Any atheists here who were once believers?

[Billy T]

Billy T, (1) Why not? If we can observe our minds, and other minds, change ours and others minds, then who and what are we? ... (2) If you are not observing the RTS then what does '' I am part of a larger complex information process, I call the RTS (Real Time Simulation) but unlike most of the RTS, which is generated in parietal cortex when one is not in deep sleep, much of the information that is "me" is sent to the parietal cortex from the frontal lobes'' mean?

No, part I made bold is well known to be false; however, depending upon precisely how you define "mind" I may (or may not) be able to experience my own mind.

It is a well known problem, called "the other minds" problem, to show that other minds even exist. In the literature on this problem a "philosophical zombie" or P-zombie for short is discussed. The p-zombie has no mind, no feelings, no "qualia" but to an external observer behaves exactly like a human who does have a mind, does. I.e. you press a hot cigarette against his arm he will pull it back, scream, possible slug you as hard as he can but feels no pain, by postulate about his nature. Point being pain (all "feelings) are subjective and not observable by others - only their "pain behavior" etc. is observable.

On (2): You seem to be confused. There is a huge difference between "observing" and "experiencing."* No-one, not "me" (and certainly not you) is observing the RTS I postulate is something like a non-deterministic analogue information process that mainly occurs my in parietal cortex. "I" am both experiencing parts of it and being created by it, but not "observing" it. My comments about the frontal lobes were just in recognition of the well established fact that "my" personality can be changed by cutting on that part of my brain. If you are old enough and did computer programing back when Fortran was a popular language, I tend to think of the parietal RTS making a "Fortran call" for information and or processes taking place in frontal lobe tissue.

* You experience pain; you do not "observe" it. There can be both: With my scientist's hat on I can observe water boils at less than 100C at Denver's altitude and also experience that my boiled egg took longer to cook there. I would tend to say: "You observe things with instruments and experience things by how they interact with your body," but some experiences are without any con-current external stimulus.

 

[wegs]

You're missing that it's better to be flexible than to be dogmatic when the subject is religion. It is all "man made" so to not change after 2,000 years would be absurd (which is what the fundamentalists are doing).

You can "admire" them for seeing everything in black and white. They are consistent but consistent with what? They are consistently as ignorant (by modern standards) as a 2,000 year old man.

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18524

I encourage you to read the comments below the article. Flexibility in this context...it just doesn't work.
Scripture contradicts evolution, not only in Genesis.

The problem I have is, you either accept the Bible as Truth (entirely), or you don't. You either accept evolution (without ''adding in'' religious dogma) or you don't.

The Catholic Church wants it both ways, and my question is...why?

 

[Seattle]

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18524

I encourage you to read the comments below the article. Flexibility in this context...it just doesn't work.
Scripture contradicts evolution, not only in Genesis.

The problem I have is, you either accept the Bible as Truth (entirely), or you don't. You either accept evolution (without ''adding in'' religious dogma) or you don't.

The Catholic Church wants it both ways, and my question is...why?

You can accept the Bible as a book written by man and not to be taken literally. That is one of the choices.

Regarding the Catholic Church...that's obvious They want to stay in power and maintain control just like any religious institution.

The biggest problem with Christianity is that they have the misfortune to have a holy book that isn't quite vague enough. If their holy book was the "Tao Te Ching" they would be home free

 

[wegs]

You can accept the Bible as a book written by man and not to be taken literally. That is one of the choices.

Regarding the Catholic Church...that's obvious They want to stay in power and maintain control just like any religious institution.

The biggest problem with Christianity is that they have the misfortune to have a holy book that isn't quite vague enough. If their holy book was the "Tao Te Ching" they would be home free

Lol that's funny.

There was a time when the Catholic Church taught the Bible as literal truth, so it's just one of those curious things. The Church has always held a view that in order to follow Christianity, one doesn't need to ONLY follow the bible, as the Church has a lot of rituals and traditions that are celebrated outside the context of the Bible. But, there was a time it taught that the Bible is literally the Word of God.

Until mankind started answering some of its own scientific questions.

Then, suddenly, the Bible ...well, parts of it, were not to be taken literally.

This is why I respect Fundamentalists for they are steadfast in their faith, even if their beliefs are "unpopular." I don't value the Bible at all anymore, but Fundamentalist/Evangelicals value it as the Word of God and naturally, they can't and won't support evolution.

A Christian shouldn't have to excuse away its very own holy book to accept evolution. And that's what the Catholic Church has done.

I don't know why I went off on this tangent.

 

[Seattle]

Lol that's funny.

There was a time when the Catholic Church taught the Bible as literal truth, so it's just one of those curious things. The Church has always held a view that in order to follow Christianity, one doesn't need to ONLY follow the bible, as the Church has a lot of rituals and traditions that are celebrated outside the context of the Bible. But, there was a time it taught that the Bible is literally the Word of God.

Until mankind started answering some of its own scientific questions.

Then, suddenly, the Bible ...well, parts of it, were not to be taken literally.

This is why I respect Fundamentalists for they are steadfast in their faith, even if their beliefs are "unpopular." I don't value the Bible at all anymore, but Fundamentalist/Evangelicals value it as the Word of God and naturally, they can't and won't support evolution.

A Christian shouldn't have to excuse away its very own holy book to accept evolution. And that's what the Catholic Church has done.

I don't know why I went off on this tangent.

Haha...that's what we're here for

I hear where you are coming from but I don' really "respect" fundamentalist beliefs (I try to respect the people...I'm not always successful). It's not respect worthy (IMO) just because someone refuses to budge from his "faith" when that "faith" is stupid

We don't respect some nut job who believes that he was taken to a flying saucer by Martians just because he is unwavering in this recounting of the story. Why do it with fundamentalists?

 

[wegs]

Haha...that's what we're here for

I hear where you are coming from but I don' really "respect" fundamentalist beliefs (I try to respect the people...I'm not always successful). It's not respect worthy (IMO) just because someone refuses to budge from his "faith" when that "faith" is stupid

We don't respect some nut job who believes that he was taken to a flying saucer by Martians just because he is unwavering in this recounting of the story. Why do it with fundamentalists?

That's why I specifically stated fundamentalists not fundamentalISM. I don't value their beliefs, but I respect their tenacity to stay true to their faith, and not modify their beliefs and the definition of evolution in order to appear secularly popular. Thank you for following my ramblings and understanding. lol

 

[spidergoat]

...Why do it with fundamentalists?

They are at least consistent and not too hypocritical.

 

[spidergoat]

You're missing that it's better to be flexible than to be dogmatic when the subject is religion.

Unless the religion specifically warns against that.

 

[wynn]

Whoa. WTF did you two post? I don't want to take it out of context so could you expound please.

By itself it seems like metaphysics squared.

Oh, don't worry, Jan knows - or should know - what I'm talking about.

 

[wynn]

************
M*W: While your theory could be true, I don't see the need for a god to be a part of it. We are quite capable of doing this ourselves.

While your molars rot! As usual.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Billy T,

No, part I made bold is well known to be false; however, depending upon precisely how you define "mind" I may (or may not) be able to experience my own mind.

In a philosophical discussion, I can understand this direction. But in the real world, in the here and now, you can experience your own mind, or at least you have no choice but to accept that what you are experiencing is your own mind.

Right now you are reading a response from me, to you, and while we cannot prove that either of us actually exist, we have to (and do) assume that we do.

Here is a basic definition of mind...

Mind-
...the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.

It is a well known problem, called "the other minds" problem, to show that other minds even exist. In the literature on this problem a "philosophical zombie" or P-zombie for short is discussed. The p-zombie has no mind, no feelings, no "qualia" but to an external observer behaves exactly like a human who does have a mind, does. I.e. you press a hot cigarette against his arm he will pull it back, scream, possible slug you as hard as he can but feels no pain, by postulate about his nature. Point being pain (all "feelings) are subjective and not observable by others - only their "pain behavior" etc. is observable.

Who is it a problem to?

On (2): You seem to be confused. There is a huge difference between "observing" and "experiencing."* No-one, not "me" (and certainly not you) is observing the RTS I postulate is something like a non-deterministic analogue information process that mainly occurs my in parietal cortex. "I" am both experiencing parts of it and being created by it, but not "observing" it. My comments about the frontal lobes were just in recognition of the well established fact that "my" personality can be changed by cutting on that part of my brain. If you are old enough and did computer programing back when Fortran was a popular language, I tend to think of the parietal RTS making a "Fortran call" for information and or processes taking place in frontal lobe tissue.

You are observing something because now you are explaining something other than your actual self (the person explaining). You cannot however explain you.
Anything you observe, experience, or can explain, is separate to ''you''.

* You experience pain; you do not "observe" it. There can be both: With my scientist's hat on I can observe water boils at less than 100C at Denver's altitude and also experience that my boiled egg took longer to cook there. I would tend to say: "You observe things with instruments and experience things by how they interact with your body," but some experiences are without any con-current external stimulus.

To somebody who has more control over their mind, they can observe and experience pain. For example some soldiers are trained to withstand pain, experienced proponents of transcendental meditation can train their mind to withstand pain. This is done by observing the pain .

Who is it that observes, who is it that experiences??

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Wegs,

..are you going to respond to my last post to you?

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...Nonexistence&p=2899438&viewfull=1#post2899438 - a short incomplete comment on the RTS but here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...t-an-illusion&p=905778&viewfull=1#post905778 is longer more complete discussion, that happens to be focused on the Free Will exists or not question, but none-the-less, describes the RTS and gives a great deal of supporting evidence for the RTS, instead of the vague and clearly false but accepted POV of most cognitive scientists about perception "emerging" from neural processing of sensory input data, etc.

Out of curiosity, you say it is "clearly false" so presumably you can support this assertion?

 

[wegs]

Wegs,

..are you going to respond to my last post to you?

jan.

Yes, I will reply to your last post, later today.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Seattle,

You're missing that it's better to be flexible than to be dogmatic when the subject is religion. It is all "man made" so to not change after 2,000 years would be absurd (which is what the fundamentalists are doing).

The ''mile high club'' is man-made, but sexual intercourse isn't.
Christianity may be ''man-made'', but ''religion'' isn't.

You can "admire" them for seeing everything in black and white. They are consistent but consistent with what? They are consistently as ignorant (by modern standards) as a 2,000 year old man.

Do you think you would be here falsely claiming scientific knowledge as an atheist/agnostic pursuit/invention, if it weren't for these ''ignorant as a 2,000 year old man'' people?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Seattle,

I hear where you are coming from but I don' really "respect" fundamentalist beliefs (I try to respect the people...I'm not always successful). It's not respect worthy (IMO) just because someone refuses to budge from his "faith" when that "faith" is stupid

How do you ''try to respect the people''?

We don't respect some nut job who believes that he was taken to a flying saucer by Martians just because he is unwavering in this recounting of the story.

I can see why you don't respect him/her, because you've already labelled them a ''nutjob''.

Is he/her a ''nutjob'' because they claim to have been abducted, or or they so because they claim it was done ''by Martians'', or is it both?

If their account is unwavering, is that not a glimmer of light of possiblility they may experienced something that leads them to their claim? If not, why not?

Having not experienced their claim yourself, thereby having no way to verify whether it is truthful or not, for what reason do you label them a ''nutjob''?

Can you give an honest list of what would constitute evidence that such abductions may well have occurred (at least in the past), that would/could cause you to change your opinion of him/her (for starters)?

jan.

 

[(Q)]

You don't see a flaw in it. Right?
But you are not in possession of what it is in it's entirety.

You have no clue what evolution says, hence you yourself are incapable of pointing out any flaws, which you have not done, but keep alluding. That is the dishonesty of believers like yourself who know nothing of science but pretend to know it's flaws. Pathetic.

Don't worry, there are lot's of people like you who accept it, but know hardly anything about it (if anything). They may be able to talk in a way that leads you to believe that these are rational, intelligent people, who now accept the truth and discard the fairytale. But the truth is they don't have much of a clue.

Yet, it is obvious it is YOU who has no clue, but you'll sit there projecting your own ignorance onto others.

Do you think that people like Balerion, or (Q) would charge anybody who believed in DE, with being scientifically illerate?

jan.

It's obvious who does and who doesn't understand evolution, Jan. You would know that if you actually understood it.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You have no clue what evolution says, hence you yourself are incapable of pointing out any flaws, which you have not done, but keep alluding. That is the dishonesty of believers like yourself who know nothing of science but pretend to know it's flaws. Pathetic.



Yet, it is obvious it is YOU who has no clue, but you'll sit there projecting your own ignorance onto others.



It's obvious who does and who doesn't understand evolution, Jan. You would know that if you actually understood it.

Your dimwitted logic alludes to:

No “real scientist” rejects evolution because the very fact that he rejects evolution means he isn’t a “real scientist”, is circular.

If it applies to fully qualified scientists, then it must apply to everyone else, including me. Duh!

There's no reasoning with a dogmatist like like yourself. Happy grazing.

Bye!

jan.

 

[(Q)]

Your dimwitted logic alludes to:

No “real scientist” rejects evolution because the very fact that he rejects evolution means he isn’t a “real scientist”, is circular.

We are talking about YOU, Jan. YOU have no clue about evolution or practically anything scientific. Your nose is buried so deep into your religion, you live in a complete fantasy world created by yourself. It would be so hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic.

That's the difference between you and many of us here who actually try to understand the world around us. The Bible is simply one book to read amongst many and it is easy for us to read it and move on, understanding only too well that it's just a book of myths and superstitions.

Dimwitted? Projecting again, Jan?

 

[Jan Ardena]

We are talking about YOU, Jan. YOU have no clue about evolution or practically anything scientific. Your nose is buried so deep into your religion, you live in a complete fantasy world created by yourself. It would be so hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic.

That's the difference between you and many of us here who actually try to understand the world around us. The Bible is simply one book to read amongst many and it is easy for us to read it and move on, understanding only too well that it's just a book of myths and superstitions.

Dimwitted? Projecting again, Jan?

Like I said;

Your dimwitted logic alludes to:

No “real scientist” rejects evolution because the very fact that he rejects evolution means he isn’t a “real scientist”, is circular.

If it applies to fully qualified scientists, then it must apply to everyone else, including me. Duh!

There's no reasoning with a dogmatist like like yourself. Happy grazing.

Bye!

jan.