Originally posted by King Kandy
Oh really? can you give me a single time there was a cause with no causal event?
Well, I suppose it depends on what you consider an event. The necessary and sufficient conditions for something coming together could technically be considered an "event". But this wouldn't be the case if, say, the conditions never came together, they were simply always together, as the conditions for the universe would have to have been. In that sense, the only "event" would be the effect.
I'm curious. Are you saying that the cause of time was inside of time? The thing it created? That doesn't make any logical sense.
Originally posted by Existere
What does that even mean?
I can cause something, but you wouldn't consider me an event.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Well, I suppose it depends on what you consider an event. The necessary and sufficient conditions for something coming together could technically be considered an "event". But this wouldn't be the case if, say, the conditions never came together, they were simply always together, as the conditions for the universe would have to have been. In that sense, the only "event" would be the effect.I'm curious. Are you saying that the cause of time was inside of time? The thing it created? That doesn't make any logical sense.
Originally posted by Daemon SeedDo we believe it's the end?
I would state, in my humble opinion, that the answer to this question is "no." I think human beings universally believe - whether outwardly and/or inwardly (regardless of their upbringing, education level and religious views) - that life does not end at death - or physical death as some would argue.
The bottom line is, all human beings, in my view, understand that life is more abundant, more personal than raw material/matter alone. We all understand - instinctively! - that an entity exists far beyond our nature - something that provides meaning and depth.
I've noticed, that many so-called atheist friends of mine, spend more time challenging God's moral character, than His existence. This, of course, indirectly, confirms that they believe in an entity greater than themselves - and if I may speak freely - the Cosmos itself.
Yes... I'm getting off topic, but I truly embrace, that the belief in life after death is universally excepted - outwardly and/or inwardly. People except that life (in this world) is not the end, and no one ever taught you this. If your anything like me, you realized this before you began puberty.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Nothing "created" time. Time is defined as the sequencing of events. When the first event occurred, time therefore had a starting point to be defined from. However, there was no actual tangible creation of something called "time".
Time isn't a physical object. That doesn't mean it didn't have a beginning. And again, if it has a beginning, it needs a cause.
Originally posted by ushomefree
I would state, in my humble opinion, that the answer to this question is "no." I think human beings universally believe - whether outwardly and/or inwardly (regardless of their upbringing, education level and religious views) - that life does not end at death - or physical death as some would argue.The bottom line is, all human beings, in my view, understand that life is more abundant, more personal than raw material/matter alone. We all understand - instinctively! - that an entity exists far beyond our nature - something that provides meaning and depth.
Besides not being a logical appeal, which it isn't, saying that a sense of an afterlife is ingrained within us is probably wrong. The default "setting" for human beings is a lack of belief in, well, anything. Not atheism, I'm not here to drive an agenda. Just a blank slate, an utter lack of opinion. Anything beyond that is mostly culturally driven.
Unless you have some information on the brain states of newborns or infants that I'm not aware of, of course. Because given that most types of abstract thought aren't even possible at birth and infancy, and build gradually as our brain develops and we build prerequisite cognitive skills, I'd say it might actually be physically impossible for such beliefs to be intrinsic.
Originally posted by ushomefree
I've noticed, that many so-called atheist friends of mine, spend more time challenging God's moral character, than His existence. This, of course, indirectly, confirms that they believe in an entity greater than themselves - and if I may speak freely - the Cosmos itself.
Then you're dealing with a weird subset of atheists, or not atheists at all in a traditional sense.
Originally posted by ushomefree
Yes... I'm getting off topic, but I truly embrace, that the belief in life after death is universally excepted - outwardly and/or inwardly. People except that life (in this world) is not the end, and no one ever taught you this. If your anything like me, you realized this before you began puberty.
My 2-year-old niece makes the sign of the cross before meals. It doesn't mean it's ingrained within her, just that she has religious parents and has learned to mimic behavior. I'm quite sure the concept of God, the afterlife, death, etc. is still quite unknowable and foreign to her.
"Puberty" is a laughable line to draw. Nobody is at their initial natural belief state by such a point in their life.
Originally posted by Digi
Besides not being a logical appeal, which it isn't, saying that a sense of an afterlife is ingrained within us is probably wrong. The default "setting" for human beings is a lack of belief in, well, anything. Not atheism, I'm not here to drive an agenda. Just a blank slate, an utter lack of opinion. Anything beyond that is mostly culturally driven.Unless you have some information on the brain states of newborns or infants that I'm not aware of, of course. Because given that most types of abstract thought aren't even possible at birth and infancy, and build gradually as our brain develops and we build prerequisite cognitive skills, I'd say it might actually be physically impossible for such beliefs to be intrinsic.
it would depend on how strict of a definition of "intrinsic" you want to use.
For instance, our mind produces the sensation that we are this things, living behind our eyes, and it feels very much like we ride our bodies, rather than feeling like we are this deconstructed set of biological systems. Like, our consciousness doesn't feel like an epiphenomena of neuronal processes, it feels like something distinct from the rest of our biology.
This is clearly a natural process of development, as it holds, afaik, universally across cultures. The idea of dualism is apparent in all civilizations.
We also develop a "theory of the mind" at a very young age, where we realize that this dualistic experience is something that all other people have. In fact, it is considered a mental health problem if you don't develop this, and has serious implications for social interaction (one couldn't live a normal life without a theory of the mind, imho).
So, if our biology predisposes us to see ourselves as a ghost in the shell, and further predisposes us to see others as the same, disconnected from our biology, as something distinct, how far of a leap is it to "this distinct thing survives death"? There would be a number of other cognitive biases at work (simple explanation, sense to the world, less unfairness, meaning in life, etc), but even just the feeling of dualism itself, and the knowledge that other people are dualists would clearly make the idea that there is something that survives body death one of the most intrinsic conclusions to our information processing systems.
Dualism, or the fact it doesn't bare out scientifically, is one of the hardest concepts for students in psych to internalize, because it is so counter intuitive. Not being a dualist is far more culturally determined than is being one.
like, dont get me wrong, the belief is demonstrably false, there isn't anything beyond our biology, its just that we are very much predisposed to experience the universe as if there were. At the very least, this wouldn't be a belief that falls out of some culture, but almost certainly one that informed cultures, and is common throughout the world
Originally posted by inimalist
it would depend on how strict of a definition of "intrinsic" you want to use.For instance, our mind produces the sensation that we are this things, living behind our eyes, and it feels very much like we ride our bodies, rather than feeling like we are this deconstructed set of biological systems. Like, our consciousness doesn't feel like an epiphenomena of neuronal processes, it feels like something distinct from the rest of our biology.
This is clearly a natural process of development, as it holds, afaik, universally across cultures. The idea of dualism is apparent in all civilizations.
We also develop a "theory of the mind" at a very young age, where we realize that this dualistic experience is something that all other people have. In fact, it is considered a mental health problem if you don't develop this, and has serious implications for social interaction (one couldn't live a normal life without a theory of the mind, imho).
So, if our biology predisposes us to see ourselves as a ghost in the shell, and further predisposes us to see others as the same, disconnected from our biology, as something distinct, how far of a leap is it to "this distinct thing survives death"? There would be a number of other cognitive biases at work (simple explanation, sense to the world, less unfairness, meaning in life, etc), but even just the feeling of dualism itself, and the knowledge that other people are dualists would clearly make the idea that there is something that survives body death one of the most intrinsic conclusions to our information processing systems.
Dualism, or the fact it doesn't bare out scientifically, is one of the hardest concepts for students in psych to internalize, because it is so counter intuitive. Not being a dualist is far more culturally determined than is being one.
like, dont get me wrong, the belief is demonstrably false, there isn't anything beyond our biology, its just that we are very much predisposed to experience the universe as if there were. At the very least, this wouldn't be a belief that falls out of some culture, but almost certainly one that informed cultures, and is common throughout the world
Your position is framed much differently than ushome's. He's saying that we instinctively believe in God or a god. An inherent dualism is very far removed from this. You're talking about something abstract, yes, but there is a wealth of sensory input and thought behind it, whereas there is nothing tangible linking our brain state directly to a belief in God. I'm very squarely of the mind that if you insulated a human being from outside influence entirely, no such trend would emerge, because our default position is a lack of belief about such things. Some might wonder about their origins and come up with the answer of God, certainly, but not a default condition of our very nature.
Originally posted by Digi
Your position is framed much differently than ushome's. He's saying that we instinctively believe in God or a god. An inherent dualism is very far removed from this. I'm very squarely of the mind that if you insulated a human being from outside influence entirely, no such trend would emerge, because our default position is a lack of belief about such things. Some might wonder about their origins and come up with the answer of God, certainly, but not a default condition of our very nature.
actually, I'm talking specifically about the mind surviving death. You and ushome mentioned the afterlife explicitly in the stuff I quoted from. Sure, I agree, a concept of a "father in the sky" is probably not intrinsic... well, not so much so that I'd argue it here.
You are probably right, but a child who develops in isolation is hardly an example of normal human thought, the brain requires socialization to develop normally
If you reared a child in a cultural setting that did not explicitly endorse the mind surviving death, I imagine it would appear in the vast majority of people.
This plays no role in what is true or not of course. People are biologically tuned to see patterns in randomness, it doesn't mean the patterns are there. People are biologically tuned to sensory illusions, doesn't mean the Necker Cube is actually a fully drawn cube.
Originally posted by Digi
I might also be a bit more receptive if he had framed a natural belief in terms of evolutionary survival, which may have something to it. But clearly he was simply talking in a religious sense, with it being imbued within us in a divine metaphysical way.
well, for sure, it isn't that the creator has placed a spark in us 🙂
Originally posted by inimalist
like, dont get me wrong, the belief is demonstrably false, there isn't anything beyond our biology, its just that we are very much predisposed to experience the universe as if there were. At the very least, this wouldn't be a belief that falls out of some culture, but almost certainly one that informed cultures, and is common throughout the world
Hey, hold on. How can you demonstrate that there is nothing beyond our biology? Or were you talking about the belief that we are pre-programmed to believe in God?
Originally posted by TacDavey
Hey, hold on. How can you demonstrate that there is nothing beyond our biology? Or were you talking about the belief that we are pre-programmed to believe in God?
we can show that all parts of the mind people associate with dualism are actually subservient to or produced from lower level, basic biological processes.
Originally posted by Digi
Your earlier points are well made, and yes it's demonstrably true that certain tendencies are part of our biological makeup. Pattern-forming and facial recognition are well-known examples. I just think it would be hard to prove or even provide evidence that "there exists a God" is one of them.
big G, for sure, definitely not
that there is a higher power responsible for things beyond human control... I'd be willing to say that again is totally part of our biology and just very basic cognitive processing strategies that exist
Originally posted by inimalist
we can show that all parts of the mind people associate with dualism are actually subservient to or produced from lower level, basic biological processes.
That doesn't prove there is nothing beyond our biology. It might refute evidence supporting the idea we have more to us than our biology, but it does not prove the alternative.
Originally posted by TacDavey
That doesn't prove there is nothing beyond our biology. It might refute evidence supporting the idea we have more to us than our biology, but it does not prove the alternative.
I'm not going to argue with you about burden of proof again
suffice to say, there is no evidence of anything beyond biology, and pretty much most things can be drawn back to biological origins, even if the mechanisms are not completely understood yet.
Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not going to argue with you about burden of proof againsuffice to say, there is no evidence of anything beyond biology, and pretty much most things can be drawn back to biological origins, even if the mechanisms are not completely understood yet.
😄 Don't worry, I won't ask you to. I'm really not interested in debating if we have a soul or not. I think I've already done that dance on KMC.
I'm simply pointing out that you said we can demonstrate that there is nothing to us except our physical body. Which simply isn't true. We can deny reasons to believe in a soul, but we cannot provide proof a soul doesn't exist.
I AM interested in where you are getting your information about dualism and how we know how consciousness works. Because last I heard it was still a pretty big mystery.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I AM interested in where you are getting your information about dualism
mixture of textbooks, lectures, discussions and journal articles
Originally posted by TacDavey
and how we know how consciousness works. Because last I heard it was still a pretty big mystery.
It is generally divided into what is called the soft question and the hard question. The soft question is describing neuronal and biological processes that give rise to certain aspects of experience. The hard question is about describing how these things come together to form the way we experience the universe.
The soft question is, while not entirely fleshed out mechanistically, fairly well understood through a series of different neurological paradigms. Things like distributed processing loops, the use of language, plasticity, etc, can describe the processes going on whenever you do something. Our knowledge isn't perfect, but certainly enough to say there is nothing going on independent of biology, and the big questions are more about how that biology functions or represents information, rather than if it is biology at all.
The hard question is a different kettle of fish though. There are a number of schools of thought about how to approach it, however, I come from one that sort of sees the hard question as unnecessary. For the question to be relevant, we would have to show that there is some aspect to experience that differs from those understood through the soft question. I generally believe that the soft question answers the hard question, and it is an illusion of these "soft" processes that we even have this singular sense of experience, rather than some mechanism of "consciousness".
There is some evidence that points to the contrary, such as the fact that conscious neuronal networks tend to fire in gamma frequency bursts, or other such things, but to me, this doesn't show consciousness as a thing distinct from other parts of the brain in the same way the processing of movement is distinct from that of vision. Sure, we can divide them into unique systems, but ultimately they are all just normal processes that would be described under the soft question.
I honestly only believe the hard question exists because of how pervasive the illusion of dualism is.