in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?
as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.
there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.
Biological evolution doesn't need any direct supernatural intervention in the already created matter.
IMHO the origin of life is related to darwinian evolution too.
Science itself can explain anything about it.
Of course one can say the mutations could be controlled metaphysically. Anyway they would still be perceived as random in science.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
Also, if it's a thesis, that means he's intending to prove it with science.
Yes, he is. It's related to consciousness and that's the subject of Psychology. Some positivists doesn't consider Psychology as valid knowledge though.
You are wrong about me. You shouldn't make claims about people you don't know anything about. This isn't about me.
That's why I'd asked you. My apologies if I'd insulted you. I can only make claims about your positions based about what you writes here. Could you tell me what other kinds of knowledge do you accept as valid?
If it makes you feel better I can say I did a bad joke about you being a positivist.
I would not be comfortable if someone labelled me as a positivist. That's why I said maybe you even aren't aware to be one.
And if you says you're definitely not a positivist so that's it. I'll not call you a positivist anymore.
You're sharing woo and deepitys and calling it knowledge and making false claims about people and reality.Maybe. But if I'm wrong it will not make a significant difference in purpose of life if our destination is complete oblivion.
You know the real problem is if I'm right. That's makes one wonder about...
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
So what? Atheism has nothing to do with what you and they have chosen to fall for.
My point is to show that Bicameralism is a serious valid thesis about the origin of human consciousness. Even famous atheists consider it, I'm not just picking and choosing some "obscure hallucinations from a random guy".
This psychological thesis says that human consciousness is a very recent event in history. And human consciousness did not appeared side by side with anatomical evolution of Homo sapiens sapiens.
It's a very convincing hypothesis and I think you would enjoy to read it.
Viviane I don't understand your lack of education to me. I never insulted you and I'm just sharing some knowledge about the origin of consciousness and its relationship with the purpose of life. This is interesting because is compatible with the Catholic theology that says Genesis is an allegory about the origin of immortal soul in humans, and this soul is responsible to consciousness in man. Catholic theology says that about Genesis since the third century (Saint Augustine), and Catholic Church accepts entirely the anatomical evolution of man (officially since 1996 I think).
About the Positivism, I just classified you as a positivist because you seems just consider the scientific method as the only valid human knowledge. Am I right about this opinion of you? If not, tell me what other forms of human knowledge (beyond scientific method) do you accept as valid.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
The philosopher Daniel Dennett on Bicameralism:
"If we are going to use this top-down approach, we are going to have to be bold. We are going to have to be speculative, but there is good and bad speculation, and this is not an unparalleled activity in science. […] Those scientists who have no taste for this sort of speculative enterprise will just have to stay in the trenches and do without it, while the rest of us risk embarrassing mistakes and have a lot of fun." --Daniel Dennett[23]
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
Bicameralism is literally nothing more than something some guy said that you've chosen to fall for.
That's not the opinion of the two major advocates of Atheism.
Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion (2006) wrote of The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind:
"It is one of those books that is either complete rubbish or a work of consummate genius, nothing in between! Probably the former, but I'm hedging my bets."
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
Did these extinct species of Homo possess a soul?
Yes. But only mortal souls, vegetative and sensitive ones. They didn't possess the immortal one, Psyche.
Did they worship god or gods?
Yes but in a different way. Their behaviour were similar to bicameral Homo sapiens sapiens.
Are some in heaven?
No. Their entire existence was annihilated. Heaven is one destination primarily for Psyche (directly created immortal soul). Psyche is the only part of man that survives biological death.
Let's not forget that these extinct species ofHomo were sophisticated animals - much more sophisticated than most extant species.
But they lacked the ability to adapt and evolve technology. Some Homo used the same tools during millions of years. Any change in environment meant extinction. Clearly their minds worked in a very different way in relation to Hss.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
View? You said theory. Which is it? I ask because "theory" is science.
I didn't mean scientific theory, but this:
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
There have been several kinds of human (or species of Homo).
Yes, I said that.
I said the HSS is the only one remained. The other Homo became extinct.
Not only that but the bicameral HSS also became instinct in recent history.
The other species of Homo probably had a kind of primitive bicameral mind too.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
Ruby456
now I would call this the developed imagination at work.
The AMH with only Nefesh had imagination too. But is a kind of primitive one. It didn't had introspection and conscious intention and a rational sense of self. If you read about Bicameralism you'll find more explanations about what I mean.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)
In our minds we still have the split mind, you can perceive a clear dialogue between two intentions inside your mind. Psychology calls it introversion and extroversion. You perceive your introversion as a voice, but you don't assume this voice is external from you but is the voice of your consciousness.
The pre-adamic humans didn't had this internal voice of introverted self. But they perceived this voice coming from externally. And they had in their vision field a hallucinating figure who the voice came from. They just did what this external figures dictated to them. They were assumed to be gods.
In this notions of God enable individuals to adopt a pov from above, from below via satan and his demons, from in between via spirits of dead ancestors ...
Yes! This is exactly one of the advantages Psyche brought to humans. This new capacity of communication is possible due to a kind of functionality of Psyche (soul) called Pneuma (spirit).
The spirit of man is a kind of "antenna" of the soul wich enables humans to receive influences in a new way from external beings (like other humans, good and bad pure spirits and God). The Pneuma is a center of external intentions influencing the free will of Psyche.
and this would indeed confer evolutionary advantages.
Indeed. That's why there's only one kind of human.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
