Science And Religion Aren't Friends

[Vixentrox]

As for learning from other people I keep saying, show me the science. Antlerman presented some things which frankly I don't really understand. Some of it I get but most of it sounds very nonsensical to me.

So, you're saying if you don't understand the science, it's not evidence???

 

Good god, what would satisfy you? Everything comprehensible to an IQ under 90? Only that could possibly be accepted as evidence? That you can grasp it??

 

Don't blame me you don't get the science. You were given it. Now shut up, or go to school and get an education or something. At the least you can do is admit honestly and with integrity that there is a lot, a very great deal you don't understand and are probably incapable of understanding, so therefore it would be wrong of you to pass judgment from your ignorance.

 

I am going to shut you down at some point if this crap from you keeps up. Time to toe the line here. The best you can do is to have some personal integrity in the face of your inability to grasp the science you're presented with. For you to continue in light of this, would be nothing short of just being abusive for the sake of being abusive. You are ignorant. Admit that.

I already said I didn't understand some of what you presented. Isn't that an admission or are you too blind to see it? And you could have avoided much of my ire had you simply said "I don't believe in god's or spirits or reincarnation. That isn't why I do it." Unless of course you do believe in such things...but then nothing I read in your science bit proved gods, spirits, or reincarnation that I could see and THAT is what I was looking for.

[Rev R]

Is this "Zen and the Brain" by James H. Austin? I've added it to my ever growing Amazon.com shopping list which has around 30+ book already in the queue. I still have one on Egypt that someone (Lunaticheathen I think) recommended to me like 6 months ago.

 

thats the one. i hope you enjoy it when you get to it.

 

As I said in another post, my great issues with mystic stuff is when they start talking about union with gods or souls or it is wrapped up with kooks claiming they can go a year without food, levitate and the like. If it is done without such nonsense it becomes something more tolerable.

 

trust me, i understand that.

 

As long as no superstition like gods and spirits and the like are involved I would be willing to look into it of course. Surely these "Zen masters" or whatever have had brain monitors or something hooked up to measure what is going on in their brain before.

 

Honestly, I haven't seen all that much and it doesn't really matter to me. Very interesting though. Might give you something to work with.

[Antlerman]

I already said I didn't understand some of what you presented. Isn't that an admission or are you too blind to see it?

Then if you don't understand the evidence because it escapes your ability to understand it, why do you persist in accusing everyone of having no evidence? Are you blind to that fact?

 

And you could have avoided much of my ire had you simply said "I don't believe in god's or spirits or reincarnation. That isn't why I do it."

Holy crap, either you can't understand the words I have said to you repeatedly, stating exactly that which I could go and point you to in post after post if you need to see them, or you are a troll, and you are deliberately misrepresenting facts to just goad members here into a fight with you. It may not take too much for me to be persuaded of that at this point...

 

Unless of course you do believe in such things...but then nothing I read in your science bit proved gods, spirits, or reincarnation that I could see and THAT is what I was looking for.

You know, maybe I'm being too harsh. You're not a troll, but just too thick to have a conservation with adults.

 

I'm going to ask that you consider withdrawing from discussions with adults here, and maybe go express your irrational vinegar somewhere where it doesn't soil the carpets of rational discussions. You're welcome to stay here so long as you can learn how to use the correct facilities when you feel a need to relieve yourself all over. I'm really tired of it in these discussions. Your choice.

[Guest Valk0010]

I think alot of this thread can be described in one phrase even for antler and vix, talking past each other.

 

Thinking about this idea of science and religion and rational discussion I think I need to make my views clear in full, and I am going to try to address points in this thread.

 

Science and religion aren't friends, never will be. Religion was the first attempt at science. Now because of pure science inquiry the role of religion is now at best limited. But there is one thing, religion, god, spirituality whateverthe fuck does that science can't, attach meaning beyond inquiry. Science and religion are both forms of inquiry, religion is more personable. The intangible can't be proven, science could say, ohh prayer is nothing but brain chemistry, but that doesn't say what meaning it has, or what it can do. It can have only natural power, but have unnatural consequence. Say doing something that can't be accomplished by anything but prayer. But however, the thing prayer accomplishing is not supernatural.

 

Religion is interpretation, always has been always will be. Say you cut a 5 or 7 polygon, with irregular sides. And ask a person to place them in any order and then ask what meaning the position may have. Some may say it has no meaning, some may say it has all the meaning in the world, whose right? Who has superiority? Its just meaning. Its not proof. Its interpretation. The fun part is trying to find out whose right?

 

Say for example science can't explain something, does that mean, it can't happen to be truth, not always, just means that its a unexplainable phenomena. Science by just odds, with probably be what is used to figure it out, but no one can predict the future. I bet on materialism, because I have seen no, unbiased evidence for the supernatural. Religion is bias criteria, science seems to me to be the less bias criteria for inquiry.

 

How this ties back to religion. Like irrationalism, empiricism is kind of thrown out the window, because meaning is subjective. So yeah, maybe krishna didn't exist, but the teachings of the upanishads have great points. One still is very hindu in thinking then. Antlerman, I would describe you as a supernaturalist. I bet, its because you see things in the world that have meaning that make a supernatural conclusion more rational, and your trying to salvage in a way, the first science, and use it to understand the world as well a new science.. Vix sees things in the world and it leads here to say there is only the material, and adding more to it, makes it somehow untrue, because its not just what inquiry(new science states), and this is because the first science to her, doesn't seem useful, to accept, or harmful, etc, so its disregarded. See its a difference in meaning, a difference is signs, symbols and all.

 

I would say the issues between science and religion, extend beyond the inquiry systems themselves. And all issues are accountable in determining what is rational. For example I think religion is bias and harmful, so therefore I am less inclined to use formal belief systems to describe my world. Someone like end, may disagree, and therefore religion is a more inclined path.

 

Rationality is relative, gotta to own that. I am taking a public speaking class, and one of the things that keeps coming up is called "the point of reference". And basically it means, that everyone approaches information in ways based off of what they know before hand, life experience, culture etc. What is a rational claim, depends also on the point of reference, like I just stated.

 

Now were does the twain meet, to adapt a old adage. They really won't line up perfectly. Religion and science like I said aren't friend, but they can be used to make meaning, but more has to be considered that just the religion and just the science. But needs have to be meet. One person may say reincarnation is rational, but the other says its not. Dialogue comes when more then just, empiricism is examined. Interpretation and meaning needs to be examined. Even science can be biased, that is why there is things like peer review. Maybe religion and supernaturalism can somehow get its own scientific method and peer review.

 

Once more then just "fact" is examined the materialist and the supernaturalist can truly have a rational discourse. And the same goes, with just, meaning. They both need to be considered equally, because its bad to have one without the other. Though even the materalist has meaning attached to life. The supernaturalist has different types. Science and religion can complement each other, but they are like yin and yang in many ways.

 

Communication is key as cheesy as it sounds. Can't communicate on a common level, communication dies.

 

If I had to give a grade on the communication skills in this thread, I would give it a D+.

[Guest Valk0010]

Well let's hear the evidence.And is there such a thing as an independent thought.I don't see why not.Completely new inventions, tales spun by people etc.They may build on what their experiences but they still can bring something new to the world.;I child raised in isolation would still have thoughts.

 

Nah, not interested. It isn't "peer reviewed science," its only circumstantial.; Its stories. You won't accept it, and my time is valuable. How would you design an experiment in a lab to prove reincarnation? My time would be better spent on people who actually would be willing to review the evidence as it is with something of an unbiased perspective.

You can't evaluate the supernatural, without bias criteria if your right then. Religion is a bias criteria and science is a biased criteria according to you.

 

I don't regard the area under discussion as supernatural.

At first I thought, that you were talking, about reincarnation if your not I got another point to make.

 

Spirituality/mysticism can be natural, then its only then exploring the natural world, then its only non provable because its just a matter of meaning.

 

To say people are reincarnated, for example, is more then just a value statement, its a truth claim on par with the sun rises. To be convinced by only hearsay, to me is not a good idea, aliens can exist then by just pure hearsay, aids could be a conspiracy just by hearsay. You drop the standards like that, more then just what you want to be true is then fair game. You can't have it both ways really, you can't believe in things like reincarnation based off of just testimony alone and not believe in things like the dead appearing(familar much?) or aliens. This is why the scientific method is so great in my opinion, it raises the standards so you don't have the have to accept reincarnation and aliens dilemma.

 

Let me ask you a question, what unbiased method of inquiry do you have to evaluate the world? Or do you somehow see religion as more unbiased then science, if so why?

 

Questions of "evidence as it is" are sometimes irrelevant, and here is why, if there is no universal standard that tries to be self correcting against bias, how can you truly know anything?

[Deva]

Valk: I don't really have the time today to address all of your points, but yes, I agree that reincarnation is a truth claim. No doubt about it. I am reluctant to express the view here at all. It usually generates a lot of opposition.

 

To me, reincarnation is natural, not supernatural. There is no such thing as the supernatural, just the undiscovered natural.

 

I think most people, including myself, do not operate in day to day life using "unbiased methods of inquiry." People are invariably biased to different degrees. I admit my bias. Among other things, I am biased against black and white either/or types of thinking, willful ignorance and certain dogmas.

 

Science and religion must not be in conflict or something is amiss- either with the science or the religion. I understand as well as anyone here that reincarnation is not accepted science, but it may be one day. I accept all the established scientific theories and appreciate the rigor of the scientific method. I do not believe that the scientific method can be applied so well to the human mind and the question of consciousness. Again, it may one day, but it hasn't yet. Religion is better in that area of inquiry. To me, the heart of true religion is exploring the nature of relationships - your relationship to others and to the universe. That is what it is about. Its not a relationship to some god out there, it is everything.

 

You may not believe this, but in most areas of life I am profoundly skeptical. No, I don't believe anything everyone tells me. But I do rely, everyday, on accepting what people tell me is accurate.

 

I also know that consciousness is real. It exists.

[Rev R]

I also know that consciousness is real. It exists.

 

Perhaps a question better suited for another topic, but are you certain that consciousness is this atman idea that you and A-Man appear to be proposing?

[Deva]

I also know that consciousness is real. It exists.

 

Perhaps a question better suited for another topic, but are you certain that consciousness is this atman idea that you and A-Man appear to be proposing?

 

I don't know where I have proposed it. I have simply said consciousness continues. I guess you want to know if I think its all one.

 

I hold it out as a possibility, but not a certainty.

[Vixentrox]

Is this "Zen and the Brain" by James H. Austin? I've added it to my ever growing Amazon.com shopping list which has around 30+ book already in the queue. I still have one on Egypt that someone (Lunaticheathen I think) recommended to me like 6 months ago.

 

thats the one. i hope you enjoy it when you get to it.

 

As I said in another post, my great issues with mystic stuff is when they start talking about union with gods or souls or it is wrapped up with kooks claiming they can go a year without food, levitate and the like. If it is done without such nonsense it becomes something more tolerable.

 

trust me, i understand that.

 

As long as no superstition like gods and spirits and the like are involved I would be willing to look into it of course. Surely these "Zen masters" or whatever have had brain monitors or something hooked up to measure what is going on in their brain before.

 

Honestly, I haven't seen all that much and it doesn't really matter to me. Very interesting though. Might give you something to work with.

After reading the reviews for that book I am going to jump it up further on my long list of books to buy. Looks like it could be quite interesting.

[Antlerman]

Science and religion aren't friends, never will be.

They were. So "never will be", is a strong statement to make for the future in the light of the facts of history.

 

Religion was the first attempt at science.

Incorrect. Man developed a framework of interpreting and relating to the world on multiple levels, including, but not exclusively the pursuit of understanding nature. There were also social factors, philosophical questions, spiritual perceptions, etc.

 

The mistake you are making is to look at our post-Enlightenment Western world where the split of science and religion happened. This is not the case throughout history, nor in the rest of the world necessarily. You look at the whole through the lens of your immediate exposure only.

 

Now because of pure science inquiry the role of religion is now at best limited.

Clearly not, unless you mean using mythology to talk about the natural world? Then yes, that role has been replaced, and justly so. I'd further this to say that as mythology as a language for the natural world needed to be replaced (which is why it happened), likewise our social and spiritual worlds need to shed mythology as well in order for us to advance in these areas as well as our scientific understanding of the natural world.

 

I see no reason these cannot be integrated together at a new post-myth level, just as during the myth-level they were integrated. This dissociation is a new, post-Enlightenment phenomena that can be summarized by Kant's big three, his 3 critiques of pure reason, practical reason, and judgment. These were integrated under myth, but since myth they split and have yet to be reintegrated into a new whole. I consider that reintegration to be a necessity.

 

Please note, in absolutely no way am I suggesting we go back to myth in order to accomplish this! Absolutely not. Instead it must be brought forward, and cries of supremacy of one aspect of reason over the other, is in fact a dissociation, a pathology of the body, so to speak. What integrative system exactly that will be, only evolution itself will tell!

 

Religion is interpretation, always has been always will be.

As is science. It's just a different sort of interpretation (Back to empiricism versus hermeneutics I spoke about a few posts ago). Although I should say that using the term "religion" is a tricky thing. Exactly which of the many, and conflicting uses of the word are you referring to? You speak of talking past each other, this is one way that happens without end.

 

Here's a few examples of how people use religion as a term which I'm borrowing from and paraphrasing from Wilber's A Sociable God:

1.

Religion as non-rational engagement

:

 

- Deals with the non-rational aspects of existence such as faith, grace, etc.

 

2.

Religion as meaningful or integrative engagement

:

 

- A functional activity of seeking meaning, truth, integration, stability, etc.

 

3.

Religion as an immortality project

:

 

- A wishful, defensive, compensatory belief in order to assuage anxiety and fear

 

4.

Religion as evolutionary growth

:

 

- A more sophisticated concept that views history and evolution as a process towards self-realization, finding not so much an integration of current levels, but higher structures of truth towards a God-Realized Adaptation.

 

5.

Religion as fixation and regression

:

 

- A standard primitivization theory: religion is childish, illusion, myth.

 

6.

Exoteric religion

 

- The outward aspects, belief systems to support faith. A non-esoteric religion. A potential predecessor to esoteric religion.

 

7.

Esoteric religion

 

- The inward aspects of religious practices, either culminating in, or having a goal of mystical experience.

 

8.

Legitimate religion

:

 

- A system which provides meaningful integration of any given worldview or level. A legitimate supporting structure which allows productive functionality on that level, horizontally. The myth systems of the past can be called "legitimate" for their abilities to integrate. A crisis of legitimacy occurs when the symbols fail to integrate. This describes the failure of a myth's legitimacy we saw occur with the emergence of a new level of our conscious minds in the Enlightenment. Civil religion is one example of an attempt to provide legitimacy to this level, following the failure of the old legitimate system.

 

9.

Authentic religion

 

- The relative degree of actual transformation delivered by a religion or worldview. This is on a vertical scale providing a means of reaching a higher level, as opposed to integrated the present level on a horizontal scale. Means to transformation to higher levels, as opposed to integration of present ones.

 

 

So I hope you can clearly see the difficulty we run into in these sorts of discussion when we just say "religion" does this, that or the other thing, and religion should be "done away with". Also, you can see in here why I legitimately say that people do in fact approach science, or atheism, or any other 'secular' systems in exactly the same context as some of these definitions above. They legitimately can be called religion, such as the civil religion as an example. Not strictly, such as science as a tool of discovery. That is not religion. But science as the key to integration? That is.

 

Vix for instance views all religion in only definition number 5 above. Even though I understand and recognize all these other uses and contexts when I'm speaking of religion, what comes closest to my experience would be definition numbers 4, 7, and 9. So when someone says religion is belief in supernatural fairies, this doesn't fit me at all.

 

I'm going to lift this out of this thread and clean them up slightly and start a separate topic on these shortly. I think these are critically important things to recognize if we wish to have any sort of meaningful, rational discussion about them.

 

In short, this demonstrates that science and religion can very well, and has been integrated within legitimate systems. In my 'religious' views they are. They are friends, and I could not have the experience I do without both.

 

Religion is bias criteria, science seems to me to be the less bias criteria for inquiry.

It depends on what religion or what science you're talking about with more or less bias influences.

 

Antlerman, I would describe you as a supernaturalist.

That's interesting. Why? It's not how I would define myself. What do you mean by that?

 

I bet, its because you see things in the world that have meaning that make a supernatural conclusion more rational, and your trying to salvage in a way, the first science, and use it to understand the world as well a new science.

You could say I'm trying to integrate and transcend, or rather through transcendence, better stated. You see, what I see happen with those who try to reconcile their religious views on a certain level with what we understand about the natural world on another level, is that they fall into pseudo-sciences, New Age quasi-science theories and spiritual practices. They try to prove the mythical (as opposed to mystical, often misstated as the same), by pointing to "unproved" or questionable fringe theories of science as prove them as legitimate on that level.

 

I am very, full well aware of this and if you go back into my first 3 years worth of posts in this forum you will see me constantly rebuffing these sort of pseudo and quasi-science approaches. Nothing has changed in that regard for me, and I don't go off looking to esoteric sciences to prove beliefs in ghosts, fairies, or any other such mythological symbols as legitimate considerations for the empirical sciences.

 

Would that Vix, or anyone who imagines otherwise actually read and remember those words.

 

That sort of 'integration' is a mismatched attempt to bring myth to the level of reason. Science is on the level of reason. Fairies are on the level of myth. You cannot integrate myth and reason. That is what I am saying. That is why Vix is a thousand miles afield in these discussions, or where some others might misunderstand this, yet without the same degree of knee-jerking vitriol.

 

It's a question of integrating the Big Three I mentioned above: Subjective Truth; Inter-subjective Truth; Objective Truth, or the Beautiful, the Good, and the True. The Materialist seeks to explain away, or to include into their "objective" view of the world these other dissociated aspects of our worldview into theirs by flattening it, reducing it to the machine. That is in its own right, as much of a pseudo-science as the New Ager's trying to show spirits registering on photographs or something.

 

To keep this shorter, what I am doing is not trying to reconcile the old with the new. It's not trying to salvage anything at all. It's fully a matter of becoming more aware, of seeking and finding life. It is that mystical, in the true sense of the word, beyond symbols, beyond systems, beyond forms. In that experience flows a truth from within into all aspects of mind and life within the contexts of our current levels, you could say in a sort of downward causation, if you will. Higher truth pulling towards structural adaptations supportive of emergence into higher level.

 

Not simple to explain, but actually has legitimate science behind these understandings. (LR's Robert Rosen falls somewhat into this camp of the Complexity Sciences, recognizing the non-reductionist qualities of emergent systems. Ervin László's general systems theory gets more into this).

 

Vix sees things in the world and it leads here to say there is only the material, and adding more to it, makes it somehow untrue, because its not just what inquiry(new science states), and this is because the first science to her, doesn't seem useful, to accept, or harmful, etc, so its disregarded. See its a difference in meaning, a difference is signs, symbols and all.

Well, I don't quite see a different worldview for her being the issue behind this. I wouldn't say that has quite actually happened yet, if it really will. Perhaps not happy with that one yet? Why so much vinegar still?

 

Rationality is relative, gotta to own that. I am taking a public speaking class, and one of the things that keeps coming up is called "the point of reference".

Oh, I could take you places with that understanding. "What we are, that only can we see". Make sense?

 

What is a rational claim, depends also on the point of reference, like I just stated.

Back up to systems of legitimacy, point number 8 above. In a mythological level, it is utterly irrational to deny that spirits move about and influencing the forces of nature. That is an entirely rational way of thinking on that level. It is irrational to us, in an Age of Reason level to think like that. To them we are irrational, to us they are irrational.

 

Each level see the world on their level as the truth. As *Reality*. Today is no different than yesterday. So how "rationally" are we really when we today cry "I have the Truth!"?

[Rev R]

I don't know where I have proposed it. I have simply said consciousness continues. I guess you want to know if I think its all one.

 

I hold it out as a possibility, but not a certainty.

 

ok fair enough.

 

define consciousness for me please.

[Deva]

I don't know where I have proposed it. I have simply said consciousness continues. I guess you want to know if I think its all one.

 

I hold it out as a possibility, but not a certainty.

 

ok fair enough.

 

define consciousness for me please.

 

That's not fair Rev.

[Legion]

I see here yet another opportunity to quote my hero, the late theoretical biologist Robert Rosen, whose genius is unsurpassed among humans, living or dead.

 

"Mind is to brain as life is to organism."

[Galien]

I see here yet another opportunity to quote my hero, the late theoretical biologist Robert Rosen, whose genius is unsurpassed among humans, living or dead.

 

"Mind is to brain as life is to organism."

 

 

nev er found another living soul worthy of my worship

[Guest Valk0010]

nevermind.

[Guest Valk0010]

 

They were. So "never will be", is a strong statement to make for the future in the light of the facts of history.

Yeah, but have you noticed, how the more science develops the more religion because hostile, the work of henry morris and ID come to mind. So yeah, newton and galileo were christians, but also religion didn't particuarly like the ideas. Wasn't it newton that said (paraphrase) God was not needed in the design. The trouble Galileo experienced has been well documented. So yeah I agree with you half right, they were friends at one time, but the relationship broke totally I think about the time of darwin. I think the divide will continue to grow, at least the odds as I understand them say they will.

 

Incorrect. Man developed a framework of interpreting and relating to the world on multiple levels, including, but not exclusively the pursuit of understanding nature. There were also social factors, philosophical questions, spiritual perceptions, etc.

Yeah but they often have a duel purpose, creation myths come to mind.

 

The mistake you are making is to look at our post-Enlightenment Western world where the split of science and religion happened. This is not the case throughout history, nor in the rest of the world necessarily. You look at the whole through the lens of your immediate exposure only.

Yeah there was a blend, cultural and social evolution isn't monolithic in decision making, if that makes any sense. But that blend is like the number 2 between the numbers one and three. That 1,2,3 format is where I get the justification to say that religion was the world first attempt at science.

 

Clearly not, unless you mean using mythology to talk about the natural world? Then yes, that role has been replaced, and justly so. I'd further this to say that as mythology as a language for the natural world needed to be replaced (which is why it happened), likewise our social and spiritual worlds need to shed mythology as well in order for us to advance in these areas as well as our scientific understanding of the natural world.

Religion in its classic full package of both explanation and meaning is becoming limited, if fact I would say religion is becoming nearly if it hasn't already, a collection of purely meanings statements. So can science be immaterial according to you? Because it doesn't seem to me it can. But claim it, when you say its just a meaning statement, if its a truth claim we need to evaluate it, religion in its current bastardized form doesn't exactly cut it.

 

I see no reason these cannot be integrated together at a new post-myth level, just as during the myth-level they were integrated. This dissociation is a new, post-Enlightenment phenomena that can be summarized by Kant's big three, his 3 critiques of pure reason, practical reason, and judgment. These were integrated under myth, but since myth they split and have yet to be reintegrated into a new whole. I consider that reintegration to be a necessity.

But religion isn't always, all three. And as far as I am aware never has been always all three.

 

Please note, in absolutely no way am I suggesting we go back to myth in order to accomplish this! Absolutely not. Instead it must be brought forward, and cries of supremacy of one aspect of reason over the other, is in fact a dissociation, a pathology of the body, so to speak. What integrative system exactly that will be, only evolution itself will tell!

Its like i said how, one could value the upanishads but not be hindu. That makes sense, but I am still not in agreement that its a requirement. Meaning is not universal its relative, so why would taking from myth uniformly be beneficial to society. Or am I misunderstanding you.

 

As is science. It's just a different sort of interpretation (Back to empiricism versus hermeneutics I spoke about a few posts ago). Although I should say that using the term "religion" is a tricky thing. Exactly which of the many, and conflicting uses of the word are you referring to? You speak of talking past each other, this is one way that happens without end.

But religions as far as I am aware aren't self correcting like science. When I say science, I try to speak of it, as far as I comprend it, back to when the scientific method was starting to be developed. Religion, I use the term synonymously with just simply explaining the universe in a culturally relative way. The stuff say that you believe antler is doing that as well, I just have to adjust my comments accordingly as I try to understand it.

 

 

Here's a few examples of how people use religion as a term which I'm borrowing from and paraphrasing from Wilber's A Sociable God:

1.

Religion as non-rational engagement

:

 

- Deals with the non-rational aspects of existence such as faith, grace, etc.

They suit a imho shady purpose, to keep the outdated beliefs afloat. Just have faith don't question.

 

2.

Religion as meaningful or integrative engagement

:

 

- A functional activity of seeking meaning, truth, integration, stability, etc.

This to me is something that science can explain, but not provide.

 

3.

Religion as an immortality project

:

 

 

- A wishful, defensive, compensatory belief in order to assuage anxiety and fear

Religion does this because it was used to assuage are early minds and conciouness.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Will respond to the rest later

[Rev R]

That's not fair Rev.

 

When have you ever known me not to have a dirty trick up my sleeve?

 

Seriously though, I think the question is relevant since to apply a property such as "existence" or "continuation" there must be some kind of working definition.

 

Unless there is some type of agreed upon hypothesis of what consciousness is, these discussions are a waste of time and energy. Why? Because one person's ideas are simply going to bounce off the others' definitions.

 

 

I see here yet another opportunity to quote my hero, the late theoretical biologist Robert Rosen, whose genius is unsurpassed among humans, living or dead.

 

"Mind is to brain as life is to organism."

 

Try this one on for size and see if you can work with it.

"Mind is to brain

as smell is to nose

as hearing is to ear

as seeing is to eye

as taste is to tongue

as touch is to skin."

[Deva]

Seriously though, I think the question is relevant since to apply a property such as "existence" or "continuation" there must be some kind of working definition.

 

Unless there is some type of agreed upon hypothesis of what consciousness is, these discussions are a waste of time and energy. Why? Because one person's ideas are simply going to bounce off the others' definitions.

 

It may be relevant but you know very well that much greater minds than my own have never been able to define it. It exists and I believe it continues. Granted it is only a belief, a conviction. I don't think I have ever really been able to believe in death. I don't know what it is, really. Physical death, of course, but not real nonexistence. I can't comprehend it. After all, what is nonexistence?

[Legion]

I see here yet another opportunity to quote my hero, the late theoretical biologist Robert Rosen, whose genius is unsurpassed among humans, living or dead.

 

"Mind is to brain as life is to organism."

 

Try this one on for size and see if you can work with it.

"Mind is to brain

as smell is to nose

as hearing is to ear

as seeing is to eye

as taste is to tongue

as touch is to skin."

I don't know Rodney. I am still trying to understand the relationships between life and organism. Each of the things you listed here seems to me to be important functions of various organs. But I am not sure if life is a function of organisms, nor mind a function of brains.

 

Increasingly I suspect that life is a certain pattern of entailments which organisms manifest. If so then mind may be a certain pattern of entailments which brains manifest.

 

Also, for some inexplicable reason, I am thinking here of interchanging the roles of nouns and adjectives.

 

living tree... tree life

living snail... snail life

 

mindful human... human mind

mindful dolphin... dolphin mind

 

[Rev R]

It may be relevant but you know very well that much greater minds than my own have never been able to define it. It exists and I believe it continues. Granted it is only a belief, a conviction. I don't think I have ever really been able to believe in death. I don't know what it is, really. Physical death, of course, but not real nonexistence. I can't comprehend it. After all, what is nonexistence?

 

This is very indicative of the human condition concerning death. Non-existence is a difficult thing to comprehend because all we can claim to know is existence. There again, we can't really claim to know existence because we don't know non-existence.

 

(I expect Legion will be kind enough to re-post my little verse in the near future.)

 

The Buddha spoke of the continuation of human existence to be like lighting a candle from another candle. It is not the same flame but it's nature or properties are identical. The original candle burns out and it is gone forever. The interesting thing is that we don't have to resort to metaphysics to see how this can be true. We can't, however, use this as a means to support an eternalist belief.

[Deva]

The Buddha spoke of the continuation of human existence to be like lighting a candle from another candle. It is not the same flame but it's nature or properties are identical. The original candle burns out and it is gone forever. The interesting thing is that we don't have to resort to metaphysics to see how this can be true. We can't, however, use this as a means to support an eternalist belief.

 

The flame still exists. It has a relation to the last one it was taken from. It goes to a different candle, there is still some continuity. If you mean that I think nothing changes, and therefore its always the same, that isn't what I mean. There is certainly change, even within a single life. I don't deny it, and therefore I am not an eternalist.

[Vixentrox]

It may be relevant but you know very well that much greater minds than my own have never been able to define it. It exists and I believe it continues. Granted it is only a belief, a conviction. I don't think I have ever really been able to believe in death. I don't know what it is, really. Physical death, of course, but not real nonexistence. I can't comprehend it. After all, what is nonexistence?

 

This is very indicative of the human condition concerning death. Non-existence is a difficult thing to comprehend because all we can claim to know is existence. There again, we can't really claim to know existence because we don't know non-existence.

 

(I expect Legion will be kind enough to re-post my little verse in the near future.)

 

The Buddha spoke of the continuation of human existence to be like lighting a candle from another candle. It is not the same flame but it's nature or properties are identical. The original candle burns out and it is gone forever. The interesting thing is that we don't have to resort to metaphysics to see how this can be true. We can't, however, use this as a means to support an eternalist belief.

Non-existence is incredibly easy to understand. What were you before you were born? Nothing. What are you when you die? Nothing. And what happens when an asteroid destroys everything on earth? A bunch of floating consciousness in space? No seems far more likely that there will be nothing for anyone else too.

[Rev R]

I don't know Rodney. I am still trying to understand the relationships between life and organism. Each of the things you listed here seems to me to be important functions of various organs. But I am not sure if life is a function of organisms, nor mind a function of brains.

 

Here is the thing Leeg, smell is not entirely a function of the nose. It is a process that cannot be separated from the nose, that which is being smelled, the physical process of scent, and the mental formations associated with scent. Mind is a process that cannot be separated either.

 

This is what is meant by "interdependent and interpenetrated".

 

Increasingly I suspect that life is a certain pattern of entailments which organisms manifest. If so then mind may be a certain pattern of entailments which brains manifest.

 

I would start with abiogenesis since it would give insight through understanding the conditions which give rise to what we call life.

 

Seems to me that is what it's all about, finding that original "spark" that triggered all of this.

[Rev R]

Non-existence is incredibly easy to understand. What were you before you were born? Nothing. What are you when you die? Nothing. And what happens when an asteroid destroys everything on earth? A bunch of floating consciousness in space? No seems far more likely that there will be nothing for anyone else too.

 

You are lucky that I didn't give you that as a koan.

 

Do you have an experience or evidence of this "nothing" that you somehow were or will be? How can one make such a pronouncement (be it nothing, disembodied consciousness, whatever) about the past or future when the only you that exists is now?

[Deva]

Non-existence is incredibly easy to understand. What were you before you were born? Nothing. What are you when you die? Nothing. And what happens when an asteroid destroys everything on earth? A bunch of floating consciousness in space? No seems far more likely that there will be nothing for anyone else too.

 

No it isn't. Not for me. I have no recollection of what it was to be "nothing". I don't know what that is. All I know is "something" as far as I can tell.I have absolutely no idea what it is to be nothing.