Proof that consciousness lives outside the laws of physics (1 Viewer)

[Isaac]

I have GOT to challenge that statement. Go to the Grand Canyon (I have done so) and look at the sedimentation deposit layers to see how many of them there are and start adding up the years for each. I also have seen the ludicrous arguments that ignorant people have made using religion to attempt to negate the laws of physics regarding evaporation and sedimentation. When a religious apologist tries to negate raw, testable physics, the only respect earned that way is that the apologist has a career in self-deprecating comedy.

I don't have anywhere near the time to go back and find each source, but over the past 20 years I have done a fair amount of reading from scientists and archeologists that demonstrated exactly what I asserted above. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Obviously, whatever I read, you haven't read, and vice versa I'm sure.

If you follow Bishop Ussher, you get about 6,400 years (or is it 6,600 by now?) I forget, but it is in that range. If you ARE using 10,000, you are looking at the age of non-Christian civilizations such as are found in S.E. Asia. That isn't a Christian teaching.

I have noticed that you have often tried to tell me what is or isn't Christian teaching. Many things occur to me in this moment, but I think I'll restrain myself to simply say, with respect, you might consider the idea that as a lifelong Christian, I'm fairly familiar with Christian teaching - that which I think is mainstream for (as I have mentioned before), specifically, Christian Protestant, generally non-denominational (although my flavor probably has 95% in common with Baptist or Evangelical Free Church theology).
And I've never heard of Bishop Ussher.

We all try to understand other people's religions, politics, science backgrounds, etc., but where it gets humorous is when for example I try to tell you the "most well known scientists" (even though you would know that, I wouldn't), or when you try to tell me with the implication that someone is a well known or most core representative of my Christianity teaching (even though you wouldn't know that - you may try and that's respectable, but it won't come anywhere near someone who's spent 43 years on the inside of the teaching, churches, etc).
This is especially pertinent to religion, where the secular world's labeling of "major Christian leader" or "primary theologian", etc., very rarely match how I would deem such a thing, and which labels are usually even curated in order to bolster the argument the secular article is making, etc.
For example, when CNN talks about "major Evangelical leaders", I almost never agree that they are anywhere near a major leader in the area, sometimes never having heard of them in fact.

I doubt you'll acknowledge that point so I respectfully heretofore agree to disagree with you on that.

"That isn't a Christian teaching" - I think I'll leave my previous points to stand as that statement is evident enough on its face to be a somewhat strange assertion, since you are talking to a Christian.
The problem is you're using secular methods of determining age to tell me that my Christian interpretation goes back before Christian civilizations - which makes no sense!
I do not know where you got (hopefully not from me?) that I believe the earth started at the same time God spoke to Abraham.

It always feels strange when someone tries to tell you what you believe.
It sounds like me talking to a Jew and yelling "You can't possibly believe that! That's not a Jewish teaching!"
And the Jew saying really? Could've fooled me!

 

[jpl458]

@Isaac My position has always been that while I may be an atheist, I do believe that religion has its place and benefits, but not for the same reasons the believers think. From my perspective, the regular assembling of a community brings social connections they may not otherwise have. There is much research that shows one factor that goes into human longevity is social connection. Those who are isolated and lonely die earlier. Also, those who are religious tend to live longer. Maybe the two things are because of that social connection.

As to the potential evil from religion, perhaps it is more about human nature than the particular doctrine of the religion itself. Individual interpretation of the religious texts can lead to different perspectives. Just look at what has been happening recently from within the Muslim community, with some taking radical steps. Granted, there are certain passages in religious doctrine that don't help matters, but on the whole, I feel the religious texts are there to corral people into acceptable behaviour that is good for society.

Edit: AWF's Watercooler is a church for Access zealots!

Religion is a way of controlling people

 

[Isaac]

As to the potential evil from religion, perhaps it is more about human nature than the particular doctrine of the religion itself. Individual interpretation of the religious texts can lead to different perspectives

Yes, definitely I agree with that.
Any religion can be casually applied, any religion can be useless if not applied seriously, any religion will contain people who do bad things.
Some religions seem to write violence more into their current interpretation than others, but that's obviously highly subjective.

And JPL is right too. Religion - like dozens of other devices of thought and philosophy - can be misused for the sole purpose of controlling people.

What I have found personally is that when I myself try to run my life and be in charge, things don't go very well.
When Isaac tries to be God, the results are catastrophic, as they are often driven by either Selfishness or Fear.
I can accumulate many good deeds and actions, but ultimately when I decide to be in charge of my own life, Selfishness & Fear will remain as the driving motivators - sometimes playing the long game and making me think they are gone, but still being very much alive and usually winning out in the end.

It's a major relief to the degree that I surrender to God, as He's much better than me at being in charge.

It can be a major relief to anyone. Me saying that doesn't equal that I want to control them. It simply means I believe that when they surrender to God, their lives have an excellent chance of finding true freedom, and I want that for others just like I seek it for myself.

Yesterday afternoon I felt very 'spent'. Frankly, I felt a bit put-upon and underappreciated, too, as my wife is sick from Covid and let's just say, she's not exactly a dear when she is sick, (even when you are handing her a plate or helping out). Between that and my job, which I am behind on not only because of that but my own distractions, I felt quite alone and weary.
I realized I had a decision. Either believe I can walk in God's joy and peace that pass understanding, or keep allowing my circumstances to decide whether I had joy and peace.
I began repeating to myself stuff from God's word - I have the mind of Christ, Christ lives in me, and I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.
After a while it went from my mind to my heart. My whole evening was changed as was the atmosphere in my home. What a blessing to tap into a source of Life from outside myself and also that transcends my surroundings!!

 

[NauticalGent]

Religion - like dozens of other devices of thought and philosophy - can be misused for the sole purpose of controlling people.

Absolutly. Include gov handouts in that category.

 

[Jon]

I thought it was all free. Didn't Biden confirm this recently by insisting that the trillions to be spent was free?

 

[NauticalGent]

I thought it was all free. Didn't Biden confirm this recently by insisting that the trillions to be spent was free?

Oh well HELL, I stand corrected!

 

[Jon]

And what about the free $10K off student loans? Its all free!

 

[Isaac]

Sounds like when my daughter is on her way to buy a dozen Cage Free, Gluten Free, Grass Fed, Responsibly Treated, Chickens-Allowed-to-Marry
$9 dozen eggs from Sprouts - hand me a credit card Daddy! It's all free!

Ahh, I shouldn't say too much about that. Good for her for trying to be healthy - the intentions are good, but the Internet was bad, way too much information

 

[Isaac]

According to evolutionary thought, humans came from ape-like creatures. These ape-like creatures came from reptiles through many steps. Likewise, reptiles ultimately came from fish, through many steps. Evolutionists say that with each major stage, more parts were added to the brain. The final development, and the greatest of all, is the cerebral cortex.

According to this theory, one of the oldest parts of the brain is the part deep inside. Evolutionists claim that this part of the brain, called the basal ganglia, comes from our reptilian past. They have described this part of the brain as “primitive.” It controls such simple things as movement and spatial memory. These are basic functions needed by reptiles. Of course, the evolutionary view that the basal ganglia is primitive was never scientifically researched.

Then researchers started to examine the workings of the basal ganglia. They have concluded that the deep structures of the brain that are supposed to be primitive are actually quite sophisticated. In fact, these so-called reptilian structures rival the cerebral cortex in sophistication. These structures receive input from all parts of the cortex. And all the neurochemicals found anywhere else in the body are also found in these structures. In other words, there is absolutely no evidence of their being primitive.

Once again, scientific research has not found what evolutionists expected. The human brain has not developed by adding parts to reptile brains. It was specially created just for human beings.

 

[jpl458]

According to evolutionary thought, humans came from ape-like creatures. These ape-like creatures came from reptiles through many steps. Likewise, reptiles ultimately came from fish, through many steps. Evolutionists say that with each major stage, more parts were added to the brain. The final development, and the greatest of all, is the cerebral cortex.

According to this theory, one of the oldest parts of the brain is the part deep inside. Evolutionists claim that this part of the brain, called the basal ganglia, comes from our reptilian past. They have described this part of the brain as “primitive.” It controls such simple things as movement and spatial memory. These are basic functions needed by reptiles. Of course, the evolutionary view that the basal ganglia is primitive was never scientifically researched.

Then researchers started to examine the workings of the basal ganglia. They have concluded that the deep structures of the brain that are supposed to be primitive are actually quite sophisticated. In fact, these so-called reptilian structures rival the cerebral cortex in sophistication. These structures receive input from all parts of the cortex. And all the neurochemicals found anywhere else in the body are also found in these structures. In other words, there is absolutely no evidence of their being primitive.

Once again, scientific research has not found what evolutionists expected. The human brain has not developed by adding parts to reptile brains. It was specially created just for human beings.

By whom? And you have proof of that? You make a big leap in your conclusion to discard evolution. According to dna studies we are primates. In fact I share a lot of dna with the tree in my front yard. We are all composed of atoms. Atoms that were constructed in the hearts of exploding stars. We are just a part of the universe, trying to figure itself out. (Carl Sagan)

 

[NauticalGent]

You all may find this interesting...

 

[jpl458]

Consider very extended space travel, and the creation of Null G humans, another step along the path. Evolution is constant, and is going on as we speak.. I have a dog that is the product of genetic engineering (eugenics, a kind of induced evolution). He is a half breed. Half Maltese, and half Yorkshire Terrier (referred to as a Morkie). He weighs 9 pounds, yet in his heart is a particle of the stuff of a wolf. I guess You can take the dog out from the wolf, but you can't take all of the wolf out of the dog. Unless you say the word "Cookie". But, back to the topic. People that disregard evolution do not understand the time involved, and have been convinced that we(humans) are different and exempt. We (humans) are the final product of the invisible man. Then why were previous generations generally so short? But then Mr Walker, from Georgia, couldn't understand that if man evolved from gorillas, why are there still gorillas?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

According to evolutionary thought, humans came from ape-like creatures. These ape-like creatures came from reptiles through many steps. Likewise, reptiles ultimately came from fish, through many steps. Evolutionists say that with each major stage, more parts were added to the brain. The final development, and the greatest of all, is the cerebral cortex.

According to this theory, one of the oldest parts of the brain is the part deep inside. Evolutionists claim that this part of the brain, called the basal ganglia, comes from our reptilian past. They have described this part of the brain as “primitive.” It controls such simple things as movement and spatial memory. These are basic functions needed by reptiles. Of course, the evolutionary view that the basal ganglia is primitive was never scientifically researched.

Then researchers started to examine the workings of the basal ganglia. They have concluded that the deep structures of the brain that are supposed to be primitive are actually quite sophisticated. In fact, these so-called reptilian structures rival the cerebral cortex in sophistication. These structures receive input from all parts of the cortex. And all the neurochemicals found anywhere else in the body are also found in these structures. In other words, there is absolutely no evidence of their being primitive.

Once again, scientific research has not found what evolutionists expected. The human brain has not developed by adding parts to reptile brains. It was specially created just for human beings.

My response to this is simple: Why would you presume that the basal ganglia haven't evolved either? In which case you have an apples and oranges comparison. You have NO IDEA whether in fact the basal ganglia of ancient reptiles was advanced. Isaac, I respect you so I won't berate you. I will simply say that this discussion of modern brain structure has little to do (as currently presented) with the concept of brain evolution. You are looking at the wrong end of the evolutionary telescope if you consider modern-era basal ganglia as proof of anything.

 

[JonXL]

PRATT - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

en.m.wiktionary.org

 

[Jon]

Primitive does not necessarily mean poorly designed, it just means it evolve earlier relative to the rest of the brain. The reptilian part of our brain carries out vital functions, such as flight and flight. The cerebral cortex can do higher-order reasoning but it is too slow for things that need an instant reply.

There is always a tug of war between the two parts of our brain. Take for example that piece of cake. We can reason using our cerebral cortex that it is bad for us, in the long term. However, the reptilian part of the brain wants it and wants it now! Someone pulls out of a junction and you have to slam on the brakes. One part of your brain wants to get out of the car and bludgeon that person for their mistake. The other half says the long-term consequences are not worth it!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The reptilian part of the brain also is at least partly responsible for selectively gregarious behavior - i.e. staying with the pack vs. going out to meet others. The tendency of some religions to exclude and shun those who are different from their members is another example. I.e. recognition of the familiar vs. attacking the unfamiliar. While it might well have been a survival trait back in prehistoric times, there is a definite disadvantage to stability of large societies because of those exclusionary practices.

 

[jpl458]

My response to this is simple: Why would you presume that the basal ganglia haven't evolved either? In which case you have an apples and oranges comparison. You have NO IDEA whether in fact the basal ganglia of ancient reptiles was advanced. Isaac, I respect you so I won't berate you. I will simply say that this discussion of modern brain structure has little to do (as currently presented) with the concept of brain evolution. You are looking at the wrong end of the evolutionary telescope if you consider modern-era basal ganglia as proof of anything.

The reptilian part of the brain also is at least partly responsible for selectively gregarious behavior - i.e. staying with the pack vs. going out to meet others. The tendency of some religions to exclude and shun those who are different from their members is another example. I.e. recognition of the familiar vs. attacking the unfamiliar. While it might well have been a survival trait back in prehistoric times, there is a definite disadvantage to stability of large societies because of those exclusionary practices.

Sounds very much like the Freudian concept of the ID and EGO.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Sounds very much like the Freudian concept of the ID and EGO.

Who is to say that Sigmund was totally wrong in his viewpoints (even though we have learned more since he was around)?

 

[conception_native_0123]

I thought it was all free. Didn't Biden confirm this recently by insisting that the trillions to be spent was free?

as you said Jon, IT'S ALL FREE! God speed to Bernie Sanders and Biden!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Any politician who says anything that even VAGUELY sounds like "money is free" is a person to not be trusted. That person has no functioning sense of responsibility. This "tax the rich" viewpoint goes against certain old sayings. For example....

The wealthy people of the world invest in ways to cause businesses to grow. If they take their share of profits from that growth, fine. Remember the old Biblical saying, "Thou shalt not bind the mouths of the kine that tread the grain."