Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
But there would have been no mechanics if the desire AND the possibility of fulfilling it were not already extant.
In a sense they were. The desire and the possibilities already existed. All we had to do was work out the physical mechanics to serve the ideal. That's the thing about physics, it's all just the mechanics of idealization. Even the ancient Greeks understood this. Matter just embodies and fulfills what was/is already possible.
Truth is that we don't know what happened. And even if we did it wouldn't resolve the mystery. Life happened because it could. And it could because the universe is the expression of highly complex and specific order, and that order allowed for it to happen. One could even speculate that the possibility of life and it's subsequent cognitive awareness were the purpose of that highly complex and specific existential order. Who knows? It's certainly not an illogical speculation.
The brain developed to become a cognitive organ because cognition is a desirable phenomenon and because it was possible for it to do so. It wouldn't even exist if the phenomena it mechanically enables were not already both desirable and possible. The brain, like the rest of the body, and like everything else in the physical universe, is just the result of a set of possibilities and impossibilities that both enabled and constrained the expression of what we call existence. You act like physicality is the be-all and end-all of all that is. But it's not. It's just the stuff that what we call existence uses to express itself in a physical manner.
It's sad that you just can't see past this bias.
The "cognitive mind" existed as a highly complex and desirable possibility before any brain matter within any life form finally managed to fulfill it. It was written into the 'blueprint' of existence, itself, from even before the universe began. And the evidence of this is that here we are, and we are aware of it.
When one automobile stops working, transportation does not cease to exist, or cease to be far more significant than the one lost automobile. I can't see why you keep insisting that this is so important when it clearly is not.
The evidence is everywhere, you're just not looking.
No, because it's just not true. A "person" exists in a whole lot of minds, and therefor in a whole lot of brains (bodies), simultaneously. A person is a 'metaphysical' phenomenon, and does not cease to exist just because the physical mechanism that houses part of it for a time and helped it define itself stops functioning. We are all a part of each other. It's one of the ways that human cognition transcends the limitations of physics.
A person is a whole collection of ideas and memories and possibilities. These are not confined by any one body or brain. We are both unique and archetypical. Both physical and metaphysical.
So you mean that we can also experience mind through these very senses you speak about, where mind has no dimension if it is to be limitless. The senses however are another story. Our mind is not our senses. Our nervous system is our senses. Our brain is our senses. Reality is a set that can have either limitation or limitlessness. Separation or non-separation.
Study everything and get back to me. You are the only one who is being this "little", but you don't have to be this. It is called choice, not slavery. Both exists in reality, but are mutually exclusive. Mind is either 0, +, or -. Mind can have dimension or it can be limitless.
It's dang sure a speculation. Since it has no supporting evidence, just more speculation, I find it unreasonable. "Illogical" is a quality of procedures here, and totally idle, totally fanciful, procedures may be carried out 'logically' without regard for whether their purpose makes any sense.
So you allow that the human brain is the human organ of cognition. Then what does this "mind" nonsense add?
The brain, like everything else in biology, is the product of evolution. Gould. you'll recall, concluded that if you "replayed the tape" of evolution, it doesn't follow you'd end up with genus Homo again, let alone Homo sap; whether you'd get a dominant species at all, and whether it was smart like dolphins or simply unstoppable in context like supertermites, are open questions. BUT we don't have to replay the tape ─ here we are, the smartest of the monkeys.
That's because it's where all the evidence points. Materialism makes our modern world, our modern science and technology, possible. Whereas religion relies on stories, myths, superstitions. These undoubtedly had their place in our evolution too, as tribal creatures with evolved respect for authority and loyalty to the group, and were and are part of tribal identity, along with language, customs, and stories. But a story is only true to the extent that it accurately reflects objective reality.
I've looked and found nothing, except the invitation to reinvent some or other folktale in my mind.
I refer back to my comment on Gould above. I don't agree that humans are the product of a supernatural destiny. We're the product of chance, just like the Covid virus and the octopus.
That sounds like you're trying to justify an inference that in fact is neither necessary nor evidenced.
You are defining "person" in a way that is unrelated to this topic. Not unusual for you to create more confusion and vagueness.
More woo that is incoherent. I don;t understand why mortals want to think their existence is more than what it clearly is. This sort of inflation is not fact based. What it suggests to me is the ongoing insecurity many humans have, and how they want to be on top of the food chain of evolution. I find it more spiritual to self-reflect on the self's flaws than to invent fake lofty status of the believer.
Yeah, the scars of our pollution will linger. Ain't we special and enlightened? But hey, we are still digging up dinosaurs millions of years later, so maybe an evolved wolf will dig up your old bones some day.
I would ask for evidence but we both know there is none. This is just made up nonsense. Is insecurity a motive to believe such nonsense, it's not for knowledge as it isn't fact-based.
This is a pretty broad definition, and useless in this this discussion. Was that your intention? We were talking about minds being a net result of working brains.
Odd statement since our minds are what experience through our senses and thoughts. To say "experience mind" suggests there is something about us separate from our mind that uses the mind as a utility.
How can minds be limitless? I know there was a movie by this name, but feel free to explain what you mean. Limitless sounds like another exageration that isn't unusual for believers in woo.
Our minds are what process sensory data. It interprets the data and can make judgments and take action. If you are standing in the street becuase you stopped to read a text, and you suddenly hear a horn and look up and see a truck coming, you can get out of the way just in the nick of time. That is all your mind doing its thing.
Dare I ask how does that work? And what is the evidence of it?
It's only unrelated to your materialist bias. But your materialist bias does not define what a person is, except to you.
Sure, because anything that you don't understand must be incoherent "woo". You being the benchmark of all understanding and all.
It seems that you don't understand a lot. Peraps thet's because you just assume anything that you don't understand is just incoherent "woo".
Just as we both know that you define the evidence out of existence prior to your asking for it. Which is why you're asking.
Sure, because anything that you don't understand must be "made up nonsense". I get it.
No, you are talking about that. I am trying to eplain to you why that isn't so. But you can't hear about anything that you don't think you already know about. So I guess we're both just wasting our time, here.
You are projecting your own bias against materialism, and that is typical among believers in woo. Thus far neither you, or anone else, can explain how anything exists outside of a material universe. You don't seem willing to acknowledge you could be mistaken. Is it that frightening?
Bias has nothing to do with it. You have a bad habit of going off on irrelevant tangents, and the motive seems to foster confusion. Why would a "person" want to do that so consistently unless they are afraid of truth?
And another bad habit is rambling incoherently and expecting others to magically understand your incoherency. If you are communicating to others YOU have a responsibility to be coherent IF that is really what you want. As we see that seldom seems to be your motive where it comes to religious topics. As we see with social and political issues you are capable of being direct, factual, and coherent. So there's something about religious topics that motivates you to be vague and incoherent.
Notice you offer no facts and cohernet explanation, It's as if you have none. And blaming otehrs for not understanding your woo ramblings is a deflection. If you were actually confident and correct you would explain it in a way others could comprehend.
More complaints about using reason, and no utterance of this "evidence" you suggest exists. Almost as if you are bluffing and expecting thinkers to be fools. We aren't. And if you believe you are speaking truth and coherent then I suggest who you rethink who is mistaken.
If it isn't fact-based, then what is it? You accuse materialists of being wrong even though we rely on facts. If you are going to argue against materialsm you won't have material facts to use, so what do you have other than made up nonsense? You aren't alone here, those who claim the "mind" and "thoughts" are not products of material brains doing their thing can't show they are correct either.
And you are failing to do it with facts and a coherent explanation. That is your responsibility to be coherent. If you can't be coherent about your beliefs then it's more likely you are just confused than others not understanding some truth. Your pride doesn't seem to allow humility.
We don't see any facts, and that is your failure. If you want others to agree with your claims, beliefs, arguments then provide facts. If you have none, then you are wasting our time.
It works by the will overriding the body. Empirical examples would include CBT, placebos without deception, willfully raising one's body temperature, or the ability for the will to veto a signal from the brain to body.
all the above are controlled by the central nervous system in my view.
To which I asked, "how does that work? And what is the evidence of it?" In other words in response to the question you have simply repeated the claim, ie a total non answer in my view.
But we have no reason or evidence to believe the mind reduces to the brain, that's the issue.
I have no idea how it works, just like I know magnets work but couldn't tell you how, or know i won't float away buy we still don't understand gravity fully. X can be true without being able to explain it, just like your faith the mind reduces to the brain despite us having no explanation of how.
