Any atheists here who were once believers?

[(Q)]

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!

But, YOU are the one who is scientifically illiterate, Jan. You can make up anything you want to defend yourself, but the fact remains you are clueless, hence you are totally dishonest about finding any flaws in anything scientific.

You've had ample opportunity to present your flaws, but have never done that. Your religious zealotry rules your worldview. It is absolutely pathetic.

 

[Billy T]

Billy T,... Anything you observe, experience, or can explain, is separate to ''you''. Jan.

That is your postulate; mine is that "I" am part of the RTS and interacting with the parts simulating, usually quite accurately, in Real Time (compensating for the neural processing delays as sensory neural signals pass thru many successive stages of processing) so that, for example, I perceive where a fast baseball actually is NOW, not were it was at least 0.1 seconds earlier.

Do you have any supporting evidence for your postulate? In links to discussion of the RTS, I have given, just a few of the many dozens of accepted facts that support my postulate of the RTS, and they come from at least half a dozen DIFFERENT fields of study.

BTW, I agree with your statement (and have said so in posts, including one you are responding to), that: "you have no choice but to accept that what you are experiencing is your own mind." That is why, as stated there, I can claim with certainty "reality" for my experiences, but only INFER from them that a "real external world" does exit - but of course as a Ph. D. physicists, I believe it does.

 

[Mathers2013]

I've dated atheism but it's just not me. I believe!

 

[Jan Ardena]

Billy T,

That is your postulate; mine is that "I" am part of the RTS and interacting with the parts simulating, usually quite accurately, in Real Time (compensating for the neural processing delays as sensory neural signals pass thru many successive stages of processing) so that, for example, I perceive where a fast baseball actually is NOW, not were it was at least 0.1 seconds earlier.

You postulate that ''I'' am a part....
If you were that thing (RTS...), then you wouldn't refer to yourself as ''I am a part of''....
''I'' is the part you cannot go beyond.

Do you have any supporting evidence for your postulate?[/b] In links to discussion of the RTS, I have given, just a few of the many dozens of accepted facts that support my postulate of the RTS, and they come from at least half a dozen fields of study.

That's no different than asking do I have any evidence of God.
I'm pretty sure I don't have any evidence that would satisfy you, but common sense should prevail here.
''I am'' cannot be anything other than the origin, I have shown that, and you have shown that. It cannot be anything else.
All perceptions is observed by ''I am'', and ''I am'' is not observed, it just is.
Scientists can observe everything except ''I am'', the very essence of their being.

jan.

 

[Mathers2013]

Exactly. If I perform mathematical calculations in my mind that is me ("I".) ALL of me!

 

[Jan Ardena]

Billy T,

BTW, I agree with your statement (and have said so in posts, including one you are responding to), that: "you have no choice but to accept that what you are experiencing is your own mind." That is why, as stated there, I can claim with certainty "reality" for my experiences, but only INFER from them that a "real external world" does exit - but of course as a Ph. D. physicists, I believe it does.

I apreciate you credentials, and knowledge of information, but what we are discussing here is a spiritual concept, which can be illuminated by discussing it the way we are doing.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

But, YOU are the one who is scientifically illiterate, Jan. You can make up anything you want to defend yourself, but the fact remains you are clueless, hence you are totally dishonest about finding any flaws in anything scientific.

You've had ample opportunity to present your flaws, but have never done that. Your religious zealotry rules your worldview. It is absolutely pathetic.

Okay.

You claim that I have no idea of it, and just say so because the Bible says so (or something equally stupid).
Balerion claims that I have no idea of it, but just go along with creationists sites.

Explain why I need to present flaws in DE to satisfy you.
What's wrong with a simple, I don't accept it?

The Bible makes no mention of DE, the scientists claim that DE has flaws.
So what's your problem?

jan.

 

[wegs]

I've dated atheism but it's just not me. I believe!

Hi Mathers :wave:

Do you follow any particular religion, may I ask? Anything in particular that inspires you to being a believer?

 

[Mathers2013]

Yeah, I've had visions and memories. I murdered my father when I was three years old, I then married my mother, and Jimmy Saville attacked me. But you don't have to believe me if you don't want to. Let's just say I believe. Look about you. What do you see? Do you believe you're alone...? All before I was thirty-three (my current age in years )

 

[wegs]

Yeah, I've had visions and memories. I murdered my father when I was three years old, I then married my mother, and Jimmy Saville attacked me. But you don't have to believe me if you don't want to. Let's just say I believe. Look about you. What do you see? Do you believe you're alone...? All before I was thirty-three (my current age in years )

I used to follow Christianity, yet now I hold an agnostic viewpoint. I can’t say either way if a Deity exists, or no deities exist.

 

[Mathers2013]

Then how do you explain Jimmy Saville...?

 

[wegs]

Then how do you explain Jimmy Saville...?

In terms of...?

 

[Billy T]

Billy T, ... If you were that thing (RTS...), then you wouldn't refer to yourself as ''I am a part of''... ''I'' is the part you cannot go beyond. ...jan.

It is the whole RTS, a simulation and creator of "me" that I can not tell how is done by neurons. If I am to have genuine free will (without a soul postulated) then this computational procedure can not be deterministic as all digital computers and even analogue computers that do not self modify or "short term evolve" are.* I strongly suspect the reason why the RTS is not random, NOR DETERMINISTCS, is that it is highly "self referencing" - such as "This sentence is false." is. I.e. not with any well defined truth values for its statements.
(That example sentence makes a simple declaration that is neither true, nor false.)

While a very successful type of Learning or self-taught, not programed, computer, commonly called a "neural network computer", does exist (See simple illustration of one below) it normally is not "self-referencing"; however, it could be, especially in a network of many billion such units with the input of many units coming from the output of others. Certainly that is the way the brain is "wired up" and there even the "wiring" (synaptic connections) are constantly changing. So while I don't know the details, I suspect that is how the parietal based "computation" makes "me." -"I" am created as information only in the brain, not a physical body, which would be deterministically governed by the laws of nature. I.e. could NOT have any free will. Latest research, done in Brazil, shows the major subgroup of glia cells (called astrocits) release TGF beta1 to play a critical role in this learning.

* We know brains learn and "short term evolve" as when you learn the name of person just introduced to.

Output can be more than two possibilities with more "nodes," some of which (or all) can be inter connected to be "winner takes all" or not. I suspect conscious decisions are made with "winner takes all" interconnects. I.e. you decide to buy or not to buy item A. etc. but prior to the conscious level more like weighted decisions /evaluations are made. Not known precisely but the number of "brain nodes" not part of consciousness are probable 100 times more numerous than those that are; However, as just discussed, surely output from conscious related nodes feed back as inputs to unconscious nodes AND conversely.

A three pounds (1.35kg), human brain is composed of neurons, glial cells, and blood vessels. The number of neurons was estimated in 1988 as 100 billion (1011), interconnected by their 100 trillion (1014) synapses.[5] In 2009, the estimate was lowered to 86 billion neurons, of which 16.3 billion are in the cerebral cortex, and 69 billion in the cerebellum.[ (Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain)

So if we neglect the cerebellar neurons, that mainly store learned motor pattern commands, there are ~5E10 neurons most having little to do with the RTS and even fewer to do with creating "me." Lets make a wild guess that 0.2% are. I.e. "I" am the result of the collective interactions of E8 neuronal operations. There are 10 nodes in the above diagram, so there could be 10 million such "connection like machine" creating "me." However, many are more complex than 10 nodes and because of the many postulated "feed backs" making it my postulated "self referencing" system. Only a million or so such "computational machines" make "me."

To understand how powerful that "Me, making" computer array of neurons is, note that ONLY one man-made connection computer with less than 25 nodes, mostly inputs, can do a very good, near perfect, job so recognizing faces or telling hornless goats form sheep etc. and it is not at all with self-referencing connections! Only a tiny fraction of the parietal brain surely has the computational power to "make me" in all my complexity.

Another (among 100s) of supports for the RTS is fact so much of the cortex is parietal yet only few activities are conventionally assigned to it.

 

[Balerion]

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

So you respect them for being impervious to logic and evidence. Great.

 

[wegs]

So you respect them for being impervious to logic and evidence. Great.

lol

Put another way, I respect that they aren't hypocrites, in terms of their allegiance to their faith.

 

[Balerion]

lol

Put another way, I respect that they aren't hypocrites, in terms of their allegiance to their faith. Even though I don't believe as Fundamentalists do, I appreciate that they are faithful even when it's not convenient to be.

And what makes a believer a hypocrite? Changing their mind?

And can you give an example of this belief-under-pressure that you find so praiseworthy?

 

[wegs]

And what makes a believer a hypocrite? Changing their mind?

The Catholic Church has "changed its collective mind" so fucking much over the years, it's hard to tell what it really believes anymore. Not talking individuals; we are talking the Catholic Church as in its leadership. Like before Darwin came on the scene, the bible was to be taken literally, some time after the theory of evolution emerged, oh the bible is not meant to be literal.

Um, yeah. That's called oops, how do we explain evolution away? Well, we can't. Darn. Oh let's just say the bible isn't literal. That sounds good.

And can you give an example of this belief-under-pressure that you find so praiseworthy?

They reject evolution because it goes against Scripture.
Because they choose faith first, they reject evolution.

 

[Balerion]

The Catholic Church has "changed its collective mind" so fucking much over the years, it's hard to tell what it really believes anymore. Not talking individuals; we are talking the Catholic Church as in its leadership. Like before Darwin came on the scene, the bible was to be taken literally, some time after the theory of evolution emerged, oh the bible is not meant to be literal.

Um, yeah. That's called oops, how do we explain evolution away? Oh let's just say the bible isn't literal. That sounds good.

So the largest Christian organization in the world taking steps to avoid massive controversy and a potential war against science that could result in a catastrophic blow to education systems across the west is a bad thing? Choosing reality over dogma is a bad thing? Opting for a more nuanced view of scripture over a brain-dead literalist view is a bad thing?

They reject evolution because it goes against Scripture.
Because they choose faith first, they reject evolution.

So you find willful ignorance (ie rejection of science because it goes against personal beliefs) something to be respected? I think that's the most ridiculous thing you've said since you've been here, wegs.

 

[wegs]

So the largest Christian organization in the world taking steps to avoid massive controversy and a potential war against science that could result in a catastrophic blow to education systems across the west is a bad thing? Choosing reality over dogma is a bad thing? Opting for a more nuanced view of scripture over a brain-dead literalist view is a bad thing?



So you find willful ignorance (ie rejection of science because it goes against personal beliefs) something to be respected? I think that's the most ridiculous thing you've said since you've been here, wegs.

That's because those are your words, not mine. You need to stop putting words in others' mouths to prove your points.

No...here's what I'm saying and it's as simple as this...NO Christian denomination supports evolution for what it is. If any religion that uses the Bible as its holy book of "truths", it therefore cannot support it scientifically or morally.

My point about the Catholic Church is that it doesn't support evolution, it just appears to. This isn't about people "changing their minds." It's called willful hypocrisy but you are welcome to applaud it if you like.

 

[wegs]

It is the whole RTS, a simulation and creator of "me" that I can not tell how is done by neurons. If I am to have genuine free will (without a soul postulated) then this computational procedure and not be deterministic as all digital computers and even analogue computers that do not self modify or "short term evolve" are.* I strongly suspect the reason why it is not and yet not random, is that it is highly "self referencing - such as "This sentence is false." is. I.e. not will well defined truth values for its statements.(That example sentence makes a simple declaration that is neither true, nor false.)

While a very successful type of Learning or self-taught, not programed, computer, commonly called a "neural network computer", does exist (See simple illustration of one below) it normally I not "self-referencing"; however, it could be, especially in a network of many trillion such units with the input of many units coming from the output of others. Certainly that is the way the brain is "wired up" and there even the "wiring" (synaptic connections) are constantly changing. So while I don't know the details, I suspect that parietal based "computation" is how "I" am created as information only in the brain, not a physical body, which would be deterministically governed by the laws of nature.

* We know brains learn and "short term evolve" as when you learn the name of person just introduced to.

Output can be more than two possibilities with more "nodes," some of which (or all) can be inter connected to be "winner takes all" or not. I suspect conscious decisions are made with "winner takes all" interconnects. I.e. you decide to buy or not to buy item A. etc. but prior to the conscious level more like weighted decisions /evaluations are made. Not known precisely but the number of "brain nodes" not part of consciousness are probable 100 times more numerous than those that are; However, as just discussed, surely output from conscious related node feed back as inputs to unconscious nodes AND conversely.

A three pounds (1.35kg), human brain is composed of neurons, glial cells, and blood vessels. The number of neurons was estimated in 1988 as 100 billion (1011), interconnected by their 100 trillion (1014) synapses.[5] In 2009, the estimate was lowered to 86 billion neurons, of which 16.3 billion are in the cerebral cortex, and 69 billion in the cerebellum.[ (Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain)

So if we neglect the cerebellar neurons, that mainly store learned motor pattern commands, there are ~5E10 neurons most having little to do with the RTS and even fewer to do with creating "me." Lets make a wild guess that 0.2% are. I.e. "I" am the result of the collective interactions of E8 neuronal operations. There are 10 nodes in the above diagram, so there could be 10 million such "connection like machine" creating "me." However, many are more complex than 10 nodes and because of the many postulated "feed backs" making it my postulated "self referencing" system. Only a million such machines make "me."

To understand how powerful that "Me, making" computer array of neurons is, note that ONLY one man-made connection computer with less than 25 nodes, mostly inputs, can do a very good, near perfect, job so recognizing faces or telling hornless goats form sheep etc. and it is not at all with self-referencing connections!

This is really cool, Billy!