That the brain is nothing but a collection of particles does not discredit the existence of a God. It may also vey well be that the brain is not the sum of its parts and that the mind drives the brain. Either way, it does not discredit the existence of a God. Wave-particle duality implies that we have both an invisible as well as a visible aspect to our genetic make-up. Reality is both mental and physical. A dual-aspect monism.
Is God real enough for you?
- Thread starter Cortex_Colossum
- Start date
That the brain is nothing but a collection of particles does not discredit the existence of a God. It may also vey well be that the brain is not the sum of its parts and that the mind drives the brain. Either way, it does not discredit the existence of a God. Wave-particle duality implies that we have both an invisible as well as a visible aspect to our genetic make-up. Reality is both mental and physical. A dual-aspect monism.
The remnants of a dream can transfer from sleep to waking. The reality of the mind is absolute.
@Cortex --
I never said that it does, but it does nothing to support the existence of your, or any other, god either. What it does show is that consciousness can arise from purely physical phenomena, no god is needed to explain that(or anything else).
No. For starters if you don't have a brain then you need some other mechanism to explain the mind and you further need to explain why the mind apparently can't operate at all without the brain. Another problem with this idea is that the evidence is starting to mount against it. For example, we've recently discovered that mental activities once thought to be conscious in nature, such as deciding to move your arm, are already well underway before your conscious mind is even aware of having made a decision. While it's hardly concrete proof, it's a strike against mind/brain dichotomies such as yours.
And that you can say this with a straight face suggests that you understand little to nothing about quantum physics. In fact I'm sure that Carl Sagan would be spinning in his grave if he could hear you right now, abusing quantum mechanics in such a way. Seriously, if you're going to try to bastardize science to try and prove your god exists you could at least try to do so intelligently.
Wrong. Reality is most certainly physical while our mental image of reality is simply a model constructed by our brains with the best information it has available. Again, you're displaying your lack of knowledge here.
"The reality of the mind is absolute, but only to that mind."
Edited for factual accuracy. And given that your mind is unique you to you, doesn't that imply that it's a product of your unique brain?
I never said that it does, but it does nothing to support the existence of your, or any other, god either. What it does show is that consciousness can arise from purely physical phenomena, no god is needed to explain that(or anything else).
No. For starters if you don't have a brain then you need some other mechanism to explain the mind and you further need to explain why the mind apparently can't operate at all without the brain. Another problem with this idea is that the evidence is starting to mount against it. For example, we've recently discovered that mental activities once thought to be conscious in nature, such as deciding to move your arm, are already well underway before your conscious mind is even aware of having made a decision. While it's hardly concrete proof, it's a strike against mind/brain dichotomies such as yours.
And that you can say this with a straight face suggests that you understand little to nothing about quantum physics. In fact I'm sure that Carl Sagan would be spinning in his grave if he could hear you right now, abusing quantum mechanics in such a way. Seriously, if you're going to try to bastardize science to try and prove your god exists you could at least try to do so intelligently.
Wrong. Reality is most certainly physical while our mental image of reality is simply a model constructed by our brains with the best information it has available. Again, you're displaying your lack of knowledge here.
"The reality of the mind is absolute, but only to that mind."
Edited for factual accuracy. And given that your mind is unique you to you, doesn't that imply that it's a product of your unique brain?
But how do you know that consciousness does not arise from the immaterial, filling the void of space and time and expanding infinitely?
How do you know that all of reality itself, from rocks and minerals, to human brains and beyond, is not conscious?
Perhaps the mind has its own dimension and when we die our souls return to the infinite spacetime from whence it came.
The conscious mind is the only mind. It is what we use to mind our actions. Anything that takes place in the physical world takes place inside our consciousness. When one gains spiritual unity with reality the mind becomes an endomorphic, miniature copy of the Mind of God's.
The mind has what Christopher Michael Langan calls a syntax-state relationship and it comes before reality. Without the mind reality would not exist. The collapse of the wavefunction when an electron is observed is proof of this. It comes into being via the mind's awareness of existence. "I think, therefore I am." -Descates.
A dream is not a physical reality but a mental construct. Yet is has the power to influence physical reality, namely our brains and bodies. This can be taken as a noteworthy point that the reality of the mind can influence the physical world if it expands large enough.
What about the interception between God's mind and the human mind which lies beyond the physical world?
The unique mind is a product of the unique brain, however, the mind of God is One and the rest of all those minds can come to know the mind of God's and therefore exist as one species.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
@Cortex --
Because the model building brain works infinitely better as an explanation for consciousness and the mind than anything else. Any model positing something which is not in evidence, such as an immaterial soul, is automatically inferior to a model that makes no such assumptions.
As Laplace said, "I simply do not need those assumptions for my model". And neither does anyone else.
Because consciousness of any degree requires thought, and only brains have been shown to be capable of generating thought. No brain equals no thought. No thought equals no consciousness. Therefore no brain equals no consciousness.
Meaningless and insipid speculation. There's no evidence for this, especially since I would be willing to bet money that you're misusing the word "dimension".
False. There's also our unconscious minds, which do much of the internal regulation of our bodies and are incredibly active when we sleep and dream.
But as I've already said, the evidence is against this. Our actions are modeled by our brain which incorporates a "model builder" into the model, this is our conscious mind. However our conscious mind is not responsible for many of our actions, what with them being already under way(and past the point of no return) by the time our minds are aware that any decision has been made. That is not your conscious mind determining your actions, but your actions determining what your conscious mind thinks.
Again, all of the evidence indicates that it's the other way around. You're putting the proverbial cart before the horse here. Our mind is the result of a model that our brains build in order to allow them(and the body they control) to interact with the world around us, thus input into the brain comes well before consciousness.
This is something not in evidence, it is your assertion and nothing more. And, seeing as it's your assertion the burden of proof(the requirement that supporting evidence be presented) is on you. So put up or shut up.
This is starting to give me Deja Moo.
Look, I get that you like Langan's ideas(they aren't theories in the scientific sense of the word), but they've already been rebutted in this thread. Stop using them already.
You just don't know what you're talking about. The collapse of the waveform isn't because a conscious mind is watching it, it's because when we "observe" something on the quantum level we must, by necessity, physically interact with it, and thus the waveform collapses. Usually we're interacting with low mass particles(such as electrons) by bombarding them with photons, hence the uncertainty principle is born. In fact, in quantum physics an observer is defined as any particle that interacts with another particle. If you need to know more I suggest a book called The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene.
Unlike what you and many other woo-woos out there would like to think, quantum physics does not prove a god, or that we possess magical thinking powers. The Moon is just as real when you're not looking at it as it is when you are.
Look, just pick up a fucking physics book and read it already. Your obvious, and I think deliberate, ignorance of a subject you want to talk so much about is irritating me. And when I get irritated I start to get snarky.
It has this ability, not because of some mystical power but because it, like the mind, is a construct of our brains. Our brains build models based on sense organ input, previous experience, and a bit of imagination. Dreams are the result of our model building brains not having access to all of the data they're used to having, so they fill in the blanks the best they can(they do this while we're awake too, but our brains are more constricted by the better data when they're awake). Again, you've put the cart in front of the horse.
But it can only influence the physical world because it's a product of the physical world and it can only influence the brain and body because that's all that the brain can influence.
I'm going to need to see evidence that this actually happens before I'll accept it as a valid argument. This, of course, seems to be a case of you begging the question, but I'll let that drop as long as you agree to pick up a fucking physics book.
Again, you need evidence to substantiate this claim.
Because the model building brain works infinitely better as an explanation for consciousness and the mind than anything else. Any model positing something which is not in evidence, such as an immaterial soul, is automatically inferior to a model that makes no such assumptions.
As Laplace said, "I simply do not need those assumptions for my model". And neither does anyone else.
Because consciousness of any degree requires thought, and only brains have been shown to be capable of generating thought. No brain equals no thought. No thought equals no consciousness. Therefore no brain equals no consciousness.
Meaningless and insipid speculation. There's no evidence for this, especially since I would be willing to bet money that you're misusing the word "dimension".
False. There's also our unconscious minds, which do much of the internal regulation of our bodies and are incredibly active when we sleep and dream.
But as I've already said, the evidence is against this. Our actions are modeled by our brain which incorporates a "model builder" into the model, this is our conscious mind. However our conscious mind is not responsible for many of our actions, what with them being already under way(and past the point of no return) by the time our minds are aware that any decision has been made. That is not your conscious mind determining your actions, but your actions determining what your conscious mind thinks.
Again, all of the evidence indicates that it's the other way around. You're putting the proverbial cart before the horse here. Our mind is the result of a model that our brains build in order to allow them(and the body they control) to interact with the world around us, thus input into the brain comes well before consciousness.
This is something not in evidence, it is your assertion and nothing more. And, seeing as it's your assertion the burden of proof(the requirement that supporting evidence be presented) is on you. So put up or shut up.
This is starting to give me Deja Moo.
Look, I get that you like Langan's ideas(they aren't theories in the scientific sense of the word), but they've already been rebutted in this thread. Stop using them already.
You just don't know what you're talking about. The collapse of the waveform isn't because a conscious mind is watching it, it's because when we "observe" something on the quantum level we must, by necessity, physically interact with it, and thus the waveform collapses. Usually we're interacting with low mass particles(such as electrons) by bombarding them with photons, hence the uncertainty principle is born. In fact, in quantum physics an observer is defined as any particle that interacts with another particle. If you need to know more I suggest a book called The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene.
Unlike what you and many other woo-woos out there would like to think, quantum physics does not prove a god, or that we possess magical thinking powers. The Moon is just as real when you're not looking at it as it is when you are.
Look, just pick up a fucking physics book and read it already. Your obvious, and I think deliberate, ignorance of a subject you want to talk so much about is irritating me. And when I get irritated I start to get snarky.
It has this ability, not because of some mystical power but because it, like the mind, is a construct of our brains. Our brains build models based on sense organ input, previous experience, and a bit of imagination. Dreams are the result of our model building brains not having access to all of the data they're used to having, so they fill in the blanks the best they can(they do this while we're awake too, but our brains are more constricted by the better data when they're awake). Again, you've put the cart in front of the horse.
But it can only influence the physical world because it's a product of the physical world and it can only influence the brain and body because that's all that the brain can influence.
I'm going to need to see evidence that this actually happens before I'll accept it as a valid argument. This, of course, seems to be a case of you begging the question, but I'll let that drop as long as you agree to pick up a fucking physics book.
Again, you need evidence to substantiate this claim.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Ah. We have lost him.
Cortex, you are welcome to hypothesize on your own time that rocks are conscious and that our minds exist in its own dimension.
But this is a science forum, and in particular a religion forum. Neither science nor religion remotely suggests rocks are conscious.
Yonder lies the Alternative Theories forum. Come back to the light before it's too late.
Agreed. And supposed knowledge asserted as truth is the worst.
@Dave --
That's not necessarily true. Shintoism states that all things, rocks included, possess kami, though how conscious those kami may be is up for debate. Still, it would likely vary from practitioner to practitioner.
Oh come on, there are too many woo-woos there already, and sometimes people still post interesting things there. Send him to the Pseudoscience forum instead, that's the place that he'll find his kindred quantum-woo "souls".
That's not necessarily true. Shintoism states that all things, rocks included, possess kami, though how conscious those kami may be is up for debate. Still, it would likely vary from practitioner to practitioner.
Oh come on, there are too many woo-woos there already, and sometimes people still post interesting things there. Send him to the Pseudoscience forum instead, that's the place that he'll find his kindred quantum-woo "souls".
Atheists are simply those who are ignorant of the Truth that God is real. You are the Supreme Soul of the universe and you have not realised it yet. When the human mind intercepts with the mind of God's one becomes self-realised. The infinite one resides in all of us but only few realise it.
In Buddhism, one can be self-realized without any notions of God, so maybe it's an idea that's simply unnecessary.
de·lu·sion
[dih-loo-zhuhn]
noun
1.
an act or instance of deluding.
2.
the state of being deluded.
3.
a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4.
Psychiatry . a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.
Ever heard of the word or have people ever called you delusional?
show even one iota of proof he does or ever did exsist.
as for good and evil is all in the view of the beholder
EDIT
if your a child with an invisible friend you have an active imagination
if your an adult with one named billy your crazy
if your an adult with one named god your religious
do you see the problem here?
ROFL that is not proof i didnt even have to start readint to know that i can link a sight where there is "proof" of anything that is not scientific nor is it realy.. fact is you or any other religious person cannot submit any proof what so ever THAT is a verifiable fact
heres a different angle for you PROVE that your "god" is the real god and zues isnt the "real" god or alahh isnt the "real" god
"I imagine God to be a perfect entity who controls all life forms and God can be recognized without the senses but by the mind"
Really? No Really? You are clearly contradicting yourself in the previous posts, when you were replying to sifreak21( by the way nice analogy) you said that it's not imagination, and yet in your previous quote you say that you " imagine" your god to have certain traits and abilities using your cognitive though a process called " thinking" which reside in your brain via the frontal lobe...your god exist in your mind because you created your own personal image of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j8ZMMuu7MU&ob=av3e
Really? No Really? You are clearly contradicting yourself in the previous posts, when you were replying to sifreak21( by the way nice analogy) you said that it's not imagination, and yet in your previous quote you say that you " imagine" your god to have certain traits and abilities using your cognitive though a process called " thinking" which reside in your brain via the frontal lobe...your god exist in your mind because you created your own personal image of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j8ZMMuu7MU&ob=av3e
I am not contradicting myself at all. I was merely imagining the characteristics of God that I believe he has. Other than that God exists in my mind and in the physical world as well. He permeates matter. He is real. He is the infinite one.
Right...hate to break it to you but your brain is phyiscal matter so it only permiates that matter and nothing else. your god exist in your perception of reality( which is pretty delusional by the way) and you are contradicting yourself, if you imagine anything about your god then you are personifing your own traits and belifes about the character that you create. That by itself discerns any trace of it's existance beyound your imagination.
If triangles had a god it would have three sides.
If horse had a god it would look like horse too.