- Joined
- Nov 24, 2018
- Messages
- 13,199
- Reaction score
- 2,896
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
This makes sense to me too.the brain allows the mind to interact with the world that is perceived by the physical senses.
This makes sense to me too.
The closed mind of atheist materialism is a closed mind, not a closed brain.
That is indeed a bad argument but it flies in both directions. I personally don't think the terminology is at all helpful, the whole idea that any phenomena has to be seen as material or spiritual, (like natural or supernatural). I don't see why. Things either are or are not. Anything that exists is part of the same whole regardless of what you call it.Most atheists are actually open to spiritual ideas, but these materialist atheists are not. And their arguments are almost always -- "You are wrong because I don't believe in what you are saying." That is not a logical argument.
I don't see that. It demonstrates that we don't understand exactly how the brain creates thoughts and consciousness, with the idea that "more" neural activity necessarily means "more" consciousness being too simplistic. Every example given describes changes to the physical brain coinciding with changes in thought and experience though. Not definitive proof of correlation but certainly not evidence against it.So here you are. This Scientific American blog article gives some pretty good reasons for thinking the brain is not the kind of organ you think it is. As neuroscience and imaging technology advance, the evidence is increasing that the brain is NOT a generator of consciousness and cognition.
That is indeed a bad argument but it flies in both directions. I personally don't think the terminology is at all helpful, the whole idea that any phenomena has to be seen as material or spiritual, (like natural or supernatural). I don't see why. Things either are or are not. Anything that exists is part of the same whole regardless of what you call it.
I don't see that. It demonstrates that we don't understand exactly how the brain creates thoughts and consciousness, with the idea that "more" neural activity necessarily means "more" consciousness being too simplistic. Every example given describes changes to the physical brain coinciding with changes in thought and experience though. Not definitive proof of correlation but certainly not evidence against it.
Not my theory actually, but the one that makes the most sense to me.
There are a small number of atheists at this forum who hijack any thread I start on the subject of spirituality and science. They are a specific kind of atheist -- the kind that believes mind is created by matter.
Most atheists are actually open to spiritual ideas, but these materialist atheists are not. And their arguments are almost always -- "You are wrong because I don't believe in what you are saying." That is not a logical argument.
The materialist atheists here also demand evidence, without having to provide scientific evidence or logic themselves.
So here you are. This Scientific American blog article gives some pretty good reasons for thinking the brain is not the kind of organ you think it is. As neuroscience and imaging technology advance, the evidence is increasing that the brain is NOT a generator of consciousness and cognition.
According to what I know, and what makes sense to me, the brain allows the mind to interact with the world that is perceived by the physical senses. It allows us to process time, to interpret physical sensations, and to communicate.
Read this carefully and try to be unbiased. Even though it is from one of those wacko new age websites.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/transcending-the-brain/
In a recent study, CT scans of more than one hundred Vietnam war veterans showed that damage to the frontal and parietal lobes increased the likelihood of “mystical experiences.”15
You have interpreted the evidence wrong. We know that changes to the physical brain coincide, correlate with, changes in conscious experience. That in no way implies that the brain generates conscious experience.
Conscious experience also correlates with changes in brain activity. Yet you materialists never infer that conscious experience generates changes in the brain.
You will have to try harder.
Yes it does.
Yes we do.
For pitty's sake! The changes in activity in the brain are changes in the physical nature of the brain. When we think of typing with our minds a particular part of the brain will be more active.
Why did you need to post this physically on a physical forum using a physical device? Next time, just use your non-material mind to send a non-material message to all our non-material minds. It will be much easier and much more convincing.
We all know about these correlations. When you think about something, a particular brain area becomes more active. How can you be sure the thought didn't cause the brain area to be more active? How do you know the brain activity caused the thought?
You need some basic instruction in science research methodology.
If you read the article, you completely misunderstood it. Good job. Please don't comment again until you read and understand the article.
Do thoughts exist without brains?
I want to announce right here that stupid distractions and hijackings will be ignored in this thread. If you want to read the article and make intelligent comments, fine. If you disagree, even better, as long as you fire up at least one brain cell before commenting.
Time is not going to be wasted on stupid dogmatic nonsense.
Brain cells don't fire up. They are passive receptors for the mind.
If you read the article, you completely misunderstood it. Good job. Please don't comment again until you read and understand the article.
The article is an opinion piece about some nonsense called self-transcendence. Maybe if I choked the author to near death he could enjoy that experience.
And saying "Yes it does," "Yes we do" is not a scientific argument.
Your non-arguments will be ignored.
The article is about new evidence from neuroscience. You have no argument against it so good bye give up.
Not my theory actually, but the one that makes the most sense to me.
There are a small number of atheists at this forum who hijack any thread I start on the subject of spirituality and science. They are a specific kind of atheist -- the kind that believes mind is created by matter.
Most atheists are actually open to spiritual ideas, but these materialist atheists are not. And their arguments are almost always -- "You are wrong because I don't believe in what you are saying." That is not a logical argument.
The materialist atheists here also demand evidence, without having to provide scientific evidence or logic themselves.
So here you are. This Scientific American blog article gives some pretty good reasons for thinking the brain is not the kind of organ you think it is. As neuroscience and imaging technology advance, the evidence is increasing that the brain is NOT a generator of consciousness and cognition.
According to what I know, and what makes sense to me, the brain allows the mind to interact with the world that is perceived by the physical senses. It allows us to process time, to interpret physical sensations, and to communicate.
Read this carefully and try to be unbiased. Even though it is from one of those wacko new age websites.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/transcending-the-brain/
What you're referring to is physicalism. Some are eliminitivists and other are reductive physicalists.
No, it isn't. There is no new evidence from neuroscience indicating any evidence for the non-scientific concept of self-transcendence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?