my view of heaven!

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?"

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. 😎

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.

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

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.

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.