Religion Vs. Philisophy

Discussion in 'Philosophy and Religion' started by Karen_J, Nov 19, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. guerillabedlam

    guerillabedlam _|=|-|=|_

    Messages:
    29,419
    Likes Received:
    6,296
    It's a whole abstract and experiment actually... :unsure:
     
  2. guerillabedlam

    guerillabedlam _|=|-|=|_

    Messages:
    29,419
    Likes Received:
    6,296
    By the way China, if you want to read an interesting book regarding the brain not being responsible for consciousness, I recommend this book...

    [​IMG]

    Yes, I've considered other sides on the issue, I don't think me forming an opinion on it is being dogmatic.
     
  3. ChinaCatSunflower02

    ChinaCatSunflower02 Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    130
    For sure. Fair enough. I suppose I'm throwing you in a pool you don't belong in. I would say that the nonchelant presentation to us in our education that the brain creates consciousness is rather dogmatic, however.
     
  4. guerillabedlam

    guerillabedlam _|=|-|=|_

    Messages:
    29,419
    Likes Received:
    6,296
    I think you are clearly wearing your dogma on your sleeves if you see many, highly controlled studies, involving countless hours, education and learning relatively sophisticated technologies as "nonchalant".
     
  5. It's not nonchalant. It's idiotic.
     
  6. guerillabedlam

    guerillabedlam _|=|-|=|_

    Messages:
    29,419
    Likes Received:
    6,296
    Following up on one of the dumbest remarks you've made in this thread neonspectroll, that's ballsy!
     
  7. I'm a lover, not a fighter.

    And I'm perfectly confident in every word I've said. You, apparently, are unable to refute my arguments except to call them "dumb",

    Frankly, I'm disappointed in you.
     
  8. Also, I hope you didn't construe my comment as calling you idiotic. I was just saying that the presentation to us that consciousness is created by the brain isn't nonchalant. It's very rigorous. But it also simply can't be proven to be true. Which is what makes the strenuous effort so idiotic.
     
    1 person likes this.
  9. ChinaCatSunflower02

    ChinaCatSunflower02 Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    130
    Only for there to not be actual proof that the brain creates consciousness.
     
  10. ChinaCatSunflower02

    ChinaCatSunflower02 Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    130
    If there was definitive proof that the brain creates Consciousness I don't think that it would be called the "Hard Problem of Consciousness"...
     
  11. guerillabedlam

    guerillabedlam _|=|-|=|_

    Messages:
    29,419
    Likes Received:
    6,296
    The guy who proposed the "Hard Problem of Consciousness" also concedes "easy" problems which can be addressed by the respective fields in academia currently. There are some who dispute that there is even such a thing as a "Hard Problem of Consciousness" but it seems to be primarily an issue amongst philosophy at this point. If there is no distinct definition of consciousness, it's impossible to say it even has a particular nature, but in the meantime science unraveling what they can is and has even further potential to be a fascinating exploration.
     
  12. So without a definition, it's impossible to say it has a particular nature...

    ...but someday we'll be able to define it in order to do so.

    :wall:
     
  13. guerillabedlam

    guerillabedlam _|=|-|=|_

    Messages:
    29,419
    Likes Received:
    6,296
    The undercurrent of anti-intellectualism is fairly disconcerting. The topic of consciousness really seems to get people riled up, it must be mainly like an ego defense mechanism or something since it is a topic which touches on our individuality. I feel other scientific areas such as cosmology don't draw the same derision for their unanswered questions, it's odd to me.

    Anyways, A century ago Neurotransmitters were unknown and fMRI and PET scanners did not exist, which is a minuscule amount of time compared to how long many of the ideas mentioned in this thread have been around. The efficiency and knowledge of interactions in the area of neuroscience has rapidly developed over that timeframe and even if there is no comprehensive understanding of consciousness in the foreseeable future, there are many avenues or aspects of consciousness worth exploration and within grasp IMO.
     
    1 person likes this.
  14. Mr.Writer

    Mr.Writer Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,286
    Likes Received:
    643
    That's an oxymoron. You can't be both dogmatic and also deeply skeptical. Science is not dogmatic about the brain producing consciousness; it's just that there's an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest that it does, even if we have no idea how.


    What experiments?



    Maybe I would, but what does that have to do with anything? Me and my lover actually do jokingly talk about our oxytocin sessions. It's irrelevant what the -social norms- of conversation are, we are talking about deep truth here.

    Everyone still talks about a "broken heart" even though we know that the organ which is experiencing relationship pain is the brain.

    Don't use folk wisdom or sayings to override empirical data and hard science.



    If we didn't know what we were looking at, but we saw a whole bunch of 0's and 1's being processed in a computer, no one would say, "Ah! Microsoft Windows!". They don't seem on the surface to be equivalent.

    I could provide many other examples; you should read the works of Hofstaedter. This is a problem that has been tackled with great rigour by philosopher and neuroscientists for decades now.



    No, because this example makes no sense! It would be like saying "You can tell me that my car runs on an internal combustion engine, and yet when I create explosions in my backyard, I don't get to go anywhere!"

    You are confusing categories. Looking AT a diagram of oxytocin with your eyes and brain has nothing to do with actual oxytocin binding in your synapses within your brain.

    Just replace "oxytocin" with "THC" or "LSD" or "Ethyl Alcohol" and you can understand the mistake here. "Just looking at a picture of ethyl alcohol doesn't get me drunk, therefore alcohol doesn't work in the brain at all and intoxication involves something spooky".



    I think you're 50% right and 50% wrong. First, the amount of data, evidence, studies . . . it's overwhelming. Nothing in science survives as "superstitious assumption based on no actual evidence" for long, because it is the nature of science to tear down those assumptions, and there are millions of PhD's on earth who are hungry to get the recognition of doing so. That's why it's a great system for acquiring knowledge; in fact the best we know of.

    I do think that the data can be ambiguous as to whether the brain is PRODUCING consciousness or the brain is CHANNELING consciousness; scientists tend to favour the former simply because to posit (WITHOUT EVIDENCE) that the brain is channeling consciousness invokes larger problems than to posit that the brain produces evidence. It's a slightly larger problem, despite the nice radio analogy. Remember, radios were designed by intelligence to purposefully channel radio waves; the brain wasn't designed! It evolved through natural selection and random mutations. That we do have evidence for, tons, as we do have tons of evidence that consciousness is somehow intricately linked to the workings of your brain.

    Small brain injuries cause small changes to consciousness . . . medium injuries cause medium changes . . . large injuries cause large changes . . . ultimate injuries to the brain cause what appears to be an end to the consciousness that was found in that brain.

    If you are not familiar with the varieties of pathology which can afflict consciousness I recommend reading the works of Oliver Sacks.

    [​IMG]

    Of course one need not look further than a psychedelic experience to realize the profound connection between physical matter and conscious experience. I would even go so far as to say that a psychedelic experience provides a direct, first person, intuitive realization of the material nature of mind.
     
  15. Asmodean

    Asmodean Slo motion rider

    Messages:
    50,556
    Likes Received:
    10,126
    I actually see the opposite on a regular basis. Accepting a dogma seems often a choice. It doesn't mean people lose their skepticism (less of a choice. One either happens to be skeptical or not. Same with believing btw... its often not a choice to have faith for example. A person just realizes that they have it). Not even on the particular subject of the dogma.
     
  16. ChinaCatSunflower02

    ChinaCatSunflower02 Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    130
    That's an oxymoron. You can't be both dogmatic and also deeply skeptical. Science is not dogmatic about the brain producing consciousness; it's just that there's an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest that it does, even if we have no idea how.

    I would relate the notion of the brain creating Consciousness to the notion that was once held that the Earth was flat or the center of the solar system. To me, the latest assumption that's passed off as fact is the brain producing Consciousness. Being dogmatic for me means taking a firm position and passing it off as fact in the face of other perspectives. Even if it's one of skepticism towards other ideas, it's still dogmatic, especially if it's the widely accepted view.

    Remember, there are Scientists out there that are arguing what I'm arguing. Not just New Age people. But it goes against the status quo to suggest or even consider that Consciousness is nonlocal, so it's still ignored by mainstream Science overall.

    scientists tend to favour the former simply because to posit (WITHOUT EVIDENCE) that the brain is channeling consciousness invokes larger problems than to posit that the brain produces evidence

    This is what I'm talking about. Who cares if it's a slightly larger problem or not? They're Scientists, they should be cut out for such tough problems, and this is dealing with new frontiers of discovery, and is something that one should be excited about as a scientist. Which I think it is exciting for those Scientists actually studying it, but I'm sure the problems also stem from fear of losing one's reputation, money and funding issues, the politics behind all of it, etc.

    Take the radically shifting collective perspective on Marijuana as an example. Even 10 years ago, there was a LOT more of a general consensus of the damage that Marijuana and its legalization can do than there is now. But now that the overall collective attitude is shifting, only now can politicians, entrepreneurs, even scientists actually feel comfortable speaking publicly and backing up the potential benefits of Marijuana and its legalization.

    Only as soon as people aren't fearing losing their reputation, can they actually look at a situation honestly. The Consciousness paradigm is no different.

    This attitude that scientists favor the easier perspective that doesn't go against their zone of comfortability is lame to say the least, and also not very much of the spirit of what Science should be all about.

    What experiments?

    Reference the study I posted.

    I do think that the data can be ambiguous as to whether the brain is PRODUCING consciousness or the brain is CHANNELING consciousness; scientists tend to favour the former simply because to posit (WITHOUT EVIDENCE) that the brain is channeling consciousness invokes larger problems than to posit that the brain produces evidence. It's a slightly larger problem, despite the nice radio analogy. Remember, radios were designed by intelligence to purposefully channel radio waves; the brain wasn't designed! It evolved through natural selection and random mutations. That we do have evidence for, tons, as we do have tons of evidence that consciousness is somehow intricately linked to the workings of your brain.

    There is evidence being shown, however.

    the brain wasn't designed!

    This is an assumption. Why can't evolution be a form of design, anyhow?

    Small brain injuries cause small changes to consciousness . . . medium injuries cause medium changes . . . large injuries cause large changes . . . ultimate injuries to the brain cause what appears to be an end to the consciousness that was found in that brain.

    Small brain injuries cause small changes to the expression of consciousness through that specific vehicle, medium injuries cause medium changes, and large injuries cause large changes. Ultimate injuries cause what appears to be the end of the expression of consciousness through that specific vehicle.

    Just as slight damage to a radio isn't actually doing slight damage to the MUSIC but to the expression of that music through that specific vehicle, medium damage doesn't do medium damage to the MUSIC but to the expression of the music, etc.


     
  17. guerillabedlam

    guerillabedlam _|=|-|=|_

    Messages:
    29,419
    Likes Received:
    6,296
    Bad comparison...

    I REPEAT the discovery of Neurotransmitters have been within the past century as have most of the commonly used technologies to measure brain activity. If anything you have it backwards, the advances in physical psychology and neuroscience much more resemble the advances in cosmology and astronomy that turned the steeped traditions of geocentric superstitions on its head.
     
  18. ChinaCatSunflower02

    ChinaCatSunflower02 Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    130
    And what is it that the latest advances of neuroscience has turned on its head? The view of Consciousness being created by the brain has been the dominant view of the 20th century and beyond. Once Science catches up with what mystics already know regarding Consciousness, will it be Science's turn to get turned up on its own head.

    This is why it's not the mainstream perspective. Because it would go so much against the cultural norm of our paradigm on consciousness and life. But there are the daring scientists out there who do present evidence for a different perspective.
     
  19. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933
    It would be fascinating to capture on video, and maybe one day that will happen. But I wouldn't do it. These are very serious ceremonies and the Native view is that they are not meant for show. One of the yuwipi men I know who has very powerful ceremonies, after setting up his altar gives a lecture about not coming to his ceremony to see 'crazy shit' and that he is not putting on a magic show, or doing this to prove anything to anyone.

    These ceremonies are done because someone needs help---there are usually several people that have asked for the ceremony. Just about everyone else that goes there has their own needs and concerns that they are also praying for. But your reason to attend such a ceremony, is first and foremost to pray for the people who asked for the ceremony, and the prayers of everyone else in attendance, and for the strength of the medicine man---because he is, as he will say, just a humble common man. A yuwipi is a very draining ceremony for the yuwipi man and leaves him drained afterwards. He does not receive money, but is paid in tobacco---much of which he will use in ceremony. Most medicine men are very poor, and it tends to be a struggle just for them to get to ceremony because of their run-down rez vehicle (rez as in Indian reservation). But then they generally don't have much use for a lot of money anyway.

    It would be easy to sneak a go pro into ceremony, and then put it on in the dark without anyone knowing---unless it had a light on it----even a little red light, for example, to say it is on, or recording. That would stand out in the pitch black darkness. However---I've seen medicine men kick people out before ceremonies because they sensed that they were trouble makers, or otherwise up to no good. So the first problem is getting it into the ceremony past the medicine man.

    If you got caught doing that, you can be sure that in that community, you would never again be welcome to ceremony. Within any community there are numerous medicine men, and of those medicine men, there are numerous yuwipi men. But everyone generally knows every one, and in any given ceremony within that community, if you know any of the people that attend those types of things, you will generally see several people if not more that you know. Since everyone generally knows everyone else, everyone would quickly know what you did.

    If you want to see it happen for yourself, I would suggest going to one---but don't go as a non-believer (or you will probably not be allowed in), using drugs or alcohol beforehand is frowned upon, and do go with the intent---not to see a show---but to pray for the people (and yourself if need be.) You can tell people that this is your first yuwipi, but you want to be there to pray for the people, and they can give you a rundown of how to act, and what to expect. The yuwipi is a ceremony of the Lakota, Dakota, Nakota, and other Sioux tribes. Other tribes will have their own ceremonies. You may be able to find out who can let you know when and where a ceremony will be through a local Indian center, or other Native American organization or business. Or make friends at a pow wow.

    I haven't been to one recently because the two yuwipi men I generally go to ceremony with have been out of town quite a bit recently.

    I generally do not tell Dine' (Navajo) that I participate in ceremony. They generally do not like people participating in Native ways, and you can't blame them. Anthropologists came down and studied and scrutinized Navajo traditions, labeled them as primitive, and turned their ceremonies into circus acts for tourists. The New Agers tried to imitate and pirate their traditions, so today the Dine’ are very protective of their traditions and those of other tribes too. They question the motives of anyone who wants to participate, and insist that they should follow their own traditions. But that gives you an idea behind the sentiment around Native Ceremony.

    The Lakota say that their traditions are not their own, that they are for all people. But they are the custodians of the traditions and ceremonies. Anyone can participate, but the Natives have no respect for plastic shamans. There are white people who pour at sweat lodges, for example, and Natives will go to their sweats---but they have met the requirements to do that, including at least 4 years of piercing at a sun dance, and then have been trained by a medicine man. Any white man who wants to be a medicine man or some other such person probably has no idea of the sacrifices they make, or how difficult that path is. I have a lot of respect for them, and am happy to not be in their shoes.

    I did say that maybe one day that would happen. There are some medicine people that spirit has told that it is becoming time to share to teach the people of those ways. I know that a number of years ago some movie makers filmed a sweat lodge for a medicine man. None of this film has been edited and released, but there is film. This is very controversial, and even just posting pictures of the outside of a sweat lodge on facebook can get you into some trouble, and anger a lot of Natives. The only one who could really get away with something like that would be a medicine man that is very well known and respected. The people would then understand that he would only do it if spirit had instructed him so. Any medicine man would know however that if you weren’t meant to do it and you did, that you would be angering spirits. Some white guy who doesn’t know any better could get away with it. Someone who attends ceremony and does it is certainly inviting some bad karma. But a medicine man especially is held accountable by the spirits.

    But since medicine people are being told that it is becoming time to share, there is more sharing of such things. Perhaps one day a yuwipi will be filmed. I am sure that you will probably catch a glimpse here and there in the taping of a lot more than just rattles.
     
  20. guerillabedlam

    guerillabedlam _|=|-|=|_

    Messages:
    29,419
    Likes Received:
    6,296
    What timeframe are you suggesting by 'latest' advances?
    There hasn't been anything Super Significant that I'm aware of in the past decade maybe but I don't think that suggests that neuroscience has hit a wall if that's what you're getting at. Keep in mind Copernicus and Galileo who were notable figures of the Scientific revolution you mention, were not even alive at the same time.

    If mystics already know so much regarding consciousness, they sure are a pretty selfish lot for holding out on how to deal with disorders and diseases.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice