Reply
Sun 31 Jul, 2005 02:07 pm
I will describe three of the most important creation myths of science concerning the creation of 'mind'. The concept of matter as 'bladder', with an inside and a material outside is common to them all. Inside these material bladders, according to claims, are found the important things in life, like 'I' and 'mind'.
1. One creation myth of science says that 'I' and 'mind' and similar things are created by these bladders and reside inside the bladder, but that anything found inside these bladders has no effect on the bladders themselves. The people who say this claim that anything found inside the bladder 'emerges' from, or is an emergent property of, actions and disturbances created by the 'material' (the technical term) bladder.
2. Another creation myth is known as 'eliminativim'. This claims that there is nothing inside these bladders, but that what we claim is inside the bladders, like mind and emotions, are terms of reference for the bladders themselves. Indeed, by claiming that nothing can be 'inside' the bladders, eliminatavists seem to be saying that matter is not bladders. Technically, this is at odds with materialism, for we are then led to conclude that matter is not composed of external points: we might say that eliminatavism defeats itself, for it presents no objects at all as both extension and mind are absent.
3. Another creation myth claims that the bladders create things inside themselves, like mind and emotions, but that these emotions can also affect the bladders themselves. For example, they might say 'emotions help the evolution of the brain'.
I Conclude that there are at least three creation myths of science and that none of them is compatible. In this regard, the creation myth provided by any particular religion has the advantage.
You're way out there, ain't ya, Bubba ?
What's it like, livin' on the edge like that ? What's it like bein' the extreme vanguard of the lunatic fringe ?
There is no “creation,” just as there is no “time.” The concepts are mind farts that result from trying to speak the unspeakable.
All - We do experience time - we move from the past (our memory) to the present (our current experience) - I don't think they are merely farts.
TTF
recognition turns to memory in a nanosecond. Just add time and stir. JJ is just a bit different . He loves to "speak for" and then he gets that all wrong. I think, one day, he will be correct on something.
I think that English is not JJ's native language.
thethinkfactory wrote:All - We do experience time - we move from the past (our memory) to the present (our current experience) - I don't think they are merely farts.
Off-topic, and here I go attempting to utter the unutterable.
We experience change, or perhaps better to call it ‘transition,’ and through the lens of our chemistry it feels like something has ‘passed.’ Nothing has ‘passed,’ however. The mystics—religionists and non-religionists alike—have been witnesses to this for a long, long time.
ThereÂ…a mind fart.
Well isn't that what time is? The rate of change?
V=d/t
No. The concept of time is a trap. Your chemistry telling you there is a 'now' and a 'then' in order to keep you moving. There is only 'now.' Never-changing lake that the fish swim in.
AllThisBeauty wrote:No. The concept of time is a trap. Your chemistry telling you there is a 'now' and a 'then' in order to keep you moving. There is only 'now.' Never-changing lake that the fish swim in.
So what's this 'you' that 'your' chemistry talks to? ... it all sounds a bit Harry Potter to me, bedknobs and broomsticks, sorcerer's apprentice...
joefromchicago wrote:How do you know that?
I have very good teachers, my friend.
That was an evasion, not an answer.
Not an evasion. I know this because I have seen it and others have seen it, and having seen it, it is seared into you.
Religionists will say this applies to their belief systems as well. I accept that, and I proceed.
AllThisBeauty wrote:joefromchicago wrote:How do you know that?
I have very good teachers, my friend.
It sounds odd to say 'my chemistry talked to me'. Funny thing though, scientists believe this sort of thing.
ATB, you wrote: "The concept of time is a trap. Your chemistry telling you there is a 'now' and a 'then' in order to keep you moving. There is only 'now.' Never-changing lake that the fish swim in." Joe reasonably asked you how it is that you know this. You responded with an evasion. When i pointed out your evasion, you responded: "I have very good teachers, my friend." In addition to pointing out that you and i are not friends, i will also point out that you continue to evade the quite reasonable question which Joe posed. How have you "seen" this? How do you know this? So far, you have provided no reason for those statements.
AllThisBeauty wrote:I have very good teachers, my friend.
How do you know they're right?
AllThisBeauty wrote:Not an evasion. I know this because I have seen it and others have seen it, and having seen it, it is seared into you.
How exactly can you "see" that there is only "now?"
AllThisBeauty wrote:Religionists will say this applies to their belief systems as well. I accept that, and I proceed.
What if the "religionists" are wrong?
To those above who are trying to bait me: I will not be baited, and you are still my friends.
AllThisBeauty wrote:To those above who are trying to bait me: I will not be baited, and you are still my friends.
Does your mom know that you're using her computer?
heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .
Good one Joe . . .
ATB, that's a pathetic response, and once again, it's an evasion. No one is trying to "bait" you, you are being reasonably asked to provide plausible evidence for your statements, which otherwise constitute statements from authority, an authority which we have no reason to assume you possess.
Oh, and we are still not friends.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace
