Ok, not having a go at you, but I don't understand why you asked the question of us, provided information about how the brain works but you don't seem to ever provide information about why believing in souls or spirits is incorrect, which is fine, but I wonder then why you continue to ask the questions if you know that you're not going to get the scientific responses that you want?
Or why you don't search for and present scientific arguement to prove or disprove the existence of souls or spirits ?
Like I said not having a go at you, I'm just trying to understand why the subject continues to interest you, when you appear to have gathered enough scientific information on the brain to disprove the existence of souls and spirits to yourself. I'm just trying to understand your thought process on this subject.
Ok, not having a go at you, but I don't understand why you asked the question of us, provided information about how the brain works but you don't seem to ever provide information about why believing in souls or spirits is incorrect, which is fine, but I wonder then why you continue to ask the questions if you know that you're not going to get the scientific responses that you want?
Or why you don't search for and present scientific arguement to prove or disprove the existence of souls or spirits ?
Like I said not having a go at you, I'm just trying to understand why the subject continues to interest you, when you appear to have gathered enough scientific information on the brain to disprove the existence of souls and spirits to yourself. I'm just trying to understand your thought process on this subject.
Interestingly, our goals might be the same. It's in ways baffling to me that others can accept without scrutiny the existence of souls. Or that they accept the existence of souls, but not aliens or spaghetti monsters. I suppose I already know the answers, and I'm largely just frustrated that others do not. To be honest with you, I never even cared about this crap until I got interested in politics and criminology. It became apparent to me at some point that these types of beliefs are hugely detrimental to society as a whole, and that includes me.
People may not realize that a simple belief such as souls and spirits can indirectly affect me, an atheist. How so? When the electorate here in Ontario elects John Tory because he is devoutly religious, supporting religious concepts and plans to take half a billion dollars from public schools to support private christian schools, that is indirectly affecting me, and ultimately it's because they believe in some irrational thing. How can I simply ignore the fact that George W. Bush was largely elected because he is a Christian Conservative? Hundreds of thousands of people are now dead because Bush was elected.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You know, "beware the godless liberals" or those heathen atheists. Vote for the guy that believes what you believe.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Not to mention the Vegan parents who deprive their infant of proteins and fatty acids because of their own ideology. Totally ignorant of the fact they might be killing their infant by malnutrition. Or the parents who won't vaccinate their child for Human Papilloma Virus because they believe they child should wait for marriage to have sex anyway. But by that time they've forgotten all about HPV and had sex regardless of their faith. 75% of the population is infected with atleast one strain of HPV in their lives. Considering at least 75% are Christian, something is wrong with their stratagy.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Given that this whole mind-body dichotomy is probably false. What part of the brain is the ego, what part is the Self?
This is not neuroscience. These are concepts that structure psychological understanding. They do not refer to physical traits. The brain is the hardware; the psychology is the software.
I know this isn't psychology because the entire concept of self/Self/I is hotly debated across all disciplines. It is simply referred to as 'sense of self' in any psychology books I've read. Unless of course you are talking Maslow, Freud or Jung, then you are into psychoanalytics, psychotherapy and logotherapy. Those concepts are hardly appreciated in the entire field of Psychology. Furthermore, "self" is such an elusive concept, let alone "Self", I hope you can quantify what exactly you are talking about with these terms.
There are numerous psychological models.
Freud, Jung and the basics of transactional analysis all deal with the unconscious material that cause all kinds of issues in a person's life (imbalance, conflict, etc). All systems seek the health of the individual, which is about, through various methods, finding balance of the psyche.
Freud's model of psychodynamics is about the ego/superego/id. "In Freud's theory, the ego mediates among the id, the super-ego and the external world. Its task is to find a balance between primitive drives, morals, and reality while satisfying the id and superego."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego
For Jung, he saw an ego, and unconscious, which includes the "shadow". This is said about his analytics: "Its aim is the apprehension and integration of the deep forces and motivations underlying human behaviour by the practice of an accumulative phenomenology around the significance of dreams, folklore and mythology. ...
The basic assumption is that the personal unconscious is a potent part — probably the more active part — of the normal human psyche. Reliable communication between the conscious and unconscious parts of the psyche is necessary for wholeness." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_psychology
In transactional analysis, the same dynamics are looked at as the ego states of "parent"/"adult"/"child". The idea is to operate on the level of adult, and integrating the "parent" and "child"--the aspects that have us talking down, or talking up to people. When we are integrated as "adult", we operate with reason, on behalf of all aspects, including the parent and child.
This model was based on the basics of Freud's model: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis
I am definitely partial to Jungian psychology and to transactional analysis, which was a backlash to the going psychology of the time, and which spawned the entire self-help movement. Still, the leaders of my fave movements were greatly influenced by Freud's basics.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
My main problem with people believing in souls is that it's an obsolete form of aquisition of knowledge. We've had endless problems with that type of a priori epistemology.
It seems to me not only is it completely irrational, but most people are also hypocritical. "I believe in God, and Souls, and Eternal Life" yet "What you believe is wrong. There are no aliens, there are no ghosts."
How can someone who takes introspection and biblical prophecy as truth, criticise anyone else who does the same? In the largely Christian nation of the United States of America, Islam is hugely criticized, but on the surface, they are both employing the same exact method for aquiring their knowledge.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
This is not neuroscience. These are concepts that structure psychological understanding. They do not refer to physical traits. The brain is the hardware; the psychology is the software.
There are numerous psychological models.
Freud, Jung and the basics of transactional analysis all deal with the unconscious material that cause all kinds of issues in a person's life (imbalance, conflict, etc). All systems seek the health of the individual, which is about, through various methods, finding balance of the psyche.
Freud's model of psychodynamics is about the ego/superego/id. "In Freud's theory, the ego mediates among the id, the super-ego and the external world. Its task is to find a balance between primitive drives, morals, and reality while satisfying the id and superego."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego
For Jung, he saw an ego, and unconscious, which includes the "shadow". This is said about his analytics: "Its aim is the apprehension and integration of the deep forces and motivations underlying human behaviour by the practice of an accumulative phenomenology around the significance of dreams, folklore and mythology. ...
The basic assumption is that the personal unconscious is a potent part — probably the more active part — of the normal human psyche. Reliable communication between the conscious and unconscious parts of the psyche is necessary for wholeness." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_psychology
In transactional analysis, the same dynamics are looked at as the ego states of "parent"/"adult"/"child". The idea is to operate on the level of adult, and integrating the "parent" and "child"--the aspects that have us talking down, or talking up to people. When we are integrated as "adult", we operate with reason, on behalf of all aspects, including the parent and child.
This model was based on the basics of Freud's model: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis
I am definitely partial to Jungian psychology and to transactional analysis, which was a backlash to the going psychology of the time, and which spawned the entire self-help movement. Still, the leaders of my fave movements were greatly influenced by Freud's basics.
So... I guess you don't know that a lot of that stuff has gone the way of Phlogiston?
The mind-body, or software-hardware dichotomy is probably false. This is apparent from studies of brain damage!
In-fact, the brain is understood well enough to totally disolve this dichotomy. The brain is not hard-wired, it's very plastic, the term "hard-wired" is sometimes used to describe the current physical state of the brain, but neuroplasticity allows the brain to change. When the "mind" changes, the brain changes. In-fact, changes happen in our brains, every day. As we speak, the "wiring" is changing. The concept of software-hardware is most likely incorrect. And actually, I'm a bit of a computer nerd myself, both in hardware (CompTIA A+, CCNA) and software (Java, C++, PHP, ASP, etc..).
I'm telling you, the paradigm is false.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The white spot with the little holes in it on the left and the lever is called a PGA (Pin Grid Array) slot, this one is Socket 370, because it has 370 holes for pins where the processor is inserted. This kind of socket is also referred to as a ZIF socket, meaning Zero Insertion Force, because minimal force is required to insert the CPU (Central Processing Unit).
The CPU connects to the North Bridge, which is the chip obscured by the metal heatsink directly to the upper-right of the CPU. The north bridge connects the RAM (Random Access Memory) with the CPU, AGP (Accelerated Graphics Port) and the South Bridge. The South Bridge connects the PCI (Peripheral Component Interconnect) and various other expansion slots with the Perhiperhal connections typically found on the back of the unit, with the CMOS and the North Bridge.
A Brain does not work like this, at all! It's completely different. Computers are linear processing and Brains are parallel processors. Information is processed and stored locally in computers and in brains it is diffuse. They are nothing alike, at all.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
So... I guess you don't know that a lot of that stuff has gone the way of Phlogiston?
The mind-body, or software-hardware dichotomy is probably false. This is apparent from studies of brain damage!
In-fact, the brain is understood well enough to totally disolve this dichotomy. The brain is not hard-wired, it's very plastic, the term "hard-wired" is sometimes used to describe the current physical state of the brain, but neuroplasticity allows the brain to change. When the "mind" changes, the brain changes. In-fact, changes happen in our brains, every day. As we speak, the "wiring" is changing. The concept of software-hardware is most likely incorrect. And actually, I'm a bit of a computer nerd myself, both in hardware (CompTIA A+, CCNA) and software (Java, C++, PHP, ASP, etc..).
I'm telling you, the paradigm is false.
It's a metaphor, Ahnimus. As I said, psychology is about concepts. It's a way of describing and understanding the subjective correlates that are experienced. That's what psychology is about. Neuroscience does not cancel out psychology, because they are very different. Both of them exist fully, and independently.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Nothing alike might be a bit strong, especially with computer software like ANNs and hardware like PDPs. But those aren't your typical home computers, those are experimental computers used in AI research. They use things like Hoppfield networks to learn and store information in a similar manner to the human brain, in-fact they are modelled after theories of human/animal cognition. In those examples, the "software" is typically a learning algorithm, a mathematical formula that monitors vector coding with feedback loops.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It's a metaphor, Ahnimus. As I said, psychology is about concepts. It's a way of describing and understanding the subjective correlates that are experienced. That's what psychology is about. Neuroscience does not cancel out psychology, because they are very different. Both of them exist fully, and independently.
Oh yea. Just stick a railroad spike through your head and find out.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Interestingly, our goals might be the same. It's in ways baffling to me that others can accept without scrutiny the existence of souls. Or that they accept the existence of souls, but not aliens or spaghetti monsters. I suppose I already know the answers, and I'm largely just frustrated that others do not. To be honest with you, I never even cared about this crap until I got interested in politics and criminology. It became apparent to me at some point that these types of beliefs are hugely detrimental to society as a whole, and that includes me.
People may not realize that a simple belief such as souls and spirits can indirectly affect me, an atheist. How so? When the electorate here in Ontario elects John Tory because he is devoutly religious, supporting religious concepts and plans to take half a billion dollars from public schools to support private christian schools, that is indirectly affecting me, and ultimately it's because they believe in some irrational thing. How can I simply ignore the fact that George W. Bush was largely elected because he is a Christian Conservative? Hundreds of thousands of people are now dead because Bush was elected.
Ok well I'd not disagree that much of politics has been hijacked by those with religious leanings and that it is detrimental to all of us, however isn't that then our responsibility to educate and also stand firm against this blurring of the lines between church and state? The fact that I believe in the "soul" or "essence" of a person in the absence of hard scientific fact one way or the other does not in any way affect my vote. If people wish to believe that's fine, but how we run our countries, how we fund our schools, where the money goes, that's a different issue to a personally held belief that I wish to inflict on others in terms of governance. So yes, I understand why this frustrates you, it frustrates me too. I guess I would like to see absolute, conclusive scientific evidence that I'm wrong or I'm right with regard to spirituality and in the absence of that, until such times as it is proven, and even if it is, I still believe that spirituality has no place in government.
What I do believe though, is that in the current world climate, religion has been used by those who are only seeking power as a way of ensuring that they get that power. That's different to Joe Average believing in souls don't you think? It's those in power, with the money, utilizing a way of thinking to ensure that they are elected and continue to be elected in order to do the things they wish to do. Much of it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with money and power and how to gain it. A bit like we had to have this "war on terror". You can't fight terror. And you can't fight for peace. The "war on terror" was simply a tool to ensure that people's fears were played upon so that they would support invading another country for profit. So I guess the only way we can stop this kind of hijacking of people's beliefs for the pursuit of power is to educate them. And I don't know about you but in order to educate someone you need to speak to them in terms that they understand. You need to acknowledge their beliefs, their way of life, their way of thinking and work with that to help them to learn more, and possibly change their opinions.
I understand that you would find that frustrating, as I'm sure do many scientists and academics and people whose thought processes are like your own, but the fact remains that unless you are able to relate to people on their level, you'll not be able to change very much of anything. The religious groups that supported Bush, and little Johnny and your man Tory, they understand this and it is how they have managed to be successful. The scientific and rational thinkers need to find ways to communicate on an emotional level with people. Well that's my 2 bobs worth anyway.
Ok well I'd not disagree that much of politics has been hijacked by those with religious leanings and that it is detrimental to all of us, however isn't that then our responsibility to educate and also stand firm against this blurring of the lines between church and state? The fact that I believe in the "soul" or "essence" of a person in the absence of hard scientific fact one way or the other does not in any way affect my vote. If people wish to believe that's fine, but how we run our countries, how we fund our schools, where the money goes, that's a different issue to a personally held belief that I wish to inflict on others in terms of governance. So yes, I understand why this frustrates you, it frustrates me too. I guess I would like to see absolute, conclusive scientific evidence that I'm wrong or I'm right with regard to spirituality and in the absence of that, until such times as it is proven, and even if it is, I still believe that spirituality has no place in government.
What I do believe though, is that in the current world climate, religion has been used by those who are only seeking power as a way of ensuring that they get that power. That's different to Joe Average believing in souls don't you think? It's those in power, with the money, utilizing a way of thinking to ensure that they are elected and continue to be elected in order to do the things they wish to do. Much of it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with money and power and how to gain it. A bit like we had to have this "war on terror". You can't fight terror. And you can't fight for peace. The "war on terror" was simply a tool to ensure that people's fears were played upon so that they would support invading another country for profit. So I guess the only way we can stop this kind of hijacking of people's beliefs for the pursuit of power is to educate them. And I don't know about you but in order to educate someone you need to speak to them in terms that they understand. You need to acknowledge their beliefs, their way of life, their way of thinking and work with that to help them to learn more, and possibly change their opinions.
I understand that you would find that frustrating, as I'm sure do many scientists and academics and people whose thought processes are like your own, but the fact remains that unless you are able to relate to people on their level, you'll not be able to change very much of anything. The religious groups that supported Bush, and little Johnny and your man Tory, they understand this and it is how they have managed to be successful. The scientific and rational thinkers need to find ways to communicate on an emotional level with people. Well that's my 2 bobs worth anyway.
Religion has always been the tool exploited by those in power. Right back to Constantine. The very conception of religion was a tool for controlling the population.
The scientific problem with souls or spirits is not just that they have no evidence to support them. It's that evidence is to the contrary. As you know when your neurodegenerative disease kicks in, it's as if 'you' have no control. You are a victim of your brain and in-between your phenomenological experience and your physical brain there is no soul/spirit stopping the demylenation from affecting your phenomenological experience. So where is the soul/spirit in all of that?
Is the soul/spirit something that doesn't exist, exert any influence or stand outside of the physical realm until after death at which point your entire "self" or "Self" springs back into existence in all it's original fullness and beuaty? Or are people with neurological disorders like Anton-Babinski Syndrome or Verbal Apraxia screwed in the afterlife as well?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
My main problem with people believing in souls is that it's an obsolete form of aquisition of knowledge. We've had endless problems with that type of a priori epistemology.
It seems to me not only is it completely irrational, but most people are also hypocritical. "I believe in God, and Souls, and Eternal Life" yet "What you believe is wrong. There are no aliens, there are no ghosts."
How can someone who takes introspection and biblical prophecy as truth, criticise anyone else who does the same? In the largely Christian nation of the United States of America, Islam is hugely criticized, but on the surface, they are both employing the same exact method for aquiring their knowledge.
I've got no problem with other people's religious ideology. And I have spent much time contemplating why my beliefs are as they are. I do not claim that they are either rational or scientific OR the only beliefs worthy of holding.
I tried very hard to believe in God. But I got nothing. No sense of god, not an inkling that GOD exists, if anything my experience has been that there is no GOD. And there have been more than a few times when I'd really liked to have been proved wrong. But I cannot believe there is a GOD simply because others do, just as I cannot believe there is no GOD simply because other don't believe. But there are many things that other people hold as truths that I do not. I believe in souls because I believe that I have experienced the souls of other people. Have seen when they have gone from the body that housed them and seen them when they have first been born into the body that would house them. I'm well aware that other people do not believe in them. I can't make them see it as I do. I do confess that I have had some experiences that could be considered "ghostly" or "other worldly" but since that recent study of the woman in the MRI who insisted there was someone else in the room when a particular part of her brain was stimulated, I have come to question "ghosts" as I previously viewed them. I'm not convinced either way but I did find it interesting and certainly something extra to consider. When science can show similar reactions from the brain with regard to souls and GOD, I will reassess those concepts then too. Until then, I'm sticking with there is NO GOD but there are SOULS. Now having said all that, what right do I have to expect anyone to agree with me? None. These are my beliefs and I'm quite sure that others hold just as fervent ones completely opposite to my own. I have no desire to convert anyone to my way of thinking and I can only wish for the same respect from others.
As you know when your neurodegenerative disease kicks in, it's as if 'you' have no control. You are a victim of your brain and in-between your phenomenological experience and your physical brain there is no soul/spirit stopping the demylenation from affecting your phenomenological experience. So where is the soul/spirit in all of that?
First, you can't disprove something that is not physical. So to claim evidence to the contrary of the soul doesn't have any weight.
Do you assume that the soul, if it exists, intends to stop our suffering? That's not it's purpose at all. The soul IS us. It knows what is in our best interests in the big picture--which, by the way, we generally don't see, unless we train ourselves to. The soul knows what's for the greater good, -whether it's suffering or death. I get that people don't understand this. What people don't tend to get is that our sliver-self small-minded-ego doesn't know what's good for us. So for us to expect the universe to revolve around that small-mindedness and give us what we want is silly. And it represents the "child" ego state of transactional analysis, aka, egocentrism.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
My main problem with people believing in souls is that it's an obsolete form of aquisition of knowledge. We've had endless problems with that type of a priori epistemology.
i believe that our conscience is our soul.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Religion has always been the tool exploited by those in power. Right back to Constantine. The very conception of religion was a tool for controlling the population.
The scientific problem with souls or spirits is not just that they have no evidence to support them. It's that evidence is to the contrary. As you know when your neurodegenerative disease kicks in, it's as if 'you' have no control. You are a victim of your brain and in-between your phenomenological experience and your physical brain there is no soul/spirit stopping the demylenation from affecting your phenomenological experience. So where is the soul/spirit in all of that?
Is the soul/spirit something that doesn't exist, exert any influence or stand outside of the physical realm until after death at which point your entire "self" or "Self" springs back into existence in all it's original fullness and beauty? Or are people with neurological disorders like Anton-Babinski Syndrome or Verbal Apraxia screwed in the afterlife as well?
I agree, and it is having a resurgence currently, but I believe, like most things, it will eventually give way to other ways of thinking. There will be a backlash against it, then it will rise up again and so on and so on. History tells us that, and based on history we have no reason to believe that this current climate will prevail for eternity.
Ok, so because there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of souls you are saying they do not exist? Even though many things start out with no scientific evidence to support them? I've yet to see evidence to the contrary that was irrefutable. I guess what I'm saying is to my mind the jury is still out and until such times as a definitive, rational argument that makes sense to me for or against the existence of soul is put forward, then I will continue to believe in their existence.
As to the degenerative neurological disorder, firstly it is not my brain that I am victim to, it is my immune system. The scientific and biological action is that something (and they're not absolutely certain what, could be a combination of things) sets my incorrectly functioning immune system to attacking the myelin coating on the nerves. This makes holes & scars in the myelin which make the nerves misfire causing the message from my brain to be interrupted along the nerve and stopping function. So my brain is still working, my extremities are still working (or have the potential to continue working) they simply aren't getting the instruction or the impulse. Depending on how bad the scarring and whether or not the defective immune response can be stopped will depend on whether or not function returns. Well that and copious amounts of retraining the neural pathways. All of this is scientific and a biological function and has nothing to do with my soul. My soul would come into it when I decide or not to fight the biology. The essence of who I am in that moment will either spring up to fight the disease and it's outcome or be too tired to care depending on the day and the meds. I don't believe in the after life so once you stop breathing it is all over. My soul does not float around free of disease looking for another body to inhabit or fly off to somewhere magical where the disease does not exist. Who I am, the essence of me will live on in those who remember me, and how I view the world and all that I did in it will influence them to a greater or lesser degree until they too die. Of course other people that do believe in GOD and the afterlife will see it differently. Did that make any sense to you at all?
Would it surprise you then if someone was lacking a conscience?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The scientific problem with souls or spirits is not just that they have no evidence to support them. It's that evidence is to the contrary. As you know when your neurodegenerative disease kicks in, it's as if 'you' have no control. You are a victim of your brain and in-between your phenomenological experience and your physical brain there is no soul/spirit stopping the demylenation from affecting your phenomenological experience. So where is the soul/spirit in all of that?
Is the soul/spirit something that doesn't exist, exert any influence or stand outside of the physical realm until after death at which point your entire "self" or "Self" springs back into existence in all it's original fullness and beuaty? Or are people with neurological disorders like Anton-Babinski Syndrome or Verbal Apraxia screwed in the afterlife as well?
It's interesting that quantum physicists have as much as declared the existence of 'soul', and/or 'spirit' in the world.
You should check out Michael Talbot's two books 'Mysticism and the new physics', and 'The Holographic Universe'.
I agree, and it is having a resurgence currently, but I believe, like most things, it will eventually give way to other ways of thinking. There will be a backlash against it, then it will rise up again and so on and so on. History tells us that, and based on history we have no reason to believe that this current climate will prevail for eternity.
Ok, so because there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of souls you are saying they do not exist? Even though many things start out with no scientific evidence to support them? I've yet to see evidence to the contrary that was irrefutable. I guess what I'm saying is to my mind the jury is still out and until such times as a definitive, rational argument that makes sense to me for or against the existence of soul is put forward, then I will continue to believe in their existence.
As to the degenerative neurological disorder, firstly it is not my brain that I am victim to, it is my immune system. The scientific and biological action is that something (and they're not absolutely certain what, could be a combination of things) sets my incorrectly functioning immune system to attacking the myelin coating on the nerves. This makes holes & scars in the myelin which make the nerves misfire causing the message from my brain to be interrupted along the nerve and stopping function. So my brain is still working, my extremities are still working (or have the potential to continue working) they simply aren't getting the instruction or the impulse. Depending on how bad the scarring and whether or not the defective immune response can be stopped will depend on whether or not function returns. Well that and copious amounts of retraining the neural pathways. All of this is scientific and a biological function and has nothing to do with my soul. My soul would come into it when I decide or not to fight the biology. The essence of who I am in that moment will either spring up to fight the disease and it's outcome or be too tired to care depending on the day and the meds. I don't believe in the after life so once you stop breathing it is all over. My soul does not float around free of disease looking for another body to inhabit or fly off to somewhere magical where the disease does not exist. Who I am, the essence of me will live on in those who remember me, and how I view the world and all that I did in it will influence them to a greater or lesser degree until they too die. Of course other people that do believe in GOD and the afterlife will see it differently. Did that make any sense to you at all?
I see what you are saying, but isn't it possible that dorsal frontalorbital cortex is a better term than soul? Or perhaps a different part of your brain? Soul classically implies a metaphysical thing that transcends the body.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Would it surprise you then if someone was lacking a conscience?
everyone has a conscience. except maybe sociopaths. they don't seem to acknowledge anything except their own selfish needs.
but no it wouldn't surprsie me if someone is acknowledged as having no conscience or if they say so themselves. but of course only oneself can say whether or not one has a conscience.
but also i believe one has to actually be conscious of their conscience. even if they choose to ignore it.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
It's interesting that quantum physicists have as much as declared the existence of 'soul', and/or 'spirit' in the world.
You should check out Michael Talbot's two books 'Mysticism and the new physics', and 'The Holographic Universe'.
That's incorrect. Check out Nobel Laureate in theoretical physics Murray Gell-Mann. One of many theoretical physicists who wholely disagree with Talbot.
By the way Talbot is a science-fiction writer, not a physicist.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The book the "Holographic Universe" was based on the holographic model of the universe originated by the esteemed physicist, David Bohm.
"David Bohm was an American-born quantum physicist, who made significant contributions in the fields of theoretical physics, philosophy and neuropsychology, and to the Manhattan Project."
David Bohm did integrate spirituality in with physics, as Byrnzie mentions regarding phsyicists who did so: "Bohm's scientific and philosophical views seemed inseparable. In 1959, his wife Saral recommended to him a book by the Indian philosopher J. Krishnamurti that she had seen in a library. He found himself impressed by the way his own ideas on quantum mechanics meshed with the philosophical ideas of Krishnamurti. Bohm's approach to philosophy and physics receive expression in his 1980 book Wholeness and the Implicate Order, and in his 1987 book Science, Order and Creativity. Bohm and Krishnamurti went on to become close friends for over 25 years, with a deep mutual interest in philosophy and the state of humanity."
Here is a quote by the man himself regarding the imbalance we see all around us: "What is the source of all this trouble? I'm saying that the source is basically in thought. Many people would think that such a statement is crazy, because thought is the one thing we have with which to solve our problems. That's part of our tradition. Yet it looks as if the thing we use to solve our problems with is the source of our problems. It's like going to the doctor and having him make you ill. In fact, in 20% of medical cases we do apparently have that going on. But in the case of thought, it's far over 20%."
"...the general tacit assumption in thought is that it's just telling you the way things are and that it's not doing anything - that 'you' are inside there, deciding what to do with the info. But you don't decide what to do with the info. Thought runs you. Thought, however, gives false info that you are running it, that you are the one who controls thought. Whereas actually thought is the one which controls each one of us.
Thought is creating divisions out of itself and then saying that they are there naturally. This is another major feature of thought: Thought doesn't know it is doing something and then it struggles against what it is doing. It doesn't want to know that it is doing it. And thought struggles against the results, trying to avoid those unpleasant results while keeping on with that way of thinking. That is what I call "sustained incoherence". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm
He has some amazing spiritual solutions for moving beyond the dominance and distortion of thought.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I see what you are saying, but isn't it possible that dorsal frontalorbital cortex is a better term than soul? Or perhaps a different part of your brain? Soul classically implies a metaphysical thing that transcends the body.
hehe! yeah, sounds great! my grandmother's dorsal frontalorbital cortex lives on in me!
I understand what you are saying but can you see that a "soul" is an emotional thing and how the scientific terminology just isn't gonna cut it? Not to mention that her frontalorbital cortex does not live on in me, it is 6 foot under and probably completely decomposed by now. But saying that the output from her brain is now living in me doesn't really do it either. This is what I mean about science needing to discuss these things in terms that people can relate to. It is more than her brain function that I would consider her essence. Possibly it's also the chemical interaction between us, as well as the nurture element, could be a lot of things but simply stating the scientific side of it isn't enough. People hold these beliefs on a deeply emotional level. You cannot break them down with cold hard fact and expect people to embrace them. The reasons why her brain was able to affect my brain in such a way, even if it was explained as only a series of biological functions and emotional triggers and hormonal interactions that would not be something that I would embrace simply because it is too clinical and does not do our relationship to each other justice. And if I'm trying to see it in a scientific way, can you then see how this would be complete bunkum to those who are not?
oh and just on that last bit, I realize how others interpret and define a soul, but I've never been one to follow the rules when it comes to spirituality. Although I suppose if I believe that my grandmother's soul lives on in me that I do believe that it has some transcendental qualities.
The book the "Holographic Universe" was based on the holographic model of the universe originated by the esteemed physicist, David Bohm.
"David Bohm was an American-born quantum physicist, who made significant contributions in the fields of theoretical physics, philosophy and neuropsychology, and to the Manhattan Project."
David Bohm did integrate spirituality in with physics, as Byrnzie mentions regarding phsyicists who did so: "Bohm's scientific and philosophical views seemed inseparable. In 1959, his wife Saral recommended to him a book by the Indian philosopher J. Krishnamurti that she had seen in a library. He found himself impressed by the way his own ideas on quantum mechanics meshed with the philosophical ideas of Krishnamurti. Bohm's approach to philosophy and physics receive expression in his 1980 book Wholeness and the Implicate Order, and in his 1987 book Science, Order and Creativity. Bohm and Krishnamurti went on to become close friends for over 25 years, with a deep mutual interest in philosophy and the state of humanity."
Here is a quote by the man himself regarding the imbalance we see all around us: "What is the source of all this trouble? I'm saying that the source is basically in thought. Many people would think that such a statement is crazy, because thought is the one thing we have with which to solve our problems. That's part of our tradition. Yet it looks as if the thing we use to solve our problems with is the source of our problems. It's like going to the doctor and having him make you ill. In fact, in 20% of medical cases we do apparently have that going on. But in the case of thought, it's far over 20%."
"...the general tacit assumption in thought is that it's just telling you the way things are and that it's not doing anything - that 'you' are inside there, deciding what to do with the info. But you don't decide what to do with the info. Thought runs you. Thought, however, gives false info that you are running it, that you are the one who controls thought. Whereas actually thought is the one which controls each one of us.
Thought is creating divisions out of itself and then saying that they are there naturally. This is another major feature of thought: Thought doesn't know it is doing something and then it struggles against what it is doing. It doesn't want to know that it is doing it. And thought struggles against the results, trying to avoid those unpleasant results while keeping on with that way of thinking. That is what I call "sustained incoherence". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm
He has some amazing spiritual solutions for moving beyond the dominance and distortion of thought.
So... where does he say anything spiritual or anything about a holographic universe. What he talks about there is nothing of the sort.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
hehe! yeah, sounds great! my grandmother's dorsal frontalorbital cortex lives on in me!
I understand what you are saying but can you see that a "soul" is an emotional thing and how the scientific terminology just isn't gonna cut it? Not to mention that her frontalorbital cortex does not live on in me, it is 6 foot under and probably completely decomposed by now. But saying that the output from her brain is now living in me doesn't really do it either. This is what I mean about science needing to discuss these things in terms that people can relate to. It is more than her brain function that I would consider her essence. Possibly it's also the chemical interaction between us, as well as the nurture element, could be a lot of things but simply stating the scientific side of it isn't enough. People hold these beliefs on a deeply emotional level. You cannot break them down with cold hard fact and expect people to embrace them. The reasons why her brain was able to affect my brain in such a way, even if it was explained as only a series of biological functions and emotional triggers and hormonal interactions that would not be something that I would embrace simply because it is too clinical and does not do our relationship to each other justice. And if I'm trying to see it in a scientific way, can you then see how this would be complete bunkum to those who are not?
oh and just on that last bit, I realize how others interpret and define a soul, but I've never been one to follow the rules when it comes to spirituality. Although I suppose if I believe that my grandmother's soul lives on in me that I do believe that it has some transcendental qualities.
I personally find scientific explanations to be very beautiful and full. There is more in any scientific theory than any other explanations. The fullness is there, the beauty is there. Maybe it's all in the interpretation.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
man, then in that case he should start a religion.
Apparently, if he wasn't dead. But it seems he has a following anyway.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
Ok, not having a go at you, but I don't understand why you asked the question of us, provided information about how the brain works but you don't seem to ever provide information about why believing in souls or spirits is incorrect, which is fine, but I wonder then why you continue to ask the questions if you know that you're not going to get the scientific responses that you want?
Or why you don't search for and present scientific arguement to prove or disprove the existence of souls or spirits ?
Like I said not having a go at you, I'm just trying to understand why the subject continues to interest you, when you appear to have gathered enough scientific information on the brain to disprove the existence of souls and spirits to yourself. I'm just trying to understand your thought process on this subject.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Interestingly, our goals might be the same. It's in ways baffling to me that others can accept without scrutiny the existence of souls. Or that they accept the existence of souls, but not aliens or spaghetti monsters. I suppose I already know the answers, and I'm largely just frustrated that others do not. To be honest with you, I never even cared about this crap until I got interested in politics and criminology. It became apparent to me at some point that these types of beliefs are hugely detrimental to society as a whole, and that includes me.
People may not realize that a simple belief such as souls and spirits can indirectly affect me, an atheist. How so? When the electorate here in Ontario elects John Tory because he is devoutly religious, supporting religious concepts and plans to take half a billion dollars from public schools to support private christian schools, that is indirectly affecting me, and ultimately it's because they believe in some irrational thing. How can I simply ignore the fact that George W. Bush was largely elected because he is a Christian Conservative? Hundreds of thousands of people are now dead because Bush was elected.
There are numerous psychological models.
Freud, Jung and the basics of transactional analysis all deal with the unconscious material that cause all kinds of issues in a person's life (imbalance, conflict, etc). All systems seek the health of the individual, which is about, through various methods, finding balance of the psyche.
Freud's model of psychodynamics is about the ego/superego/id. "In Freud's theory, the ego mediates among the id, the super-ego and the external world. Its task is to find a balance between primitive drives, morals, and reality while satisfying the id and superego." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego
For Jung, he saw an ego, and unconscious, which includes the "shadow". This is said about his analytics: "Its aim is the apprehension and integration of the deep forces and motivations underlying human behaviour by the practice of an accumulative phenomenology around the significance of dreams, folklore and mythology. ...
The basic assumption is that the personal unconscious is a potent part — probably the more active part — of the normal human psyche. Reliable communication between the conscious and unconscious parts of the psyche is necessary for wholeness." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_psychology
In transactional analysis, the same dynamics are looked at as the ego states of "parent"/"adult"/"child". The idea is to operate on the level of adult, and integrating the "parent" and "child"--the aspects that have us talking down, or talking up to people. When we are integrated as "adult", we operate with reason, on behalf of all aspects, including the parent and child.
This model was based on the basics of Freud's model: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis
I am definitely partial to Jungian psychology and to transactional analysis, which was a backlash to the going psychology of the time, and which spawned the entire self-help movement. Still, the leaders of my fave movements were greatly influenced by Freud's basics.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
It seems to me not only is it completely irrational, but most people are also hypocritical. "I believe in God, and Souls, and Eternal Life" yet "What you believe is wrong. There are no aliens, there are no ghosts."
How can someone who takes introspection and biblical prophecy as truth, criticise anyone else who does the same? In the largely Christian nation of the United States of America, Islam is hugely criticized, but on the surface, they are both employing the same exact method for aquiring their knowledge.
So... I guess you don't know that a lot of that stuff has gone the way of Phlogiston?
The mind-body, or software-hardware dichotomy is probably false. This is apparent from studies of brain damage!
In-fact, the brain is understood well enough to totally disolve this dichotomy. The brain is not hard-wired, it's very plastic, the term "hard-wired" is sometimes used to describe the current physical state of the brain, but neuroplasticity allows the brain to change. When the "mind" changes, the brain changes. In-fact, changes happen in our brains, every day. As we speak, the "wiring" is changing. The concept of software-hardware is most likely incorrect. And actually, I'm a bit of a computer nerd myself, both in hardware (CompTIA A+, CCNA) and software (Java, C++, PHP, ASP, etc..).
I'm telling you, the paradigm is false.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Abit-kt7-large.jpg
The white spot with the little holes in it on the left and the lever is called a PGA (Pin Grid Array) slot, this one is Socket 370, because it has 370 holes for pins where the processor is inserted. This kind of socket is also referred to as a ZIF socket, meaning Zero Insertion Force, because minimal force is required to insert the CPU (Central Processing Unit).
The CPU connects to the North Bridge, which is the chip obscured by the metal heatsink directly to the upper-right of the CPU. The north bridge connects the RAM (Random Access Memory) with the CPU, AGP (Accelerated Graphics Port) and the South Bridge. The South Bridge connects the PCI (Peripheral Component Interconnect) and various other expansion slots with the Perhiperhal connections typically found on the back of the unit, with the CMOS and the North Bridge.
A Brain does not work like this, at all! It's completely different. Computers are linear processing and Brains are parallel processors. Information is processed and stored locally in computers and in brains it is diffuse. They are nothing alike, at all.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Oh yea. Just stick a railroad spike through your head and find out.
Then I'll call you Phineas Gage.
Ok well I'd not disagree that much of politics has been hijacked by those with religious leanings and that it is detrimental to all of us, however isn't that then our responsibility to educate and also stand firm against this blurring of the lines between church and state? The fact that I believe in the "soul" or "essence" of a person in the absence of hard scientific fact one way or the other does not in any way affect my vote. If people wish to believe that's fine, but how we run our countries, how we fund our schools, where the money goes, that's a different issue to a personally held belief that I wish to inflict on others in terms of governance. So yes, I understand why this frustrates you, it frustrates me too. I guess I would like to see absolute, conclusive scientific evidence that I'm wrong or I'm right with regard to spirituality and in the absence of that, until such times as it is proven, and even if it is, I still believe that spirituality has no place in government.
What I do believe though, is that in the current world climate, religion has been used by those who are only seeking power as a way of ensuring that they get that power. That's different to Joe Average believing in souls don't you think? It's those in power, with the money, utilizing a way of thinking to ensure that they are elected and continue to be elected in order to do the things they wish to do. Much of it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with money and power and how to gain it. A bit like we had to have this "war on terror". You can't fight terror. And you can't fight for peace. The "war on terror" was simply a tool to ensure that people's fears were played upon so that they would support invading another country for profit. So I guess the only way we can stop this kind of hijacking of people's beliefs for the pursuit of power is to educate them. And I don't know about you but in order to educate someone you need to speak to them in terms that they understand. You need to acknowledge their beliefs, their way of life, their way of thinking and work with that to help them to learn more, and possibly change their opinions.
I understand that you would find that frustrating, as I'm sure do many scientists and academics and people whose thought processes are like your own, but the fact remains that unless you are able to relate to people on their level, you'll not be able to change very much of anything. The religious groups that supported Bush, and little Johnny and your man Tory, they understand this and it is how they have managed to be successful. The scientific and rational thinkers need to find ways to communicate on an emotional level with people. Well that's my 2 bobs worth anyway.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Religion has always been the tool exploited by those in power. Right back to Constantine. The very conception of religion was a tool for controlling the population.
The scientific problem with souls or spirits is not just that they have no evidence to support them. It's that evidence is to the contrary. As you know when your neurodegenerative disease kicks in, it's as if 'you' have no control. You are a victim of your brain and in-between your phenomenological experience and your physical brain there is no soul/spirit stopping the demylenation from affecting your phenomenological experience. So where is the soul/spirit in all of that?
Is the soul/spirit something that doesn't exist, exert any influence or stand outside of the physical realm until after death at which point your entire "self" or "Self" springs back into existence in all it's original fullness and beuaty? Or are people with neurological disorders like Anton-Babinski Syndrome or Verbal Apraxia screwed in the afterlife as well?
I've got no problem with other people's religious ideology. And I have spent much time contemplating why my beliefs are as they are. I do not claim that they are either rational or scientific OR the only beliefs worthy of holding.
I tried very hard to believe in God. But I got nothing. No sense of god, not an inkling that GOD exists, if anything my experience has been that there is no GOD. And there have been more than a few times when I'd really liked to have been proved wrong. But I cannot believe there is a GOD simply because others do, just as I cannot believe there is no GOD simply because other don't believe. But there are many things that other people hold as truths that I do not. I believe in souls because I believe that I have experienced the souls of other people. Have seen when they have gone from the body that housed them and seen them when they have first been born into the body that would house them. I'm well aware that other people do not believe in them. I can't make them see it as I do. I do confess that I have had some experiences that could be considered "ghostly" or "other worldly" but since that recent study of the woman in the MRI who insisted there was someone else in the room when a particular part of her brain was stimulated, I have come to question "ghosts" as I previously viewed them. I'm not convinced either way but I did find it interesting and certainly something extra to consider. When science can show similar reactions from the brain with regard to souls and GOD, I will reassess those concepts then too. Until then, I'm sticking with there is NO GOD but there are SOULS. Now having said all that, what right do I have to expect anyone to agree with me? None. These are my beliefs and I'm quite sure that others hold just as fervent ones completely opposite to my own. I have no desire to convert anyone to my way of thinking and I can only wish for the same respect from others.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Do you assume that the soul, if it exists, intends to stop our suffering? That's not it's purpose at all. The soul IS us. It knows what is in our best interests in the big picture--which, by the way, we generally don't see, unless we train ourselves to. The soul knows what's for the greater good, -whether it's suffering or death. I get that people don't understand this. What people don't tend to get is that our sliver-self small-minded-ego doesn't know what's good for us. So for us to expect the universe to revolve around that small-mindedness and give us what we want is silly. And it represents the "child" ego state of transactional analysis, aka, egocentrism.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
i believe that our conscience is our soul.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I agree, and it is having a resurgence currently, but I believe, like most things, it will eventually give way to other ways of thinking. There will be a backlash against it, then it will rise up again and so on and so on. History tells us that, and based on history we have no reason to believe that this current climate will prevail for eternity.
Ok, so because there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of souls you are saying they do not exist? Even though many things start out with no scientific evidence to support them? I've yet to see evidence to the contrary that was irrefutable. I guess what I'm saying is to my mind the jury is still out and until such times as a definitive, rational argument that makes sense to me for or against the existence of soul is put forward, then I will continue to believe in their existence.
As to the degenerative neurological disorder, firstly it is not my brain that I am victim to, it is my immune system. The scientific and biological action is that something (and they're not absolutely certain what, could be a combination of things) sets my incorrectly functioning immune system to attacking the myelin coating on the nerves. This makes holes & scars in the myelin which make the nerves misfire causing the message from my brain to be interrupted along the nerve and stopping function. So my brain is still working, my extremities are still working (or have the potential to continue working) they simply aren't getting the instruction or the impulse. Depending on how bad the scarring and whether or not the defective immune response can be stopped will depend on whether or not function returns. Well that and copious amounts of retraining the neural pathways. All of this is scientific and a biological function and has nothing to do with my soul. My soul would come into it when I decide or not to fight the biology. The essence of who I am in that moment will either spring up to fight the disease and it's outcome or be too tired to care depending on the day and the meds. I don't believe in the after life so once you stop breathing it is all over. My soul does not float around free of disease looking for another body to inhabit or fly off to somewhere magical where the disease does not exist. Who I am, the essence of me will live on in those who remember me, and how I view the world and all that I did in it will influence them to a greater or lesser degree until they too die. Of course other people that do believe in GOD and the afterlife will see it differently. Did that make any sense to you at all?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Hello Bob!
Would it surprise you then if someone was lacking a conscience?
It's interesting that quantum physicists have as much as declared the existence of 'soul', and/or 'spirit' in the world.
You should check out Michael Talbot's two books 'Mysticism and the new physics', and 'The Holographic Universe'.
I see what you are saying, but isn't it possible that dorsal frontalorbital cortex is a better term than soul? Or perhaps a different part of your brain? Soul classically implies a metaphysical thing that transcends the body.
everyone has a conscience. except maybe sociopaths. they don't seem to acknowledge anything except their own selfish needs.
but no it wouldn't surprsie me if someone is acknowledged as having no conscience or if they say so themselves. but of course only oneself can say whether or not one has a conscience.
but also i believe one has to actually be conscious of their conscience. even if they choose to ignore it.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
That's incorrect. Check out Nobel Laureate in theoretical physics Murray Gell-Mann. One of many theoretical physicists who wholely disagree with Talbot.
By the way Talbot is a science-fiction writer, not a physicist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Flapdoodle
man, then in that case he should start a religion.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
"David Bohm was an American-born quantum physicist, who made significant contributions in the fields of theoretical physics, philosophy and neuropsychology, and to the Manhattan Project."
David Bohm did integrate spirituality in with physics, as Byrnzie mentions regarding phsyicists who did so: "Bohm's scientific and philosophical views seemed inseparable. In 1959, his wife Saral recommended to him a book by the Indian philosopher J. Krishnamurti that she had seen in a library. He found himself impressed by the way his own ideas on quantum mechanics meshed with the philosophical ideas of Krishnamurti. Bohm's approach to philosophy and physics receive expression in his 1980 book Wholeness and the Implicate Order, and in his 1987 book Science, Order and Creativity. Bohm and Krishnamurti went on to become close friends for over 25 years, with a deep mutual interest in philosophy and the state of humanity."
Here is a quote by the man himself regarding the imbalance we see all around us: "What is the source of all this trouble? I'm saying that the source is basically in thought. Many people would think that such a statement is crazy, because thought is the one thing we have with which to solve our problems. That's part of our tradition. Yet it looks as if the thing we use to solve our problems with is the source of our problems. It's like going to the doctor and having him make you ill. In fact, in 20% of medical cases we do apparently have that going on. But in the case of thought, it's far over 20%."
"...the general tacit assumption in thought is that it's just telling you the way things are and that it's not doing anything - that 'you' are inside there, deciding what to do with the info. But you don't decide what to do with the info. Thought runs you. Thought, however, gives false info that you are running it, that you are the one who controls thought. Whereas actually thought is the one which controls each one of us.
Thought is creating divisions out of itself and then saying that they are there naturally. This is another major feature of thought: Thought doesn't know it is doing something and then it struggles against what it is doing. It doesn't want to know that it is doing it. And thought struggles against the results, trying to avoid those unpleasant results while keeping on with that way of thinking. That is what I call "sustained incoherence".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm
He has some amazing spiritual solutions for moving beyond the dominance and distortion of thought.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
hehe!
I understand what you are saying but can you see that a "soul" is an emotional thing and how the scientific terminology just isn't gonna cut it? Not to mention that her frontalorbital cortex does not live on in me, it is 6 foot under and probably completely decomposed by now. But saying that the output from her brain is now living in me doesn't really do it either. This is what I mean about science needing to discuss these things in terms that people can relate to. It is more than her brain function that I would consider her essence. Possibly it's also the chemical interaction between us, as well as the nurture element, could be a lot of things but simply stating the scientific side of it isn't enough. People hold these beliefs on a deeply emotional level. You cannot break them down with cold hard fact and expect people to embrace them. The reasons why her brain was able to affect my brain in such a way, even if it was explained as only a series of biological functions and emotional triggers and hormonal interactions that would not be something that I would embrace simply because it is too clinical and does not do our relationship to each other justice. And if I'm trying to see it in a scientific way, can you then see how this would be complete bunkum to those who are not?
oh and just on that last bit, I realize how others interpret and define a soul, but I've never been one to follow the rules when it comes to spirituality. Although I suppose if I believe that my grandmother's soul lives on in me that I do believe that it has some transcendental qualities.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
So... where does he say anything spiritual or anything about a holographic universe. What he talks about there is nothing of the sort.
I personally find scientific explanations to be very beautiful and full. There is more in any scientific theory than any other explanations. The fullness is there, the beauty is there. Maybe it's all in the interpretation.
Apparently, if he wasn't dead. But it seems he has a following anyway.