). And, if we're to break it down further, every atom is subject to deterministic movement as per the laws of physics in our universe. Again, there's nothing unexplainable, even though we don't currently have the technology to achieve a 1:1 understanding of each interconnection.

Also: "Uncontrolled bursts of natural processes" makes it sound much more random than it needs to. Life came from randomness, yes, but once it existed it was naturally selected for survival, making it function with a high degree of order.

You're trying to find the ghost in the mahcine. Imo, it's just the machine, and nobody (as yet) has come up with a convincing argument otherwise. So you're contradicting yourself, because saying that chemical and electrical impulses aren't sufficient for human thought as it exists contradicts your first sentence there that you're not holding onto a supernatural explanation because we don't hav enough data. If you think physical phenomenon aren't enough, but aren't claiming a supernatural explanation, what are you getting at?

Originally posted by TacDavey
So if you traced the process of the creation of an idea back to it's earliest stages, you would find the the idea was not rooted in logical thought, but in uncontrollable bursts of natural processes.

the process of neuronal activation is controlled by many mechanisms...

an action potential in a single neuron alone is mediated by several mechanisms that I can think of off the top of my head (excititory vs inhibitory neurotransmitters, ionotropic and metabotropic receptors, ionic channels, mylen, nodes of ranvier) and probably dozens I can't name or are as of yet undiscovered... When we look at groups of neurons and cells, we get glia that are literally only responsible for mediating and synchronizing neuronal activation. If we look at something like the early layers of the primary visual cortex, or even earlier, in a structure known as the lateral geniculate nucleus, neurons are arranged in such a way that they activate and deactivate eachother in highly specific and specialized manners. For instance, the reason objects seem to have clear edges defining them is a product of this type of processing. I can go over it with you if you are interested in learning how it works, but like, there are countless optical illusions that exist only because we are able to trick the way the brain is organized.

actually, this site is fantastic and normally provides explanations and links about why certain illusions work the way they do:

http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/

EDIT: even just check out this one, its one of my favs. The explanation is good, and really, play with all the options available. You would not see these types of illusions if there were not some type of strict organization in perceptual processes:

http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/mot_feet_lin/index.html

your characterization of how the brain produces thought is a literal strawman or based on a highly incomplete understanding of how the brain organizes itself... I don't mean this to sound as critical as it does, but like, you are 100% wrong.

Heh. <3

I just couldn't resist anymore...

I bet he calls my bluff though, I have no interest in explaining horizontal inhibitory orientation pinwheels in the interblob areas of layer 1 in V1 as they pertain to edge and texture segmentation





























jargon

Originally posted by Digi
Nor is there any logical thought in a single cell, blood vessel, etc. etc. but they all do their thing. We're products of evolution, and every action serves whatever function it evolved to accomplish (however imperfectly it might accomplish this). And, if we're to break it down further, every atom is subject to deterministic movement as per the laws of physics in our universe. Again, there's nothing unexplainable, even though we don't currently have the technology to achieve a 1:1 understanding of each interconnection.

Also: "Uncontrolled bursts of natural processes" makes it sound much more random than it needs to. Life came from randomness, yes, but once it existed it was naturally selected for survival, making it function with a high degree of order.

You're trying to find the ghost in the mahcine. Imo, it's just the machine, and nobody (as yet) has come up with a convincing argument otherwise. So you're contradicting yourself, because saying that chemical and electrical impulses aren't sufficient for human thought as it exists contradicts your first sentence there that you're not holding onto a supernatural explanation because we don't hav enough data. If you think physical phenomenon aren't enough, but aren't claiming a supernatural explanation, what are you getting at?

A single cell or blood vessel does not produce ideas and theories.

No, I'm not putting super natural explanations onto something simply because there is a lack of data. I'm saying, whatever data we do find, it still wouldn't explain how the brain can produce logical theories and ideas. At least not ones we can trust to be accurate. Because in the end, ideas are formed from causes that are not bound by logic. Complex as it may be, the very thing that put the idea into life was not logical or rational, but simply a natural process that evolution dictated would act that way, so how can we trust it to produce a logical truth?

Originally posted by inimalist
the process of neuronal activation is controlled by many mechanisms...

an action potential in a single neuron alone is mediated by several mechanisms that I can think of off the top of my head (excititory vs inhibitory neurotransmitters, ionotropic and metabotropic receptors, ionic channels, mylen, nodes of ranvier) and probably dozens I can't name or are as of yet undiscovered... When we look at groups of neurons and cells, we get glia that are literally only responsible for mediating and synchronizing neuronal activation. If we look at something like the early layers of the primary visual cortex, or even earlier, in a structure known as the lateral geniculate nucleus, neurons are arranged in such a way that they activate and deactivate eachother in highly specific and specialized manners. For instance, the reason objects seem to have clear edges defining them is a product of this type of processing. I can go over it with you if you are interested in learning how it works, but like, there are countless optical illusions that exist only because we are able to trick the way the brain is organized.

actually, this site is fantastic and normally provides explanations and links about why certain illusions work the way they do:

http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/

EDIT: even just check out this one, its one of my favs. The explanation is good, and really, play with all the options available. You would not see these types of illusions if there were not some type of strict organization in perceptual processes:

http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/mot_feet_lin/index.html

your characterization of how the brain produces thought is a literal strawman or based on a highly incomplete understanding of how the brain organizes itself... I don't mean this to sound as critical as it does, but like, you are 100% wrong.

I fully understand that the brain is organized and complex. I don't see how optical illusions demonstrate the brains ability to form ideas and theories.

Though, you're right. I'm not educated in the scientific aspects of how the brain works. I'm coming at it from more of a philosophical standpoint.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I fully understand that the brain is organized and complex. I don't see how optical illusions demonstrate the brains ability to form ideas and theories.

a) what type of ideas and theories?

b) you don't comprehend how important sensory information is how and what we think?

Originally posted by inimalist
a) what type of ideas and theories?

b) you don't comprehend how important sensory information is how and what we think?

a.) Any type of ideas or theories. Take philosophical theories for example.

b.) No, I don't see sensory information creating ideas or theories. Define "important sensory information".

Originally posted by TacDavey
a.) Any type of ideas or theories. Take philosophical theories for example.

like, what aspect do you mean? are you talking about the developmental origins of philosophical ideas? are you talking about what processes are occurring as you interpret philosophical information? are you talking about the "voice in your head" that comes up with linguistic representations of the abstract ideas you are thinking of?

the concept of "philosophical ideas" is far to ambiguous for any type of neural analysis, and includes huge portions of memory, developmental plasticity, cognitive dissonance, emotional processes, mood/context processing and like thousands of other systems/interconnected processing pathways.

Originally posted by TacDavey
b.) No, I don't see sensory information creating ideas or theories. Define "important sensory information".

you are parsing that differently than I intended, I mean, do you not see the significance of sensory information in terms of how it influences our ideas

for instance, there is no other way information can get into the brain

but frankly, if you don't see sensory information as important, you are telling me that a mute, deaf, blind person with no sense of touch, taste, proprioception or vestibular sensation, would be able to come up with theories of how the world works? a world they have, literally, no way of knowing anything about?

How could Locke come up with the idea of tabla rasa without the ability to interact with his world? how could any philosopher put together 2 concepts if they had no ability to observe either of them? sensory processes underly absolutely every part of cognitive processes. A great example of this is the fact that the sensory information in your environment makes you better able to recall and remember things. If you take a test in the same room you learned the information in, you are much better than if you change rooms, simply because there is sensory congruence between the two scenarios (Nairne challenges this, but not in a way that changes the content of my point, he describes the congruence in functional terms)

or another good example:

there is something called "neuroplasticity", essentially, the brain organizes itself based on the sensory information that comes into it and interacts with genes. This happens all through life, but is of primary importance during childhood, as the brain is forming the initial structures that will be responsible for all behaviour.

thus, if you are not subjected to a type of stimuli during these critical periods, you will be unable to properly perceive it when encountered later.

there were studies done where kittens were raised in an environment that had no horizontal lines. Because of this, their visual system never arranged in such a way that enabled them to perceive horizontal things. when introduced into a normal environment, they were unable to process horizontal stimuli.

So, think about what things horizontal stimuli allow you to perceive. shapes, objects, people, places, your home, etc. How could you ever come to rational philosophical ideas about the world. Basic perception and our ability to sense things in our world clearly underly our ability to think about things.

This is even further evidenced by activation in sensory modalities when we think about things. When you see the colour blue, it activates the same part of the brain (ok, slightly posterior) as is activated when you think about the colour blue. When you see someone walking, it activates the same part of the brain that is active when you are walking. If you don't have the structures that allow you to see blue or that enable you to walk, you can't cognitively think about them. In the walking example, you are entirely unable to understand what a person is doing, or really that they are performing an action.

Originally posted by inimalist
like, what aspect do you mean? are you talking about the developmental origins of philosophical ideas? are you talking about what processes are occurring as you interpret philosophical information? are you talking about the "voice in your head" that comes up with linguistic representations of the abstract ideas you are thinking of?

the concept of "philosophical ideas" is far to ambiguous for any type of neural analysis, and includes huge portions of memory, developmental plasticity, cognitive dissonance, emotional processes, mood/context processing and like thousands of other systems/interconnected processing pathways.

You are making this more complex than it needs to be. Let's take the basic concept of an "idea". You see a ball, and you get the idea that it should be blue, instead of red, for a number of "logical" reasons that aren't important.

How can you truly consider this idea trustworthy, if at it's basic form, it sprung from something not bound by logic? In other words, how can you trust the logic of the byproduct of something that is not guided by a logical motivation? The cells in the brain do not stop to consider if it's logical to send electronic impulses through the brain. The chemicals don't stop to consider if it's logical to react the way they do. They simply do it, because that's how they were pre-programmed to act by evolution, so how can you trust them to produce the logical truth? In other words, chemicals don't reason, they react.

Originally posted by inimalist
you are parsing that differently than I intended, I mean, do you not see the significance of sensory information in terms of how it influences our ideas

for instance, there is no other way information can get into the brain

but frankly, if you don't see sensory information as important, you are telling me that a mute, deaf, blind person with no sense of touch, taste, proprioception or vestibular sensation, would be able to come up with theories of how the world works? a world they have, literally, no way of knowing anything about?

How could Locke come up with the idea of tabla rasa without the ability to interact with his world? how could any philosopher put together 2 concepts if they had no ability to observe either of them? sensory processes underly absolutely every part of cognitive processes. A great example of this is the fact that the sensory information in your environment makes you better able to recall and remember things. If you take a test in the same room you learned the information in, you are much better than if you change rooms, simply because there is sensory congruence between the two scenarios (Nairne challenges this, but not in a way that changes the content of my point, he describes the congruence in functional terms)

or another good example:

there is something called "neuroplasticity", essentially, the brain organizes itself based on the sensory information that comes into it and interacts with genes. This happens all through life, but is of primary importance during childhood, as the brain is forming the initial structures that will be responsible for all behaviour.

thus, if you are not subjected to a type of stimuli during these critical periods, you will be unable to properly perceive it when encountered later.

there were studies done where kittens were raised in an environment that had no horizontal lines. Because of this, their visual system never arranged in such a way that enabled them to perceive horizontal things. when introduced into a normal environment, they were unable to process horizontal stimuli.

So, think about what things horizontal stimuli allow you to perceive. shapes, objects, people, places, your home, etc. How could you ever come to rational philosophical ideas about the world. Basic perception and our ability to sense things in our world clearly underly our ability to think about things.

This is even further evidenced by activation in sensory modalities when we think about things. When you see the colour blue, it activates the same part of the brain (ok, slightly posterior) as is activated when you think about the colour blue. When you see someone walking, it activates the same part of the brain that is active when you are walking. If you don't have the structures that allow you to see blue or that enable you to walk, you can't cognitively think about them. In the walking example, you are entirely unable to understand what a person is doing, or really that they are performing an action.

Whoa, I never said sensory information was completely unimportant, only that I don't see it as being able to produce logical ideas all on it's own. I said, I don't see sensory information CREATING ideas. I have no problem with the idea that sensory information INFLUENCES ideas or theories.

We can trust the science of the brain or science of the {anything else} because it gives us predictive power for matters in the universe that, when repeated numerous times, can be reliably said to tell us something true about how the universe works. All scientific truths are provisional, but when repeated beyond all shadow of statistical chance, can be treated as facts.

Besides, I dislike your whole tact here. If brains can't produce trustworthy thoughts, how do you believe anything with any degree of certainty? I'm guessing your very worldview contradicts this idea, simply because you have a worldview. And If you want to continue down your path into full-on subjectivism, fine, there's not an actual refutation for that except to say that it affects religious ideas equally as much as scientific ones. But it doesn't really accomplish much from a debating perspective.

There's also the matter of neither you nor I properly understanding just how numbingly complex brains are. But I don't see how it's a stretch to think that we could understand some things about the universe around us when we ourselves are a part of it and made of the same stuff. I think you're just going to far. Are our ideas infallible? Of course not. Subject to error? Of course. But not able to be trusted? That's a giant leap from the first two questions. Individuals thoughts, perhaps, but collective and repeated thoughts, put to tests to confirm or deny them, those can be trusted.

Originally posted by Digi
We can trust the science of the brain or science of the {anything else} because it gives us predictive power for matters in the universe that, when repeated numerous times, can be reliably said to tell us something true about how the universe works. All scientific truths are provisional, but when repeated beyond all shadow of statistical chance, can be treated as facts.

Besides, I dislike your whole tact here. If brains can't produce trustworthy thoughts, how do you believe anything with any degree of certainty? I'm guessing your very worldview contradicts this idea, simply because you have a worldview. And If you want to continue down your path into full-on subjectivism, fine, there's not an actual refutation for that except to say that it affects religious ideas equally as much as scientific ones. But it doesn't really accomplish much from a debating perspective.

No, that's not quite right. It doesn't affect religious ideas as much as scientific. If you hadn't guess it yet, I hold to there being more to us than just a brain.

"If brains can't produce trustworthy thoughts, how do you believe anything with any degree of certainty?"

That, right there, is the point. Answer? We can't. Solution? We are more than just brains.

Originally posted by Digi
There's also the matter of neither you nor I properly understanding just how numbingly complex brains are. But I don't see how it's a stretch to think that we could understand some things about the universe around us when we ourselves are a part of it and made of the same stuff. I think you're just going to far. Are our ideas infallible? Of course not. Subject to error? Of course. But not able to be trusted? That's a giant leap from the first two questions. Individuals thoughts, perhaps, but collective and repeated thoughts, put to tests to confirm or deny them, those can be trusted.

I don't think I'm taking it to far, I think I'm thinking of it logically. And I don't think the simple fact of being made of the same stuff as the universe gives us any real understanding of it. Even if you repeat thoughts continuously, that doesn't change my point. Even the simple act of repeating the thoughts is a process that is being carried out by the same thing that created them, which I have already argued is not trustworthy.

Furthermore, I don't think that our lack of knowledge about the brain serves to refute my stance either. Regardless of it's complexity, my point still stands. You cannot trust the brain to produce logical truth, because it's processes are not guided by a logical motivation, and no amount of complexity will change that.

Then you have to ask yourself, "What is truth?"

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Then you have to ask yourself, "What is truth?" That which exists on its own and is the basis of all other realities, existing independently of human awareness and interpretation?

Good luck with that.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Then you have to ask yourself, "What is truth?"

"If one says of what is that it is, or of what is not that it is not, he speaks the truth; but if one says of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, he does not speak the truth." (Got it from Between Heaven and Hell, page 27.)

EDIT: At any rate, the question of "what is truth" could probably use a thread of it's own, and I'd rather not mix that debate with this one.

Originally posted by Mindship
That which exists on its own and is the basis of all other realities, existing independently of human awareness and interpretation?

Good luck with that. Maybe it cannot be interpretated from a human defency or reasoning of that question. Well, to do so only makes it subjective. But is that truth? Or is that our interpeting of what we think it may be make it so. I believe that it really cannot be answered.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Maybe it cannot be interpretated from a human defency or reasoning of that question. Well, to do so only makes it subjective. But is that truth? Or is that our interpeting of what we think it may be make it so. I believe that it really cannot be answered. Trite responses aside, supposedly, genuine truth is ineffable. All we can ever hope to know is how reality works, but never its source.

Originally posted by TacDavey
"If brains can't produce trustworthy thoughts, how do you believe anything with any degree of certainty?"

That, right there, is the point. Answer? We can't. Solution? We are more than just brains.

That doesn't logically follow at ALL. We can't know anything for certain, ergo we are more than brains?! Do I really need to explain to you that there isn't a causal or rational link there.

All it means is (from your perspective) that we can't know anything for certain. Period, end, fin. The logical gap between that point and "we are more than brains" reminds me of the people that try to invoke the anthropic principle to "prove" a Christian God.

You're molding your interpretations to suit your beliefs.

Originally posted by Digi
That doesn't logically follow at ALL. We can't know anything for certain, ergo we are more than brains?! Do I really need to explain to you that there isn't a causal or rational link there.

All it means is (from your perspective) that we can't know anything for certain. Period, end, fin. The logical gap between that point and "we are more than brains" reminds me of the people that try to invoke the anthropic principle to "prove" a Christian God.

You're molding your interpretations to suit your beliefs.

Actually his argument seems to be that cells aren't logical thus brains aren't logical thus logical thoughts must come from outside the brain.

The error he makes is the composition fallacy. The classic example: atoms are too small to see, humans are made of atoms, ergo humans are too small to see. Or more relevantly: this rock is too heavy for a man to lift, all my workers are men, ergo all my workers together cannot lift the rock.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Actually his argument seems to be that cells aren't logical thus brains aren't logical thus logical thoughts must come from outside the brain.

The error he makes is the composition fallacy. The classic example: atoms are too small to see, humans are made of atoms, ergo humans are too small to see. Or more relevantly: this rock is too heavy for a man to lift, all my workers are men, ergo all my workers together cannot lift the rock.

That's not QUITE what I'm saying. I'm not saying the brain CANNOT produce a logical truth, only that we cannot trust that it will, since it's functions are not guided by a logical motivation.

Originally posted by TacDavey
That's not QUITE what I'm saying. I'm not saying the brain CANNOT produce a logical truth, only that we cannot trust that it will, since it's functions are not guided by a logical motivation.

An observation that is only of concern to philosophers and the traditional "rationalist" crowd (who died out like two hundred years ago except for a few solipsistic pockets).

Scientists don't believe things simply because they sound reasonable. In fact the existence of rational-empiricism is based entire on the observation that we often have irrational thoughts and that our perceptions are limited. Each is used to support the other and a wide variety of methods of triangulation are used to ensure that a particular experiment or observer is not in error.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
An observation that is only of concern to philosophers and the traditional "rationalist" crowd (who died out like two hundred years ago except for a few solipsistic pockets).

Scientists don't believe things simply because they sound reasonable. In fact the existence of rational-empiricism is based entire on the observation that we often have irrational thoughts and that our perceptions are limited. Each is used to support the other and a wide variety of methods of triangulation are used to ensure that a particular experiment or observer is not in error.

Science and philosophy are different and each equally important in it's own right.

I'm not believing something simply because it "sounds" reasonable either. I'm not sure of your point.

He's saying that tests, observations, and results often defy what seems to be true to us, or what we perceive with our eyes/minds/etc. Our experience of the world is imperfect (one of the few things I agree with you on, though you go too far imo). But empirical study removes bias from our experience of the world.

Its our soul that goes to heaven or hell not our body.So this has nothing to do with your Brains

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Its our soul that goes to heaven or hell not our body.So this has nothing to do with your Brains If both are from God and of God, how could they be so disconnected?

I guess because they are different.A soul is the one that is judge so God knows to put you in heaven or hell as for your brain I guess is not.

Originally posted by Digi
He's saying that tests, observations, and results often defy what seems to be true to us, or what we perceive with our eyes/minds/etc. Our experience of the world is imperfect (one of the few things I agree with you on, though you go too far imo). But empirical study removes bias from our experience of the world.

I still don't think observations refute my point, for the reasons I gave earlier. Even our observations are not guided by logical motivation, so we still can't trust them to produce something logical.

Originally posted by Mindship
If both are from God and of God, how could they be so disconnected?

I don't know what you mean.

The fact that God created both doesn't mean they have to be connected any more than I am connected to a chicken, which is also made by God.

tacdavey... you're something

Originally posted by TacDavey
II don't know what you mean.

The fact that God created both doesn't mean they have to be connected any more than I am connected to a chicken, which is also made by God. It's not just that God created both; both are of God, the ground of all being/nonbeing. There is nothing outside of 'Him'.

I suspect, even with God not in the picture, that quantum nonlocality would state we are 'connected' to chickens more closely than is realized. And if nothing else, go far back enough, and humans and chickens share a common genetic/evolutionary heritage.

Some connections are more obvious/immediate than others.

Couldn't have said it better myself..

You just explain it much better than I do....You're so exquisitely eloquent.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
tacdavey... you're something

Yeah, I know.

Originally posted by Mindship
It's not just that God created both; both are of God, the ground of all being/nonbeing. There is nothing outside of 'Him'.

I suspect, even with God not in the picture, that quantum nonlocality would state we are 'connected' to chickens more closely than is realized. And if nothing else, go far back enough, and humans and chickens share a common genetic/evolutionary heritage.

Some connections are more obvious/immediate than others.

Ah, I see. Then I guess I'm confused as to your point. Adarksidejedi said the brain is separate from the mind, which you responded to with "but they are both of God, so how can they be disconnected?" Yet a chicken is also made of God, but does not affect me in any way. When I die, I'm not going to take any chickens with me, so why can the same thing not be said of the brain and mind? Why can't those be two separate things that separate at death?

Originally posted by TacDavey
Ah, I see. Then I guess I'm confused as to your point. Adarksidejedi said the brain is separate from the mind, which you responded to with "but they are both of God, so how can they be disconnected?" Yet a chicken is also made of God, but does not affect me in any way. When I die, I'm not going to take any chickens with me, so why can the same thing not be said of the brain and mind? Why can't those be two separate things that separate at death? From a human perspective, death does bring a 'separation'. But to say, "So this has nothing to do with your Brains" ... I disagree, especially since decisions we make in life -- which do involve gray matter -- supposedly determine our post-life fate.

BTW, I had mentioned it earlier, but perhaps not robustly enough. Seems to me a lot of what you're talking about has to do with the phenomenon of 'emergence' ('holons' are a closely related matter). If you're not familiar with it, you might find it interesting with regard to your point. It does not necessarily prove God's existence, per se, but it is, currently (afaik), a conundrum for empirical science.

Originally posted by Mindship
From a human perspective, death does bring a 'separation'. But to say, "So this has nothing to do with your Brains" ... I disagree, especially since decisions we make in life -- which do involve gray matter -- supposedly determine our post-life fate.

BTW, I had mentioned it earlier, but perhaps not robustly enough. Seems to me a lot of what you're talking about has to do with the phenomenon of 'emergence' ('holons' are a closely related matter). If you're not familiar with it, you might find it interesting with regard to your point. It does not necessarily prove God's existence, per se, but it is, currently (afaik), a conundrum for empirical science.

Oh, I don't think that our brains are completely unimportant. But I do see them as separate things.

I have never heard of the "phenomenon of emergence," I don't think. Do you have any place I can read about it?

Your heaven sounds silly and awesome.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I have never heard of the "phenomenon of emergence," I don't think. Do you have any place I can read about it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Wikipedia I tend to take with a grain of salt, but generally, it seems to do a good job as a kind of primer to a topic.


http://www.lehigh.edu/~mhb0/emergence.html

If you want to impress friends and family.


Originally posted by Nephthys
Your heaven sounds silly and awesome. Then Death is also the road to silliness.

Don't you just love that we're all connected. I do.

Now start treating me/you better!

Originally posted by Mindship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Wikipedia I tend to take with a grain of salt, but generally, it seems to do a good job as a kind of primer to a topic.


http://www.lehigh.edu/~mhb0/emergence.html

If you want to impress friends and family.


Thanks.

Originally posted by LeonardEdgar
People always say that your mind is extremly powerful...more powerful than what we can imagine. So if it was so powerful and if this power cannot be tapped into in life....can it in death? What I am saying is maybe when we die our mind works overtime and our imagination helps guide us through death. So if you think or believe your going to hell in life than your mind might simulate what hell would be in death. Vice versa for heaven.

I believe that we do choose our final destition.