i've always wondered that.
recently i asked that question on another thread and didn't really get ananswer.
cofty made an excellent point that we often hear what it isn't, but that really isn't useful.. so, what is it?
Caliber, what do you mean by "the sum of the different levels of vibratory energy". What is this vibratory energy? Where does it come from, what is vibrating and what, specifically are you adding to reach a sum?
So far that gets us no closer to an answer.
while i was reading a book ( picture emclosed ) some toughts came up in my mind.
brothers in the usa are not allowed to have a moustache unlesse it concerns coloured brothers but white brothers are allowed to have a beard if they are bold ( i read it on this forum ) so i am very sorry for the coloured brothers who want a beard, no way!.
in france, brothers are allowed to have a beard and in scandinavia " longer " hair ( i would like to advise " worlds apart " a very interesting movie about shunning ).. so if a french, coloured brother moves to scandinavia and let his hair grow and then .
JW brothers in the US can have moustaches. Many elders have them. Samuel Herd on the GB has one.
the classic debate between those who believe that consciousness is merely the result of the operation of the brain, and those who believe that it is apart from the brain, like the idea of a soul or the classic dualistic distinction between mind and body, is a well-known one.. however the thought has occurred that when people try to convince me that the soul cannot be real; soul in the sense of consciousness being a separate thing to the operation of the brain, then really the materialistic non spiritual view is in fact a rehash of animism, strange as that might sound.. animism is the idea that soul, spirit, consciousness, or whatever it might be called, exists in plants, animals, things, objects, places or basically in everything and anything in the material world.
the view of some is that very primitive cultures had this wide category of spiritual belief, which eventually evolved into the all the religions, faiths and spiritualties of today.
some of the faiths of modern times are not defined as animistic because these draw a distinction between soul and body or in modern parlance, consciousness and brain.. so in very ancient times, at the dawn of human spiritual belief, the sun, for example, rising and setting was seen not so much as being caused by the proverbial spaghetti monster but as being the proverbial spaghetti monster.
You have to read the whole thing to see why these statements are not contradictions.
There is no amount of unconnected points and bad logic that can make "A = Not A" true. The crux of your fallacy is below:
Plants, rocks and brains are all the same in the sense that they are physical material, other than the complexity/organisation they contain. So to accept that brains create consciousness is in fact a form of animism. A merely organic like structure is said to have consciousness by materialists in effect, but this is virtually the same view that animism teaches.
You start with the non-logic that all things are the same other than where they are different. That's like saying flying is the same as driving except in the ways they aren't the same. Your conclusion "so to accept that brains create consciousness..." is a non-sequitur that doesn't follow at all from anything you wrote up to that point. Because some reactions can cause a fire to happen doesn't mean all reactions have fire or even the potential for fire. You are making a composition fallacy, assuming the properties of one thing can be applied to everything, i.e., atom are invisible to the naked eye, you are made of atoms, therefore you must be invisible.
the classic debate between those who believe that consciousness is merely the result of the operation of the brain, and those who believe that it is apart from the brain, like the idea of a soul or the classic dualistic distinction between mind and body, is a well-known one.. however the thought has occurred that when people try to convince me that the soul cannot be real; soul in the sense of consciousness being a separate thing to the operation of the brain, then really the materialistic non spiritual view is in fact a rehash of animism, strange as that might sound.. animism is the idea that soul, spirit, consciousness, or whatever it might be called, exists in plants, animals, things, objects, places or basically in everything and anything in the material world.
the view of some is that very primitive cultures had this wide category of spiritual belief, which eventually evolved into the all the religions, faiths and spiritualties of today.
some of the faiths of modern times are not defined as animistic because these draw a distinction between soul and body or in modern parlance, consciousness and brain.. so in very ancient times, at the dawn of human spiritual belief, the sun, for example, rising and setting was seen not so much as being caused by the proverbial spaghetti monster but as being the proverbial spaghetti monster.
Don't forget to deal with the inherent "not A = A" contradiction. Any re-thinking that fails to address the central problem inherent to the argument will still come up short.
its been a very eye opening experience for me to find out that the god of the bible is as real as thor or ra.
i still believe a higher power created life but can see now how it doesn't really care about us.
so with this in mind realizing one has only 70-80 years to live and that may be just it, is very stunning..
So you were referring to something you don't want to talk about? OK....
the classic debate between those who believe that consciousness is merely the result of the operation of the brain, and those who believe that it is apart from the brain, like the idea of a soul or the classic dualistic distinction between mind and body, is a well-known one.. however the thought has occurred that when people try to convince me that the soul cannot be real; soul in the sense of consciousness being a separate thing to the operation of the brain, then really the materialistic non spiritual view is in fact a rehash of animism, strange as that might sound.. animism is the idea that soul, spirit, consciousness, or whatever it might be called, exists in plants, animals, things, objects, places or basically in everything and anything in the material world.
the view of some is that very primitive cultures had this wide category of spiritual belief, which eventually evolved into the all the religions, faiths and spiritualties of today.
some of the faiths of modern times are not defined as animistic because these draw a distinction between soul and body or in modern parlance, consciousness and brain.. so in very ancient times, at the dawn of human spiritual belief, the sun, for example, rising and setting was seen not so much as being caused by the proverbial spaghetti monster but as being the proverbial spaghetti monster.
Dogma? I don't think you understand the meaning of the word if you that that pointing out "not A = A" not being logically valid is dogma. It's interesting that you aren't discussing your work, just complaining that a logical contradiction in your central premise was noticed.
And yes, jgnat's post is nice. TED talks are awesome.
its been a very eye opening experience for me to find out that the god of the bible is as real as thor or ra.
i still believe a higher power created life but can see now how it doesn't really care about us.
so with this in mind realizing one has only 70-80 years to live and that may be just it, is very stunning..
If you want to talk about Kant, just say so. I can't read your mind.
the classic debate between those who believe that consciousness is merely the result of the operation of the brain, and those who believe that it is apart from the brain, like the idea of a soul or the classic dualistic distinction between mind and body, is a well-known one.. however the thought has occurred that when people try to convince me that the soul cannot be real; soul in the sense of consciousness being a separate thing to the operation of the brain, then really the materialistic non spiritual view is in fact a rehash of animism, strange as that might sound.. animism is the idea that soul, spirit, consciousness, or whatever it might be called, exists in plants, animals, things, objects, places or basically in everything and anything in the material world.
the view of some is that very primitive cultures had this wide category of spiritual belief, which eventually evolved into the all the religions, faiths and spiritualties of today.
some of the faiths of modern times are not defined as animistic because these draw a distinction between soul and body or in modern parlance, consciousness and brain.. so in very ancient times, at the dawn of human spiritual belief, the sun, for example, rising and setting was seen not so much as being caused by the proverbial spaghetti monster but as being the proverbial spaghetti monster.
Atheist, by definition, don't believe in spirit things. You are still arguing for "not A = A". Clearly I spent more than a second reading it, the portion I quoted was from the middle of a paragraph in the middle of the post.
Your issue isn't with how much time I spent reading it, it's that it literally and only took one sentence to show the inherent logical contradiction in your attempt to show science was equally as irrational as belief in spirits.
the classic debate between those who believe that consciousness is merely the result of the operation of the brain, and those who believe that it is apart from the brain, like the idea of a soul or the classic dualistic distinction between mind and body, is a well-known one.. however the thought has occurred that when people try to convince me that the soul cannot be real; soul in the sense of consciousness being a separate thing to the operation of the brain, then really the materialistic non spiritual view is in fact a rehash of animism, strange as that might sound.. animism is the idea that soul, spirit, consciousness, or whatever it might be called, exists in plants, animals, things, objects, places or basically in everything and anything in the material world.
the view of some is that very primitive cultures had this wide category of spiritual belief, which eventually evolved into the all the religions, faiths and spiritualties of today.
some of the faiths of modern times are not defined as animistic because these draw a distinction between soul and body or in modern parlance, consciousness and brain.. so in very ancient times, at the dawn of human spiritual belief, the sun, for example, rising and setting was seen not so much as being caused by the proverbial spaghetti monster but as being the proverbial spaghetti monster.
It's not cheap, it's succint and to the point. You are trying to claim that research into how consciousness works leads to logically to the conclusion there is a soul. It's a ridiculous argument with no proof points, no support. If you want your writing to be taken more seriously, then do a better job of laying out a premise and using supporting points to derive a conclusion. Complexity = God isn't a supporting point.
its been a very eye opening experience for me to find out that the god of the bible is as real as thor or ra.
i still believe a higher power created life but can see now how it doesn't really care about us.
so with this in mind realizing one has only 70-80 years to live and that may be just it, is very stunning..
Making stuff up isn’t a tool and also not what I said, but I won’t debate the pitfalls of paradigm shift with you.
It most certainly is a tool. I know you didn't say it, it's the one I chose to comments on. I could have picked guilt, repression, fear, shunning, manipulation, etc.
You tried to execute a paradigm shift, but I noticed it and corrected the incorrect ideas about science you were posting. I am here to help.
