Pollux
Member
Insomnia is a bitch. But yes you are correct. Good night all. (for real this time)
Beliefs or Lack Thereof: Q&A
- Thread starter Orayn
- Start date
- Status
Insomnia is a bitch. But yes you are correct. Good night all. (for real this time)
Could be true, but the aim of the TOE is to also explain Chemistry and Biology.
What kinda problems does modern physics have with chemistry and biology?
It's not necessarily problems, but the idea behind TOE is to explain all physical (chemical and biological) phenomena.
I don't know if it's possible, I'm just telling you its purpose.
cutmeamango
Banned
Just seen this...
Look, if you find that any argument isn't well conjectured or too "opaque" as another user said, please question it.
From this kinda post all I can assume is that you don't read much or my english in betraying me.
And allied to your past replies about medical conditions, saying "oh that's easy!... here's the pathological explanation of it" missing the point completely (or just being ignorant) about the cognitive neuroscience part of it seems like you are not interested at all in a trade-discussion.
And NO, that's not the same as saying you have to agree with me.
You could say the same thing about Republicans and Democrats discussing foreign policy. Does that make the concept of politics psychotic?
Oh, and its insensitive to use schizophrenia in jest but its perfectly valid to equate it - with zero evidence - with a belief that the majority of the earth's population hold?
Good one, you almost had me.
I have to ask, and I mean no offense, but is english your first language? Statements like these are very confusing
I've never seen "allied" used this way, ever.
It looks like you rammed two sentences together. You wanted to say:
Then...
But they ended up as part of one sentence, which led to...
I've also never heard of a "trade discussion" before. And I think it should also be its own sentence like:
The posts I made to Soulplaya also relate to the points you made.
It's really a case of; But what does quantum phenomena have to do with molecular biology that serves as the substrate for the mind?
cutmeamango
Banned
We need an english schoolar here to tell if my use of allied was incorrect!
I didn't rammed them, but I guess it could use a comma after the quotation.
And I used an hyfen instead of a slash. Trade/discussion (trade of information or knowledge). For that I'm sorry.
And I gotta laugh because in the same post you did your text analysis, I said my english could be betraying me. Guess that would be enough to estabilish poor knowledge of the language due whatever reason (not my first language, yup).
Infinite regress?
When someone says "in the chains of mechanisms, somewhere it was determined, because we know how siynapses chemistry work", unless they construct a scientific model demonstrating how that determines the final thought, it will continue falling down the molecular scale.
And we end up as far as we know. And quantum phenomena 'disprove' (as in don't corroborate til now) with determinism. That's all.
So it might not be universally deterministic. But then the argument goes back to the 'unconsciously' deterministic, psychological level. Which I don't understand why people do this back and forth to discuss this. If we are to stay in the self level, the it's a perspective matter.
nah man
also fox news is totally reputable
I gave you evidence, I gave you an explanation
Even made an effort to outline peoples misunderstanding of the term psychosis
and you still come back with more?
impressive
We need an english schoolar here to tell if my use of allied was incorrect!
I didn't rammed them, but I guess it could use a comma after the quotation.
And I used an hyfen instead of a slash. Trade/discussion (trade of information or knowledge). For that I'm sorry.
And I gotta laugh because in the same post you did your text analysis, I said my english could be betraying me. Guess that would be enough to estabilish poor knowledge of the language due whatever reason (not my first language, yup).
Infinite regress?
When someone says "in the chains of mechanisms, somewhere it was determined, because we know how siynapses chemistry work", unless they construct a scientific model demonstrating how that determines the final thought, it will continue falling down the molecular scale.
And we end up as far as we know. And quantum phenomena 'disprove' (as in don't corroborate til now) with determinism. That's all.
So it might not be universally deterministic. But then the argument goes back to the 'unconsciously' deterministic, psychological level. Which I don't understand why people do this back and forth to discuss this. If we are to stay in the self level, the it's a perspective matter.
But it doesn't?
It's like saying you need a complete TOE model in order to lay bricks. Otherwise the building you build out of them will collapse.
Not really no. You can make certain assumptions at various scales and be very safe and assured in those assumptions. The physical matter of the brain doesn't operate at a scale of uncertainty.
cutmeamango
Banned
Could you link me to a cognitive model that is tied to neuro responses mapping (chemical and eletromagnetical) that is regarded as conclusive to cogntive studies?
I genuinely think you are misguided in your assumption there. We are (loosely comparing) at the JJ Thomson atom model as far cognitive ergonomics go.
vincent vega
Member
athiests- if you support the big bang theory, do you think time has been going on for an eternity prior to the big bang, or do you think there was a certain starting point for everything?
Humans tend to be conformists, with their #1 desire being to be accepted. That's an inbuilt instinct, a result of being a social species that survives better when cooperating in groups than alone.
Contrary to popular belief, our base instincts aren't to hurt each other, that actually causes us to feel bad due to mirror neurons that make us empathize with those around us.
Humans are happiest when they are accepted into a social group that they trust and feel safe with. Doing anything that jeopardizes that (ie. harming others, breaking serious laws, etc.) is not worth any temporary benefit if it means losing the social acceptance and safety of being a wanted member of society.
Some people have something wrong with their brains that makes it so they cannot empathize with others. Maybe it's a lack of mirror neurons. Those people are the types that become serial killers etc. and their lives are typically not very long or pleasant.
Contrary to popular belief, our base instincts aren't to hurt each other, that actually causes us to feel bad due to mirror neurons that make us empathize with those around us.
Humans are happiest when they are accepted into a social group that they trust and feel safe with. Doing anything that jeopardizes that (ie. harming others, breaking serious laws, etc.) is not worth any temporary benefit if it means losing the social acceptance and safety of being a wanted member of society.
Some people have something wrong with their brains that makes it so they cannot empathize with others. Maybe it's a lack of mirror neurons. Those people are the types that become serial killers etc. and their lives are typically not very long or pleasant.
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
Everyone:
1) How often do you/have you either pretended to believe something of a religious context that you don't or just allowed someone to assume that you do in order to not offend them with your beliefs which are/were incompatible with theirs?
If so...
2) How many were people you genuinely care about and otherwise shared deeply personal sides of yourself with?
-2a) Do you think there is a way you can change your approach to be more open without causing problems with others?
-2b) How many people do you think are hiding their real beliefs from you for the same reasons and would share honestly in reciprocation and become closer to you if you took the initiative?
1) How often do you/have you either pretended to believe something of a religious context that you don't or just allowed someone to assume that you do in order to not offend them with your beliefs which are/were incompatible with theirs?
If so...
2) How many were people you genuinely care about and otherwise shared deeply personal sides of yourself with?
-2a) Do you think there is a way you can change your approach to be more open without causing problems with others?
-2b) How many people do you think are hiding their real beliefs from you for the same reasons and would share honestly in reciprocation and become closer to you if you took the initiative?
I don't know if there is a consensus on that yet. I think perception of time is part of the problem, because it might not work the way we think it does.
The big bang almost certainly happened, there is tons of evidence for it. The most religious people can reasonably argue (not that reason is something they use much when it comes to talking about deities) is that some deity made the bang, but there is no reason for that to make more sense than for the bang to just have happened out of nothing. That's because if a diety made it, then you'd have to explain where the diety came from. If the diety just exists, then you run into the problem of why the universe doesn't just exist, why you need to add a layer of unnecessary explanation that doesn't actually explain anything.
cutmeamango
Banned
I think I'm in the wrong here, but do mirror neurons work like that?
Anyway, not a "we found the cause!" series of studies but:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...ychopaths-like-hannibal-lecter-brain-damaged/ There are plenty of articles in the text you can read (the abstracts at least)
There was a documentary on Discovery about it too, and they tested people with related brain degeneration that didn't "become" psychopaths, pretty interesting.
My assumptions are simple.
The brain is organic, operates on the level of cellular interactions not dissimilar to the rest of the human body. (I can't even begin to concieve of a non-magical mechanism by which the brain would be anything but organic cellular material).
I also assume that those cells are small and complex enough in order to complete wondrously emergent tasks, including forming the human body and providing us with brain function.
From my own understanding of cognitive neuroscience... it hasn't had to involve any level of physics, or even in depth knowledge of chemistry.
Nor has anything that I've read in the field indicated any sort of requirement of that form of knowledge, or any indication that there would be interactions at the quantum level.
The field of understanding motivation (which would keenly relate to our concept of 'free will') also doesn't seek to refer to quantum phenomena - just biological and cellular stuff.
Indeed, the trend of information and discoveries in the field shows us that the complexities of the brain are emergent - that is, what we don't know, we don't know because of the level of complexity in the interactions of micro and macro structures in both brain, body and environment.
Emergent complexity also seems to be mirrored in our incredibly fast development of computers. Although computers are capable of some frightfully complex tasks, we understand explicitly that there are a massive series of very certain, albeit small steps, operating very quickly, often in massive parallel, that allows them to do their tasks. This is something that is mirrored in brain activity (although on different physical substrates, and in different details).
I wouldn't begin to know where to look for the model you've requested; I suspect you wouldn't either, because it appears to be intended as a rhetorical question.
But despite my own incomplete knowledge, as with the incomplete knowledge in the field; I hold a high degree of confidence that we don't need to regress down into quantum physics in order to understand the complexities of the human mind.
I could be wrong, sure - but I'm more certain that using quantum phenomena is simply the new gap in our proverbial god of the gaps.
On another note... have you read Jeff Hawkin's "On Intelligence"? Pretty good book that relates neural-cognitive function to the lay person. I won't bother to make an attempt at summarizing the book - I would do a poor job of it - but it does a pretty good job of drilling down into how the brain functions at the small level, and relates that back to how we behave.
It doesn't make more sense, but it doesn't make less sense, either. And of course all the evidence for the big bang is theoretical, not empirical, except in the most indirect ways.
1) Quite a lot. It's extremely uncomfortable. I've learned from experience not to rock that boat. In particular, I remember going to a high school awards ceremony, thinking it was cool to get lunch and awards, and then sitting through a 5 minute prayer in shock and discomfort. There were like 10% of us there that didn't bow our heads and participate, all looking at each other with extreme unease. I think we all considered saying something about the prayer being held by our public school, but we were all too scared to rock the boat before graduation since the teachers involved could've ruined our lives if they wanted to and we didn't want to risk it.
Everything seems to have radiated out from a central point.
That's some evidence of the big bang, even if it's not a lot, it suggests things used to be super close together and spread out, which we describe as a big bang (not a literal bomb exploding).
As for making more or less sense, you're right, but then there is the degrees of complexity.
Big Bang:
Universe just exists.
God:
God just exists, makes the universe.
With the God explanation, you just move the "just exists" back one level to God and have him make the universe. This is a poor explanation, because it doesn't explain how the first thing (God in this case) came to exist and just makes the situation more complicated. The simplest answer is the best one, in the absence of evidence suggesting a more complicated answer.
krameriffic
Member
Before we start talking about something like the Big Bang, we have to straighten out whether or not you really know what the scientific theory behind it is. First of all, it's got nothing to do with creation. The Big Bang is the conclusion you reach if you wind the clock backwards based on a few observed qualities of the universe today. The most prominent pieces of evidence are the following 4 items: the universe is expanding, matter is clumped up into galaxies with VAST distances between them, there is more matter than antimatter and cosmic background radiation. The Big Bang is what you conclude when you run the arrow of time backwards in order to try to explain how the universe expanded, clumped up into galaxies, cooled off and contains primarily baryonic matter, i.e. how the universe could become what it is today.
It is in the early universe when classical general relativistic cosmology starts to break down. You have to bring in other things to explain things like why matter clumped into galaxies and why there is an asymmetry between matter and antimatter. But even with those other things that provide some less-than-fully-understood answers to these questions, the singularity still breaks everything down. Until we have a fully understood theory of quantum gravity, the very early universe is not satisfactorily understood.
Ultimately, you'll notice that none of it addresses what came before. Some would argue that what came before lies outside our capacity to scientifically measure and therefore understand. The rules that governed what came before may have been totally different than the rules that govern this universe. Physicists can write down theories with rules that could hypothetically be other universes, but I don't think there's any good reason to believe that we can narrow down from this infinity of theories what happened before.
Our conception of an arrow of time is often addressed from a thermodynamic standpoint. Again, it's got little to do with a start or an end of time and more with the fact that our universe is evolving--we are not at an energetic equilibrium. This gives us a sense of understanding changes with respect to what we call time. On the whole, everything is growing more and more disordered (to put it in plain language). We come to understand the universe by this gradual, forward moving breakdown and cooling of physical systems. It's subtle, and you can probably find better explanations of it than this.
cutmeamango
Banned
Actually cognitive ergonomics only tries to 'model' cogntive process. Like memory allocation, learning, perception.
Cognitive neuroscience tries (and this is a big try) to tie those models with actual physical brain responses. That why "chemistry" is important part (eletromagnetical responses, hormones, yadda yadda). Now this field would be able to say: Hey because sympathetic response works like this, memory allocation works like that and so on, there is or there is not determinism.
But because certain processes are known to act the same, people jump and say: this is determined so is the rest! But if we actually try to "chemically" (physically actually) we will fall in quantum mechanics (as far as we know, currently) and that as of now is not a proof of determinism.
And the comparison with older atom models work (I think hehe) because it already helped them have a good understanding and they could and did assume things based on those models, but luckily they didn't thought they were done with it there.
--
I haven't read it, will sure look for it!
It seems like a clever prediction model, I'll see if I can find in stores here, thank you!
I choose to distinguish between the Big Bang as an event (i.e., time equals zero), and the Big Bang theory. I was talking about the former, about which scientists know nothing, or very close to it. I acknowledge there is no controversy about the latter (its broad outlines, anyway), but I think the other dude assumed that as well.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
There are finite pastward moments. During the first moment, the universe existed in an extremely dense, hot state, which expanded.
cutmeamango
Banned
I find Stephen Hawkings explanation 'funny' although even he says it's just mere belief.
I've drawn it in the Atheist / Thest versus topic too.
There was nothing. What is nothing? Infinite positive energy and infinite negative energy. Then this balance erupted and postive / negative energy spew generating space and time due the dislocation.
But why was it in balance? Because it could, there was no time. Why it erupted then? Because it did, infinite progression have different 'speeds'.
But yes a real "ground zero" is far beyond our comprehension as of now.
Unless you bring M-Theory into the discussion and things get really confusing...
If you believe God exists, you've made the answer more complicated but also more correct. Hence both explanations end up at the same "level"--and never to be resolved.
Why would your personal beliefs matter though? It's not like the universe cares much about them.
There's no reason to take them in consideration, there. The explanation would be more correct... but just as far as you're concerned?
Without a good reason to believe God exists (i.e. some kind of evidence), that's just noise, ultimately...
Huh? A religious person obviously assumes reality corresponds to his religious beliefs. If he didn't, he wouldn't hold such beliefs. Therefore the religious person would view as false your premise that assuming God "changes" reality.
Well, yes, obviously. I just find it odd to talk about the "God answer" being "more correct" in any way, considering it's based on a baseless assumption. Sure, it would seem more correct to the religious person who comes up with it, but beyond that...
ID and creationism are one and the same.
Either conclusion may be valid, I could not say for certain. All I could reasonably say about the universe is that I do not understand it all and likely never will and just may be physically incapable of ever doing so.
I'm a weak atheist, it was just a natural thought process. From being raised in a non-religious christian household, to general spiritualism, to agnosticism to weak atheism. I'm naturally very pessimistic and skeptical about many things in general, and that sort of leaked into my beliefs about reality.
I don't think it's a distinction worth observing. Nobody cares, and you're just trying to seem more open-minded than you really are.
Okay...
cutmeamango
Banned
I care.
I consider myself as solely agnostic, so I haven't made "the jump". But by the new scale of hipster "gotta subgenre the genres" classification (joking!) I'd be an Agnostic Atheist, and there would be no jump.
DeathIsTheEnd
Member
You can be an agnostic at the same time as being an atheist or theist.
Agnosticism is the belief that we can not currently, or perhaps forever, know whether a god(s) exists or not and an atheist is someone who lacks a belief in gods.
So effectively an agnostic atheist, which most atheists seem to be, is someone who lacks a belief in gods, but believes it it possible one or more do exist.
Which Protestants are you talking about? There's a lot of differences between the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, 7th day'ers and subsects of each. Lutherans and traditional Anglicans have more in common with Roman Catholicism than most protestant churches.
I'll rephrase: It's a distinction that might be interesting to observe among academics, but no garden-variety non-believer should care.
Seriously, take a look at just a few of the other variations of atheism: implicit and explicit atheism, positive and negative atheism, practical and theoretical atheism, gnostic and agnostic atheism--and a bunch of other made-up-sounding kinds that also include mashups of the preceding ones. I don't know why I'd bother to determine exactly what brand of atheist I am only to find myself explaining to anyone I tell what the fuck that brand actually means.
"Oh, how interesting! You believe that more than one deity may exist, while you believe at least one may exist! That's fucking amazingly cool! Yeah!"
Why are there so many denominations?
First of all, I will explain my worldview very briefly. Feel free to ask further questions in PM, but I will not mess up anyone's day by presenting seemingly odd or insane things just for the fun of it. There are dozens of different descriptions out there ("out there"), if you want to look for it, you will find it in a simple google search anyway.
We are tiny sparks of One Infinite Creator, which is always existing, always will exist, and you can recognize its presence by the concepts of "light", "love", "energy" - also, Chi, Ki, Prana, Manna, Lifeforce, Kundalini, and around a dozen more names. We are currently in the density of free will, where we are free to explore ourselves, other-selves (as we percieve: other human beings, other animals, plants, rules, currents, planetary spheres, etc). We are always able to create, and we can easily be in an existence where NO "god", no "supernatural events", no "spirits", no "unseen" is happening. Simply by choosing to close up to those aspects of this existence, we can be in a different existence, such as a lot of you are in - otherwise atheism would not be so popular.
So, moving on: there is no need to diversify between "hearing voices" and "having delusions". All one needs to listen to is what the world around you tells you. If you are meditating, you are lighting a small candle in the darkness. You are spreading love. What voices appear? Your own thoughts, first of all, obviously. Other voices? What does that voice tell you? To convert other people? Ego, bullshit. To conquer other nations? Ego, bullshit. To rape, to murder, to abuse, to argue, to force yourself on others? Ego, not a voice of any sane God. (to quote Bashar, though, "you have to understand though, God is completely insane!"
. There is a very strong distinction between being for others, and being for yourself. If you are angry, your whole body is filling up with adrenalin, rage. You are angry. A lot of muscles build up tension, your face becomes red - it is "scientifically proven" that this is not a state of being that is healthy for ANYONE in the world. If you are happy, however? You are smiling. Your body reacts too - producing hormones and other chemicals that I wont even pretend to know what they do, I do not care -. It takes very little effort to love, to smile. You just let go all the outer things that wants you to keep your shield up.
The only voice that a normal person hears in his mind is his own voice, and sometimes, very rarely, our own Higher self shouting, DO NOT DO THIS! YOU KNOW IT IS NOT RIGHT! Yes, almost everyone hears that. Delusion? Classify however you want. If a voice tells us to love each other, then it can be measured as an act against all that is sane and scientific, I will follow it
Now, I am not saying that there are no insane people. Oh, there are. Sad? Yes. Uncorrectable? No. Nothing is lost. Whenever a body dies, our indestructible existence (the higher self) makes a final conclusion about what he(!) have learned in this incarnation, and will choose to embark again in this planet (or at another planet, that is perfectly fine as well) in a new body. Sometimes, so much anger and pain has been built up in the previous body that it even affects new incarnations as well. These are the very sad circumstances of child deaths, birth defects, infant sicknesses and all the sad, sad things. One, however, cannot just take ONE sip of belief and try to shoehorn it into another belief. Either this is a cold world where all is separate (Which is, in my reality, NOT true), or either everything is one, nothing is lost, and all is energy, vibrating on different levels, interacting with itself, and learning in the process. Then, however, all things such as death, pain, pleasure, separation, loss is simple a temporary distortion - as we are all One in the end of the day. Nothing can be lost, and we are "only" here to learn.
Take all you read with an additional grain of salt. First of all, it is YOUR free will to believe in whatever you want. Second, a layer of defense is already up for a lot of you, already looking for semantic errors, "factual" errors about how I perceive this body and this existence to work. It is alright. If for you, I am wrong, I accept that.
you're confusing the hell out me, but never mind. at least that answer is better than an upfront dismissal.
What's confusing?
you're confusing the hell out me, but never mind. at least that answer is better than an upfront dismissal.
Confusing questions are the best questions! At least when they're confusing for the right reasons.
piddledy is saying that "atheism" really does just mean "lacking a belief in gods," and is thus a super, super broad category. Not all atheists hold their position with the same degree of certainty, most atheists aren't necessarily anti-theistic, many atheists consider themselves "agnostic" as well, etc.
I recommend probing one of those topics if you'd like to know more.
Can't get everyone to agree on everything, not even believers.
You were kind of telling me that there is a difference, but that this difference does not matter for the layman athiest, which is patronising me, but more importantly, it has nothing to do with what I was asking, and who it was addressing. So who are you talking to? what question are you answering?
I thought the purpose of this thread was just a Q&A, of your own opinion, view, etc.
Again:
...
ahh, I see. I think... though again, I thought the answers had to be individual ones. Aren't you just ignoring your own op?
never mind. You asked what led me to make the change. I answered that it happened when I realized it doesn't matter. Your "Okay..." I took as a request for elaboration.
Again, my view is different kinds of atheism are like different ice cream flavours or Pokemon or NFL teams: they are different, but the differences aren't very important.
Ahh I see. Even if I or others don't think so, agnosticism and atheism is the same for you. So you didn't really change at all or made any jump or cognitive leap. Your rationalisation was that it's practically the same thing. That's your prerogative, so I guess fair enough. cheers for answering.
- Status