Mind, Body, Duality, Theism, and Atheism

[Fool]

Atheism is not a belief system. The absence of something is NOT something. The absence of something IS nothing.

Our understanding of nature and ourselves is bounded by the limitations of our human language. Not many people study linguistics theory and just assume the words they are using mean a whole lot more than what they actually do.

There is a fascinating idea with regards to categories of dialectics called "Unity of opposites". The most basics of physical experience is the equation Time = mass - Energy. Without having opposites (mass and Energy) with some form of tension (the subtraction part of the equation) then you would not be able to experience time. All meaning in language comes from some form of a unity of opposites.

"This divine Logos, or law of the universe, centers around the idea of eternal flux, that things within the universe are constantly changing. Heraclitus explains this flux by examining the unity of opposites. It can be found that all things undergo transformations so that they may become their opposites. That which is hot will inevitably become cold. Every life is guaranteed death and with each death, there can be found new life."

Unity of opposites - Wikipedia

Here's a fantastic video on a lessons of non-duality:

Without duality you do not exist.

atheists have belief systems. everyone does. anyone identifying "their" system as atheist composes "their" set of beliefs; which are subjective on how to behave as sts or sto.

things may appear to be dualistic, or contrasted but in reality they are the same.


example E = m(c*c) are the same thing seeming to appear differently

 

[Fool]

I suspect so.

In other words, the idea of a real immaterial mind is incoherent.

i agree

 

[Fool]

Theism and atheism aren't belief systems. They're just the presence and absence of one particular belief.No it isn't. A theist is a person who believes in the existence of one or more gods. That's it. There's no need for a theist to believe that "the spirit = mind is eternal".No it isn't. An atheist can believe anything he wants about spirits and minds just as long as no gods are involved.

the presence of positive and negative beliefs is what a belief system is. everyone has a belief system, its natural in humans to have beliefs. when someone identifies their system as this, or that, they have labeled their system of beliefs; whether for or against something.


so some atheists don't believe in an immaterial consciousness as being absolute and some theists don't believe in a material consciousness being absolute.

the underlying problem is that they are two polarized aspects of a spectrum

 

[Fool]

For this atheist, the body and the mind are one and the same.
We are our brains.

brains aren't necessary for consciousness. an electromagnetic source is needed.

 

[Fool]

You know what bothers me immensly as both an atheist and a human?
The need of some people to want to put labels on people's foreheads and the almost obsessive need to describe everything in absolute "-isms".

"scientism", "materialism", ...

What nonsense.

"Scientism" especially is one of those words..... It's so empty and shallow.

i'm an atheist by belief and a theist of sorts by knowledge of self. i chose the labels. most atheists and theists choose their labels; unfortunately all humans have beliefs and generally behaviors that are generated/triggered by those beliefs.


alexander the great learned this lesson long ago. you can't control someone's beliefs but you can control someone's behaviors. love and fear are great motivators

 

[Fool]

Theism <> monism and atheism <> dualism.

a better logical statement would be


theism <> monism or dualism and atheism <> monism or dualism.

 

[ArtieE]

atheists have belief systems

Atheism isn't a belief system although there are belief systems such as Raëlism or Buddhism that do not involve gods.

 

[syo]

i wonder if paul was alluding to that


1 Corinthians 15:44
It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

I don't know...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

brains aren't necessary for consciousness. an electromagnetic source is needed.

Show me a consciousness that doesn't come from a brain.

Merely an electromagnetic source is not nearly enough. You need a neural network capable of processing information based on input.

By "brain" I don't necessarily mean an organic brain like we have in our heads. It can also be a "brain" as in a neural network running on computer hardware and thereby giving rise to a "consciousness", which would be an AI. Theoretically, I expect that to be possible. However, our technology isn't nearly as advanced enough as that would require.

At this point, the ONLY examples I know of consciousnesses, are those that come from physical (organic) brains.

 

[Fool]

Atheism isn't a belief system although there are belief systems such as Raëlism or Buddhism that do not involve gods.

everyone has a belief system. that system doesn't have to be theistic or atheistic. it's a human condition and is necessary in order to explore one's reality and by using one's past experiences, knowledge. newborns have to start from somewhat of a blank slate. when someone encounters something novel, they have to use belief in order to test that novelty against what is known vs what is not known. in reality there are no absolutes. so what is being experienced and what has been experienced are not necessarily the same thing.

you have belief from lack of experience.

you have knowledge from experience.

belief <> knowledge or experience.

belief = lack of experience, or lack of knowledge.


in hinduism there are a few non-theistic schools
Nāstika Hindu[edit]
The main schools of Indian philosophy that reject the Vedas were regarded as heterodox in the Brahmanical tradition:[4]

1. Buddhism
2. Jainism
3. Cārvāka
4. Ājīvika
5. Ajñana

The use of the term nāstika to describe Buddhism and Jainism in India is explained by Gavin Flood as follows:

At an early period, during the formation of the Upaniṣads and the rise of Buddhism and Jainism, we must envisage a common heritage of meditation and mental discipline practiced by renouncers with varying affiliations to non-orthodox (Veda-rejecting) and orthodox (Veda-accepting) traditions.... These schools [such as Buddhism and Jainism] are understandably regarded as heterodox (nāstika) by orthodox (āstika) Brahmanism.

 

[Fool]

Show me a consciousness that doesn't come from a brain.

Merely an electromagnetic source is not nearly enough. You need a neural network capable of processing information based on input.

By "brain" I don't necessarily mean an organic brain like we have in our heads. It can also be a "brain" as in a neural network running on computer hardware and thereby giving rise to a "consciousness", which would be an AI. Theoretically, I expect that to be possible. However, our technology isn't nearly as advanced enough as that would require.

At this point, the ONLY examples I know of consciousnesses, are those that come from physical (organic) brains.

plants and bacteria have intelligence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

plants and bacteria have intelligence.

1. define "intelligence" in that sense please.

2. why did you change the terminology from "consciousness" to "intelligence"? These are not the same thing

 

[Fool]

1. define "intelligence" in that sense please.

c. 1400, "faculty of understanding, comprehension," from Old French intelligence (12c.) and directly from Latin intelligentia, intellegentia "understanding, knowledge, power of discerning; art, skill, taste," from intelligentem (nominative intelligens) "discerning, appreciative," present participle of intelligere "to understand, comprehend, come to know,"

2. why did you change the terminology from "consciousness" to "intelligence"? These are not the same thing

you're right they aren't

but the fact remains you don't have to have a brain to have intelligence or consciousness.


you only have to have a electromagnetic way of transceiving

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

c. 1400, "faculty of understanding, comprehension," from Old French intelligence (12c.) and directly from Latin intelligentia, intellegentia "understanding, knowledge, power of discerning; art, skill, taste," from intelligentem (nominative intelligens) "discerning, appreciative," present participle of intelligere "to understand, comprehend, come to know,"

So what makes you think that bacteria are capable of "understanding" and "comprehend" things?

you're right they aren't
but the fact remains you don't have to have a brain to have intelligence or consciousness.

Repeating your claim does not make it true.
You have yet to give me a single example of a consciousness absent a physical brain.

you only have to have a electromagnetic way of transceiving

Give me a verifiable example

 

[Fool]

So what makes you think that bacteria are capable of "understanding" and "comprehend" things?



Repeating your claim does not make it true.
You have yet to give me a single example of a consciousness absent a physical brain.



Give me a verifiable example

google.com

The Beautiful Intelligence of Bacteria and Other Microbes


Why microbes are smarter than you thought


Plant Intelligence: An Overview


https://www.astrobio.net/origin-and-evolution-of-life/bacterial-intelligence/


The roots of plant intelligence

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

google.com

The Beautiful Intelligence of Bacteria and Other Microbes


Why microbes are smarter than you thought


Plant Intelligence: An Overview


Bacterial Intelligence - Astrobiology Magazine


The roots of plant intelligence

None of these match the definition you gave. All of them use the word "intelligence" in very different ways.
You spoke of "understanding" and "to comprehend". Both of which requires reasoning faculties.

That's quite different from what these articles are talking about.

 

[night912]

Is it reasonable to think there is anything eternal about the known existence? I do not think so.

If not, then an ultimate cosmic beginning exists.

So then your talking existence from non existence. That is not likely to me.

There must be an underlying reality that is eternal.

If spacetime is emergent from the quantum reality. Then perhaps the physical emerges from the non physical.

If there is a reality beyond the physically knowable, then perhaps, a mind/body duality exists.

That all hinges on life being intelligently created. And also an ultimate cosmic beginning.

Non existence is an impossibility.

You're contradicting yourself. And you are wrong about life being intelligently created.

If non existence is impossible, then that would make existence to be eternal. And anything that is eternal is not created because it always existed. So there was no ultimate cosmic beginning because existence was always there.

 

[Fool]

None of these match the definition you gave. All of them use the word "intelligence" in very different ways.
You spoke of "understanding" and "to comprehend". Both of which requires reasoning faculties.

That's quite different from what these articles are talking about.

i'm fine with your dismissive and no true scotsman's fallacy

 

[Fool]

None of these match the definition you gave. All of them use the word "intelligence" in very different ways.
You spoke of "understanding" and "to comprehend". Both of which requires reasoning faculties.

That's quite different from what these articles are talking about.

Are dogs conscious? How about computers? Brain scientist Christof Koch takes on deep questions

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

i'm fine with your dismissive and no true scotsman's fallacy

Do you even know what a no true scotsman's fallacy is? Because you aren't using it correctly at all.....

And I'm dismissive because you're wrong. Simple as that.
You are mixing up words and engaging in equivocation fallacies.

When using ambigous words, context matters.