Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Fear of Religions...when our children are concerned
Options
Comments
-
In terms of your notion of monism or God, I would question where any aspect of your state of mind resides if not dynamically within your brain, or more statically in the wider environment. From my perspective, any state requires an object to be in that state. Any complex dynamically changing state such as mind requires a more complex object to host it. When the brain dies, the mind ceases to exist, as it has no suitable environment in which to persist. If has nowhere to go and hence goes nowhere.
I have no concept of an afterlife. Its hard enough trying to make sense of the place we find ourselves in, much less worry about any potential future states:). I agree the mind needs a matter based host, but the host may be much broader than we imagine. That's not to suggest any aspect of self persists. The question is whether all aspects of mind are generated by brain activity, and I am reasonably convinced they are not, and there are various examples of empirical phenomena that it cannot explain, such as NDEs, mystical experiences, late stage Alzheimer's patients regaining lucidity, cognitive functions of those with severe brain injuries, death bed visions, etc. that are commonly observed but have no explanation within our standard assumptions.0 -
.But it is Zeh jumping into Plato's cave, the first scientist to work out a decoherence model. No leap into mysticism when discussing science, Zeh is a wonderful scholar. As an aside, on this forum, I have frequently feel tempted to label paragraphs as "this science". "this is philosophy", "this is the metaphysical branch of philosophy". Oh, and "this is just a scientist philosopher speculating". We are in a quantum world because this is the world we have experimentally validated more than any other scientific hypothesis, and yes it is a theory but it's by far our most consistent theory. We know that our classical world is an approximation, the result of our earlier investigations, and also the result of hundreds of million of years of evolution to the state of our brains at that time. You cannot approach an understanding of the quantum world from what feels comfortable in the classical world. You have to give it all up.
If you have a desire to seek some single ultimate metaphysical truth, then that is what you are going to see nomatter what. I do not think that Zeh says what you think he does when he discusses the multiple world interpretation.Yes, but the whole reductionist materialistic model is based on these impulses or signals, and its proponents actively suppress any other model. This is unprecedented in science, science is supposed to be about discovering the truth, not protecting the current model. Our classical world model is based on our brain's evolutionary survival in our environment and has been shown repeatedly to be incoherent.
Be careful now! What you just said is not unlike the mournful call of Gavia Immer, forever decrying the narrow-minded, dogmatic scientific community that would be handing him the Nobel price if only it wasn't (cross out what does not apply) elitist / pursuing a hidden agenda / in the pocket of some industry / dominated by a political ideology / to afraid to stray from dogmatism/
I think I can see some pigeon tracks here too...No, they are completely separate, and my point going back to the origins of this thread is there is no conflict. I am not holding them up a evidence, that evidence is to follow:), to bolster my point which is not a religious one.
At last! Evidence! I am all agog.0 -
Yes, but the whole reductionist materialistic model is based on these impulses or signals, and its proponents actively suppress any other model. This is unprecedented in science
You have examples of proponents of a scientific model actively suppressing alternative models more so than in any other area of science? You are staring to sound like the anti evolution creationists now when they declare on debate forums that scientists who DARE oppose evolution are ousted, ridiculed and targeted.
In other words it is a common tactic we see..... by those who can not support their scientific assertions..... to start declaring they are being suppressed or silenced or targeted.Our classical world model is based on our brain's evolutionary survival in our environment and has been shown repeatedly to be incoherent.
When? And where?No, they are completely separate, and my point going back to the origins of this thread is there is no conflict.
And my point, once again, which you simply ignored when I presented it.... is that there is a conflict and I explained exactly how and where. Ignoring a conflict does not mean there is no conflict, much as you seemingly need it to be so.to bolster my point which is not a religious one.
Yes it is.You sure love that metaphor:P. It's a small bit of an insult though to people who have come to a different conclusion, after careful consideration of the evidence.
What evidence? You keep talking about "the evidence" as if we all know what you are talking about. We do not. And not just some, or most but EVERY attempt people make to get you to lay out what this evidence is is met by dodging, silence, or misrepresentations.I understand the word immateriality causes heartache with its suggestion of a "soul"
Ah there you go once again imagining biases on our behalf and putting them in our mouth. Pretending that if you suggest anything that is suggestive of a "soul" then we will simply reject it out of hand regardless of what evidence you present. An imaginary fact you then use to justify not presenting any evidence because.... well.... why bother if we are going to knee jerk reject it anyway.
The issue with the word "immaterial" is nothing to do with what it is suggestive of. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact you appear, through its use, to be postulating the form of a new kind of energy thus far unobserved, unmeasured.
And the issue is that you have not substantiated the existence of any such thing in any way whatsoever.is much discussed in scientific research today
You have tried this one before too. As have many others on the forum. You act like an idea being researched, or discussed, automatically lends the idea credence.
We see a similar tactic to this on many of the forum threads related to psychic phenomenon for example. Proponents of the existence of same will declare "If there is nothing to it then why are institutions/People X, Y and Z investing so much time, money and resources into studying it???".
Such people, like you, think they have made a point. You have not. That something is discussed tells us only that it is discussed. It says nothing whatsoever about whether the thing being discussed is likely, credible or substantiated.we haven't been able to find any physical structures at all that explain how
Not sure that is true at all. I think we are finding lots of things related to this. However even if we grant that we have not, at all, so what? Similar to your abject failure on another thread to support the concept of reincarnation.... you are attempting to smuggle open questions in as evidence for, or something to lend credence to, your ideas.
I postulate X and my basis is that we have not explained Y is not a coherent argument. The basis and substantiation of X is still forthcoming.
AGAIN:
1) ALL the evidence we have so far points to an inseparable and direct connection between the brain and human consciousness.
2) NO evidence we have so far points to a disconnect between the two or the ability of the later to function in ANY way separate to the former.
And simply declaring "Well the conclusion 1) above leads us to does not explain X Y and Z yet" says nothing at all. Yet you keep presenting points and posts that suggest you think it does.
You appear to accept the Theory of Evolution for example, despite also injecting it with entirely farcical claims that it is an "intelligent" process. Are there things not yet explained by Evolution Theory? Yes there is. Does that in ANY way negate the Theory or lend credence to other theories at this time? No it does not.Why would our perception of what is real in our environment change because of a different neurotransmitter binding to a synapse?
Why would it NOT?The evidence to me suggests we
Ah "the evidence" again. That tightly held closed folder you keep under your arm for no one to see every time you mount the soap box.I have no concept of an afterlife.
Your flailing and comically failed attempt to support the concept of reincarnation would seem to disagree with this statement. You clearly do have one, even if it is ill formed and mostly secret.The question is whether all aspects of mind are generated by brain activity
And it is a useful question. Why not ask it. But at THIS TIME the answer to it is that 100% of the evidence we currently have relevant to the question gives the answer "yes". 0% of the evidence available suggests the answer is "no".
When the data changes, by ALL MEANS re-ask the question. But the current answer is there for you even if you dislike it and it's implications for your worldview.there are various examples of empirical phenomena that it cannot explain, such as NDEs
What can not be explained about NDEs exactly?*mystical experiences
What can not be explained about mystical experiences exactly?*late stage Alzheimer's patients regaining lucidity
What can not be explained about late stage Alzheimer's patients regaining lucidity exactly?*cognitive functions of those with severe brain injuries
What can not be explained about cognitive functions of those with severe brain injuries exactly?*death bed visions
What can not be explained about death bed visions exactly?*
* Note in all the above I am not just asking what HAS not been explained but you declare "CAN" not be explained? Why CAN it not explain it? Just because it has not been explained YET? Or can you support in some way the contention it simply CAN not be?0 -
Vivisectus wrote: »If you have a desire to seek some single ultimate metaphysical truth, then that is what you are going to see nomatter what. I do not think that Zeh says what you think he does when he discusses the multiple world interpretation.
My apologies, I keep referencing Zeh and Plato's cave, but neglected to post the paper where he references it himself (last paragraph).
http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~as3/no-quantum-jumps.pdf
The following is a chapter he wrote for a book on John Wheeler, who originated the "it" from "bit" model. Midway in there is a very clear description of decoherence, and on page 13 he states "Quantum theory applies everywhere, even where decoherence allows it to be approximately replaced by stochastic dynamics in quasi-classical concepts... It is the (local) classical world that seems to be an illusion!".
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0204088v2.pdf
Anyway, I think we have beaten QM to death for now, and its a bit of a tangent on a thread on what we should be teaching our children in primary school:). Having said that I think a very basic intro to QM is appropriate at an early age, given that 30% of the world's economy is based on its findings, and it introduces the valuable lesson that how we observe the world is at best an approximation and can lead us to conclusions that have been demonstrated over ad over in science to be false.Vivisectus wrote: »Be careful now! What you just said is not unlike the mournful call of Gavia Immer, forever decrying the narrow-minded, dogmatic scientific community that would be handing him the Nobel price if only it wasn't (cross out what does not apply) elitist / pursuing a hidden agenda / in the pocket of some industry / dominated by a political ideology / to afraid to stray from dogmatism/
The great majority of the scientific community couldn't give a rats ass for philosophy or metaphysics. A minority do however, some very publically such as Dawkins and Jerry Coyne, and I see no reason to bow down to their dogmatic metaphysical views, or in the case of Dawkins his ideas on morality.Vivisectus wrote: »At last! Evidence! I am all agog.
Sorry for keeping you waiting, but the discussion on QM is enthralling. I will start a new thread on "Irreducible Mind" sometime over the weekend, as that's really the subject matter I am referencing.0 -
I look forward to discussing the irreducible mind. I will pick up this thread again later as well: work pressure is upon me and I only have so much time to post.
I will say however that you should probably re-read those articles, as Zeh does not support your line of argument at all so far: he clearly states that decoherence gives us a very good explanation for the relationship between quantum effects in closed systems and the observable world. His "platos cave" is very different from yours.
As for a potential conflict between science and religion, we have alreayd seen that we are in agreement: it does exist where the dogmatic organised variety is concerned. A more philosophical acceptance of religious concepts is not necessarily incompatible with scientific thought, but then my point remains that that bar is pretty low.0 -
Advertisement
-
Vivisectus wrote: »I look forward to discussing the irreducible mind. I will pick up this thread again later as well: work pressure is upon me and I only have so much time to post.
That makes two of us. I will get back to the topic of irreducible mind when time permits, but it is related to our discussion on Zeh's interpretation of QM.Vivisectus wrote: »I will say however that you should probably re-read those articles, as Zeh does not support your line of argument at all so far: he clearly states that decoherence gives us a very good explanation for the relationship between quantum effects in closed systems and the observable world. His "platos cave" is very different from yours.
I believe I am interpreting Zeh correctly, but open to correction. The Plato's cave reference I believe is to the now fairly widely held view that many worlds or realities exist, but we only perceive one. Zeh is regarded as the originator of the "many minds" interpretation of QM, although the term itself was first used by Albert and Loewer. Although regarded as an offshoot of many worlds, I have read several accounts from physicists that argue it (many minds) is the most accurate way to interpret Everett's original reasoning. It is the interpretation that I increasingly find most compelling, and supports the idea that mind or consciousness (our awareness of our brain states) is separate to our classical notion of physical reality, which itself is deeply flawed as Zeh and many other contemporary physicists have outlined ("there are no particles").Vivisectus wrote: »As for a potential conflict between science and religion, we have alreayd seen that we are in agreement: it does exist where the dogmatic organised variety is concerned. A more philosophical acceptance of religious concepts is not necessarily incompatible with scientific thought, but then my point remains that that bar is pretty low.
I have zero tolerance for dogmatism of whatever flavor, whether it is from a religious source or elsewhere, such as the claim that to be a "proper atheist" one must be anti religious, as nonsensical as the view to be properly religious one must follow the set of rules of an authority figure interpreting texts written thousands of years ago.0 -
Seems he will not be getting back to you on the subject at all. Appears to have gone the way of his mentor Philologos/Jakkass instead?0
-
Maybe you could let your children decide for themselves when they're older,0
-
-
Maybe you could let your children decide for themselves when they're older,
That's what we're arguing for, yet the state still insists that religious indoctrination (in the guise of "faith formation", though that does admit to the fact that religion is a human created complex of ideas) is essential to the formation of an Irish adult human.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement