This is disgusting [modified]
-
I never said that chemistry can't affect the mind, I am not convinced that the "mind is simply the sum of the chemical reactions occurring in your body."
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
Or that premarital sex leads to dancing. :)
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
Dancing is yet to be proven, but it has been linked to accelerated marriage plans.
10110011001111101010101000001000001101001010001010100000100000101000001000111100010110001011001011
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
I am not convinced that the "mind is simply the sum of the chemical reactions occurring in your body."
Just out of curiosity - hypothetically speaking, what evidence would you require to be convinced of this?
- F
Whatcha got?
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
The hard drives have physically altered their structures. The software doesn't transcend them, it's encoded onto them.
-
If only I showed restraint and maturity in deciding which symbols to care about. Like Grilled Cheese Virgin Mary[^], Potato Chip Jesus[^], Fishstick Jesus[^], Rotten Grape Mary[^], Tree Mary[^], Mother Theresa Cinnamon Bun[^], Potato Mary[^], and of course Virgin Mary Cerebellum[^]. If only I wasn't so hung up on the symbolic insignificance of 77,300 scholarly articles [^] on the phenomenon of brain damage causing personality change.
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
I am not convinced that the "mind is simply the sum of the chemical reactions occurring in your body."
Just out of curiosity - hypothetically speaking, what evidence would you require to be convinced of this?
- F
-
Oakman wrote:
Only people who think that are ones with little minds, less imagination, and no souls.
You surely don't really believe that. I have a fantastic imagination - I can imagine all the different ways that the world isn't, and never will be. Hey, I'm open to the idea of some currently undiscovered interaction between matter and mind-vapour, but it has to make sense. You can't just say that something undetectable exists, is intrinsically tied to clumps of neurons and violates numerous laws of physics by prompting uncountably many nerve impulses, just because. You also can't criticise me because I don't believe you.
Can you prove that you are not really dreaming this experience? Empirically? Leave some mystery to life. Not everything has to have a rational explanation. There's a proverb, Sufi I think, that suggests that if you remove all of the falsities from your reality, you might find yourself left with nothing. Take it as you will.
This statement is false
-
Whatcha got?
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
I asked what evidence would be required to convince you. Successful brain transplant? Purposeful personality change by altering brain structure? See, it's my guess that there is absolutely no empirical evidence that anyone could produce that would convince you, and I was just wondering if I was wrong.
- F
-
Just out of curiosity, why is it important to manipulate another's beliefs? And yes, that applies to Gary as well.
This statement is false
Because erroneous beliefs have consequences. For (a ridiculous) example, if I believe that I can close my eyes and God will let me drive through oncoming traffic without hitting anyone, that belief needs correction before someone gets hurt or killed.
- F
-
Just out of curiosity, why is it important to manipulate another's beliefs? And yes, that applies to Gary as well.
This statement is false
Actually I wasn't trying to manipulate anyone, I mearly stated that I wasn't convinced that the mind was only comprised of and/or completely explained by chemistry.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
I asked what evidence would be required to convince you. Successful brain transplant? Purposeful personality change by altering brain structure? See, it's my guess that there is absolutely no empirical evidence that anyone could produce that would convince you, and I was just wondering if I was wrong.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
it's my guess that there is absolutely no empirical evidence that anyone could produce that would convince you
Sounds familiar.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
Because erroneous beliefs have consequences. For (a ridiculous) example, if I believe that I can close my eyes and God will let me drive through oncoming traffic without hitting anyone, that belief needs correction before someone gets hurt or killed.
- F
Erroneous to whom? The discussion is mind. Not God. And whether it is solely a physical component and whether there can only be physical components. You cannot provide empirical evidence that there is only a physical component to mind. And you cannot provide empirical evidence that a being such as the concept of God represents does not exist. Its a fool's quest.
This statement is false
-
Actually I wasn't trying to manipulate anyone, I mearly stated that I wasn't convinced that the mind was only comprised of and/or completely explained by chemistry.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
Oakman wrote:
Only people who think that are ones with little minds, less imagination, and no souls.
You surely don't really believe that. I have a fantastic imagination - I can imagine all the different ways that the world isn't, and never will be. Hey, I'm open to the idea of some currently undiscovered interaction between matter and mind-vapour, but it has to make sense. You can't just say that something undetectable exists, is intrinsically tied to clumps of neurons and violates numerous laws of physics by prompting uncountably many nerve impulses, just because. You also can't criticise me because I don't believe you.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You surely don't really believe that
I believe anyone who thinks they've got it all figured out shows a paucity of imagination.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You can't just say that something undetectable exists, is intrinsically tied to clumps of neurons and violates numerous laws of physics by prompting uncountably many nerve impulses, just because
Nor can you say it doesn't, just because. An absence of proof is not an absence of truth.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You also can't criticise me because I don't believe you.
I can do anything I want along those lines, but you probably need to take any criticisms I offer, or that anyone else offers, a little less seriously.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Synaptrik wrote:
Your sig is.
My sig is what?
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
Erroneous to whom? The discussion is mind. Not God. And whether it is solely a physical component and whether there can only be physical components. You cannot provide empirical evidence that there is only a physical component to mind. And you cannot provide empirical evidence that a being such as the concept of God represents does not exist. Its a fool's quest.
This statement is false
Ask a general question, get a general answer. You asked generally about beliefs. Yes, some beliefs are erroneous. A schizophrenic may believe that they are the King of England. This belief is not correct.
Synaptrik wrote:
You cannot provide empirical evidence that there is only a physical component to mind.
I absolutely can, and it's suggested by Ravel's posts - that there are discrete aspects of what we would consider personality affected in a predictable way when that part of the brain is lesioned. That the complexity of the brain is consistent with the complexity of human behaviour. Etc. All of that is certainly empirical evidence. It's nice, however, that because you, from your vast worldly experience, have decreed that the pursuit of a genuine understanding of human behaviour and personality is a 'fool's quest.' I'll give that opinion all due consideration.
- F
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
it's my guess that there is absolutely no empirical evidence that anyone could produce that would convince you
Sounds familiar.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
So I'm right? Because I could certainly offer a bunch of criteria for what I would accept as empiric evidence for God; for instance, rigorous studies suggesting that miraculous healings can occur when appealing to one deity but not another, based on the widely-held belief that God answers prayers.
- F
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You surely don't really believe that
I believe anyone who thinks they've got it all figured out shows a paucity of imagination.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You can't just say that something undetectable exists, is intrinsically tied to clumps of neurons and violates numerous laws of physics by prompting uncountably many nerve impulses, just because
Nor can you say it doesn't, just because. An absence of proof is not an absence of truth.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You also can't criticise me because I don't believe you.
I can do anything I want along those lines, but you probably need to take any criticisms I offer, or that anyone else offers, a little less seriously.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
paucity
You love that word.
Oakman wrote:
I believe anyone who thinks they've got it all figured out shows a paucity of imagination.
I don't think I've got it all figured out. But I do think I'm closer to doing so than someone completely incapable of accepting that they might be wrong. And before you say anything, no, I'm not too stubborn to recognise that I might be wrong about something - it just takes more than empty rhetoric to convince me.
Oakman wrote:
Nor can you say it doesn't, just because. An absence of proof is not an absence of truth.
I can say that it almost certainly doesn't exist, at least not in the way that these guys are talking about. It being there would violate just about every law of nature that I can think of; entire fields of science would have to be completely reformulated. Why would I favour or give equal ground to that idea when I could go with the one consistent with the anatomy and physiology of the brain?
-
Synaptrik wrote:
Your sig is.
My sig is what?
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
Can you prove that you are not really dreaming this experience? Empirically? Leave some mystery to life. Not everything has to have a rational explanation. There's a proverb, Sufi I think, that suggests that if you remove all of the falsities from your reality, you might find yourself left with nothing. Take it as you will.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
Can you prove that you are not really dreaming this experience? Empirically?
No. That's because the question is formulated in such a way as to be unfalsifiable.
Synaptrik wrote:
Leave some mystery to life. Not everything has to have a rational explanation. There's a proverb, Sufi I think, that suggests that if you remove all of the falsities from your reality, you might find yourself left with nothing. Take it as you will.
So you think I should cloak myself in fantasy and ignorance? The Auroras are beautiful; they're even more beautiful when you know how they work.
