Bipolar
Pages
| Author | Topic: Bipolar |
|---|---|
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, December 27 2007 19:58
Profile
quote:It seems to me that what constitutes as proof to one person is inconclusive to another. Based on your statement above you are impossible to convince as you require an impossible burden to be met. I guess that's why we get things like hung juries. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 3040
|
written Thursday, December 27 2007 20:22
Profile
quote:My point — at least as far as second languages are concerned — was actually that one shouldn't assume one way or the other whether someone wants their malapropisms corrected. -------------------- 5.0.1.0.0.0.0.1.0... Posts: 508 | Registered: Thursday, May 29 2003 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Thursday, December 27 2007 20:42
Profile
Homepage
quote:You misunderstand, I think. You can convince me without proving anything. It just happens that, in this case, you'd need some pretty impressive evidence to convince me. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, December 27 2007 23:25
Profile
quote:That's why this culture's roots in Christendom can be a double-edged sword. They shelter from one from certain realities. Spiritism gets relegated to fantasy. Elsewhere they'd think you slow for doubting the existence of spirits. As I understand it, the naturalistic worldview is particularly rife among psychologists. (Incidentally, I have an in-law from Panama who’s a psychologist that doesn’t like her daughter’s picture spread around because where she’s from they use pictures to put curses on people. She’s been practicing for years, is very well educated, speaks 4 or 5 languages fluently and signs 1 or 2, and someone like you would probably never think she’d be concerned about spirits and curses if you talked to her…and she probably wouldn’t tell you.) As someone who on occasion suffers from hypnopompic paralysis (which I thought was a supernatural encounter initially), I’m aware of some of the tricks the mind can play. To minimize every uncanny occurrence to mental aberrations or charlatanism becomes awkward and starts to stretch reason, though…at least for me it does. There has to be a lot of smoke and no fire. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2476
|
written Friday, December 28 2007 00:18
Profile
Just for clarification: being on a spiritual search, as Synergy is, does not automatically include a belief in spirits. There's a difference between spiritualism and spiritism. -------------------- Polaris Rache's A3 Site reformatted 2/3 done Rache's A3 Site, original version Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Friday, December 28 2007 03:57
Profile
The fire is normal consciousness, and it is astonishing how little smoke there is from this fire. When you think about what it must mean to have a zillion nerve cells form a mind, it is almost hard to believe that stark raving madness is as rare as it is. -------------------- Listen carefully because some of your options may have changed. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Friday, December 28 2007 05:03
Profile
quote:It's hard to believe for someone that doesn't have the full picture. And I'm not talking about all the details. I'm talking about a world view lacking the spiritual realm. A lot is harder to believe without it once you start to peel the layers. It works on the surface and it's easier in some ways. Everybody who experiences anything unusual is lying or just had a brain hiccup - nice and clean. I like that approach sometimes, because it does allow us some clarity and gives meaningful answers. For example, I mentioned that I thought my sleep paralysis was a demonic attack the first time I underwent it. That didn’t satisfactorily explain the experiences once I was awake and reasoned on what happened though. In days past I would have been left with nothing but that explanation. Now we know better and I can make sense of things… and even control them sometimes. Other things are not explained well by naturalistic means, though. If you’re content to say, ”not yet,” and leave it there, don’t let me stop you. That answer is not always the most informative though. As a rule I would tend to agree with you, but at times it becomes awkward to apply and indicative of close-mindedness. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Friday, December 28 2007 06:41
Profile
Homepage
quote:Dude, Student of Trinity is a Christian. Give your assuming muscles a rest every once in a while, will you? -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Friday, December 28 2007 22:38
Profile
quote:You're assuming I was implying that he wasn't? Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, December 29 2007 02:32
Profile
Homepage
quote:No, I'm inferring that you're implying that he wasn't. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Saturday, December 29 2007 03:37
Profile
I didn't see my post, or Stillness's comment on it, as implying anything about Christianity. I argued this point to cautious acceptance on an evangelical theology list once: Christian dogma is blind to the question of whether spirit inhabits the world like alcohol in wine, or like grammar in ink. Christianity neither presumes nor implies substance dualism. Stillness seems to disagree with me, though, on the explanatory power of dualism. He sees the theory of a 'spiritual realm' as having something to say on occasions when materialism has nothing to offer but hopes for future understanding. I see it as the candidate with the least of all to say. Perhaps the difference here is that I don't count just any set of words as really being 'something to say'. As a hypothetical ridiculous example, consider a theory which claims to explain so-called out-of-body experiences, but whose explanation consists literally and entirely of the syllables 'blah blah blah'. If proponents of this theory were to boast that they had ideas about a question on which science confessed ignorance, then their boast would be hollow. The question I have, though, is whether substance dualism is really so much better than that ridiculous example. It's all very well to make statements about intangible spirits and souls, even statements that are much longer than 'blah blah blah'. But very little further detail can be given, in my experience, to flesh out (ha) what those statements mean. I am left with the impression that substance dualism is not really an explanation at all — not even a wrong one. It seems more to be a mere insistence on the right to utter certain formulaic syllables in response to certain questions. In that sense, it's like 'blah blah blah', except marketed better. And this is why I consider it to be a declaration of disinterest in the question of how mind works, which is only masquerading as an answer. -------------------- Listen carefully because some of your options may have changed. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Saturday, December 29 2007 09:01
Profile
quote:That’s ‘cause your assuming muscles is flimsy. Seriously though, I am a bit confused by your position. In another thread I specifically remember you saying that you prayed for help and heaven responded by assisting you on an exam. If naturalism were the dominant view in psycology, they would generally conclude that you were/are delusional. While that sentiment alone is not dangerous, coupled with other problems it could lead to a wrong conclusion. Let’s say you were under extreme stress and were depressed and sought the help of a psychiatrist. In the interview your belief that God helps you comes out along with a mention that you heard an audible demonic voice telling you to do bad things. It could be that God helps you, a demon spoke to you, and you need a relaxing vacation. In a strictly naturalistic framework, the assumptions could lead to different conclusions. I won’t pretend to be familiar enough with the mind and psychiatry to guess what those might be, but they would not be more meaningful. If anything, they could be harmful. I don’t know that if we were neuroscientists our approach would be that different in practice. I’m saying, let’s investigate the mind. It’s a wonderfully deep thing that there will always be more to know about. Just know that your view of things can impact findings, even using the scientific method. Take the article ” Paranormal Beliefs Linked to Brain Chemistry” in NewScientist in which the first sentence is: “Whether or not you believe in the paranormal may depend entirely on your brain chemistry.” I deleted my comments on this and instead want to ask you if you see a problem. There’s some real science there, but there’s also some bias. The article is fairly short, but the first sentence is really the giveaway. I’d also like to know if you’d accept high dopamine levels as a plausible explanation for “God’s help” with your exam and maybe for your faith altogether. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 6292
|
written Saturday, December 29 2007 10:38
Profile
"Your brain chemistry may depend entirely on whether or not you believe in the paranormal.” Another explanation. Is biology the cause...or the effect? Give yourself back to yourself and see biology as highly reflective of your cognitive, emotional, and psychological states, not the determinant. This gives us mandate to take further accountability for what we experience, rather than being the recipient, or even victim, of our experience. We're making all this up. -S- -------------------- A4 Items • A4 Singleton • G4 Items • G4 Forging • G4 Infiltrator • N:R Items • The Lonely Celt • A5 Items • A5 Map Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Saturday, December 29 2007 11:08
Profile
I like your science. I do not like your scientists. Your scientists are so unlike your science. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Saturday, December 29 2007 11:39
Profile
Homepage
Synergy: I think I agree with the thrust of what you're saying, but I would want to say it in a somewhat different way. Your brain (and the rest of you) are sufficient to produce your mind, emotions, spirit, whatever. That means that all of your decisions are physically just chemical reactions in your brain. But they're still your decisions; the fact that they arise from physical processes doesn't mean that you don't have responsibility for them. You say that you like to think in paradoxical ways. Well, try this one on: Your chemicals completely determine your mind, and so in a very physical way, you are completely controlled by your biology. But at the same time, in a very practical and real way, you do have the ability to make decisions, and so you are completely in control of your biology. It's much like what SoT has proposed, that in any physical sense, the biology is all, but that doesn't negate the effectiveness of talking about emotions, mental states, maybe even spiritual things. They are fundamentally physical things, but talking about them in a physical way is not even completely possible with current science, so we may as well use simpler (though somewhat less exact) terms. (That post was incoherent. Huh. Maybe this is a particularly difficult subject to discuss.) -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Saturday, December 29 2007 11:52
Profile
How many scientists do you know? There are many in the world, and all though all tend to share some basic assumptions, the conclusions they draw from them vary widely. As to this particular scientist: I am a materialist, in the sense that I am a substance monist. I believe that I am to my brain rather as a poem is to the ink in which it is written. I also believe that every atom and all of space persist from instant to instant at the whim of God; and all the patterns therein. God seems to have an inordinate fondness for partial differential equations. I'd like to know why. I have had several experiences that seemed to me to agree more precisely with my theories God than I would expect if the theories weren't onto something. I have also had to revise my theories of God in the light of experience. Not all desperately heartfelt prayers, for instance, are granted. -------------------- Listen carefully because some of your options may have changed. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Saturday, December 29 2007 11:58
Profile
Homepage
quote:Wouldn't we all! :P -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Saturday, December 29 2007 13:13
Profile
Ah, so that is what you meant when you connected me with dualism. It went over my head. I don’t understand God enough to say that I’m either a monist or a dualist (I probably don’t understand monism enough either). As far as human beings go, I would say monism fits my view better. I think we are flesh and blood and nothing more. What affects the body affects the person. What kills the body kills the person, the mind and everything. Kel said we control our biology at the same time that it controls us. I would say we are our biology. That does not preclude a spiritual realm that can act on us though. That was my point. The brain can do some strange things, but all strange things are not stemming from the brain. Some are perceived by it. I know a few scientists. I actually study the Bible with three and I like all of them. I like you too. Don’t be offended. I was abusing the Ghandi quote(“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”) to make the point about science that he made about Christendom. I thought it was more commonly known than it actually is apparently. I do sometimes wish that God would answer all of my heartfelt and desperate prayers, but I don’t want him to answer everbody’s based on those same qualifications. So, I understand when he answers mine when, how, and if he pleases. quote:A lot of natural processes can be understood with differential equations? Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Saturday, December 29 2007 13:41
Profile
quote:Oh yeah, the four fundamental forces (the basis of nature) are governed by them. So in some sense, all natural processes follow differential equations at some level. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, December 29 2007 15:01
Profile
Homepage
quote:I think we all recognised the quote, but I don't see how the fact that it's a paraphrase of a quote makes it any less of an insult. Gandhi was hardly being complimentary to Christians when he said that, after all. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Saturday, December 29 2007 15:35
Profile
It wasn't intended as a compliment but as a commentary on the unscientific things scientists try to pass off as science. I'm sure Ghandi liked some Christians. Likewise, I didn't mean it as a personal insult to anyone here...unless...are you a scientist? :P Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Saturday, December 29 2007 20:37
Profile
Homepage
Unscientific things such as...? You can claim that science doesn't have all the answers, but scientists are pretty good at determining what is and what is not science. Or, according to some, it's science precisely because it's what the scientists have claimed. —Alorael, who will grant you the sad exception of evolution. There is an entire industry built around denying that it is scientific. That industry is garbage, but there's no need for another debate on the subject. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Saturday, December 29 2007 21:38
Profile
I gave a nonevolution example in the article above. It implies that belief in the "paranormal" is a result of chemicals in the brain. The unwary would walk away thinking there is scientific basis that the supernatural is imagined. The reporter is either blinded by bias or a liar, because the science does not lead to that conclusion. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Saturday, December 29 2007 22:19
Profile
Homepage
I know you think science doesn't have all the answers. On the other hand, scientists have done something exactly right here: hypothesis, test, confirmation. The scientists' explanation doesn't have to be the only one, but it is a completely scientific explanation. Paranormal causing different brain chemistry is possible, but not scientific. It could be correct, but it's still not scientific. —Alorael, who should point out that brain chemistry affecting beliefs and behavior is well documented. External, non-physical things affecting brain chemistry are not well documented. That's a perfectly good hypothesis, but it requires a lot of evidence before any scientist will give it any credence. If you think there is no serious research on the paranormal, you are mistaken. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Saturday, December 29 2007 22:24
Profile
Homepage
quote:One would have to be particularly unwary to walk away thinking that, because the report doesn't actually say that. The reporter is neither blinded by bias nor a liar; you're putting words in her mouth. But this is beside the point. This writer is not a scientist. This writer is a journalist writing for a science-popularizing magazine. Try Nature or Science for real science, not popularizations. People really, really need to separate the pop culture notions of science from actual science. Popularizers often say things that are wrong or misleading in an effort to communicate to a population that is not likely to have the background to understand the subject in its full depth or the inclination to wade through difficult details. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |