Is there such a thing as a Christian?

That is no joke. haah

 

Humans naturally have a particular brain chemistry, and we recognize things in a particular way because of it (blue seems a certain way to us, water has viscosity, ect). Once you change the way it processes information by blocking receptors or overloading them, you are not seeing the world like a human.

Like putting water into a gas tank. Its still a car, but its not going to function like one at all.

Well technically it has to function like a car because it is one, but the combustion engine isn't going to work.

The way it seems to you is subjective. The word for this is "Qualia".

Thinking is not a subjective event, though. It is merely your brain processing information, which can be measured.

What do you mean by "deeply seeded core"?

 

We can argue then that food, beverages (non alcoholic) and anything we consume temporarily takes us from our 'natural brain chemistry' if you are going to use that argument. Certainly there will be a slight distinction in color in the way you perceive something on a full stomach as opposed to an empty stomach, and this is not even getting into issues like brain damage which cause the brain to have to adapt to compensate for the problems of the damage.

 

dmt

 

Sure there will be a difference but it will be negligible. If we are talking about the experience of the human condition, you would probably need to eat a lot of apples. Even then, I don't know how strongly an apple influences the brain.

 

sex is another example that definitely influences the brain and that's an absolutely primary role of the human condition.

 

From what you said it doesn't sound like you understand the emotional implications of changes in brain chemistry, and that in your understanding all drugs do more filtering than releasing/opening the filters. And in your analogy the combustion engine would be the conclusions on your condition that would include things like ego, because they are all conclusions you have come to about the nature of life and your life. There are no real choices available in that thinking, and I think if given the chance, and acknowledging the effect of thought on your experience, choices run very deep in what conditions you. This is not something I could prove to but instead hold experience with in my own choices.

I still disagree on subjectivity, regardless of you pointing to Qualia, it being a subject of much debate itself (and it looks like there is a lot to learn in that discussion) but in debate itself is what I speak of. Thinking is not just just processing information that can be measured. Maybe in your definition of thinking. But what do you call it when thought is used to come to personal conclusions or inferences on philosophical questions. Despite your assumption that brain chemistry suggests the final condition of human consciousness. It is becoming apparent that you are a little arrogant about your thought about everything science(such as brain chemistry and quantum mechanics) leads to. It seems from you that the scientific nature of things leads to a 1 dimensional objective experience of human thought and feeling.

What I mean by deeply seeded core is....

By one example, the natural state of the mind in meditation. It is nothing more than nothing, and there is no stimuli, to "seem" like anything. Granted people make claims of unprovable properties similar to telepathy. But it makes sense it is a shared state, and perhaps it has to do with energy, and quantum fabric. It is the foundation for intuition......

But to you, these are mere things that "seem", so there was no point really in expressing all that I just did to you. There is not going to be a swaying of opinion on either sides, but I and others can offer a just as sensible, and definitely not as exclusive or certain perspective on our nature.

 

Almost all of this went over my head.

I think i would call it cognition.

You are completely right about all of this, except the fact that I endorse quantum mechanics, which i explained in the other thread, and that my conviction for brain chemistry is an assumption.

I've never thought about how objective subjectivity can be but i'l get on that.

I only said "seem" because it insinuates the experiencing of something. If your willing to describe to me how ice cream tastes I am more than willing to talk about how rigid your description is.

 

This thread is makin' my head hurt. We're like my dogs trying to figure out why I get pissed off when they shit on the carpet. It may be too deep for us. It is intriguing and fun to speculate, but I think we also need to be aware that our chances of getting it right are close to zilch, and we'll probably never know whether or not we even came close. This is an odd statement coming from a Christian who has been arguing for taking a stand instead of standing on the sidelines like a good agnostic. Intuitively, I think we can rule out certain possibilities that "could be true". Kant convinced me that what we perceive to be real is a far cry from what is real, but I still intuitively rule out solipsism and the notion that there's nothing really out there except mind. When push comes to shove, I'd never be willing to bet my life on that theory by jumping off the roof of a tall building.

I also am willing to dismiss the notion that we are in a Matrix-like state of existence in which what we think of as reality is a computer simulation run by aliens or robots. Some scholars much smarter than I am think this is true, and hold chairs at major universities. (e.g., Oxford philosopher Dr.. Nick Bostrom, Mathematician Brian Whitworth, cosmologist Sir Martin Reed, Russian scientist Sergey Datsyuk, etc.). From the standpoint of Occam's razor, it has the merit of avoiding many of the problems we've been debating, like how the Big Bang came to be. But from a practical standpoint, it's neither verifiable nor refutable, and couldn't possibly be useful. I also think the physicists who think the moon goes away when no one is looking at it are wing nuts, despite the theoretical support from "quantum consciousness". I'd put the Biblical literalists in the same category, based on the cogent arguments of early Christian thinkers like Origen and Saint Augustine that a literal interpretation of Genesis defies logic and experience and misses the point. We can't know anything "for sure", but we can use practical reason, right or wrong, as the most sensible alternative. It's the best we can do.

 

There are plenty of reasons :eggnog:

I guess where I'm going is it seems that your sense of what is objective reality is exactly how we experience reality in technical sense, when I think that is another subjective thought, or result of thinking.

edit. And there are experiences not common in occasion but common in its universality between people that would suggest our mind can work in various ways.

 

.

 

Sounds like the bible though, right? The apple of sin does not fall from the tree, it is picked off and handed down.

 

I'm going to be completely honest and say i don't understand any of this.

I read it about 20 times....

 

Can we say for practical purposes everything is an idea? How significant is that,
significant enough to create our modern technological infrastructure. Significant enough to wage war for nine years at the roof of the world.
Every experience we have is a simulation of events produced by the mind. We don't see tables and chairs for instance, we see reflected light. The table and chairs are there but we do not apprehend them directly with the senses.

 

Interestingly enough, one can note that God has loved and used the most flawed and "sinful" of people...in good ways.

Even the Old Testament fearsome God related David, (of rather several sins) to be a man after His own heart.
Several of Jesus disciples were known for their temper.

We, followers of Christ, of God, are expected to try; but by our very existence we will sin (imo). God knows this.

 

When someone says they see a chair you know what they mean even if they don't. Its because "seeing" describes what it means to see something. Thats how all words work...

Seeing a table = seeing reflected light = apprehending the table directly with our senses.

its semantics...

 

9 variables.

 

thedope:

Everything as idea, for all practical purposes, yes!

Truth has always proved inimical to life.

"All has gone before, so all now must pass too" we concede to ourselves,-- but all too philosophically, all too waxing wise, all too lacking in the laughter and mockery which could free us. Fear still stands in our doorway.

Can life surmount truth? Only in diversion, but what's to stop this diversion becoming our conscious life itself?

Life arose by chance.
We have no background but infinity.
If eternity seems to dance away from us, and we see no way of being in one mind as to how to reach it, then surely we should approach it -- in feeling!

 

Point 1:
In your opinion there is no supporting evidence. There are many who would say otherwise.

Point 2:
Because that IS what evolutionary theory teaches as a alternate explanation for the origin and progression of life on Earth culminating in man.
It is not evolutionary history. Evolutionary history is the history of the theory and it's development as a theory, not the actual process. A common ancestor for ALL life is one of the most fundamental tenants of the theory. THAT is why it is important to address that issue.

Point 3:
Again, all the "evidence" that you have thus far provided show nothing more than the simple adaptation of a species to it's environment.

For you to not comprehend these very basic and foundational concepts in evolutionary theory is why I commented that you exhibit all the obstinate and willful ignorance that you ascribe to Christianity.

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone. I just am pointing out the fact that you are building your whole position on assumptions and a faulty comprehension of the topic, yet you expect me to accept them as fact.

Quite worrying so much about "debunking" the religious notion of creation, and maybe you will lose the emotional investment you have in it and be able to view the topic from a neutral and unbiased position.

 

Communication with words is semantics if you want to be all semantical about it. Semantics is also the study of symbols or the study of ways of interpreting and analyzing theories of logic.

The table is not in your head, reflected light is. We do not see the table we see the light reflecting off the table. If it is true that we apprehend directly with our senses then how is it we can see a table with our eyes closed.
Because we see reflected light and not the thing itself we may not recognize something familiar because the light had been distorted on the way to you.

Our senses give us raw data that we must organize into a coherent whole.
This is the reason we have the "insane", because the simulation in their head is markedly different from the usual or "objective" patterns.