Evidence?

[Autodidact]

By physical senses, I mean the standard package: sight, etc..

To explain "non-physical sense," let's assume the soul exists. I believe that if it does, the brain is its interface. It could then physically process non-physical input from the soul.

That the soul exists apart from the physical body and brain? Kind of a big, unwarranted, assumption, I'd say. Again, no such thing has ever been observed. It also multiplies entities unnecessarily.

 

[Storm]

That the soul exists apart from the physical body and brain? Kind of a big, unwarranted, assumption, I'd say. Again, no such thing has ever been observed. It also multiplies entities unnecessarily.

It was an example. You asked me to explain, I tried. Was it successful or not?

 

[Autodidact]

It was an example. You asked me to explain, I tried. Was it successful or not?

It doesn't sound like an example:

To explain "non-physical sense," let's assume the soul exists.

It sounds like for the idea of a "non-physical sense" to make sense, I first have to assume something unwarranted, a soul.

 

[Storm]

Whatever, Auto. This tangent isn't worth the annoyance.

 

[Autodidact]

O.K., then to get back to where we were before we got on it, I think you were saying that God could theoretically be perceived with a spiritual sense. What is that? Does everyone have it?

 

[Storm]

Everyone has it, yes. Some people have it stronger than others, and some people pay better attention to it, but everyone has it.

 

[Autodidact]

What is it?

Generally, when we talk about sensory perception, anyone who has that sense pretty much perceives things very similarly. If there's a large brown horse in the room, and I point to it, we'll all see a large brown horse. True, some might notice the saddle, and some the white star, but there's something there we can rely on sharing. Does "spiritual perception" work like that? Do we all perceive the same thing?

 

[Storm]

Well, a lot of people believe the "small, still voice" is God speaking to them.

If you want a detailed description of the mechanism, I'm afraid you're out of luck. I don't know, and neither does anybody else.

 

[Autodidact]

Neither. Isn't this how we think of sensory perception: we all direct our sense toward an object, we all perceive the object similarly, we're able to agree on some things about the object, right?

So if we direct our "spiritual perception" toward a "spiritual object," will we all agree on what we're perceiving?

 

[Storm]

I think we do. Once you get beneath the cultural baggage, reports are pretty similar.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, from what I've read, there are some trends, but no, they differ greatly as well. The impression I get is that there's something going on in the brain, but we haven't figured out yet whether there is anything whatsoever outside the brain that is triggering these experiences in the same way that external objects trigger other sensory perceptions.

For example, people with temporal lobe epilepsy are much more prone to these spiritual experiences. That seems to point to pure brain activity, with nothing we would normally call an external source.

(Of course, if you think it is caused by God, then I guess God could just be communicating with people, especially people with epilepsy, directly.)

In fact I think I've read that surgeons can directly induce spiritual experiences, by manipulating certain parts of the brain. That seems again to mitigate against a model of sensory perception as a way to understand these experiences.

 

[Autodidact]

Anyway, back to similar vs. different, I think some include visual objects, some sounds, and some just an emotional sensation. Some include a non-visual image or "vision," such as a wheel, a light, or a sea.

What they have in common I think is a sense of connection to the universe or God, and a sense that all is as it should be. Is that what you mean?

 

[Storm]

Auto, how does this tie into the question of the OP?

 

[Autodidact]

Well, you're asking about evidence for God, right? And doesn't that then go into whether there is such a thing as "spiritual perception" and whether it provides evidence of God?

 

[Storm]

I'm asking what you would consider compelling evidence of God. You seem to be explaining why you don't find a given set of evidence compelling, which I already understand.

 

[Autodidact]

Actually we got off into the question of definition of God, and whether it includes inability to be perceived.

Anyway, my thing is that if "God" is defined as some kind of personal God who would make a difference in one's life, the kind of God that people around me worship, got to church to pray to and so forth, then, if intercessory prayer worked, it would certainly get me to look twice at that God, to give It serious consideration. The fact that it doesn't just about nailed it for me.

The only other thing is the watchmaker thing, and I think we've explored that and pretty much agree on it.

 

[Storm]

Actually we got off into the question of definition of God, and whether it includes inability to be perceived.

Oh, yeah....

Anyway, my thing is that if "God" is defined as some kind of personal God who would make a difference in one's life, the kind of God that people around me worship, got to church to pray to and so forth, then, if intercessory prayer worked, it would certainly get me to look twice at that God, to give It serious consideration. The fact that it doesn't just about nailed it for me.

Is there anything else you can think of?

The only other thing is the watchmaker thing, and I think we've explored that and pretty much agree on it.

OK.

 

[Copernicus]

My point was that the simplest inference to draw from evidence of the mind-body connection is that the mind is dependent on the body for its existence.

The simplest, perhaps, but not the best.

The best by the criterion of Occam's Razor.

We have no evidence that minds can exist independently of physical brains. We do have evidence that mental functions are directly caused by brain function.

No, we have evidence that they correlate.

Not so fast. The correlation is reasonably established as causal. We can induce predictable changes in mental function by causing things to happen to the physical brain. It goes beyond mere statistical correlation.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, let's get creative here. Suppose there's only one holy book, and it's filled with wisdom and sense, obvious to all of us, and contains no incorrect assertions about the material world, like dumb impossible floods and stuff, and it doesn't make people fight dumb wars over it, but instead just helps them be happier and understand life better...that would be good. How about if everyone's understanding of God was the same, so we didn't have warring factions of religionists laying waste to all and sundry, and cutting each other's heads off and stuff? If the people who claim to speak and act for God weren't a bunch of lying hypocrites, child-rapists and thieves, power-mongerers with bad haircuts, but instead nice, intelligent, honest, humble leaders? That would be good. Maybe a combination of these two would at least lend credence to the possibility.

 

[Autodidact]

Oh yeah, and if God wasn't always portrayed in the image of His worshippers. I'd be more open to hearing that actually God is a she, that's for sure. It always seems a striking coincidence that God looks like the people in power, and reinforces their power as well. Very suspicious, that.