What kind of thing is the mind? A sound deductive argument

@brianjakub,

Errr....think again..... 'atoms' are defined by human contexts ! Wink

(as is 'pattern'...'before'....'exist'....and spectacularly 'GOD' ! )

@fresco,

Quote:

Errr....think again..... 'atoms' are defined by human contexts ! Wink
(as is 'pattern'...'before'....'exist'....and spectacularly 'GOD' ! )

Are you saying that without humans to put matter into context the universe does not exist?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

No. I am saying that without humans 'the universe' remains undefined as such. We have no access to an observation platform from which we can view the interaction process in which 'observer' and 'observed' is a seamless coextensive mutually defining process. What we call 'existence' IS the interaction knowledge of which is constantly subject to revision. Look how what we call 'the universe' has significantly shifted in recent years to include 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'...i.e. 'stuff' which evades interaction at present...and how else will 'the universe' or other universes be conceptualised by us in years to come ? Science, as we know it, is in its infancy. Even concepts like 'atoms' could end up as a crude historical curiosity for all we know!

1 Reply

@fresco,

Just because (in your opinion) we don't have access to the platform today, Doesnt mean the platform doesn't exist or that we didn't have access to it in the past.

I would suggest Jesus Christ the creator of the universe is the platform. I don't believe that on faith. I believe it because I did the research into what type of person it would take to create the universe and then which person fits the requirements.

Ask and you'll be answered. Seek and it will be given to you. Knock and the door will be opened.

All information starts as an idea. Is stored in physical matter so it can be shared, and has to be interpreted in the correct spirit to be understood. The spirit of acceptance.

There is a lot of information stored in the matter of the universe. It is telling you a lot about the person that thought it up. Believe what you see. Ask the author to help you interpret it, the Holy Spirit is real and alive.

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

What you call 'my opinion' is a familiar position for scientific pragmatists. You on the other hand, express the hope of all religionists looking for a permanent refuge in a sea of perpetual change. The format of your particular hypothetical refuge is a function of your culture. The 'Jesus' format has its origins in Hebrew, Greek and Babylonian mythology. It is no more or less significant than any other such human palliative construction.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

BTW Many have experienced 'moments of epiphany' which are often described as 'a vision of ineffable truth'. It seems to be a brain state which can result from a number of preconditions, including meditation, religious fervour, or drugs. They tend to be transient despite the psychological and social edifaces ('holy spirit'....'cosmic conscousness' ....'nirvana'....etc) constructed around them to feed a human desire for their permanence.

0 Replies

@fresco,

I believe in God because I am a scientific pragmatist. Whenever I see complex information the patterns tell me there is an author. Jesus Christ just happens to have the characteristics of an author that can create an entire universe.

If some epiphanies are of questionable origins, that doesnt mean all have to be.

If the ancient religions are a result of man's attempt to teach what they can remember of a God that they new well before they broke the relationship, then there will be some truths that will carryover into Crstianity and Judaism.

Jesus just happens to be the only person to fit the characteristcs of the creator of the universe. And the bible story fits the cosmological and fossil record perfectly. (As long as the flood is looked at as a big bang inflation event that transitions us from a perfect universe to one that is dying, that happened hundreds of millions of years ago)

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Your citatation of David Bohm (recently) in support of your position is problematic because the most you can claim is that it suggests a depersonalized (Spinozaesque) view of 'underlying order'. Bohm himself appears to have been completely atheistic and suffered from debilitating depression at the end of his life in which 'spirituality' played no part. Writers such as Sheldrake (morphogenic fields)are probably much closer to a 'holistic consciousness'/pantheism position.

2 Replies

@fresco,

David bohm was assuming there was a structure to empty space. That is logical for black body radiation to happen according to plancks law everywhere in the universe.

This structure to empty space is a logical necessity for entropic gravity. The biggest hang up with entropic gravity is the baroque structure of space that is necessary for it to work is hard to arrive at through the big bang. It requires a quantum creation event to end up with that much complexity.

A pantheistc universe with an emerging inrelligence that could arrange the virtual and real particles of space into this baroque structure could be a possible explanation. See entropic gravity on wiki.

0 Replies

A mind is so unsubstantial that it seeks to solidify itself in time by any defense mechanism or means necessary and is, therefore, prone to egocentrism and sociopathy.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

Your citatation of David Bohm (recently) in support of your position is problematic because the most you can claim is that it suggests a depersonalized (Spinozaesque) view of 'underlying order'. Bohm himself appears to have been completely atheistic and suffered from debilitating depression at the end of his life in which 'spirituality' played no part.

Are you surprised when, the evidence was telling him there is a grand designer and, his ego was telling him I am one the most intelligent beings in the universe.

Quote:

Writers such as Sheldrake (morphogenic fields)are probably much closer to a 'holistic consciousness'/pantheism position.

I will read them. thanks

0 Replies

@jber,

The mind.

1. The point of observation.
2. The point of reflection.

1 Reply

@mark noble,

What do you mean by point of reflection?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

'Location of reciprocable immersion'.

1 Reply

@mark noble,

The point where intelligent ideas enter the physical universe.

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

No. Mind is the arena where ideas about 'a physical universe' emerge from complex neural systems called 'brains'. Intelligence is the utilization of those ideas in the service of the human need to predict and control aspects of its environment. Minds can be open to sensory input which give feedback on goal direction in the state we call 'wakefulness', or closed in the state we call 'sleep'. In dreams, the arena is offline but tends to function autonomously as though it were online. Hence the bizarre nature of dreams in which prediction and control are free to wander without restraint.

1 Reply

@fresco,

No. I need to correct you and myself. The brain is the arena where ideas about 'a physical universe' emerge from complex neural systems.

The mind (soul) is a nonphysical thing that uses intelligence to create new ideas which it turns into words by using the neurons in the brain to create physical patterns in the physical world.

Minds through the brain, use sensory input to make sense of the patterns (known as learning) and then create new patterns to express its new ideas.

This making sense of the patterns is done by communicating with other intelligent beings and agreeing on what the patterns mean. (Like when God brought the animals to man so man could name them.)

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Squawk

Quote:

No. I need to correct you and myself.

Parrot

Quote:

The brain is the arena where ideas about 'a physical universe' emerge from complex neural systems.
The mind (soul) is a nonphysical thing that uses intelligence to create new ideas which it turns into words by using the neurons in the brain to create physical patterns in the physical world.
Minds through the brain, use sensory input to make sense of the patterns (known as learning) and then create new patterns to express its new ideas.
This making sense of the patterns is done by communicating with other intelligent beings and agreeing on what the patterns mean.

Squawk

Quote:

(Like when God brought the animals to man so man could name them.)

1 Reply

@laughoutlood,

Well, if you believe in the God of the bible, that was two intelligent beings agreeing on the patterns wasnt it?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Two minds can 'agree' about patterns. But unless those patterns are involved with 'prediction and control', the two are merely involved in a bit of social communion which could even be a folie a deux.

(Google the classic psychology experiment on peer pressure by Solomon Asch)

1 Reply

What kind of thing is the mind? A sound deductive argument

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know