^ Yep, my undergrad was psychology, but heavy on the neuroscience/neurobiology aspect. By the time i graduated, I really questioned whether we even have free will in a true sense. Everything about consciousness seems like it's just a matter of emergent properties of a highly complex system, but that would seem to make all of our activities deterministic even if we don't understand the mechanism. If that is the case then how can we exercise free will at all? We are just slaves of the electrochemical processes of our bodies after all and free will may just be an ad hoc ex post facto justification that our brains give us to explain our behaviour to us.
I don't really believe that, but stuff I learned in my studies about things like optical illusions, cognitive dissonance, how emotional reactions can actually precede thought and other strange findings of neuropsychololgy all makes me wonder how close we even are to actually studying consciousness. Somehow our consciousness really does seem separate from the biochemical/electrochemical processes of our bodies and if there's any spirituality I may still subscribe to it would just be the mystery of how we can have a consciousness that seems more than the sum of its parts. I certainly do think that there is a natural explanation for this, but it's the one thing that i have a somewhat open mind about, that our animating spirit is something more than just an emergent property of our physical makeup. We don't yet have even the tools to explore that proposition but it's something I wonder about.
I don't see anything wrong with being cognizant of and accepting that our thoughts and actions are nothing but emergent properties of our physical make up and electro-chemical processes.
The mechanics of it does not take away from the beauty that is life and the imagination and reverence to be in awe of it and to seek out new knowledge and understanding; all despite the majority of days that we do feel enslaved to our physiology and merely being the product of millions of years of evolution driving the base instincts behind our thoughts and perceptions and the nature our very existence.
Despite the nebulous mechanics, if the emergent property is an irrational mind, then it is exactly that irrational mind that yearns to free ourselves from the bonds of our physical and corporeal existence because it has the imagination to behold the possibility of much, much more to life. That to me, is what defines self-awareness and sentience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor
The more we learn, the less we are actually determining our own beliefs, and that our brains as they become less mysterious are starting to resemble a probability machine.
That too. All of existence is pretty much quantum mechanics when you boil it down isn't it? I think that's beautiful that we can even dare to attempt to comprehend such a thing.
Last edited by Hack&Lube; 05-01-2012 at 09:11 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hack&Lube For This Useful Post:
I agree with everything you said but the part where you say your "still spiritual" kind of baffles me as you didn't explain it.
I truly admit to being an atheist in a religious sense therefore I can't be "spiritual" as somehow that has a religious tone to it.
I consider (and refer to) myself as a spiritual atheist. I am also a gnostic atheist: I am certain there is no such thing as a conscious entity worthy of worship who exists in, or interacts with the universe.
However, I do believe in the existence of what can be called 'the soul' in that it is an aspect of individual consciousness which is capable of continued existence in some form or other past organic death. I also believe in the possibility of such souls experiencing multiple organic lives. I understand this may not be a completely rational worldview, however I have had subjective experiences for which I need to come to some kind of objective conclusion.
I do not accept the notion that a conscious creator entity is necessary for the existence of a thing like a soul. I see no reason why it cannot be a fundamental part of the universe just like Gravity or Entropy or Quantum Mechanics, merely one which we do not have technology to measure at present. I find this to be particularly plausible in a universe which remains almost entirely invisible to us. It stands to reason that, whatever Dark Matter and Energy are, we are interacting with them on some level. It seems plausible to me that one of the ways in which we may be interacting with them would include a phenomenon such as a soul.
I believe until such time as hard, empirical, observational science can be brought to bear on this, the arts are the best way to study this aspect of existence and either eventually confirm or disprove its existence.
This is sad, Dan Savage speaking to high school journalists at a convention about "It gets better" project, mentions the bible and a bunch of them stand up and leave.
Firmly plant fingers in ears, sigh..
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
This is sad, Dan Savage speaking to high school journalists at a convention about "It gets better" project, mentions the bible and a bunch of them stand up and leave.
Firmly plant fingers in ears, sigh..
Judging by the cheers, a lot of the students stayed. What gets me is that there seems to be a deep divide with the Americans and it is no longer a live and let live society. They just may pull themselves apart.
The Following User Says Thank You to Vulcan For This Useful Post:
This is sad, Dan Savage speaking to high school journalists at a convention about "It gets better" project, mentions the bible and a bunch of them stand up and leave.
Could be HS students were looking for any excuse to ditch a lecture.
When I was in High School I certainly cared more about going home to play Final Fantasy on my Nintendo than what some idiot at the front of the room was saying.
That said, many of these students probably did leave on the basis of their beliefs.
Edit: Actually, watching the rest of the video, that's a really stupid way to speak to a group of students, if you actually want them to listen. You get the cheer leading half that already agrees with you on your side but totally alienate everyone else. Who cares if you are right or not, being confrontational about it will almost never change someone's mind.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
His response was nicer than he should have been, walking out because someone speaks against your position is cowardly and not to mention rude.
Were someone to get up on stage and talk to me about why we should beat up and arrest gays I would likely walk, well either that or attack the #######.
If you are trying to change the minds of people with deeply held, if completely nutty religeous beliefs, you have to treat their beliefs with at least basic respect.
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
Were someone to get up on stage and talk to me about why we should beat up and arrest gays I would likely walk, well either that or attack the #######.
If you are trying to change the minds of people with deeply held, if completely nutty religeous beliefs, you have to treat their beliefs with at least basic respect.
Exactly. Put it much better than I did.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
Were someone to get up on stage and talk to me about why we should beat up and arrest gays I would likely walk, well either that or attack the #######.
If you are trying to change the minds of people with deeply held, if completely nutty religeous beliefs, you have to treat their beliefs with at least basic respect.
It gets to a point that it is pointless to discuss morals with these bible literalists. I can see why the speaker just goes ahead and speaks the truth.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Vulcan For This Useful Post:
Did the students not know Dan Savage would be there?
Were they like, "I can't wait for Fred Phelps to talk about journalism-wait, what the heck, that's Dan Savage!? I'm out of here."
They were all sitting quietly and listening prior to the word 'bible'.
I have no idea, and am not sure how this video gives the context to know that. That said, I had to look up exactly who he was to be sure, because I am terrible with names most of the time.
I am just saying, it was almost offensive to me the way he was approaching it, and I am a complete supporter of the It Gets Better project, and most certainly not a devout Christian.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
It gets to a point that it is pointless to discuss morals with these bible literalists. I can see why the speaker just goes ahead and speaks the truth.
I disagree, I went to a church school (C of E) so learnt,and was interested in, the philosophy of the various christian churchs, if you approach the bible with some knowledge of the bible most of the US religeous right, the Phelps and his like, completely fall apart, from a strictly theological point of view much of US baptist theology is just plain wrong and does not stand up to its own logic. Lets be honest most small US churchs are little more than a business for some borderline huckster who got his divinity degree of the back of a match book, doesn't make for sterling philosophy.
Granted you won't likely have a Saul on the Road to Damascus like conversion but you can plant some fairly significant seeds of doubt in most of the worst of their excesses.
Last edited by afc wimbledon; 04-30-2012 at 02:27 PM.
I disagree, I went to a church school (C of E) so learnt,and was interested in, the philosophy of the various christian churchs, if you approach the bible with some knowledge of the bible most of the US religeous right, the Phelps and his like, completely fall apart, from a strictly theological point of view much of US baptist theology is just plain wrong and does not stand up to its own logic. Lets be honest most small US churchs are little more than a business for some borderline huckster who got his divinity degree of the back of a match book, doesn't make for sterling philosophy.
Granted you won't likely have a Saul on the Road to Damascus like conversion but you can plant some fairly significant seeds of doubt in most of the worst of their excesses.
How do you reason with people who have put the Bible in front of their prophet Jesus and god?
Quote:
Fair enough. But in defending or reclaiming the Bible from papists and then liberals, evangelical Protestants made it the very heart of the faith. Hence the ludicrous situation where many evangelical organisations, such as the Southern Baptist Convention, have statements of faith where the first point is the Bible, before any mention of, for example, God. Hence the celebrated idolatrous aphorism of William Chillingworth: "The BIBLE, I say, the BIBLE only, is the religion of Protestants!".
Quote:
Some of us, faced with this evidence, shape our faith in the light of it, making the Bible a far more fascinating, revealing and diverse record of human religious experience. But it's not surprising if for others the evidence comes as an attack that threatens to undermine the foundation of their faith, and has to be beaten off blindfold.
What confuses people is how evangelical some atheists can be. Worse than door knocking Jehovahs in comes cases - just watch Michael Shermer for example.
I just keep to myself and appreciate everyone who does same.
