Latest ads
-
Colombo Red Hat Certified System Administrator (RHCSA) - RHEL 10- Sanjeewani95
- Updated:
-
NURSING , CAREGIVER , HOTEL & BEAUTY COURSES- IVA Para Medical Campus
- Updated:
-
Handmade Character Soft Toys Peppa Pig Family- anil1961
- Updated:
-
Video Content Creator
- pramukag
- Updated:
-
QA Engineer Intern
- pramukag
- Updated:
Aethist corner of Elakiri
- Thread starter Aethist
- Start date
Someone has given -rep....
lolzzzzzzzzzzz
I have another 6256 Rep points. Com'on guys.......
STFU!
lolzzzzzzzzzzz
I have another 6256 Rep points. Com'on guys.......
STFU!
If mind is a physical entity (like the brain) as opposed to a mental entity, then there isn't any problem after all. Because if perception can be reduced into physical processes like brain events, then we are free from the objection we noted above.
As far as I understand, Christianity equates mind with the soul, the real person, the ghost in the machine, the observer who sees from the eyes of the body and hears from the ears of the body, the operator of the body.
out of the night that covers me
black as the pit from pole to pole
I thank whatever gods that may be
for my unconquerable soul
black as the pit from pole to pole
I thank whatever gods that may be
for my unconquerable soul
We, as non-religious atheists in the atheist corner, provide a unified account of humans without fragmenting humans into two radically and ontologically different components. On the other hand, almost every religion fragment humans into two different realms like mind and body and face the nagging problem of explaining how really our non-physical minds interact with our physical bodies. On one hand, mind is supposed to elude all the physical world and be independent from the physical realm and even survive after death. On the other hand, mind is constantly dealing, interacting with the physical world, as when our decisions (a mental phenomenon) cause our bodily movements. This is basically the same inconsistency even children notice, "Casper can not both glide through walls, and grab a falling towel?"
If we are going for a dualistic theory, that is, if we are arguing that human consciousness, or our internal world, or the human psychological life, or our personal or subjective experiences, or the phenomenal world is an added extra that can not be described by science in the way that science describes gravity, photosynthesis, continental drift, chemical reactions and so-on, then we are naturally forced to come up with some theory, some model, perhaps a psycho-physical model about how consciousness can have influence on our body, which is physical in nature just like sun flowers and frogs. This is exactly the point where dualism has its highest weakness, plus, on the other hand, this is exactly the point where naturalistic atheists have their trump card.
If we can reduce all activities into physical process then we are don. But if we are merely going to believe in a non-dualistic theory which we hope will do so one day, that is no better than adhering to a religious belief. I have no special preference about either a dualist or a non-dualist theory, but I'll stay skeptical and contribute my ideas here.
To assume mind can interact with body only because it is a physical entity can not be justified. Firstly because if otherwise, it does not have to necessarily violate the conservation of energy, as you insisted. That is because there is an open possibility for a type of process called a physically reversible process and such process do not involve an entropy change during an information exchange, and therefore does not require energy to "enter the mind", in your words. I don't know why you are still trying to establish your argument as a fact taking only reversible processes into account without any justification.
Secondly, "only physical entities can interact with physical entities" is only an assumption you made. Why? For example, software products are only arrangements of physical entities, not physical entities themselves. Despite that they readily interact with your computer to show you this text.
You might argue that software products cannot live themselves without matter and therefore they are physical too. But software are only bulk arrangements of matter or radiation. That's why in the early times programmers could cut out parts of paper and make softwares out of them.
On the other hand if we assume dualism then we are in a great trouble finding that separate laws governing mind. Is mind governed by any laws at all?
But beside these all, we are in another trouble defining what is physical and what is not. If we define physical entities as those posses an spacial location we are not going to find any! Because the theory we are most confident about, says otherwise. We cannot define a precise spatial position to an object. On the other hand, if we take those entities only approximately possess this property we are in trouble again. Electromagnetic waves for example, are not localized. Are we going to exclude them from being physical? Actually in quantum field theory, particles are no more distinguishable and are described as fields. So what properties qualify as physical and why we make them distinguished as physical is the real question.
out of the night that covers me
black as the pit from pole to pole
I thank whatever gods that may be
for my unconquerable soul
I have many Christian friends who say that they have discovered a great deal of happiness and peace while trying to have a personal relationship with GOD(Their way of meditation in this sense). Is there any difference in what they claim and what you claim in your opinion?
Last edited:
That's one of my points for not believing in this "soul" thing
e.g. even the invisible/ untouchable gravity can be scientifically measured using meters
I too would like to know that my friend. I am currently unable to compare because I have experienced only one of them. But meditation is not something confined to religion. It is just a state of consciousness I would say. A state of consciousness is not something you should blindly believe in. You can see it for yourself.
That's one of my points for not believing in this "soul" thing
e.g. even the invisible/ untouchable gravity can be scientifically measured using meters
However here you are making an assumption that so called "soul" if it exists cannot be physical?
You are right. That is why it is my opinion that what distinguishes Buddhism from other religions to an average person is something much more different than a personal experience(feeling of happiness peace etc) you have with it.
My views over the years have moved closer to agnosticism than atheism it seems. Atheism being the rejection of deity seems like an impossible position to take since it cannot be proven that a deity does not exist but only say that it is highly improbable. Furthermore position of atheism relies on the definition of deity and definition of a super natural act. Both could be subjective terms. It seems to me that claiming existence of a deity is unknowable is a more logical standard.
My friend I did not do science/ maths to argue with you on physics, humbly I say that. However, if you cannot measure some shyte using a scientific meter, then that shyte only exists in one's mind, which is just shyte to me and for the 79% of this world who do not beleive in Buddhism and Hinduism
Religions by popularity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations
Our discussion need not necessarily have a scientific basis. Am I correct to assume that you believe 'soul' is a concept made in mind and no other religion except Buddhism and Hinduism has such a concept? Also the reason for not believing a soul exists is because it is not measurable?
Actually the weight of the soul is measured by scientists....
http://www.noeticsciences.co.uk/weighting-the-human-soul/
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2007/03/does-soul-weigh-21-grams.html
Similar threads
