29
   

Missing in action: Where is the mind?

 
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 08:40 pm
@KaseiJin,
Quote:
Vendantic tenets which are exactly theist-based religious belief system assertions. One will need to demonstrate the validity of such, having firtstly fully described the details of the specific claims and assertions.



OK then, to further elaborate the 'TV Receiver' analogy. We could argue that the human brain has evolved to 'receive and transmit' the great drama of life in which we are all involved. It is kind of like Reality Television, but it is for real (well, more real, anyway.) Most people's reception is actually pretty crappy, because their receiver is not properly tuned. Vedanta, which you mentioned, is one of the 'master instruction manuals' for tuning your receiver so you can actually understand the drama you're involved in, rather than just mindlessly acting out a part over which you feel you have no control (and which in due course well ensure that you are 'voted off the show'.)

Make sense? Personally, I think it makes a lot more sense than materialism, but I am willing to listen to the counter argument.
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 08:46 pm
@KaseiJin,
Incidentally, regarding Einstein's views of God. I have recently completed the excellent Einstein: His Life and Universe, by Walter Isaacson (2007). It makes it perfectly clear that Einstein thought organized religion was generally childhish, and was never an observing member of his native Judaism or any other formal religious faith. But it also makes it perfectly clear that Einstein was not atheist.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 10:29 pm
@KaseiJin,
KaseiJin wrote:

Fido, while I do, and can, appreciate the art form involved in your written form, and the ideas presented through the words, I am also fully aware that such artistic form is only useful in a rather narrow, and far less pragmatic way than you may wish to project it as being capable of.

Additionally, you are very mistaken. A mind can be disected to the extent and in the very same way a brain can be disected. Also, the mind is very much a physical thing, and yet I am in no way surprized that there are so many people in the world who crave to postpone that far more accurately and useful a description of the workable part.

It is a fact, a pure and absolute fact, Fido, that if your amygdala calciumed up (meaning the re-uptake function somehow began to fail due to protein misfolding or the like), your mind would absolutely be changed, as well as your personality, your consciousness content, and the resultant behavioural patterns which had been present before calcification. The same thing would happen if your brain failed to take care of iron too...or even if your substantia nigra failed to put out dopamine any longer... I postitively guarntee you, there would be hardly a darn thing you could do about it that would not be due to physcial alterations of that physical organ which minds--in other words, the brain inside your cranium.

So, art form is fine, and worthwhile--I would never argue against, being a painter, woodworker, and a poet myself--but to make claims and assertions towards trying to attempt to identify the realities of the pragmatic world of which and in which we living organisms are, are simply not going to hold any water at all, unless they are firmly secured in down to earth realities.



You are saying that when the brain goes so goes the mind??? Well there is a piece of news!!! The world I live in is not the pragmatic world, but the real world, and out of moral forms like the mind social forms are made and social forms are a part of the physical world... Are you speaking English???
0 Replies
 
stevecook172001
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 03:16 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:

Quote:
The mind is very much a physical thing


What about the argument that the brain is like a tuner for mind, which exists in attenuated form, throughout the universe.

IN the case, the fact that damage to a part of the brain affects the mind, is due to creating difficulties in 'reception' (so to speak).

What is the argument for this view? That the predictable nature of the universe suggests a greater intelligence. You might think that a religious argument, but Einstein certainly accepted it.

What!?

Do you mean like how biology shows a "predictable nature" and so it simply must have been "intelligently designed"?

Are you some kind of closet, "intelligent-design-creationist"?

Jesus wept, give me strength.....
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 03:22 am
@stevecook172001,
I think theistic evolution is a perfectly defensible position. But I don't use ID-type arguments to argue for the fact that God exists, because I don't think God does exist. All I have said is that the predictable nature of the Universe suggests a greater intelligence, which is true.

And your closing phrase is either ironic, or blasphemous. I suspect the latter.
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 03:38 am
I should explain my position a little more clearly. I don't believe God exists, because I believe that a transcendent being must by definition be beyond existence. Therefore I am going to try and avoid arguing for or against the existence of God in ID terms.

My personal outlook is that religious traditions represent, or signify, important truths. But I am not especially aligned with Biblical or evangelical Christianity.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 05:22 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:

I should explain my position a little more clearly. I don't believe God exists, because I believe that a transcendent being must by definition be beyond existence. Therefore I am going to try and avoid arguing for or against the existence of God in ID terms.

My personal outlook is that religious traditions represent, or signify, important truths. But I am not especially aligned with Biblical or evangelical Christianity.


All science is based upon the predictable behavior of nature... Fine... Explain your position, but the need to explain everything to understand something is a common mistake... Existence is infinite, beyond existence is infinite, and God is infinite, and we can only have finite knowledge of finite reality... Speculation is not knowledge, and never will be...
0 Replies
 
stevecook172001
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 06:17 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:

I think theistic evolution is a perfectly defensible position. But I don't use ID-type arguments to argue for the fact that God exists, because I don't think God does exist. All I have said is that the predictable nature of the Universe suggests a greater intelligence, which is true.

And your closing phrase is either ironic, or blasphemous. I suspect the latter.

Both.

I love the smell of bruised, religious sensibilities in the m0rning.

Some humans have spent several centuries and an ocean of misery climbing out of the swamp of pernicious ignorance that is religious superstition. Religious "explanations", alongside all other weak-minded, ideological short-cuts to the truth, are the enemies of reason.

That makes them my enemy.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 07:44 am
@stevecook172001,
stevecook172001 wrote:

jeeprs wrote:

I think theistic evolution is a perfectly defensible position. But I don't use ID-type arguments to argue for the fact that God exists, because I don't think God does exist. All I have said is that the predictable nature of the Universe suggests a greater intelligence, which is true.

And your closing phrase is either ironic, or blasphemous. I suspect the latter.

Both.

I love the smell of bruised, religious sensibilities in the m0rning.

Some humans have spent several centuries and an ocean of misery climbing out of the swamp of pernicious ignorance that is religious superstition. Religious "explanations", alongside all other weak-minded, ideological short-cuts to the truth, are the enemies of reason.

That makes them my enemy.

Can the cant and the purple prose... None of us have a monopoly on rationaaity, and even if we did, it would be very little use in dealing with moral forms like the mind that are irrational, or anti rational... Technically, the idea of mind is in the same class as the notion of God, and very often people could not tell them apart as many mentally ill people cannot, today, tell them apart..
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  2  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 07:47 am
@stevecook172001,
bruised religious sensibilities vs angry atheism. I would say they're remarkably similar, actually.
KaseiJin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 08:07 am
@jeeprs,
You gentlemen (gentleladies, if any participating here now) will have to give me a little room, since I've ended up not having time this evening, and may not until Thursday. Please do allow me just a few comments to get back with a bit later, please.

jeeprs wrote:

Incidentally, regarding Einstein's views of God. . . But it also makes it perfectly clear that Einstein was not atheist.

As the record stands, it cannot be said in the stricter senses that Einstein was either atheist, or theist. He is constantly presented as a secular humanist--a frame of outlook which I likewise consider myself to be of. It is true, nevertheless, that he occasionally slung the word god (and with the g capitalized to boot) around a little too carelessly. (I doubt he'd looked into the English on that too much)

However, we should not allow, my fellow contenders and all, this thread to break down as so many had (over there) due to random posting (content wise) of side comments. And this thread should have little discussion about religious beliefs. (where 'religious' more specifically refers to tenets of a theist-based religious belief system)

Fido wrote:
You are saying that when the brain goes so goes the mind??? Well there is a piece of news!!!

Yes, that is exactly the direction in which the average of the best, most secure evidence points towards. If that is news to you, then I hope you will spend the time necessary to look into it more carefully than you have so far; and would really encourage you in that Fido. Here is the link to working definitions for this topic, please do look over them carefully, and think about the description being drawn up. The post here on page four

Fido wrote:
The world I live in is not the pragmatic world, but the real world, . . .

You might wish to reconsider this, however, because it is a complete contradiction.

stevecook172001, I am enjoying reading your posts as well, and reason that we are very much on the same side of the table here (as best I can tell at the moment). For what it may be worth, and with whatever actual degree of authority I may be considered worthy of having, I would like to extend, please, the consideration that we take care not to derail the thread, nor to cause unnecessary emotional hair raising--a scenario which can lead to the detriment of efforts to reason more properly here (not for the contenders, yet for the neutral, following third party which may be won over with more keener logic, ration, and free inquiry). I really wish, stevecook172001, that you trust my discernment here, on this point, please.

I will be back, jeeprs, and will touch on some things you've brought up, but first I'll give you one more chance here to add to the definition adjustment, or it's closed for this discussion--and I will not allow you to shift mid-discussion on that working definition (and please do consider that your efforts to adjust may not make it either; since, basically, the English meaning is quite fixed, you see.)

jeeprs
 
  2  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 08:37 am
@KaseiJin,
Quote:
As the record stands, it cannot be said in the stricter senses that Einstein was either atheist, or theist.


Einstein: ''There are people who say there is no God, but what makes me really angry is when they quote me for support of such views."

"Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernable laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and impenetrable. Veneration for this force beyond anything we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in fact, religious."

Einstein: His Life and Universe, Walter Isaacson, 2007, Chapter 5, Einstein's God.
stevecook172001
 
  3  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 05:51 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:

bruised religious sensibilities vs angry atheism. I would say they're remarkably similar, actually.

You are quite correct that I am an angry atheist Jeepers. In the above respect, such a psychological state is indeed similar to the irrationality of religiosity. In some ways, however, it most certainly is not. As well as outline further the similarities and dissimilarities I should, perhaps, explain my obvious hostility to the religious/spiritualist/superstitious tendency in humans. In doing so I am, of course, quite prepared to concede it is a most natural psychological state of affairs to be so inclined. In this respect, it's probably a function of our hard-wired need to find (or, in the absence of finding, impose) patterns in the world. this trait has served our species well and is part of our peculiar capacity to plan ahead and remember the past.

However, one of the downsides is that we simply cannot cope with holes in our knowledge. When such holes exist we tend to "fill them in" with what whatever superstitious nonsense happens to best fit the cultural needs of the time and place. Typically, this takes the form of supernatural narratives. The reason, they are supernatural is, I suspect, because in being so, they are not amenable to proof of their non existence. In other words, if you are going to make something up and you wish your invented belief to stand, best make it as unnamenable to rational scrutiny as possible.

I'm not saying that people deliberately go out of their way to deceive (though some do). What I am saying is that any supernatural belief system will not survive long if it can be tested against the real world. And so, counter intuitively, only the most fanciful, the most outrageously irrational and unfalsifiable religious belief systems tend to prevail over the longer term.

We've all heard, "You must have faith". This tends to a common refrain across many religions. Ever wondered why?

Well, we all know what faith is. Faith is, by definition, a belief in something in the absence of evidence. For, if you do have evidence, you don't need faith

Up until the fairly recently in human history, human life was pretty short and pretty unpredictable for most humans. In such an environment, it is hardly surprising that most of humanity was trapped in the irrationality of superstition. However, by virtues of the one time draw down of the stored solar energy of millennia, we have been able to fuel an explosion in technological and intellectual development. Alongside this lifting of the veil of ignorance has been a commensurate pushing back of the old superstitions.

Nevertheless, old habits die hard and the religion meme still lurks in the cultural shadows. Of course, it has had to mind its manners of late and can no longer openly persecute heretics by burning them as the stake or engage in other equally heinous persecutions of non-believers. It still, however, in the so called secular West enjoys privileged status in term of state funding etc. Make no mistake, though. If religion is given more than an inch in the modern world, it will attempt to take a mile. We must never forget the atrocities perpetrated in the name of it over the centuries.

But, what really galls me is the idea that religious believers are somehow given special reverential status in term of their right to not be "offended". By all means, we should be respectful of humans. However, the ideas of humans have to earn the right to be respected and we should not be afraid to criticize, harshly even, ideas that do not stand the test of intellectual scrutiny. Could it be, perhaps, that religious people demand this special privilege precisely because they know full well that their beliefs cannot survive such a test.

Now, you may well cry, Jeepers, what has all of the above got to do with your posts on this thread? The answer is everything. What you are attempting (whether you are aware of it or not) to do is to put forward a non rational belief system because you are uncomfortable with the fact that there is no rational explanation available to us in terms of the questions your non falsifiable beliefs attempt to answer. This is little more than religious superstition dressed in secular garb.

If I were to sum up all of the above:

I am against religious superstition because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.






jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 06:38 pm
@stevecook172001,
Thanks Steve - I acknowledge the thought that has gone into this reply and the clarity of your explanation, and I also understand, I think, your motivation. However - I may not have time to respond completely at this point - there are some other perspectives which I would like to provide. First I will provide a little background to my approach.

I actually got into online forums as a response to The God Delusion. A friend of mine - and he is still a very firm friend - thought it a great book, and well overdue. Myself, being of somewhat religious outlook, declined to agree, but rather than argue with him - and actually, he and I don't really discuss these matters often - I decided to go to the dragon's lair and signed up with Dawkins.net.

It was not a very happy experience, but I learned something from it, and have continued to read, learn, debate, and so on. After a while I moved on to the Philosophy Forum, since merged, which was rather less hardline anti-religion than the Dawkins forum. Nevertheless there are quite a number of well-educated antagonists on there and I had to debate very carefully.

Now personally, I am not a church-going, bible believing Christian. I am a 60's person whose spiritual outlook was greatly influenced by experiences with entheogens and subsequent reading of Eastern philosophy and Buddhist meditation. The generic description is 'spiritual not religious'. Subsequently I did an Hons degree in Comparitive Religion and have read widely, if not deeply, in Western and other philosophy, popular science, history, etc, etc.

So through all of this - I am a boomer, born early 50's - I have come around to a spiritual or religious outlook on life, but because of the route I have taken, am somewhat to one side of the culture wars between Science and Religion. My sympathies are more on the religious side, but I suspect that my spiritual philosophy would be anathema in any evangelical organisation, who would probably regard my type as a more insidious threat to their agenda than outright atheism. (For a perceptive critique, see The Neural Buddhists)

So now I am committed, albeit without what could be described as an iron-clad discipline, to Buddhist meditation and 'the Buddhist way'. And I interpret both Christianity and 'the culture wars' from this perspective. So if I am going to challenge your analysis of the matter, which I surely will, this will be the background to it. For now, I really have to get some actual work done - but I will come back later (Sydney time). I do have some things to say about this idea of the nature of 'faith'.
0 Replies
 
KaseiJin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 08:05 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:

Einstein: ''There are people who . . . "Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that


jeeprs, jeeprs . . . I really, really wish you hadn't done that; it's so petty. I'm sure that Einstein did not like it when folks quoted him to try to prove a point related to any god issue--in that he likely did not like tobe seen as one really talking about anything other than nature as seen through scientific method and the awe of what that is showing us (much less one talking of theology).

As I did point out, however, he did use the 'g' word a bit loosely. The quotes you have provided, have clearly been taken out of a larger context (not surprizing at all for Walter Isaacson's work) and I can but only take it that your having posted such quotes was an attempt to suggest that Einstein had a lean towards theistic-based religious system emotions (as that author was bent on doing). That is petty (besides, this thread has a clear enough topic and bearing...and why not try to stick with it a little better than the normal, run-of-the-mill internet forum?)

BUT, I feel that I have been a bit pushed to respond in like (this time) at the sake of even being petty myself but I do hope this will finish this, and we can get back to the real discussion, please !!!

Albert Einstein; March 24, 1954 (letter) -see Albert Einstein, the Human Side, Princeton University Press, 1981; p. 43- wrote:
"It was, of course, a lie what you rad about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."


Albert Einstein; Archieve 38~434; -see The expanded Quotable Einstein; p. 218- wrote:
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever . . . This is a somewhat new kind of religion."


Albert Einstein; -see Albert Einstien, the Human Side; p 39 wrote:
"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."


Albert Einstein; 1954 or 55 (letter)-see ibid; p 39- wrote:
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism." (notice that he capitalized the word 'nature' twice !)


Albert Einstein; 1946 (letter)-see ibid.; p? wrote:
"The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the gym of all art and true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alein, who is no longer capaable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man. To know that what is impenetrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties--this knowledge, this feeling . . . that is the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself among profoundly religious men."


Albert Einstein; (from 1934 symposium on Science, Philosophy, and Religion; -see Out of My Later Years (Greenwood Press, 1970; pp29~30 wrote:
"The further the spiritual revolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiousity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."


Albert Einstein; -see The Private Albert Einstein (Kansas City, 1992; p 86)" wrote:
I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering with those of natural laws. As I said before (my note: see two quotes above), the most beautiful and most profound religious emotion that we can experience is the sensati0n of the mystical. And this mysticality is the power of all true science." (what we do find, is that his use of 'mystical' is more obviously based on the common English noun 'mystery'--meaning what is unknown, or unsure of, and not the theist-based religious belief system rooted mysticism of ancient eastern systems.)


Albert Einstein; Feb. 5, 1921 (letter) -see Albert Einstein, the Human Side; p 40 wrote:
"The mystical trend in our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning." (here, nevertheless, context demonstrates that he is using 'mystical' in their (those belief system's ways of usage) sense; not his)


And, to cap off what could yet go on a little:
Albert Einstein; -see Out of My Later Years; p 25 wrote:
"For science can only ascertain what is (sic), but not what should be (sic), and outside of its domain value judgements of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts."


Now, let's put that to rest then, along with matters more realted to arguments of theist-based religious belief system doctrine, and get back to the real meat of the topic and the arguments and facts of what can be determined, tested, and verified to be worthy of being called the more factual of natural reality...gentlemen, gentleladies, PLEASE !!



jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 08:45 pm
@KaseiJin,
Hi KJ - thanks for the Einstein quotes - I am in agreement with his sentiment in most of those.

Stop trying to be umpire. The topic was 'where is mind' which turned into the debate on nuerological and biological reductionism, of which you are the number 1 representative. In order to make sense of such a barren and ultimately self-defeating attitude, a lot of cultural analysis is required. That's what I am doing. And take it from Albert:
Quote:
The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion.

Ne'er a truer word spoken.
KaseiJin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 10:14 pm
@jeeprs,
Look, jeeprs, I am fully aware of the OP, I am fully aware of my entry into the thread, the more specific reasons for that, and I am also aware that we would be better off being efficient in going about answering towards the OP.

Now, I have given you more than plenty of opportunity to offer adjustments of the definition, and you haven't, so I will no longer accept any adjustments to what you have already agreed to; and will move on towards answering the OP.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 10:18 pm
@KaseiJin,
KaseiJin wrote:

jeeprs wrote:

Einstein: ''There are people who . . . "Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that


jeeprs, jeeprs . . . I really, really wish you hadn't done that; it's so petty. I'm sure that Einstein did not like it when folks quoted him to try to prove a point related to any god issue--in that he likely did not like tobe seen as one really talking about anything other than nature as seen through scientific method and the awe of what that is showing us (much less one talking of theology).

As I did point out, however, he did use the 'g' word a bit loosely. The quotes you have provided, have clearly been taken out of a larger context (not surprizing at all for Walter Isaacson's work) and I can but only take it that your having posted such quotes was an attempt to suggest that Einstein had a lean towards theistic-based religious system emotions (as that author was bent on doing). That is petty (besides, this thread has a clear enough topic and bearing...and why not try to stick with it a little better than the normal, run-of-the-mill internet forum?)

BUT, I feel that I have been a bit pushed to respond in like (this time) at the sake of even being petty myself but I do hope this will finish this, and we can get back to the real discussion, please !!!

Albert Einstein; March 24, 1954 (letter) -see Albert Einstein, the Human Side, Princeton University Press, 1981; p. 43- wrote:
"It was, of course, a lie what you rad about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."


Albert Einstein; Archieve 38~434; -see The expanded Quotable Einstein; p. 218- wrote:
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever . . . This is a somewhat new kind of religion."


Albert Einstein; -see Albert Einstien, the Human Side; p 39 wrote:
"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."


Albert Einstein; 1954 or 55 (letter)-see ibid; p 39- wrote:
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism." (notice that he capitalized the word 'nature' twice !)


Albert Einstein; 1946 (letter)-see ibid.; p? wrote:
"The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the gym of all art and true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alein, who is no longer capaable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man. To know that what is impenetrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties--this knowledge, this feeling . . . that is the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself among profoundly religious men."


Albert Einstein; (from 1934 symposium on Science, Philosophy, and Religion; -see Out of My Later Years (Greenwood Press, 1970; pp29~30 wrote:
"The further the spiritual revolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiousity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."


Albert Einstein; -see The Private Albert Einstein (Kansas City, 1992; p 86)" wrote:
I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering with those of natural laws. As I said before (my note: see two quotes above), the most beautiful and most profound religious emotion that we can experience is the sensati0n of the mystical. And this mysticality is the power of all true science." (what we do find, is that his use of 'mystical' is more obviously based on the common English noun 'mystery'--meaning what is unknown, or unsure of, and not the theist-based religious belief system rooted mysticism of ancient eastern systems.)


Albert Einstein; Feb. 5, 1921 (letter) -see Albert Einstein, the Human Side; p 40 wrote:
"The mystical trend in our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning." (here, nevertheless, context demonstrates that he is using 'mystical' in their (those belief system's ways of usage) sense; not his)


And, to cap off what could yet go on a little:
Albert Einstein; -see Out of My Later Years; p 25 wrote:
"For science can only ascertain what is (sic), but not what should be (sic), and outside of its domain value judgements of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts."


Now, let's put that to rest then, along with matters more realted to arguments of theist-based religious belief system doctrine, and get back to the real meat of the topic and the arguments and facts of what can be determined, tested, and verified to be worthy of being called the more factual of natural reality...gentlemen, gentleladies, PLEASE !!






What a bunch of junk... Some old guy long dead believed God was possible... So what does this testimony actually prove???
KaseiJin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 10:23 pm
@Fido,
Fido, you totally missed the point, so I will make it clear. Albert Einstein, like myself, and a good number of other adventures into what can be better ascertained through careful observation and testing of nature in a more efficient methodological manner, hold, is that nature is the entity! It's nature . . . not some idealized concepts of any anthropomorphized being or essence of mind in the firmer sense we will find in a good English dictionary.

I, on the other hand, have discarded the use of the English word 'god' (and fully realize the faultiness in using the "God" form), and use the word 'nature,' instead. (but I don't capitalize it)
0 Replies
 
north
 
  3  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 10:34 pm
@jeeprs,

the MIND is the culmination of all the aspects of the brain , into a oneness , the MIND

within the Mind most talents of the Mind work together

the Mind is where the brain focuses into a central place , where it harmonizes , brings together , works together , the brain as a whole

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/16/2021 at 12:05:38