God; puzzle solved.

Cryacuz, your link suggests that mind can affect brain, just as we know brain states can affect mental states. This two-way causation suggests, should it not? that both mind and brain are aspects of one another--of a single process/phenomenon. When I point to the falsity of dualism I never (or rarely) get a response. I suspect that that is because a rejection of dualism implies the absurdity of most of our debates. And we do not want that! Despite this implication of my antidualism, I encourage such debates because of the exercise they provide our neurological systems, and it shows how clever we can be. Nothing wrong with that.

0 Replies

I understand JL. But the soul I am proposing precedes both brain and mind. I am trying to home in on the thing that causes cellular division, digestion, thoughts and headaches. But maybe I'm pointing at nothing...

0 Replies

JL, as I see it, dualism has it's uses. To study the Mona Lisa under blue light, and then under red light could add to the sum total of your knowledge and understanding of the Mona Lisa. The problem comes in when one is asked to choose which of the two colours it should be permenantly displayed in.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

But maybe I'm pointing at nothing...

That is my assertion, Cyracuz. No offense Smile

0 Replies

Eori, no doubt: dualism has its uses, which is why it is used universally in everyday thinking about mundane matters. But when we wish to get to the bottom of ontological matters in epistemologically "pure" ways, we must be able to see how it (dualism) blocks our efforts.

The same applies to the illusion of the ego-self. Societies cannot function without it (indeed, it has probably been essential to human survival), but as I've spouted incessantly, our spiritual fulfillment depends on our ability to see through that (albeit functional) illusion.

I appreciate Cyracuz stance however, namely the attempt to take a transcendental unitary approach to what it is that precedes and encompasses the subject matter of our dualisms (like true-false, mind-brain, etc.).

0 Replies

None taken Eorl.

My thought is that if mind and brain are two sides of the same coin, there must be another drive somewhere that causes the coin to roll. I think we can safely say that mind and brain have always existed in equal proportions. But since they are essentially one, we must consider the option that mind, as it's counterpart brain, has evolved, and is evolving still.

So mind is not the concept of eternal soul. It is a wholly different concept.

When it comes to beliefs, mine is that the soul is the essential creature. An eternal thing that incarnates because it is the only way in which it can alter.
And when it incarnates it can become a creature like myself, if that was the shape and size of the soul. When the incarnated creature dies the soul vacates again, altered by the experience in the flesh.
So when I'm done on this earth, my mind and brain will vanish. The imprints they have made on my soul will remain however, and when it reincarnates it will result in a different creature, formed by all the previous incarnations of the soul.

To believe this provides an explanation for me to why it is wrong to commit suicide, and why it is wrong to indulge in worldly pleasures beyond healthy restraint among other things.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

None taken Eorl.

My thought is that if mind and brain are two sides of the same coin, there must be another drive somewhere that causes the coin to roll. I think we can safely say that mind and brain have always existed in equal proportions. But since they are essentially one, we must consider the option that mind, as it's counterpart brain, has evolved, and is evolving still.

So mind is not the concept of eternal soul. It is a wholly different concept.

When it comes to beliefs, mine is that the soul is the essential creature. An eternal thing that incarnates because it is the only way in which it can alter.
And when it incarnates it can become a creature like myself, if that was the shape and size of the soul. When the incarnated creature dies the soul vacates again, altered by the experience in the flesh.
So when I'm done on this earth, my mind and brain will vanish. The imprints they have made on my soul will remain however, and when it reincarnates it will result in a different creature, formed by all the previous incarnations of the soul.

To believe this provides an explanation for me to why it is wrong to commit suicide, and why it is wrong to indulge in worldly pleasures beyond healthy restraint among other things.

If you believe it because it is useful to you, that's one thing. It has little to do with reality. Perhaps the things you think are not wrong, or more likely they ARE wrong but for different reasons than the ones you are assuming?

0 Replies

It is important, I think, to realize that just because a notion (like the self) is useful/functional that does not necessarily mean it is true (my pardons to pragmatism). This applies as well to the fact that we generally attach to ideas that we enjoy believing. The functionality and pleasure of ideas do not warrant their rejection as wrong. But we must guard against treating those values as philosophical supports for ideas.

0 Replies

Eorl

I believe it because it is how I understand the idea of karma and reincarnation. But maybe believe is too strong a word. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that I am comfortable with the idea.

Sometimes what you believe becomes the truth (but I'm not saying that's the case here). That is why I think it is a good idea, when there is no way of knowing, to believe in what you want.

When Hitler tried to conquer the world he let everyone know that he would succeed. That might have been the truth at the time. There was really no way to be sure.
What if the allied forces had believed that it was the truth? Then it is not certain that they would have prevailed against the german war machine.

JL

I agree that it is dangerous to use beliefs as aspects of philosophical theories. But I think that it may be very beneficial to apply philosophical method to issues predominately reigned by faith.
As I have tried to do with the word God. That resulted in the LE, something I hope is more related to philosophical theory than religious myth.

0 Replies

Cyracuz, I see what you are saying, and not without a certian degree of respect.

What worries me is.....if you can decide to believe something in the absence of objective proof, then you risk making decisions that are at odds with reality, which seems dangerous to you and to others.

In the simplest case: The priest who recently proved he could walk on water. In the worst case: Hitler (since you mention him) believed that Jews were less than human, or at least less than Aryan, and was able to convince many people to believe the same.

To me, the only morally right response to things I do not know is to accept that I do not know, and if I'm not comfortrable with that, to seek the knowledge I need. At all times I guard against accepting anything that isn't objectively demonstrably true, especially if I want it to be true!

0 Replies

Eorl

I would have to agree with your statements, even though it might seem contradictive to my own.

When I stated that it is good to believe in what you want I was thinking about personal direction. For instance, I need to believe in the inherent goodness of humans. Even in the face of evidence to the contrary I will cling to the belief that there is good in all of us, because it gives me an outlook on life I can endure and be happy with.

While Hitler may stand as a glaring spoke in my wheel, this is only at first glance. He believed his way was good, and he convinced many of the same. Then there were those who refused to believe, and who opposed Hitler. Their view won out, and it is the world order we know today.

But for Hitler as a person, acting on his beliefs and achieving some measure of success must have been benefitial to his personal growth. (Although I suspect even he came to realize that he'd made some momentous errors).

But I see the dangers that you mention. That is why I think it is so important that all of us find our own voices. I'd rather act on some assumption that turned out to be erroneous than allow confusion to passify me, thus making me a faceless voice in the choir praising someone else's dream.

0 Replies

Cryacuz, it seems to me that your approach to life is experimental (in a sense broader than that of strict scientific method, a method that is not suited for philosophical enquiry). I have no fear that any "mistake" you may make will lead you to the actions of a harmful bigot or fanatic. I see your ideas as provisional, as I hope mine are--even my more religious mystical ones.

0 Replies

Cyracuz, JL, thankyou. I feel I have learned something from this discussion.

As you can see JL, I'm still struggling with this confounded absolutist addiction. Rather than recovery, I fear I'm in a state of relapse! Oh well, I am doing my best, one day at a time - as they say.

Why is scientific method not suitable to philosophical enquiry? "Logic" is a form of the method, is it not?

0 Replies

JL
I think you're right. My approach is perhaps more experimental than scientific.

And my ideas are provisional, I hope. I think yours are too, after seeing how easy it is for you to adapt them to the ideas of others in the interest of understanding.

I like to think of ideas as tiny grains of sand. After a while we come to have a great deal of them; our own pile of sand.

As we probably all remember from childhood, you can only pile sand so high in the bucket before some grains start to roll off as others are added.

It is similar with ideas, or knowledge in general. New knowledge sometimes causes previously established facts to fall off the pile.

Eorl, thanks back.
I've learned much too. Another thing I find very useful about A2K is that it is excellent for dynamic and diverse approaches to any idea since it reaches so many minds.
It is an honor to participate Smile

0 Replies

God; puzzle solved.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know