What differentiates your beliefs from atheism?

[vulcanlogician]

Below are links that better covers the subject of the soul and spirit of an individual that I hope would be helpful.

The first link you provided was Gotquestions.org. They are not trying to be objective about the issue. In fact, no justification, other than scriptural justification, is provided for how we may differentiate the mind/soul/spirit in that first link you provided.

I'm not saying that the people at gotquestion.org are necessarily wrong. They might very well be correct. @FaithNotBelief and I are two dudes trying to figure out what consciousness is. We are not looking for a satisfying answer to the question. We are looking for an (objectively) correct answer to the question, if we can manage to muster one up.

Paul wants to proclaim the answer, and set his followers' minds at ease because (according to what he thinks) the answer is revealed.

I'm not saying Paul is right or wrong. He may very well be right. But he hasn't proven it to me yet.

Christians like to say that they believe that one person (Jesus) was completely right in both his speech and ideas. But they actually think that Paul and a few other figures were immune to error. At least when they sat down to write. If Peter wrote an epistle, every Christian believes that every word in that epistle is the unblemished truth.

But the synoptic Gospels tell a different story.

When Jesus confides to Peter that he is going to be crucified, Peter is like "No way, man. We'll get you out of that and make sure it doesn't happen." To Peter, Jesus' continued ministry was of the utmost importance. But Jesus disagreed, and had some rather harsh words for Peter when he heard Peter's recommendation. "Get behind me Satan," was his exact response.

Fairly harsh words, considering that all Peter wants to do is save his dear friend from a tortuous execution. What's so "Satanic" about wanting to save a righteous man's life? But it turns out, Jesus apparently sees something VERY Satanic in continuing the ministry without making the proper sacrifices.

Gotquestions is about as anti-Christian as you can get. Even the most avid atheists and Satanists on this forum could scarcely refuse Jesus Christ as wholeheartedly as do the folks at gotquestions.org. These people want power and influence. But Jesus' ministry was about sacrifice and love. If you find their interpretations useful, by all means, learn all you can from them.

But it's fair game to question the motivations of gotquestions.org. I'm not saying we should dismiss everything they say out of hand. I'm sure they have some things right. But they aren't any kind of authority concerning reality, and neither is the Bible.

 

[Whateverist]

Sorry for the double post. I started responding yesterday and then read your from last night which got added to what I’d started there but now I can’t edit or delete the mess in my previous post.

But if you want to say that the brain "amplifies" or (perhaps) "augments" or "shapes" consciousness, I think you have to contend with the fact that the brain can not only augment consciousness. It can shut it completely off. The brain, in fact does this with every human being for 6-8 hours every day with all of us.

I like your suggestion that brains “shape” consciousness better than “amplify”. Trauma, sleep and death have drastic effects on consciousness. But everything flows and changes. Nothing is permanent. We are each like a vortex in a river, a pattern that emerges and becomes fairly stable for a while. But the energy comes from the river itself, from some great whole that is the ground of everything. The many arise from the one and, of course, not through the action of an engineering God. There is nothing top-down about the one.

The way McGilchrist sized up the options for understanding the brain’s contribution comes from William James. I found a nicely condensed statement of this by Matthew David Segall, PhD online here where he summarized a few points from The Matter With Things.

“The Matter With Things” by Iain McGilchrist

“Inspired by William James, McGilchrist provides a helpful list of theoretical interpretations of the mind/brain relation (TMWT, 1085) (these are my glosses):

• “Emission” theory, where neurochemistry is considered to be the fully explanatory cause of consciousness. In such a view, humans are just especially complicated robots designed by a Dawkinsian Blind Watchmaker. For McGilchrist, and I certainly agree, such views are utterly incoherent and self-contradictory, symptoms of possession by an overzealous left hemisphere.
• “Transmission” theory: the embodied brain is considered to be a passive receiver of a cosmic mind-field. As McGilchrist described it, “It thinks—thought takes place in the field of me.”
• “Permission” theory: inclusive of transmission but also understands the embodied brain as a creative constraint and purposeful filter actively contributing new value to mind-at-large. If not already obvious, McGilchrist favors this theory.

It follows that consciousness is not a thing, nor a brain excretion, but a betweenness, a process of connection permitted by the living activity of our organism. And as Whitehead reminds us, the brain and body are “just as much part of nature as anything else there—a river, or a mountain, or a cloud” (Modes of Thought, 30). Consciousness is not a part accidentally added on to the periphery of the universe when the right number of neurons became aggregated. Consciousness is the inside of the whole world-process. It is amplified by the brain, but not produced inside the head.”

I also liked this from the essay that he quotes from TMWT:

“
“Understanding the structure of the brain and how it functions can help us see the constraints on consciousness, much as, to use another metaphor, the banks of a river constrain its flow and are integral to its being a river at all, without themselves being sufficient to cause the river, or being themselves the river, or explaining it away.”

-McGilchrist (TMWT, 34)”


So no brain no consciousness yet the brain isn’t the whole story. His book cites lots of science research and he clearly values it. Theorizing which runs afoul of good science is no good. But theorizing which restricts itself to summarizing the science is sterile.

 

[ChieftheCef]

Yes, I differentiate between existence and reality.

In my view, existence is what was and what is.

Reality includes that and more: What was, what is, what will be, what wasn't, what isn't, what won't and what could be.

That's very interesting my view is that Nothing (what we understand as nothing but scientists have coined space-time) is in some way all of those things.

It's what always was, what still is, what will be, what wasn't as the exact moment Nothing was Nature (the all incomprehensible) became. It's the break in the causal chain. Go back enough in the causal chain you'd think you find no end to it, but Nothing is what is behind the Universe, a great incomprehensible. Nothing is immaterial, immanent, far away, omnipresent, and eternal. He is beyond the material world and creator, Nothingness, the void, space time!

 

[Esaurus]

@FaithNotBelief and I are two dudes trying to figure out what consciousness is. We are not looking for a satisfying answer to the question. We are looking for an (objectively) correct answer to the question, if we can manage to muster one up.

etc.

Even though true the sights I suggested are not perfect, I only hoped they would give a better touch-up on the body, soul, and spirit subject.

As for Jesus' rebuking Peter, we saw an example of the ongoing conflict between the natural and the spiritual side of man that's going on within us all even now! Peter rebuked Jesus because he was unaware of the crucial necessity for sinless Jesus to die for us. Jesus' death is your and my only hope! That is why Jesus saw Peter's rebuke as Satanic. Satan only wants to rob us of hope.

Even though Jesus came to Earth to die at the time, many including Peter thought Jesus was to establish His earthly kingdom at that time. Peter was thus heavily disappointed when Jesus said that He was to die and thus had to be corrected. Jesus will return to establish His earthly kingdom at a future time.

If we can't trust the Bible as our ultimate authority of truth then who or what may we trust?

ELD

 

[vulcanlogician]

As for Jesus' rebuking Peter, we saw an example of the ongoing conflict between the natural and the spiritual side of man that's going on within us all even now! Peter rebuked Jesus because he was unaware of the crucial necessity for sinless Jesus to die for us. Jesus' death is your and my only hope! That is why Jesus saw Peter's rebuke as Satanic. Satan only wants to rob us of hope.

That may very well be. But my point is that (later on) it is supposed that Peter wrote an epistle, and that this epistle is without error. But in the Gospels we see Peter make a number of errors. I think he cut off a soldier's ear at some point. And maybe some other things. I mean, Peter is in no way portrayed as a wicked person. His heart is in the right place, even when he makes these errors. But the fact is (and Jesus rebuking him seems to offer proof of this) he does make errors.

How is it that ANYONE is presumed to be able to write without error when the only being who the Christians presume to be without error is Jesus?

If we can't trust the Bible as our ultimate authority of truth then who or what may we trust?

Our eyes and ears sometimes deceives us. Sometimes we are confused about what we see and hear. But that doesn't mean our own good senses aren't trustworthy, for the most part, in giving us good information about the world.

We can develop moral theories based on rationality and fairness to get the job done for everyday moral judgments. I have known atheists who I would trust to make good moral judgments on things. And I think THEY are qualified, not because they are perfect moral arbiters, but because (like Peter) their hearts are in the right place, and they can fully explain how and why they think something is right or wrong in the first place.

A few years back I remember reading about a teenage kid that was beaten to death in a parking lot because he wanted to leave his Christian cult. Now, first, I will point out that this is rare behavior from Christians. (Most Christians would never do this. But neither would most atheists.) But I'm pretty sure these cult members thought that the Bible justified their actions. You know who DIDN'T think this action was justified? A secular court. The court convicted several of the participants for murder and others for manslaughter.

By what authority did the court hand out these convictions? By the rule of the law of the state. And this law is based on human reason and human consensus. Is it perfect? No. But it will not tolerate (and cannot be manipulated to tolerate) the beating to death of teens in a parking lot.

 

[vulcanlogician]

There is nothing top-down about the one.

If you ever make a book of personal epigrams/quotes, you gotta include this one.

“Inspired by William James, McGilchrist provides a helpful list of theoretical interpretations of the mind/brain relation (TMWT, 1085) (these are my glosses):

• “Emission” theory, where neurochemistry is considered to be the fully explanatory cause of consciousness. In such a view, humans are just especially complicated robots designed by a Dawkinsian Blind Watchmaker. For McGilchrist, and I certainly agree, such views are utterly incoherent and self-contradictory, symptoms of possession by an overzealous left hemisphere.
• “Transmission” theory: the embodied brain is considered to be a passive receiver of a cosmic mind-field. As McGilchrist described it, “It thinks—thought takes place in the field of me.”
• “Permission” theory: inclusive of transmission but also understands the embodied brain as a creative constraint and purposeful filter actively contributing new value to mind-at-large. If not already obvious, McGilchrist favors this theory.

Wow! This is an interesting elaboration on James! I kinda would want to give it some thought as to which of these 3 categories I find most plausible.

So no brain no consciousness yet the brain isn’t the whole story. His book cites lots of science research and he clearly values it. Theorizing which runs afoul of good science is no good. But theorizing which restricts itself to summarizing the science is sterile.

I don't suppose this book is free online anywhere?

 

[Whateverist]

If you ever make a book of personal epigrams/quotes, you gotta include this one.



Wow! This is an interesting elaboration on James! I kinda would want to give it some thought as to which of these 3 categories I find most plausible.



I don't suppose this book is free online anywhere?

Not that I know of though The Master and His Emissary has a wonderful summary of European Phenomenological philosophy and probably could be checked out of a library.

But The Matter With Things is just great. Maybe borrow it from a library. I hardly buy any books anymore. But I did buy a Kindle just so I could get that version to read. Do you have one already?

If I could figure out where to put it I could start a thread with for my excerpts from it.

 

[vulcanlogician]

If I could figure out where to put it I could start a thread with for my excerpts from it.

Yeah, man. Why don't you just quote some excepts for us to discuss?

Libraries are cool and all, but one of the advantages of being obsessed with things that were written 100+ years ago is that you pretty much get to read most of what you want to for free.

While I certainly think that all writers should be compensated for impressive works, I also think "all property is theft." And this especially includes intellectual property with something important, true, or crucial to say. If a person genuinely hits upon the truth, he isn't therefore justified in "paywalling" it.

The big reason that this is such a gripe for me is the excessive paywalling that goes on with academic literature. It's nigh impossible for an individual scholar to pay these fees. And universities that pay for the student body to access these materials are essentially taxed by the journals. And it is over-taxation imo.

Every time I see an academic paper or philosophy book quoted at length on the internet, I say, the original intent of the work is being realized. It has injected its questions into the agora.

 

[Ella S.]

Yeah, man. Why don't you just quote some excepts for us to discuss?

Libraries are cool and all, but one of the advantages of being obsessed with things that were written 100+ years ago is that you pretty much get to read most of what you want to for free.

While I certainly think that all writers should be compensated for impressive works, I also think "all property is theft." And this especially includes intellectual property with something important, true, or crucial to say. If a person genuinely hits upon the truth, he isn't therefore justified in "paywalling" it.

The big reason that this is such a gripe for me is the excessive paywalling that goes on with academic literature. It's nigh impossible for an individual scholar to pay these fees. And universities that pay for the student body to access these materials are essentially taxed by the journals. And it is over-taxation imo.

Every time I see an academic paper or philosophy book quoted at length on the internet, I say, the original intent of the work is being realized. It has injected its questions into the agora.

This is my major opposition to publishing in scholarly sources. I want my work to be accessible, not behind a paywall.

Many of them demand exclusivity, too, so once I publish a paper on computational logic or type theory (or, once, a history paper) then I'm no longer allowed to publish it anywhere else.

This is one of my reasons for going into information security rather than going back to college to finish my doctorate in computer science. At least, as a hacker, I can publish all of my scripts to my GitHub and submit all of the bugs and vulnerabilities I discover to public databases, all free of charge.

I have written a few books in the past and I have uploaded free digital copies of all of them onto archive.org, some of them contain material that was originally intended to be published in a more reputable journal before I became disillusioned with the limitations they place on accessible knowledge.

One of the major reasons why I push for the normalization of decentralized, encrypted networks such as the "dark web" is because they allow people from all over the globe to connect to a site like archive.org and read the numerous digital copies of books they have made available.

Nobody in my lifetime has seriously referred to the internet as the "information super highway" because I'm too young, but I think that's when the internet is at its best. Everyone should be able to access e-books, online encyclopedias, textbooks, and academic papers, in my opinion. Information that can be made to be free should be made to be free.

 

[vulcanlogician]

This is my major opposition to publishing in scholarly sources. I want my work to be accessible, not behind a paywall.

Many of them demand exclusivity, too, so once I publish a paper on computational logic or type theory (or, once, a history paper) then I'm no longer allowed to publish it anywhere else.

Agreed. I wish academic journals would limit their paywalling to three years or something like that. This way, they have enough time to make a profit, when the work is fresh and relevant.

Then perhaps, they could either release to the public domain (most ideal) or at the very least reduce the price of access to a dollar or two. They might even end up making more money that way.