What is Your Disbelief?

[Vinayaka]

I'm fine with either. For example someone commented on their disbelief in the physical. Also happy to respond to any questions about my disbelief.

However it is in the debate section, so certainly we can debate the merits of disbelief.

Thanks. My main disbelief with regard to religions is the idea of a single person having the power of God, or being God. Than includes avatars, manifestations, madhis, etc. I think everyone (soul, not ego/personality) has the potential to be wise, and get enlightened, or whatever that means. It seems so illogical to me, that I consider it impossible.

As to your disbelief, I had a hard time really comprehending it, so have yet to comment.

 

[George-ananda]

Certainly, skepticism and critical thinking is helpful with that.

I agree and I employ those techniques.

 

[Quintessence]

But it isn't mythology, everything we do everything we experience is only known because of our brain.

You didn't answer my question. Even granting this as true - what is the point of believing this when we do NOT experience our day to day existences as merely "brain chemistry?" When will you answer this question? What is the point of your mythology when it doesn't reflect the realities of our lived experiences? What does it do for you? What function does this story have? Why have faith in this particular story instead of some other story or stories?

And it is mythology. Mythologies are deeply-held narratives told by human persons and societies that establish foundational ideas and truths accepted by that individual or that society. Put another way, it is a story that conveys cultural truths, not necessarily literal truths. And it is not literally true that everything humans experience is only known because of the human brain. Well, unless you believe in the brain-in-a-vat theory. The brain just produces experiences, somehow, without anything outside of it and you're actually having this discussion with yourself and your brain. I don't exist. It's all just your brain chemistry and the only thing that is real is your brain chemistry.

 

[bobhikes]

I don't mean this offensively, one has to choose for themselves what they are willing to accept. However this is how my mind works in discussions.

We would be opposites then my whole view of life is based on my personal beliefs and that is the only way I can see it. I certainly can't see it as you do. Everything to me is my perception of it. That perception is based on my current beliefs. My beliefs change just as everything always changes.


Thanks for sharing your view. I hope mine is interesting.

 

[Nakosis]

We would be opposites then my whole view of life is based on my personal beliefs and that is the only way I can see it. I certainly can't see it as you do. Everything to me is my perception of it. That perception is based on my current beliefs. My beliefs change just as everything always changes.


Thanks for sharing your view. I hope mine is interesting.

That is certainly understandable.

 

[ChristineM]

You didn't answer my question. Even granting this as true - what is the point of believing this when we do NOT experience our day to day existences as merely "brain chemistry?" When will you answer this question? What is the point of your mythology when it doesn't reflect the realities of our lived experiences? What does it do for you? What function does this story have? Why have faith in this particular story instead of some other story or stories?

And it is mythology. Mythologies are deeply-held narratives told by human persons and societies that establish foundational ideas and truths accepted by that individual or that society. Put another way, it is a story that conveys cultural truths, not necessarily literal truths. And it is not literally true that everything humans experience is only known because of the human brain. Well, unless you believe in the brain-in-a-vat theory. The brain just produces experiences, somehow, without anything outside of it and you're actually having this discussion with yourself and your brain. I don't exist. It's all just your brain chemistry and the only thing that is real is your brain chemistry.

I have answered your question a couple of times but it seems we are talking a different language. You are welcome to believe whatever you want but the science is not mythology and i go by the science.

What is the brain in a vat theory? Our brains are in our heads and connect to the rest of the body via our nervous system. Which carries everything we experience to our brain and every reaction to that experience back to our bodies so we can react.

Think of humans as a computer with the senses as I/O, rhe nerves as the bus system and the brain as the CPU.

 

[RestlessSoul]

But it isn't mythology, everything we do everything we experience is only known because of our brain.

Because of our minds. The mind is not the brain, they are distinct entities, and - correlates notwithstanding - almost all neuroscientists, psychiatrists and psychologists recognise the distinction.

 

[ChristineM]

Because of our minds. The mind is not the brain, they are distinct entities, and - correlates notwithstanding - almost all neuroscientists, psychiatrists and psychologists recognise the distinction.

The mind is centred on the brain and only works because of the electro chemical actions of the brain. The mind/thoughts are the result of signals between neurons.

Amost all neuroscientists, psychiatrists and psychologists recognise this.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The mind is centred on the brain and only works because of the electro chemical actions of the brain. The mind/thoughts are the result of signals between neurons.

Amost all neuroscientists, psychiatrists and psychologists recognise this.

Yes, probably most scientific materialists would argue that the mind emerges from the brain. Almost none would argue that the mind is a physical organ which can be weighed, calibrated, or directly observed by a third party. To argue that the mind can be entirely reduced to physical attributes of the brain without anything meaningful being lost, is like arguing that a painting can be reduced to pigment on parchment without anything being lost. A painting is more than just pigment, as a symphony is more than just sound, because these things do have meaning; and meaning requires a conscious observer, us, to assign that meaning to it. All these things; paintings, poetry, music, consciousness itself, have to them a substance and depth which is beyond either matter or physical dimension.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, probably most scientific materialists would argue that the mind emerges from the brain. Almost none would argue that the mind is a physical organ which can be weighed, calibrated, or directly observed by a third party. To argue that the mind can be entirely reduced to physical attributes of the brain without anything meaningful being lost, is like arguingl that a painting can be reduced to pigment on parchment without anything being lost. A painting is more than just pigment, as a symphony is more than just sound, because these things do have meaning; and meaning requires a conscious observer, us, to assign that meaning to it. All these things; paintings, poetry, music, consciousness itself, have to them a substance and depth which is beyond either matter or physical dimension.

Brain Basics: Know Your Brain.

The brain is the most complex part of the human body. This three-pound organ is the seat of intelligence, interpreter of the senses, initiator of body movement, and controller of behavior. Lying in its bony shell and washed by protective fluid, the brain is the source of all the qualities that define our humanity. It is the crown jewel of the human body.

No supernatural involved.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What I don't believe exists is anything non-physical. Simply because I have no reason to believe in anything non-physical.
How I define physical is anything which can be detected by our senses or can affect something which we can detect by our senses.

Therefore anything claimed as supernatural or divine is imaginary to me. I understand other people believe in a reality which includes spiritual/non-physical elements. However in an argument or discussion these non-physical concepts have no significant meaning or explanatory value.

I don't mean this offensively, one has to choose for themselves what they are willing to accept. However this is how my mind works in discussions.

Generally, I agree, but I would word it differently.

I'ld say "what is the difference between something that doesn't exist and something that has no detectable manifestation in any way, shape or form?"

The undetectable and the non-existent, look very much alike.

It just so happens that the things people claim are realy while being non-physical, always seem to fall in that undetectable category.
And since such things can't be distinguished from things that don't exist, there is little to no reason to assume them to be real.


So yeah..... I'm not a "dogmatic" materialist. At best, I'm a pragmatic materialist.
I don't "want to" be a materialist. I don't care much for such labels.

It just so happens that I see no point in accepting X is real when X is an undetectable thing with no manifestation whatsoever and which as a result is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist.

As it happens, that ends up being a world view consistent with some type of materialism. So be it.
I don't "aspire" to be a materialist. I don't "insist" on being a materialist.

I just don't see the point in believing in things when those things are indistinguishable from sheer fantasy and non-existence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So love is physical, then?

Love is an emotion / phenomenon with physical underpinnings, yes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you really think this is what love is?

This is measuring chemicals. You are not your chemical emotions. Love is not an emotion, or a feeling, or any such thing.

Ask any poet.

My goodness, this reductionism!!!!

Remove all physical brains from existence.

Then point me to where "love" can be found.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Love is an emotion / phenomenon with physical underpinnings, yes.

Thanks for the response, but that's not what I asked.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The actual human experience.

The reason why your kids would be upset if you told them your love is just brain chemistry.

I don't think anyone here has stated that love isn't valuable simply because it can be explained as physical processes happening inside a brain.

"spiritual" people always seem to assume that and I don't really get why.
As if things like "love" can only be valueable if there is some supernatural non-physical component involved.

My loyalty, love and attachment to me kids is how I experience it. Regardless of how that loyalty, love and attachment is explained.
It matters not to the experience and reality of it.

It kind of reminds me of this documentary about human creativity from a neurological perspective. It featured Sting.
They put him in an MRI scanner and had him compose a melody in his head while in there, to see which parts of his brain light up.
They compared that with non-musicians. As it turns out, there was a specific area of his brain that was lighting up and this didn't occur in non-musicians.
He then asked the neurologists "So you are telling me that this little flickering on this screen is what is my musical talent?"
The neurologist confirmed.

Sting got upset, stood up and left.

I don't get that. It doesn't diminish his musical talent. It doesn't make his music any less good or special.

It's just that he wanted it to be some kind of "mystical" or "spiritual" thing.
Ironically, it's just ego.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Neuroscience won't tell you anything about love. But you'll just ignore what I post, anyway, as you already have.

That's quite ironic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I wiped my ignore list a while ago, but you're the first to go back on. You're just being needlessly rude to me and I'm not putting up with that.

Rude? How has she been rude?

It looks as if you are confusing "not agreeing with me" with "being rude".
A common mistake on these forums.

I have enough problems in my ****ty life right now, especially when I just tried to show there's other ways of looking at it. What exactly is your problem? (That's a rhetorical question because I no longer give a **** what you have to say.)

Now who's being rude?

@ChristineM didn't require any *'s to cover up supposed rudeness.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because of our minds. The mind is not the brain, they are distinct entities, and - correlates notwithstanding - almost all neuroscientists, psychiatrists and psychologists recognise the distinction.

Errrr..... no.

If that were the case, psychiatrists wouldn't be presrcibing brain chemistry altering drugs to treat things like anxiety, depression, psychosis, etc.

 

[Yerda]

What I don't believe exists is anything non-physical. Simply because I have no reason to believe in anything non-physical.
How I define physical is anything which can be detected by our senses or can affect something which we can detect by our senses.

So, if the Christians are right about God doing miracles or speaking with people then God is physical by your understanding?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thanks for the response, but that's not what I asked.

But it is what I answered.

"Love" is an emotion / phenomenon. An abstract concept, a word, we use to describe a collection of behaviors, feelings, etc.
And that concept / phenomenon / what-have-you has physical underpinnings. It is emergent from those physical underpinnings.

Remove those physical underpinnings, and the phenomenon disappears.