- Nehemia Moscovitz
- New York, NY
- United States
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
The bottom line is rooted in the physical and NOT in the spiritual.
The debate between those who hail spiritual existence as the source of the universe, hence promoting religious fervor for the faithful masses, and those who strip reality of the magic of faith, and submit to the dry, factual, scientific physical nature of reality, is generations old. This debate affects the majority of aspects of modern civilization, as its fallouts impact the path of our civilization's progress. Yet as evidence is gathered and compiled to prove AND EDUCATE about reality, it becomes evident that FAITH is secondary to KNOWLEDGE, and that SCIENCE precedes RELIGION, and that HOPE can and should be a matter of real prospect based on calculated input. Faith and ceremony as means for comforting and consoling, of easing the pain of troubled souls, and for organizing an orchestrated pattern of tradition, of imagining a supreme parent figure who bears the real responsibility in a divine form etc... All these are constructs of the human mind. The mind, however, is a contruct of chemical and physical building blocks. Can anyone prove otherwise, without resorting to faith?
Stephen Lewis
And No ""sudden explosion of light "" this would not be evidence of her love. Loyalty, honesty, understanding, these are evidence of love and this evidence is discovered over time and shared experiences together.
Nope. I have absolutely no idea what love is, as it takes many forms. I do know that when I see something I "love", I have a warm, tingly sensation inside my body. I believe (not know) that this sensation comes from the same place that interprets all my sensations. The neurological system.
""if this is all so physical and material, how come science can tell us THAT we think but not WHAT we think? (and please do not say 'Well, give them time'
Even a lie-detector is not based on our thoughts but how our body reacts to them.""
Science does not tell me THAT we think. I am thinking, that's what tells me that we think. Why would I be interested in science telling me what I think? I already know what I think. and That's right, a lie detector does not detect the lie, it detects your heart rate (and other stuff above my knowledge level), which is a physical response to the question being asked.
In the long run, my disbelief in religion or supernatural is based on the fact that the origins of our religious beliefs are very dubious and filled with many culturally based superstitions.
Peter Law 50+
Let's forget the spiritual altogether. As you link to Mr. Berry's animations, you obviously find them as wonderful as I do. These are physical systems, nothing spiritual about them. Science is rooted in the reality we can test, & see around us. I have spent a large part of my life designing engineering solutions to problems. what we see in these animations are engineering solutions par excellence. They are astounding by our standards. They did not get there by the blind forces of nature. It is amazing that they survive the rigours of decay we are all susceptible to; this is only down to all the built in safety, & self maintenance, well beyond anything we could manufacture today.
So we fish around for an answer to where all this came from. There is nothing out there building & programming this sort of stuff today. There is no experiment we can do that would give us a clue. We are reduced to pulling things to bits & moving the bits around like children with a Lego set. Even if one day we crack it & produce life from a stone, what will we have proved ? "It takes intelligence to produce life." Spirituality (whatever that is) optional.
:-)
THULA NDLOVU
Julian Blanco 30+
Can you prove that? can you show us that spiritual element that we can't deny?
Thanks!
JB
Stephen Lewis
''WE CAN NEVER DENY THE EXISTANCE OF THE SPIRITUAL ELEMENT IN THE WORLD, ""
Since evidence is necessary in order to draw a conclusion about anything, then I can neither accept nor deny a spiritual element. I am saying I can not know. You seem to be saying that somehow, you do know.
Stephen Lewis
Your comment is exactly why I need science s explanation. You move freely through words and because they make sense to you, you think your words are truth and fact. We all speak from the position of (I am right), even though I know that some of the things I believe are incorrect. At least admit that you may be incorrect about your beliefs.
""The plant has something different than the stone. It is alive. It grows.""
Dirt, essentially the building block of stones, has more microbial life in a shovel scoop than there are people on this planet. The stone, to me, is just like our own skeletal system. It provides a structure on which the more fleshy systems operate. Are you suggesting the skeletal system may not be alive? I hope not.
""Mankind is different than the stone, the plant and the animal. We have the material element. We have the life element. We have feelings as well. What we have over and above these first three things is self-consciousness and thinking.""
You have to get in back of the line of people trying to tell me what animal has "consciousness" or not. Really well trained scientists, in all fields, and the religions have been discussing "consciousness" for a very long time, and a conclusion is not drawn.
I think it is safe to say that humans have an ability to recognize patterns. If you are thinking of an elephant with polka dots, you are merely placing a pattern over an already existing form. It's called absurdity and it doesn't make that elephant or the idea real. We need this type of ability in order to survive in a constantly changing environment. (Evolution) Although I as well think that our ability to think and create is astonishing, I do not "guild the lily" by adding some unobservable outside force and then use empty arguments as proof.
(" it doesn't make that elephant or the idea real.") The electrical contacts, the chemical exchanges, even thought itself is very real and can be used in some way, but not the polka dotted elephant.
daniel hehir 20+
Observation and thinking are the simple tool to gain knowledge. I am all for the scientific method. .. never said otherwise.
Agree on the fact that dirt is full of bacteria. A stone however is still not alive. The mineral element is lifeless. Bacteria of course is alive but they are not the mineral either. They are also sharing the living, reproducing, growing forces that make them different than the mineral. As plant, as animal, as mankind also is. Bones are also "alive" of course. But they do heal far more slowly than skin for example. Nerves are also slower to heal which might suggest that nerves are less "alive" than blood or muscle tissue. Its a question of degrees. As a child heals faster than an old person. There is a strong "living activity" going on.
If anyone tries to tell you that consciousness does not exist, then ask them how thinking exists. You cannot deny your own thinking activity. That would be a fatal contradiction. We think... and our consciousness is the stage where we think. It is also the stage where our feelings arise. Feelings that we can analyze with our.... once again... thinking !! ... although you may not be very "conscious" of it.
As for the patterns of already existing forms. Of course we build our thoughts upon existing patterns... all the time. But there must also be new ideas that come into being.. otherwise there would be no development in the world, things would be extremely simple. Observations taken up in our thinking activity makes new inventions, new theories to work out, new areas of exploration.Of course, the fact that I can put two or more already existing concepts together doesn't make the idea "real" I never claimed that either. But through the nature of our thinking we are ...taking part... in a creative process in the world.
kerry emmerson
There is a distiction and a seperation of two things, that are part of a whole, made by most when looking for an answer to a very big question.The physical and the spiritual.
Some have taken it further and called them religion and science. Science studies the physical and does it very well.. Religion is supposed to study spirtualism but so far as I am concerned, is doing a poor job of it. I think religion is, or has been made into by mans greed,a farce and fundementally evil. How can someone try to sell me their GOD , (who is BTW not for sale), in order to better his own cause for whatever reason?
The combination of spiritual and physical is LIFE. Life is not one without the other. The harmonious entwinement of the physical matter that our bodies are made of and the spark of light within us that is spirit, is the most dramatic and wonderful thing in the universe. Kinda like a car that without gasoline, will not drive or a machine without electricity will not function, our bodies would not be without the addition and complete intermingling of a spiritual force.
How could a book be so useful and powerful a thing that it is, if it were just pages of paper, without a written language written on those pages?
There is no way that the thoughts and feelings I experience in this life of mine, are the product of a piece of meat with blood rushing through it, alone.
My artwork and other things I create are testament to my being. What you see or feel when you behold that work is testament to our spirit. Without the universe we would not exist. Without us to behold it, the tapestry of celestial wonder we see when we gaze heavenward, would not exist. Embrace it. Feel it. There is always more to everything than meets the eye. If something is real, it is because you are witnessing it as being so.
It is great to be alive.
Md Santo
Yes, I’d like to tell you, God is exist.
There are key words describing human life preferences as living reality : the Physical Universe, the Inner Universe and the Divine Universe respectively
Look at URL http://bit.ly/s9ZNqR page 1 and page 3, all generated from the human life preferences just mentioned : the Physical Universe (obtained through “Thruth or Scientific-based”) – Inner Universe (obtained through “Knowledge-based”) – Divine Universe (obtained through “Belief or Faith-based”) respectively
Through our KV measurement ( URL http://bit.ly/s9ZNqR page 1 ), it means to assessing hypothetically the intensity of Nature Knowledge consciousness element factor within Knowledge continuum in the Universe all at once complementing Energy and Matter of the Universe. Knowledge Value (KV) measurement is an act to do what so called as “Renormalization”, (cited from Stephen Hawking, 2010), a mathematical technique designed to make sense of infinities in quantum theories.
It is noted there is an important evidence that “The function of Knowledge is to linking up Science (Physical Universe) with Religion (Divine Universe)”
If Divine Universe is the domain of spiritual activities, therefore I’m in agreement with Stephen Covey’s ....“We are not human beings on a spiritual journey. We are spiritual beings on a human journey.”
Nehemia Moscovitz
In fact, I am more convinced now that it would be a lot more beneficial, to say the least, to adopt the idea that if humanity is destined, wired, channelled to preceive divinity, why not than assume and apply that god is the sum of our sentience, therefore making each of us EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE.
Indeed, a novel concept, which many may suggest is already built into existing religions. However, we, the individual entities of this sentient hive, are still plagued with ungodly imperfections. We are driven to pursue dominance, to warfare, greedy to possess that which we cannot: EXCEED our MATTER, our physical being, defy the enthropy of our bodies, live after death... or in short: become perfect gods, conquer a perfect Olympus, and have fun forever.
Not gonna happen. Nah!
We should accept our transient existence, and make the best of it. For the sake or our descendants!
E G 10+
-your reason is : the mind is a physical building blocks and how the faith and the ceremony is a construction of mind , you conclude : the root of this all is the physical not the spiritual.
First : -I don't think your reason is correct because how the mind construct 'ideas' , you should get a logical relation between the physical and the spiritual , it meaning to answer to this question : how from physical appears the spiritual ?
Second:- the faith (if you talk about the process of believing) is not the construction of mind in the sense of being the invention of it , it's more likely to be a feature of the mind like is the reason .
- if by faith you mean a message , a sum of ideas you have to answer at my first on one hand ; on the other I can simply ask you : how do you know that the physical (therefore your mind) exist outside of the content of an idea ? because you think the physical therefore it is an idea .
Nehemia Moscovitz
this is intriguing, to say the least. I am going to study what you wrote, but I wanted to let you know that I am grateful for your contribution to my experience. You will hear from me soon enough.
Md Santo
Derived from our Human System Biology-based Knowledge Management (HSBKM) model framework, consciousness in broad meaning is the attribute of Knowledge which is priorly given broad meaning also. Knowledge itself as confirmed with its semantic, is the product of “knowing tools”.
.....Human Knowledge consist of 3 knowing tools. The first is Human Senses (Peripheral Nerves System incl. Autonomic Nerve System) as Primary Human Knowing Tools producing “Knowledge with Lower Consciousness” (KLC) representing human sense-taste-feeling-feel-flavor-sensation (= human senses). The second is Human Brain (Central Nerves System) as Secondary Human Knowing Tools producing “Knowledge with Medium Consciousness” (KMC) representing human reason-mind-intellect-intelligence-way-idea (= human mind). The third is Human Genomic DNA (DNA Consciousness) as Tertiary Human Knowing Tools producing “Knowledge with Higher Consciousness” (KHC) representing human will – desire – wish (= human conscience)...
Further, human Knowledge is the integral part of broad Nature Knowledge. Knowledge, either Human or Nature Knowledge by nature is dynamic entity continuum characterized as having consciousness element factor (CEF) structure.... http://bit.ly/s9ZNqR
We developed Knowledge Value (KV) measurement as KM metrics applied to Nature Knowledge continuum which is representing the Nature Consciousness as an absolute value scaling ratio ranging from 10 -38 (Planck number) applied to Knowon, our new proposed 5th fundamental force and consecutively KV = 5.0 applied to human Knowledge with Higher Consciousness (KHC) or accumulated to KV = 9.0 as human maximum possible score en route to infinity or goes beyond human KV. Therefore, KV is mean to assessing hypothetically the intensity of Nature Knowledge consciousness element factor within Knowledge continuum in the Universe.... http://t.co/7qHeHdJe
Nehemia Moscovitz
So... tell me bluntly: IS THERE GOD?
Patrick McCarthy
Consciousness is not in the brain, rather, I think the brain is in consciousness.
An example: a fish is in water, never aware that it is in a wet environment as we see it. We can be aware of being aware, and we call that conscious awareness, but we are under the impression that consciousness is in the brain because we think of consciousness as mental.
Stephen Lewis
'': a fish is in water, never aware that it is in a wet environment as we see it.''
You are actually telling me what a fish perceives and then basing your understanding on that fact. Your evidence is lacking reality.
Julian Blanco 30+
Break the brain and "consciousness" goes away, now break "consciousness".
Regards!
JB
FYI there are experiments with apes showing that they self conscious.
Patrick McCarthy
Patrick
Stephen Lewis
Consciousness cannot see, otherwise blindness would not be an issue. My body s sensory system has to be fully engaged in order for my consciousness to even participate. I believe consciousness is just the brain.
Henry Wilcox
Stephen Lewis
""I have my certain style and shapes, palette I stick to, and the images are what I appreciate from the past. The shapes and general style as well; I recognize it as just this language I have created over time,""
So I'm picking up some Eric Clapton songs and I'm just beginning to be aware of the fact that he uses the same chords or chord shapes in a majority of his songs, just as Carlos Santana dances around the same mode in different keys( I hope thats right. When they play, they are regurgitating sounds that they have appreciated from their past. When I play, it comes out as something I like to hear and it sounds a lot like them.
Guitar and I suppose all forms of creativity is a language complete with accents and punctuation. That's why we recognize these artists when we hear them before we are sure it is them.
I'm just babbling at this point but to me this observation has meaning on a larger scale about how the brain works and thus how we work.
Thank you for sharing. It's as if I were talking to the man behind the curtain, when I talk to someone about the mechanics of their creativity.
daniel hehir 20+
Now just what consciousness has to do with "spirit" we can come back to. But your thinking... on the stage of your consciousness is something that science has been struggling with for years and is still miles and miles away from an answer to this question. What is consciousness? What is thinking? Could these have anything to do with what we call "Spiritual"
Henry Wilcox
It is understood that 'typically perceived' artists want their work to have value, and so they HOPE at first, and finally CALCULATE their path towards the success. (What's the first step of a problem? GUESS→FAITH.) I think the most important way for this to happen is for all disciplines in the education system to have more open pathways between one another. One pathway that I noticed was what I stated before; that paintings, in particular, want to have some natural harmony which not only involves the shapes of color, but which extend outside the painting into our minds. I don't necessarily have faith that any work I create will inspire, but I keep it in mind. What I do firmly believe in, which is all generated through physical processes of the mind, is that my intuitive reflective process of painting will one day reflect something in the microscope. I constantly fantasize that one day a scientist will look into a microscope and not be reminded of a painting, but look into the microscope because a painting minded him to. Maybe one day it won't be ridiculous to consider abstract paintings as intuitively created diagrams of process that already exist, instead of disregarded as aesthetic nonsense.
'Visual art', where faith and intuition are bound by a fine line. As a proponent, I should reject the idea of a cycle where faith is omitted before any other product of the mind. If the mind is of physical matter, then it's products should be as well. But it is really the physical matter that is of the mind The next step in my contemplation, although characters running short, is to consider reforming our language to dismantle the negative context of having faith rather than debunking an ancient, atmospheric emotion
Stephen Lewis
This makes Art seem mechanistic but what this mind/body mechanism can do is nothing short of amazing.
Henry Wilcox
Again to the OP, faith is eternal, because it is a product of the mind, it is a product of the consciousness which goes beyond physical barriers. There IS existence beyond physicality, and not all science is based in material, as you have been taught; it is just simply not true. When there is only a recognition of physical material, there are infinite paradoxes that will occur, and you can doubt me, but there is a realm of the mind, the universal consciousness, the mind that is not of the brain but of the universe, which encapsulates all physical matter. You only recognize the physical mater because your mind lets you, because consciousness provides that opportunity, that chance, that possibility.
Stephen Lewis
Yes well I was originally asking you about your observations as a painter but then you went on to tell me about how I perceive creativity. O.K.
You make way to many claims about what IS to be correct about anything. The people at the leading edge of science or religion are having a difficult time with this question but you have the answer. MIT is looking for you dude.
daniel hehir 20+
Stephen Lewis
We tend to look back at those awkward moments and label them as love. I think and we all prefer the fantasy over this scientific approach. (unless your mind is blown by the current scientific ideas like mine).
daniel hehir 20+
Sure there are a lot of chemical, hormones etc. etc within us. The chemicals are all "triggered" by a thought or an emotion or feeling. We can't say that I am excited when falling in a parachute "because" of the adrenaline that flows through my system. The adrenaline arises from the fact that my entire sense apparatus is saying to me...Hey man, this is crazy!! What the h*** am I doing here!! I'm falling at 200 kph.. am I nuts or something!?? The chemicals are in a sense the "carriers" of the emotion. The chemicals allow the manifestation of the emotion to take place and arise on the stage of your consciousness. Your thinking is saying... Hey, get me down from here! ... and at the same time saying ... man, what a rush! A person who does not experience the excitement of the jump will truly not have much adrenaline in his blood either. A well trained jumper or a blind person or blindfolded person or perhaps a baby. But the "conscious" experience of the jump is the initiator or the chemicals. The consciousness of the fear and excitement must come before the chemicals and not afterwards... and what is adrenalin then without a nervous system and the blood to incorporate it. The emotion of the excitement or fear is just as "real" as the substance is it not...??
Stephen Lewis
I do enjoy a spirited journey into metaphysical questions but when science makes claims about anything, they support those claims with something they would call evidence.
""Sure there are a lot of chemical, hormones etc. etc within us. The chemicals are all "triggered" by a thought or an emotion or feeling""
This claim is very debatable between leading scientists in the field. I don't think anyone of them has a conclusion about where thoughts come from.
It is not often that Neanderthal man parachuted, but he did fall and when he fell, awareness of his predicament overcame him in the form of adrenalin. This adrenaline gave the Neanderthal an extra chance at survival.
When in the fight or flight mode, we become hyper sensitive to what is happening around us. Also a benefit to help us survive.
If you are camping and are attacked by a bear, this fight or flight response puts you into action before you have a complete understanding of what is going on.
If you have to wait for your logical mind to come up with the correct course of action in a time like this, you are bear food.
These hormones and chemicals (that are operating before our logical minds) are what has kept us alive for the 4.49999 billion years before man ever farted.
yes both the fear and the chemicals are real, we just don't know what to make of that information yet.
Reading your comment to Nehemia, It seems like the question "If a tree falls in the woods and none was there to hear it......"
Stephen Lewis
daniel hehir 20+
The stone is material.
The plant has something different than the stone. It is alive. It grows.
The animal is different than the plant and the stone. The animal has feelings and desires. It breathes. It has consciousness.
Mankind is different than the stone, the plant and the animal. We have the material element. We have the life element. We have feelings as well. What we have over and above these first three things is self-consciousness and thinking.
One has to differentiate more specifically all the phenomena in the world. Visible and invisible.
An idea cannot arise out of a stone. That which is alive... as the plant is... still does not have the ability to think and come up with new ideas. Animals, to some degree, have a primitive form for thinking but is on a very low more instinctive level compared with the human being.
One might argue that the idea has arisen from the material world and "up" but I see it as the idea working from the "above" down. The world of ideas is not dependent upon the material for it's existence. Think closely about this. Ideas are free from the world of the sense. You, in your own mind can create new ideas that absolutely no one has ever, ever seen before. Things that have nothing to do with what we call "reality" around us. Have you ever seen a pink polka doted elephant? ...no... but you can imagine one... and people are coming up with totally new ideas all the time. By interacting your concepts of pink / polka doted / elephant... you "create" a new concept that has no physical representation in the material world... So your thinking is free... amazingly....incredibly .... astonishingly .. FREE
Adriaan Braam 20+
Even a lie-detector is not based on our thoughts but how our body reacts to them.
Don't worry though, no one will ever proof to you that anything spiritual exists. Even after your body dies.
Swedenborg had an argument one time with a man in the world of spirits who had died but did not believe in a life after death. After doing a lot of explaining about what life is all about and not getting anywhere, he pointed to the man's feet and asked, How come you're standing two feet off the ground? The man looked down and ran away screaming, I'm a spirit!!, I'm a spirit!!
daniel hehir 20+
Here is an interesting link for you. By the way, there has started an interesting discussion on NDE's just now. Check it out.
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence02.html
Stephen Lewis
God? Spirits? I do not claim to know. The only one telling me about God is man and I absolutely do not trust a word that a man can say about a place he has never ever been.
"Swedenborg had an argument one time with a man in the world of spirits."
Really? Just because you want it to be true, does not make it so.
Adriaan Braam 20+
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/triggers14.html
My wife had a NDE as a girl. We have no objection whatsoever to believe in a spiritual world because that makes everything make sense. However, just saying we are spirit does not mean much until we realize it is a separate realm or world 'above' this physical world.
Did I ever give you a link to that book The Spiritual World?
http://sites.google.com/site/liveitupspiritually/home/source/TheSpiritualWorld.pdf?attredirects=0
Thanks again.
Adriaan Braam 20+
Or would you trust her, not thinking 'she only wants something from me' etc.
Any idea what love is? Is it only physical? Is your connection with the one you love only physical? Or are you just voicing what your neurons think?
daniel hehir 20+
I can present two simple ways of looking at it. These may be simple but they get an idea across.
Assume you have a TV set that's not working. There can be something wrong with the tubes in the TV... but there can be something wrong with the TV antenna too. The signal itself is of course not coming from either the antenna or the TV tubes, condensers, etc. etc. within the apparatus. But the signal is "out there" all the time ... What Nehemia is telling me is that the signal is of course coming from the tubes and condensers within the TV itself. .... Where else could they come from....?? For me to come here and say that there is actually an invisible signal coming through the air that is picked up by his antenna is in his mind preposterous... We are not too technically advanced and still somewhat primitive and therefore have no way of "proving it" one way or the other.... so our discussion leads to argument .. then violence perhaps.. somebody bleeds and all that messy stuff. He has made up his mind and I can not give any evidence as to proof of these so called invisible radio signals..
Someday maybe we will be out walking in the nearby hills and discover a sender... who knows...
example 2. As you came up with the blind person.
Suppose you were born colorblind. You can only see shades of grey and black and white. We meet and I say to you "What lovely red roses there." You respond by saying "Red" .. "I see no red roses." They are grey just like the rest of things." Your physical body has no way of letting you in on my experience of the color red. Later on that month you go to the doctor and he operates on your eyes so you too can see the color red. Your first reaction is of course disagreement. Your experience is limited by your physical body's malfunction. It doesn't have to mean that your spiritual aspects of your being are not in place, it simply means that they cannot get through to share the experience of the perception red.
Stephen Lewis
No I totally agree that either the signal is coming from within or without(?is that right) from outside. That is, after all the question.
We could totally be brains in a vat controlled by a mad scientist or an all knowing, all loving being or
not
It seems that with the infinite amount of possibilities that could be the truth, making a specific claim about reality is pure speculation. Science IS, knowledge obtained by empirical study(which most probably will be found to be insufficient in the near future) so it's pretty much in the same boat as all other ideas. I prefer the scientific method (signal coming from inside) rather than from some outside force though.
If we believe in some greater being that controls or manipulates our destiny, it removes our core responsibilities to one another. With the greater being idea, we just have to hunker down and wait it out to reach the other side. (where the grass is always greener) where God will save us
Colorblindness, I would impose a guess, only effects the shades of the colors but not the aesthetic beauty or the symbolism of the rose.
""It doesn't have to mean that your spiritual aspects of your being are not in place,""
No it does not but along with the spiritual aspects revelations comes a lot of superstition and it seems to be difficult to tell them apart from what is considered to be "truth".
The truth is haha, if we had a book that actually contained "truths", we would not agree that they were. So in the end we really would not know.
I'm not even sure it's a worthy question because of that belief yet I am drawn here still. That may be an interesting observation.
Frans Kellner 100+
To translate we have to look to the context to see whether we have to resort to either spirit, ghost or common sense.
Most people in the world have to re-adjust their way of thinking if they learn the English language.
Mental work is memory based on lived experiences and isn't unique to our species but to all living organisms.
It's obvious that brains aren't necessary to do the job as most species lack most of it and live a happy life.
The whole body is an acting/reacting unity within the environment that sustains it, with to humanity the main difference that by discriminating events and impressions and by labeling and archiving it in our construct of our world we have created time and order. By this feat we can anticipate events and delay and evaluate our reactions on any actuality.
By this we have become independent of nature and replaced it by culture, and then created civilization to join power and knowledge.
Faith and hope were and are important features to trust our fellow man by our common contribution to the group of humanity where truth and peace can make the human community flourish as a living space to express our love. Unfortunately however with time also fear came into play as love diminished. To control fear without love or trust you need to look for control and then for power to secure this position.
Our soul being our natural design and our mind being our instigator of fear are conflicting, creating an unhealthy climate for both the body and our world. It is language that divides us and it's language that can unite by restoring love.
Linda Taylor 50+
Stephen Lewis
Which word are you talking about here? Please forgive my ignorance. What language do you speak from the Netherlands? (I could have looked it up, but I decided to learn this information from you and be upfront about my ignorance)
I grew up in Florida, near Miami, and in High School a friend explained how he knew he had mastered the English language when he started dreaming in that language.
And do you have a word for the Soul or spirit or fire within?
These are straight questions. No judgements
Frans Kellner 100+
To translate "mind" into Dutch it can mean all sorts of things like: brains, head, thoughts, mentality, spirit, ghost, common sense, etc. which in turn are each somewhat shifted to the English counterpart.
So in English the idea exists that the mind is something real but it’s a word like tool, it can mean anything.
Spirit, soul and inner fire are words with reference to multiple ideas that are not always used in the same manner. Spirit we do translate standard as ghost though we sometimes use spiritus for alcoholic substances, soul is the same here but in German language it is often used as “goal”. Inner fire would become passion or enthusiasm.
C Gaduber
daniel hehir 20+
I guess I am just as much amazed at the idea that you can possibly assume that your own thoughts are merely some sort of a chemical reaction in your brain, as you must be by my ignorance in assuming that my own thoughts could possibly have anything to do with something of a spiritual nature. We both my indeed look at each others perspectives on life and simply shake our heads thinking.. What a dimbo that guy is.
But to take the starting point in the phenomenon of "thinking itself" In the midst of the full complexity of our being with its diverse feelings, emotions, thoughts, ideas, imaginations etc etc.... yes everything we perceive around us and then put together in some form of "construct" in our own mind ...some more or less logical than others depending on how much it is based upon scientific principles. What we can agree on is the scientific principles that lead us to our logical conclusions. Even the most fanatical religious person bases his arguments on some form for logic, although not always consequent...and the method that science approaches the world with is well and good. However, by imposing the self limited restrictions on observations within the physical world keep science from probing deeper under the surface of what lies behind the material world.
Here is where I would like to propose a new perspective for you to consider. I know this won't go down easy. But just consider for a moment that your thinking is not some or another "emerging property" from some chemicals in your brain but rather the "spiritual activity" within your innermost being. To try to "prove" this idea becomes very interesting. The nature of thinking. Science itself rest its empire entirely on this activity of thinking. A considerably immaterial, uncertain, unsure tool that we hold to be the highest of our inner resources to find truth. Is it no more absurd to consider this activity as something "spiritual" then it is to say that it arises out of matter itself...
Stephen Lewis
Pearly gates. Gold brick laid streets. Sounds like "Man" to me.
Amanda Zielinski 10+
What the bleep.
Divine design.
Enjoy your Ted points.
Linda Taylor 50+
Reality itself is a metaphysical concept.
Epistemology is how we know and give meaning to the metaphysical.
Esthetics allows us to operationalize parts of the abstract.
Ethics allow us to determine rightness or wrongness.
In short. Reality bites so we need the rest.
Let me illustrate:
Particle physics thinks that we are made up of mostly empty space and waves of energy called strings. At this point, this is theoretical physics because we don't have the technology to prove it. (But understand that not too long ago, atoms were considered theoretical physics). Somehow, a bunch of strings fashioned themselves into a being called me.
Now if all I am is an elaborately fashioned bunch of molecules, why should it matter if people are starving? Who cares if a person is Marxist or racist or a murderer?
So some bomb falls in some foreign country. A bunch of people die. I can tell my neighbor, "Look! That release of energy has rearranged all those energy strings and molecules into different atoms and molecules!"
Be careful what you wish for. Reality devoid of epistemology, ethics, and esthetics, and all the varieties thereof, is not worth it.
edward long 100+
Linda Taylor 50+
Reality simply is. Mr. Moskovitz calls it 'dry, factual, scientific'
What reality means, is it beautiful, and is it good are innately human assignments to reality (epistemology, esthetics, ethics).
That is why my friend, when bad things happen we struggle to find meaning within the tragedy. No other creature on the planet does this. Religion and faith are only one vehicle to assist us on this journey. There are others. We are human and that's what humans do.
edward long 100+
Linda Taylor 50+
In my business we view people as a whole. Understanding that the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.
That major premise can be exemplified in may ways. Faith, philosophy, understanding, cosmology. Whatever. My job in caring for the whole is to be able to do it within the framework of the person under my care, not to impose my framework upon them.
Understand the implications of the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It means that when you remove the parts, there is more. As Mr. Moscovitz continues his journey to the bottom, he may come to understand that. Or not. It's OK either way. It's his framework after all. And if he should come under my care, that is the framework I will work from. (Please understand Mr. Moscovitz, I would address this last part to you directly except that I cannot figure out how to do that within the construct of this discussion thread. It stops at three replies or something. My apologies if it appears I am talking about this without addressing you directly.)
edward long 100+
Linda Taylor 50+
I think perhaps Mr. Long, we are not all that different. The discernment of human behavior I have was acquired after much study and thought. It was not innate to me either. I just wanted that understanding and am in the process of conquering it.
Nehemia Moscovitz
Linda Taylor 50+
You set the parameters of the discussion. You asked us to discuss how the human mind could be more than molecules and processes without resorting to faith. I presented some facts to illustrate some possibilities.
So while most life functions under the processes of the illustrations, we are more than that.
It is somewhat disconcerting that you are so quick to dismiss the very real experience of so much of the population as the stuff of imagination? That is what happens when you resort to reductionist techniques to establish truth. It is not my job you prove to you there is a God. That my friend, is yours.
Nehemia Moscovitz
As far as the proof of the existence of god - I like your comment at the end there - indeed it is my job within the confounds of my own being, and I have proven to me that god is but a fable. The more important proof, for me, is that being free of the constraints of this fable, is an important catalyst for improving what remains of my time down here on earth, and the lives of my descendants. You are a sensitive and sensible, Linda, that much is clear. It should be clear to you then, that I am NOT dismissing anything, let alone other people's experiences. I have got enough brain power left to marvel at our ability to theorize like we do, to raise above mere bodily functions, to see soulfulness and even divinity in our existence, and to hold dear and sacred the very concept of freedom in all its forms and expressions, including the freedom to worship an oppressor. It seems like you have been so quick to judge me as dismissive, because you were eager to establish that spirituality is so paramount to you. Hey, I agree. But I was talking about THE VERY VERY BOTTOM LINE. Whatever happens above that line is - so I contend - to OUR credit. Not god.
Be well, flourish, love and live. May you continue to find joy all around.
Jack Lass
The Soviet Union tried through rigid education in atheism to eliminate their people's need and desire for religion in exchange for a Marxist materialism and a (sometimes pseudo) scientific culture. Church attendance in Russia is huge, and spiritual healers are rampant.
The best result that can be hoped for is to proceed with science without halt or constraint and accept the fact that the consolations of faith are outside the purview of rational thinking.
edward long 100+
Jack Lass
First off, I am not a logician, nor do I think that Logic has anything to do with either worldview. I am, if you will, an empiricist first and foremost. I have seen evolution in action and I must believe what I have seen. I have neither seen nor heard of what you call god. It is certainly a construct of human desire, and it served very well to "explain" the universe for a very long part of human history. Science, on the other hand, is relatively a new construct yet as it has grown and advanced it has been able to explain much of how the universe works.
The difference in the two world views is this: Religion can brook no disagreement. It's pronouncements must (despite your caution) be taken on faith. Science, on the other hand requires a progression of human intellect from theory, to hypothesis, to observation to experimentation (or in some cases observation), to duplication of experiment or observation to publication. And the main difference between the two is this: Science can only explain on an "as far as we know now" basis. Despite the accusations of it's opponents, science cannot and does not demand adherence to a dogmatic belief. As a friend of mine says: "If you can't disprove it it ain't science."
It is this requirement of falsifiability that if find appealing. While I am no logician as I said, there is one tenet of logical debate I remember from my very, very, long ago college days. The weakest argument is the argument from authority. That, precisely, is the demand of religion. And, again, despite the arguments of its critics, science does not require belief and the primacy of any scientific authority can only rest on empirical proof and is always subject to change as new facts come along.
edward long 100+
edward long 100+
Xavier Belvemont
Michael Behe along with every single theist who claims Biology supports theism has been refuted 500 times over, along with every argument (logical, philosophical or otherwise) from the theistic side.
Take this from a life-long atheist who has spent the majority of his life in literally dozens of debates with christians and muslims and spends years scrolling the internet (especially youtube) for theistic arguments to refute.. Not a single one I have ever encountered has stood the test of scrutiny and actual evidence and I have a long list of other atheists, scientists and professors who also do the same who will back me up on this.
Sorry to go into that rant, but trying to pass off 'Michael Behe' (the epitomy of easily refuted christian nonsense and not even close to the best of that senseless crowd, might I add) as any kind of legitimate response to actual evolution is insane, let alone trying to Bastardize the subject with unsubstantiated pseudo-intellectual metaphysical nonsense thats written by someone (Behe) with a clear lack of understanding of the facts he so widely argues against / attaches his notions onto.
Especially when the likes of Dr Ken Miller (A christian BUT with actual credentials) had outright and easily ground the likes of him (and his cronies such as Kent Hovind) into dust years ago with ease.
Theres a reason why Intelligent design has never even come remotely close to winning a court case against Evolution to be taught in schools nor has a single I.D paper ever passed peer review in all its years of claiming scientific validity; Ask yourself why that is.
Nothing against you Mr Edward Long, not at all, but you might want to take your scientific knowledge from accredited and peer reviewed work, as opposed to those who have neither but act as if they do.
Mainly because such people have a tendency to not have them for very good reasons; Usually because its nonsense
edward long 100+
Xavier Belvemont
The works of Michael Behe and those of a similar nature cannot or willnot present any area of their books for intellectual scrutiny, such as peer review. There is a simple reason for this.
As someone who studied Molecular Biology for several years formally and has known several of the writers of the likes of Talkorigins (a site devoted to debunking the likes of Behe's arguments) that not one such argument can stand against actual scrutiny within the field, hence why these individuals are simply laughed at by anyone who knows the subject and are limited to presenting their ideas (passed off as fact) to the public who are either unaware of how invalid the books actually are or have a pre-existing bias that anything is better than a reality which conflicts with their beliefs.
I have no issue with your beliefs or opinions, merely the fact that you made a recommendation of a book that is verifiably nonsense and therefore you were called on it.
Nehemia Moscovitz
HOWEVER, I, for one, will fight to protect the right of anyone to choose faith, religion, and to experience freedom, or submission. I will NEVER engage in missionary agenda, or consider attaching absolute values, or qualify a comparison between points of views. Do not mistake this with the right, or duty, to state opinions in an open debate. I choose atheism, and ultimately, I find this choice comforting and "good" for me. Consequently, I find attempts to prove me wrong in favor of religion irritating, insulting, and saddening.
edward long 100+
Nehemia Moscovitz
Joanne Donovan 30+
Nehemia Moscovitz
edward long 100+