Soulman wrote:
I admit I think of consciousness in terms of “self,” soul, personality, the inner dialog, self-awareness, a spirit first, if you will, inhabiting a temporary (more or less) body. If this is the “supernatural entity" to whom you refer, I refer to this entity as “me.”
According to all the actual scientific evidence, including not just neurophysiology, but from actual practicing physicians, clinicians, and therapists, who diagnose, treat, and help patients recover from brain injuries, your "SELF" can be easily altered into a completely different "SELF" dependng on what parts of your brain gets injured. There is also a large volume of data from the study of twins that shows that a great deal of your personality, is actually GENETICALLY DETERMINED. Twins who were separated at birth and led separate lives were found and studied, and despite living in different parts of the country (or even different countries), with diferent family dynamics, they seemed to develop personalities, likes, dislikes, and preferences that were virtually identical, some eerily so. In some of the more dramatic cases, they dated women with the same names, preferred the same pet, which they gave the exact same names to, and had the same jobs. Just how much of what makes you "you" is still not fully determined, but a great deal of it is.
Who "YOU" are is most definitely a product of genetics, brain development, and life experience. When people get brain injuries, they can be altered so dramatically and so profoundly, that they become an entirely different person -- good people become mean and nasty, violent criminals become sweet and passive, and other things. Who you are is what your brain does. This is a scientific fact that is too well documented to be ignored. YOU are that lump of neurons in your skull. It's not pretty or elegant, but it's a truth that you would be very hard pressed to find any reasonable doubt to.
You are placing a bet on a highly debatable material reality; look, the more we learn about something, the deeper the water gets. You seem to know that. There will always be more to know, with no final answer. Knowledge always leads to more questions, not answers. It is almost inconceivable that man could milk the last drop of knowledge from the universe. The deeper the water gets, the more we know; the more we know, the deeper the water gets, and the deeper the water gets the more uncertain we become about anything we think we know. Your proof is the outer world, the measurable, quantifiable “stuff” of reality. A reality that, almost by definition, is impossible to know, even by your own standards.
I do not believe that I am playing a game or making a bet. I'm just collecting the facts.
I may not know all of the answers to everything in the universe, and I may not know as much about the brain as neurophysiologists, but i do know enough to know that what neurophysiologists have experimented on, what data they have collected, and what they have written in their journals. Along the way, I learned quite a bit about neurophysiology, and i know that there is simply no room for the PRIMITIVE notion of the soul or spirit in the light of neurophysiology. We have a physical, material explanation for virtually every aspect of thinking and consciousness, and many gaps in our knowledge are being filled every day.
Who knows more about how the brain works? A bunch of desert nomads from 5,000 years ago, who didn't even have science, or modern scientists who study the brain and experiment on it every day? I side with the modern scientists.
And don't think that the materialistic explanation for how the brain works somehow cheapens humanity, or makes us no better than bugs and rodents. I hate hearing that crap -- because it is crap. I can be just as awe-inspired (and am), amazed, and have reverence for that lump of flesh in everyone's head. It is fascinating and marvelous, and special, no matter how much of it is "just a bunch of neurons".
Consider, on the other hand, that millions upon millions upon billions of all manner of peoples from every conceivable culture throughout the history of the world, the vast majority of all humankind, have placed a very different bet. Their bet is on the inner, if you prefer, spiritual reality, and the reality of a Supreme Being. You have the unfair advantage of making the rules by which reality is apparently to be tested. Knock on wood. More power to you. What you want – what you demand – is hard, physical evidence for a non-physical reality, a dimension of non-physical reality you share, ironically, so it’s pretty difficult for you to deny it. If we are communicating we are proving the existence of the existential, out of body, mind to mind spiritual reality of that inner world. (Do yourself a favor; whatever you do, when you think "spirit," don't think "religion.")
Your argument is going down hill here. You're using a very thinly disguised Argumentum Ad Populi here -- the argument from popularity (this is where you argue that more people believe X than believe Y, therefore X is true).
Here's a few historical sidenotes shattering your assertion of majority rule on ideas:
(1) Christianity used to be a tiny minority view. IN the first century, the vast majority of the world was pantheistic. Actually, it still is a minority view. There are still far more Hindus and buddhists than Christians at the current time.
(2) Evolution used to be a minority view. Darwin was laughed out of the Royal Academy of Sciences, until the data started to favor him. Now the majority of scientists favor evolution, and it has practically been proven fact.
(3) The vast majority of scientists in the world used to believe in the steady-state theory. This was the idea that the universe was a piece of clockwork that has never changed, and will always be the same. The Big Bang theory was a minority view for decades, until new data came, and the world's scientists were convinced that big bang was the way to go (Those facts were the blue and red shifts, the discovery of cosmic background radiation, and the discovery of distant quasars)
Majority opinions change all the time.
On matters of science, I will side with the world's scientific experts over those of religious leaders and followers, any day.
What do you call the “empty space” through which the transmission of a thought passes as it travels from one mind to another?
If you read it, it's called ink on paper (or phosphors on a computer screen).
If you speak it, it travels as sound waves to the other person's ears in the form of vibrations.
If you use American Sign language, it is transmitted via visual gestures, and read by sight.
Then there's braille, and possibly other techniques.
there is no such thing as ESP, and that's a whole other discussion. Don't get me started.
What do we call the empty space between our ears?
Uh -- There is no empty space... at least not in my case. I'm not going to speculate on other people out of politeness...
We are not simply physical beings, we are spirit beings. Spirit beings and physical beings. Not, either-or; both. We are spirit-mind and body. That’s what the vast majority of the human race has always intuitively believed.
The majority of the human race once believed that the heart was the seat of the soul, of love, and intelligence. Read ancient literature. many people still use the heart as a symbol of love. Guess what. They were all wrong. The heart was just a blood pump, and love is what goes on in your brain.
It does not matter what the majority of non-scientists and lesser-educated people believe. Scientific facts are not based on majority opinion polls. They are based on data and research.
I don’t have to tell you this, but materialism is the minority position, which doesn’t PROVE anything;
It may not prove anything, but it sure has a lot of logical, rational, scientific data to support it, which is something that spirits and souls do not have. Spirits and souls have never risen above the level of superstition.
but, run the numbers. Statements of truth validating the existence of the spirit dimension and of a Supreme Being of one kind or another is the scientific norm.
Uh -- I'm going to call your bluff here, because I have never seen a single piece of scientific data that validates the existence of spirits, souls, supreme beings, or a "spiritual dimension". Sure -- I've read articles witten by religious peple that try to prove otherwise, but they always present the god-of-the-gaps (They pick a currently little understood subject, point to gaps in knowledge, and say "God did it!")
If you want me to take your statement seriously, please provide me with a link of scientific "facts" that "validate" spirits, the supernatural, and god.
You demand proof for something you know is impossible, a solution to a riddle containing a contradiction containing a loaded question, then declare yourself the winner.
I do the same thing to people who believe in Alien Abductions, UFO visitations, Bigfoot, Psychic powers, and other stuff. Either provide proof, or concede that it's just something you accept on faith alone.
Kids like to play “made ya flinch!” You pretend to sock one of your pals, and if they flinch, which they almost always do, you sock ‘em a good one for real. Grown-ups play flinch, too. Like in here. It’s like, oh yeah? Take that! – hah, made ya flinch! So, I guess we’re all crazy.
No. Only the ones who think they're possessed by demons, who handle snakes, who speak in tongues, and who blow up OBGYN clinics are.
I guess the vast majority of the human race is just wrong.
It has been wrong before. It will be wrong again. Science and fact is not a matter of popular opinion.
I guess, as has been already suggested, that intelligent, educated people living in the modern world who believe in a Supreme Being and the spirit dimension are just fools, illiterate, and believe in fair tales. Write on the blackboard 500 times: “Consciousness is not a noun, it’s a verb.” Gotcha.
I never said that.
I would suggest that people who believe in the supernatural are not necessarily stupid, uneducated, or foolish. They just place more emphasis on faih and tradition, and believe strongly in traditional religious values. There is nothing inherently wrong or stupid about it. It's just something that is inapproprate to mix with science.
