Originally posted by Christine:
...
So I'm curious what the next new thing will be and hoping very much it won't be Scientology.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:It's a trend I've noticed over the past few years in movies and TV--we need to start giving credence to ghost stories. I'm especially puzzled at how many of these comments are coming from my religious friends. I was taught (as a young Baptist) that all of those horror ghost movies were hogwash. That exorcism was a Catholic thing--and even they don't like publicizing it.
Paranormal Activity may possibly the best tool to teach about the importance of spiritual warfare. It's about time you people realized this stuff is more real than you think. Ephesians 6:12.
quote:Now that's a verse I'd never heard on Sunday morning! Is the translation funky or is that what it's supposed to say?
5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
quote:And some of us do neither.
For every Christian I know who rejects the mumbo-jumbo about demons and Satan and witches and ghosts, I hear from people who honestly in their hearts think "Harry Potter" and ghost stories will destroy their relationship with Jesus.
quote:I think, actually, those probably ARE more obviously "not real" than ghosts. Werewolves and vampires would preumably need biological explanations that don't seem to make sense, whereas ghosts would not, for one thing. So I don't think one can lump all "supernatural" things together and declare them all equal.
Or werewolves and vampires? Are those more obviously "not real" than the ghosts?
quote:I wouldn't call it a middle ground. One one hand, I believe some of the "supernatural" things you mentioned really exist in some manner, even if I wouldn't use those terms. On the other hand, I enjoy Harry Potter, Tolkien, and other fantasy books, and play D&D with my children.
If you don't mind, what is that middle ground, mph?
quote:It's whether the viewer thinks that the events in the movie could happen. I'd guess there are more people in America who believe that the basic events in The Exorcists could happen than believe that the basic events of Casper or Dracula could happen.
Where is the line drawn between The Headless Horseman, Casper, Dracula, Harry Potter and The Exorcist?
quote:Not exactly. I'm not saying they were possessed, but if they were that does not necessarily preclude them being terrible people in the first place. Evil people are pretty prime real estate as far as demonic possession goes.
Another thing that bothers me is the idea that guys like Hitler and Sadaam Hussein were possessed by demons. It glosses over the fact that humans can be awful on their own.
quote:That was misspelled. He meant "bitches". Porter is a gangsta rapper on the side. Jam Master P, featuring goats.
Originally posted by Noemon:
Porter, Blackblade, I'm curious by what you mean by "witches" when you say that you believe in them. How are you defining the term?
quote:This movie is really getting to people on a visceral level--but from what I've seen in the preview, I already know exactly what I'm gonna see. It's a horror movie for pete's sake.
I'm not freaked out because I'm a child of God and I know that even if something were to happen He would protect me
quote:I guess what's confusing me is that they're getting all serious about this movie instead of the movies about witches and werewolves and--how about serial killers? Aren't those all candidates for demonic possession?
I'm interested into seeing just how the "demon" in this is portrayed, because this real stuff that I've had real experiences dealing with. I'm more concerned with this movie misdirecting cultural views from real demonology than I am with it over sensationalizing stuff, mostly because from my experience it's pretty hard to over sensationalize just how demons and Satan work.
quote:I'm not sure I'd be very useful as a conversant on that topic. I believe they exist, I have not spent much time determining exactly what categorizes somebody as one.
Originally posted by Noemon:
Porter, Blackblade, I'm curious by what you mean by "witches" when you say that you believe in them. How are you defining the term?
quote:The vast majority of things a person learns in life are based on hearsay and habit - including most of one's education, where one is told what is true (hearsay) and trained to approach things in a certain way (habit). For instance, the duckbilled platypus makes as little sense as a unicorn does; the sole reason I believe in it is hearsay (I was told it exists.)
This is, of course, exactly why it is so important not to believe things based on hearsay and habit. Once you let in one piece of unsupported nonsense, you're terribly vulnerable to every other piece of it out there. Vampires, demons, ghosts, and witches are every bit as well supported by evidence as afterlives, resurrections, gods, and souls.
quote:Heh. I see how you snuck "souls" in there.
Informed human judgment can generally tell that things like gravity, souls, World War II, and duckbilled platypi seem to fit with what we know about the world in a way that werewolves and vampires do not.
quote:You have a funny way of quantifying evidence.
Originally posted by Tresopax:
I have far more evidence for souls than I do for World War II. The only evidence I have for World War II is what people have told me and what I've read.
quote:I believe we've had this conversation. I think it's cute you keep insisting, though.
I have far more evidence for souls than I do for World War II.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote:How should I quantify it differently? Do you agree that observations I can make directly on my own (repeatedly if necessary) should be counted as "more evidence" than things I've simply heard or been told by others?
You have a funny way of quantifying evidence.
quote:Presumably this is not the variety of witches to which we are referring.
My sister in law is a witch, though I believe she prefers the term wiccan (but witch is still ok with her).
quote:I'm not going to speculate on whether the soul exists after death, what sort of material (or nonmaterial) is is made of, or where it comes from, etc. because I have very little firsthand information on that. Take that out and I think the basics boil down to a thing that is your "self" which is mental and not identical to your physical body.
The soul, in many religions, spiritual traditions, and philosophies, is the spiritual and eternal part of a living being, commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; distinct from the physical part. It is typically thought to consist of ones consciousness and personality, and can be synonymous with the spirit, mind or self.[1] The soul is believed to live on after the person’s physical death, and some religions posit that God creates souls. In some cultures, non-human living things, and sometimes other objects (such as rivers) are said to have souls, a belief known as animism.[2]
The terms soul and spirit are often used interchangeably, although the latter may be viewed as a more worldly and less transcendent aspect of a person than the former.[3] The words soul and psyche can also be treated synonymously, although psyche has relatively more physical connotations, whereas soul is connected more closely to metaphysics and religion.
quote:I'm not sure why you would presume that.
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Presumably this is not the variety of witches to which we are referring.
My sister in law is a witch, though I believe she prefers the term wiccan (but witch is still ok with her).
quote:Well, yes and no. It is entirely possible that the soul arises in some way from neural activity in the brain. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist as something distinct from the brain.
A soul seems like such an unnecessary explanation for what can be explained by studying the brain.
quote:The big huge glaring theological difference is that a spell is an attempt to wield power directly, while a prayer is a request made of someone else.
Originally posted by Christine:
The "spells" are basically prayers, dressed up in ritual.
quote:Not always. I recall my Wiccan friends asking this goddess or that to perform some action for them on many occasions. Also, there are some LDS ordinances that *are* a direct wielding of power. A priesthood blessing, for instance.
The big huge glaring theological difference is that a spell is an attempt to wield power directly, while a prayer is a request made of someone else.
quote:Because the majority of those sort of witches are deluded teens that eventually grow out of it. Presumably it's OK to suffer them to live. Or should I not presume that either?
I'm not sure why you would presume that.
quote:I don't know...I've always thought of prayer as an attempt to wield power, even if it is done in a humbling way. It's a sort of "ask and ye shall receive" power.
Originally posted by dkw:
quote:The big huge glaring theological difference is that a spell is an attempt to wield power directly, while a prayer is a request made of someone else.
Originally posted by Christine:
The "spells" are basically prayers, dressed up in ritual.
quote:As people have already mentioned, most Wiccan "spells" involve drawing on the power of something else, even if the caster is the one choosing the target.
The big huge glaring theological difference is that a spell is an attempt to wield power directly...
quote:You must not have the history channel then.
I have far more evidence for souls than I do for World War II. The only evidence I have for World War II is what people have told me and what I've read.
quote:But then here's the question: Should I believe you when you say all of that? And if I do, isn't that hearsay?
My junior high school was bombed by the British, trying to get the U-boat bunker down in the harbour (which still stands; the reinforced concrete has been "too expensive to knock down" for sixty years now). A rusting old bombshell still stands in the schoolyard, as a reminder of the children who died. My grandfather fought in the war, had a destroyer sunk beneath him in the battle off Crete, and lived to personally tell me the tale.
quote:Yes, and "drawing on" power vs requesting a favor of someone else is exactly what distinguishes the definition of magic from the definition of (suplicatory) prayer. Which is not saying that wiccans don't ever pray or that Christians don't ever attempt magic.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:As people have already mentioned, most Wiccan "spells" involve drawing on the power of something else, even if the caster is the one choosing the target.
The big huge glaring theological difference is that a spell is an attempt to wield power directly...
quote:Well, you don't, but the ways in which you think you do are at least interesting on a level of willful belief.
I have far more evidence for souls than I do for World War II.
quote:Ok, but does this distinction make one approach supernatural?
Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Yes, and "drawing on" power vs requesting a favor of someone else is exactly what distinguishes the definition of magic from the definition of (suplicatory) prayer. Which is not saying that wiccans don't ever pray or that Christians don't ever attempt magic.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:As people have already mentioned, most Wiccan "spells" involve drawing on the power of something else, even if the caster is the one choosing the target.
The big huge glaring theological difference is that a spell is an attempt to wield power directly...
quote:Yeah, that was probably a bad question, now that I think about it a bit.
Originally posted by dkw:
Yes. And also the other one.
ETA: Wait . . . that would depend on your definition of "natural" I suppose. I can see definitions by which only one or the other would fit.
quote:Wait, what about prayer and/or spells do you think is unexplained?
Honestly, I think of them as both natural phenomena that we simply have not managed to explain but that, in the meantime, make a great many people feel at peace.
quote:No, I mean the other huge glaring difference. The one that fugu13 asked you about. The one that is inseparable from any common definition of "soul". Where it is something separable and distinct from your corpus.
Originally posted by Tresopax:
Scifi, I explained the gap in the two sentence below the quote.
quote:You're pretty close to my predicament Matt. Wiccan's call themselves witches, and there may be elements to their belief that skirt forbidden territory but I couldn't say right now.
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Because the majority of those sort of witches are deluded teens that eventually grow out of it. Presumably it's OK to suffer them to live. Or should I not presume that either?
I'm not sure why you would presume that.
EDIT: Also because BlackBlade said it was hard to define. "Wiccan" isn't a difficult definition, so I assumed he meant something else.
quote:This just describes a difference between Magical spells and Clerical spells. It's just a matter of how you use the word.
The big huge glaring theological difference is that a spell is an attempt to wield power directly, while a prayer is a request made of someone else.
quote:You would need verification from impartial third parties. Otherwise we would have to accept the ravings of every schizophrenic as true.
Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:One of these things is not like the other.....
)
This does not make one more "vulnerable" to believing nonsense. Informed human judgment can generally tell that things like gravity, souls, World War II, and duckbilled platypi seem to fit with what we know about the world in a way that werewolves and vampires do not.
quote:How should I quantify it differently? Do you agree that observations I can make directly on my own (repeatedly if necessary) should be counted as "more evidence" than things I've simply heard or been told by others?
Originally posted by Tresopax:
[QUOTE]You have a funny way of quantifying evidence.
quote:Aren't most spells more a request from spirits of place or ancestors for assistance? Than a direct attempt at wielding power?
Originally posted by dkw:
quote:The big huge glaring theological difference is that a spell is an attempt to wield power directly, while a prayer is a request made of someone else.
Originally posted by Christine:
The "spells" are basically prayers, dressed up in ritual.
quote:You've gotta love progress
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
And, of course, prior to a couple years ago, you needed to spend a couple hours every morning re-reading all the spells you expected to cast that day, whereas the religious could spend a roughly equivalent amount of time praying in advance for fairly minor and often oddly specific acts of divine intervention.
quote:I don't think anyone knows what "most spells" are like.
Aren't most spells more a request from spirits of place or ancestors for assistance? Than a direct attempt at wielding power?
quote:So did I.
Originally posted by aeolusdallas:
I meant as practiced by actual believers.
quote:Read the Bible (whichever translation you wish) from cover to cover some day. You will be surprised what doesn't come up on Sunday morning.
Now that's a verse I'd never heard on Sunday morning! Is the translation funky or is that what it's supposed to say?
quote:No, it's not like it is in fantasy books or games. That much I can agree with.
Originally posted by aeolusdallas:
You said I don't think anyone knows what "most spells" are like." I was asking what actual believers think spells are. Considering how metaphorical magic is in folklore and myth I think we can ask the question with some confidence as to what most spells are or are not.
I don't believe in magic, spirits , gods etc... but that doesn't mean I am not interested in the ideas behind them. I am pretty sure that as a general rule casting magic spells was an attempt at invoking aide from spirits of place or asking ones ancestors or the spirits of specific individuals for assistance. It was not usually an attempt to directly wield power as is done in fantasy books or games.
quote:From a Google search "Wicca" "what is magic":
Originally posted by aeolusdallas:
I am pretty sure that as a general rule casting magic spells was an attempt at invoking aide from spirits of place or asking ones ancestors or the spirits of specific individuals for assistance. It was not usually an attempt to directly wield power as is done in fantasy books or games.
quote:The problem with running a Google search on what Wiccans see as magic is that there are multiple traditions of Wicca (much to Gardenarian Wiccan's chagrin) much as there are different sects of Christianity. What one believes is magic or what they do or call upon to help them in spell-craft is not necessarily what another person who is also Wiccan might believe. I can tell you what it is or means to me, but not even all spells are performed the same, call upon the same sources depending on what the intended goal is, the time of year, or heck, the time of month!
Originally posted by dkw:
From a Google search "Wicca" "what is magic":
First result (skipping a spam ad page): "As Witches we cast spells and use magic to our advantage or for the advantage of those around us. This is done by manipulating the forces of the universe to gain what we seek."
Next result (skipping selling-things pages): "Magick is another word for transformation, creation, and manifestation. Wicca magick is a tool we use to act on the subtle - or energy, or quantum - level of reality. "
quote:This was a really disappointing thing to hear you say. That's very much like if I said that most 'Born Again' Christian teens would eventually grow out of their love for their God. Although I acknowledge that a large number of verbose Wiccans are teenagers, perhaps the 'growing out of it' that you are seeing is simply them 'growing up' and realizing that they are perhaps not being the best spokespeople for a religion they want other people to respect.
Originally posted by MattP:
Because the majority of those sort of witches are deluded teens that eventually grow out of it.
quote:This was the point I was trying to make when I saw that I doubted anyone knew what "most spells" were like. Aside from the different traditions of Wicca, there are also other traditions around the world that incorporate spells in their religion. But even if we just look at Wicca, one of the numerous traditions is that of the solitary practitioner, in which case each individual may have a slightly different take on things.
Originally posted by FriendlyNeighborhoodWitch:
quote:The problem with running a Google search on what Wiccans see as magic is that there are multiple traditions of Wicca (much to Gardenarian Wiccan's chagrin) much as there are different sects of Christianity. What one believes is magic or what they do or call upon to help them in spell-craft is not necessarily what another person who is also Wiccan might believe. I can tell you what it is or means to me, but not even all spells are performed the same, call upon the same sources depending on what the intended goal is, the time of year, or heck, the time of month!
Originally posted by dkw:
From a Google search "Wicca" "what is magic":
First result (skipping a spam ad page): "As Witches we cast spells and use magic to our advantage or for the advantage of those around us. This is done by manipulating the forces of the universe to gain what we seek."
Next result (skipping selling-things pages): "Magick is another word for transformation, creation, and manifestation. Wicca magick is a tool we use to act on the subtle - or energy, or quantum - level of reality. "
quote:I'm not sure how many people see Wicca as a religion.
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
Because the majority of those sort of witches are deluded teens that eventually grow out of it.
This was a really disappointing thing to hear you say. That's very much like if I said that most 'Born Again' Christian teens would eventually grow out of their love for their God. Although I acknowledge that a large number of verbose Wiccans are teenagers, perhaps the 'growing out of it' that you are seeing is simply them 'growing up' and realizing that they are perhaps not being the best spokespeople for a religion they want other people to respect.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:In how other people view Wicca, I think that this is dead on. I find it extremely unfortunate, but can only do my part to help other people understand my religion and correct misunderstandings when I see them.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I think Wicca, as an intentional religion, is roughly on par with Kwanzaa as an intentional holiday; because it didn't grow organically out of the culture, it'll take a couple more generations before the majority will take it seriously.
quote:It's good to hear that.
Originally posted by scholarette:
My sister in law is not a teenager. She is a married adult with a master's degree and a house, currently working on her phd (history, specifically looking at scientific advances and how they affect things).
People are often surprised to find out that my husband and I are Wiccan. We are, after all, seemingly well-adjusted adults. It has to do with that mis-conception that was discussed above.quote:Then she's clearly not a member of group that I identified. Most of the Wiccans I've met were teens that were more role-playing than practicing a religion. I don't mean to demean Wicca itself. I think it's as real as any religion and does have committed adherents.
My sister in law is not a teenager.
quote:I'm not sure what you mean when you say "grow organically out of the culture." I've tried to draft a couple of responses to this but in each one I realize I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at, so I'll just see if I can get a clarification before adding more thoughts.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I think Wicca, as an intentional religion, is roughly on par with Kwanzaa as an intentional holiday; because it didn't grow organically out of the culture, it'll take a couple more generations before the majority will take it seriously.
quote:I've run into two distinct subgroups in this case. The first is the teens you've mentioned and I don't think they understand what they're doing. I doubt very much that they're even looking for a religion so much as real-life magic.
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Then she's clearly not a member of group that I identified. Most of the Wiccans I've met were teens that were more role-playing than practicing a religion. I don't mean to demean Wicca itself. I think it's as real as any religion and does have committed adherents.
My sister in law is not a teenager.
My real point was that I could hardly see these faux-pagan teens being the sort of witch who's deeds would be worthy of death per the admonition in the Bible.
quote:I mean, speaking bluntly, Wicca in its current form was pretty much invented out of whole cloth within our lifetimes to achieve a certain purpose and somewhat awkwardly grafted onto slightly Bowdlerized older traditions to give it a sense of weight and historic legitimacy. The same thing happened with Kwanzaa.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "grow organically out of the culture." I've tried to draft a couple of responses to this but in each one I realize I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at, so I'll just see if I can get a clarification before adding more thoughts.
quote:Pre-Englightenment, Christians cast "spells" with no apparent contradiction with their faith. They did not see themselves as consorting with demons, but rather teasing out the hidden structures and forces of the universe and manipulating them. It was heavily based on the first chapter of John's Gospel, where God is described as the Word. Words, used correctly, could tap into the divine echoes in the universe and effect results. It wasn't prayer, but it wasn't calling on demons either.
Originally posted by aeolusdallas:
quote:Aren't most spells more a request from spirits of place or ancestors for assistance? Than a direct attempt at wielding power?
Originally posted by dkw:
quote:The big huge glaring theological difference is that a spell is an attempt to wield power directly, while a prayer is a request made of someone else.
Originally posted by Christine:
The "spells" are basically prayers, dressed up in ritual.
quote:Christianity both previous to Christ's advent and immediately afterward had nothing to do with "casting spells." The only significant with words has to do with invoking the name of Christ as mediator in addressing the Father of creation in prayer. Beyond that you could argue that sacraments and rituals attached an importance to certain words for their symbolic value. Certainly apostates incorporated superstition into Christianity thus bastardizing it but the text does not support those practices.
Originally posted by Eaquae Legit:
quote:Pre-Englightenment, Christians cast "spells" with no apparent contradiction with their faith. They did not see themselves as consorting with demons, but rather teasing out the hidden structures and forces of the universe and manipulating them. It was heavily based on the first chapter of John's Gospel, where God is described as the Word. Words, used correctly, could tap into the divine echoes in the universe and effect results. It wasn't prayer, but it wasn't calling on demons either.
Originally posted by aeolusdallas:
quote:Aren't most spells more a request from spirits of place or ancestors for assistance? Than a direct attempt at wielding power?
Originally posted by dkw:
quote:The big huge glaring theological difference is that a spell is an attempt to wield power directly, while a prayer is a request made of someone else.
Originally posted by Christine:
The "spells" are basically prayers, dressed up in ritual.
And until a bunch of English Restorationists got their knickers in a twist about it all, it was perfectly okay and Christian. We get our ideas about demon-magic and the separation of signifier from signified from them.
And having learned all this, I find myself with more sympathy for wiccans who can't understand why Christians keep telling them they worship demons.
quote:This seems at odds with the rigidity of certain LDS ordinances where a single mis-spoken word may render the ordinance invalid.
Again, Christianity does not attach importance to words in accomplishing difficult tasks, rather in having the faith and will to accomplish it.
quote:Don't worry, the rest of us did as well.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Heh. I see how you snuck "souls" in there.
Informed human judgment can generally tell that things like gravity, souls, World War II, and duckbilled platypi seem to fit with what we know about the world in a way that werewolves and vampires do not.
quote:I thought that's where you were going, but I wasn't entirely sure. It is true that Wicca is new (early 20th century, which is slightly longer than my lifetime but not much). From what I can tell it draws on a number of traditions, many of which are generously reinterpreted. I don't believe it was invented whole cloth because I don't think anything is invented out of nothing. Every religion I've ever heard of draws on what came before if for no other reason than because, in filling a need that does not already exist, it must at least separate itself in significant ways from current traditions.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I mean, speaking bluntly, Wicca in its current form was pretty much invented out of whole cloth within our lifetimes to achieve a certain purpose and somewhat awkwardly grafted onto slightly Bowdlerized older traditions to give it a sense of weight and historic legitimacy. The same thing happened with Kwanzaa.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "grow organically out of the culture." I've tried to draft a couple of responses to this but in each one I realize I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at, so I'll just see if I can get a clarification before adding more thoughts.
That's not to say that the practice of Wicca has no value, or that the observation of Kwanzaa lacks value, either. It's just that both those things are recent enough that their intentionality is obvious to the casual observer, which prevents people from perceiving them as fully "traditional." Religions and holidays both benefit enormously from a glossy veneer of tradition. Generally it takes a generation or two from the death of the founder(s) for people to forget where they came from.
), just trying to figure out what the appeal was both historically and presently. And I'm picking on that one because as a religion it has come out of its infancy relatively recently and is rapidly gaining acceptance (although not by everyone I know).
quote:May I ask why you feel the desire to believe in something supernatural?
I've also been noticing a large number of people who, while unsatisfied with Christianity, still want to believe in something. I'm one of these people, as a matter of fact...
quote:Belief is such a strong word. I prefer to have ideas because then I can change them when it feels right. As far as supernatural or godly things go, I don't know that I'm ready to embrace any specific ideas but I do know that I'm not at peace and that I feel there is something out there. So I've been reading. And I'm not close to done reading so I'm reluctant to commit to much of anything. The most I can say is that I started meditating, which is something I find very relaxing and I can't argue with results.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:May I ask why you feel the desire to believe in something supernatural?
I've also been noticing a large number of people who, while unsatisfied with Christianity, still want to believe in something. I'm one of these people, as a matter of fact...
quote:Experience itself isn't physical by nature, in a way similar to how I know that the number seven is not made of clay. That's just not what it is.
Tres: tell me, in what way did you experience it not being part of your physical body?
quote:Being distinct from the body is part of my definition. Being separable from the body is not. See the above example of the auia, which is a physical thing. Or for instance, Aristotle did not believe the soul was separable from the body. ("The soul does not exist without a body and yet is not itself a kind of body. For it is not a body, but something which belongs to a body, and for this reason exists in a body, and in a body of such-and-such a kind" -Aristotle)
No, I mean the other huge glaring difference. The one that fugu13 asked you about. The one that is inseparable from any common definition of "soul". Where it is something separable and distinct from your corpus.
quote:I'm hoping that it won't be another Taiping (a Chinese adaptation of Christianity in the way that Mormonism is an American adaptation of Christianity).
Originally posted by Christine:
...
So I'm curious what the next new thing will be and hoping very much it won't be Scientology.
quote:By an 'alternate perspective,' since science is not going to make the claim "there are no spirits" that scientific research of paranormal claims has shown people who claim to have the ability to talk to or sense spirits are most likely either frauds or have susceptibility to fantastical interpretation of events and otherwise mundane sensory phenomena due to tendencies towards a fantasy-prone personality?
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Samprimary: I said "Spirits and those who seek to commune with them." I placed them in a group together. Even if it's just the spirit talkers who decrease, that in of itself reduces how often spirits have occasion to manifest themselves. I don't think science actually reduces the number of spirits in the world, but it does reduce the number of people who might seek to explain the unexplained through spirituality, by providing an alternate often correct perspective.
quote:OK, I guess I'm not following where we disagree.
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:By an 'alternate perspective,' since science is not going to make the claim "there are no spirits" that scientific research of paranormal claims has shown people who claim to have the ability to talk to or sense spirits are most likely either frauds or have susceptibility to fantastical interpretation of events and otherwise mundane sensory phenomena due to tendencies towards a fantasy-prone personality?
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Samprimary: I said "Spirits and those who seek to commune with them." I placed them in a group together. Even if it's just the spirit talkers who decrease, that in of itself reduces how often spirits have occasion to manifest themselves. I don't think science actually reduces the number of spirits in the world, but it does reduce the number of people who might seek to explain the unexplained through spirituality, by providing an alternate often correct perspective.
quote:But you must know, although probably not by personal experience, that consciousness can be damaged in very specific, repeatable ways by damaging parts of the brain. What sort of "distinct" entity is it that responds so exactly to damage to the entity it is supposed to be distinct from?
Being distinct from the body is part of my definition.
quote:And if that were the only copy of the software, anywhere, then where is the distinct software after you've smashed the computer? Somewhere in idea-space? In fact the software isn't distinct at all: It exists as a magnetic pattern on the computer's hard drive, or as the case may be, in its memory. There is nothing separate from the plain movements of electrons.
My computer is distinct from the software on it, but if you damage the computer, the software won't work either.
quote:More important than the 'critical mindset' is the practical basis for that mindset. What science does is test testable claims. Whenever a person who claims to be able to talk to spirits either steps out into (or gets caught in) a situation where their claims can be tested, it pretty much always turns out that they are either a huckster, or they earnestly interpret mundane experiences as supernatural influence due to a propensity for fantastical interpretation of the world around them. Everyone who assumes they can see souls or spirits or ghosts or whatever and earnestly believes it should understand based on the human propensity for inventing certainty that the odds are they're just victims of the same process, but reliably trend towards assuming some special case on their own behalf.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Raymond: See I thought I was making Samprimary's point and in addition to that making the statement that science creates a critical mindset where people are less likely to look to spirits or those who claim to speak to them as much.
quote:That's exactly my point: Software and hardware are distinct in spite of the fact that the software originates from the hardware. Therefore, two things can be distinct even if one originates entirely from the other.
In fact the software isn't distinct at all: It exists as a magnetic pattern on the computer's hard drive, or as the case may be, in its memory. There is nothing separate from the plain movements of electrons.
quote:No, I don't believe having a soul means one has a set personality. Clearly nobody has a set, unchanging personality.
So your argument is that the person whose personality is fundamentally changed by, say, a chemical imbalance has a secret, separate personality that remains unchanged somewhere?
quote:True much of the time, but I also think that people who dabble seriously into communication with spirits do not seek out publicity or skeptical scientists.
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:More important than the 'critical mindset' is the practical basis for that mindset. What science does is test testable claims. Whenever a person who claims to be able to talk to spirits either steps out into (or gets caught in) a situation where their claims can be tested, it pretty much always turns out that they are either a huckster, or they earnestly interpret mundane experiences as supernatural influence due to a propensity for fantastical interpretation of the world around them. Everyone who assumes they can see souls or spirits or ghosts or whatever and earnestly believes it should understand based on the human propensity for inventing certainty that the odds are they're just victims of the same process, but reliably trend towards assuming some special case on their own behalf.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Raymond: See I thought I was making Samprimary's point and in addition to that making the statement that science creates a critical mindset where people are less likely to look to spirits or those who claim to speak to them as much.
quote:Some Christian denominations do not attach special importance to words, but some do. The Catholic and Orthodox traditions, for example, require very specific formulae (with some leeway for translation) for the sacraments. Alteration of the formulae beyond the accepted norm renders the sacrament invalid. These are NOT symbolic. The words and actions are entelechial. It's one of the few places where the pre-Enlightenment theories of language has been retained.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Christianity both previous to Christ's advent and immediately afterward had nothing to do with "casting spells." The only significant with words has to do with invoking the name of Christ as mediator in addressing the Father of creation in prayer. Beyond that you could argue that sacraments and rituals attached an importance to certain words for their symbolic value. Certainly apostates incorporated superstition into Christianity thus bastardizing it but the text does not support those practices.
Originally posted by Eaquae Legit:
quote:Pre-Englightenment, Christians cast "spells" with no apparent contradiction with their faith. They did not see themselves as consorting with demons, but rather teasing out the hidden structures and forces of the universe and manipulating them. It was heavily based on the first chapter of John's Gospel, where God is described as the Word. Words, used correctly, could tap into the divine echoes in the universe and effect results. It wasn't prayer, but it wasn't calling on demons either.
Originally posted by aeolusdallas:
quote:Aren't most spells more a request from spirits of place or ancestors for assistance? Than a direct attempt at wielding power?
Originally posted by dkw:
quote:The big huge glaring theological difference is that a spell is an attempt to wield power directly, while a prayer is a request made of someone else.
Originally posted by Christine:
The "spells" are basically prayers, dressed up in ritual.
And until a bunch of English Restorationists got their knickers in a twist about it all, it was perfectly okay and Christian. We get our ideas about demon-magic and the separation of signifier from signified from them.
And having learned all this, I find myself with more sympathy for wiccans who can't understand why Christians keep telling them they worship demons.
Again, Christianity does not attach importance to words in accomplishing difficult tasks, rather in having the faith and will to accomplish it.
quote:And this is also true, at least in the popular mindset, for Mormons. I've heard the following conversation more than once:
The Catholic and Orthodox traditions, for example, require very specific formulae (with some leeway for translation) for the sacraments. Alteration of the formulae beyond the accepted norm renders the sacrament invalid.
quote:They don't need to to change the fundamental nature of why they think they can communicate with spirits.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
True much of the time, but I also think that people who dabble seriously into communication with spirits do not seek out publicity or skeptical scientists.
quote:A sacrament is not the words, it's the deeds, and the words have changed over time. In fact, I think the only important thing for the sacrament of marriage, for example, is that two people agree to it. The words are highly negotiable. I remember the priest sitting down with my husband and I before we got married and explaining that particular sacrament to us and he summed up by saying that if anything went wrong on the day of the wedding, the only thing he cared about was that my husband and I showed up. Everything else he could deal with.
Originally posted by Eaquae Legit:
Some Christian denominations do not attach special importance to words, but some do. The Catholic and Orthodox traditions, for example, require very specific formulae (with some leeway for translation) for the sacraments. Alteration of the formulae beyond the accepted norm renders the sacrament invalid.
quote:But it is not the official stance of the church. I'm sure if you look hard enough you'll find Catholics who believe almost anything, but Eaquae Legit was suggesting that this was the stance of the church, which is not true.
Originally posted by scholarette:
Christine- my brother in law will only go to a Catholic church if the mass is in Latin. For him, if it is not the specific Latin words, it is not the sacrament and not worth doing. He has a very traditional view of his religion, and while he is in the minority (based on what a hard time he has finding services that he doesn't consider too modern), there are still some Catholics who think that way.
quote:Sure, because words have meanings, and if your diction strays far from the accepted standard the essence of the ritual is also lost. It's why Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland would make a terrible priest.
Some Christian denominations do not attach special importance to words, but some do. The Catholic and Orthodox traditions, for example, require very specific formulae (with some leeway for translation) for the sacraments. Alteration of the formulae beyond the accepted norm renders the sacrament invalid. These are NOT symbolic. The words and actions are entelechial. It's one of the few places where the pre-Enlightenment theories of language has been retained.
quote:Have you actually studied the history/teachings of the Catholic/Orthodox church of that time period? Or the neighboring religions? Or is the sentence I quoted just based on LDS teaching about "the apostacy"?
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I completely concede that within about 250 years Christianity was swallowed by other religions and then ate it's way out of their stomachs so that it was virtually indistinguishable from it's neighboring religions.
quote:I'd wager a combination of both. The LDS church does not do a very detailed look at The Apostasy in it's Sunday School classes, there are quite a few books published that discuss the issue including a book by the name The Great Apostasy by James E. Talmage.
Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Have you actually studied the history/teachings of the Catholic/Orthodox church of that time period? Or the neighboring religions? Or is the sentence I quoted just based on LDS teaching about "the apostacy"?
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I completely concede that within about 250 years Christianity was swallowed by other religions and then ate it's way out of their stomachs so that it was virtually indistinguishable from it's neighboring religions.
quote:Sorry for double posting, but moving mountains is not even cursorily on God's agenda as far as the scriptures outline. I don't really see much benefit in mountain moving, but you could always hang out at the Mount of Olives until Jesus splits it in two. In fact the only recorded instance of it happening that I can recall is in the Mormon canon, not the Bible.
Originally posted by King of Men:
So just where do all these mountains go, that are being moved by people with faith the size of a mustard seed? By this standard, it seems to me that we've had 2000 years of remarkably faithless Christians.
quote:Irrelevant. I am specifically asking about your assertion that Christianity around 300 CE was "virtually indistinguishable from it's neighboring religions."
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I still think that things as they were setup by Jesus and the original twelve apostles quickly changed in essence especially after they (the apostles) were dead. Many organizations have attempted to restore things to how they were back in 30ish AD, not just Mormonism, and those efforts were to a varying degree successful.
quote:You mean, apart from the Jesus aphorism that you just quoted? But even taking it as a metaphor, just what is it that the faithful to the correct religion have accomplished, which those of other religions or none have not done? Or perhaps Jesus is doing some sort of self-help "believe in your self-confidence" boosterism? I would expect a bit more of a self-proclaimed deity.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Sorry for double posting, but moving mountains is not even cursorily on God's agenda as far as the scriptures outline.
Originally posted by King of Men:
[qb] So just where do all these mountains go, that are being moved by people with faith the size of a mustard seed? By this standard, it seems to me that we've had 2000 years of remarkably faithless Christians.
quote:300CE was the hey day of the change I mentioned. When I mean indistinguishable from neighboring religions I do not mean there was no way to distinguish the two, I mean that in terms of superstitious practices it was finding ways to incorporate those beliefs in order to facilitate conversion.
Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Irrelevant. I am specifically asking about your assertion that Christianity around 300 CE was "virtually indistinguishable from it's neighboring religions."
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I still think that things as they were setup by Jesus and the original twelve apostles quickly changed in essence especially after they (the apostles) were dead. Many organizations have attempted to restore things to how they were back in 30ish AD, not just Mormonism, and those efforts were to a varying degree successful.
quote:You can take all of the below as accounting for authorised translations.
Originally posted by Christine:
quote:A sacrament is not the words, it's the deeds, and the words have changed over time. In fact, I think the only important thing for the sacrament of marriage, for example, is that two people agree to it. The words are highly negotiable. I remember the priest sitting down with my husband and I before we got married and explaining that particular sacrament to us and he summed up by saying that if anything went wrong on the day of the wedding, the only thing he cared about was that my husband and I showed up. Everything else he could deal with.
Originally posted by Eaquae Legit:
Some Christian denominations do not attach special importance to words, but some do. The Catholic and Orthodox traditions, for example, require very specific formulae (with some leeway for translation) for the sacraments. Alteration of the formulae beyond the accepted norm renders the sacrament invalid.
The religion may be bathed in ritual and tradition but varying the ritual definitely does not make a sacrament invalid if your heart is in the right place.
This is why I don't take communion, even for my mother's sake, when she manages to convince me to go to church nowadays. I don't believe it's the body of Christ and so to take it, even saying all the words and following all the tradition, still renders the sacrament invalid and disrespectful to those who do believe. It's what's in my heart, not my mouth, that matters.
quote:You look pretty good for someone of your advanced years.
Originally posted by Eaquae Legit:
it has been this way, unchanged, for at least 1000 years (when my personal knowledge of sacramental theology peters out).
quote:I'd give you some of the images I made of various manuals and penitentiaries, but the head archivist would hunt me down and slap me with a copyright infringement lawsuit so fast I wouldn't have time to say "mea culpa!" I'm not 1000 years old, but some of my books are.
Originally posted by Christine:
Eaquae Legit: Um, you are aware that if you're driving down the street and see someone has gotten into a bad accident and there is no priest available that anyone can perform an emergency baptism or anointing of the sick. No need for water of any sort, holy or otherwise. Just a pure intent and a real need.
As far as who has told me this stuff: At least a dozen priests, nuns, and various Catholic school catechism teachers I've had over the years at 4 churches in two states. Plus, the ones my husband had growing up in a different state.
And if you really are over 100 years old then you age has worked against you. A great deal changed in the Catholic church at the convening of Vatican II in the 1960's. You should check it out. I don't think this changed at Vatican II, but since I was born in 1977 I'm not as familiar with what came before as you, who apparently were born in the early 1900's.
I'm lazy, though, so I don't do much pre-Gratian, hence the 1000 years.quote:OK that helps me understand where you are coming from when you use that word. But looks at the way Jesus administered the Eucharist. He brake bread, blessed it, and said, "This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me." Luke 22:19. I'm partial to the notion that gospel ordinances ought to be done in a uniform manner, as people frequently tamper and change to suit their individual feelings and over time rituals can become completely different then their original intent. But what makes a combination of words have efficacy? Do the words themselves when spoken in a certain combination suddenly generate a result? I fully agree that a Christian ordinances must be done in the name of God, or it is to no effect, but that's not because I believe the phrase itself has power.
'm using "entelechial" because I find when I use "effective" it doesn't convey the meaning I want it to. It means an active effectiveness, as in to create an effect. Its antonym would perhaps be "symbolic"? As an example (and I apologise if this is unclear), when a Catholic priest intones the Eucharistic formula, he's not just saying that the bread and wine are symbolic of flesh and blood; the words make it happen, they effect it.
quote:Near as I can tell she has questioned where I get my opinions on the matter, not much else yet. I respect her knowledge on Christian history very much.
Happily, dkw is doing a better job than I could of addressing your other points.
quote:I'm not sure why you are saying this. I would say The Acts is a fantastic book in describing the early church before it became corrupted.
The fact that the Jesus-movement did not remain Jewish is well noted in the Bible, but it doesn't make the Jesus-followers of Acts unChristian.
quote:Wait, the Nicene creed defines gnosticism? How so? How are you defining gnosticism, BlackBlade?
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
The Apostles creed does indeed not lend itself well to gnosticism, but the Nicene creed practically defines it.[/QB]
quote:Are you asserting that Jesus was not saying "Have faith in God" but rather "Have faith in yourself" or perhaps "in eventual success"? Because, as noted, self-help claptrap we do not need divine revelation for, people will insist on extracting it from the activities of spiders, if there's nothing more inspirational around. So, fine, if you wish to reduce Jesus' words to some sort of anodyne pep talk, then I won't dispute their truth. But in that case I suggest you do not quote them from him; people might mistake your faith for something no deeper than the beliefs of an average self-help junkie. On the other hand, if Jesus is asserting that having faith in the religious sense, and worshipping the correct god, is a path to great accomplishments, then that seems eminently measureable. Just for starters, you could check whether religious graduate students defend faster than non-religious ones.
I'm not sure how you could demonstrate that faith does not help in any measurable way unless you managed to document every single action a person might take both with and without faith and observe success rates. I think it's demonstrably true that a person who believes they may succeed tend to succeed more than people who do not believe.
quote:I think the two things are related but different. The mind is one's thoughts, feelings, memories, etc. The soul is the essential "self - and the entity that experiences those thoughts, feelings, and memories. I'm not sure there could be a mind without a soul, since I'm not sure what it would mean to have experiences without an experiencer.
Tres, are you making any particular effort to separate the words "mind" and "soul?" If you're merely trying to prove the existence of the mind, we already believe you, and you shouldn't be using such loaded terminology.
quote:This is language as a trap for the mind. You are just spinning words to try to make meaning. In what way does the software exist independent of the movement of electrons? It doesn't! You are just repeating "distinct, distinct, lalala" in an attempt to rescue your sense of self.
That's exactly my point: Software and hardware are distinct in spite of the fact that the software originates from the hardware. Therefore, two things can be distinct even if one originates entirely from the other.
quote:Equivocation.
There's a logical fallacy where one changes the definition of a word in the middle of an argument (or in a later argument), and continue to build off of points made with the original definition even though they're talking about completely different things.
quote:This sense of distinctness is utterly useless, especially for arguing about souls. Suppose I put three pebbles in a triangle on my desk. If you want to argue that the "triangle-ness" is distinct from the actual pebbles, fine, but you are committing the logical fallacy of so bloody what? What consequences does this have? A "distinct" entity that is completely dependent on the things it is supposedly distinct from has no meaningful distinctness; it is at the absolute best a convenient shorthand - "the triangle" is shorter than "the three pebbles", "the mind" is shorter than "the pattern of electrons and neurons making up your brain". The actual universe does not contain three pebbles and a triangle; it contains three pebbles. Done. To reify high-level abstractions is classic magical thinking; you might as well argue that an aircraft is distinct from the atoms it consists of, and expect to be able to extract "aircraft-ness" from it by the right rituals.
Software on a computer doesn't exist independent of electrons, but it is distinct from those electrons.
quote:To be clear then, I believe the soul is a "mental" component (in the sense I just described) and is distinct from the body, and that I have strong evidence that such a thing exists. I also believe it is eternal and separable from the body, but I don't think I can prove either of those things with any earthly evidence, and I don't think they are properties true by definition for souls. (So, I could not make an argument like "We have souls, and souls are by definition eternal, therefore we have an afterlife." The second premise would be wrong.)
In your case, you've made numerous statements in the past that strongly suggest you believe in the more traditional "mental component, eternal and separate from body" definition of soul. So when you start using the word way you are now, you give the impression (whether you intend to or not) that you may be setting yourself up to later employ a logical fallacy to make a point that isn't valid.
quote:The consequences relate to what is possible. If the triangle-ness is not distinct from the actual pebbles, then if I remove the pebbles and replace them with paperclips, the triangle-ness would have to be gone since the pebbles are gone. But if the triangle-ness is distinct from the pebbles, then it is possible that I can remove the pebbles and replace them with paperclips, and keep the triangle-ness intact even though the pebbles are gone.
If you want to argue that the "triangle-ness" is distinct from the actual pebbles, fine, but you are committing the logical fallacy of so bloody what? What consequences does this have?
quote:Really? Strong evidence of "souls" without bodies?
Originally posted by Tresopax:
To be clear then, I believe the soul is a "mental" component (in the sense I just described) and is distinct from the body, and that I have strong evidence that such a thing exists.
quote:She's still using confusing wording but I think Iknow what she means. Regardless of whether my consciousness is actually dependent on my brain, my perception of my "self" is independent of my perception of the physical world. Given that ultimately, all I HAVE is my perceptions to determine what is real or not, it is very conceivable to me that the same "self" that I identify as could somehow exist without my body.
Really? Strong evidence of "souls" without bodies?
quote:Yes, the combination of words produce the result, in the right circumstances. Since I'm not a priest, the Eucharistic invocation is ineffective if I say it. I've not been ordained to that office. Different situations require different words, and in the modern period, it's really only with Catholic and Orthodox sacraments and a handful of Protestant ordinances that it's even a question. But it used to be more widespread, potentially relevant in any situation if the occultist was a skilled enough rhetorician and orator.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
[QB] Eaquae Legit:quote:OK that helps me understand where you are coming from when you use that word. But looks at the way Jesus administered the Eucharist. He brake bread, blessed it, and said, "This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me." Luke 22:19. I'm partial to the notion that gospel ordinances ought to be done in a uniform manner, as people frequently tamper and change to suit their individual feelings and over time rituals can become completely different then their original intent. But what makes a combination of words have efficacy? Do the words themselves when spoken in a certain combination suddenly generate a result? I fully agree that a Christian ordinances must be done in the name of God, or it is to no effect, but that's not because I believe the phrase itself has power.
'm using "entelechial" because I find when I use "effective" it doesn't convey the meaning I want it to. It means an active effectiveness, as in to create an effect. Its antonym would perhaps be "symbolic"? As an example (and I apologise if this is unclear), when a Catholic priest intones the Eucharistic formula, he's not just saying that the bread and wine are symbolic of flesh and blood; the words make it happen, they effect it.
quote:I know.
I don't like using the Eucharist as our platform as I (not to be disparaging to Catholics) believe transubstantiation is not correct. When protestants or Mormons take communion the bread and water is blessed and served to the congregation, and taken in remembrance of Christ's body and blood. I suppose you could argue that actually blessing bread and water and transforming bread and water are different ends by the same process.
But the question of who is right or wrong (or who is apostate) is not something I'm keen to get into here. My original post was directed at the assertion that Christians never cast spells or invoked anything but the name of God. Historically, they did. They followed Jesus, they were wholly committed to Christianity, and their attempts were based in no small part on the gospel of John. There was no contradiction. Making all magic based on demonic powers is a relatively recent idea. If we can recognise each other as Christians today despite our differences in theology, then we are forced to admit the Christian-ness of pre-Enlightenment people as well.quote:In the past, people had problems thinking a (pre-lingual) mute could HAVE verbal thought. Since the development of signed languages, we've learned that deaf/mute people can and do think, and sign language is just as valid as spoken language.
But the fact we speak our words at our ordinances to me is a function of the fact that when words are spoken we listen, and it unifies the group in a single purpose. There is no impropriety in not speaking when praying, a mute could bless the sacrament themselves in their minds and then partake.
quote:You brought up the "triangle-ness" example. I'm not sure if triangle-ness exists or where it exists if it does - I'm just going with your example.
If I have pebbles in a triangle, I can set up paperclips in the same sort of triangle; it does not follow that the triangle itself exists. You do not have to argue for a separate triangle-ness, you just have to make the observations "I measure this angle and that length, I measure this angle and that length... I get the same results for pebbles and paperclips". It doesn't follow that a triangle exists somewhere in Platonic idea-space! This is a canonical example of multiplying entities un-necessarily.
quote:I'm not sure how souls come into existence, or what would happen if you duplicated my brain. I would presume both of the new people would have separate souls, and both would act and think like me.
Suppose I exactly duplicate your brain, down to quantum-mechanical wave functions (using, of course, my inexhaustible supply of handwavium to get around minor quibblers and obstructionists like that dilettante Heisenberg); are there now two "Tresopax souls" (or perhaps "Tresopax-nesses") in the universe?
quote:Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that souls are analogous to software, and I don't believe a soul can be copied in the way software can. Software (and hardware) came up as one of several examples I gave of things that are dependent on one another yet are distinct from one another.
I'm more than comfortable with the idea that a soul is the software that defines an individual's identity. But you take a serious risk trying to explain that since software can be moved from one computer to another without moving the electrons, the soul exists independent of the body. We do this by copying the software, not by moving it.
quote:I said I think I have strong evidence of souls, which I discussed earlier. I do not have strong earthly evidence that those souls can exist without bodies, although I believe they can.
Really? Strong evidence of "souls" without bodies?
quote:You defined souls as being separate from the body.
Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:I said I think I have strong evidence of souls, which I discussed earlier.
Really? Strong evidence of "souls" without bodies?
quote:
Being distinct from the body is part of my definition. Being separable from the body is not. See the above example of the auia, which is a physical thing. Or for instance, Aristotle did not believe the soul was separable from the body. ("The soul does not exist without a body and yet is not itself a kind of body. For it is not a body, but something which belongs to a body, and for this reason exists in a body, and in a body of such-and-such a kind" -Aristotle)
I do believe the soul is likely separable from the body, but I don't think it by definition must be.
quote:Very well, you have identified a testable consequence of your theory. I suggest, however, that the experimental evidence falsifies it. In particular, if you mess with the brain, you mess with the "soul" in your sense of the word; there is no way to make a change in the "soul" without making a change in the brain, and vice-versa. These are not the properties of distinct objects.
But what I am saying is that a "triangle-ness" that is identical to a set of stones is far more limited (as far as what is logically possible about it) than a "triangle-ness" that is distinct from those stones. If it is identical to the stones, it must have exactly the same and no additional properties as the stones do. If it is distinct from the stones, even if it is dependent on the stones, there is at least the logical possibility that it could exist indepently and have properties that the stones do not have.
quote:Distinct is not the same as separate. My mistake for misreading you.
Originally posted by Tresopax:
Post from Oct. 26, 11:15 am:
quote:
Being distinct from the body is part of my definition. Being separable from the body is not. See the above example of the auia, which is a physical thing. Or for instance, Aristotle did not believe the soul was separable from the body. ("The soul does not exist without a body and yet is not itself a kind of body. For it is not a body, but something which belongs to a body, and for this reason exists in a body, and in a body of such-and-such a kind" -Aristotle)
I do believe the soul is likely separable from the body, but I don't think it by definition must be.
quote:Not "sense of". It'd be your actual self, in the mental sense. If all you had was a sense of self, but no actual self, I would think that meant you had no soul.
So you are essentially defining "soul" here as a "sense of self?"
quote:How did you determine that you can't change one without the other? At a minimum, I'd think there are small ways to change the brain that would not effect my "self" or my soul at all.
I suggest, however, that the experimental evidence falsifies it. In particular, if you mess with the brain, you mess with the "soul" in your sense of the word; there is no way to make a change in the "soul" without making a change in the brain, and vice-versa. These are not the properties of distinct objects.
quote:You seem to be limiting "strong evidence" in ways that I am not. So, I don't think I have what you are terming strong evidence. You aren't going to find much clear evidence for the existence of something subjective and nonphysical if you limit what counts as evidence solely to objective, physical scientific evidence. For instance, I have no idea about the state of Phineas Gage's soul - I have no idea how I'd measure it, since I am not him.
That would be "strong evidence". Do you have any of it?
quote:What is your strong evidence for your self, as opposed to a sense of self?
If all you had was a sense of self, but no actual self, I would think that meant you had no soul.
quote:Okay, so what do you term "strong evidence"?
Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:You seem to be limiting "strong evidence" in ways that I am not. So, I don't think I have what you are terming strong evidence.
That would be "strong evidence". Do you have any of it?
quote:Are you backtracking away from "strong" to "clear"? If so, you should admit that up front, rather than doing it on the sly, hoping no one will notice that you wrote "strong" before.
You aren't going to find much clear evidence for the existence of something subjective and nonphysical if you limit what counts as evidence solely to objective, physical scientific evidence.
quote:But what does your "strong evidence" tell you? What good is it if it tells you nothing about actual cases?
For instance, I have no idea about the state of Phineas Gage's soul - I have no idea how I'd measure it, since I am not him.
quote:So your "strong evidence" is your own subjective experience? Sorry, but the strong evidence of reality testing shows us we could drastically alter your sense of self with mere chemicals that act on the brain.
I do have what I explained on page 1 of this thread - my own internal observations that I experience things, and that there is a "self" experiencing them.
quote:My point is, you used the term "strong" to communicate a certain degree of certainty to others. Do you honestly think that your personal subjective evidence is "strong" in the eyes of other people?
Originally posted by Tresopax:
"Strong evidence" is any information a person has that allows that person to judge a given conclusion much more likely to be true than alternative conclusions.
quote:But having a "sense of self" isn't strong evidence that you have a soul either. Your perceptions and sensations are highly malleable, remember?
Yes, you could drastically alter my sense of self with chemicals, but that doesn't in any way suggest I don't have a self or that I don't have a soul.
quote:So you would consider your misbelief "strong evidence" that yesterday didn't happen, correct?
You could give me chemicals that would drastically alter my sense of what happened yesterday too, but that doesn't mean yesterday didn't exist.
quote:Indeed, but there you would be, arguing that you had "strong evidence" that it didn't!
You could give me chemicals that would drastically alter my sense of what happened yesterday too, but that doesn't mean yesterday didn't exist.
quote:No, I think my personal subjective evidence is "strong" in the sense of telling *me* what is actually true. If it is not convincing in the eyes of other people, that does not make it weaker evidence. If Superman tells Lois Lane that he is really Clark Kent, that is strong evidence to Lois Lane that Superman is Clark Kent, even if nobody else believes it and even if if everybody else thinks Superman never told Lois Lane such a thing. Evidence doesn't need to be communicable to others to be convincing to you.
Do you honestly think that your personal subjective evidence is "strong" in the eyes of other people?
quote:Ah, so you are a relativist? There's stuff that's true for you, and stuff that's true for other people, and there's no common ground between everyone's truths?
Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:No, I think my personal subjective evidence is "strong" in the sense of telling *me* what is actually true.
Do you honestly think that your personal subjective evidence is "strong" in the eyes of other people?
quote:If you are convinced of something, and you can't convince anyone else that you are right, it's far more likely that they are right, and you are wrong. You, frankly, are just not that magically special, that you know the truth that others can't perceive. Most likely, if they can't perceive it, it's because it's not there.
Evidence doesn't need to be communicable to others to be convincing to you.
quote:Yes, as a function of my working brain. Even slightly alter my brain, and all my preceptions and sensations, thoughts, memories, feelings, behaviors, change.
I suspect that if you and others examine yourselves, you will see the same thing that I do - that you too experience existence. I can't know that for sure, since I can't see into your consciousness, but I don't believe I'm the only person in the world who has actual experiences.
quote:Explain again the "strong evidence" you have that your mind, or soul, or whatever, is distinct from your brain? I don't believe I've seen that. In fact, I have what you'd call "strong evidence" that you haven't presented any thing in that line yet.
Otherwise my evidence is only going to be "strong" to me.
quote:But there is also real evidence that all of those facts are true. Not your "strong because I feel it", but "strong because empirical testing could falsify them, but the empirical data supports their accuracy".
It is also possible that I hallucinated during science class, and all the scientific facts I believe in are made up.
quote:How many people who believed they have a soul have you been able to convince they don't?
If you are convinced of something, and you can't convince anyone else that you are right, it's far more likely that they are right, and you are wrong.
quote:I can see its true by observation, in the same way you know the music produced by a radio is a distinct thing from the radio itself. The soul and brain seems to have very different properties; the soul is an indivisible subjective mental thing that has nonphysical experiences, whereas the brain is an objective physical thing that can be broken down into parts.
Explain again the "strong evidence" you have that your mind, or soul, or whatever, is distinct from your brain?
quote:No you aren't. Your subjective feelings don't prove anything. They are terrible grounds for believing things, as your yourself admitted, since your brain can be manipulated into sensing and feeling all kinds of false things.
Originally posted by Tresopax:
By evidence I mean what you and most average people mean by evidence. I'm not talking about a "suspicion" or "belief" or "conviction" I have. I'm talking about proof - repeatable, consistent proof that I believe both you and I are equally capable of observing. I'm talking about definition #1 provided by dictionary.com:
–noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
quote:As noted, there is no direct way of telling physical experience from non-physical; whichever theory is correct, nobody has ever experienced the other kind. It follows that there is simply no way to distinguish between them based on sense information alone. How do you distinguish between red and humfinor, based only on the output of your optical nerve?
Experience itself isn't physical by nature, in a way similar to how I know that the number seven is not made of clay. That's just not what it is.
quote:I agree that I don't have a lot of evidence that the soul is ever separate from the brain, outside religious sources.
I accept that you have evidence that you have an experience of self; but you have zero evidence that this is separate from your brain, and considerable evidence that it isn't.
quote:Exactly - my feelings are proof of MY feelings, which demonstrates that there is a "me" that is experiencing those feelings.
Your feelings are proof of your feelings, and absolutely nothing more.
quote:As I said, the "self" that experiences my feelings and thoughts seems to have radically different properties from the brain, meaning it a distinct thing. This is just a very basic part of the direct observation I make, and which you can make. You recognize this distinction yourself when you say things like "subjective feelings don't prove anything". The brain is an objective, physical things which is capable of serving as evidence in the same way any physical object could. The fact that you distinguish my feelings as subjective and incapable of being proof in the same way shows that you are treating them as a thing distinct from the brain and with different properties.
Present the "strong evidence" that your soul is distinct from your brain. You said you have it.
quote:How would a person who has the humf13 gene prove to a person without that gene that humfinor looks different from red? It's not a theory that he proves. Rather, it's a direct observation. He can see without doubt that the experience of humfinor is fundamentally different for him than the experience of red. That is evidence enough for himself. But to prove it to someone else, he needs to rely on the other person being able to experience it for themselves.
As noted, there is no direct way of telling physical experience from non-physical; whichever theory is correct, nobody has ever experienced the other kind. It follows that there is simply no way to distinguish between them based on sense information alone. How do you distinguish between red and humfinor, based only on the output of your optical nerve?
quote:I'm sorry, but putting a word in all caps isn't evidence, strong or otherwise.
Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Exactly - my feelings are proof of MY feelings, which demonstrates that there is a "me" that is experiencing those feelings.
Your feelings are proof of your feelings, and absolutely nothing more.
quote:The properties of your feelings are that they are the product of chemical and physical processes in your brain. How does this make them distinct from that brain?
As I said, the "self" that experiences my feelings and thoughts seems to have radically different properties from the brain, meaning it a distinct thing.
quote:Just because the brain is a physical object doesn't make it "strong evidence" of anything you wish.
The brain is an objective, physical things which is capable of serving as evidence in the same way any physical object could. The fact that you distinguish my feelings as subjective and incapable of being proof in the same way shows that you are treating them as a thing distinct from the brain and with different properties.
quote:You can't possibly think that it really is impossible to demonstrate to a color-blind person that red and green really are different colors.
How would a person who has the humf13 gene prove to a person without that gene that humfinor looks different from red?
quote:You honestly think this? That color blind people figure "Well, red and green look the same to me, that's 'strong evidence' that they are"?
He can see without doubt that the experience of humfinor is fundamentally different for him than the experience of red. That is evidence enough for himself.
quote:Make cards coloured red and humfinor. Offer them to the humfinor-blind person to shuffle. Sort them into red and humfinor, and let the humfinor-blind person observe that you can do this consistently.
How would a person who has the humf13 gene prove to a person without that gene that humfinor looks different from red? It's not a theory that he proves. Rather, it's a direct observation. He can see without doubt that the experience of humfinor is fundamentally different for him than the experience of red. That is evidence enough for himself. But to prove it to someone else, he needs to rely on the other person being able to experience it for themselves.
quote:You mean, other than being damaged exactly as the brain is damaged?
As I said, the "self" that experiences my feelings and thoughts seems to have radically different properties from the brain, meaning it a distinct thing.
quote:I've explained the strong evidence I have, and I don't want this to be just me repeating myself over and over. I cannot "furnish" the evidence because the internal experiences of my mind can't be taken out and thrown on the table for you to see. So, if you are interested in finding out whether your should agree with me, you have to look into your own mind and see if you see what I see. Judge for yourself, and either agree or disagree.
So furnish the strong evidence, please.
quote:This depends on how trusting the color-blind person is willing to be when other people tell him that red and green look different to them. If he insisted that no, red and green are the same identical experience, what proof could you furnish that they are different experiences for you? You could get a bunch of people and show how each of them can distinguish "green" objects from "red" objects, and that would prove that people can somehow distinguish between the two. But if he was stubborn and still insisted that the two colors produce an identical visual experience and therefore are the same color, then you are stuck.
You can't possibly think that it really is impossible to demonstrate to a color-blind person that red and green really are different colors.
quote:See above post. This tells you that the person can somehow distinguish humfinor from red, but not whether or not the experience looks different from red.
Make cards coloured red and humfinor. Offer them to the humfinor-blind person to shuffle. Sort them into red and humfinor, and let the humfinor-blind person observe that you can do this consistently.
quote:This isn't true. If there's internal bleeding in my brain, there isn't internal bleeding in my consciousness? I'm not even sure what it would mean to say there's internal bleeding in my consciousness.
You mean, other than being damaged exactly as the brain is damaged?
quote:
This tells you that the person can somehow distinguish humfinor from red, but not whether or not the experience looks different from red.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Absent gods help us. How else are you suggesting humfinor be distinguished from red, other than having a different sense impression? quote:*Feels overwhelming urge to slap some dang sense into Tres*
Usually an injury to the brain causes some different effect to the mind. For instance, if you feel dizzy, that doesn't mean there's physical dizziness located somewhere in your brain. It means something physical happened in your brain that has triggered dizziness in your mind.
quote:Firstly, I'm not a "she".
Tres is basically saying "I think therefore I am," and is using a definition of "distinct" that isn't what most of the rest of the world uses. It's not a matter of she's wrong, it's a matter of "Okay, so what?"
quote:Yeah, but that's my trouble here. I'm being asked to provide a level of evidence equivalent to what the nitwit is demanding in that example. I can distinguish easily between mental and physical things, consistently. I just can't prove the difference exists to someone who's very intent on asserting there is no difference.
Well yes, you can't argue with a nitwit. That doesn't mean you should make nitwittery the basis of your ontology.
quote:My bad.
Firstly, I'm not a "she".
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
At some point you posted something that I somehow made the wrong connection from.
quote:Your "strong evidence" would convince you that yesterday never happened, if we manipulated your brain to think that. You already admitted that.
Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:I've explained the strong evidence I have,
So furnish the strong evidence, please.
quote:You could just admit that when you said "strong evidence" you were exagerating for effect. Admit that you used the world "evidence" because it makes it sound like there is objective, physical, undenably real support for your belief (becuase that's what evidence means), but that this isn't the case.
and I don't want this to be just me repeating myself over and over.
quote:But you haven't told me what to look for! All you've done is capitalize the word MY and said "See, that proves I have a soul distinct from my body".
So, if you are interested in finding out whether your should agree with me, you have to look into your own mind and see if you see what I see. Judge for yourself, and either agree or disagree.
quote:Good grief, your attempt to defend your ludicrous argument is leading you to look very stupid.
quote:This depends on how trusting the color-blind person is willing to be when other people tell him that red and green look different to them.
You can't possibly think that it really is impossible to demonstrate to a color-blind person that red and green really are different colors.
quote:Experimental data showing that in organisms with wild-type cones, the eyes and brain distinguish between both colors.
If he insisted that no, red and green are the same identical experience, what proof could you furnish that they are different experiences for you?
quote:We'll do the same experiment you set up for the person who can see humfinor. Start with a bunch of cards. On each card, write something I am familiar with, including objects and experiences. They can be things like "neuron" or "cerebellum" or "the experience of smelling apple pie" or "pain", and then shuffle the cards. Give them to me and I'll sort them into mental and physical. If you want, you can probably offer them to almost any other random person and they'll be able to sort them just the same as I do.
Ok, design the experiment that lets you distinguish between mental and physical.
quote:Here's one way to draw the distinction: If it is objective, and multiple people can observe it fully, then it is physical. If it is subjective, and only the person experiencing it can observe it fully, then it is mental.
You've offered absolutely no hint of how you are drawing the distinction, other than an assertion that you are experiencing things and attributing the fact of your ability to experience things to a soul that is distinct from your physical body.
quote:Again, the same reason I assert there's such a thing as "computer software" that is distinct from the hardware, even though I cannot produce it without any hardware. It's still there, even if not independent from the hardware.
If you cannot produce it in the absence of the physical effects, why assert that it is there?
quote:No problem!
My bad. At some point you posted something that I somehow made the wrong connection from.
quote:Yes, after I explained it, as I have.
Are you honestly saying that when you use the term "stong evidence" you
1) mean "some observation with only a tangential connection to physical reality, that is very unreliable at telling us what the physical world really is like"
and
2)honestly expect other people to understand that you mean that when you use the term "strong evidence"
quote:This tells you about brains, not experiences. To an average person, this would be convincing, since most people accept a correlation of brains and experiences. But to someone very intent on not accepting that they are different colors, in the approach you are taking to my evidence, that would not be enough.
quote:Experimental data showing that in organisms with wild-type cones, the eyes and brain distinguish between both colors.
If he insisted that no, red and green are the same identical experience, what proof could you furnish that they are different experiences for you?
quote:No! Software consists only, and exactly, of patterns of electrons! Here you don't even have the thin excuse of qualia; I defy you to assert that Vista has any dang qualia.
Again, the same reason I assert there's such a thing as "computer software" that is distinct from the hardware, even though I cannot produce it without any hardware. It's still there, even if not independent from the hardware.
quote:You're shifting the terms of the discussion again! I wasn't asking for a distinction between 'physical' and 'mental'! Are you now saying that mentation proves the soul? You're just rephrasing the same bare assertion as if it demonstrates anything about your reasoning.
Here's one way to draw the distinction: If it is objective, and multiple people can observe it fully, then it is physical. If it is subjective, and only the person experiencing it can observe it fully, then it is mental.
quote:Your inability to distinguish the symbol from the referent does not make an argument. You might as well assert that, because you can divide the list "run", "rock", "ball", "throw" and "table" into two classes, there really exists a platonic Noun and Verb.
We'll do the same experiment you set up for the person who can see humfinor. Start with a bunch of cards. On each card, write something I am familiar with, including objects and experiences. They can be things like "neuron" or "cerebellum" or "the experience of smelling apple pie" or "pain", and then shuffle the cards.
quote:Perhaps, but it is still distinct from hardware, even while dependent on that hardware. That's the point: Something can be distinct without being independent of another thing.
Software consists only, and exactly, of patterns of electrons!
quote:The first option contradicts itself. It requires the existence of an "inside". If there was no soul, there would be no "inside" and thus nothing to experience the illusion.
Now do the same thing with a human. Again the causality is perfectly straightforward: Needle->nerves->cascades of electrons and chemicals->arm slaps you. Now if there's a soul, I see only a few options for it:
* It is an illusion, "what an algorithm feels like from the inside".
* It is only an observer; the causal chain linking needle to slap does not involve the sense of self, and is deterministic.
* It is a decisionmaker, and there is a step somewhere in between needle and slap which involves a non-electron pushing an electron; this asserts that, within human brains, momentum is not conserved.
I assert the first;
quote:The following quote from you was not asking for a distinction between physical and mental?
You're shifting the terms of the discussion again! I wasn't asking for a distinction between 'physical' and 'mental'!
quote:If I'm reading that right... I'll take door #3, Monty.
Originally posted by King of Men:
Let's try it from another angle. I take it we can agree that a computer does not have a soul, in any sense of that word. Nonetheless we can certainly program a computer to say "ouch" and hit you when you prod it with a needle. The causality here is perfectly straightforward; needle->electrons->cascades of voltages through transistors->robot arm slaps you. No sense of self involved. Yes?
Now do the same thing with a human. Again the causality is perfectly straightforward: Needle->nerves->cascades of electrons and chemicals->arm slaps you. Now if there's a soul, I see only a few options for it:
* It is an illusion, "what an algorithm feels like from the inside".
* It is only an observer; the causal chain linking needle to slap does not involve the sense of self, and is deterministic.
* It is a decisionmaker, and there is a step somewhere in between needle and slap which involves a non-electron pushing an electron; this asserts that, within human brains, momentum is not conserved.
I assert the first; I don't think you have distinguished between options two and three yet. However, in the second case, you must explain why the soul always makes the same decision as the deterministic brain. And for the third case, are you seriously asserting the non-conservation of momentum? If so, please stand up and say so loudly.
quote:I rephrase: The non-physicality is an illusion. What evidence do you have that a physical system cannot feel? None. Also, you did not say which of the other two options you liked better, nor offer a fourth.
The first option contradicts itself. It requires the existence of an "inside". If there was no soul, there would be no "inside" and thus nothing to experience the illusion.
quote:The question is rather, what do you think it means to be non-material? The feeling, and the entity, both consist of patterns in the brain. They are made of electrons. If you move the electrons around, the feeling changes; move them enough, and the entity goes away. That's physics.
But the feeling itself, and the entity experiencing the feeling, cannot be physical because their properties contradict what it means to be physical. What do you think it means to say something is "physical" or "material"?
quote:Not any more circular than "I see things and seeing things requires an eye from which to see, therefore my eye exists."
It's a very circular argument, you realize.
quote:Not being made of electrons is one element of being non-material, at least. The feelings I observe myself having, and the self having those feelings are not the sort of thing that can be constructed out of electrons. No infinitely large diagram of electrons in a given pattern will tell you what it is to experience something if you haven't experienced it yourself. And you can't observe a set of electrons in my brain and know for sure whether I truly have a "self" that is experiencing things or whether I am just acting like I do.
The question is rather, what do you think it means to be non-material? The feeling, and the entity, both consist of patterns in the brain. They are made of electrons. If you move the electrons around, the feeling changes; move them enough, and the entity goes away. That's physics.
quote:I'm not a particularly strong materialist, but this doesn't make sense at all. There is no particular reason that those things cannot be physical. Here is one possible explanation:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
But the feeling itself, and the entity experiencing the feeling, cannot be physical because their properties contradict what it means to be physical.
quote:I have three questions: why not, why not, and why not?
Originally posted by Tresopax:
The feelings I observe myself having, and the self having those feelings are not the sort of thing that can be constructed out of electrons.
No infinitely large diagram of electrons in a given pattern will tell you what it is to experience something if you haven't experienced it yourself. And you can't observe a set of electrons in my brain and know for sure whether I truly have a "self" that is experiencing things or whether I am just acting like I do.
quote:Sez you! I can move electrons around in a particular pattern in your brain and make you experience anything you choose.
The feelings I observe myself having, and the self having those feelings are not the sort of thing that can be constructed out of electrons.
quote:We're already at that point. It's just that the images are of very low fidelity at the moment.
The brain is perfectly capable of coming up with images (especially if subject to stimulation) all on its own, and we're already approaching the point of being able to induce particular images.
quote:No, you can't. We don't know how to do this and we're not sure if we ever will. That's just a belief you hold without confirming evidence. That your ideology says that is will be the case doesn't magically make it so or based in any sort of real world science.
I can move electrons around in a particular pattern in your brain and make you experience anything you choose.
quote:We have done things, though, like identify particular neuron(s) that, when stimulated, make a given individual taste cake or forget Bill Clinton's name. It's doubtful that a perfect map of anyone's brain is going to be possible in our lifetimes, because of the way brains grow, but it turns out that sensations and memories behave pretty predictably once you know where they are for a given person.
We don't know how to do this and we're not sure if we ever will.
quote:Well - fair enough, I overstated the case of what we can do with current technology. But see Tom's post above.
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:No, you can't. We don't know how to do this and we're not sure if we ever will. That's just a belief you hold without confirming evidence. That your ideology says that is will be the case doesn't magically make it so or based in any sort of real world science.
I can move electrons around in a particular pattern in your brain and make you experience anything you choose.
quote:I'm not sure what you think Tom's post says, but it doesn't support your position.
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Well - fair enough, I overstated the case of what we can do with current technology. But see Tom's post above.
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:No, you can't. We don't know how to do this and we're not sure if we ever will. That's just a belief you hold without confirming evidence. That your ideology says that is will be the case doesn't magically make it so or based in any sort of real world science.
I can move electrons around in a particular pattern in your brain and make you experience anything you choose.
quote:Well, it depends. If, for example, we find a chemical indicator for the neuron that makes people experience cake -- which is unlikely, but not outside the realm of possibility -- it WOULD be the case that KoM could in fact make you experience the taste of cake whenever he felt like it.
I'm not sure what you think Tom's post says, but it doesn't support your position.
quote:Wait, what? I say "We can make you taste cake whenever we feel like it, by manipulating electrons", Tom points to an experiment which indeed did precisely that, and you say it doesn't support my position? Does not compute.
You assume that we will be able to do these things because it fits your ideology, but there is no scientific basis to support this.