Atheism

[DarkAngel_]

i'm being bumped out here peeps please respond to last reply when convenient

[WIP]

You mean, "you" have no option...your concept of self does not allow it. And if you became "disassociated" you would attribute it to a chemical imbalance needing intervention. Disassociation would be something you would not be willing to observe or experience as you would associate it with madness. I understand completely.

So, what does dissociation mean to you, and how do you propose to observe it independently from your physical nature?

[WIP]

I repeat that you are not the experience. If you ingest a poison the body will start to die, this is a chemical reaction. That is the experience. All you are is the awareness of the experience.

That doesn't mean that the experience is coming from a nonphysical source. Consciousness is not well understood, and it may just as easily be an emergent process that comes about during complex activity such as what goes on inside the brain. The other credible alternative is that there are conscious properties already in the building blocks of matter that make up the universe. The popular alternative - substance dualism - is only supported by the nature of being the natural sense we have of our minds being independent and causing our bodies to act. It does not provide a connection between physical and nonphysical to make it a valid theory for neuroscientists and cognitive psychologists to explore.

One's interpretation of the experience is dependent upon one's previous experience and education. With you it is your education and not your experience that tells you how to evaluate your experiences. Your education overrides your own perceptions and from that education you derive what your experiences are instead of deriving your experiences from your perceptions.

Education! My formal education ended with highschool -- after that, my education has been to explore subjects I find of interest and try to determine which ideas make sense and which ones do not.

You hold the opinion, and have stated such, that your perceptions are not valid enough to be trusted.

Absolutely trusted that is! Our perceptions of ourselves and the world are approximations on a scale of reliability. There are perceptions I have confidence in and many that I do not.

Me, my perceptions are what I am experiencing, it matters not if they are illusory or real. My object, and probably everybody's, is to be able to continue the body experience and I am as successful as I can continue to do so.

The basic premise of Idealism is that we can know our inner nature with absolute certainty, and everything beyond that gets a little fuzzy. I mentioned some of the findings from psychological research, especially regarding different types of mental illness, that seriously challenge that viewpoint.

Your theory is that all experiences are entirely explainable as electrochemical processes. If that helps you understand life and keeps you alive then you are being successful as a body. The question then becomes if that theory is conducive to the continuance of the species. I think to most that theory rings hollow and empty. It is void of purpose, origin, destination, personality, and character, these things being either not understandable nor necessary.

There is no basis for using purpose as a yardstick to evaluate theories. We may be alone in an unfriendly universe that cares nothing for our presence here. If that's the reality, we can either accept it or pretend that we are still the center of creation.

And even seemingly "reactionary" responses must come from the mind being somehow predetermined by the mind as necessary to survival? It would make more sense that perceptions are interpreted by the mind and the necessary voluntary and involuntary physical reactions occur depending upon those interpretations.

If that were true, intention and volition experiments would have shown brain activity beginning after conscious decision-making -- problem is that just the opposite effect actually occurs. The brain is quicker than the mind -- studies that began with Benjamin Libet over 20 years ago, have confirmed and re-confirmed that a "readiness potential" is building in the cerebral cortex that we remain unaware of until we think we have decided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet

http://idw-online.de/pages/de/news254676

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/04/is-free-will-an/

If a fearful face was a piece of information that had any significance, that information would have to have been in the mind otherwise no reaction in the amygdala region of the brain would have occurred. Is it the unknown stimulus (the fearful face) that caused the reaction in the amygdala or is it the perception that the mind determined there was a need for anxiety that caused the reaction in the amygdala because it perceived a threat in the environment and should perhaps ensure the threat is not a danger or there is indeed nothing dangerous?

The problem is that the brain's emotion response center perceived a potential threat that the subject was not consciously aware of. This suggests that the brain is performing even complex functions without informing us at a conscious level. That again suggests that "mind" is a given selected information and not the director of much of our actions.

[Oleg Bach]

Got a few interesting and crptic PMs for the "proud" atheist - Dark Angel - you would think ---that an atheist would not tag himsefl as an angel - dark or other wise - He's okay - but a bit scarey - I don't keep secrets and "what is whispered in the darkness will be proclaimed from the roof tops' So I am proclaiming - if you want to communicate - communicate in public - or be quiet....secrecy serves no one and leads to conspiracy and distain - also - if you have a problem with someone it is best to let all know that the potential exists - It's called protecting your self - If Dark Angel wants to talk - let him speak for all to hear - If he is so proud of his religion of atheism - then let him devulge and disclose his ideas to all.

[Pliny]

If that were true, intention and volition experiments would have shown brain activity beginning after conscious decision-making -- problem is that just the opposite effect actually occurs. The brain is quicker than the mind -- studies that began with Benjamin Libet over 20 years ago, have confirmed and re-confirmed that a "readiness potential" is building in the cerebral cortex that we remain unaware of until we think we have decided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet

http://idw-online.de/pages/de/news254676

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/04/is-free-will-an/

The problem is that the brain's emotion response center perceived a potential threat that the subject was not consciously aware of. This suggests that the brain is performing even complex functions without informing us at a conscious level. That again suggests that "mind" is a given selected information and not the director of much of our actions.

What this suggests to me is that the mind is much faster than the brain. If the "brain's emotion response center" perceived a potential threat the mind must have compared it to data already extant in the mind to determine if there was a threat. You cannot determine from a single data what a threat is. A fearful face must be compared with data about faces and fear in order for it to be determined to be a fearful face or even a face for that matter.

The second thing this suggests to me is that there is a lot of uninspected data in the mind. If I need to brake I don't need to be consciuosly aware of much more than that fact. I don't need the make or model or the licence plate of the vehicle in front of me unless I hit it. I thus don't focus upon it. However, the information is there in the mind but not important enough to recall. Some have recalled licence plate numbers under hypnosis but I would not say that hypnosis was a reliable tool because the person is not entirely conscious. This would confirm that the information is there in the mind but perhaps not important enough to mark or take note of or there may be other reasons why all of us don't have photographic memories.

You know, the kind of drivel you mention here that is passed for science is what really sets me off it. The brain is nothing more than a switchboard - and it even turns off under stress. Overload it and you don't feel anything. If you have ever received a traumatic physical injury you know that you don't feel it. It isn't until you perceive the trauma that you may feel it. A person suffering a wound of some sort has to actually look and see what the damage is before he can "feel" it.

Another thing that sets me off is the lying that is presented as science. There was a brain mapping experiment that occurred in the late nineties that was supposed to be a comparison of a normal brain and a schizophrenic brain. The final determination of an electro-chemical or physiological marker. It turns out the schizophrenic brain was actually damaged by drug treatment. And who can believe the story of "chemical imbalances" when treatment is prescribed but a test is never done to determine a chemical imbalance.

As much as you love the electrochemical theory, WIP, the behavioral sciences have proven nothing to support it but they do make claims and ecause they are coupled with scientific authority they also claim credence.

[Pliny]

Got a few interesting and crptic PMs for the "proud" atheist - Dark Angel - you would think ---that an atheist would not tag himsefl as an angel - dark or other wise - He's okay - but a bit scarey - I don't keep secrets and "what is whispered in the darkness will be proclaimed from the roof tops' So I am proclaiming - if you want to communicate - communicate in public - or be quiet....secrecy serves no one and leads to conspiracy and distain - also - if you have a problem with someone it is best to let all know that the potential exists - It's called protecting your self - If Dark Angel wants to talk - let him speak for all to hear - If he is so proud of his religion of atheism - then let him devulge and disclose his ideas to all.

I can guess at the cryptic PMs.

When I have an argumentative thread I generally expect there are PM's although as an individualist I do not participate in PM'ing. I rarely find support enough for my view to PM someone on a topic anyway. I am not a gang, I am not a group, I am individual - I don't feel the necessity to PM anyone. I know that collusion is not above some people's agendas.

Thanks for the confirmation.

Edited May 16, 2009 by Pliny

[WIP]

What this suggests to me is that the mind is much faster than the brain. If the "brain's emotion response center" perceived a potential threat the mind must have compared it to data already extant in the mind to determine if there was a threat. You cannot determine from a single data what a threat is. A fearful face must be compared with data about faces and fear in order for it to be determined to be a fearful face or even a face for that matter.

No no no no! This is not about emotionally perceiving threats -- there is a clear pattern in the tests that correlate decision-making with brain-scan monitoring, which show that the brain is hard at work evaluating options before we are consciously aware of choosing. The "free will" decision made is better described as informative rather than causal. The "mind" is informed of the decision made after a pattern of higher brain activity has plotted the course of action:

In a study published Sunday in Nature Neuroscience, researchers using brain scanners could predict people's decisions seven seconds before the test subjects were even aware of making them.

The decision studied -- whether to hit a button with one's left or right hand -- may not be representative of complicated choices that are more integrally tied to our sense of self-direction. Regardless, the findings raise profound questions about the nature of self and autonomy: How free is our will? Is conscious choice just an illusion?

"Your decisions are strongly prepared by brain activity. By the time consciousness kicks in, most of the work has already been done," said study co-author John-Dylan Haynes, a Max Planck Institute neuroscientist.

Haynes updated a classic experiment by the late Benjamin Libet, who showed that a brain region involved in coordinating motor activity fired a fraction of a second before test subjects chose to push a button. Later studies supported Libet's theory that subconscious activity preceded and determined conscious choice -- but none found such a vast gap between a decision and the experience of making it as Haynes' study has.

In the seven seconds before Haynes' test subjects chose to push a button, activity shifted in their frontopolar cortex, a brain region associated with high-level planning. Soon afterwards, activity moved to the parietal cortex, a region of sensory integration. Haynes' team monitored these shifting neural patterns using a functional MRI machine.....................The unease people feel at the potential unreality of free will, said National Institutes of Health neuroscientist Mark Hallett, originates in a misconception of self as separate from the brain.

"That's the same notion as the mind being separate from the body -- and I don't think anyone really believes that," said Hallett. "A different way of thinking about it is that your consciousness is only aware of some of the things your brain is doing."

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/n...4/mind_decision

For more on the experiment, see my Wired.com story, for which I had the privilege of speaking to Martha Farah, director of the University of

Pennsylvania’s Center for Cognitive Neuroscience and a prominent neuroethicist. As is so often the case in journalism, we had a fascinating (email) conversation that didn’t fit into the article itself, and I decided — ha — to publish it here.

Me: How do these results square with our notion of free will?

Do they obviate free will, which in that light is an illusion; or might there still be a balance between free will and unconscious decisions;

or is free will still paramount, but operating at some other level?

MF: Let me start with a very general observation. Neuroscience is changing the way we think about ourselves. One of the hardest changes for people to assimilate is the idea that our intentional, voluntary behavior is the product of a physical system, the brain. If physical processes in the brain cause our actions, then how can there be free will? How can we be held responsible for our behavior? Can’t we just all plead "my brain made me do it"?

The Soon et al paper jumps right into the middle of these issues. It shows us how limited, even misleading, our introspections are. According to the authors, many seconds before we are aware that we have made a decision, we have — or at least, our brain has! All of the data of cognitive neuroscience are pushing us to replace the idea of mind-body duality, which is so intuitive, with the idea that mental processes are brain processes. But these results on the neural processes underlying free decisions rub our noses in it! One can assimilate findings about color vision or motor control being brain functions a lot more easily than findings about consciously experienced

"free will" being a brain function, and hence physically determined and not free at all!

I don’t think "free will" is a very sensible concept, and you don’t need neuroscience to reject it — any mechanistic view of the world is good enough, and indeed you could even argue on purely conceptual grounds that the opposite of determinism is randomness, not free will! Most thoughtful neuroscientists I know have replaced the concept of free will with the concept of rationality — that we select our actions based on a kind of practical reasoning. And there is no conflict between rationality and the mind as a physical system — After all, computers are rational physical systems!

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/04/is-free-will-an/

The second thing this suggests to me is that there is a lot of uninspected data in the mind. If I need to brake I don't need to be consciuosly aware of much more than that fact. I don't need the make or model or the licence plate of the vehicle in front of me unless I hit it. I thus don't focus upon it.

If you were driving a car for the very first time, you would need to be consciously aware, in order to apply the brakes! This is because any new skill that is being learned has to be routed through the Premotor Cortex -- the area of the brain that translates conscious desires to make some sort of movement into action, as it sends the instructions down the line to the Primary Motor Cortex, which does the actual work of sending the instructions to move - down the spinal column to the area of the body that will perform the movement.

Now, the reason you don't need to be consciously aware of braking, is because you have practiced this repetitive movement so often that the brain can speed up the process and bypass the Premotor Cortex entirely and send the instructions directly where they will be put into action. Since movements that bypass the Premotor Cortex are not brought into our conscious awareness, they feel like involuntary or reflexive movements. So, you don't have to think about moving your right foot to apply the brake; my son doesn't have to think about which cords to play to play a song on the guitar, and if I'm practicing martial arts, I don't have to think to bring an arm up to block a strike -- I've practiced the movement so often, I respond like some alien force is controlling my body. It's not supernatural, or even a proof of mind over matter -- all it is is an example of the brain bypassing the step that brings conscious awareness, so that it can perform a task more rapidly.

[Oleg Bach]

Recently the atheist "Dark Angel" began to get inquisitive about my beliefs..he said he wanted as much knowledge as he could possibly absorb....It reminded me of dealing with legalist...who really don't want to see the light but want to find ways of extinguishing the light - in other words - and I will be blunt - when you interact with evil people - you do not change them - You teach them how good people think and all that does is make them smarter - and assists them in their agenda of removing believers from the planet-----again I will be blunt - Why educate them - you will not change them and they will use what you teach them to counter you. I said this to my brother as we traveled towards the Supreme Court Of Canada - and into their realm.

He foolishly thought that if you had a righteous and noble cause that all you had to do was explain and educate those in power and they would change because they simply did not know what was good - I explained to him..."You will not change these persons - even if you present them with the truth - they will remain the same - we with all our efforts are just making evil people stronger" - I was totally correct...they controted the information and created a presidence that did not help society but weakened human rights - they turned it around to suit their agenda of control and domination - I will not ever explain myself to a secularist or an atheist ever again - It was a waste of time and not in the best interest of good people.

[WIP]

Recently the atheist "Dark Angel" began to get inquisitive about my beliefs.. - I will not ever explain myself to a secularist or an atheist ever again - It was a waste of time and not in the best interest of good people.

Well, I am one atheist who has not been able to make sense of what you claim to be your beliefs (they often appear self-contradictory), and am not the least bit curious about what you believe and why. So, why are you telling us again about a private PM conversation you are having with a member? If you're claiming you are being harassed, report it to the moderators; otherwise shut up about it!

[DarkAngel_]

Recently the atheist "Dark Angel" began to get inquisitive about my beliefs..he said he wanted as much knowledge as he could possibly absorb....It reminded me of dealing with legalist...who really don't want to see the light but want to find ways of extinguishing the light - in other words - and I will be blunt - when you interact with evil people - you do not change them - You teach them how good people think and all that does is make them smarter - and assists them in their agenda of removing believers from the planet-----again I will be blunt - Why educate them - you will not change them and they will use what you teach them to counter you. I said this to my brother as we traveled towards the Supreme Court Of Canada - and into their realm.

He foolishly thought that if you had a righteous and noble cause that all you had to do was explain and educate those in power and they would change because they simply did not know what was good - I explained to him..."You will not change these persons - even if you present them with the truth - they will remain the same - we with all our efforts are just making evil people stronger" - I was totally correct...they controted the information and created a presidence that did not help society but weakened human rights - they turned it around to suit their agenda of control and domination - I will not ever explain myself to a secularist or an atheist ever again - It was a waste of time and not in the best interest of good people.

'castidoes est castidoes' friend, i am an atheist but no view should be overlooked, i wish to know all i can... if you call this evil fine, i care not, my wish is beyond good and evil. find your dogma victim in your own cryptics mine are not yours to comprehend unless asked, i am just curious, accept it or act and show. your insecurities hold no merit in my questions, if u do not wish to answer the so called 'devil' then do not.

but on the otherhand i am a lover of all things, i disagree with your assumption of me and it is not fair, i consider you a very respectable person... so back off or make valid a point that by my degree is only meant to discredit my sense of character... not the basis of this forum.

retrace your thoughts and understand, i am not an easy piece of work for you to judge. or change.

i honor you... why do you think i would use your belief?! i am outraged you claim to know me and my intent and demand an apology. if not then read the forum rules, you my friend... are trolling.

let me add one less heart felt thing, whither atheist or secularist or not... we are in this together. don't be so vain.

Edited May 18, 2009 by DarkAngel_

[Pliny]

Recently the atheist "Dark Angel" began to get inquisitive about my beliefs..he said he wanted as much knowledge as he could possibly absorb....It reminded me of dealing with legalist...who really don't want to see the light but want to find ways of extinguishing the light - in other words - and I will be blunt - when you interact with evil people - you do not change them - You teach them how good people think and all that does is make them smarter - and assists them in their agenda of removing believers from the planet-----again I will be blunt - Why educate them - you will not change them and they will use what you teach them to counter you. I said this to my brother as we traveled towards the Supreme Court Of Canada - and into their realm.

He foolishly thought that if you had a righteous and noble cause that all you had to do was explain and educate those in power and they would change because they simply did not know what was good - I explained to him..."You will not change these persons - even if you present them with the truth - they will remain the same - we with all our efforts are just making evil people stronger" - I was totally correct...they controted the information and created a presidence that did not help society but weakened human rights - they turned it around to suit their agenda of control and domination - I will not ever explain myself to a secularist or an atheist ever again - It was a waste of time and not in the best interest of good people.

Very insightful, Oleg.

I believe darkangel knows all about your beliefs already, in his words, he is not an easy piece of work.

Nothing to him is simple. His simple statement of seeking knowledge is a lure, anything you say can and will be used against you. But I needn't tell you that.

[DarkAngel_]

Very insightful, Oleg.

I believe darkangel knows all about your beliefs already, in his words, he is not an easy piece of work.

Nothing to him is simple. His simple statement of seeking knowledge is a lure, anything you say can and will be used against you. But I needn't tell you that.

lol of course it can be, but has it as of yet? my intent is as shown... a quest to just know. i am no politician, i am a scientist. we are on the same rock no matter the belief... my own belief is as personal as your own. and a lure?? to what end?

if i am evil name and divine me... i dare it!

otherwise target yourself... questions are great but this? is just pathetic, let us turn this into something... intelligent. for the sake of knowing simply, i could always just turn immature, would you prefer a verbal jousting? im not in the mood for name calling or soft apologizes... but Oleg can still take back his abrasive statement.

if this dogmatic activity does not stop then this topic is over... trolling is against forum rules. if you do not respond intelligently i see no reason to continue this conversation. if you wish to know anything y not ask? this topic was on atheism and belief... not my character.

Edited May 19, 2009 by DarkAngel_

[Pliny]

No no no no! This is not about emotionally perceiving threats -- there is a clear pattern in the tests that correlate decision-making with brain-scan monitoring, which show that the brain is hard at work evaluating options before we are consciously aware of choosing.

And why wouldn't it be the mind keeping the brain going, hard at work evaluating options before you are consciously aware of it. You must have confused the the mind as being something we are always aware of.

The neuro-scientist doing that experiment says the "consciousness" - The brain is doing all kinds of work before the consciousness is aware of it. Couldn't it be that your consciousness is not aware of everything going on in your mind?

Whether or not the pre-motor cortex can be bypassed does not explain that the information from the perceptics must still be processed and compared to other information in the mind. Are you thinking that all memory is stored in the brain?

Let me ask this question, "Could 'up' exist without 'down'?" The information of "up" is all relative to other information. A point of reference is always necessary when discussing "up". All this information must be in the mind. We however often don't mention the reference point unless it is necessary tothe discussion. All this information is in the mind and being compared constantly to the environment.

I am sure all the calculations necessary to your continued existence as a body are really not necessary to your consciousness and being consciously aware of all the computations of the mind is not necessary and would in fact be more of a detriment. Sort of like watching TV. If you watched TV all day you would miss out on life.

If you were consciously aware of everything the mind were doing you would probably miss important events related to your well-being.

So what's the difference between a live brain and a dead brain? No oxygen? How about we feed it some oxygen? It seems we do that but can't get a person to be normal.

Some other missing chemical?

What is age - just use. I guess our centenarians didn't use their brain as much as our octegenarians. I suppose it is all in what we eat to fire up those engines. Reminds me of a joke.

This guy reaches his hundredth birthday and so the local news is interviewing him in celebration of this achievement. The interviewer asks the question of what factors he attributes to his longevity.

The Centenarian says, "Well...I never drank or smoked or cussed or ran around with loose women.".... and just when he finishes that statement an old guy comes in the room with a bottle of whisky in his hands and says, "Where's my damn cigarettes?"

The interviewer says, "Who is that?"

The Centenarian says, "That's just my drunken old, Dad!"

If a muscle twitches when you apply an electric current to a part of the brain it is not the brain that is causing the muscle to twitch, it isn't the current either. It's the person applying the current to the brain without which nothing would have occurred. Life is necessary to be present whatever that may be.

We don't understand everything about human behavior but the brain is an inadequate instrument to explain it.

We have to add the mind and consciousness and perhaps there is a God too.

[Pliny]

lol of course it can be, but has it as of yet? my intent is as shown... a quest to just know. i am no politician, i am a scientist. we are on the same rock no matter the belief... my own belief is as personal as your own. and a lure?? to what end?

if i am evil name and divine me... i dare it!

No one is evil, darkangel. We only have a capacity for good. You are only attempting to prove your goodness by making comparison to good things which you "know" are true. You are only interested in cold hard facts. Your perceptions are not reliable because they don't seem to be giving you cold hard facts. Cold hard facts are stable and solid and you need solidity and stability. Theism is too wobbly. You, alone are too wobbly but cold hard facts are not wobbly and are a much better state of affairs.

By making everything stable and solid you are in fact destroying evil as you view it.

otherwise target yourself... questions are great but this? is just pathetic, let us turn this into something... intelligent. for the sake of knowing simply, i could always just turn immature, would you prefer a verbal jousting? im not in the mood for name calling or soft apologizes... but Oleg can still take back his abrasive statement.

We all gain stability through understanding and it isn't necessarily dependent on truth. If God is going to see us through life it is a basis of stability and operation from which to go forward in life. It keeps people from getting wobbly. If science is going to see us through life it is the basis from which we go forward.

God is as solid a fact to the theist as a rock is to the scientist.

if this dogmatic activity does not stop then this topic is over...

Atheists, upon assuming the label, are convinced that theists are idiots or minimally naive. They like to toy with theists and show them up for the poor fools that they know they are. Now isn't that true?

trolling is against forum rules. if you do not respond intelligently i see no reason to continue this conversation.

if you wish to know anything y not ask? this topic was on atheism and belief... not my character.

Well, the discussion is before us why would you take it elsewhere? It sort of saddened me a little to learn of it.

How can I respond intelligently - I am not an atheist.

I think the simplicity of the argument is that Atheism is as much a theoretical concept as Theism but atheism wishes that the unknown be produced as proof of the unknown. The difficulty in proving the unknown is it is entirely subjective until it is known. I can tell you of riches in a chest in a cave and this is entirely unknown to you until I bring you there and you experience it subjectively.

Science attempts to explain everyone's subjective experience as being the same as everyone else's subjective experience with a total disregard to that for which it searches - the unknown. If it determines the unknown does not exist then it has no reason itself to exist. It's failure to find the immaterial is only an example of the shortcomings of the scientific model and not proof that an unknown is impossible.

Edited May 19, 2009 by Pliny

[DarkAngel_]

Science attempts to explain everyone's subjective experience as being the same as everyone else's subjective experience with a total disregard to that for which it searches - the unknown. If it determines the unknown does not exist then it has no reason itself to exist. It's failure to find the immaterial is only an example of the shortcomings of the scientific model and not proof that an unknown is impossible.

as a scientist, i have seen things i cannot explain... as a man i have seen the supernatural! but explaining it is what unlocks what mankind needs to become: more. i agree more of science has, in the past, been just as dogmatic and pushy, but 'science' as defined is not the practice of this... it is instead the practice of the scientific dictatorship that puts money in the pockets of powermad men... people make science less then the potential it has. it is lunacy to call science a lie, it is our last masterful attempt, something religion has failed. that does not make it atheistic or evil.

i quest for what is beyond good and evil, have you ever read Nietzsche's book? a point to make if it has been read.

Edited May 19, 2009 by DarkAngel_

[DarkAngel_]

How can I respond intelligently - I am not an atheist.

I'm a little more open minded then that... your far from stupid... atheism is not exclusively condescending.

i am a strong atheist in regard to preference, not agenda, or opinion of peoples based on creed, race, or historical nature. in general, i am an atheist without personal bias... i need it to be that way to get a fresh look at other peoples point of view to better understand my own, and possibly change it if i am keen to a specific area of truth. the philosophies of a greater nature show that as a person of skepticism i cannot close off my mind, i must know all i can. leave it as it may be. peoples judgment of this is... dogmatic. there is no theistic vs. atheistic war, unless we 'fight' and do not disclose and explore all possibilities. can no one see the logic in that? the heart?

questions at awe show a human way, the way we grow, god or not. as humans there is a imperative to learn, we define the undefinable in a hope to capture what captivates us! and of the forbidden? there are things there to be explored, darkness and awe that no matter the aphorism or metaphor, does not excluded it from the beautiful and often hidden things religion refuses to accept. which is why as a scientist i must know all i can, so that nothing is forbidden, and at least one part of science will accept the unexplainable things we have seen as a far thing on this human bridge... note i am not a conformalist, i love being an atheist. i love the writings and declarations of godlessness. but i will not be ignorant. that is my only true evil.

Edited May 19, 2009 by DarkAngel_

[WIP]

And why wouldn't it be the mind keeping the brain going, hard at work evaluating options before you are consciously aware of it. You must have confused the the mind as being something we are always aware of.

What exactly are you defining as "the mind?" There is no evidence that a mind exists separate from brain activity, as you seemed to be proposing earlier, when you offered up: "What this suggests to me is that the mind is much faster than the brain." The intuitive impression we have that we possess a mind that directs the body has been falsified by those studies of people wired up with fMRI machines. The brain activity that proceeds our conscious realization of deciding, is further evidence that a lot of brain activity goes on that we are not aware of, and all that is brought to our awareness is the final step of being informed when a decision or course of action has been decided.

The neuro-scientist doing that experiment says the "consciousness" - The brain is doing all kinds of work before the consciousness is aware of it. Couldn't it be that your consciousness is not aware of everything going on in your mind?

Again, what do you mean by "mind?" If mind is understood as the product of brain function, then yes, most of what goes on is outside our conscious awareness. If you are proposing a mind that operates separately from brain function, then you need to prove its existence and how it interfaces with the brain, body and the physical world before it is taken seriously as anything more than an abstract concept.

Whether or not the pre-motor cortex can be bypassed does not explain that the information from the perceptics must still be processed and compared to other information in the mind. Are you thinking that all memory is stored in the brain?

Yes, it is! There is no place else to store memory besides the brain; but the premotor cortex is the area that directs our conscious intentions of movement through to the areas of the brain and nervous system that can actually carry out the desired action. Bypassing this area of the brain occurs when repetitive movement enables us to bypass consciously directed action and act much quicker.

I am sure all the calculations necessary to your continued existence as a body are really not necessary to your consciousness and being consciously aware of all the computations of the mind is not necessary and would in fact be more of a detriment. Sort of like watching TV. If you watched TV all day you would miss out on life.

If you were consciously aware of everything the mind were doing you would probably miss important events related to your well-being.

Which is exactly why only the important stuff is brought to our attention.

So what's the difference between a live brain and a dead brain?

When neurons are starved for oxygen they begin to die. Every person who has suffered a stroke, has had at least partial brain death, that can cause partial paralysis, difficulty with speech, loss of memory etc.; a person can recover somewhat from a stroke if other areas of the brain are able to take over some of the functions of the damaged area.

A modern understanding of brain function is beginning to reveal that our brain consists of three basic levels of organization:

what's commonly referred to as the Brain Stem, an area that is sometimes referred to as the Reptilian Brain, processes our autonomic and metabolic functions, and is responsible for our most primal, instinctive reactions. As one neuroscientist said recently, this area of the brain only wants to know three things: can I eat it, can I have sex with it, and will it try to kill me!

The Mid-brain or Old Mammalian Brain, contains areas such as the Amygdala and Hippocampus, which are responsible for emotions and storing long term memory.

Those two regions could maintain physical functioning of the body, but nothing these two areas of the brain do reaches our conscious awareness until information is transferred to some area of the higher brain, the Cerebral Cortex.

In severe situations, such as the Terry Schiavo case, where someone exhibits no cortical or higher brain function -- the person meets the definition for brain-dead, since they have no capacity for any conscious awareness. Such a person is, for all intents and purposes, a zombie, and incapable of any sense of inner or outer awareness. And that's the difference between a live brain and a dead brain.

If a muscle twitches when you apply an electric current to a part of the brain it is not the brain that is causing the muscle to twitch, it isn't the current either. It's the person applying the current to the brain without which nothing would have occurred. Life is necessary to be present whatever that may be.

Yes it is, unless we consider the neurologist applying the electric shock as the original cause of the muscle movement. The area where the current is applied is likely the Primary Motor Cortex, which is responsible for executing movement, and the specific area responsible for that area of the body where a muscle twitch has been observed, has received the signal to move that muscle group has been transmitted down axons (nerve fibers) that run through the brain stem and down the spinal column until the signal has been transmitted to the bundle of nerves that moved the muscle......so, yes it is the brain causing the muscle to twitch.

We don't understand everything about human behavior but the brain is an inadequate instrument to explain it.

And how do you know this? Until the level of organization of approximately 100 billion neurons is understood, not to mention, a complete understanding of how the individual neuron functions, there is no basis for declaring that something has to be added, to explain consciousness and the mind. And, once again, the problem with the appeal to the supernatural, is that some method has to be proposed to explain how an immaterial mind maintains its individual integrity and is able to interract with the physical world by directing brain function.

We have to add the mind and consciousness and perhaps there is a God too.

If you have the proof for mind without brain, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise this is equivalent to adding unicorns and flying spagetti monsters.

[Oleg Bach]

I have never seen an atheist thrive...they do for a while carried by a huge human ego - then physicallity takes over and they wither prematurely...also I have never seen a fundamentalist lunitic nut truely thrive...they end up chanting Jesus this - Budda that - and Mohamid that and this - and all are idolitors. All of them do not sustain because all miss the mark - the concept of God is simple ....to simple for a religion to grasp.

[Oleg Bach]

Very insightful, Oleg.

I believe darkangel knows all about your beliefs already, in his words, he is not an easy piece of work.

Nothing to him is simple. His simple statement of seeking knowledge is a lure, anything you say can and will be used against you. But I needn't tell you that.

Yes - and once I reprimanded him for being a parasite - he felt "insulted" _ His ego is made of the same stuff that atheists in human history are made of - men like Alexander the Great and Hitler - all in the end declare themselves as gods - and all eventually murder. Dark Angel can go back to where he came from - now that he is disarmed let him seek out a weaker sucker..... I met the arch angel of atheism a number of years ago...His name was Ron - he was an astronomer - He would look up at the universe...and say "what a mess - I could have designed it better" - If at a dinner party you mentioned God - and he had enough to drink he would literally grab you by the throat --------------let me tell you the rest of his story.

Ron was not a homo-sexual - but he did see power in womanhood that he lusted for - He married a young woman and had two children with the silly girl - Eventually Ron - started dressing in drag - then came the hormones - he grew breasts - His tolerant wife - would say "He is the finest and most brightest man this century has ever produced" _ In time this poor young woman feeling isolated and having the power sucked out of her by Ron the atheist ----went out to the pick up truck - took a gun and shot herself in the mouth...Now Ron was the matriarch he always wanted to be - then returned to being a male...his children were caused great suffering and Ron has no remorse ...he played God and indirectly killed his own wife. I WITNESSED THIS CHAIN OF EVENTS .....I HAVE NO USE FOR ATHEISTS.

[Pliny]

What exactly are you defining as "the mind?"

If you have the proof for mind without brain, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise this is equivalent to adding unicorns and flying spagetti monsters.

I define the mind as the summation of one's education and experience coupled with one's imagination. Basically his memory and all the information stored in it plus any created imagination.

What do you think it is?

As for mind without brain - we will have to wait for science to discover this unknown and tell you about it since they are the only ones approved to create information out of the unknown. Do you think they ever will tell you or do you think they will keep you in the dark and just use you for their own devices? Much like the Pope used to do.

[Pliny]

Yes - and once I reprimanded him for being a parasite - he felt "insulted" _ His ego is made of the same stuff that atheists in human history are made of - men like Alexander the Great and Hitler - all in the end declare themselves as gods - and all eventually murder. Dark Angel can go back to where he came from - now that he is disarmed let him seek out a weaker sucker..... I met the arch angel of atheism a number of years ago...His name was Ron - he was an astronomer - He would look up at the universe...and say "what a mess - I could have designed it better" - If at a dinner party you mentioned God - and he had enough to drink he would literally grab you by the throat --------------let me tell you the rest of his story.

Ron was not a homo-sexual - but he did see power in womanhood that he lusted for - He married a young woman and had two children with the silly girl - Eventually Ron - started dressing in drag - then came the hormones - he grew breasts - His tolerant wife - would say "He is the finest and most brightest man this century has ever produced" _ In time this poor young woman feeling isolated and having the power sucked out of her by Ron the atheist ----went out to the pick up truck - took a gun and shot herself in the mouth...Now Ron was the matriarch he always wanted to be - then returned to being a male...his children were caused great suffering and Ron has no remorse ...he played God and indirectly killed his own wife. I WITNESSED THIS CHAIN OF EVENTS .....I HAVE NO USE FOR ATHEISTS.

Well, as I have said, and I sincerely believe it, no one is evil. It is only when they see evil all around that people become more destructive than creative but even then they believe are fighting evil.

Did you ever see the movie "Falling Down" with Michael Douglas. I really enjoyed it. Many of us don't discover about ourselves what he discovered about himself in the end.

Basically, I believe that we can see the good in others, but we have to know who or what their enemies and demons are in order to do so.

I agree somewhat that Athiests do like to play God. Science offers them self-righteous superiority. And they can look down upon man because they have no better opinion of him than the mud of which they believe he is made.

Believing in this fact alone makes them superior. It is not dissimilar to the Muslim looking down upon the infidel. Or the Christian the heathen. I don't really hang around with declared atheists but I don't think their quality of life is very good since they have to live among such stupidity. It seems to me they would see it everywhere and they miss the fact that people ae just trying to live their lives to the best of their ability.

Man is stupid if he believes in God. One can only conclude from that belief that, there are many stupid people, only a few are bright it seems. Can you imagine having to live among so many stupid people, Oleg. What a trial it would be.

[ToadBrother]

I agree somewhat that Athiests do like to play God. Science offers them self-righteous superiority. And they can look down upon man because they have no better opinion of him than the mud of which they believe he is made.

Believing in this fact alone makes them superior. It is not dissimilar to the Muslim looking down upon the infidel. Or the Christian the heathen. I don't really hang around with declared atheists but I don't think their quality of life is very good since they have to live among such stupidity. It seems to me they would see it everywhere and they miss the fact that people ae just trying to live their lives to the best of their ability.

What a load of red herrings, presumptions and just general arrogance. You seem to suffer from precisely the things you claim atheists do. You most certainly look down on them, you seem to be very self-righteous. This kind of crap really shows whose head is swollen. And as to quality of life, who the f*** do you think you are, telling me, for instance, that somehow, because I don't accept the existence of God, that somehow my quality of life must somehow be less than those that do?

All I've got to say, my fat-headed friend, is pot... kettle... black.

[Oleg Bach]

What a load of red herrings, presumptions and just general arrogance. You seem to suffer from precisely the things you claim atheists do. You most certainly look down on them, you seem to be very self-righteous. This kind of crap really shows whose head is swollen. And as to quality of life, who the f*** do you think you are, telling me, for instance, that somehow, because I don't accept the existence of God, that somehow my quality of life must somehow be less than those that do?

All I've got to say, my fat-headed friend, is pot... kettle... black.

You may have the same quality of life...as strong believers if that is what you believe - the quailty of your death may be another matter - watched a documentary that followed a few terminally ill people right their last breath - the believers made beautiful coprses - the atheists died with mouths agape looking like terrified monsters - go figure...it was quite odd to see the difference...I'm sticking with the immortals - and the atheists can just keep on being to mean to cry and to proud to beg..

[DarkAngel_]

Yes - and once I reprimanded him for being a parasite - he felt "insulted" _ His ego is made of the same stuff that atheists in human history are made of - men like Alexander the Great and Hitler - all in the end declare themselves as gods - and all eventually murder. Dark Angel can go back to where he came from - now that he is disarmed let him seek out a weaker sucker.....

i have had enough.

[Oleg Bach]

i have had enough.

Don't give up because I was creative and rough...dance my friend - dance - you wanted it - you want to fly? You can not just say - "I have had enough" - what do you expect from me or others similar? It's a cold dark universe and a flaming planet at times - step into the fire and dump the fear - Yes - that's the key....will you faith grant you fearlessness - does your atheism grant you fearlessness? Never - never take these interchanges seriously...lighten up.