‹ First  < 6 7 8
 
   
 

Dementia - does God restore memory after death?

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21811
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
03 November 2019 11:46
 
Traces Elk - 03 November 2019 02:18 AM
EN - 02 November 2019 06:10 PM
unsmoked - 02 November 2019 12:07 PM
EN - 01 November 2019 12:46 PM

The trick I would be interested to see performed is for someone to use language to describe what I experienced that describes it better than I have.

Cosmic consciousness.  The insight that the cosmos is conscious.

That’s what burt says. I’m not sure how that excludes the idea of God, an intelligent creator.

You’re certainly not the first person not to exclude, based on some idea of intelligence in general, the story that an intelligent super-being created us and our milieu. As I said up-thread, that story is almost as old as people, and about as old as stories told by people who either rate themselves a bit cleverer than they really are or feel the sting of being not as clever as one might wish to be. It’s a wish, EN, not an idea, and wishes are full of feeling. Nhoj is going to say that wishes can be rationally-based because, hey, wouldn’t it be great to have what one wished for, even if it’s for something bad to happen to somebody else? Making the creator intelligent is a not terribly creative use of the concept of intelligence.

I’m not interested in what fails to exclude some idea, which opens the door for wishing it to be true. I’m interested in what compels the idea, you know, besides the odd encounter with a metaphysical being. BM would say the same: You have to seek out the experience. That doesn’t necessarily mean sitting in a cave meditating until you encounter the divine. You just, after the fact, have to remain open to looking at any experience that fits the bill as potentially having been an encounter with the divine. Woo-hoo!

Your signature says it all: some are cynical, some are not.  I suppose we can all be cynical about some things, but for whatever reason, I’ve never become cynical about God himself.  Religion - yes.  Maybe it’s just brain chemistry or neural structure.  I don’t know why some believe and some don’t.  There are many reasons, I’m sure.

 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1859
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
03 November 2019 13:23
 
EN, to Garret - 31 October 2019 02:16 PM

“Arational” is simply something that is not subject to analysis by reason.  Whether or not God exists falls in this category. If something is beyond the reach of evidence and testing, then all reason can do is speculate.  One person has an experience that causes him/her to believe.  Another has no such experience, or whatever experiences they have do not create faith.  I don’t think that either one can use reason to defeat the other person’s position.  It’s not emotion.  A believer might call it “revelation”, but the non-believer won’t accept that as a legitimate category, so that basically puts an end to it.  Reason can be used to critique certain extensions or applications of faith, but not so much the faith itself.  It is not irrational, because given the perceived subjective revelation, it makes perfect sense to believe.  Nhoj has suggested some sort of analysis of the subjective perceptions, but I don’t know what field to go to in order to find an accepted way of doing that.

Bruce, if I were a neuroscientist I’d be happy to oblige, though the whole project would in the end perhaps only amount to rough guesswork. But at least it could be a start toward legitimacy, assuming we’d be able to acquire funding to design a study that would allow for the counting of each and every perception you’re able to report on during pre-decided periods of time, or at least that you’re able to identify somehow, perhaps by pushing various buttons while you carry out your day, equipped with dedicated and miniaturized e-brain hardware in your pocket. A team of neuro-behavioral scientists, assisted by engineers, of course, would simultaneously read real-time fMRI displays and do their level best to sync up any known relevant data pertaining to previous known human activity. (Such a setup is no doubt completely unworkable for quite a few political and probably even more numerous technological reasons.) Just let me know when you’re ready, and I’ll let you know when I’ve completed my Ph.D.

 
Traces Elk
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5701
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
03 November 2019 13:56
 
EN - 03 November 2019 11:46 AM

Your signature says it all: some are cynical, some are not.  I suppose we can all be cynical about some things, but for whatever reason, I’ve never become cynical about God himself.  Religion - yes.  Maybe it’s just brain chemistry or neural structure.  I don’t know why some believe and some don’t.  There are many reasons, I’m sure.

Let’s go back to where i came in on all this:

Traces Elk - 24 October 2019 12:12 AM
EN - 23 October 2019 02:51 PM

You guys lack imagination.  How do you know eternity will be changeless and meaningless?

I don’t know any such thing. What I lack in the absence of information is any conviction that offers silly conjectures based on my personal fee-fees. If this is the kind of conjecture in the direction of which I have to fart verbally to show I have imagination, you all are welcome to every smidgen of imagination you can muster.

I’d sign up ten times to be cynical for every time I’d sign up to be arrogant enough to tell people who lack belief that what they really lack is imagination, when that belief itself is supposed (at least by me) to confer some measure of humility.

It’s impossible for something beyond experience to be experienced, so instead, you just experienced a metaphysical being that was definitely not beyond your experience. Do you get it, yet, how it’s a word salad to talk about that which lies beyond experience, including shit like whether or not eternity is changeless and meaningless?

You’re a decent chap, Bruce, and everybody who takes the time to get to know a little about you will understand that. Just don’t mistake my irreverence for cynicism, because that’s not really who I am; don’t jive me with that cosmic debris.

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21811
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
03 November 2019 15:37
 
Traces Elk - 03 November 2019 01:56 PM
EN - 03 November 2019 11:46 AM

Your signature says it all: some are cynical, some are not.  I suppose we can all be cynical about some things, but for whatever reason, I’ve never become cynical about God himself.  Religion - yes.  Maybe it’s just brain chemistry or neural structure.  I don’t know why some believe and some don’t.  There are many reasons, I’m sure.

Let’s go back to where i came in on all this:

Traces Elk - 24 October 2019 12:12 AM
EN - 23 October 2019 02:51 PM

You guys lack imagination.  How do you know eternity will be changeless and meaningless?

I don’t know any such thing. What I lack in the absence of information is any conviction that offers silly conjectures based on my personal fee-fees. If this is the kind of conjecture in the direction of which I have to fart verbally to show I have imagination, you all are welcome to every smidgen of imagination you can muster.

I’d sign up ten times to be cynical for every time I’d sign up to be arrogant enough to tell people who lack belief that what they really lack is imagination, when that belief itself is supposed (at least by me) to confer some measure of humility.

It’s impossible for something beyond experience to be experienced, so instead, you just experienced a metaphysical being that was definitely not beyond your experience. Do you get it, yet, how it’s a word salad to talk about that which lies beyond experience, including shit like whether or not eternity is changeless and meaningless?

You’re a decent chap, Bruce, and everybody who takes the time to get to know a little about you will understand that. Just don’t mistake my irreverence for cynicism, because that’s not really who I am; don’t jive me with that cosmic debris.

You are also a decent chap, TE, and frankly, I’m tired of talking about this. We are what we are, so have a shot of your favorite on me, and send me the tab.  I’m feeling generous.

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  555
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
03 November 2019 22:12
 
bbearren - 03 November 2019 08:36 AM
Garret - 02 November 2019 09:32 PM

... to have the ability to challenge ways of thinking, one must first spend time analyzing and critiquing methods of thinking.

From an evolutionary point of view, ways of thinking which allow one the ability to survive to sexual maturity, acquire a mate and produce progeny capable of repeating that cycle could be considered successful ways of thinking.

Thought might be considered a building-block of thinking.  Unfortunately, no one yet knows what activity or activities in the brain comprise a thought.  That an area of the brain is presumed to be the region where deliberation occurs is as close as anyone has been able to conclude.  How many thoughts meet a threshold that could be considered thinking?  Can a single thought precipitate thinking, or must a number of individual thoughts be somehow marshalled together (relatively speaking) to emerge as thinking?

It is considered that no two people have identical fingerprints.  It is also considered that no two people have identical DNA, not even twins.  How can it be presumed that any two (or more) people have identical methods of thinking?  Is that not ludicrous in it’s construct?  Who is the arbiter of which method(s) of thinking can be considered correct?  Evolution is not a driving force, it is a selection driven by environment/ecology.

From the standpoint of evolution, I’ve won my round, having produced three offspring (now adults themselves), lived to the age of 74, retired with disposable income.  By what measure does my method of thinking not meet some arbitrary standard, and does said standard have even a modicum of import?

I’m glad you had fun with your strawman.

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21811
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
04 November 2019 07:22
 
nonverbal - 03 November 2019 01:23 PM
EN, to Garret - 31 October 2019 02:16 PM

“Arational” is simply something that is not subject to analysis by reason.  Whether or not God exists falls in this category. If something is beyond the reach of evidence and testing, then all reason can do is speculate.  One person has an experience that causes him/her to believe.  Another has no such experience, or whatever experiences they have do not create faith.  I don’t think that either one can use reason to defeat the other person’s position.  It’s not emotion.  A believer might call it “revelation”, but the non-believer won’t accept that as a legitimate category, so that basically puts an end to it.  Reason can be used to critique certain extensions or applications of faith, but not so much the faith itself.  It is not irrational, because given the perceived subjective revelation, it makes perfect sense to believe.  Nhoj has suggested some sort of analysis of the subjective perceptions, but I don’t know what field to go to in order to find an accepted way of doing that.

Bruce, if I were a neuroscientist I’d be happy to oblige, though the whole project would in the end perhaps only amount to rough guesswork. But at least it could be a start toward legitimacy, assuming we’d be able to acquire funding to design a study that would allow for the counting of each and every perception you’re able to report on during pre-decided periods of time, or at least that you’re able to identify somehow, perhaps by pushing various buttons while you carry out your day, equipped with dedicated and miniaturized e-brain hardware in your pocket. A team of neuro-behavioral scientists, assisted by engineers, of course, would simultaneously read real-time fMRI displays and do their level best to sync up any known relevant data pertaining to previous known human activity. (Such a setup is no doubt completely unworkable for quite a few political and probably even more numerous technological reasons.) Just let me know when you’re ready, and I’ll let you know when I’ve completed my Ph.D.

I’m ready now, but I sense that it will take you a little time to do your part.  I might not be ready then.

 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  8759
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
04 November 2019 10:21
 
EN - 03 November 2019 11:46 AM

EN to Traces Elk:

Your signature says it all: some are cynical, some are not.  I suppose we can all be cynical about some things, but for whatever reason, I’ve never become cynical about God himself.  Religion - yes.  Maybe it’s just brain chemistry or neural structure.  I don’t know why some believe and some don’t.  There are many reasons, I’m sure.

Yuanwu comments:  “It all flows out from within your own breast - how could there be any other?”  (end quote)

Notice how a different version of God flows out from other minds.

Definition of version
1a: an account or description from a particular point of view especially as contrasted with another account

 

 

 
 
‹ First  < 6 7 8