The human brain is a system of cellular functions and neurochemical interactions. That description does not explain Human consciousness, a capacity that far exceeds neural functions.

Consciousness is an Emergent Property. In other words, something that's more then the sum of its parts.


The death of that young girl got me thinking about that yesterday.

We cannot really explain consciousness or where it came from, or why we have it. I am not a big religious person, but it seems to me that whatever kind of energy our consciousness is could possibly survive physical death in some form.


There is a book called "The Afterlife Experiments" by Dr. Gary Shwartz (sp?). He took a lot of those psychic people and scientifically tested whether or not they were cheating physically when they "recieved information" from dead people. I wouldnt say I completely buy it, but it definitly seems like something that needs further study.

5/18/2007 10:54:13 AM

There are emergent properties in all sorts of systems, but if the system dies, so does the emergent property...

5/18/2007 10:57:03 AM

I've always thought of it as some form of energy that we've not explored yet. I don't know exactly how I feel about its continuation or whatnot but I do tend to believe that it's likely it either finds a new place to go (a la reincarnation) or simply is expended somehow.

5/18/2007 10:59:31 AM

^^ this is true, but can we proove that consciousness is contained within the boundries of the mind? A lot of people have premonitions, psychic stuff, strange mental abilities of a malfunctioning brain. Could it be possible that our brain is more like a TV antenna picking up a signal and allowing our body to use it, rather than the be-all end-all of consciousness?

[Edited on May 18, 2007 at 11:01 AM. Reason : arrow]

5/18/2007 11:00:33 AM

Quote :

"The human brain is a system of cellular functions and neurochemical interactions. That description does not explain Human consciousness, a capacity that far exceeds neural functions."

Your starting point is not necessarily correct, and I would certainly argue that it is incorrect.

5/18/2007 11:24:18 AM

^ how so?

5/18/2007 11:25:49 AM

^ The soul perhaps?

Quote :

"the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part."

I think the soul is the entity that will ultimately defy science. Think of robots or other similar types of machines: Eventually--and sooner than some may think--we will have created machines that can mimic human thought and emotion to the smallest detail, but such abilities don’t mean that the robot can truly think or emote. And even as we reach for a type of immortality through human "memory downloading" and the transfer of that memory into newly cloned bodies, I believe the soul will be the transfer that eludes us.

BTW, my position is not based on any particular religion or dogma. It is simply a feeling.



[Edited on May 18, 2007 at 11:55 AM. Reason : .]

5/18/2007 11:32:46 AM

Quote :

"A lot of people have premonitions, psychic stuff, strange mental abilities of a malfunctioning brain."

None of this has ever been proven, and I would wager any serious attempt has even failed.

5/18/2007 11:48:55 AM

Quote :

"but such abilities don’t mean that the robot can truly think or emote"

If emotions are nothing more than combinations of chemicals in the brain as a reaction to external stimuli, what differentiates them from a program designed to elicit certain reactions from a robot when faced with the same stimuli? Yes we can "feel" things but that is essntially our body informing us of the outside world.

I'm not saying that this IS the case, but how do you draw the line?

5/18/2007 12:16:04 PM

Quote :

"we will have created machines that can mimic human thought and emotion to the smallest detail, but such abilities don’t mean that the robot can truly think or emote."

Why not?

5/18/2007 12:18:17 PM

^^ and ^ The soul. Yes, we can see the dendrites firing at the synapses and have some understanding of many of the chemical processes of the brain. But what makes us think the thought? What makes us feel the feeling?

The soul is the true consciousness. Without it, we would be nothing more than a highly complex grouping of molecules--much like a virus. These are just my thoughts on the subject; I don't much care whether anyone agrees or disagrees.

[Edited on May 18, 2007 at 12:39 PM. Reason : .]

5/18/2007 12:38:46 PM

I think what many people refer to as the "soul" is actually our consciousness, which is why I made this thread. Consciousness cannot be completely explained, and has no reason to evolve.


Also, about the memory downloading, that would be pointless, as the second body would have its own consciousness.

5/18/2007 12:44:02 PM

^ Clifford Pickover, PhD, says different.

http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/home.htm

Quote :

"He received his Ph.D. from Yale University's Department of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry. Pickover graduated first in his class from Franklin and Marshall College, after completing the four-year undergraduate program in three years. He is currently a Research Staff Member at the IBM T. J. Watson Research Center."

Quote :

"He is currently an associate editor for the scientific journal Computers and Graphics and is an editorial board member for Odyssey and Leonardo. He is also the Brain-Strain columnist for Odyssey magazine, and, for many years, he was the Brain-Boggler columnist for Discover magazine."

Quote :

"He is the author of over thirty books on such topics as computers and creativity, art, mathematics, black holes, human behavior and intelligence, time travel, alien life, and science fiction. Pickover is an inventor with dozens of patents, the author of puzzle calendars, and puzzle contributor to magazines geared to children and adults. His Neoreality science-fiction series explores the fabric of reality and religion. His books have been translated into French, Greek, Italian, German, Japanese, Portuguese, Chinese, Korean, Polish, Spanish and Turkish."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_A._Pickover

But I'm sure he's still not smart enough for know-it-all T-dubbers.

V His new book The Heaven Virus, which relates to much of this discussion and is science-based.








[Edited on May 18, 2007 at 1:00 PM. Reason : .]

5/18/2007 12:47:52 PM

^ what am I looking for, there?

5/18/2007 12:50:22 PM

Quote :

"Mr E Nigma:The human brain is a system of cellular functions and neurochemical interactions. That description does not explain Human consciousness, a capacity that far exceeds neural functions." spöokyjon: Your starting point is not necessarily correct, and I would certainly argue that it is incorrect."

i completely agree with spookyjon. that was my first reaction too. This is how religious people start their arguments (not claiming you are one of them, but it's a similar strategy): make a false or dubious claim ("human consciousness car exceeds neural functions"), declare it as fact, then seek a supernatural explanation, when a perfectly reasonable solution or theory is possible without breaking the known laws of physics. Then, if a reasonable explanation is not currently available through the use of science (how consciousness formed, what happened before the big bang, etc), claim that there is no possible way to ever know that or find a solution, and hold the supernatural explanation as superior to the ongoing scientific inquiry.

5/18/2007 1:47:37 PM

Quote :

"Consciousness cannot be completely explained, and has no reason to evolve."

You think consciousness has had no reason to evolve? Really?

You mean we as humans, the only species on this earth with a conscious, the only species that is aware of its own existence and its eminent death, are no better off than the other 1.8 million species who have not evolved consciousness?
Well, that verges on a philosophical discussion on whether we actually are better off than the other species who simply survive day to day without the stress of making money, living with a family, having a job, etc, but that is neither here nor there.....

but you don't think that having a conscious has not served an evolutionary purpose, or at least aided with natural selection, in humans becoming the single dominant species in the world?

5/18/2007 1:54:30 PM

Quote :

"Could it be possible that our brain is more like a TV antenna picking up a signal and allowing our body to use it, rather than the be-all end-all of consciousness?"

you're close.

Quote :

"the only species that is aware of its own existence and its eminent death"

you're incorrect there. many species realize they're going to die.

5/18/2007 1:59:58 PM

^^^ I am not religious. I am pretty much an athiest, actually. But I find the science of consciousness interesting.

^^ What I meant for consciousness not having to evolve is that it doesnt seem to have to adapt to an enviornment. Every other peice of the body is there to serve a physical function, consciousness (and I'm not talking about primal instincts here, but rather the ability to question ones own existance) doesnt seem like it would be a necessary evolutionary step.


Like I said, I dont believe in Jesus or any of that bullshit, so I am just open to discussing the oddities of human consciousness/thought.

[Edited on May 18, 2007 at 2:03 PM. Reason : ^]

5/18/2007 2:03:34 PM

^^ such as?
if we know that, and it's proven, that's cool.
but don't tell me a rat is self-aware and knows he's going to die just because he goes and lies down in a dark corner when he feels bad, before he dies.
I think there are a lot of animals who do certain things before death, that either come naturally to them, or they've seen others do it or something. But I think to be fully aware of impending death, especially when it's not eminent, requires consciousness. That is, I think only humans are aware when they are, for example, 20 years old, that yes, they will die sometime. I don't think any other animal can appreciate that. They might make preparations when they feel they are about to die, but I seriously doubt they are thinking in their little animal brains "oh no, woe is me, I am about to suffle off this mortal coil. I wonder what will happen to me after I die". In fact, I know other animals don't think that, because to think in terms of "I" and "me", by definition, requires a conscious.

[Edited on May 18, 2007 at 2:06 PM. Reason : .]

5/18/2007 2:06:16 PM

^ but would we know we were going to die if we had never experienced/been told of death before?


say you were born, kept in a room without contact with humans or animals for 20 years. you were handed food through a slit in the wall....


would you be aware you were going to die?

5/18/2007 2:08:07 PM

Quote :

"doesnt seem like it would be a necessary evolutionary step."

i'm not sure about that either. I'm not an evolutionary biologist, or a philosopher or anything, but I would bet that to evolve past a certain point (say, using basic tools and living in caves), a conscious might be necessary. Do you think that humans could really have accomplished all we have without evolving a conscious first? I mean, again, by definition, we could not be having this discussion without consciousness. Talking on the computer is not an evolutionary necessity, but everything in the past millions of years has been leading up to this point, and I'm willing to bet that with every new or higher level of consciousness a species can achieve, the more successful he can be in surviving. (i'm going stream of conscious here. no pun intended.) It seems to me that the innate awareness that you will die at some point in the future would have been a huge evolutionary break through and advantage for the first homo-species that realized it. Once you are fully self-aware, you start to attempt to control your destiny and those of people or other beings around you. Again, that seems like a vital evolutionary step for humans to get where we are today.

5/18/2007 2:14:04 PM

i doubt they think what will happen to me when i die, but i feel for sure they know they will die. look at any animal when it notices danger approaching on discovery channel. why does a lion's prey run away, unless they know something fucking awful is going to happen to them otherwise. if they had no abiilty to think they would look and say, "hey that lion sure is coming over here fast, oh well, i'm sure its nothing" but no this isn't what happens. animals will run as fast as they can and climb in trees waiting for their predators to go away just so they can live another day. animals do have a sense of death.

5/18/2007 2:14:56 PM

^ Good point

^^ also a good point.



I think its possible that consciousness might actually be at a higher level, but its "dumbed down" by being in a physical body.

5/18/2007 2:19:31 PM

^^ That's not necessarily because they're "aware" of death, though. There is a huge evolutionary advantage for being able to recognize mortal threats and then being able to avoid them. Antelope who see the lion and just sit there will surely get eaten, thus preventing their genes from being passed on to the next generation. So there is necessarily a constant selective pressure for animals to avoid death. Those that avoid death will live long enough to pass on their genes, and those that do not...well, you get the point. But as far as I know, basic instincts such as that do not constitute consciousness or an awareness of mortality as you and I understand it.

5/18/2007 2:24:27 PM

Quote :

" say you were born, kept in a room without contact with humans or animals for 20 years. you were handed food through a slit in the wall.... would you be aware you were going to die?"

no idea....
i guess that would be a question for an evolutionary biologist or something, about how innate a consciousness actually is, or if it has to be formed via social interaction. maybe humans are the only species that have the ability to form a consciousness, given the right developmental circumstances. But I think you're right - just being born human doesn't give you innate knowledge about your sense of self. It has something to do with maturing process.

5/18/2007 2:27:40 PM

Quote :

"if they had no abiilty to think they would look and say, "hey that lion sure is coming over here fast, oh well, i'm sure its nothing" but no this isn't what happens. animals will run as fast as they can and climb in trees waiting for their predators to go away just so they can live another day. animals do have a sense of death"

as umbrellaman said, I think you basically just described the process of Natural Selection.
I guess it's just a fine line, then, where Survival of the Fittest "ends" and Consciousness begins.

5/18/2007 2:31:14 PM

Quote :

"The soul. Yes, we can see the dendrites firing at the synapses and have some understanding of many of the chemical processes of the brain. But what makes us think the thought? What makes us feel the feeling? "

How do you know it's the soul? What is a "soul" anyway? How does this soul interact with the brain? Why is it if I were to cut out part of my brain, the "soul" seems to change? Why are some people born with seemingly deficient soul? Your "the soul is the answer" hypothesis doesn't seem to be too sound with what we know about how the brain works.

Quote :

"The soul is the true consciousness. Without it, we would be nothing more than a highly complex grouping of molecules--much like a virus. These are just my thoughts on the subject; I don't much care whether anyone agrees or disagrees."

What is a soul?

Quote :

"why does a lion's prey run away, unless they know something fucking awful is going to happen to them otherwise. if they had no abiilty to think they would look and say, "hey that lion sure is coming over here fast, oh well, i'm sure its nothing" but no this isn't what happens. animals will run as fast as they can and climb in trees waiting for their predators to go away just so they can live another day. animals do have a sense of death."

I do believe that many animals have a type of consciousness, but just because they run from danger doesn't show this. Recognizing and retreating from danger can be modeled with a simple feedback loop.

I don't think there is one, good set definition of consciousness, but it you want to reduce it to a very highly complex set of feedback loops that are also affected by the probabilities of the physics/chemistry that control our brain, I think that's acceptable, and would account for why consciousness might seem mystical.

[Edited on May 18, 2007 at 4:59 PM. Reason : ]

5/18/2007 4:52:38 PM

definitely a topic that fascinates me

5/18/2007 5:14:59 PM

There's only one conscious creature on the planet. I'm that creature.

The all y'all are faking.

5/18/2007 5:32:58 PM

agentlion, "conscious" is not a noun. It is an adjective. thank you

5/18/2007 8:09:47 PM

Quote :

"I think what many people refer to as the "soul" is actually our consciousness"

I'd buy that.

Quote :

" The word "soul" did not exist in the times of Jesus, Socrates or Aristotle, and so the quotations, interpretations and translations of the word "soul" from these sources, means that the word should be handled very carefully. One might go as far as saying that the word "soul", in the sense we use it today, did not exist in Hebrew or Aramaic, but it existed in Greek[citation needed]. Ancient Greeks typically referred to the soul as psyche (as in modern English psychology). Aristotle's works in Latin translation, used the word anima (as in animated). In the New Testament, the original Greek word used is "Psyche" which in Ancient and Modern Greek means soul: "For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" (Matthew 16:26) The Latin root of the related word spirit, like anima, also expresses the idea of "breath". Likewise, the Biblical Hebrew word for 'soul' is nephesh, meaning life, or vital breath. The various origins and usages demonstrate not only that what people call "soul" today has varied in meaning throughout history, but that the word and concept themselves have changed in their implications. "

-wiki

Words that mean breathing, or ability to move, and things like that have been re-envisioned as having meant something magical like a soul that extends beyond death as needed to fit in with whatever the most recent trends in the reading of scripture are.

Strictly I have to be agnostic towards that idea of the soul, as one must be with anything that isn’t falsifiable, but in practice I don’t really believe in ‘em. There's no reason to believe the essence of a person can survive the structure that formed it being broken, any more than to believe a broken lightbulb gives off light in another realm.

5/18/2007 9:00:29 PM

Man, everyone in here sounds like they live the most boring and passionless lives in the world. Step out on a limb a little. Loosen up. You look a little stiff there guys.

Personally, I believe our consciousness could definately be our "soul". In the same way, I believe we LOVE for reasons more than just because "my brain signals said that I should take care of this other living character because they are beneficial to my survival". Or, I think we have a sense of HOPE for more than just because "if I believe I can get out of this situation, I might be able to live a longer and more pleasurable life". And lastly, I HIGHLY doubt that BELIEVING that NC State will be able to pull off a great season next year is part of some special chemical and psychological reaction.

Yes, animals my experience a lot of the same feelings we do, but I think that has to do with the fact that we are both living beings and share some types of behaviors. If you want to use that argument then technically plants are "living" creatures. They react with certain behaviors to their enviroment, but I have a hard time believing that they have a consciousness.

You may think it sounds naive, but I think it's more ignorant to think otherwise.

[Edited on May 18, 2007 at 10:42 PM. Reason : smile, frown, laugh, cry, burn with passion... etc...]

5/18/2007 10:41:45 PM

Quote :

"And lastly, I HIGHLY doubt that BELIEVING that NC State will be able to pull off a great season next year is part of some special chemical and psychological reaction."

Eh, that one's pretty simple. We want our tribe to beat the other tribes. A caveman could understand the sentiment.

5/18/2007 11:14:56 PM

Quote :

"Man, everyone in here sounds like they live the most boring and passionless lives in the world. Step out on a limb a little. Loosen up. You look a little stiff there guys."

So basically we're crazy for refusing to believe in something that we cannot detect or quantify in any way? We should "step out on a limb" and believe in something for which there is no empirical evidence? Okay dude, keep drinking the kool-aid.

Just because you accept the world for what it is (matter obeying the fundamental laws of physics and undergoing various chemical reactions and ultimately giving rise to biological structures) does not mean that your life is somehow boring or pointless. You've fallen into the trap that religions have laid out for you, that your life is somehow meaningless without a deity overseeing your every move. But what if you could explain all of the things around you without having to resort to a deity? If everything in the universe has a natural cause and explanation, why add unnecessary complexity and say "god did it?"

Anyone can just make up some shit about an invisible sky pixie and then label it as truth, but it takes discipline to make impartial observations and conduct controlled experiments about how the universe works. If you can put in the necessary amount of work, you will see that the universe is a fascinating place all on its own, without the need to resort to using magic as an explanation.

I could write more, but I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

5/18/2007 11:45:06 PM

Eh, the way the universe works is very, very strangely.

Just look at quantum physics.

http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/11/4/14

5/19/2007 12:00:45 AM

Quote :

"How do you know it's the soul? What is a 'soul' anyway? How does this soul interact with the brain? Why is it if I were to cut out part of my brain, the 'soul' seems to change? Why are some people born with seemingly deficient soul? Your 'the soul is the answer' hypothesis doesn't seem to be too sound with what we know about how the brain works."

moron

Don't you just believe anything? Do you require proof of everything in life? If so, I'll wager that you are continually disappointed. I mean, if I asked you to think of the person that you love most dearly in this world and then I asked you to prove that love, how would you go about it?

NB: And for the love of God/god (pun intended), I am not referring to religious faith in any of this!

PS: These are just my thoughts on the subject; I don't much care whether anyone agrees or disagrees.

5/19/2007 12:25:49 AM

Quote :

"Don't you just believe anything? Do you require proof of everything in life? "

Absolutely not. But I don't see why you believe there is actually a soul, when a soul (at least, what I think you think a soul is) doesn't seem to be logically compatible with what we know about how our brains/bodies/physics works.

This is not about proof, it's about logic. There are models of how a soul could work that would fit logically with what we know. But those models would necessitate removing a special meaning of the word "soul" which would make it pointless to argue for the existence of a soul anyway.

Quote :

"I mean, if I asked you to think of the person that you love most dearly in this world and then I asked you to prove that love, how would you go about it? "

By showing how I treat that person differently than other people. The concept of love is largely dependent on the respective society though.


[Edited on May 19, 2007 at 12:30 AM. Reason : ]

5/19/2007 12:27:28 AM

Quote :

"I believe we LOVE for reasons more than just because "my brain signals said that I should take care of this other living character because they are beneficial to my survival". Or, I think we have a sense of HOPE for more than just because "if I believe I can get out of this situation, I might be able to live a longer and more pleasurable life". And lastly, I HIGHLY doubt that BELIEVING that NC State will be able to pull off a great season next year is part of some special chemical and psychological reaction."

It's fine for you to believe that, but if you want to discuss it, you should be able to defend why you think that belief is rational, or worth holding over a naturalist (or any other type) belief.

I don't believe your view is rational. You can take certain drugs that alter your perceptions of love or hope. To me, that implies that those emotions are based solely on chemicals in your brain, not some supernatural element like a soul.

5/19/2007 12:33:57 AM

Quote :

"So basically we're crazy for refusing to believe in something that we cannot detect or quantify in any way?"

Yes... in a way. You're crazy if your mindset is 'gotta see to believe'. Not even 5 gazillion years from now will you see, understand, detect, or quantify your life. If you do figure it all out, then please resurrect me from the dead (i.e. clone me) and let me know. Our existance extends beyond that of time and space.

I don't see how religion or talk of deity came into conversation, but put all those science, thoery, religious, and theology books on the shelf and just take a good look at yourself in the mirror. Then, go and spend some time with a loved one. Then go outside and take a deep breath. You can go back to your books and study materials later. This has nothing to do with either.

Honestly, no one really lives the 'gotta it see to believe it' attitude to it's full definition. We all believe a lot of things we don't ever see or experience. It's just the prideful wolfweb game face that people put on to try to make their points. Everyone has a deep understanding within them that says life is more important than just a methodological seqeunce of events. Would you agree? If you don't then let me ask, what do you gain by quantifying things in life? By your pursuit of quantification, you are in a sense trying to determine what more there is to this methodological sequence called "life". And you would have produced an oxymoron.

Belief is for the religious, agnostic, atheist, and mentally insane. If you don't think people should believe in things they don't see, but why you go and believe that we are but manifestations of our enviromental events. Did you see these manisfestations occur before your eyes? Maybe, maybe not. Do religious peopel believe in the things they do because the see it happen before their eyes? Maybe, maybe not. It's this concept of belief and faith that we all have inherently as human beings. It's something I don't think any other living creature on earth has. It's something that I think extends past detection and quantification. And going bttt, the same goes for consciousness. And for love. And for joy. And for pride. And for hate. And fill in the blank.

Quote :

"I don't believe your view is rational. You can take certain drugs that alter your perceptions of love or hope. To me, that implies that those emotions are based solely on chemicals in your brain, not some supernatural element like a soul."

Emotions have a lot to do with "soul". I'm not sure what kind of drugs you're talking about, but I don't see how drugs can change how you love/hope/etc...

Example:
Today, I hope to get a good job
*pop some drugs*
Now, I hope to not get a job

Is that they way the drugs work? If so, then they aren't really altering love or hope. You're just altering out how you implement your love/hope/etc... Now, if you really love your wife, took a drug, and it made you really hate your wife, then that's a powerful drug. But, still that doesn't change how the emotion of love works. It's still love/hate. We need to feed love pills to some of these jihad terrorits if that drug exists.

[Edited on May 19, 2007 at 1:17 AM. Reason : more]

5/19/2007 12:51:54 AM

Quote :

"But I don't see why you believe there is actually a soul, when a soul (at least, what I think you think a soul is) doesn't seem to be logically compatible with what we know about how our brains/bodies/physics works."

moron

And therein lies the paradox. Can you not see this, at least?

Everyone from Crete is a liar. I am from Crete.

5/19/2007 1:12:59 AM

Quote :

" And therein lies the paradox. Can you not see this, at least? "

Unless you're trying to say that a soul is beyond the reach of science/logic/philosophy and therefore can't be evaluated from this perspective, then I don't get what you're trying to say.

If that's what you're trying to say though, then the problem with that reasoning is that it's impossible to convey to others why you feel that way, and therefore it's impossible to convince others that you're right. Which means that as far as i'm concerned, you're wrong, and that as far as you're concerned, that's well and good because you have no way to prove that you're right, because what/why a soul is can't be discussed based on what we as humans are able to perceive with our 5 senses or our thoughts.

It's fine for you to feel that way, but then you really have no place in this discussion.

Quote :

"Now, if you really love your wife, took a drug, and it made you really hate your wife, then that's a powerful drug. But, still that doesn't change how the emotion of love works. "

It doesn't change how it works, but it indicates that there is a physical/chemical basis for love.


[Edited on May 19, 2007 at 1:45 AM. Reason : ]

5/19/2007 1:28:38 AM

^

Quote :

"It's fine for you to feel that way, but then you really have no place in this discussion."

moron

Because I can't prove what I believe? Will you STFU, please? You have proved nothing here concerning the topic at issue and you cannot--the best you can do is offer bits of evidence here and there.

Please, moron, enlighten us with your explanation of the mind-body-soul enigma (pun intended) in one thread or less--you know, for us uneducated folk. After centuries of debate by some of the greatest minds ever, it's good to know that somebody has this whole mystery figured out--and it was solved on T-dub. Who would have thought it?!

PS: I'll decide where my place is in discussions.

5/19/2007 2:18:25 AM

Quote :

"Because I can't prove what I believe? Will you STFU, please? "

I'm repeating what you yourself said, dumbass.

5/19/2007 2:53:39 AM

^ Piss off.



My soul directed me to do that--feels good.

[Edited on May 19, 2007 at 3:52 AM. Reason : .]

5/19/2007 3:49:26 AM

Quote :

"You're crazy if your mindset is 'gotta see to believe'."

You mind trying to explain why you think this is so instead of just stating it as fact?

Quote :

"I don't see how religion or talk of deity came into conversation, but put all those science, thoery, religious, and theology books on the shelf and just take a good look at yourself in the mirror. Then, go and spend some time with a loved one. Then go outside and take a deep breath. You can go back to your books and study materials later. This has nothing to do with either."

Let's see; you believe in something without any compelling evidence or justification. In other words, you have faith. Hmm, sounds an awful like religion to me.

Quote :

"Honestly, no one really lives the 'gotta it see to believe it' attitude to it's full definition. We all believe a lot of things we don't ever see or experience."

Fine, nobody claims to fully understand everything. But you don't have to know everything, that's what specialization is for. I have very simplistic knowledge of how my car works, but I don't really deep down understand it fully. But I don't have to, I just have to know how to operate it, and I can safely assume that a car mechanic will know enough about it to fix my car if it gets broken. There's no "belief" required in order for my car to work, you can see with your own eyes that it works. You don't have to "believe" in anything, be it cars or quantum mechanics, but you can probably trust the people who have dwelled on it for much longer than you have to know what they're talking about.

It's not about faith, it's about trusting others to know how to do their job. It's not faith because given enough time you could learn the same material that the experts have mastered and arrive at the same conclusions. Faith requires that you believe in it no matter what, even when everything else says it's wrong. But you could take just about any field of science in existence and go see it for yourself. If you don't believe it, go and do math yourself. And if you come to a different conclusion, you compare your answers with everyone else's. If you made a mistake, then you know that they are right, but if you caught something that they didn't, then new knowledge has been gained. So given that specialists can usually be trusted to be competent in their work, it's not a leap of faith at all for me to "believe" them when they say that something is so.

Quote :

"[W]hat do you gain by quantifying things in life?"

It's not so much about "quantifying life" as it is about gaining a deeper understanding of the world around us. Somebody started with the question "how does the human body work?" So then they cut open cadavers and observed that there were organs, each one performing a specific function. So then they asked "how do the organs work?" With the invention of the microscope they were able to see that everything in the body is made up of cells, and that protein synthesis by the cells was responsible for pretty much all of our bodily functions. So then they asked "how does the cell make these proteins?" They looked further down and discovered that proteins are transcribed from the cell's own DNA. And then they asked "how does this DNA work? If we change these particular base pairs, what will be the result?"

But I think you get the idea. The pursuit of knowledge is recursive; you start out with a particular phenomenon, and then you ask "how does this work?" You then look for the underlying causes and mechanisms, and then see if those have any causes and mechanisms of their own. Peeling back layer by layer, you understand. And if the knowledge gained from one field happens to agree with or reinforce the results in other fields, then that explanation gains credibility.

Quote :

"By your pursuit of quantification, you are in a sense trying to determine what more there is to this methodological sequence called "life". And you would have produced an oxymoron."

How is it an oxymoron? Humans are a very curious creature. They like to see how things work, see if there's a discernible pattern to something. Much of that has to do with the fact that the human brain is basically a very dedicated patten-recognition computer. But that same sense of curiosity is confusing you somewhat. You're looking for a pattern where there is none.

5/19/2007 5:13:09 PM

Quote :

"Let's see; you believe in something without any compelling evidence or justification. In other words, you have faith. Hmm, sounds an awful like religion to me."

Huh? You're trying a little hard there. Seems like you've construed your definition of faith by your particular view on religion. I'm assuming you don't enjoy religion too much, but that's beside the point. Don't mess up trivial definitions of words here. Faith is nothing more than believing without seeing. Look it up in a dictionary. And you've already agreed that you yourself believe without seeing.

Quote :

"I just have to know how to operate it, and I can safely assume that a car mechanic will know enough about it to fix my car if it gets broken... You don't have to "believe" in anything, be it cars or quantum mechanics, but you can probably trust the people who have dwelled on it for much longer than you have to know what they're talking about."

And that's where you go wrong. You're analogy focuses on the results, which is not what you should be concerned about. Results are dependant on your initial "faith" in the mechanic. So, faith in results is purely redundant. You have to "believe" that the mechanic will be able to fix your car. That's where faith is implemented, not during the results. Admit it. You're a believer.

And yes, religious people trust the people who have dwelled on it for much longer than them to know what they are talking about as well.

In the end, you have to succumb to the fact that all humans live by faith. All humans love. All humans hate. All humans (fill in the blank with emotion).

Quote :

"It's not so much about "quantifying life" as it is about gaining a deeper understanding of the world around us."

You're starting to understand. Why do you think religious people believe what they do? They follow a particular religion in search of a deeper meaning for the world around them. The pursuit of knowledge in a particular religion is also recursive; you start out with a particular phenomenon, and then you ask "why does this work?" You then look for the underlying causes and mechanisms of that belief and see if it lines up with things in life. If it does, then that explaination gains credibility to them.

Yes, some religious people follow "blindly" as many labele them. But, non-relgious people follow just as "blindly", believing in so called scientists (who also base a lot of their findings on other scientists who believe in other scientists). Po-ta-toe or Po-tah-toe? But, I'm not bashing anyone for following "blindly". It's fine for people to have faith. That's the great thing about life.

You try to seperate your type of faith from the religious type of faith, but in the end, it's still faith. The same exact "emotion", just being inacted in different ways.

Quote :

"How is it an oxymoron? Humans are a very curious creature... Much of that has to do with the fact that the human brain is basically a very dedicated patten-recognition computer. But that same sense of curiosity is confusing you somewhat. You're looking for a pattern where there is none."

Oxymoron because you say you DON'T "believe", but then you have to search because you DO "believe" and you really really DON'T want to "believe". Follow me? And you just made another oxymoron in your last three sentences.

Ultimately, you should understand that we all have the same emotions, feelings, experiences (not sure what else to call it).

[Edited on May 19, 2007 at 8:36 PM. Reason : *wink*]

5/19/2007 8:34:46 PM

Quote :

"But, non-relgious people follow just as "blindly", believing in so called scientists (who also base a lot of their findings on other scientists who believe in other scientists). Po-ta-toe or Po-tah-toe? But, I'm not bashing anyone for following "blindly". It's fine for people to have faith. That's the great thing about life."

People blindly following a religion and people blindly following a scientist are drastically different.

A scientist could tell you that stuff falls at 9.8m/s2 and you might believe him blindly because he's a scientist. That is faith. But, at any point in time you can conduct an experiment to test his hypothesis. This extends to all fields of science, but the amount of learning you would have to do changes greatly depending on what you're testing. But, you always have the potential to test that for yourself, to make it not blind faith anymore.

With religion, this is not possible. You either must experience something religious for yourself, or follow blindly. I can believe my pastor when he says he talks to god, but that's just blind faith completely. There's nothing definitive I can do to talk to god that would allow me to understand what my pastor means. That's completely blind.

So, I don't think you can say religious people and non-religious people follow "just as" blindly as each other.

5/19/2007 10:37:50 PM

the first time i looked in here i thought to myself word.

now i look and i just think words

5/21/2007 3:12:59 PM

i wish all you dumb motherfuckers would slip on a time portal and land in tower 2

5/21/2007 3:19:30 PM

STFU Earl

5/21/2007 3:27:12 PM